Hey Flight Simmers...

[Nefaro]

I'll do it one day. The A-10C was the one I wanted to learn...I'll get it done one day.

That's one of the longer start-ups.

F-5 is rather simple.  Mirage 2000 also isn't bad. 

MiG-21 doesn't look too bad, but you gotta remember to flip some button covers & such before getting in a fight.  Don't wanna be hitting your mapped 'flare dispense' button on your HOTAS while it's button cover is still closed in your cockpit.  :hide:


I get the "Chuck's Guides" for each aircraft.  All you need to know without all the extra crap you don't use or need in the sim.  Start-up, weapon employment, etc boiled down to the base checklists.  I've found the recommended joystick sensitivity & curve settings in them, for each aircraft, to be spot on too.   :bd:

I also translate the start-up checklist into my own words, along with specifying on which panel each button/switch is located.  For example, a power button on the right front panel gets an "(RFP)" notation while one on the right side panel gets an "(RSP)". 

Got a small notebook of them I just bust out when getting ready to go.  After running through those a few times, it starts getting burned into memory and I look at them less & less.  Until I take a long break and come back to it, then the notes come back out again.  Just a matter of getting over that initial homework hump.  ;)  Especially all those HOTAS key bindings that drive me nuts.

[Cheimison]

My son has been training to be a commercial pilot for the last three years.  He started using MSFS.  About two years ago he started using X-Plane after he built a cockpit in his room.  He used to use MSFS for procedural simulation around the flight, radios, and ATC.  He used X-Plane for feel of flight for his training aircraft.  Since X-Plane 11, he has stopped using MSFS and Prepar3D (the continuation of MSFS).  He says he can finally do all of his procedural and VFR stuff in X-Plane.  He was already moving in that direction with the latest releases of X-Plane 10, but 11 sealed it.

That is hardcore.
All I ever do in non-combat flight sims is crash into airports for lulz.

[JudgeDredd]

I'll do it one day. The A-10C was the one I wanted to learn...I'll get it done one day.

That's one of the longer start-ups.

F-5 is rather simple.  Mirage 2000 also isn't bad. 

MiG-21 doesn't look too bad, but you gotta remember to flip some button covers & such before getting in a fight.  Don't wanna be hitting your mapped 'flare dispense' button on your HOTAS while it's button cover is still closed in your cockpit.  :hide:


I get the "Chuck's Guides" for each aircraft.  All you need to know without all the extra crap you don't use or need in the sim.  Start-up, weapon employment, etc boiled down to the base checklists.  I've found the recommended joystick sensitivity & curve settings in them, for each aircraft, to be spot on too.   :bd:

I also translate the start-up checklist into my own words, along with specifying on which panel each button/switch is located.  For example, a power button on the right front panel gets an "(RFP)" notation while one on the right side panel gets an "(RSP)". 

Got a small notebook of them I just bust out when getting ready to go.  After running through those a few times, it starts getting burned into memory and I look at them less & less.  Until I take a long break and come back to it, then the notes come back out again.  Just a matter of getting over that initial homework hump.  ;)  Especially all those HOTAS key bindings that drive me nuts.

I know it's a long one - but it's the best platform imo....lots of ordinance and low speed...and I'm more into ATG than ATA.

I managed to (and with a quick reference) startup the Mirage quite quickly - 5 minutes or so - but I'm not really into those cockpits with foreign writing. It adds a level of complexity that I can do without.

The F-15 would be a nice one - but it's FC3 simplicity which I honestly don't want to go towards. I know there's alot of fun to be had in that simplicity but I really wanted to get a HF cockpit under my belt. I want to learn how to startup, fly and engage with a HF model - and A-10C would give me the most fun I think. The other one would be the Frog...but again, foreign cockpit = more complexity.

Nah - it has to be the Hog.

[Jarhead0331]

Last night I continued practicing just engine start-up and added pre-flight avionics. I'm almost at the point of getting her ready for taxi, but something is off with my radios and I'm unable to communicate with the tower. I think I know what the issue is and will try to sort it out tonight.

My goal for the end of the week is to get somewhat comfortable with gettin her from cold start to runway ready for take off. I'm not far off. Slowly I'm learning the cockpit.

I've been thinking of doing something similar to what Nef mentioned...making check-lists in my own words. I can't say I'm inclined to make up more three letter acronyms though. The cockpit already has enough those...FCR, DED, TGP, etc. Creating my own would just make it more confusing for me. For me it's about steps moving from left console to right and back again...fuel, power, AC, canopy, engine start, idle detent, avionics,communications, etc. Just getting the rhythm, the muscle memory, and knowing where all the functions are. I'm getting there.

[Tuna]

I need to get back into the A-10C.. the thing is you don't do it all the time, you forget it.. Now will have to re-learn it all. Yeah I took notes, but do I understand them!!! 

[Jarhead0331]

I'm surprised more of you guys aren't focused on BMS. It seems like a much more complete experience overall. What's keeping you away?

[Tuna]

Like JD said.. It's hard enough getting started, then figuring out the Weapon systems. At least the A-10 is low and slow. Also there's almost the same sort of satisfaction you get from successfully starting, when you start getting your Maverick's to hit stuff you're actually aiming for!

Before I said my notes are bad, but that's not true, its the fact that I also should've made notes on which buttons I mapped for which functions!

I never did the A-10 in MP, that would be a hoot!

[JudgeDredd]

I'm surprised more of you guys aren't focused on BMS. It seems like a much more complete experience overall. What's keeping you away?

I'm just too much of a graphics whore.

The dynamic campaign in Falcon 4 was superb mind.

[Toonces]

Properly learning the BMS Falcon has been a goal of mine as well for the same reason.  I'd like to give MP a try, but I'm hopelessly lost with most of the  hardcore stuff. 

I had written about this before back in the Wargamer days, but one of my most satisfying simming experiences ever was successfully going through the checklist from pre-flight through launch of the Apollo mod for Orbiter.  That checklist took something like 3 or 3.5 hours to work through, and I didn't really know if I had done it right until the countdown hit 0 and the rocket lit off. 

I can't say I was eager to repeat the experience, but it was quite satisfying to sit down and do it right.

[Jarhead0331]

I'm surprised more of you guys aren't focused on BMS. It seems like a much more complete experience overall. What's keeping you away?

I'm just too much of a graphics whore.

The dynamic campaign in Falcon 4 was superb mind.

Have you looked closely at BMS 4.33 u3? Graphically, there is very little to complain about.

[JudgeDredd]

I'm surprised more of you guys aren't focused on BMS. It seems like a much more complete experience overall. What's keeping you away?

I'm just too much of a graphics whore.

The dynamic campaign in Falcon 4 was superb mind.

Have you looked closely at BMS 4.33 u3? Graphically, there is very little to complain about.

No - but now your post has compelled me to do so 

[Yskonyn]

My reason is a matter of time. My wing is using DCS so that's that. I would like to use BMS more seriously, but I just dont find the time.

[Jarhead0331]

My reason is a matter of time. My wing is using DCS so that's that. I would like to use BMS more seriously, but I just dont find the time.

That makes total sense. If you are part of a virtual group that is using a specific system then dedicating most of your free flight time to that is practical.

I chose BMS over DCS because the mod has reached a level where it offers everything I'm looking for in a complex simulation. It matches, and perhaps exceeds DCS in fidelity, at least with the Viper, while offering flight with a lot of other popular airframes that are just not available on DCS and won't be anytime soon. Its got multiple highly developed theaters, Korea, Balkans, Norway, Israel, and many others are at different states of progress. Carrier ops, VTOL and STOL options and more importantly, it offers a real dynamic campaign system, with combat spanning from the cold war era to the near future, with 5th generation aircraft. The dynamic campaign is something that I don't think DCS will ever offer. So, while I am huge fan of DCS and will continue to add modules to my collection, I really intend to get at least competent with basic flight and combat operations in BMS before I devote real study to anything else.

[Yskonyn]

Systems modelling is top notch for sure in BMS.
DCS scores much better at flight physics, weapons envelope modelling, atmosphere. But That is to be expected given the difference in age between the products and the hardware leaps.
BMS's total package where a real war is fought in realtime is still unprecedented though! Truely remarkable what the mod team is still pulling off!

[Jarhead0331]

Systems modelling is top notch for sure in BMS.
DCS scores much better at flight physics, weapons envelope modelling, atmosphere. But That is to be expected given the difference in age between the products and the hardware leaps.
BMS's total package where a real war is fought in realtime is still unprecedented though! Truely remarkable what the mod team is still pulling off!

Do you think the differences in flight physics and weapons modelling are noticeable to the average simmer, or the non-combat pilot layperson? Also, what do mean by atmosphere? You mean weather conditions and stuff, or something more like immersion and environment?