RTFM

[StrongHarm]

Part of my job is writing theory for military manuals. The A-10 Theory isnt far off. All it needs is simplified technical english. Ofcourse you all would read that and complain that the are treating you like children.

 

From one who had to read the manuals for years, I can tell you that the standard is 8th grade reading level.

[Scabbers]

its lower now. we write for the foriegn techs that will have to translate what the read. so it is much simpler

[aaron886]

He has every right to constructive criticism and has no obligation to write anything. There's no flaming here yet. And there's no final manual either so it's the best time now to discuss these matters.

 

If you ask me, that criticism needs to come from someone who will be using that section to learn some very basic armchair aerodynamics... not a technical writer. If it's enough to help Average Computer Joe get his head around some very basic and simplified principles, it has done its job, and enough time has been spent on it. Time spent making a technical writing masterpiece is time stolen from improving the simulator. In the end, the manual is secondary, and the parts that matter (and that ED is obligated to document) are already done very well in my mind.

[StrongHarm]

If you ask me, that criticism needs to come from someone who will be using that section to learn some very basic armchair aerodynamics... not a technical writer. If it's enough to help Average Computer Joe get his head around some very basic and simplified principles, it has done its job, and enough time has been spent on it. Time spent making a technical writing masterpiece is time stolen from improving the simulator. In the end, the manual is secondary, and the parts that matter (and that ED is obligated to document) are already done very well in my mind.

 

I think I see your point, and I agree. Although the manual, and in turn understanding of the hardware, is important to fully enjoying the sim, if it conveys the points clearly it's useful. It need not be in 'tech manual' speak nor extremely dumbed down. It's simple instruction for complex avionics and tasks.

 

I found the manual to be just what I needed. Although it does have a vaguely military tech manual feel, it was also loosely stated enough to be understandable by a non-enthusiast.

 

I think it's important that we all post on the beta manual thread. I know that I've been posting quite a bit.

[Frederf]

From the beta forums: http://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=129

"Frederf, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:"

 

criticism needs to come from someone who will be using that section

 

Couldn't disagree more. A toothpaste user is not the person to ask when trying to arrive at the best chemical formulation of toothpaste. The end user of writing is often the least capable person to write what he is reading. You might want feedback like "I didn't understand this part. I was confused what this diagram meant." but the overarching structures, tone, word choice, etc. are a specialized skill set.

 

I am not going to reference this entire post but for what its worth this first paragraph is pretty good. yes it needs an edit but its a good intro to the pitot and static tube. Remember this is still beta. So reserve the tongue lashing for final relase. :) You really should look up STE (Simplified Technical English) This is a NATO specification and it is hard to read when you are used to the original pub format. But that is all changing... I have to write in it and it comes out looking alot like these examples. Edited ofcourse :thumbup:

 

Though the TAS and IAS may not have been covered. Dont beat em up just give positive feedback on what needs to be fixed instead of negative.

 

...yeah except it's not supposed to be a introduction to the pitot-static system is it? It's titled something like "Airspeed." I too had in my initial attempt at explaining the various airspeeds mention of the pitot-static system, but I edited it out. "The airspeed indicator measures speed by measuring the pressure of air against the front of the airplane" is all the detail about the airplane systems required to understand the relationship between IAS and TAS. To explain why IAS depends on altitude (for any given true speed) you need fill in the logic chain of "IAS depends on - instrument depends on - pressure depends on - density depends on - altitude."

 

You cannot change the flavor of a baked cake. Waiting for the final release is deliberately asking to be told "Well, it's all done now. It's too late." Now is the time.

 

Five sentences before "The insert name of section title is...." is fine if you're a fiction writer writing a scary story. Flowery "and now as it turns out" trails are not something you really want when teaching technical concepts. Straightforward is, "Flaps are secondary control surfaces attached to the wings. Their use is to...." not "Angle of attack is the angle of the wind coming over the wing. Sometimes when you are landing or going slow you will want to..." The difference should be obvious between these approaches. Core idea and then expound. It's basically the usual tiered outline structure in paragraph form.

 

Ultimately the goal of my little lashing wasn't to improve the manual. It was hardly helpful or well-explained enough to be used in that way. The only purpose was to provide a singular piece of evidence in defense of my contested statement that the theory section was a bit suspect. To be comprehensive one would have to examine the truncated outline at all levels, spans of topic spaces, goals of certain sections, widths of outline level specificities, and so on.

 

Writing the manual to some sort of proper spec is well beyond what I had imagined. It was just plainly obvious that that particular section was not properly organized. Mostly it's clear that a lot of the confusion of purpose suffered by the DCS manuals is because they try to be reference manuals, training textbooks, and practical guides all in one.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Frederf

[Moa]

From one who had to read the manuals for years, I can tell you that the standard is 8th grade reading level.

 

In the RNZAF (the Air Force I was in) the officers were trained to write for the level of a 12 year old, and to write as simply and clearly as possible (avoid ambiguity). This style was great for orders but not so good for training/learning. My point here is just because that may be how current military manuals are written doesn't mean things can be improved if a slightly different style is adopted (see below).

 

In the international technical writing I have done (post-RNZAF) I have followed the principles of Information Mapping (look it up!) as it is based in the psychology of how people learn to do technical tasks. This is a good style to base technical writing on. It is not particularly entertaining to read but it is excellent for learning and teaching.

 

From an Information Mapping point-of-view the A-10C (beta) manual is much improved from the FC2 manuals in that it contains introductory historical and reference material which you don't need to memorize immediately (and can sometimes skip entirely). Near the end it contains procedural material (in the form of checklists) that you can start with without having to memorize the entire manual at once. Once the default keybindings are finalized and the checklists have the required keystrokes in them then the manual will be good for new starters - and they can perform common operations (eg. fire the gun) without needing to understand the complexities of the entire aircraft (particularly all the avionics).

 

The departure from Information Mapping makes sense for the A-10C manual since this manual is partially for entertainment (people like to read and expect historical stuff, which is mostly useless in the cockpit).

 

Of course this is not how real military pilots learn, but they get two years full time to learn this stuff, and then an entire career to practice what they learnt. We hobbyist have a few hours each week to do the same thing. This is what makes the re-organized layout of the manual much better than those for earlier sims (although it could be argued that further improvements could be made).

 

ps. The aerodynamics section does not list 'gravity' as a force acting on the aircraft (lol!), so yes this section could use some attention. I've already reported this omission in the Beta forum.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Moa

[StrongHarm]

Hey Frederf.....

 

 

[aaron886]

Couldn't disagree more. A toothpaste user is not the person to ask when trying to arrive at the best chemical formulation of toothpaste.

 

Not to drag this out... that's apples and oranges. Writing isn't just chemicals. To the average person, it is just a method to convey meaning. If the current manual gets the point across, it's good enough, and work can be spent on more important things. That was my point.

[71st_Mastiff]

you know what who started this RTFM? :huh:

 

This is a beta Manual and I don't understand a word in it, on some of this stuff for i.e.,

 

CMS: I read it, there is nothing in there explaining how to set it up.

What to press what to switch it just explains it. :joystick:

I tried to set it up but for some reason it goes into some rotation or cycle mode and dumps all 120 flares. (bug)?

 

Flir I can not find any thing in there about it.

 

How to adjust the contrast, or brightness or reverse polarity.Pg 330

7. FLIR integration (INT HOT/COLD), rotary OSB 16. This function allows you to select between Hot and Cold FLIR integration settings. However, this function will not be functional. The rotary, though, can be used to select between: what rotory?

 

 

thanks for the RTFM. :thumbup:

Edited October 20, 2010 by Mastiff

[StrongHarm]

Well.. they still need to WTFM a little.. but it goes well with the sim because they still need to WTFS some too. I'd say bravo for the progress to date on both... you? I think it's cool that they thought enough of their community to release a beta... ya know.. since they were certain everyone would be helpful in it's glorious finalization rather than overlooking the fact that it's a WIP... we're good like that.. us. Well I did find a few names missing from the Beta Manual thread....

 

 

This thread is about the following (9 out of 10 tech manual writers agree that smiley face pictographs help 60% of the people... every time)

:thumbup: :book: :thumbup: :pilotfly: :smartass:

 

Or

 

:joystick: :cry: :joystick: :mad: :joystick: :cry_2:

 

 

 

or bluntly... RTFM

[Scabbers]

Removed to not start a flame war.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Scabbers

[Steel Jaw]

"My Bad".

 

 

Please refrain from this ridiculous phrase that denotes poor education. :D

 

And why are we ragging on an obviously unfinished manual.

 

Post the corrections needed in the open beta manul 101 section and move on.

 

Sheesh.

[Scabbers]

my english is as good as your spelling.....lol ;)

[Steel Jaw]

There's no time for spell checking, man, got to clear this work garbage off my desk to fly the Hog!

[Scabbers]

LOL to true... Got some good flight time in lastnight witht he tigers....

[Bucic]

P.S. I'll be writing manuals when ED gets out their checkbook. It's a full time job.

I work with technical documentation too. Being DCS fan is not enough to go for double shifts as a volunteer, sorry.

 

P.S.S. Bucic, is there a proper "fix the beta manual" thread? I haven't seen one.

It was only my guess that there is. You've been directed to the right place I suppose. I haven't bought the beta.

 

its lower now. we write for the foriegn techs that will have to translate what the read. so it is much simpler

:music_whistling:

 

If you ask me, that criticism needs to come from someone who will be using that section to learn some very basic armchair aerodynamics... not a technical writer. If it's enough to help Average Computer Joe get his head around some very basic and simplified principles, it has done its job, and enough time has been spent on it.

1. Couldn't disagree more. Only someone knowledgeable enough can do both - write a scientific-like paper and write a simplified instruction. Flight manuals all the pilots around the world use ARE simply written. We can go even further - if technical text is not simple, then it's not technical! Apart from vocabulary difficulties which Apendixes deal with.

 

Real flight manuals = garbage out! And this is our main concern regarding the DCS W flight manual because from Frederf's posts it looks like DCS W manual does not comply with this rule.

 

2. DCS series in real mode are intended for people that are willing to learn and that's not 'average Joe' at all. I think this point right here is the source of both - arguing here and mambling in the DCS W manual.

 

 

 

The end user of writing is often the least capable person to write what he is reading. You might want feedback like "I didn't understand this part. I was confused what this diagram meant." but the overarching structures, tone, word choice, etc. are a specialized skill set.

Exactly.

 

You cannot change the flavor of a baked cake. Waiting for the final release is deliberately asking to be told "Well, it's all done now. It's too late." Now is the time.

What he said.

 

Five sentences before "The insert name of section title is...." is fine if you're a fiction writer writing a scary story. Flowery "and now as it turns out" trails are not something you really want when teaching technical concepts. Straightforward is, "Flaps are secondary control surfaces attached to the wings. Their use is to...." not "Angle of attack is the angle of the wind coming over the wing. Sometimes when you are landing or going slow you will want to..." The difference should be obvious between these approaches. Core idea and then expound. It's basically the usual tiered outline structure in paragraph form.

Exactly^2.

It's worth noting again that technical=simpler. If someone is an advocate of the current DCS W manual approach then he's in fact shooting his own foot and newcomers will get their feet shot too in the process.

 

 

ps. The aerodynamics section does not list 'gravity' as a force acting on the aircraft (lol!), so yes this section could use some attention. I've already reported this omission in the Beta forum.

DCS W manual should not mention gravity on any of its pages. See my post here http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1006255&postcount=120

 

Well it should not unless ED would like to demonstrate that they have too much time and money on their hands (wasting resources) and that they are willing to write again what has been written a 1000 times already and in a better form.

 

 

 

or bluntly... RTFM

Hey, StrongHarm, I'm downloading both as we speak and I will be using them for sure :)

 

Could you also make some good image for the "Press Left CTRL + E, E, E (3 times E while holding CTRL)" answer? :D

Edited October 20, 2010 by Bucic

[StrongHarm]

Could you also make some good image for the "Press Left CTRL + E, E, E (3 times E while holding CTRL)" answer? :D

 

[Bucic]

 

No, I meant something more like this one...

 

 

or maybe

 

 

Edited October 20, 2010 by Bucic

[aaron886]

That had to be the longest "+1" post I've ever seen. :sleep:

[Moa]

Yes, there is a thread for the manual in the Beta thread. Please buy the Beta :)

[VooDoochill]

I used IBM's laser colour printer to print out all 653 pages. I printed out 100 pages a day to avoid any suspicion. hehehehehe.

 

Having the manual printed in full colour, along with the updated training missions is making learning the A-10C fun and efficient.

 

:pilotfly:

 

rep inbound for pure sneakyness :megalol::megalol:

[StrongHarm]

Link to Flight Manual section of Beta forums.

 

As you go through the manual and find a mistake.. do a search of this forum. If you don't see that page/item posted, write it up.

Example:

p460 item2 sentence2 "the course deviation fag will be visible"

LOL

 

Course Deviation Fag video

[StrongHarm]

Received a positive note via private message. The sender said that they used my X52pro profile to save a lot of time of setting up, and with the time saved decided to study the manual. They're very happy they did. I'm glad that I was able to help, Mr. Anonymous.

 

Hoglovers, don't go into this sim with partial knowledge of your Hog. Your Hog will put out.. but first you have to put time in. This is one thing I learned from women a long time ago.. though it wasn't hogs putting out.. wait.. bad analogy...

[StrongHarm]

Interesting figures on the poll...

 

After flying for a while I'm re-reading the CDU section now to compare practical with technical. It's bringing it all together and I've found SEVERAL things that are making my situational awareness better and my sorties more effective.

 

RTFM FTW

[Fopeyducker]

If it was a printed manual like the one that came with Falcon4 I would have read it all the way through about 4 or 5 times by now.

 

Digital version "I read what I had to.. the rest is a reference only if I get lost" :(