Confusing manuals for new players - where to start from?
-
RD - the fire and overheat detect does not test the warning bulb, the MAL and IND LTS button does
the fire and overheat detection tests the fire and overheat detection circuits.
-
Correct BW, thanks
-
It is impossible to explain EVERYTHING in manuals , otherwise you will have a folder containing 50 different .PDF and a singe 5000 pages PDF. Falcon4 is ânotâ made for pure beginners⊠it considers that you have a minimum of knowledges on flying air-planes. For some topics, you will have to use Google, the forum, and also for rare cases, real life documentation not provided in Doc folders.
Well, you can explain almost everything, the primary matter being time. As in our French âFighter schoolâ we try to teach true beginners (players with no past in simming at all) our own .pdf for basic knowledge are more detailed than Red Dogâs manuals, but theyâre longer, sometimes even considerably longer than BMS manuals on particular topics, youâre right. For instance, our .pdf dealing with flight controls is 48-page long even though I kept it as short as I could on purpose.
My point is that if we had had as little time as Red Dog had to write them, it would have been a totally impossible task. He had to make a balanced choice so that the manuals fit most users, and achieved a terrific job in my opinion. -
From my experience if something is omitted from the manual itâs generally because it either isnât fully implemented or implemented at all. There are many things that, even if it does work in sim, you donât really need to use. One such example is the altimeter setting at transition altitude. Though very important in real life I donât feel it matters much if you remember to set the altimeter correctly after passing FL140 especially in single player. As stated earlier, if the manuals were to include details on everything they would be thousands of pages long and that would be extremely counter productive.
-
Thought Iâd throw in my 2 cents.
Anyone interested in flight simming most probably was interested in aviation for a while before that. In extension, that should mean that the person has either formally studied aviation or reads about it as a hobby so he should at least have a grasp of the fundamentals and knowledge of the basic instruments and systems used in most aircraft.
I personally had a great time when I first started learning BMS. I already had a couple years of aviation knowledge under my belt just as a hobby (Iâve applied to our air force before but because of a speech impediment I sadly canât be accepted no matter my qualifications) and the BMS manuals were comprehensive and answered most if not all of the questions I had in mind. Any acronyms I didnât understand I was able to know through a quick Google search, using acronymfinder.com, or just asking the forums here.
It also helps to have a passion for this kind of stuff because the information available is massive and really does require a certain degree of dedication to become an adequate driver. If youâre coming in to a flight sim expecting everything to be laid out in and exact step-by-step format youâre gonna have a really hard time. This sim is arguably the most realistic commercially available sim and it didnât reach that level by being easy.
Not sure where Iâm going with this, but if you have the dedication and passion for this sort of thing youâll be able to understand everything by putting in some extra effort and actively searching for answers yourself either in the manuals, here in the forums, YouTube, or elsewhere on the internet.
-
@Red:
[âŠ]
Firstly, thanks for the detailed text and taking your time to write this all. It surely did made things clearer and showed me parts of the text I missed or interpreted incorrectly.
When I, incorrectly, mentioned mission 1, while it was actually mission 2, itâs because Iâve done the first 3 in order without stopping (as in, after takeoff I wouldnât quit and start mission 2, I just paused the game and started it from the air). Ended up saying mission 2 was 1, as from ground ops to landing it was all mission 1 in my mind, sorry.
@Red:
mission 9 which doesnât start but that you commented anyway (so it does work after all.
Unfortunately, not quite. I had the emergency checklist in hands and imagined myself pressing the buttons, but I couldnât be sure thatâd actually work or even try to do everything said in the manual in-game. I could only picture the situation in my mind without actually pressing the buttons or moving the flight stick.
This arrised some doubs, for example, assuming the FIRE warning light lit up and then just went off - I know it doesnât happen on this mission, but itâs stated in the checklists - after depressing FIRE & OHEAT DETECT as told, the checklists tell me to eject if FIRE persists or land if FIRE cease.
Why would FIRE persists after depressing the test button (in depressing I take it means holding the button for a couple of seconds and then letting go of it)? Wasnât this button just supposed to check if the detection circuits were working? If the FIRE went off in the first place I just couldnât get it, while reading, why it would then come back on and persist if I depressed the button.Thanks.
-
This arrised some doubs, for example, assuming the FIRE warning light lit up and then just went off - I know it doesnât happen on this mission, but itâs stated in the checklists - after depressing FIRE & OHEAT DETECT as told, the checklists tell me to eject if FIRE persists or land if FIRE cease.
Why would FIRE persists after depressing the test button (in depressing I take it means holding the button for a couple of seconds and then letting go of it)? Wasnât this button just supposed to check if the detection circuits were working? If the FIRE went off in the first place I just couldnât get it, while reading, why it would then come back on and persist if I depressed the button.The FIRE and OHEAT DETECT is just a test switch. When pressed you are just checking that lights and warnings will come on. When released all warnings should extinguish. If you are in flight and the fire warning comes on then you should eject. This is the way I understand it.
-
no, you reduce thrust to the minimum practical. Ideally that will put the fire out in 30 to 60 seconds. if the fire indications persist, eject. if the fire indications stop, test the fire detection circuits. if they still work, the fire should be out. thrust may be significantly degraded - land as soon as possible.
-
Firstly, thanks for the detailed text and taking your time to write this all.
Thanks for reading it to the end
This is going to get interesting, fasten your seat belts
Letâs take this very example to illustrate some points reality vs simulationDoing the emergency checks was a nightmare because not many of the system are actually implemented in depth. What the pilot see in BMS may be realistically correct but the problem sourcing & solving during an emergency (which is what the emergency checks are all about) are not matching what should happen in the real jet because of the software layer level implementation.
no, you reduce thrust to the minimum practical. Ideally that will put the fire out in 30 to 60 seconds. if the fire indications persist, eject. if the fire indications stop, test the fire detection circuits. if they still work, the fire should be out. thrust may be significantly degraded - land as soon as possible.
What Bw reported is correct for a real F-16 and actually matches the BMS emergency checklists. So we can state that itâs a valid comment for BMS
Page C-4 clearly has 2 options after point 4. fire & Oheat detect button depress
There is IF: IF fire persists then EJECT on the left column
and the other column says: IF fire indications cease: Land as soon as possibleNow, and thatâs a big NOW
The above problem solving will work in BMS but will always end up of the same side, because the other side is not implementedSo a BMS user can role play and get to the end of the checklist but he will always end up by pulling that big yellow handle
therefore:
If you are in flight and the fire warning comes on then you should eject. This is the way I understand it.
Lightswitch is also correct, when taking only BMS in mind and omitting the reality. (by the way, you donât die for real when the plane in BMS blow up - so believe me you never treat an emergency as you would in real life - youâre much less concerned with the final outcome)
When the engine fire comes on in BMS, the fire never is extinguished and you will blow up at a certain time. (<= that is variable)Itâs all the compromises of simulation and how deep itâs implemented.
And thatâs why considering reality may also be confusing - Especially in the part involving emergencies.
You can do it if you know both the real and virtual systems perfectly and if you understand how a software works on the coding side.Now, what happens when you try to write a manual about the above?
What are the results you will get? How confusing does the author need to be to overcome the lacks of the software implementation?
always gauge both side of the fence -
Can I just interject a point here: I have never understood folks who have an issue in BMS and try to source an answer using the AF or original Falcon 4 manuals. Thatâs like trying to fix your BMW using a manual for a Ford. Yes, they are both Cars and derive from the same root but they are totally different. The same is true of BMS; AF is on a totally different developement tree and so at best is a Cousin to BMS. Falcon 4 is like the Grand Parent to both. But as such the chances of getting a solution to a BMS problem (learning oppotunity) from these other manuals is slim to non-existent.
The current BMS manuals are by far the best BMS manuals that have existed for BMS. Whilst not perfect (show me a manual that is) they are a work in progress and can only improve. If you find something you think is wrong then post it in the Documentation area of the forums. There it will either be explained or noted to be included in the next version of the documents, usually with a thanks from the authors.
-
@Red:
This is going to get interesting, fasten your seat belts
Letâs take this very example to illustrate some points reality vs simulationDoing the emergency checks was a nightmare because not many of the system are actually implemented in depth. What the pilot see in BMS may be realistically correct but the problem sourcing & solving during an emergency (which is what the emergency checks are all about) are not matching what should happen in the real jet because of the software layer level implementation.
What Bw reported is correct for a real F-16 and actually matches the BMS emergency checklists. So we can state that itâs a valid comment for BMS
I do think that this is achievable in BMS for all the emergencies checks, given some updates
i.e., its not so much reality vs simulation as it is reality vs BMS. The reality vs simulation problems are more the other stuff you talked about, pilot mentality, our relative lack of concern about the difference between blowing up and ejecting, etc.
Thinking about it though, it would have to be written pretty smartly to make it work for all aircraft. It might be much easier to make it hardcoded for the F-16, like the avionics are - despite my frequent comments about moving the avionics to be data rather than code and thus possible for other aircraft to take advantage of. Lot of different possible states when it comes to aircraft failures!
-
Can I just interject a point here: I have never understood folks who have an issue in BMS and try to source an answer using the AF or original Falcon 4 manuals. Thatâs like trying to fix your BMW using a manual for a Ford. âŠâŠ
Iâd say itâs like trying to fix your current 7-series with a 1998 manual for a 3-series. The Ford manual would be using a DCS manual.
-
There is a great guide for pit for blk50/52 by the 72ND squadron which they let me translate and use for e-HAFâs 320VFW.
itâs a PowerPoint of 300 pages and till now helped me and lots of newbs as it combines visual and explanation. What is great about it is that it flags switches that are not used or are partially implemented in BMS.
Itâs a very good starting point.
If the guys at the 72 want they can give it public and it could be made full f-16 pit guide like adding more variants.
I thought of doing it in HTML and be dynamic and responsive like the manuals I work for FE and MC but it took me several years just to translate it. Thankfully a dear member (Archery) helped me and was able to finish the translation.
It really is a great guide. I believe you can find it easily in their (72ND) site.ÎŁÏΏλΞηÎșΔ αÏÏ ÏÎż MI 5 ÎŒÎżÏ ÏÏηÏÎčÎŒÎżÏÎżÎčÏÎœÏÎ±Ï Tapatalk
-
What is great about it is that it flags switches that are not used or are partially implemented in BMS.
Dash 1 does the same with the non implemented part covered in red in section 1
-
Yes it does. Didnât say it isnât.
ÎŁÏΏλΞηÎșΔ αÏÏ ÏÎż MI 5 ÎŒÎżÏ ÏÏηÏÎčÎŒÎżÏÎżÎčÏÎœÏÎ±Ï Tapatalk
-
@Red:
Thanks for reading it to the end
This is going to get interesting, fasten your seat belts
Letâs take this very example to illustrate some points reality vs simulationDoing the emergency checks was a nightmare because not many of the system are actually implemented in depth. What the pilot see in BMS may be realistically correct but the problem sourcing & solving during an emergency (which is what the emergency checks are all about) are not matching what should happen in the real jet because of the software layer level implementation.
What Bw reported is correct for a real F-16 and actually matches the BMS emergency checklists. So we can state that itâs a valid comment for BMS
Page C-4 clearly has 2 options after point 4. fire & Oheat detect button depress
There is IF: IF fire persists then EJECT on the left column
and the other column says: IF fire indications cease: Land as soon as possibleNow, and thatâs a big NOW
The above problem solving will work in BMS but will always end up of the same side, because the other side is not implementedSo a BMS user can role play and get to the end of the checklist but he will always end up by pulling that big yellow handle
therefore:
Lightswitch is also correct, when taking only BMS in mind and omitting the reality. (by the way, you donât die for real when the plane in BMS blow up - so believe me you never treat an emergency as you would in real life - youâre much less concerned with the final outcome)
When the engine fire comes on in BMS, the fire never is extinguished and you will blow up at a certain time. (<= that is variable)Itâs all the compromises of simulation and how deep itâs implemented.
And thatâs why considering reality may also be confusing - Especially in the part involving emergencies.
You can do it if you know both the real and virtual systems perfectly and if you understand how a software works on the coding side.Now, what happens when you try to write a manual about the above?
What are the results you will get? How confusing does the author need to be to overcome the lacks of the software implementation?
always gauge both side of the fenceIs there an extinguisher in the real f16?
-
Is there an extinguisher in the real f16?
I do not think so since no commands in cockpit for depleting it. (Will check in-1) But ther is the tank inerting switch (not implemented in sim) reducing the âexplosivenessâ by venting the fuel vapours from fuel tanks.
-
no, but itâs quite irrelevant
real life is a little bit more complicated than a binary system.
Fire can originate come from multiple source and there are other ways to supress/prevent a fire - especially in an afterburner engine
beside an extinguisher would most likely kill the engine, while a fire in the AB section can be prevented and still provide min thrust for emergency landing
See real emergency checklists and you will see that - as stated earlier - throttle to min practical may turn off the fire warning lightSo the example remains valid for the comparison and the point being made. If not, well I can present many other cases where we always end up on the same branch of the tree in BMS.
Which illustrates perfectly what we have been discussing. -
@Red:
no, but itâs quite irrelevant
real life is a little bit more complicated than a binary system.
Fire can originate come from multiple source and there are other ways to supress/prevent a fire - especially in an afterburner engine
beside an extinguisher would most likely kill the engine, while a fire in the AB section can be prevented and still provide min thrust for emergency landing
See real emergency checklists and you will see that - as stated earlier - throttle to min practical may turn off the fire warning lightSo the example remains valid for the comparison and the point being made. If not, well I can present many other cases where we always end up on the same branch of the tree in BMS.
Which illustrates perfectly what we have been discussing.And a simulator is a simple addition of binary systems
This is our job to transform real life complexity into binary systems.So we need to decompose the problem in as many binary as necessary. What conditions may extinguish a fire ?
Temperature ? Altitude ? Speed ? Throttle posit ? Etc etc âŠ
Move this discussion in other thread if necessary -
I will let other ppl answer, but to me, fire on a single engine fighter => Eject
4:00