Cadet Mentors
-
This is not a debate thread gents this is an ideas thread.There will be no ‘whos better’ crap in here, lets keep it civil.
Thanks
Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
There’s no “who’s better” and you’re not going to “moderate” a legitimate question. Do they get that kind of training? My posts are absolutely civil suggest you read them again.
-
There’s no “who’s better” and you’re not going to “moderate” a legitimate question. Do they get that kind of training? My posts are absolutely civil suggest you read them again.
It is the policy of the BMS moderation team to moderate anything they see as starting a problem/arguement/issue please read the rules again for any clarification, the warning was made as a broad statement and not directed at anyone in particular, but i assure you if we do see an issue arising we will moderate it at our discretion.
Thanks
Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
-
Have a great day, Dillin.
-
And you as well sir.
Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
-
Very interesting thread, gents. Please allow me to “throw a wrench in,” play devil’s advocate, and throw in a few genuine questions:
Who takes care of the really new guys?
I understand that IPs have limited free time but isn’t the “barrier” to entry a bit high? Maybe not for seasoned fliers who’ve played Falcon 4.0 and mods, AF, and now BMS, but look at it from a point of view of really, really new blood to the genre. Most VFWs ask that applicants can rampstart, take off, navigate, drop bombs, do air-to-air refuelling, have dogfights, RTB, and land. What about those that struggle in one or more areas? I’ve known of a few guys that have held off applying to VFWs because they can’t tank that well or they need more A-A dogfight practice…. if only they’d known that they could apply to A-G specific squadrons or that the wing can sometimes arrange an alternate landing site for those that can’t refuel.
Are there VFWs that take on applicants no matter the level of proficiency? While we’d all like to have Type C pilots (as per Red Dog’s post), won’t we be severely limiting ourselves if we can’t deal with or help Type As or find roles for Type Bs?
I can see the point in training someone so he can be a better pilot, training someone so that you have someone to fly with, but does anyone see value in training someone so he can simply enjoy the sim?
EDIT:
I also find the 75-80% washout rate interesting. Any ideas on why the students wash out? How much of this is due to 1) real life issues, 2) expectation/reality incompatibility, or 3) lack of skills/brain power for the material?Thanks!
-
You raise some great points Ice. I’ll give my own personal opinion on a few of them.
Who takes care of the really new guys? They do. If one wishes to join a group, then a bare minimum expectation should be expected to be met for that particular organization. This expectation varies from group to group but exists for a reason. If the “new guy” doesn’t like it, doesn’t feel up to the task, or just doesn’t want to, then that particular group probably is not for them anyway. That, or they can show some initiative and learn/meet these requirements and go from there. This is why there’s more than one wing out there, and all have their own standards/expectations. I personally think this is a good thing!
Does anyone see value in training someone so he can simply enjoy the sim? Define “enjoy the sim”. This means many things to many different fliers. Some just want to casually go up and “blow sh!t up”. Some want to be more structured and do it as a team. Others want to emulate real world as much as possible. Some focus on procedure, some focus on tactics, some focus on strategy, some focus on it all. Enjoyment comes in many flavors, and this again is why there’s more than one wing out there.
The washout rate has been discussed before, it’s a combination of all 3 items you mentioned. Whether someone has been instructing for a week, a month, a year, or a decade… we’ve probably seen 'em all. I would venture to say (in my personal experience) that real life factors are the main reason (or at least the most utilized excuse ).
-
Blu3Wolf, Can you elaborate on these specific points in your post? I find them very interesting: Can you possibly elaborate on these two? I would like to understand better what your view is on these two specific points in your comment. We could be onto something here because a mix of training and OPS is not something I am seeing or hearing so far. Is this a unique approach? And does it work and if so, how would one go about realising and implementing this? Not to mention test and rate it (going back to Creeps benchmark comment)
Alright, so a little history on my thoughts on the idea. Some years back I had this pie in the sky idea for community training. It never really got past the pie in the sky idea to start with. I was envisioning something akin to what the TCM guys were going for, but I never got any further than ‘hey, that seems like a cool idea’. The general idea should be familiar. You have a wing run by a community standard, whose mission is to conduct training IAW principles of their code of conduct, and following guidance by ‘client’ wings on the standards they need pilots trained to. Say, for example, the 199th VFW (picked at random, sorry if that is your wing!) wants their applicants to meet a certain standard, but is short of IPs. They avoid duplication of work by specifying that their applicants do initial qualification training at the training wing - which was originally to be the 8VFW WP, but that name is taken now.
The idea behind it is simple, you get a common standard that many wings can use and assume that their new pilots meet it. Its a benefit for wings, because it lets them offload initial training requirements, decreasing the workload on their possibly limited IPs. That commonality then lends itself to future interoperability for joint ops between wings - their pilots already meet the same baseline standard.
However, it has drawbacks too, and the ones I identified whilst idly considering it meant that I never got past the stage of writing up documentation on how it would work. I first thought that there would be little demand for such a service. Wings already conduct their own initial training, and many use that training as a selection tool. Folks would be opposed to losing that selection tool, I think. On reflection, I also realised there are a great many different standards of training for different wings. As Redshift points out above, many wings training standard is at a level that some wings would not accept from their new recruits. Most wings training standard is lower than the one I would stand for, were I to found another wing. So, such a community standard would either need their training course to be at a standard much higher than most wings need or desire, or to be lower than the standard that some demand. Either way is a problem, because in both cases you need an adjustment after they leave the training wing. There would be little demand for a wing that trained your new recruits on things they dont ‘need’, from the point of view of most wings. I personally had no interest in a training wing that trained to a lower standard than as close to CMR as I could make it. At the time, I also figured I didnt have to worry about this stuff anyway, because TCM was soon going to be filling any demand there might be in that area. Unfortunately, I was mistaken on that one, but the others still seem like issues to me.
Its a great idea for a standard of training, but I think the wild differences in wing standards would make such a standard hard to implement. It would not be impossible, either. And the idea of many wings having a common standard for interoperability, based on a common standard of training, is definitely a captivating one - for me at least.
Who takes care of the really new guys?
I understand that IPs have limited free time but isn’t the “barrier” to entry a bit high? Maybe not for seasoned fliers who’ve played Falcon 4.0 and mods, AF, and now BMS, but look at it from a point of view of really, really new blood to the genre. Most VFWs ask that applicants can rampstart, take off, navigate, drop bombs, do air-to-air refuelling, have dogfights, RTB, and land. What about those that struggle in one or more areas? I’ve known of a few guys that have held off applying to VFWs because they can’t tank that well or they need more A-A dogfight practice…. if only they’d known that they could apply to A-G specific squadrons or that the wing can sometimes arrange an alternate landing site for those that can’t refuel.
Well, we already know Im biased on this. Still, if there existed a community training wing, one would expect there to be a certain minimum barrier to entry, and that barrier would likely consist of self study. If you cannot read the manual to ramp start, that isn’t going to convince anyone you want to learn more about the jet. Ive twice talked someone through a ramp start, and Ive sat in on someone trying to do the same for someone else, twice. The fastest one was only 35 minutes - or mach 2 depending on how you measure things! Point being, its something better suited for ground schooling, or self study. Likewise, Id argue that taking off should be something you can at least accomplish before starting a falcon training course - if there was a demand for ab initio training though, perhaps that could be identified. Im not convinced there is such a demand, though. Landing is on the same ticket, though landing well might be something that ground school time could be devoted to. Navigation is an interesting thing for BMS. Most applicants havent done it before, which is a significant departure from the prototype for training - where F-16 students are winged pilots to start with, and familiar with basics of navigation, and a lot more besides. Things like dropping bombs, dogfighting… that stuff should be trained at the wing, in my own opinion.
-
I am of the opinion that knowledge comes from exposure, but proficiency comes through repetition.
In terms of “modes of learning” some people have difficulty reading a 400 page manual, you have to admit that it can be intimidating to a newcomer! Some people prefer video tutorials, while others prefer to “learn by doing.” None of these modalities are necessarily “better” but a well-rounded training program should understand and attempt to accomodate each of them.
I would like to ask a few more questions. How well do you think, and how utilized are, the built-in training TEs in the sim? I think we can we can all agree that they are far from complete, but how well would running, and passing, each of the training TEs help your vetting of potential recruits?
Forgive me for making any comparison to FSX(I will surely be penalized a couple of rounds at the O-club later…), but would a “reward” for completion of the training set help to incentive the process? That comes back to intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation. IF (and it’s a big, hypothetical if) an accepted standard were prescribed along the lines of what the TCM project mentioned earlier, could a community recognized “badge” be administered? I am thinking along the lines of Mozilla’s Open badges initiative at openbadges.org
It would be very cool to see this community generate a curriculum set of training TEs with stated learning objectives, grading standards, briefings, etc. The VFWs may have to collaboratively establish, or “buy into” an accreditation system but it could help establish a truly level playing field for quantifying an individuals exposure level across the various VFWs or at FO.
I understand that some are satisfied with competency, others move toward currency while others strive even harder for proficiency. Let’s face it, some are here to game and “blow stuff up”, others are here for the hobby, others come specifically to learn and be challenged. As long as each person walks away fullfilled we should all be happy. BMS has SO MUCH to offer, but at the end of the day each one of us has to choose how much we want to invest in ourselves on this platform.
Thank you for your patience and I look forward to hearing your thoughts and comments on the above points. -
I am of the opinion that knowledge comes from exposure, but proficiency comes through repetition.
In terms of “modes of learning” some people have difficulty reading a 400 page manual, you have to admit that it can be intimidating to a newcomer! Some people prefer video tutorials, while others prefer to “learn by doing.” None of these modalities are necessarily “better” but a well-rounded training program should understand and attempt to accomodate each of them.
I would like to ask a few more questions. How well do you think, and how utilized are, the built-in training TEs in the sim? I think we can we can all agree that they are far from complete, but how well would running, and passing, each of the training TEs help your vetting of potential recruits?
Forgive me for making any comparison to FSX(I will surely be penalized a couple of rounds at the O-club later…), but would a “reward” for completion of the training set help to incentive the process? That comes back to intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation. IF (and it’s a big, hypothetical if) an accepted standard were prescribed along the lines of what the TCM project mentioned earlier, could a community recognized “badge” be administered? I am thinking along the lines of Mozilla’s Open badges initiative at openbadges.org
It would be very cool to see this community generate a curriculum set of training TEs with stated learning objectives, grading standards, briefings, etc. The VFWs may have to collaboratively establish, or “buy into” an accreditation system but it could help establish a truly level playing field for quantifying an individuals exposure level across the various VFWs or at FO.
I understand that some are satisfied with competency, others move toward currency while others strive even harder for proficiency. Let’s face it, some are here to game and “blow stuff up”, others are here for the hobby, others come specifically to learn and be challenged. As long as each person walks away fullfilled we should all be happy. BMS has SO MUCH to offer, but at the end of the day each one of us has to choose how much we want to invest in ourselves on this platform.
Thank you for your patience and I look forward to hearing your thoughts and comments on the above points.Im gonna go ahead and be ‘that guy’ for a minute. Sorry.
I reckon some of those modalities ARE necessarily better - but not in absolute terms. Completely agree that a well rounded training program needs to make use of different modes of learning, though. The way I see it, that 400 page manual is excellent for covering a topic in detail. There’s a reason they exist. You dont need to memorise the dash, but some parts of it are essential, while others are ‘nice to know, but it can be looked up in flight if necessary’. On the other hand, a video (IF done properly, and there are a lot that are not) is a great way to engage the viewer, and make strong use of visuals to reinforce complex ideas. Finally, it doesnt matter how poorly you learn by doing - if you cant reproduce the ideas that you had on the ground, in the air, then you will not meet the standard expected of you. You need to get stick time, in conjunction with ground learning and self study.
The badges thing seems like a gimmick, but not necessarily a bad one. Many wings already issue ‘patches’ to their graduates, the OpenBadges standard would just make it a little easier for folks to display those patches online.
With regards to the different levels lf investment and competency, its something that could possibly be addressed by having multiple consecutive training standards, or possibly different parallel courses. One for newcomers who want to as quickly as possible, get in the jet and blow stuff up. One for the average wing pilot who needs a minimum standard of training. And one for the few wings who are interested in a high standard of training, but also trusting enough to permit an external training corps to conduct that training.
Of course, the issue then becomes, who is going to donate their time to teaching folks this stuff? In particular for the (still entirely hypothetical) newcomer course. Most of the time, the inducement for IPs is that their wing gets more recruits. With a community training wing, they dont directly get that inducement. Possibly some wings could donate IPs, folks who would spend some of their time training for the community wing, and the rest of their time spent doing follow on training at their own wing? All interesting thoughts, anyway.
I am both surprised and impressed that this thread has stayed on track. Some good thoughts all.
-
Very interesting thread, gents. Please allow me to “throw a wrench in,” play devil’s advocate, and throw in a few genuine questions:
Who takes care of the really new guys?
I understand that IPs have limited free time but isn’t the “barrier” to entry a bit high? Maybe not for seasoned fliers who’ve played Falcon 4.0 and mods, AF, and now BMS, but look at it from a point of view of really, really new blood to the genre. Most VFWs ask that applicants can rampstart, take off, navigate, drop bombs, do air-to-air refuelling, have dogfights, RTB, and land. What about those that struggle in one or more areas? I’ve known of a few guys that have held off applying to VFWs because they can’t tank that well or they need more A-A dogfight practice…. if only they’d known that they could apply to A-G specific squadrons or that the wing can sometimes arrange an alternate landing site for those that can’t refuel.
Are there VFWs that take on applicants no matter the level of proficiency? While we’d all like to have Type C pilots (as per Red Dog’s post), won’t we be severely limiting ourselves if we can’t deal with or help Type As or find roles for Type Bs?
I can see the point in training someone so he can be a better pilot, training someone so that you have someone to fly with, but does anyone see value in training someone so he can simply enjoy the sim?
EDIT:
I also find the 75-80% washout rate interesting. Any ideas on why the students wash out? How much of this is due to 1) real life issues, 2) expectation/reality incompatibility, or 3) lack of skills/brain power for the material?Thanks!
I am of the opinion that knowledge comes from exposure, but proficiency comes through repetition.
In terms of “modes of learning” some people have difficulty reading a 400 page manual, you have to admit that it can be intimidating to a newcomer! Some people prefer video tutorials, while others prefer to “learn by doing.” None of these modalities are necessarily “better” but a well-rounded training program should understand and attempt to accomodate each of them.
I would like to ask a few more questions. How well do you think, and how utilized are, the built-in training TEs in the sim? I think we can we can all agree that they are far from complete, but how well would running, and passing, each of the training TEs help your vetting of potential recruits?
Forgive me for making any comparison to FSX(I will surely be penalized a couple of rounds at the O-club later…), but would a “reward” for completion of the training set help to incentive the process? That comes back to intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation. IF (and it’s a big, hypothetical if) an accepted standard were prescribed along the lines of what the TCM project mentioned earlier, could a community recognized “badge” be administered? I am thinking along the lines of Mozilla’s Open badges initiative at openbadges.org
It would be very cool to see this community generate a curriculum set of training TEs with stated learning objectives, grading standards, briefings, etc. The VFWs may have to collaboratively establish, or “buy into” an accreditation system but it could help establish a truly level playing field for quantifying an individuals exposure level across the various VFWs or at FO.
I understand that some are satisfied with competency, others move toward currency while others strive even harder for proficiency. Let’s face it, some are here to game and “blow stuff up”, others are here for the hobby, others come specifically to learn and be challenged. As long as each person walks away fullfilled we should all be happy. BMS has SO MUCH to offer, but at the end of the day each one of us has to choose how much we want to invest in ourselves on this platform.
Thank you for your patience and I look forward to hearing your thoughts and comments on the above points.Well I just want to say anyone can learn this simply by studying, that’s all there is to it – hard work. You have to be smart, study hard, and try to push yourself to do harder and harder things. Start with each building block and then eventually put it all together. That’s what I’m trying to get to, in order to get high level you have to study it all the time. There is no way to learn this stuff through osmosis and there’s no short cut. But why do something if you don’t do it well? I think a lot of people have an aversion to greatness. They tell themselves they can’t do it, or it’s too hard, but it’s actually not. It’s just going to take time to get it all down, everyone does it differently. As far as just training someone, I don’t know I’d at least like the guy to stick around for a while if you’re going to go through the effort, is it so much to ask that he’ll fly with ya after you show the way? Otherwise you simply get tired of flying the same 2 hour sortie. I want the guy to not only stick around if we are going to train him, but a friend too. Commit and strive for greatness (I still get shot down from time to time I’m not perfect, but I’ll sure as hell try to be the best I can be! :p) learn the basics of aviation (navigation, weather, aircraft performance, ect) then learn your specific aircraft checklist avionics, and systems, then finally join the fine VFW of your choice and learn the SOPs, tactics, and procedures! Anyone can learn this stuff, if they really want to and try, I think Creeper hit the nail on the head when he said that newbie pilots have rely on themselves for that initial learning. We have all the books already, just fantastic documents written and compiled by the BMS team, particularly RedDog’s training TEs and guide. The latest manual should get any newbie in the right direction, crack that sucker open!
-
Who takes care of the really new guys?
People like Krause and Tim Morgan (Stretch from the 72nd) that make YouTube tutorials of the basics.
or lack of skills/brain power for the material?
I don’t think I’ve met anyone in the community that doesn’t have the brain power to do it. There is so much of it that is memorization that ANYONE can do with enough practice. The rest takes even more practice but it can be learned with enough dedication and diligence.
Most of the washouts from the 8th have been due to real life issues or difficulty doing 20+ hours of time on Twiddla learning the fundamentals plus another 40+ hours flying the in sim just to get BMC, and then even more training to get CMR. It’s a really tough course by design as Redshift mentioned.
I would also add to what Creeper said. Not only is the definition fun different for everyone, sometimes it takes time to figure out what your definition of fun actually is! This might mean trying a few different wings to find what type of wing you feel you fit best in. For many I’ve known and talked to, the old adage “third time’s a charm” holds true and they try 3 different wings before finding the wing that fits their definition of fun.
-
I would also add to what Creeper said. Not only is the definition fun different for everyone, sometimes it takes time to figure out what your definition of fun actually is! This might mean trying a few different wings to find what type of wing you feel you fit best in. For many I’ve known and talked to, the old adage “third time’s a charm” holds true and they try 3 different wings before finding the wing that fits their definition of fun.
+1 and another 100
Taking time to figure out what’s “fun”, figuring it out, and then taking it to the next level creates a completely new level of “fun”. Some guys plateau. Some guys give up. Some guys crave more. What I love about this sim I also curse. It’s so immense, just when you think you’ve got it all figured out… you realize you don’t even know what you don’t know. There’s always something else.
-
- If they want, they can join as “FNG”, during which they have no obligation to us in any way, but they can fly some missions with us to see how we actually operate, and if they could see themselves doing that. We don’t really impose a time frame on this stage, but we aim to have clarity within 1-2 months, depending on FNG availability.
- If they like what they see, and they request to start training with us, they become Probation Pilots (PP). In this stage, PP’s continue to fly missions with us, but now, we’ll also provide them with documents to study and arrange 3 separate and guided/supervised Initial Squadron Training (IST) flights of about 90 - 120 minutes each, to teach them basic stuff they’ll need every flight (e.g. ramp start, take-off, landing, formation flying, first brevity etc.). In the past year, for reasons unknown, we have had nobody continue past this stage…
Should they pass the IST, we continue on to Air Combat Training (ACT), where PP’s learn how to perform in A-A and A-G roles with gradually increasing hostile opposition. Our aim is to get a PP through his ACT phase in roughly 6 - 8 months. - At the end of the ACT flights, which they fly as a wingman, the PP’s do a two-ship Flight Lead Upgrade (2FLUG) flight. This serves as a bit of an exam, where the PP needs to show he understands what he was taught, by coming up with a game plan and taking control over the flight. If they pass the FLUG, they become two-ship leads and reach Belgian Virtual Tiger (BVT) status.
- During their stay in the BVT, they’ll get continued training on how to perform in and lead fourships, culminating in the 4FLUG.
- After the 4FLUG, we provide optional courses that further increase their skills, so they can take control over an entire package, and later even become mission (aka COMAO) commander.
This sequence is similar to what we use.
The guest status is not really limited in time, it remains until the guest decides to commit to training or he just disappears for whatever reason.
once they commit to training, they become recruit and goes through BFT. BFT focus is on the aircraft avionics and being a good wingman (this is not learned in books, and must be taught in flight - more on that later)
once they graduate BFT, they are granted access to AFT. That is focused on more tactical things and convert the recruit from wingman to 2 ship flight lead.
Once they graduate AFT, they may be given ViperDrivers membership.
Training doesn’t stop there as there are many other more advanced stuff to master. the life of a VFW member is constantly impacted by training in one form or another.
The whole process takes about a year to complete. Again, there is no restrictions to regular combat TE the wing may organize. That said, we can restrict some complicated TE to a certain level. We use this both as a safeguard for the seasoned pilots and a motivation factor for the recruits.As in your experience, we also have a lot of guys committing to BFT (your PP) and stalling before the end of it.
I believe that one part of the answer to the why lies in the final grade flights. Ppl are afraid to fail.
Another reason why I think many ppl can’t prevail is that they want things to be immediate. They believe they can join a VFW and master BMS in 6 weeks. Then they realize it takes more time than this and just loose motivation in search of something easier.Who takes care of the really new guys?
I understand that IPs have limited free time but isn’t the “barrier” to entry a bit high? Maybe not for seasoned fliers who’ve played Falcon 4.0 and mods, AF, and now BMS, but look at it from a point of view of really, really new blood to the genre.I think the answer have already been given, and basically I agree.
but there is another layer to it.
I don’t think there are really new guys here anymore. By that I mean a guys who’s never sat in a sim before coming to BMS. There are on the other hand, a lot of guy who are brand green in MP. there is a distinction here.- 1st I believe that the majority of the guy coming to BMS, certainly have been active with other sims before (returning Falcon3 pilot, DCS, FSX, ….) there might be a minority coming straight to BMS but read below
- 2nd I noticed that a lot of guys are afraid to screw up in MP - because they feel they are going to be judged by their pairs. Many new guys we had in our wing wanted to train solo even before the guest flight. That’s mostly the newcomers to MP. so by the time they are ready to commit to MP, they are not really newbees anymore. they can already do a lot of things on their own.
Some did good and would become proficient pilots, some learned bad habits from outdated documentations or badly done video ‘tutorials’ and our IP would have to correct these bad habits, which is even harder to do than to teach an ab initio.
Most VFWs ask that applicants can rampstart, take off, navigate, drop bombs, do air-to-air refuelling, have dogfights, RTB, and land. What about those that struggle in one or more areas? I’ve known of a few guys that have held off applying to VFWs because they can’t tank that well or they need more A-A dogfight practice…. if only they’d known that they could apply to A-G specific squadrons or that the wing can sometimes arrange an alternate landing site for those that can’t refuel.
I don’t think that assessment is correct. By the looks of it, many VFW accept these guys as well - I know we welcome them as well.
But the candidate himself is often reluctant to commit straight because he’s new at MP and concerned about screw-ups in front of other guys.
Once again, it would depends on the training philosophy of the VFW. We teach rampstart, we teach basic navigation, we teach avionics all in BFT. So our program (and I’m sure other’s as well) take these candidates into account. The more seasoned pilots should go through these basic items in a flash, but very often we pinpoint some lacking skills and address them at the same time. that’s the reason why a seasoned pilot also has to go through our full training program.Are there VFWs that take on applicants no matter the level of proficiency? While we’d all like to have Type C pilots (as per Red Dog’s post), won’t we be severely limiting ourselves if we can’t deal with or help Type As or find roles for Type Bs?
Yes. and these real newbees can develop into a A, B or C type of pilot. To quote an example our wings has more constraint on hardware than on proficiency. We believe that you can’t fly the way we fly without a good hotas and a head tracking device. We ask that candidates have at least these two sim hardware in a good state of order and they are able to manage them.
Let’s face it a new guy who never has been in contact with a sim won’t have the hardware. That augment my arguments about the fact that there is no real ‘really new guys’ around
I strongly believe that joining a VFW is not the first thing you do when you come in contact with the sim world. you get acquainted with the sim first, if you’re hooked then you look for the hardware and then you look at setting up this hardware (which in the case of a hotas is already part of the learning curve) and then only will they look at proficiency and MP and that’s only the moment where some ppl may look for a VFW.I also find the 75-80% washout rate interesting. Any ideas on why the students wash out? How much of this is due to 1) real life issues, 2) expectation/reality incompatibility, or 3) lack of skills/brain power for the material?
On top of what’s been said before, i also think part of the answer is the lack of ability to commit to something on the long term. ppl wants it fast. the learning curve here is slow and steep.
A candidate motivation’s is also judged by the action of the candidate - being a real newbee or a seasoned sim pilot). Someone flying the TE’s but never asking anything or who is never proactive to request training or shoot questions is not motivated enough (IMHO) Again, some people are too proud to ask questions. It’s the same on the forum. Ppl are too hesitant to screw up in front of all and then they use PM rather. At least if they ask stupid questions, only one guy read them.
But there is no stupid questions, these needs to be cleared and answered as well. there is no problem looking like a fool. It happens to all of us. No later than yesterday I made a blue on blue. So what?
Seasoned pilots can screw up big time as well. The problem is that the new guys are even more concerned about showing up their weaknesses. That’s counterproductive.
People are also more often than not reluctant to accept their mistakes => that’s counterproductive as well, especially in any aviation related stuff.
I don’t think any VFW wants superheroes as candidates. they rather want pilots who screw up but who are able to learn from these mistakes. That to me is a key factor. -
In terms of “modes of learning” some people have difficulty reading a 400 page manual, you have to admit that it can be intimidating to a newcomer! Some people prefer video tutorials, while others prefer to “learn by doing.” None of these modalities are necessarily “better” but a well-rounded training program should understand and attempt to accomodate each of them.
That’s an old debate and it’s true indeed. But if ppl have trouble reading a 400 page manual they should stop right there, because they will lose their time in the long run. (by the way, not so long ago ppl had the same argument but with the lack of proper documentation ) There is (imho) no way to avoid it
It doesn’t mean you can’t use videos or learn in the sim, but the groundwork is done in the books. It’s by reading the books that you can pinpoint mistakes in these plethora of so called video tutorials. if you don’t know the stuff, you’ll take what you see in the videos for granted and often you will be mislead, because the guy doing the video might have overlooked a few things due to lack of experience. I have seen great vids and not so great vids just a week after the 4.33 release. How can a guy become proficient in just a week where we dev needed years to write the docs ? The answer is simple, they based their stuff on their experience with the previous version and often induced confusion, lacking the small detail that changed in 4.33 … Anyway, that’s another debate.I would like to ask a few more questions. How well do you think, and how utilized are, the built-in training TEs in the sim? I think we can we can all agree that they are far from complete, but how well would running, and passing, each of the training TEs help your vetting of potential recruits?
I think they are still very new and not well known. Having made them, I based them on my experience as training other ppl in a VFW.
So IMHO they should serve the VFW purpose very well. But it probably needs some time to be recognized as suchSome years back I had this pie in the sky idea for community training. It never really got past the pie in the sky idea to start with.
I don’t think community training would work simply because there are too many different philosophy wings out there. the training would depends on the philosophy of the wing and their definition of having fun with the sim.
Obviously if having fun is blowing sh*t all around regarless of the way it was done, the training requirement will be different from a wing where the definition of fun is to be able to master complicated things and remain on top of your game and having flown a great TE with great comms and great mutual support where you did minor screw up but reckoned them and learned something for the next flight.
There are VFW in all three zones.
the blow stuff VFW
the perfect TE VFW
and the VFW somewhere between these two extremesBy the ViperDriver, our definition of fun is learning.
We never had that “perfect” TE yet. We strive for it, but every TE brings its share of screw-ups that we want to learn from and apply on the next flight.
some screw ups are minor, some screw ups are major. from seasoned or green pilots. The common factor from the pilots should be their will to learn from their mistakes to become better -
Excellent replies gents! Let me continue being “the bad guy” here for discussion’s sake.
Firstly - let me define what “enjoy the sim” means –- this means whatever it is that the simmer is looking for to feel he has had a good time. Be it blowing stuff up, mastering tanking, being able to win a dogfight, etc. This DOES NOT MEAN proficiency nor does it mean being good in other areas. The guy who wants to dogfight may win after firing 3 AIM-120s then finally getting the bad guy with a heater. The guy who wants to tank may only want to do it straight-and-level and will leave tanking-in-a-turn for another lifetime. The guy who wants to blow stuff up may need 2 or 3 passes to hit the broad side of the barn, or only wants to drop LGBs from Angels 30. The important part is that after 30-60 minutes of flying, the new pilot has the feeling of “can’t wait for the next flight!!”
I think we’re concentrating too much on the guys that want to fly “full real” and while there’s nothing wrong with that, I return to my original question.
Who takes care of the really new guys? They do.
Fair enough, and I fully see your point. I’ve talked to and trained a few guys and having to help them set up their controls does get to the point of testing the patience. I’m not talking about those, people who feel that they can have zero input and get maximum output.
I’m talking about the different guys who learn different ways. Some can read a manual or a textbook, retain the information, and apply the knowledge once “in the field.” Others can read the manual/textbook, but it won’t make sense until they’re out “in the field,” get a few hours of experience, then come back to the manual/textbook and go “so THAT’S what that meant!!” I would even speculate that there’s a third group who skips the manual altogether and tries to “wing it” and then just goes to the material when they hit a snag. In all three scenarios, even assuming the same skill level, there’s no denying that having someone to help, someone to point them to a relevant section of the manual, will greatly increase their enjoyment of the sim.
One thing we have to remember here –- it’s fine to expect a person to have internal motivation, but we also have to remember that this is a hobby. Where a RL pilot can spend hours and hours combing manuals and memorizing stuff, an applicant may only have a few hours free each week due to other RL responsibilities. Having that helping hand can seriously accelerate their learning and fast forward them to the point where they enjoy the sim.
The way I see it, that 400 page manual is excellent for covering a topic in detail. There’s a reason they exist. You dont need to memorise the dash, but some parts of it are essential, while others are ‘nice to know, but it can be looked up in flight if necessary’.
Excellent point, but who is going to highlight which parts are important and which parts aren’t? This is like someone saying “I want to be a doctor” and then someone shows that young medical student ALL the books he will cover during his first year of training and then leaving him to it. Well, he wants to be a doctor so he should “take care of himself” and read those books. Not really a good way to start.
Let me try to make the point this way:
I’m also an avid tabletop RPG player. Dungeons and Dragons, Pathfinder RPG, and so on. I can tell you that it’s easier getting new players by saying “just come and bring your imagination, I’ll take care of the rest” rather than plonking the 300+ page Player’s Handbook and saying “you need to read this before we start.” While it’s nice to have that player that has “done his homework” or has had previous experience and knows his way around the Player’s Handbook, if I were to limit myself to those types of people, my gaming circle would be very limited. However, by lowering the barrier of entry to “What type of character do you want to play? Fighter? Rogue? Archer?” and having the required skill being the ability to roll dice and do simple maths, I essentially open up my gaming table to anyone who wants to play “pretend” for a few hours, has taken a bath within the last week, and can interact with a small social group.I may not want to play with all of them; some seem to want more banter than playing, others want to ROLLplay instead of ROLEplay, others ROLEplay to the hilt to the detriment of the group, and so on. But in the bigger picture, there’s new blood in the hobby and while they may play that way NOW, they may grow and be more flexible and be potential tabletop buddies later on.
Well I just want to say anyone can learn this simply by studying, that’s all there is to it – hard work. You have to be smart, study hard, and try to push yourself to do harder and harder things. Start with each building block and then eventually put it all together.
I do admire what you’re trying to do but I think you are confusing a hobby with a real-life career. Sure, some people fit your criteria (hardcore) and I’d like to think I’m one of them, but I’m afraid most people may move on to something else before the building blocks all come together if there’s no one to show them how things come together.
Another aspect I’d like to put forward is that a new pilot may not realize there is a better way of doing things aside from what he’s doing now. Something like “you don’t know what you’re missing until it’s gone,” but this time it’s “you don’t know what you’re missing if you don’t even know it exists.” How many times have you come across someone who has said “no, that’s not for me” only to try it and say “OMG! This is awesome!!”? Whether the topic is food, an experience, a hobby, whatever… sometimes, you have to nudge (or PUSH!!) the people the right way a few times and then they’ll bite.
@Red:
I don’t think there are really new guys here anymore. By that I mean a guys who’s never sat in a sim before coming to BMS. There are on the other hand, a lot of guy who are brand green in MP. there is a distinction here.
That is true and reading this thread, I’ve come to realize that VFWs don’t really train people how to fly BMS but more like train people how to fly BMS with other people.
However, I’ve also seen some instances where people return to simming but immediately rule out BMS because they think it’s too hardcore, the learning curve is too steep, or as one guy puts it, “I don’t want to have to push 20 buttons just to drop a bomb.” They are afraid of not being able to hack it, of being told to RTFM. While some would say “who cares about those people then?,” aren’t we limiting ourselves by being too snobby?
@Red:
Let’s face it a new guy who never has been in contact with a sim won’t have the hardware. That augment my arguments about the fact that there is no real ‘really new guys’ around
I strongly believe that joining a VFW is not the first thing you do when you come in contact with the sim world. you get acquainted with the sim first, if you’re hooked then you look for the hardware and then you look at setting up this hardware (which in the case of a hotas is already part of the learning curve) and then only will they look at proficiency and MP and that’s only the moment where some ppl may look for a VFW.Yes, but the hardware may be dependent on a person’s personal circumstance. They may not be able to afford a full HOTAS. They may not have the space for it. They may be content with a Logi 3D Pro, are able to take off, do stuff, and land, but cannot tank not because they cannot do it, but because their hardware cannot give them the finesse needed and as they’ve not tried anything else, they do not know it their hardware that is the limiting factor.
-
Firstly - let me define what “enjoy the sim” means –- this means whatever it is that the simmer is looking for to feel he has had a good time. Be it blowing stuff up, mastering tanking, being able to win a dogfight, etc. This DOES NOT MEAN proficiency nor does it mean being good in other areas.
Please allow me to comment further on just this point. The above statement is your definition, but most likely not “the” definition. While not being proficient may be fun for some, it can be absolutely no fun for those who strive to be, expect a certain level of the same from others, and obtain their fun factor from it. Some senior pilots do not enjoy flying and fighting with greener pilots who can’t hold their own and be a productive member of the team. Most of them don’t mind instructing/assisting someone to become such a team member (the majority actually enjoy it), but when it’s “go time” (campaign/designated flight night [where someone took time to create a TE or the like]/FvF event) these greener/newer pilots can most likely to expect to be on the bench. I’m not saying that’s the way of all, but it certainly is the way of some. As with most any facet of life, different people find fun/enjoyment in different ways. This sim is no different.
-
I’ve come to realize that VFWs don’t really train people how to fly BMS but more like train people how to fly BMS with other people.
However, I’ve also seen some instances where people return to simming but immediately rule out BMS because they think it’s too hardcore, the learning curve is too steep, or as one guy puts it, “I don’t want to have to push 20 buttons just to drop a bomb.” They are afraid of not being able to hack it, of being told to RTFM. While some would say “who cares about those people then?,” aren’t we limiting ourselves by being too snobby?
OK, so I lied. I’d like to comment on this as well. Of course VFW’s train people how to fly with other people, that’s the entire point of a VFW. As for the “aren’t we limiting ourselves by being too snobby?”: Perhaps we’d be truly limiting ourselves by catering to those who clearly do not care to invest the time/energy that can be required for this sim. As with most any other facet of life (yeah, I know), you’ll only get out of it what you put into it.
-
One thing we have to remember here –- it’s fine to expect a person to have internal motivation, but we also have to remember that this is a hobby. Where a RL pilot can spend hours and hours combing manuals and memorizing stuff, an applicant may only have a few hours free each week due to other RL responsibilities. Having that helping hand can seriously accelerate their learning and fast forward them to the point where they enjoy the sim.
While the time constraint are true, I disagree with the result. To me a passionate flight simulator dude can actually know more about the aircraft than the real pilot flying it.
I know I’m going to shock a few people here saying so but I have seen some serious real life pilots (civil and military) biased by their work and I know a few fellow simmers knowing way more about the F-16 than the real F-16 pilots. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying these ppl would fly the F-16 correctly. I’m saying that some hobby may be passionate up to the point that learning and spending hours learning the minute details is not a big issue.
Other hobby are similar. Do you think you can be a good photographer in 6 weeks? No
Take the scale modelism hobby, it takes decades to make a good scale modelist. And some of us have multiple hobbies too
The bottom line is that when you enjoy what you do you don’t care about the time it takes.
So my point is, the time constraint is not a problem for passion driven ppl, and these guys habe intensive work and families and the usual life crap thrown at them as wellExcellent point, but who is going to highlight which parts are important and which parts aren’t? This is like someone saying “I want to be a doctor” and then someone shows that young medical student ALL the books he will cover during his first year of training and then leaving him to it. Well, he wants to be a doctor so he should “take care of himself” and read those books. Not really a good way to start.
spoonfeeding that exactly what happens at school btw. Teacher who can make their cursus interesting are a minority. Many of them just read the damn book, which is useless.
Luckily, there is the practical work, and that’s exactly the same thing as this topic, the VFW provides the practical side of thingsLet me try to make the point this way:
I’m also an avid tabletop RPG player. Dungeons and Dragons, Pathfinder RPG, and so on. I can tell you that it’s easier getting new players by saying “just come and bring your imagination, I’ll take care of the rest” rather than plonking the 300+ page Player’s Handbook and saying “you need to read this before we start.” While it’s nice to have that player that has “done his homework” or has had previous experience and knows his way around the Player’s Handbook, if I were to limit myself to those types of people, my gaming circle would be very limited. However, by lowering the barrier of entry to “What type of character do you want to play? Fighter? Rogue? Archer?” and having the required skill being the ability to roll dice and do simple maths, I essentially open up my gaming table to anyone who wants to play “pretend” for a few hours, has taken a bath within the last week, and can interact with a small social group. I may not want to play with all of them; some seem to want more banter than playing, others want to ROLLplay instead of ROLEplay, others ROLEplay to the hilt to the detriment of the group, and so on. But in the bigger picture, there’s new blood in the hobby and while they may play that way NOW, they may grow and be more flexible and be potential tabletop buddies later on…Well enjoyment is a dual lane avenue. there is the enjoyment of the candidate and there is the enjoyment of the seasoned pilots within the same group.
Both have to be preserved. and that happens only when all the guys share the same philosophy and are trained on the same basis. Again, that’s why there are different type of VFW out there.
You can’t have a guy screwing up the enjoyment of 4 others because all he wants is to blow sh*t up at all costs and doing so he departs his teammate, pursue a bandit, kill him but doing so he’s attacked by the rest of the bad guys who in turn can attack the original formation because of the gap in mutual support.
By lowering the barrier of entry, this is what would happen imho
There is a very big difference between these type of games you mentioned (and I play Wot too) where you can play and be efficient with a very limited time due to the arcade style of the game and BMS who is clearly a study sim and where only these willing to dedicate the time necessary will not be a liability to their fellow pilots.Another aspect I’d like to put forward is that a new pilot may not realize there is a better way of doing things aside from what he’s doing now. Something like “you don’t know what you’re missing until it’s gone,” but this time it’s “you don’t know what you’re missing if you don’t even know it exists.” How many times have you come across someone who has said “no, that’s not for me” only to try it and say “OMG! This is awesome!!”? Whether the topic is food, an experience, a hobby, whatever… sometimes, you have to nudge (or PUSH!!) the people the right way a few times and then they’ll bite.
That’s why VFW are pushing ppl to try MP and that’s why some wings like ours makes guest flight (or the BVT solution as illustrated earlier)
That is true and reading this thread, I’ve come to realize that VFWs don’t really train people how to fly BMS but more like train people how to fly BMS with other people.
Yes. Actually that’s it. VFW is the next logical step to the sim hobby: flying MP. that opens door to more advanced scenario you can’t do solo.
But to fully enjoy that in a very demanding environment, flying and using the jet must be second nature. you have to be able to concentrate on the aspect of flying with other humans while you fly and use your jet’s system totally naturally, without dedicating brainpower to it. that’s why training is so important. the MP environment is demanding and it needs most of the brain power available - inversely proportional to the level of experience of the pilot.However, I’ve also seen some instances where people return to simming but immediately rule out BMS because they think it’s too hardcore, the learning curve is too steep, or as one guy puts it, “I don’t want to have to push 20 buttons just to drop a bomb.” They are afraid of not being able to hack it, of being told to RTFM. While some would say “who cares about those people then?,” aren’t we limiting ourselves by being too snobby?
We are limiting ourselves because of the actual washout rate. At 75-85% we can’t devoid times on these guys because doing so we may miss to train a guy who is worth it.
So yes I am not willing to take this guy on to training. I did in the past and nowadays I know it’s all lost time.
Some more junior IP may still decide to try, we’ll see once they have 10 years of experience what they think about itYes, but the hardware may be dependent on a person’s personal circumstance. They may not be able to afford a full HOTAS. They may not have the space for it. They may be content with a Logi 3D Pro, are able to take off, do stuff, and land, but cannot tank not because they cannot do it, but because their hardware cannot give them the finesse needed and as they’ve not tried anything else, they do not know it their hardware that is the limiting factor
What good is a guy in a VFW if he can’t tank because of his hardware?
that means the admin team has to see the bottlenecks of some TE’s and restrict the whole VFW because of that guy?
Sorry, no way. the admin of a VFW is another factor that takes time and a further task the usual guys (who are also IP) have to manage.
It’s all added workload on these guys (us) for the enjoyment of the candidates that should be preserved from learning too much or getting the right hardware?
Does that sound logical? Not to me -
Please allow me to comment further on just this point. The above statement is your definition, but most likely not “the” definition. While not being proficient may be fun for some, it can be absolutely no fun for those who strive to be, expect a certain level of the same from others, and obtain their fun factor from it. Some senior pilots do not enjoy flying and fighting with greener pilots who can’t hold their own and be a productive member of the team. Most of them don’t mind instructing/assisting someone to become such a team member (the majority actually enjoy it), but when it’s “go time” (campaign/designated flight night [where someone took time to create a TE or the like]/FvF event) these greener/newer pilots can most likely to expect to be on the bench. I’m not saying that’s the way of all, but it certainly is the way of some. As with most any facet of life, different people find fun/enjoyment in different ways. This sim is no different.
You are correct, that is not “the” definition or the only definition. However, I was making that example in support of my previous statement:
@-Ice:I can see the point in training someone so he can be a better pilot, training someone so that you have someone to fly with, but does anyone see value in training someone so he can simply enjoy the sim?
As you can see, it was from a “newbie” point of view and not meant to cover everyone. I was referring to those who struggle with the basics, or are just learning the basics, not someone who has a firm grip on the basics and is looking to “hone his craft.”
OK, so I lied. I’d like to comment on this as well. Of course VFW’s train people how to fly with other people, that’s the entire point of a VFW. As for the “aren’t we limiting ourselves by being too snobby?”: Perhaps we’d be truly limiting ourselves by catering to those who clearly do not care to invest the time/energy that can be required for this sim. As with most any other facet of life (yeah, I know), you’ll only get out of it what you put into it.
I’m not sure I follow… where did I say anything about you lying?
As to VFWs training to fly with other people, well, let’s just say that for numerous instances, people who ask for help learning the sim or “honing their craft” are often advised to “join a VFW” but on the flip side, some (maybe most?) VFWs have the bar set so that those who were asking for help to learn the sim will fall below the requirements.
Please don’t take too much offense regarding the “snobby” comment; I guess this is a result of the RTFM thread we had here a while back. However, on that topic, yes, you are limiting yourself. Similar to my RPG example above, if I only played with “those that have invested the time/energy” to read the Player’s Handbook, my gaming circle would be too small. By pouring a little more effort, I expand my circle and even now, I am introducing TWO friends who have had no prior tabletop RPG experience and have had no previous knowledge of the existence of this particular type of hobby. Instead of waiting for the fish to land in my lap, I went out, cast my line, and caught myself one (or two!).
-
I’m not sure I follow… where did I say anything about you lying?
Oh no, not you at all! I was referring to my own comment of “please allow me to comment further on just this point” from the first of the two above posts, just to turn around and comment on another. :uham: