Shaping the docs for the future
-
Hi,
I appreciate the effort and the initiative to compile new BMS documentation, however, I would like to start a discussion about the shape of the documents and their scope and purpose.
I belong to those that like to read the manuals completely and learn how to operate the jet from them. What I appreciated about the previous docs was the focus on the systems from the BMS perspective. There was an explanation of what a system does, how is it linked with other systems and what are BMS specific tips and tricks, because it is a simulator and not the real jet.
What I am missing in the new docs, especially “-1”, is a clear distinction between what is part of BMS and what is part of the real world. For example, if a whole system is not implemented, it should not be described in the manual and if still makes its way to the docs, then this should be marked at the beginning of the chapter. Anything which is not BMS relevant, such as maintenance topics, or ejection seat envelope, should be either omitted or placed at the end in an appendix.
On the other hand, if BMS models a system in a specific way or interfaces with it through special menus or keys, this information should be included in the relevant chapters. Let me illustrate this by comparing some systems from the new and old -1.
JFS: in the old manual, the JFS section explained its operations within BMS together with the information on how to recharge it. In the new manual, there is no such paragraph. And yes I know that this information is in the training manual, but what do we need -1 then for?
Refuelling: In the old manual, the AAR and hotpit procedures were explained in the context of BMS, with the tanker and ATC menus, pitfalls and steps. The new manual has only information which is maybe relevant in real life but not in BMS (wake turbulence, weather minimums, wingman responsibilities)
These are just illustrative examples. -1 is full of superfluous information to a BMS player and at the same times lacks a lot of BMS related flavours, tips, warnings. -34 is much better in that sense. My point here is, what do we want the manuals to be? A carbon copy of the real manuals or an instruction on how to function within the world of Falcon BMS.
-
@Batman The docs have been restructured. Have you read dash 34? It has most of what you were used to seeing in old dash 1. I personally like that they have integrated the switchology from old dash 1 with the dash 34. This new way is much better.
-
@Batman The best “how to do things in BMS” manual is actually the Training Manual. That’s often my first stop and then maybe the -1 or -34 for more detail/background or if anything radio related the Comms-Nav manual.
-
@Batman I’m not sure where you’re going with that thread…
I’m also quite puzzled by the title you chose (as if you were having an influence on the team…)This doc is the result of a very long journey and will continue to evolve…
We even have plans for a community driven effort platform under BMS control.
Given the length of your presence in this community, maybe it is time you check with @Micro_440th where you can help.
Easy to say but very hard to do in the end…
-
Sorry for being late. We had our yearly BMS LAN event going last week.
Thank you for your input and interest in the docs. I appreciate that!
The conversion from the „old“ RD docs is more or less finished with 4.37U3 after 27 month of many 1000 hours of work. As you mentioned with some example’s , there’s potential for improvement. I agree with that 100%. We will improve with the given input and future versions. As Max already said, we have plans for the future of the docs and our training environment.
In general, I understand your opinion more in the direction of the need for improvement in the training portion of the BMS docs.Even if I don’t wanna talk to much about the past, I try to share my opinion (again) why we did things:
The old -1 and 34 had no clear guideline and were unstructured. Some chapters of the old -1 had bad examples with mixed content of an training manual , -1, -34 and even the Navbook all together in one chapter.
The dash -1 and -34 have the purpose to explain all systems and the F-16 itself. How you use those systems and flying techniques are NOT part of an technical manual. For that we have the training manual, the Navbook and of course: Learning from others.
In addition, we weren’t allowed to use or modify the old -1 because his original author restricted us.
In the end, we had no other chance then taking the approach we took.Please support us and write down your examples where you think the docs should improve in the U3 docs bugtracker. This way, we are able to monitor all issues and evolve to give you the best possible experience.
Overall, the majority of the BMS community seems to enjoy the „new“ docs format. But we are always open to any feedback and thoughts.
Cheers
Micro -
So, the discussion has stopped before it even started.
Maybe the members of the BMS team who support your opinion (named @mrkline @richionizor @RUSHER0600) are interested starting some constructive discussion as well.
Sidenote: everyone of those members had the chance to give feedback during the development process. Now it’s finished, no input was given and they complain. Okay, another story…I’m happy to change the format. If the broad audience shares your opinion, let’s do it.
Our intend is to write the way we did because we think that is best way for the user (like you).
Of course, we cannot please everybody.If you are interested and able to support, I‘m happy to onboard you to the docs world.
-
-
-
Sorry for piping in late, too many outlets to monitor.
While I don’t have anything to say about the -1 and -34 my biggest gripe would be the checklists. Since BMS has quite a steep learning curve, people will refer to those quite often for a quick check in the pit or as a refresher.
In order to do that, the information of the checklists should be concise and down to the point. So while having “real” items in there might be interesting for some, it contradicts the point of using that checklist.A few examples (/Blk40-52/KNEEBOARD_T.O. BMS1F-16CM-1CL-1.pdf):
- The whole “Preflight Check” section is not applicable to BMS - we will always start in the cockpit. More helpful would be sections for “Ramp Start” / “Taxi Start” / “Runway Start”
- Even in the section itself, many features are just not applicable to a videogame/simulation/…
** Cockpit Access
** Ejection Seats checks
** Checks for loose objects - In all sections any item referring to DF/DR cockpits - we don’t have any multiseat functionality (yet)
- References to Crew Chief / Ground Crew - we don’t have those (e.g. in N-15, N-19, )
- Hotpit Refueling: no reference to the Comm Menu at all, instead items like “Brake and tire inspection (ground crew)”, “Ensure hands are visible to ground crew”, …
- “Exterior Inspection”, “Servicing diagram”, … - again, a whole section with items which are not applicable to the game in its current state
What I would be happy to see were some brief checks for Weapons Employment - even if they would not be part of a “real” checklist.
As an example: AGM-88s. Items might include like “Before commiting in 2D, verify threat tables in DTC”, “Power ON”, …So my impression is: while the detail of the checklists is commendable, we should keep in mind that our audience (and we!) are playing a videogame where they will need quick answers within that frame of reference.
-
@richionizor I have virtual crew chief and exterior checks in BMS.
-
@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!