Less Reliance on YouTube Tutorials

[Despayre]

... and just to throw another wrench into everything, the recently updated M2000-C had a manual that was 139 pages. 

 

After the update was released, so was the new manual, 689 pages. *shrug*   Sooo... at the very least, Go Razbam!

Edited July 27, 2022 by Despayre

[draconus]

5 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

I don’t recall any of the DCS manuals or such having direct links to video channels in lieu of written material.

HB online manual has a Tutorial Videos section - most are not made by HB:

http://www.heatblur.se/F-14Manual/tutorials.html

But imho it's not bad if devs accept the videos' content and quality. It's just optional and additional media beside the manual.

[Northstar98]

17 hours 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 Hind still doesn't have a manual (only a quickstart guide) over 1 year after EA release.

As twistking said, manuals (particularly for the Hornet and F-16) often lag far behind the development of the module, meaning your only avenue is videos or from other 3rd party sources.

Manuals are also sometimes inconsistently formatted, see the spoiler below for a comparison):

Spoiler

F-16:

I absolutely love this.

It tells you everything in a very precise way, giving you detailed information of what to monitor/check and extra considerations, while keeping it concise.

The step number, switch and switch position are in bold with a larger font, making them stand out. There's a little graphic that shows where the switch and panels mentioned are located. Everything is separated in its own separate box, which in conjuction with the formatting makes it very easy to read and follow. Everything is in turn contained within its own table, which never spills over onto subsequent pages.

 

Hornet:

Here you've still got perfectly workable information (though it's significantly less detailed than the F-16 for the amount of space. The fire test step fails to mention any of the lights you should check or what the audio caution messages actually are, the battery step fails to mention checking the voltage of the battery).

Instead of the graphic we've got a screenshot. While the screenshot shows you exactly where the switches are, it does so at the expense of taking up more space, which sometimes leads to an image spilling over onto the next page, requiring you to scroll.

 

Hip:

Again, sufficient information is given, but the formatting isn't nearly as good as the F-16. It also gives you no information about where switches are located, if a user is unfamiliar, requiring them use completely different parts of the manual to find the switches.

Edited July 27, 2022 by Northstar98
grammar

[BIGNEWY]

10 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

The Hind still doesn't have a manual (only a quickstart guide) 1 year after EA release.

As twistking said, manuals (particularly for the Hornet and F-16) often lag far behind the development of the module, meaning you're only avenue is videos or from other 3rd party sources.

Manuals are also sometimes inconsistently formatted, see the spoiler below for a comparison):

Our manual guy moved on and has recently been replaced, so manuals will catch up, but know it is a huge task and does take a lot of time ( including translations). 

I'm not sure why some are so against using youtube tutorials, it helps many people, I dont see the current format of using youtube tutorials, and manuals changing, it has worked for many years for most people and will continue to. 

thanks 

[Northstar98]

7 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Our manual guy moved on and has recently been replaced, so manuals will catch up, but know it is a huge task and does take a lot of time ( including translations).

Are there any plans to make the manuals (at least ED provided ones) more consistent in terms of how they're formatted? Personally, stuff like what's seen in the F-16 manual (see my spoiler) is perfect.

7 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

I'm not sure why some are so against using youtube tutorials, it helps many people, I dont see the current format of using youtube tutorials, and manuals changing, it has worked for many years for most people and will continue to.

With all due respect, it sounds like you've misunderstood the OP's wishes and the thread.

No-one is against using YouTube tutorials, but each of us have their preferences and preferred learning style. The problem the OP brought up is that manuals seem to be less prioritised, with YouTube videos and other 3rd party information having to make up where manuals lack.

There's nothing wrong with YouTube videos in and of themselves, but they shouldn't be used to make up for the lack of in-game documentation.

 

Personally, I prefer manuals, I simply don't cater as well to that learning style compared to reading information (especially when it's as well formatted as the F-16's manual) and it takes me longer compared to using a manual.

Then there's the follwoing:

• Every .pdf reader I've used has a search function, making them easier to search. The same doesn't apply to YouTube videos unless a transcript is provided (which in the case of Wags' videos).
• I can open up and read a manual on my phone or even print them out, meaning I don't have to interrupt DCS (when watching a video, the video itself isn't sufficient, you need the accompanying audio as well).
• As said above, I can print a manual if I wish - I can't print a YouTube video. I can print its transcript (though if one isn't provided I'll have to make my own), but it won't be as appropriately formatted as a manual and may miss information. 
• Manuals are almost always provided offline, I can only achieve that with a video unless I download it or its transcript (if provided) and then only via electronic means.
• Manuals allow me to study an aircraft, not just the steps but the systems themselves - I've yet to see a single video that does the same.

[draconus]

1 hour ago, BIGNEWY said:

I'm not sure why some are so against using youtube tutorials...

Answered in OP, above and my own:

I'm against "using" them myself but not against their existence or making. I just hope to turn the focus more into complete manuals first - they have the details no video will ever provide about the aircraft and its systems.

[BIGNEWY]

Eagle Dynamics online documents 
https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/downloads/documentation/

Manuals can also be found in your game files DCS World\Doc
Or module specific e.g DCS World\Mods\aircraft\AH-64D\Doc

and official youtube channels 

https://www.youtube.com/c/EagleDynamicsTV/playlists
https://www.youtube.com/c/MattWagner/playlists

So sorry I dont see what the problem is, if people dont like videos as tutorials they dont have to use them. 

[draconus]

11 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Eagle Dynamics online documents 
https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/downloads/documentation/

Not a good example with DCS Manual from 2013.

[BIGNEWY]

7 minutes ago, draconus said:

Not a good example with DCS Manual from 2013.

the links are updated when manuals are updated. 
Which manual are you referring to?

[Zeagle]

The problem with youtube tutorials is that most of them are not very well done. With more people making videos, the quality of those videos is getting worse. 

That being said, Heatblur had some awesome videos for their F-14 prior to its launch. They were entertaining, informative, edited well, and just made you want to fly the bird. Present day video creators should go back and watch the Heatblur videos. Synching some music to black screens transitions with zoomed-in shots is not what I want to see. I want to see the bird doing something. I want to see a story and hear some technical info about the subject. Film making is more than just pushing out "content".

I remember the days when software came with nice bound manuals that you could use for reference. Today, technology allows us to forgo the printed matter. But a quality manual is still a necessity. This is especially true in the realm of API documentation.

 

 

Edited July 27, 2022 by Zeagle

[DishDoggie]

Everyone is a victim : We all Learn different: I Agree on that. What is DCS to do? = No model is 100% finished when we get it so changes will be made and the only way to give Early Access News is by way of Visual Videos at this point. Only when the Model is 100% can you write the Manual. I only think of this fact in the way it directly effects me. Never gave a thought to a person that Learns by Reading the Manual other then Admiring People who can learn that way because I wish I could. Early Videos are Okay but we all know they become not usable when big changes are made like with the AH-64D The Early Videos are now outdated. Yes they make a update video but the sad truth to all this is You can not pay someone to produce a Manual 20 times that has the amount of WOW detailed sophisticated technical information. What person or group that would be. Well I can't do it. I feel sorry for people that need that. I wish I could do it that way. I am what I am and I have to live with it. Best of luck to everyone Imagine what it would be like if we had no Social Media to do any of this.

[Northstar98]

57 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

So sorry I dont see what the problem is, if people dont like videos as tutorials they dont have to use them. 

Please read the OP again, Nealius made it very clear.

Again, the problem isn't that Youtube tutorials exist, it's that YouTube videos have to be made to make up for a lack of included documentation (either missing entirely in the case of the Hind, save for its Quickstart guide) or are out of date with respect to the module.

4 minutes ago, DishDoggie said:

Only when the Model is 100% can you write the Manual.

Disagree, you can write and update manuals as new features get implemented or as functionality/methods changes. Just make a note that the manual is subject to change as features/functionality gets introduced/changes or as mistakes are corrected.

Edited July 27, 2022 by Northstar98

[DishDoggie]

19 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Disagree, you can write and update manuals as new features get implemented or as functionality/methods changes. Just make a note that the manual is subject to change as features/functionality gets introduced/changes or as mistakes are corrected.

 

If that was a Profitable approach to the problem ED would be doing it. I think You are Right to a point and will say Some times that could be done. I just feel that Most Business do not run that way because of the money it takes to employee the people to do this. I hope some way can be found to solve this problem. I know I am not smart enough to get the job done.

[Northstar98]

13 minutes ago, DishDoggie said:

If that was a Profitable approach to the problem ED would be doing it.

They are, that's how the manuals of WIP stuff has always worked. The problem is the rate they get updated means they lag behind modules.

[silverdevil]

pedants want everything perfect and it just is not possible. even real world military have training in different forms. they give them books (technical manuals TM) (which can be lame), classroom training, then field training. RL pilots go through literally years of training and it never stops. can you imagine the fail to get a new pilot recruit, give them the keys and say "have at it! good luck!" its not possible in a profit-based simulation to have both perfect content and perfect manuals. good content is what sells the sim and keeps these wonderful people employed. maybe that is lame too but it is what it is. there are many people in DCS that are getting along just fine. if you find an issue with a manual, report it. just do not argue everything sucks without offering a suggestion how to fix it. that too is lame.

[Northstar98]

What an absolutely bizarre response

4 minutes ago, silverdevil said:

pedants want everything perfect and it just is not possible.

Oh right, people who want in game manuals (something just about every single game I own has) are pedants are they?

4 minutes ago, silverdevil said:

its not possible in a profit-based simulation to have both perfect content and perfect manuals.

What? Yes it absolutely is, as evidenced by manuals that already exist, what are you talking about?

4 minutes ago, silverdevil said:

just do not argue everything sucks without offering a suggestion how to fix it. that too is lame.

People have been chiming in on solutions and nobody has been saying anything even remotely near "everything sucks". What are you talking about?

Edited July 27, 2022 by Northstar98

[SharpeXB]

5 hours ago, draconus said:

HB online manual has a Tutorial Videos section - most are not made by HB:

http://www.heatblur.se/F-14Manual/tutorials.html

But imho it's not bad if devs accept the videos' content and quality. It's just optional and additional media beside the manual.

Sure. I don’t own the F-14 but I’ve seen this sort of thing in other sims. The point is, is this content added to replace written material or to supplement it? My guess is the latter. 

[silverdevil]

@Northstar98 much of my response are euphemisms. obviously not everyone are like my statements. i can assure you that i am not. you are clearly missing something if you do not see examples of my statements. i am not trying to fight with anyone. i am just trying to get some people to consider the other side of the debate.

  

1 hour ago, BIGNEWY said:

Which manual are you referring to?

perfect example here. BN asks a question and gets crickets.

Edited July 27, 2022 by silverdevil

[SharpeXB]

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Manuals are also sometimes inconsistently formatted, see the spoiler below for a comparison):

You know of course these are made by different entities or 3rd parties right? I wouldn’t expect them to be exactly the same. The formatting doesn’t really make a big difference to understanding them really. 

[BIGNEWY]

I get that some of you may not like the formatting or style, but it is a personal preference thing. 
Sure older manuals may look dated, or not match current styles, but redoing them would take a huge amount of time and I dont see that happening currently. 

As mentioned we have a new manual writer who is working on bringing current projects up to date. 

 

[draconus]

1 hour ago, BIGNEWY said:

the links are updated when manuals are updated. 
Which manual are you referring to?

First manual on the page:

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/downloads/documentation/

is the old 2013 version of DCS Manual:

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/downloads/documentation/dcs_user_manual/

while we have new (2020) one in the game doc folder.

Mentioned by users since the new manual came up and docs got uploaded on DCS site.

 

@SharpeXB Ex. the F-14 manual does not say anything how to fly the aircraft They put video instead:

http://www.heatblur.se/F-14Manual/general.html#flight-control-system

F-16C, F/A-18C and Mi-24P are all ED modules, not 3rd party, so what are you talking about?

[BIGNEWY]

I have asked the team to take a look at the online manuals to ensure they are the latest version of each. 

thanks

[SharpeXB]

6 minutes ago, draconus said:

Ex. the F-14 manual does not say anything how to fly the aircraft

Most any aircraft manuals I’ve seen don’t contain basic flying instructions. You would be expected to know that from past training.

[Northstar98]

17 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

You know of course these are made by different entities or 3rd parties right?

You know of course that the examples I brought up, are all made by the same entity, right?

17 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The formatting doesn’t really make a big difference to understanding them really. 

But it does make a massive difference in presentation, as my examples highlighted and it isn't insignificant a difference.

The Hornet doesn't go into the same detail as the F-16 manual provides and the Hip manual doesn't include anything on where to find whatever switch, unlike the F-16 and F/A-18 manuals.

20 minutes ago, silverdevil said:

@Northstar98 much of my response are euphemisms.

Euphemisms eh? So what, you meant to be more insulting/offensive and were holding back?

20 minutes ago, silverdevil said:

obviously not everyone are like my statements.

I'm trying to find someone in this thread personally...

20 minutes ago, silverdevil said:

i can assure you that i am not. you are clearly missing something if you do not see examples of my statements.

Indeed, I am missing something... Like examples in this thread.

20 minutes ago, silverdevil said:

i am not trying to fight with anyone. i am just trying to get some people to consider the other side of the debate.

What debate? People want learning pathways that caters to them, whatever that pathway may be. The OP has identified manuals

20 minutes ago, silverdevil said:

 perfect example here. BN asks a question and gets crickets.

draconus' link was ambiguous so nobody knew what was being referred to, so only he can answer it, which he now has...

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

Most any aircraft manuals I’ve seen don’t contain basic flying instructions. You would be expected to know that from past training.

What manuals have you been reading then?

Just about every DCS manual includes some basic instruction to flying them - usually at least landing patterns.

Edited July 27, 2022 by Northstar98

[SharpeXB]

8 minutes ago, draconus said:

F-16C, F/A-18C and Mi-24P are all ED modules, not 3rd party, so what are you talking about?

Even within the same company I’m sure they were made a different times by different people. Expecting them to all be the same or be reformatted is ridiculous. I even suspect some have a format taken right from the real manual. 

2 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

You know of course that the examples I brought up, are all made by the same entity, right?

Even then expecting them to be identical or get reformatted is ridiculous. 

3 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

But it does make a massive difference in presentation, as my examples highlighted and it isn't insignificant a difference.

Maybe this is a personal problem for you but I don’t expect it bothers most people. Again expecting these to be rewritten when they’re already a great deal of work to produce is absurd.