Air Combat Training School (ACTS)

to F/A 18F:

agree, ACTS is a steep learning curve and requires dedication like you see over at VNAO. That does not make it a bad thing, to learn how to do everything correctly or what is expected of you.

Some if it can be shortened by doing some training videos on certain subjects(picture worth 1000 words). However some is putting things to memory like what is a Tacan and how do you fly the approach. There is nothing wrong with VEAO ACTS in principal, just has to be fleshed out a little better.

Some of what is contained in either VEAO or VNAO operations is certainly worth while to learn by most pilots either SP or MP. ACTS or something similar is a requirement if you want to fly realistic missions etc. Not one thing wrong in teach pilots this information. Just requires a little dedication of the pilot that's all. I think most will find the info very interesting to tell the truth but yes some can be boring as hell like WX. Ugh.

Keep going Ells your on the right track.

Pete

Almost looks like a real military flight training syllabus. Do you fail the flight if you turn up a brief unprepared? ;)

Almost looks like a real military flight training syllabus. Do you fail the flight if you turn up a brief unprepared? ;)

:megalol: Nice one, but don't fail the test flight.:D

Just out of curiosity, what qualifications do you and your team have to "teach" the things you have listed in your syllabus?

Hey Grab, I have absoultely no qualifications to teach these things. When the concept for external contracts was drafted we were going to hire in professionals to teach, with qualifications. Real life pilots with combat experience.

Hence why I've posted up the "virtual" version and get your thoughts on it.

Now many suqadrons and aerobatic teams like the VBA and VRA cover a lot of these procedures and teachings within their squads and teams. Maybe that's a possible route. Maybe we get real life pilots to teach. It's really all open for discussion and development at the moment.

Hi Chris,

You might be interested in using a LMS (Learning Management System) to host online training modules and then create tests for the players to pass. This can be used to simulate the classroom training whilst the missions simulate the practical flight training.

There are free ones online like cloud.scorm.com.

For the questions they can be all multichoice and can include multimedia or flash etc. So it could be a case of watching a video which contains the question. Just ask your testers to create 5 or 10 multi choice questions each for each subject and you have an online qualifications course. Then players will need to register and sign up to it. The LMS tracks users so you can see who has passed what sections. When they've finished maybe give them a nice set of wings for their forum signature.

An LMS can also randomise the questions so that if you sit it twice it's not the same.

Anyway... that's my idea.

EDIT: I work for a company that makes software that manages chunks of content across multiple documents/formats including SCORM. So if you need help with this I'd be happy to put it together for you in my spare time.

Thanks Wichid, I'll take a look. I design and develop Flash based content and CMS' for my profession also.

np,pal. just curios old me. the first section down to wing and including I have taught for 25 years. You can make it all, time consuming or simplify, depending on how much you want to teach and explain. Yes I know ACTS is not a pay for part of the whole picture just helps the learning curve.lol.drop me a line if you get time. Cheers mate.

Pete

Will do Pete, just have a lot of things on the go at the moment but I'll be in touch.

Cheers guys,

Chris.

if you mean by this training that you integrate it into your DCS World Aircraft version i'm all for it. i would even pay gladly some more if it gets me such a school training just like the driving school in GTR 2.

+1

Ellis sir, you and the team are on the right track here. Count me in, and to be honest my entire Sqn could do with this, at the momwe are all self taught, and to say we lack certain skills is a understatement. Sure we can take off and blow stuff up, just don't ask us to format, air to Air refuel, navigate without the map, Or do ILS approaches because we don't have a clue.

But hey we like things that go bang.

The next few years waiting for Evrything to appear is going to be hell.

Cowboy10uk

Hi Ells:

Don't worry, we have the experience within the group for most of what you want done and I am sure the flying part will be no issue either. Remember Most of what you want done is done by Civilian ATC. As for flying well I think we can cover that to everyones satisfaction. Civilian ATC deals with Tacan approaches, ILS systems etc. as we deal with the Military every day. Cheers.

Pete

Thanks for the reply and honesty Ells. If I'm honest, the only way I would even consider doing formal training for a simulator would be if it were offered and/or created by real combat aviators with recent experience in the airframes in question.

Copy that Grab.

We are looking into this option. Thanks for your thoughts on it.

Copy that Grab.

We are looking into this option. Thanks for your thoughts on it.

I know just the man you need to talk to is Sabre, he has done a campaign for DCS A-10C which is a trainning sylabus:

His check rides are based on the real life check rides and the way in which his missions are run will have pilots expertly ramp starting and shut down after each mission.

Heres a link to his Flight Qualifications campaign for DCS A-10C

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=62992

Some info on the A-10C sylabus for comparison:

BFT01 - Ground Handling: http://files.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/38337/ Updated to V1.4

BFT02 - Takeoff and EFATO: http://files.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/38355/ Updated to V1.3

BFT03 - Fly Traffic Pattern: http://files.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/54269/ Updated to V1.2

BFT04 - Approach and Landing: http://files.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/38538/ Updated to V1.3

BFT05 - Basic Maneuvers: http://files.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/40645/ Updated to V1.2

BFT06 - Advanced Handling: http://files.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/59513/ Updated to V1.1

BFT07 - Aerobatics: http://files.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/84637/

BFT08 - Emergencies http://files.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/99438/

BFT09 - Instrument Approach and Landing - http://files.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/99558/ Updated to V1.1

BFT10 - Instrument Flight Plan Navigation - http://files.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/110078/

BFT11 - Fly 2 Ship as Wingman - http://files.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/110145/

BFT12 - Low Level Flight Plan - http://files.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/136516/

 

The Advanced Aircraft Training Qualification Campaign has started and the first mission is available:

 

Advanced Flight Training Stage

 

AFT01 - Air to Air Refueling Day - http://files.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/172944/

AFT02 - Air to Air Refueling Night - http://files.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/181223/

AFT03 - Countermeasures and Threat Avoidance - Under development

AFT04 - Target Area Ingress Preparation

AFT05 - Illumination Flare Employment

 

Air to Air Combat Stage:

 

AAT06 - Gun Employment

AAT07 - Missile Employment

 

Surface Attack Stage:

 

AAT08 - Gun Employment Day

AAT09 - Gun Employment Night

AAT10 - Unguided Bomb Employment Day

AAT11 - Unguided Bomb Employment Night

AAT12 - Laser Guided Bomb Employment

AAT13 - IAM and JDAM Bomb Employment

AAT14 - Rocket Employment

AAT15 - Missile Employment

 

Close Air Support Tactical Stage:

 

TAC16 - FAC / JTAC Coordination

TAC17 - Stationary and Moving Target Tasking

TAC18 - Danger Close Tasking

TAC19 - SEAD Tasking

 

Battlefield Air Interdiction Tactical Stage:

 

TAC20 - Deep Interdiction Tasking Day

TAC21 - Deep Interdiction Tasking Night

TAC22 - Deep Interdiction Tasking Special Forces Coordination

TAC23 - Rear Echelon Interdiction Day

TAC24 - Rear Echelon Interdiction Night

 

Airborne Forward Air Controller (AFAC) Tactical Stage:

 

TAC25 - CAS Mission Management Day

TAC26 - CAS Mission Management Night

TAC27 - BAI Mission Management Day

TAC28 - BAI Mission Management Night

TAC29 - SADL Datalink Engagement

 

Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) Tactical Stage:

 

TAC30 - CSAR Management Day

TAC31 - CSAR Management Night

 

Tactical Summary Stage:

 

TAC32 - Simulated Combat Mission

Sabres Basic Flight campaign is payware for DCS A-10C and is worth a good look.

Heres BeachAV8Rs report on SimHq

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3526471/Poll_Video_AARs_or_Traditional.html#Post3526471

For Basic manouvers it covers the turns, climbs etc and the Advanced manouvers covers all the stuff like Split S/Immerlman etc.:thumbup:

Thanks Subs,

I've flown most of Sabre's training missions and they are great.

We also have a lot of our own in the 74th VFS as do many other virtual squadrons.

I'm looking more at real world training and reference material like Fighter Combat Tactics and Maneuvering by Robert L Shaw, amongst others.

Absolutely keen for this, I would happily pay for the content as an app, or ebook for my tablet if there was any scope for it.

I would love to see something like this. But I assume it´s really hard to implement in a campaign for 100% realism.

I belong to those who want to see it hardcore real, and that does not include starting the mission in the air, for example in the begining when you should learn basic handling of the ACFT. The thing I see `hard-to-implement` is the instructor (AI); take-off or land by itself. As for now we don´t have that Player/AI -interaction where AI can fly one part (take-off, enroute to MOA and then switch to player control).

Therefore as I see it now, regarding the AI restrictions - a combined ACTS document package could be distributed to virtual squadrons (if MP-two seaters are implemented). This document package could include all the rules, criterias, execution etc etc.

But there is only the begining of the ACTS I see problems with. When the pilot can master the ACFT on it´s own further down the course, there should be no problems on this project to keep it as real as possible in an eventuall campaign.

Some thoughts blurted out...

Training sessions in videos with bookmarks to skip bits you know or think you know and keep the pace fast...nothing more annoying than sitting through loads of linear content without the ability to jump around. Not sure how to approach this other than time stamps or making each video really small and launched in sequence but some app will do it.

Multiple delivery mechanisms, ie video, reading/AV (static front loaded presentation) then related missions/interactive ie flash trainers, missions with dialogue.

I did like Microsoft FS's way of scoring like watching for the altitude, degree changes and times and scoring...ie you can repeat them for a better score...there are methods of already doing this in current DCS at least with some of those types of scoring, eg gates and triggers.

An element of RP/immersion. I don't mean getting dressed up, I mean just a delivery that makes you feel as if you really are going through this process IRL, perhaps even referring to the missions as simulator tests/check rides.

Personally if you wanted to leverage any digital copyright i'd be tempted to move it onto a server hosted outside DCS and create accounts and perhaps even issue mock qualifications and exams to the account thus not exactly protecting the media but controlling at least someones account and learning experience scores. Perhaps even issue the accounts with the planes you intend of modelling and releasing.

I did say random thoughts...apologies if im hard to follow.

Nope, not random thoughts. Every thought from everyone is always a good one in my book.

I did think of hosting it outside of DCS, however we can get logbook data from DCS into an external database. I was also thinking about some kind of TacView integration, but again just throwing wild thoughts out there.

I started to put a logbook concept with track upload and mentor notes review together last year for virtual squadron use.

The idea was that a pilot could upload a track for a mentor (IP) to review. That IP writes some notes on the log entry and the trainee could reply and re-submit another track etc.

This allows the trainee to log his/her flights and have an IP review them if unable to fly with the trainee.

I need to tidy the database up a little but will post a link to it soon.

You do have the ability in DCS I beleive for the AI to take control to a point, pause and then hand over to you.

However, I think basic flight skills should be in place before moving on to the next mission or campaign. Again I think we can track and control this in DCS.

ACTS is a great idea with only one issue time. Do people have 8-12 months to learn the material if presented as it should. The time from of 8-12 months of course depends on how much detail you want to teach. In RL it would take 8-12 months of continues study to cover the material listed in ACTS. ACTS is obviously going to take a great deal of thought, preparing the material for such a Course. This is like taking a VFR/IFR Special training course, with Combat flying also in the mix. This would require a great deal of dedication by members who wish to enter into such detail.

Nothing wrong with doing it, as it is a great idea if you want to immerse yourself into how RL is done. All good information for any pilot and that is basically what it is, a slightly condensed version of a Pilot Course. Absolutely perfect for fighter groups who want as close to RL as possible.

I Believe VNAO did something very close to ACTS. Seems to be working well for that group who wish flying with that much detail, nothing wrong with it.

Should not be to difficult to come up with copies of Air Regulations and Procedures Manuals. Good luck and hope ACTS works out. Will certainly immerse you to RL flying. That's not bad, we all should be aware of what flying is all about, not just jump in and go. WE should understand most of it even for Civil side. It will make flying more fun in long run.

Pete

Could tie the qualifications to the logbook, when a pilot completes his basic flight trainning he should get a qual in his log book. Same for advanced stuff and it should state aircraft type they are qualified for. You would want this logbook accessible in mp so other players can see your hours and score etc. eg server has a spare WSO for F-15E then he'll prefer a pilot with F-15E quals.:thumbup:

The pseudo-pilots course suggested is the best bet, and would offer a good framework to develop the basic skills necessary to have fun flying these airframes and complete missions. I like the logbook idea suggested above too (not sure how feasible it is, but cool anyway).

As for having a realistic course, its just not possible. If anyone here has the time to work twelve hours per day six days per week for the next year, you'd complete up to only basic wings standard on a realistic course, and you haven't even flown something operational yet... The scope is huge, as is the preparation time required to pull off a successful sortie, and the effort you'd need to put into the supporting documents for training would be pretty immense too. After all, why would you have an accurate syllabus for the sake of authenticity if you're not capable of flying it as intended? Everyone's a fan of realism, but unless you're a military pilot its fair to say that the skills and level of professionalism you are able to achieve and exercise in a sim are pretty rudimentary. I don't think their syllabus will be the limiting factor in regard to "realism".

The great thing is that being a "study" sim you can get away with huge depth and time requirement because in some way it is implied. And I don't think there is any loss.

Let's take average gamer Pikey. He bought A:10 with some years of sim work and no formal flying experience to speak of. He launches the game. Checked manual: No \o/. Tried tutorial: No \o/. Right into mission editor, made a blank mission. Entered cockpit...joystick had mapped (enough). Took off, dived around, landed and ran off the end of the runway into a wall but lived. For months afterwards he took a topic at a time and practiced. Years later he's still flying but did he read the complete manual? Narp.

So what i'm trying to put over is that the content is in the teaching and learning and that is very long lasting, and training and development is the most important crutch to that type of sim, not just campaigns and mission completion.

So it worth while to get into this (in my opinion anyway) formally and the topic greatly interests me.

...the only way I would even consider doing formal training for a simulator would be if it were offered and/or created by real combat aviators with recent experience in the airframes in question.

I almost agree with you there. I'm only a civil aviator IRL, yet it's often that glaring errors can be seen in much of the 'training' material made available by third parties.

...

I haven't purchased any of these training missions but your video here (although a nice vid) highlights the limitations of automated training with 'AI' instructors.

I don't want to sound like I am bashing Sabre's training missions (because the errors that I can see might be products of the limits of the software or mission scripts) but take for example 09:56. The AI lead initiates a turn into wingman which at this point is meant to be flying fingertip formation. Lead initiates the turn by making a snap roll to 45 degrees AOB... what a massive no-no! For the rest of the video you're not really in fingertip position either, a real instructor would be able to see that and give you helpful tips/instruction to improve your flying. The AI instructor, however, is blissfully unaware!

In my opinion, automated training is only good for aircraft basic/navigation/weapons systems training. Flight techniques such as basic form, pattern flying, VFR/IFR nav, BFM and ACM (to name only a few) are things that need to be taught by an instructor who knows their stuff - and not before the student dedicates time to reading provided theory. Deficiency in knowledge results directly in an impaired ability to execute all these training goals.

This isn't to say that the syllabus outlined in the first post is then unachievable to the average flightsim enthusiast, quite the opposite infact. The level of detail required to become competent in a simulator environment is not necessarily the level that real-world military aviators train at. A good measure of common sense needs to be applied in the home simulator environment.

An example of this that comes to mind is air law - a relatively complex and theory intensive section of becoming a pilot (Civvy or Military). To be quite honest it can barely be replicated in the DCS world as there is not yet the ability to implement proper ATC and the whole concept of airspace awareness that comes with it.

In summary, I'm saying that something like the proposed ACTS is perfectly achievable with accurate course material along with knowledgable, literate and able instructors.

Seems a bit weird to put all this effort into a course that isn't actually real and theres no qualification at the end of it?

If of course if goes into that much detail.

Not weird at all IMO. I think it's a great idea!

If nothing else it can aspire to be a standard for online squads to use as a yardstick for their own training syllabus.

Another use would be as an entry qualification to access certain servers that may wish to limit access to pilots with a minimum standard of online flying ... etc.

Another use would be as an entry qualification to access certain servers that may wish to limit access to pilots with a minimum standard of online flying

Seriously?

Ok I'm all for realism and I respect people who take the time to learn the sim as much as they can, but if it used to exclude players who are profecient yet do not have the time to nerdgasm over virtual qualifications then I can only see it dividing the community over where they can and cannot fly.

Seriously?

 

Ok I'm all for realism and I respect people who take the time to learn the sim as much as they can, but if it used to exclude players who are profecient yet do not have the time to nerdgasm over virtual qualifications then I can only see it dividing the community over where they can and cannot fly.

Why not? If it's a private server and the operator wants to impose that limitation.

Especially if the training package becomes a popular standard, it could quite conceivably be used as an entry ticket.

I'm sure there'll be plenty of servers that will cater to people who don't or won't do the quals. It's all just a part of the Yin and Yang of virtual flying IMO :D.

The EDIT: What does a 'divided community' really mean in this context? The reality is that on almost every single combat flight simming topic we have those for and against (and in every other which way). I don't see that as divisive, I see it as an opportunity to allow discussion to fuel development. We all have ideas and the good ones will eventually live through to see the light of day. It's how ED have survived to this point (as a flight sim producing company) and how BMS evolved too I guess ... and then there's the people who make a living (or at least some income) from addons to X-Plane and FSX. The ideas that strike a chord in the market (free or otherwise) will survive (I'm optimistic that way!).