Jump to content

Air Combat Training School (ACTS)


Recommended Posts

True.

 

Given the fact that most servers are closed off and the average player has to jump through hoops in order to play (Get on TS, join the channel, find the password, listen to strangers and try to introduce himself and then get judged on how well he flys) I just worry that we could end up being a community of simmers who look down on newcomers or those that don't take it as seriously as some here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 213
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

True.

 

Given the fact that most servers are closed off and the average player has to jump through hoops in order to play (Get on TS, join the channel, find the password, listen to strangers and try to introduce himself and then get judged on how well he flys) I just worry that we could end up being a community of simmers who look down on newcomers or those that don't take it as seriously as some here.

 

It has the potential to eliminate the 'multiple hoops' replacing it with one.

A good training syllabus for virtual flying should take care of the basics for flyin the flight sim of choice, and should ultimately be fun ... now defining *fun* could open up another can of worm lol!

"A true 'sandbox flight sim' requires hi-fidelity flyable non-combat utility/support aircraft."

Wishlist Terrains - Bigger maps

Wishlist Modules - A variety of utility aircraft to better reflect the support role. E.g. Flying the Hornet ... big yawn ... flying a Caribou on a beer run to Singapore? Count me in. Extracting a Recon Patrol from a hastily prepared landing strip at a random 6 figure grid reference? Now yer talking!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get confused. There is really for simplicity sake at least 3 seperate parts to ACTS. The first part has an immense amount of information to STUDY before even looking at getting into an aircraft, so has the second. This will take a person with real dedication to see this through. I think we have to remember that this is for people who fly in SQN. and not the average person who just likes to fly. There should be servers for this kind of pilot so he or she can enjoy their part of flying. Plus servers for more dedicated pilots who take the time to learn everything that will be required of them.(ACTS). A good idea would be to talk to someone at VNAO who has already gone through their detailed training Course. This should give you a reasonable amount of information as to what you would like to do. AS I said there is nothing wrong with ACTS but it is for a very dedicated pilot who wants to learn the right way of Basic flying as well as Military. ACTS is a serious investment in time as I have said. who am I to say this. Well my position when I was working was Supervisor of ATC Training and Simulation for 25 years so I know of what I speak. I am not putting down ACTS, I think it is a wonderful idea for those who wish to learn and understand this type of flying experience. I would just like to say there should also be servers for people who just want to fight and have fun.

 

rattler

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't get confused. There is really for simplicity sake at least 3 seperate parts to ACTS. The first part has an immense amount of information to STUDY before even looking at getting into an aircraft, so has the second. This will take a person with real dedication to see this through. <snip> I am not putting down ACTS, I think it is a wonderful idea for those who wish to learn and understand this type of flying experience. I would just like to say there should also be servers for people who just want to fight and have fun.

 

rattler

 

This is simulation world. Even with hi-fidelity DCS:World, it would not have to go the depth of real world to be useful. Meteorology for example. What's the use of that in simulation when we'd never ground ourselves because it's too cold and the wings are icing up?

It is possible to tailor an experience to suit a wider in sim audience. Otherwise you're right, it will have a reduced market.


Edited by Teapot
Clarification

"A true 'sandbox flight sim' requires hi-fidelity flyable non-combat utility/support aircraft."

Wishlist Terrains - Bigger maps

Wishlist Modules - A variety of utility aircraft to better reflect the support role. E.g. Flying the Hornet ... big yawn ... flying a Caribou on a beer run to Singapore? Count me in. Extracting a Recon Patrol from a hastily prepared landing strip at a random 6 figure grid reference? Now yer talking!

Link to post
Share on other sites
What's the use of that in simulation when we'd never ground ourselves because it's too cold and the wings are icing up?

 

Well...I sometimes ground myself. Before each flight I read the current METAR of the intended flight area. And yes sometimes the weather is too bad. I know I´m probably one of the few super reality nerds, but we exist :smilewink:

[sIGPIC]sigpic70266_4.gif[/sIGPIC]

Snooze-81st-vFS

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

That video is the first version of that mission, the AI instructor lets you know if you are too close or too far away. As for the stuff mentioned I'm sure if it is mentioned to Sabre he could adjust it. Probably the best approach is a mission like Sabres BFT campaign and as the mission is past the pilot gets a tick in the box next to the mission. After a trainning package is completed the pilot then does a check ride after which he moves onto the next phase of trainning. For people who get stuck you can have a track showing them how to complete it or video on you tube. You can also use a 2 seater in mp to teach that aspect. From a MP IP perspective I focus on the basics A/A, A/G and NAV. I make things really simple to get the new pilot assessed and trained and shipped out to a new Squadron as soon as possible. Once at the Squadron the pilot gets further trainning Basic and advanced stuff normally carried out in a campaign with Falcon. eg LGBs, SEAD etc. Trainning new pilots can be time consuming but for MP does not need to be to detailed in order for them to do the job. For a trainning campaign like BFT it is very good to bring a pilots level of ability up to a higher level and its good to learn real world procedures like traffic pattern entry etc.:pilotfly:

[sIGPIC]2011subsRADM.jpg

[/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of Sabres BFT campaign is a real good reward for pilots having completed the low level formation phase(which is the end of BFT). So an ending like that is good, if I get a spare 5minutes I'll see if I can post a video of it.

[sIGPIC]2011subsRADM.jpg

[/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Law of Primacy

 

Chris,

 

Your effort in devising ACTS is very commendable. One of the many irritations of those who frequent these forums and consider themselves “hard core” are noobs that have no clue how to do things that show up on servers and wreak havoc on the plans and tactics of others. Training those who wish to learn more about flying in a combat environment will better integrate more people into servers and, arguably more importantly, give virtual squadrons (VSqns) a pool of pilots who are trained at a standardized level, making them more valuable and ready to learn more advanced concepts from VSqn instructor pilots (IPs).

 

Training pilots at a level where they know normal and emergency procedures, basic pattern operations in VFR and IFR conditions, navigation with respect to visual references and instruments, aerobatics, and basic formation would be welcome. However, more advanced training, such as basic BFM (offensive/defensive), basic ground attack (strafing/bombing), and element support (how to be a good wingman), would be problematic from individuals who have very little real experience in these subjects.

 

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not putting you down nor am I making a negative judgement about your experience as a virtual combat pilot. No doubt what you’d teach your students will come in quite handy in a virtual environment and allow your students to operate reasonably well in a basic or intermediate combat scenario.

 

However, as a real-life ™ F-15 IP, who’s last assignment was as a Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training T-38 IP, I would say that some of what you teach would be counterproductive due to the innate lack of real understanding of what you’re teaching. As others have said, there’s no substitute for an IP in the back seat or in the other aircraft off your wing critiquing your performance, identifying mistakes in technique, procedure, or understanding of the maneuvers or tactical outcomes you must meet to really master the fundamentals of air combat.

 

In the instructor world, there’s something called the “Laws of Learning”. These laws are quite important for both the student and the instructor. Any deficiency in any of these 5 laws could retard the learning process at best or completely discourage your student from grasping what you’re trying to teach and possibly giving up on the whole formal training idea.

 

Bear with me, this has a point…. :hmm:

 

The Law of Effect is basically how your student perceives the learning process with you. If he/she has a good feeling from you, is pleased with your instruction style, and is satisfied by your instruction, then what your student will learn and retain is enhanced by the learning process. If the experience of instruction you provide is frustrating, the process makes him/her angry, or the process feels futile or confusing, then this unpleasant experience will retard learning. Even when the student is doing poorly, give him something to grasp that will encourage him to correct mistakes.

 

The Law of Exercise says that repeating skills will be best learned. Every sortie includes a takeoff, climbout, level off, fence checks, clearing turns, g-awareness, etc. These things will become second nature and the student will be able to fly the aircraft while employing more cranium processing units for other tasks like area planning or tactical decision-making. Practice and drilling, or doing the boring things has a real point. More importantly, when practicing, it’s a good idea to have an IP initially be there to immediately – either during the maneuver, or in the debrief – correct errors so the student isn’t practicing maneuvers incorrectly and learning the incorrect way during these exercises.

 

The Law of Intensity shows us that the more vivid and exciting the instruction or scenario at hand, the more the learning objectives will be burned into his/her head. For example, you allow your student to press an untenable tactical situation to better illustrate the learning objective of understanding Factor Bandit Range.

 

The Law of Readiness says that your student will learn best if she shows up prepared, ready to learn, and excited about the prospect. Then what you teach her will be more readily internalized and understood. If she shows up unprepared, unable to grasp the basic fundamentals required to understand the learning objectives of the instructional sortie or lecture, tired, drunk (LOL), then learning ain’t gonna happen!

 

The Law of Primacy says that the first concepts taught about a subject are the ones that stick with a student. So if you’re wrong the first time you teach a student how to fly an overhead pattern, then the student will probably do it wrong even after he’s taught the right way later, when under stress. A student will have a difficult time unlearning the wrong thing, and the instructor will have a difficult time “unteaching” the incorrect instruction of another IP. It’s better if students are taught correctly the first time.

 

My point is within the last Law of Learning. I would prefer not to have to make a student unlearn the wrong way and reteach them something right after that. It’s painful for both the student and the instructor. The process hinders the student because it decreases their readiness to learn and the Law of Effect tells us that the student will have a hard time learning because they might be discouraged or angry that they weren’t taught correctly the first time.

 

In military aviation, the continuum of training is very important. The skills learned in SUPT are the building blocks of Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals (IFF), which then build upon the basic course for the weapon system you’re trying to master (for example the F-15 B-Course trains you to be a “First Pilot” (FP) in the F-15, not a “Mission Pilot” capable of performing the squadron/wing’s mission). This in-turn provides the fundamentals for you to become a mission ready pilot capable of utilizing your aircraft effectively and efficiently in a combat environment.

 

If things are screwy in SUPT, then the student makes a plethora of mistakes in IFF, which, if not corrected there, turn into major debilitating mistakes during the B-course, or mission ready training later. In the Real Life ™ USAF, we wash these students out before they can propagate mistakes throughout their career. In the VSqns, we can’t do that. We’ve got to “unteach” the wrong things and reteach them the right way to do things.

 

In any formal course of training, a syllabus is very helpful. For example, the syllabus of any flight training course shows the number of times a maneuver should be demonstrated, the learning objectives, the maneuver item file (MIF) (the MIF is a list of items that must be graded and the grade required to advance to the next block of training), and the desired mastery for a maneuver (for example holding altitude within 100 ft of assigned altitude, or able to hold the fighting wing cone within appropriate parameters). That way, there’s no confusion in the student or IPs mind as to what would be passing parameters. This would also make instruction and checkrides standardized and allow all students to fly in a similar fashion (which is the goal of any military flying force), and instills fairness in grading criterion.

 

Another thing that would be very helpful are videos or tracks showing appropriate maneuvers demonstrated by those IPs who are proficient at each maneuver. These videos should show the appropriate maneuver, the steps used to achieve entry and exit parameters, as well as common mistakes and how to prevent them.

 

You must have a cadre of well-trained IPs who teach in a standardized manner. In the USAF, we have a Pilot Instructor Training course that produces SUPT IPs who are standardized in their training. Standardized instruction provided by these IPs produce students who perform the maneuver appropriately no matter who/which IP is providing the training. This allows students to learn the appropriate way to do a maneuver and all IPs teach the maneuver as procedure, grading on the procedure. IPs then provide multiple techniques to accomplish the maneuver in the appropriate manner, remembering to grade procedure and outcome and not technique.

 

If you have very few IPs or IPs who train in the “well, this is how I do it” method, regardless of how it’s appropriately done, then students and instructors will become severely overworked by the number of students and frustrated. Students will likewise become frustrated when they are taught to a different standard and outcome by each IP that they train with, regardless of the “right way” to perform a maneuver.

 

Finally, there should be an evaluation method used within any formal course of training whereby each student is evaluated before continuing on to the next block of training. This way mistakes can be identified and proper corrective training provided to allow the student to be successful in the current and future blocks of training.

 

Before you get ACTS off the ground, perhaps you should start a PIT program enlisting volunteers to become your initial cadre of highly trained and skilled IPs. These IPs will then train other pilots to their standard in a SUPT environment. The IPs will then train to teach IFF, while some select few SUPT graduates are asked to become SUPT IPs that train the next classes of SUPT, and so forth. This will ensure an ever-expanding group of standardized and highly trained instructors who are capable of training future students.

 

But perhaps, this isn’t your goal, to provide an educational environment similar to military aviation training. I know it can be a rigorous process, but in my experience in a VSqn, it can be a welcome process, regardless of the structure. The structure provides the student with a great sense of accomplishment when that syllabus of training is completed to a rigorous standard that the student can meet. It also provides the IP with a great sense of accomplishment to see his students go on to future training endeavors and succeed because of the fundamentals the IP taught. Perhaps a more structured, but still casual learning atmosphere is what you’re looking to develop. That’s fine too, but please utilize any resources you can find so that the Law of Primacy isn’t violated, and you teach the right thing the first time.


Edited by Rhen
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rhen, what a great post.

 

Having a set standard for instructors and what/how they teach is certainly of paramount importance. In my experience of training 'virtual pilots' I certainly noticed a greater sucess rate of students after my organisation got its act together and standardized our IP rating.

 

On a different note:

 

the AI instructor lets you know if you are too close or too far away.

 

Read my first post again. The AI instructor has no real capability of showing you the correct formation. As a result, students who complete this automated training gain zero benefit as there is no instruction to improve student technique. Put simply, there are many things (as already stated) that automated training simply cannot achieve. You probably don't realise this as you have not had someone with knowledge of the correct procedures/techniques to help you to understand how to fly better.

 

Again I'm not saying that Sabre doesn't know what he's doing, although I haven't tried the missions (yet) I'm betting it is more a limitation of the software than anything else.

 

As I said before, systems training and the startup/shutdown stuff can be comfortably achieved via this 'automated' method, but there are some things that cannot be done unless you have a sound understanding of the theory and good instruction.

 

But don't take it from me, take the time to read @Rhen's post, if you haven't already. Can't argue with that! :smilewink:

F/A-18C | F-14B | A-10C | UH-1H | Mi-8MTV2 | Ka-50 | SA342 | Super Carrier | Nevada | Persian Gulf | Syria |

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

i7 4770 (3.9GHz) - 32GB DDR3(1600MHz) - GeForece GTX 1050TI - 1TB 860 EVO SSD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,

I'm reading all of your posts with great interest and will reply with some thoughts later as I'm on the road on iPhone at the moment.

 

I am also a formation instructor (FI) in the 74th VFS and we also had a rigerous training regime to undergoe before becoming a flight officer (FO).

I was also a pilot in the Virtual Red Arrows.

However this does not qualify me to officially teach others.

 

My aim with ACTS is to enlist help of real world life experience pilots simulating a training programme like the RAF fast jet.

 

I'm very interested in all of your comments on how we coul make this work in DCS.

 

Also I don't want to go down the route of an AI instructor. I want real life someone in the back seat watching and evaluating.

 

Keep the thoughts and discussion coming, it's all great.

 

Cheers,

Chris.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris,

 

Your effort in devising ACTS is very commendable. One of the many irritations of those who frequent these forums and consider themselves “hard core” are noobs that have no clue how to do things that show up on servers and wreak havoc on the plans and tactics of others. Training those who wish to learn more about flying in a combat environment will better integrate more people into servers and, arguably more importantly, give virtual squadrons (VSqns) a pool of pilots who are trained at a standardized level, making them more valuable and ready to learn more advanced concepts from VSqn instructor pilots (IPs).

... please utilize any resources you can find so that the Law of Primacy isn’t violated, and you teach the right thing the first time.

 

Thanks Rhen, rep inbound. This post hits me for a six (that's a good thing btw .. cricketing terminology :D). This is what *I* am looking for ... DCS has so much potential, and it's just going to deliver.

"A true 'sandbox flight sim' requires hi-fidelity flyable non-combat utility/support aircraft."

Wishlist Terrains - Bigger maps

Wishlist Modules - A variety of utility aircraft to better reflect the support role. E.g. Flying the Hornet ... big yawn ... flying a Caribou on a beer run to Singapore? Count me in. Extracting a Recon Patrol from a hastily prepared landing strip at a random 6 figure grid reference? Now yer talking!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Teapot there Rhen, a very informative post. Many thanks for that.

 

Just a little on my real life background.

I am a professional senior health and safety manager and past life senior project manager.

I have been devising training programmes and delivering them for over 20 years now.

Mostly to do with behavioural and psychogy elements and Rhen's post hits the nail on the head in terms of training techniques and learning retention.

 

I have also devised structured training programmes for VFS' for the past 10 years also so have a good grasp on structures.

 

However what I do lack experience with is real world combat procedures and training programmes but am currently talking to people who know (Rhen expect a PM soon hehe) to be able to put ACTS together.

 

The other thing to consider is that the USAF and RAF programmes are quite different in their approach from what I've read doing research. At the end of the day a combat pilot is a combat pilot but the method of getting there is different. Add into that mix other countries Air Force, Navy and Army Air Forces and you has a multitude of different techniques.

 

What my aim with ACTS is to look at these methods and see how they can be written into a single digital training programme taking on board timescales to learn, self learning, taught learning, evaluation and examination.

 

Also we need to consider real world versus simulator. Someone mentioned meteorology not necessarily needed but I disagree. Having missions where the weather is just peachy isn't real life to me. Weather and flying in it not seeing out of the cockpit is a fundamental leaning process in my opinion.

This then opens up the mission builder to add to the realism instead of always having sunshine and blue skies.

 

I also think we need to consider a "fast track" programme that maybe a VFS could use as part of their existing training programme. And then the full programme having different qualification "badges" that are recognised across the community.

 

ACTS is for the community and my aim is to have a singular training programme recognised by the community.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post Rhen, I have experienced both good and bad flying instructors in real life and what a diffrence and confidence inspiring feeling that a good IP can give you.

A bad instructor can ruin all the good work of previous flights in a matter of moments, esp when you are sub 10 hours and you find out you know more about the aircraft you are flying than the instructor, I never would fly with that particular instructor again even tho he was a personal friend away from aviation.

Sons of Dogs, Come Eat Flesh

Clan Cameron

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been there so many times in my past when being taught.

 

A good pupil is only as "good" as the instructor allows him to be.

Delivery and knowledge of the subject material is paramount to the learning process.

 

One thing you will never get from me is death by PowerPoint. We have so many tools at our disposal in this day and age to be far more interactive.

 

Take a slide with 20 pieces of information on it. Well most people's brain can only process and retain 3 to 4 pieces of information, so what happens to the other 16 pieces, right out the other ear ;)

 

Also take into account the four most personality types; visual, audio, kinaesthetic and digital.

I'm a very visual and kinaesthetic person, follow by example. Give me a text book with numbers or formulas in it (digital) and i fall asleep very quickly an my knowledge retention drops massively.

 

Any course content when going out to a wide audience must consider these personality types in its delivery method.


Edited by Ells228
Link to post
Share on other sites

:thumbup:Ells:

 

ACTS is a very good idea and by the sounds of your input here, you have a good grasp of what Modern Adult Education is all about. Mainly no real textbooks. Don't get me wrong there is some thing that have to be in a book to learn but most of what you want to accomplish can and should be done using Modern Methods of Teaching. It makes it so much easier for the Trainee to grasp and thus saving time, going over material. looking forward to seeing ACTS come alive. This is something ALL pilots can use not just Military. Yes there would be a point where a Civil pilot would not have to continue but what you teach before that would be most helpful for a Civil Pilot to know and would greatly enhance his flying pleasure. Good Work. Looking forward to ACTS. Cheers pal, maybe we could have a talk sometime.:thumbup:

 

Pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Read my first post again. The AI instructor has no real capability of showing you the correct formation. As a result, students who complete this automated training gain zero benefit as there is no instruction to improve student technique. Put simply, there are many things (as already stated) that automated training simply cannot achieve. You probably don't realise this as you have not had someone with knowledge of the correct procedures/techniques to help you to understand how to fly better.

 

Again I'm not saying that Sabre doesn't know what he's doing, although I haven't tried the missions (yet) I'm betting it is more a limitation of the software than anything else.

 

As I said before, systems training and the startup/shutdown stuff can be comfortably achieved via this 'automated' method, but there are some things that cannot be done unless you have a sound understanding of the theory and good instruction.

 

But don't take it from me, take the time to read @Rhen's post, if you haven't already. Can't argue with that! :smilewink:

 

Dude you have no idea as to who I've flown with and what I've done. :lol:

BTW have you actually flown that mission? The point of the video is to show the instruction techniques and capability of the mission editor which is quite good. The formation guidance from the AI gives you a box and in flying within that box(invisible) you are tested to stay in formation. I am quite aware of the unrealistic aspect of the way the IP flys at certain times but such things can be fixed.(or added) The mission however is very good and such a mission can be done in mp as well using triggers and giving the pilot a rating at the end of it. Currently I'm using FSX and vLSO which is another mod that gives a pilot a rating based on RL approaches which at the end gives you a debrief on how well you've flown the approach.(including using Superhornets) BFT campaign has a similar debrief but does not show a graph it only gives you a rating eg. Q, -Q, FAIL etc.(and you forgot -procedure/button etc)

Which is good enough since it is a check ride not a tutorial, in other words the player is being tested. There are other missions which include RL procedure for traffic pattern, emergency landing etc. Sabres making combat missions next as you can see in my original post and the AI can be used to train all aspects realistically because of the ME but the person making the mission needs to be quite good. I'd just like to point out that the BFT campaign is based on RL A-10C check rides and it is very good. You have to know your stuff to pass which is the whole point.

[sIGPIC]2011subsRADM.jpg

[/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this initiative is an excellent idea. No matter how good we can make the AI nothing beats having an experienced pilot flying beside you who can provide real time coaching (plus better dialogue) ;)

 

I think many people have been doing this for years with the virtual squadrons in mp but I see this as taking it up a notch further on the realism scale which is really good. Trying to establish a standard that would be recognized universally will be a challenge but not unrealistic.

 

I would like to see the existing virtual squadrons pool their current training and define a set of best practices / requirements and from that a standard could emerge.

 

Who is your target audience? That would determine where you spend your trainer time. You could teach cadets what button does what or spend time with more experienced flyers on advanced combat maneuvers or both.

 

Additionally you could have a bunch of CBTs to start with that gets users through the basics before tackling the more challenging stuff.

 

I recommend polling the users and find out what areas are most requested and developing training targeted at those areas. You can still do them in a modular form and in the end you will end up with a start to finish training syllabus.

 

I think you would have to weigh the training to the time that users would be able to participate too. I wish I could fly this sim 24x7 but my time is limited so my training time would also be limited.

 

In the end you only get out what you put into it.

 

Who hasn't been smoked by some ace when they first start playing mp but after learning you can become the ace too! :)

 

Count me in as a supporter for your initiative. :thumbup:

865721190_CopyofMyLatestUserBar.jpg.7de4015a3eb32fcdad37644b87fcd7ab.jpg

MapleFlagMissions - Read Our Blog for Updates

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dude you have no idea as to who I've flown with and what I've done. :lol:

Really? Doesn't matter who you've flown with or what you've done. If you had actually flown with someone who was a good instructor or if you had actually done the work and understood what you were doing, then that might mean something. To be honest you don't look like you know much about this subject as you're trying to push this automated instructing that has little benefit for much of the syllabus outlined in the first post by Ells.

 

The point of the video is to show the instruction techniques and capability of the mission editor which is quite good. The formation guidance from the AI gives you a box and in flying within that box(invisible) you are tested to stay in formation.

 

Again, not trying to bash Sabre - A lot of his missions look really good and worthwhile, and he clearly understands what I'm on about judging by his last post. But again, you don't get it Subs. This is not teaching you good formation flying discipline. That is the point i'm trying to make but it doesn't look like you get it. There is NO instruction technique in your video, don't you see that? Although the AI instructor tells you to aim for the correct visual references there is nothing further in terms of instruction. The result is you being out of position for the whole flight.

 

Even the most basic formation is not about just 'staying in an invisible box' and until you understand that, you wouldn't pass Basic Form #101 of any respectable course. There is a technique to holding station in either fingertip/route/trail/etc (something that you do not demonstrate in your video) and turns in these different formation positions requires a basic understanding of the theory of formation. The most important tenet of formation flying are the responsibilities of the wingman; (keeping sight, flightpath deconfliction, maintain SA, monitor lead, etc), you can't teach that using an AI instructor while he's talking at you as you try to fly formation off him/her.

 

Currently I'm using FSX and vLSO which is another mod that gives a pilot a rating based on RL approaches which at the end gives you a debrief on how well you've flown the approach.

 

Dude, seriously? vLSO has got nothing to do with what we are talking about here. I use vLSO all the time, awesome software. But it isn't actively teaching you something, it is grading your passes. You can learn certain things from it, but it is not instructional. :doh:

 

the AI can be used to train all aspects realistically because of the ME

Hah! If you actually believe that, then I have bad news for you mate.

 

...and such a mission can be done in mp as well using triggers and giving the pilot a rating at the end of it

I disagree, you need real instructors with a real ability to teach to get a rating that I would recognise and I'm pretty sure that goes for most other people who either run a vSquadron.

 

Anyway, at the risk of getting this too much further off topic I will not make any more posts rebutting your stubborn position Subs. 99% of the other posters in this thread are of the same position that actual instructing is what is required to train people on the outlined syllabus. So if you continue to think that your missions will make you an all round better pilot, have fun with that.

 

I think Ells has a great initiative here and I sincerely hope that one day there is a pool of competent instructors with a solid course syllabus and content be it theory, videos, powerpoints or whatever.

 

The only thing that remains is to have enthusiastic people who actually want to learn more about this hobby and virtual military aviation. It won't work if people only want to spend 30 minutes doing a mission to become 'qualified' and not read a single scrap of theory. Even then, it takes a fair amount of flight time to become even basically proficient in many aspects of military flying.

 

cheers


Edited by |DUSTY|

F/A-18C | F-14B | A-10C | UH-1H | Mi-8MTV2 | Ka-50 | SA342 | Super Carrier | Nevada | Persian Gulf | Syria |

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

i7 4770 (3.9GHz) - 32GB DDR3(1600MHz) - GeForece GTX 1050TI - 1TB 860 EVO SSD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,

All comments are welcome whether it be AI or real life and I respect everyone's opinion as I know you do too.

 

Sabre and others, you are quite right.

ACTS needs to be a mixture of levels of real life instruction.

My flight time and learning time is also limited and as a trainee I'd get bored of doing a course for 12 months because I can only fly for an hour a week. Hence why Rattler was asking what the learning times for each module are.

 

We need to keep this simplistic yet real.

 

As an example we can go through all the formulas for intercepts on lead and lag pursuit, or we can go through it simply by using the TAD, instruments and HUD symbology for the maths inept of us. Whether we have a "hardcore" mode or a "simple" mode or both is a fundamental question I guess. What are your thoughts on this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I recall from FighterOps they were planning on making a T6 Texan II and a T38C. Both of these aircraft were to be multiplayer 2 seaters and were to train virtual pilots upto a certain level as a requirement for the sim. XSi were going to do an indepth trainning sylabus that used a combination of trainning methods which included 2 seat mp. At the end of the pilot trainning for the USAF campaign the pilot(Basic and Advanced UPT) the pilot would then move onto IFF and weapons etc. The end result is a well trainned pilot who would get a qualification in their logbook and you could even go so far as having that on your sig.

I train Virtual pilots for Airwolves and I've been doing it for a few years now although lately I have been quite buisy. From my experinces the new pilot will want to jump into the combat jet straight away or as soon as possible so you can use a combination of techniques to bring them upto that level. Single player missions for basic stuff, MP missions for check rides which was in the video I posted as an example. We also have War college both basic and advanced for pilots in Airwolves which is the other stuff involved for a pilot in a Virtual Squadron.

[sIGPIC]2011subsRADM.jpg

[/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

For a pilot to be usable on a sim like Falcon 4 they have to be able to taxi, take off, fly to the tgt and drop a bomb accurately, rtb and land. The also have to be able to engage in A/A both BVR and WVR. If you over load them with too much trainning or make it to difficult they will lose interest but with the right balance you can get them trainned up fairly quickly and ready for a mission or war. So the basics are CCIP delivery, BVR Aim 120s and being able to navigate to the tgt and drop a bomb on the right tgt. When they can do that they go into a Squadron and get further trainning LGBs, DTOS, WVR, ACM, CCRP, SEAD, Inflight refuelling, ramp starting etc.

 

This mission here teaches you to ramp start, taxi and shut down.

Screen_110902_232657.jpg

 

Leave the basics to the missions.

 

CCIP.jpg

 

Teaching CCIP can take longer than CCRP but the good thing is they are learning to accurately place the thingy on the thingy and nail tgts. Working from large buildings down to small sheds is the way to go.

 

 

 

Then you provide reference material if they wonder why they are having difficulty hitting that tgt. You need that particularly for AFM flight models as not pickling the tgt and releasing the right way can result in a hung store or a miss.

 

Noob10.jpg

 

Having a manual is good but alot of simmers won't read the manual at first even if the good IP gives them homework in which case images on a forum can help.

[sIGPIC]2011subsRADM.jpg

[/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some info about FighterOps UPT:

 

74461190.jpg

 

KDLFscene22.jpg

 

Fighter Ops is the definitive “Next Generation in Flight Sim Technology” modern day military flight simulation catered explicitly to the requirements of the flight sim community. The project is being developed by Xtreme Simulations International LLC for the PC. Fighter Ops will combine an extremely high level of performance, realism, detail and graphics never before seen at this level in a military flight sim.

 

The Fighter Ops project is a continuous development that will be released in several modules. The first module will focus primarily on Pilot training, with an exceptionally realistic recreation of the USAF UPT and IFF pilot training curriculums. The main objective of the modular design of Fighter Ops is creating a platform on which new content can be frequently added by XSI and the community. Our ultimate goal is to present the user with a comfortable and consistent experience throughout all releases. In the end the platform design, although very challenging, will certainly give us a great deal of freedom and allow for a great deal of diversity as to what can be fabricated and how the sim can be extended for longevity.

 

This first module is based at Laughlin Air Force Base in Texas. It is basically designed to function in two modes, free-flight and Pilot Career mode; and both front seat and backseat operations will be included. The first mode will allow players to fly either flyable aircraft with variable complexity and difficulty options, from fairly easy to highly realistic. The second and main focus for the Fighter Ops simulation is the Pilot Career mode that is specifically tailored for hardcore simmers and enthusiasts. Career mode will begin with the Fighter Ops Flight School — replicating the USAF training program. The emphasis of the first release will be a fully realistic undergraduate pilot training (UPT) course representation.

 

This stuff in the Pilot career mode would be the ultimate for a simmer in that the pilot goes through a similar course to whats decribed in ACTS. You could accomplish all of this using Single player missions and for Virtual Squadrons or on public servers having 2 seat trainers combined with a MP mission designed for the particular aspect of trainning you are trying to achieve. The end result you should aim for is a course everyone would want to do so that they have those wings on their logbook which you really want visible in mp. It should be fun, educational and challenging.:thumbup:

 

landing2.jpg

 

And the end result is some well trainned pilots that know what they are doing.

RFB1.jpg


Edited by SUBS17

[sIGPIC]2011subsRADM.jpg

[/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...