manual is 4 years old

[Rongor]

Both the online and the installed manual are from March 2019. Would somebody be so kind and eventually update these? It's a bit embarrassing to even read in the manual that some aspects will receive more detailed explanation in the future yet apparently the team forgot about it since 4 years.

Especially since the training missions like the startup procedures contain a whole ballet for the player to perform across dozens of systems and tests and there is no real sufficient documentation on what all this actually is supposed to mean.

For people who only wanna autostart and get into the air quickly to blow up some stuff War thunder style this may be totally perfect. Yet for those customers around who take the "study" part in "study sim" serious, this is a real let down situation.

[unlikely_spider]

Chuck's Guide!

[Karon]

2 hours ago, Rongor said:

 for those customers around who take the "study" part in "study sim" serious, this is a real let down situation.

Why? I love HB's manual, it has everything I needed to learn the aircraft, and I started from the basically zero in terms of modern fighter jets (I mean, I played LOMAC 20y ago…).

The module is still in EA, parts are being polished or WIP, and thus subject to change. Perhaps the final update to the manual will arrive along the release.

[RustBelt]

Remember when they insisted the Manual HAD to be an online HTML document because they were going to update it all the time? 
 

instead it’s just a web browser choking historical document.

[Dragon1-1]

2 hours ago, unlikely_spider said:

Chuck's Guide!

Poor choice. It tells you "how" without explaining "why". The current materials suffice for that. 

The F-14 is straightforward for the pilot (there's not even a whole lot of testing, just instruments and hydraulics), but for the RIO seat there's a lot to learn, and the manual might be lacking in those areas.

[Naquaii]

3 hours ago, Rongor said:

Both the online and the installed manual are from March 2019. Would somebody be so kind and eventually update these? It's a bit embarrassing to even read in the manual that some aspects will receive more detailed explanation in the future yet apparently the team forgot about it since 4 years.

Especially since the training missions like the startup procedures contain a whole ballet for the player to perform across dozens of systems and tests and there is no real sufficient documentation on what all this actually is supposed to mean.

For people who only wanna autostart and get into the air quickly to blow up some stuff War thunder style this may be totally perfect. Yet for those customers around who take the "study" part in "study sim" serious, this is a real let down situation.

Having originally written the manual I can assure you the webpage version is not 4 years old. I last updated it last year. Afaik it will be updated for out of EA release (in addition to the pdf version) but I’m no longer the editor so can’t speak for when.

59 minutes ago, RustBelt said:

Remember when they insisted the Manual HAD to be an online HTML document because they were going to update it all the time? 
 

instead it’s just a web browser choking historical document.

Assuming a bit much maybe? Not that old and also by far not the only reason for making it a web manual.

[draconus]

11 hours ago, Rongor said:

...there is no real sufficient documentation on what all this actually is supposed to mean.

Listing what's lacking would be much more constructive.

[RustBelt]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

Listing what's lacking would be much more constructive.

Profiles for using the AIM-54 for one clearly given the regular "This mizzle bad" posts.

9 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Poor choice. It tells you "how" without explaining "why". The current materials suffice for that. 

The F-14 is straightforward for the pilot (there's not even a whole lot of testing, just instruments and hydraulics), but for the RIO seat there's a lot to learn, and the manual might be lacking in those areas.

RIO training material is terrible, and trying to learn it with Iceman is neigh impossible. 

[Karon]

I agree in principle, as adding more learning material is always great, but I thoroughly disagree with your two points.

1. The manual would end up being a thousand pages longer if it had to include the actual operative side edulcorated for a videogame. Missiles profiles are pointless, the moment a variable changes, the whole thing crashes down, and then the team would have to deal with even more complaints. This is a game, but also a simulation. You can't spoon-feed players. I played as an instructor for a decade, and it never worked. Players willing to lean need to put some proactivity and effort into it. And if they do, the manual has everything they need to understand what does what, then there are other sources that can help them to connect the dots (id est Chuck's guides and Google).
If you want another example, look at how many complain about the Phoenix and don't even use TacView! They say the missile is bad when 70% of the times they are doing it wrong, and 29.99% of the times it's the AI doing its magic tricks. If people don't care about using a free tool that would solve most of their problems, how would a discussion about geometry, timelines, performance, help?
What would help instead is linking directly to other sources. Chuck's as mentioned, but also CNATRA for example, and so on. By doing so, they'd have the manual telling them how things work, and the Navy would tell them how to use it. Simple.

2. Iceman is great, it is the best pilot I have flown with, it even corrects the changes in heading caused by the fluctuations of vC. It maintains speed and altitude appropriately, and has only one problem: its turn rate. We really need hard turns in-game. Everything else is fine.

[draconus]

31 minutes ago, RustBelt said:

Profiles for using the AIM-54 for one clearly given the regular "This mizzle bad" posts.

RIO training material is terrible, and trying to learn it with Iceman is neigh impossible. 

I have to agree with @Karon that both are training elements and it's not aircraft manual's job - you won't find it in the NATOPS either. We do have lots of tactics and general flight and combat advice though in FC3 manuals for example.

[Dragon1-1]

36 minutes ago, Karon said:

We really need hard turns in-game. Everything else is fine.

IRL, a RIO can command a turn rate. From CNATRA-P825 (unclassified manual):
"left/right standard" - a standard rate turn.
"easy left/right" - a half rate turn.
"left/right hard" - a turn at mil power using G to maintain airspeed.
"break left/right" - max performance turn, like in ACM.

Would be nice if we could give those and other standard commands when manning the backseat. Would be even better if Jester could run an intercept from the back seat, after the pilot decides which tactic to use.

[The_Tau]

In current HB manual I would like more info on what is actually simulated in DCS. Stuff like SP PD is nonfunctional, what PRGM RESTRT does or behavior of 54C in PD STT...

[Karon]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

IRL, a RIO can command a turn rate. From CNATRA-P825 (unclassified manual):
"left/right standard" - a standard rate turn.
"easy left/right" - a half rate turn.
"left/right hard" - a turn at mil power using G to maintain airspeed.
"break left/right" - max performance turn, like in ACM.

Would be nice if we could give those and other standard commands when manning the backseat. Would be even better if Jester could run an intercept from the back seat, after the pilot decides which tactic to use.

Yeah, I'm familiar with it. However, it may get a bit too convoluted, although having more would be nice.

@The_Tau good point, I suppose this will come with the final release. Even later they may change, since most limitations are on ED's side.

[Callsign JoNay]

4 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

IRL, a RIO can command a turn rate. From CNATRA-P825 (unclassified manual):
"left/right standard" - a standard rate turn.
"easy left/right" - a half rate turn.
"left/right hard" - a turn at mil power using G to maintain airspeed.
"break left/right" - max performance turn, like in ACM.

Would be nice if we could give those and other standard commands when manning the backseat. Would be even better if Jester could run an intercept from the back seat, after the pilot decides which tactic to use.

I love that suggestion. Too bad HB considers Iceman feature complete.

[Dragon1-1]

Maybe, maybe not. Jester 2.0 is in the works, and it's supposedly easier to add to. We might see additions yet.

[RustBelt]

11 hours ago, draconus said:

I have to agree with @Karon that both are training elements and it's not aircraft manual's job - you won't find it in the NATOPS either. We do have lots of tactics and general flight and combat advice though in FC3 manuals for example.

Well, you do. Some of us are really only here for one plane. 

12 hours ago, Karon said:

I agree in principle, as adding more learning material is always great, but I thoroughly disagree with your two points.

1. The manual would end up being a thousand pages longer if it had to include the actual operative side edulcorated for a videogame. Missiles profiles are pointless, the moment a variable changes, the whole thing crashes down, and then the team would have to deal with even more complaints. This is a game, but also a simulation. You can't spoon-feed players. I played as an instructor for a decade, and it never worked. Players willing to lean need to put some proactivity and effort into it. And if they do, the manual has everything they need to understand what does what, then there are other sources that can help them to connect the dots (id est Chuck's guides and Google).
If you want another example, look at how many complain about the Phoenix and don't even use TacView! They say the missile is bad when 70% of the times they are doing it wrong, and 29.99% of the times it's the AI doing its magic tricks. If people don't care about using a free tool that would solve most of their problems, how would a discussion about geometry, timelines, performance, help?
What would help instead is linking directly to other sources. Chuck's as mentioned, but also CNATRA for example, and so on. By doing so, they'd have the manual telling them how things work, and the Navy would tell them how to use it. Simple.

2. Iceman is great, it is the best pilot I have flown with, it even corrects the changes in heading caused by the fluctuations of vC. It maintains speed and altitude appropriately, and has only one problem: its turn rate. We really need hard turns in-game. Everything else is fine.

My reasoning is simple. This is a game, not a professional Partial task trainer. A real, and comprehensive manual is PART of a Sim Game. Especially in relation to NATOPS -1A material, and more so in relation to the DCS game limitations.

Software as a whole industry has a serious deficiency in documentation these past few decades. And it only gets worse every year. 

[RustBelt]

10 hours ago, The_Tau said:

In current HB manual I would like more info on what is actually simulated in DCS. Stuff like SP PD is nonfunctional, what PRGM RESTRT does or behavior of 54C in PD STT...

A DCS-isms section should be SOP for all modules.

[Karon]

11 minutes ago, RustBelt said:

My reasoning is simple. This is a game, not a professional Partial task trainer. A real, and comprehensive manual is PART of a Sim Game. Especially in relation to NATOPS -1A material, and more so in relation to the DCS game limitations.

Exactly, but then I'd argue that either you cover every possible usage of the module, or the task is failed, no? This is indeed a game, but it is also a sandbox: it is what you want it to be. For instance, let's say you want to play airquake. Then you only need a kneeboard-page-size checklist about how to shoot a missile, and that's pretty much it. Then, dude#2 instead wants to simulate as much as possible; he cannot care less about airquake. From his perspective, either you dive into geometry, tactics, et similia, or your manual lacks a fundamental part. Then, dude#3, which is somewhat in-between. The kneeboard page is not enough, and he does not care about the minute details of tactics. None of those two solutions work for him. So, what do we do? Third addendum to the manual?
It's a silly example, but should give you the idea of the possible problems: someone's going to complain anyway. Therefore, imo, better do as HB is doing, thus giving the technical and fundamental information, and save a ton of time in the process. Then, perhaps, linking to other sources, or have the community making something ad hoc (again, see Chuck's guide or the video Jabbers made at the start of the EA).

[RustBelt]

I’m going to risk form rules an obliquely bring up “Classic” real physical manual and map heavy, “alternative products” from the ‘90’s and early 2000’s as a counter example. The “Prose” of such manuals, and the “Spectrum” of information and understanding they provided in the box. 
 

One wasn’t even a box but a Hard cover binder as I recall looking across my room at a shelf of old things.

There’s been a significant “Downshift” in that regard since then.

Edited March 9, 2023 by RustBelt

[lunaticfringe]

6 hours ago, RustBelt said:

I’m going to risk form rules an obliquely bring up “Classic” real physical manual and map heavy, “alternative products” from the ‘90’s and early 2000’s as a counter example. The “Prose” of such manuals, and the “Spectrum” of information and understanding they provided in the box. 
 

One wasn’t even a box but a Hard cover binder as I recall looking across my room at a shelf of old things.

There’s been a significant “Downshift” in that regard since then.

 

Let's take those rose colored glasses off for a moment, and go the whole nine yards if we're going to wax poetic, and add in the value since this seems to get brought up in these conversations. 

4.0 was the the culmination of nearly 14 years of work, with the first release in 1987.  1.0's MSRP of $39.99, 2023 dollars makes that $105- all for a grand total of *12 missions total*. Gee- bargain.  AT a year later, again, $39.99 MSRP puts it at $101. And don't forget the two scenario packs, $29.99 each ($75 per, today).  You'll note at this point, if you recall the designer's shareware demo note- that the manual was worth the price of admission, when it was essentially a pared-down translation of Shaw, with an F-16 focus, and not remotely near the contents of a -1A or other service tactical manual.  And they reused that same section twice.  MP tried SH's trick, but kept regurgitating the same thing across titles- F-15SE, F-19, FD, with little to no type clarity in those applicable sections. See- that's the age where the Prima guide took hold, which was another $25 bucks to get a real understanding of what was going on under the hood; 4.0 needed it, because the binder lacked substantive weapon and systems employment context- which made for a lot of unfun explanations for those who came in late after the patch series broke some measure of HOTAS logic and presentation. 

And lets not forget a third of these manual pages were a couple of maps, details of the campaign and various OPFOR info bits- again, regurgitated across titles within firm products.

Back to the F-16 title. 3.0 and 1991 comes along, and you're talking an MSRP of $69.95- that's $150 today.  Realistically- if you've been along since the original title at that point: let's call it "Early Access", considering 2.0/AT was just a year out from 1.0, and now you've just got to get in on 3.0- you're now $350 invested in today's dollars, and seeing a better than 1:1 comparative increase in quality, modeling and experience that has been grown in the F-14A and B since the initial EA release in 2019- at four times the cost, when taken against the F-16 series.  And if you only bought 1.0, you got all of twelve missions, whereas the Heatblur F-14 is at two modeled aircraft, will essentially be 3.5 when its done with the early pair of configurations, missions on every map in DCS, and two voice acted campaigns.  *shrug*

The cost/value argument simply doesn't work in any way, shape, or form.  First tier DCS modules are more factually accurate and representative of their respective targets versus any aircraft presented in 1990s simulation, and are dollar for dollar a substantively better value- adjusted for inflation or no. 

You ask why Heatblur, and other DCS module developers, don't play faux tacman authors- simply put: at best, after ED's (and additionally for Steam: clearing house) cut, they're making perhaps half per copy, inflation adjusted, than those 90's publishers were on a full price license. Half off sale?  Now they're making a quarter.  More man-hours than most of those titles, substantively less money.  What gets cut?  The feelies.  Why?  This isn't 1991, 1994, or 1998- Wikipedia is deeper on publicly available information than MP, SH, or Janes titles ever were; and it's all built on materials authored and published by the latter's namesake. Hit up particular publicly accessible (see: you're not going to jail) service websites, and you can download training materials substantively deeper than the generalized playbooks MP and SH rewrote once and kept shoveling for years- with revisions every two to three years.  YouTube exists. And there's always the forums of a certain F2P for the spicy stuff.  In 1991, an interested buyer didn't have remotely the amount of information available at their fingertips- they saw a box with a jet on it and thought "awesome"; it was the publisher's job to fill in the blanks for those with no grounding on the subject matter.  Now it's a Google or YouTube search away. 

To whit- it's not a reasonable use of their (developer) time and resources.

To which I reply, in the words of Lord Flashheart- this isn't a reasonable use of my time and resources, but I'm gonna do it anyway.

What's past is past, and what we remember as quality needs to be considered with doubt, when they were selling us licensed guides on the side to fill in the employment gaps.  Work like Naquaii's original F-14 manual are substantively better in actual detail regarding both the module and the real aircraft itself where the baseline manual is concerned.  The online decision is the correct choice, and it does receive updates.  There is material that does need to be added in due course, and it will.  Chuck's guides are fine for those that need them, but they're really two sides of the same coin with regards to presenting information and process; one is simply more wrote than the other. 

But there's still a missing component.  The after-sale guides used to point at it for a few pages, but then orbit what was missing for spacing.  Training missions as we've seen tend to solve some of the equation, but not all, because they're not requiring actual solutions- just a talk through with step prompts.  

So there's a conceptual framework in place being worked through with the F-4E to fill in that missing component in a way that's more comprehensive, at least with respect to employment technique, than has come before.  It's beginning there because the documentation is in process, and is set up to work into the necessary text sections.  And if it works, the instruction technique will be back-ported into the Tomcat and Viggen for the techniques that would find the exercise useful.  Either way, both will receive their necessary revisions in due course.  

TLDR:

DCS modules aren't short on manual, and are better money for value than what came before.
The Tomcat (and Viggen) manuals will be effectively finalized.
The F-4E manual, when complete, will have something new to fill in much of what has always been missing, without the (supposed) value added filler that no longer satisfies, or is justified. 
And if that something new works, the Tomcat and Viggen will get the same nature of treatment.

Edited March 10, 2023 by lunaticfringe

[RustBelt]

DCS being better money for value is a personal preference. You do certainly get what you pay for with the DCS core. And the 3rd party certainly gets a development leg up not having to build their own game from scratch, so it's a bit of a wash. 

It's also important to note when dealing with historical gaming, they were actually inventing it as they went along. DCS wasn't created in some knowledge vacuum unable to look at past works and what drove interest, sales, and player engagement. (and what drove a lot of people away from it following the 90's) Especially given the amount of "Oh DCS can't do that" making real world documents nice, but not entirely applicable beyond an aircraft systems and switches simulator. 

The manuals must have been good enough for 12 year old me to be able to successfully pick up F-19 and play it for more than a few years on the old blue chip 8088 in 4 vivid colors. Because keep in mind too, the significant resource limitations of those, as you called them, "early access" titles. 

Don't know nothing about the F-4E, it's an Air Force crate so couldn't care less. And honestly, by the time that's done, I can't even comprehend why HB would go back to fiddle with finished decade old modules when they'll still have Eurofighter, Intruder, and whatever else lined up.

TL:DR

You can't have a primary source study sim if a lot of the primary source is still CLASSIFIED. Except to the Dev for......Reasons not to be discussed.

Edited March 10, 2023 by RustBelt

[lunaticfringe]

24 minutes ago, RustBelt said:

It's also important to note when dealing with historical gaming, they were actually inventing it as they went along.

You had a bit of an issue with how things get produced at the bleeding edge of that processes with IM earlier.  When it came to the process of design and planning versus scope, the same sorts of issues occurred.  One quite literally put the F-16 series in the red late in its life.

 

24 minutes ago, RustBelt said:

The manuals must have been good enough for 12 year old me to be able to successfully pick up F-19 and play it for more than a few years on the old blue chip 8088 in 4 vivid colors. Because keep in mind too, the significant resource limitations of those, as you called them, "early access" titles. 

The manuals were inspiring; they weren't, as you wanted to compare them, remotely close to a -1A, even for what was found in the games themselves.  And the only one I noted as being "early access" was in relation to the F-16 series 1.0 to 3.0.  One, you get twelve missions.  Two, you get twenty or so, then two paid expansions nearly the cost of the title itself.  

 

24 minutes ago, RustBelt said:

Don't know nothing about the F-4E, it's an Air Force crate so couldn't care less. And honestly, by the time that's done, I can't even comprehend why HB would go back to fiddle with finished decade old modules when they'll still have Eurofighter, Intruder, and whatever else lined up.

Your lack of interest in the F-4E is fine; I was explaining the process of developing current manuals, and how it's going to affect prior modules in relation to it.  

 

24 minutes ago, RustBelt said:

You can't have a primary source study sim if a lot of the primary source is still CLASSIFIED. Except to the Dev for......Reasons not to be discussed.

Who said anything about using classified documentation?

[RustBelt]

Didn’t compare them to -1A. Just that without -1A something needs to be there. Because again, can’t study something you don’t have access to but the game is built with. 
 

Beyond that, user insight, best practices, how to THINK in F-14. Especially how to think in RIO. And specifically all that in relation to the DCS-isms of it all. 
 

And recording sound nibblits for a game isn’t bleeding edge unless it’s 1995 or you’re nintendo.  

[Karon]

7 hours ago, RustBelt said:

Beyond that, user insight, best practices, how to THINK in F-14. Especially how to think in RIO. And specifically all that in relation to the DCS-isms of it all.

You are not going to achieve that. If you want to shape the correct forma mentis, you need qualified instructors who know what they are doing, plus a lot of time and effort. Seriously, the technical stuff can be learnt, mindset is the toughest part. I'm not exaggerating.

[RustBelt]

To a game level ya stickler.