Shaping the docs for the future
-
@Icarus Thats great but the virtual crew chief is basically a VA profile - if you look at the checklists, they go much deeper than voice comms.
-
@richionizor You said we don’t have crew chief or external checks in BMS. I was just correcting those incorrect statements. You may not like them but we have them. Maybe you can rewrite the checklist as you would have them and post them and we can all see if we like them.
-
The checklists are fine IMO.
What you’re referring to would be along the lines of what are called “Weapons cards” or “clue cards”. These are usually a piece of paper that can be folded in half that has information on both sides about a munition, SMS loading, employment procedures (altitudes, profiles, etc), fuse settings and maybe even some symbology and pacing/timing information. These “gouge” cards are meant as a quick refresher on how to do something (shoot a Maverick, strafing techniques, etc).
So I’d recommend making weapons cards for this purpose. Checklists are not designed to guide you through how to do everything. While the -34 does have some “weapon checklists” they don’t tell you everything.
-
Oh, and another thing about the checklist and the “realism”… BMS is striving for “as real as it gets”. Also, many years ago I made an abbreviated checklist based on the real one. Some of the items were written in greyed out text because they didn’t apply. Well, eventually they did apply as these items got implemented—things like probe heat, anti-ice, FLCS bit, SEC and EPU checks, and others.
-
I agree with the main batman’s remark concerning new doc…I had already mentioned this last year ago here
https://forum.falcon-bms.com/topic/24061/some-questions-about-to-1f-16cmam-1-bms-n-i-or-notciting certain points, as in the GR1F-16CJ-1 Flight Manual, is not a bad thing in itself…but it is misleading, since it assumes that all the points mentioned are functional.
I reiterate as example the paragraph 3.9 HUD TRP Fuel Warning where some cases are not implemented like :
“Fuel flow has been less than 18,000 pph for 30 seconds. A false TRP FUEL warning may occur after the following:
• A fuel leak which exceeds the transfer rate of the external tank(s).
• Prolonged AB use if fuel flow to the engine exceeds the transfer rate from the external tank(s).
• Receiving a partial fuel load during air refueling with an external tank(s).”I don’t understand the point of mentioning all these cases without specifying that this is not implemented…I guess it’s an oversight…having said that, it’s just the sort of thing I’d like to see one day …
On the other hand, how-to’s in game are lacking on other subjects
example : “ALT GEAR Handle” -
@Icarus Sorry, I would like to restrict the discussion to core-BMS - your little addon is sure nice but AFAIK its not part of the core BMS installation? And even then - you would not have stuff like tire pressure checks since those are simply not modeled. So I will not comment on that.
As an example of clearly structured checklists I would like to point to the the old 4.32 files:
https://www.ravico.com/ST/Download/Checklists/BMS/Checklists/1107_02_main.pdfI know that we can not use them anymore but something in the spirit of them would work as well - maybe as a condensed version?
-
@richionizor Sorry. I agree with Mirv. Checklists are fine. Just highlight the parts you want with a yellow highlighter and leave it as is. No sense in trimming it back and then putting it back in again as BMS capabilities grow. Or as I said earlier, rewrite them to your own preferences and share with other like minded pilots.
-
Thanks everyone for contributing and special thanks to Micro for giving a constructive answer despite being indirectly criticised.
Of course I and others can and will contribute by pointing out what could be improved and how. I am certain that the current docs will form a baseline for the future and all the hard work invested into them will bear fruit.
I imagine an evolution into a form that will be informative but not misleading or overloading with “not implemented” information.
I am also certain that we can get the best of the both worlds and have the core of the manual shaped by the BMS way of simulating the Viper and additional sections explaining real life procedures for those who want to supplement the simulation.
-
Thank you all for the constructive feedback.
I ask and invite everyone interested to start working on whatever they wanna improve docs wise! The main focus ( as I understood this thread) is the -1 and the checklists.
If someone is seriously interested in helping with the docs, please respond in this thread. I will write you a pm then with some info.
-
@Micro_440th as a former Aviation Technical Writer (mostly turbine engine manuals) and a RL civilian pilot, I appreciate the realism that BMS has gone with having the -1 and -34. The problem is that a lot of people, especially those transitioning from DCS are used to things like the excellent Chuck’s Guides series, they see these manuals and go there and not understand how these were written is truly as reference material, not how tos, like RL.
Making the disclaimer better that the BMS Training manual and secondarily the Comms+Nav is truly where everyone should start to learn to fly and employ systems would help. It’s less graphical than Chuck’s Guides, but honestly has better info on how to actually use the systems. Truly the -34 and -1 are reference material these days to understand the things going on behind the scenes or why what you did with the Training manual/Comms+Nav manual worked the way it did.
-
@Snake122 100% agree and glad to read about your opinion.
We tried to give the new user the exact same guideline you described which is explained in the “Welcome” document to onboard nuggets more efficiently. -
@Micro_440th True, hopefully that helps some, but veterans in the community need to help with that as well and recommend the Training Manual first before the -1 and -34 too!
-
@Snake122 I don’t agree with your comment…
my main complaint is that the information is scattered all over the place, and sometimes incomplete. In my opinion, the training document should answer the question of the operational use of the F16 (or others fighters) simulator, while the flight manual serves to understand the aircraft components and logically how it works through the simulator…
even if sometimes we also play the guessing game (e.g. the jammer effect, how make a kill shoot with fox3), I think this is an integral part of the simulator game, because revealing the secrets that have been hard-coded into the simulator serves no purpose, except to allow some people to exploit the loopholes in the game.
Now, if there were a section in this forum dedicated to the part of tactical & avionic usage where some could express themselves on these subjects only, it could be interesting and complementary… -
@suhkoi69 Can you please force once remove your french coat and put the shoes of the BMS team?
We have one of the most complete manual suite of the combat siming world…When it comes to tactics and usage, I think our goal is to provide base & raw information.
You have to take multiple things into account:- Strategy is country and doctrine dependent
- BMS team MUST not dictate the strategy of what should be done by users
- Falcon BMS provide a capability and I don’t think we should document everything
- There are limits to EW subjects as this is classified and we will always have a simplistic approach and we don’t want to provide more (for obvious reasons)
There are communities and squadrons for this, we are not a training simulator (sometimes your questions are going so deep dive that I wonder if you’re not training for your combat pilot degree )
Again, feedback is okay but please give @Micro_440th a break…
We are not 100 people, just a handful of people doing this on our free time.You want something? Then don’t propose it, do it…
PS: I am against having a dedicated strategy and tactical section on this forum as this is VERY borderline with a “game” simulator…
-
@MaxWaldorf said in Shaping the docs for the future:
Strategy is country and doctrine dependent
BMS team MUST not dictate the strategy of what should be done by users
Falcon BMS provide a capability and I don’t think we should document everything
There are limits to EW subjects as this is classified and we will always have a simplistic approach and we don’t want to provide more (for obvious reasons)I never wrote the opposite …I fully agree with you!
@MaxWaldorf said in Shaping the docs for the future:
(sometimes your questions are going so deep dive that I wonder if you’re not training for your combat pilot degree )
Which ones? I don’t remember…
Now…I take your word, Max " FALCON BMS: as real as it gets!" -
@Snake122 Absolutely agree, the BMS Training Manual is the Chuck’s guide to BMS. Accessible, a little less pictures, but better content. The Chuck’s guide in DCS is accessible but leave you hanging a lot, the BMS training manual is better in this respect while still being focused on the task.
-JayB
-
*Raises Hand I volunteer as tribute.
First, Micro_440th and team has done an outstanding job with the mountain of info that needs to be compiled without using the former author’s work. Second, like all things Falcon, a continually changing work of art, it will proceed and get better as time moves forward.
I agree with @Batman here with regards to content of the manuals. Manuals should be for the current version of the sim. If something is being talked about behind the scenes for near future release (2-3 weeks ) then N/I could be added and items included because it is on the dev timeline somewhere.
“As real as it gets” as it gets are the key words on what we currently have simulated.If it is RL jet info that is not pertinent to the sim, then put a link or reference and add it to an addendum or appendix for train travel reading.
As always – suggestions. Take it, leave it, change it, only one man’s opinion. I have been a consumer of this product and originals since 1987, I will gladly give back where I am able.
I look forward to the future with optimism.
Thanks to all the BMS Team members and community.
Bugler