Less Reliance on YouTube Tutorials

[Nealius]

I've been with DCS for a while and there has been a steadily increasing trend of making the majority of DCS learning material in video format. Depending on the developer, manuals and training missions are getting thinner and thinner while the bulk of learning material is outsourced to YouTube, particularly in the early stages of a module's release. There's nothing wrong with video tutorials themselves a tutorials, but one format can not do everything and is not for everyone, leaving a lot of people struggling and frustrated with their purchase until the other manuals and guides are fleshed out. 

Learning Styles

Every individual has their own learning styles: the format with which they better learn and retain information. There are four major ones, though educational research has gone deeper and identified more.

1. Visual learners; those who learn from spatial relationships and seeing things explained through demos or diagrams

2. Auditory learners; those who learn from listening to explanations

3. Reading & Writing learners; those who learn from reading and writing text

4. Kinesthetic learners; those who learn from directly interacting with something

An individual's learning style is typically a mixture of these, and everyone's is different. Instructional material should cater to all four styles.

Learning Styles Applied to DCS and the Problems Therein

Ignoring real-world documentation like NATOPS and dash ones, DCS has four formats of instructional material/documentation that fit certain learning styles.

1. YouTube tutorials. These cater to visual and auditory learners. They are not suitable for reading/writing learners because they cannot retain auditory information well, and must take notes. This requires watching and rewatching videos multiple times, taking up valuable time. This also requires a stable internet connection without data restrictions and an environment where the user can focus on the video. It is also not possible for reading/writing learners to quickly scan the information to ensure that it is relevant to them before investing time into it, nor can they skim the information to find something specific, nor can they search for specific information using a search tool or index. Videos are also not suitable for kinesthetic learners as it is difficult to juggle watching a video while also in the aircraft. Aside from the issues of learning styles, videos go out of date rather quickly, and are often not removed, forcing the user to wade through multiple outdated videos until they find one that reflects the most recent information. The creators also have to invest more time creating new videos to reflect new changes.

2. Manuals. These cater to the reading/writing learners obviously through text. With images it also brings together a visual aspect, but the visual aspect is often a small snapshot devoid of context. They can be quickly scanned, skimmed, and searched for specific information at any time in any place, with or without an internet connection. They are also good for kinesthetic learners because they can be open as a reference while in the aircraft. When something changes, the creator need only edit a paragraph or two.

3. Chuck's Guides. These again cater to the reading/writing learners for obvious reasons, but also cater to visual learners through images and diagrams, as well as to kinesthetic learners who can use them as a reference while in the aircraft. Like manuals, when things change only a few paragraphs need updating. 

4. Training missions. These cater to the kinesthetic, visual, and auditory learners since they are actually in the cockpit, listening to instructions as they interact with the aircraft. However, there are often few training missions on newer modules and they are often completely broken due to issues with mission triggers.

So What?

There should be more balance in these materials instead of heavy focus on YouTube, or heavy focus on manuals, or heavy focus on training missions. Each should be supplemental to the other. In other words, as part of an Early Access metric, the aircraft's state of completion shouldn't be the only thing examined. The completion of its manual and training missions should be taken into account as well, ensuring that there is enough material to cover as many of the learning styles as possible until further materials--like Chuck's Guides--are available.

Currently with the Mirage F1 release, the module itself has very good quality, however the manual is sorely lacking in multiple areas. The only practical instructional material currently available is in the form of YouTube tutorials, thus making things frustrating for anyone who isn't an auditory learner. More frustrating is the reaction of the community who denigrates non-auditory learners for not being able to work with the YouTube format. All because they simply have a different learning style. 

[draconus]

Watching a video not knowing if there even is the answer is such a waste of time. #3 here but I don't own any new modules so I never experienced lack of info in manuals.

[Dragon1-1]

This x1000. I don't want to watch an hour-long video in order to find one tidbit of info. Or worse, to find out that the tidbit I was looking for is nowhere to be found. Videos are not searchable the way text documents are, making the problem worse.

I treasure the few written guides we have. There's a pretty great one on Hog formation flying, and a cyclic ops manual that explains a lot of things. Chuck's guides are not detailed enough for in-depth learning, but they do work well if all you want is a checklist, or a quick switchology reminder. We need more in depth stuff, and not only manuals, but tactics guides, procedures and such. 

From what I hear, real pilots actually prefer written materials. A video is useful as an illustration, since flying in 3D is sometimes hard to put onto a piece of paper. Seeing a maneuver as it's supposed to look like from the cockpit can sometimes make all the difference. However, the primary means of instruction should be written text and training missions (as long as they work right...), since for first-timers there's no substitute to hands-on training.

[Northstar98]

Absolutely agreed.

[sirrah]

Nealius nailed it! 

 

I do want to add though, that imho there should be slightly more attention to interactive training missions, than to the other learning formats (video/written).

Reason why I say this, is that a large portion of the DCS community only use DCS in VR and everyone that used VR knows what a pita it is switching back and forth between pancake and VR. I don't want to speak for others, but I'm pretty sure that for many people in this group, the written manuals and or YT video's are a nice addition to quickly look up something, but not to learn an entire procedure.

 

I do understand that new modules don't come with interactive training missions, or at least not many, because so many features are still WIP. But looking at the availability of training missions for some modules that are in EA for many years now (AV8B & Tomcat to name two), the interactive training missions seem to be very low on the dev's lists. 

[SharpeXB]

When I got the A-10C one day on a Steam sale, I knew completely nothing about aircraft at all, let alone a military one. I read the manual on my iPhone and got it figured out. DCS requires a high school level of reading comprehension, that’s all. Learning for most people means combining passive learning like reading or watching with active learning like practice. And repetition. If you apply the same effort to DCS as you did in school or playing a sport or a learning a job, you’ve got no obstacles. 

[Nealius]

50 minutes ago, sirrah said:

I do want to add though, that imho there should be slightly more attention to interactive training missions, than to the other learning formats

The interactive training missions aren't my thing personally since they can drone on with a bunch of info that's repeated from the manual before getting you to do something, but I agree. The interactive training missions, when done well, are the perfect blend of audio/visual/kinesthetic that supplements well with the written manuals.

Edited July 26, 2022 by Nealius

[twistking]

11 hours ago, Nealius said:

[...]

1. YouTube tutorials. These cater to visual and auditory learners. They are not suitable for reading/writing learners because they cannot retain auditory information well, and must take notes. This requires watching and rewatching videos multiple times, taking up valuable time. This also requires a stable internet connection without data restrictions and an environment where the user can focus on the video. It is also not possible for reading/writing learners to quickly scan the information to ensure that it is relevant to them before investing time into it, nor can they skim the information to find something specific, nor can they search for specific information using a search tool or index. Videos are also not suitable for kinesthetic learners as it is difficult to juggle watching a video while also in the aircraft. Aside from the issues of learning styles, videos go out of date rather quickly, and are often not removed, forcing the user to wade through multiple outdated videos until they find one that reflects the most recent information. The creators also have to invest more time creating new videos to reflect new changes.

2. Manuals. These cater to the reading/writing learners obviously through text. With images it also brings together a visual aspect, but the visual aspect is often a small snapshot devoid of context. They can be quickly scanned, skimmed, and searched for specific information at any time in any place, with or without an internet connection. They are also good for kinesthetic learners because they can be open as a reference while in the aircraft. When something changes, the creator need only edit a paragraph or two.

3. Chuck's Guides. These again cater to the reading/writing learners for obvious reasons, but also cater to visual learners through images and diagrams, as well as to kinesthetic learners who can use them as a reference while in the aircraft. Like manuals, when things change only a few paragraphs need updating. 

4. Training missions. These cater to the kinesthetic, visual, and auditory learners since they are actually in the cockpit, listening to instructions as they interact with the aircraft. However, there are often few training missions on newer modules and they are often completely broken due to issues with mission triggers.
[...]

You wanna check out the following video, that makes a very good point about those learning styles being a bit of an outdated idea:

That said, your original point still stands: It's good to have different kind of media! If it's not to cater to fundamentally different type of learners, than simply because some concept work better in certain type of media, or simply what kind of info the user needs/wants at their specific part of the learning journey (overview vs in depth vs refresher etc.).

In a way everybody "hates" youtube tutorials, because they are so ubiquious and are simpyl terrible if you just quickly want to find out a simple, specific detail. But of course they are great to get a first overview, or - that's how i like to use them - watch them after i already learned the concept to make sure i haven't missed anything and maybe get some additional tipps and tricks or anecdotical knowledge.

There is however another really big problem with the youtube-learning-culture of DCS and i experienced that only recently when i bought the Hornet (and carrier) during the last sale. Nearly all videos that would show up in the top results were outdated and it often took me soem time to figure it out, since i did not know the exact Hornet EA timeline by heart when browsing youtube. I only found one (german language) youtuber ( @Rakuzard ) who had a complete series of up-to-date tutorials (definitely a recommendation for german speaking hornet beginners! I feel one third of players are german anyway. Why is that?).
Problem with the Hornet of course is, that the manual is also very much WIP, so i can see that it could be getting very confusing for newcomers.
Even some videos of Wags himself have the potential to add more confusion, since so much has fundamentally changed with the hornet over the years. Of course it's not practical to change or rerecord every video once aspects of it get obsolete.

Better manuals are therefore very important and they should be updated regularly, so that they could act as the sole information, if the user so desires. I personally think the Viper manual is fantastic; Or it would be fantastic, if it would be up to date and would cover every function, which it simply does not (did not, last time i checked). I do like how it's structured though: Where it is complete it is deep enough, while still maintaining a structure that's good to quickly look things up or learn smaller things while already in the cockpit with a lot of checklist-type information.

I think it would also be nice to have a DCS wikia, where everybody could help with keeping info up-to-date and provide information that wcould go way deeper than a manual ever would. There is so much knowledge hidden in forum posts, that would better be archieved in an open wikia. Of course that should go along a proper manual and not serve as a substitute.

Edited July 26, 2022 by twistking

[SharpeXB]

I’m not sure I understand this topic. As far as I’ve ever seen all the modules come with a manual. Are modules trying to substitute the manual with videos? None I have do this. 

[Rudel_chw]

31 minutes ago, twistking said:

the following video, that makes a very good point about those learning styles being a bit of an outdated idea

 

Maybe ... but watching a 15 minutes video to know about that good point is a bit of a time waste on my opinion. For me, I prefer reading manuals and good guides, while also watching YT Tutorials from authors that I know and trust ..  like Redkite's (I don't mind taking notes from his videos) 

[twistking]

21 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I’m not sure I understand this topic. As far as I’ve ever seen all the modules come with a manual. Are modules trying to substitute the manual with videos? None I have do this. 

The manuals for the F-18 and F-16 for example, lack far behind the EA progress of the module, so not everything will be covered by them, forcing the user to check out other sources. Compare that with the original A-10c for example, where one document gave you all you need and other sources would be optional or simply to suit one's taste...
I don't think it's a super big issue, but as i detailed in the post above, learning the 18 was less fun then learning other aircraft for me, because of lack of an up-to-date manual and a slight dose of negative training from outdated videos...

 

17 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

Maybe ... but watching a 15 minutes video to know about that good point is a bit of a time waste on my opinion. [...]

Fair enough, but that point of the video is not exactly important to this discussion, so i decided to not make it a bigger thing by spelling it out. It's very interesting though and well presented, so you might still want to check it out, if you are interested in the topic of learning...

Edited July 26, 2022 by twistking

[SharpeXB]

11 minutes ago, twistking said:

The manuals for the F-18 and F-16 for example, lack far behind the EA progress of the module

I have the F-18 and for the most part the manual does seem to keep up with it’s development. Realizing there’s a difference between Open Beta and Stable. All the new features of course show up in OB before they end up as final. I wouldn’t expect the manuals to keep pace with OB. 
And yes, in today’s world YouTube and other user-generated content is a factor, heck we’re lucky that devs make manuals anymore at all. Why should they devote all these resources to it when there’s a professional quality YouTube channel covering it all? Plus forums and user-made manuals etc. Another one of these flight sims had a very difficult time even justifying the expense of a manual. I have a full-fidelity airliner in another sim which as far as I can tell has no manual. But I can watch all the Computer Based Training videos from United Airlines and real pilot’s channels. Sure, manuals are important and I rely on them but I can see why they languish a bit in development. 

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

I’m not sure I understand this topic.

Then you have no reason to respond

It is perfectly clear and there is no intelligent argument against it. Your absolute and persistent insistence that DCS must under no circumstances ever be allowed to evolve and be user friendly and offer a good learning environment does not qualify. Quite the opposite. We all know you will now stop at nothing to troll this thread into oblivion because it is so completely in opposition to your wishes of a horrible user experience, but you could you, just once, do what the mods have told on multiple occasions in cases such as this? Hmmm?

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

As far as I’ve ever seen all the modules come with a manual.

Arguments from ignorance or incredulity are fallacies for a reason. Your lack of experience does not change how things actually play out in the real world.

 

The OP's suggestion is solid and fully in line with ED themselves state that they want DCS to be. It touches a number of common topics that have been left with half-complete, bare-bones, or just outright missing functionality, to say nothing of ancient modules that are still sold as completed products but with unfinished (or just outright missing) manuals and with no real learning aids available to cover that gap.

Edited July 26, 2022 by Tippis

[twistking]

44 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I have the F-18 and for the most part the manual does seem to keep up with it’s development. Realizing there’s a difference between Open Beta and Stable. All the new features of course show up in OB before they end up as final. I wouldn’t expect the manuals to keep pace with OB.
[...]
Sure, manuals are important and I rely on them but I can see why they languish a bit in development. 

I'm on stable and i was a bit frustrated with it, but honestly i can't remember on what topics exactly. Maybe i was just unlucky and it were only very specific details that i couldn't find info on; doesn't really matter. Fact is, that it's not completely up to date. It's not that big of a deal for me. The manual was good enough to get me going and i found other sources. The point i wanted to make is more that the experience with outdated youtube-videos was really tedious and not much fun (while i normally enjoy the learning part) and the better the manual the lesser the need for youtube... I think of newcomers here, who might find outdated videos even more confusing.
I don't know if having the manuals more up-to-date or generally "better" (i think they are fine) would have a big impact for newcomers, because i'm not sure how many actually use the manuals for learning...

[SharpeXB]

9 minutes ago, twistking said:

I'm on stable and i was a bit frustrated with it, but honestly i can't remember on what topics exactly. Maybe i was just unlucky and it were only very specific details that i couldn't find info on; doesn't really matter. Fact is, that it's not completely up to date. It's not that big of a deal for me. The manual was good enough to get me going and i found other sources. The point i wanted to make is more that the experience with outdated youtube-videos was really tedious and not much fun (while i normally enjoy the learning part) and the better the manual the lesser the need for youtube... I think of newcomers here, who might find outdated videos even more confusing.
I don't know if having the manuals more up-to-date or generally "better" (i think they are fine) would have a big impact for newcomers, because i'm not sure how many actually use the manuals for learning...

Well I’m not sure what you would expect ED to do about the videos since other than Matt Wagner’s ED doesn’t make them. A reasonable effort at keeping the manuals and mission content current is all we can expect. As far as I see that’s done already. And to remember that many of these modules are Early Access. 

[twistking]

20 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Well I’m not sure what you would expect ED to do about the videos since other than Matt Wagner’s ED doesn’t make them. A reasonable effort at keeping the manuals and mission content current is all we can expect. As far as I see that’s done already. And to remember that many of these modules are Early Access. 

I don't have grand expectation, just wanted to share my experience. And yeah, i don't exactly love Early Access, the outdated learning material issue only being one of the reasons. But that has been discussed enough i think...

[SharpeXB]

24 minutes ago, twistking said:

I don't have grand expectation, just wanted to share my experience. And yeah, i don't exactly love Early Access, the outdated learning material issue only being one of the reasons. But that has been discussed enough i think...

Maybe I have low expectations and stayed away from EA modules for just this reason but I’ve been impressed by the Hornet staying current enough in it’s material. 

[draconus]

3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Why should they devote all these resources to it when there’s a professional quality YouTube channel covering it all?

Read the OP - videos are not searchable, frequently outdated, need constant attention and focus, depending on place and time the sound may not be an option, need stable and fast internet, may turn out as a waste of time, you may not find what you need and they are not covering it all, may be simply not preferable, are terribly small on mobile... etc.

[SharpeXB]

2 minutes ago, draconus said:

Read the OP - videos are not searchable, frequently outdated, need constant attention and focus, depending on place and time the sound may not be an option, need stable and fast internet, may turn out as a waste of time, you may not find what you need and they are not covering it all, may be simply not preferable, are terribly small on mobile... etc.

I ask the question rhetorically… yes there’s a clear value to having manuals. Many games and even flight sims these days don’t seem to have them though. DCS needs them for sure. The OP sounded like this wasn’t the case which would surprise me. 

[VZ_342]

Considering ED's filled-to-the-brim schedule, I don't see them (or any third party dev) creating 4 different styles of learning assets. I'd suggest making your own, with the caveat that only about 1/3rd of the people who think they're a good instructor actually are. If you do create material, please pass it around to others who are knowledgeable about the aircraft/system(s) for feedback, before publishing it.

[Nealius]

Why should consumers have to create their own learning material for a product they paid for? The entity creating the product and getting paid for that product is the entity responsible for making the learning material. 

  

8 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

As far as I’ve ever seen all the modules come with a manual.

The premise to your question assumes I said that modules did not come with a manual. I never said this. I said the information in supplied manuals is lacking. Lacking =! nonexistent. 

Edited July 26, 2022 by Nealius

[SharpeXB]

38 minutes ago, Nealius said:

The premise to your question assumes I said that modules did not come with a manual. I never said this. I said the information in supplied manuals is lacking. Lacking =! nonexistent.

Well I’ll quality my statement by pointing out that I don’t own every DCS module so I can’t speak to all of them. But I don’t get the impression that any of the devs intend to “outsource” their documentation to YouTube. That’s a bit of a stretch. DCS is in fact full of information compared to the other flight sims I have. Indeed some of those have no manual at all. 

Edited July 26, 2022 by SharpeXB

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, VZ_342 said:

Considering ED's filled-to-the-brim schedule, I don't see them (or any third party dev) creating 4 different styles of learning assets.

Well, they did hire a manual writer a while back. Hopefully, this means we're going to get some damn manuals, and keep them updated for once.

For me, manuals and training missions are enough. Now they just need to find someone to keep the latter current and to keep up with new features. Videos aren't useful for a specific module, and besides, Wags makes those for people who really want them. Chuck's guides are made by, well, Chuckowl, and they're there if they work for you. They're basically a lesser version of the manual, anyway, telling you "how" with most of the "why" taken out, and occasionally a pretty drawing or two.

Edited July 26, 2022 by Dragon1-1

[Nealius]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Well I’ll quality my statement by pointing out that I don’t own every DCS module

I have nearly every module. The few I don't have I have trialed long enough to peruse through the documentation and have a flew flights with them.

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

But I don’t get the impression that any of the devs intend to “outsource” their documentation to YouTube.

I never said there was intention. This is the second straw man fallacy I've had to address in this thread, and I grow tired of it. As clearly stated in my original post I said there was a growing trend of learning material being outsourced to YouTube. I did not say whether this is intentional or unintentional as I do not have sufficient information to determine that--not that it really matters because the result is the same and the result is the only thing of relevance here.

[SharpeXB]

25 minutes ago, Nealius said:

As clearly stated in my original post I said there was a growing trend of learning material being outsourced to YouTube.

I don’t think the trend is in DCS having less documentation. I think it’s that YouTube and it’s content creators have simply become more prolific and sophisticated. When you use the term “outsourced” you do imply that this is intentional on the part of the developers. I don’t recall any of the DCS manuals or such having direct links to video channels in lieu of written material. I do see that in other flight sim products, but not here. 

Edited July 27, 2022 by SharpeXB