Chucks Guide AJS Viggen Navigation - Im a bit confused

[consolepcgaming]

Im looking at chucks guide for the viggen page 125 , I can understand he added the Waypoint B4 manually but how did he get the other waypoints added , B1, B2 and M3? Is this via the mission editor?

https://www.mudspike.com/wp-content/uploads/guides/DCS%20AJS-37%20Viggen%20Guide.pdf

NAVIGATION TUTORIAL
As a tutorial, we will do the following:
a) Add a Waypoint B4 and Takeoff from Senaki
-Kolkhi
b) Fly to Waypoint B1 using the Course Index (CI)
c) Fly to Waypoint B2 using the HUD and ADI
d) Fly to Target Point M3 using the Radar Display
e) Offset the Target Point M3 and overfly its updated location
f) Fly to Waypoint B4 and perform an ILS landing at Primary Airfield L1 (Senaki
-Kolkhi
)

[FireShark]

He's probably using the navigation tutorial mission that comes with the plane. Did you forget to load the data cartridge?

[spike2071]

I get the feeling that Chuck is working with a specific set of training missions (not the ones included with the Viggen) in his AJS-37 guide. But a quick search didn't turn up anything that you can download to use in parallel.

You can create waypoints in the Mission Editor for the Viggen, or you can even do it on the F10 Map when in the cockpit. You essentially create a new data cartridge on the F10 Map, and then load it into the plane. The manual explains how to do it, and I assume Chuck's Guide does as well, but I haven't checked. I think one of the campaign missions forces you to create a new plan in the cockpit after landing/refuelling/rearming at a makeshift runway.

[consolepcgaming]

i added them via the mission editor and they were available in the aircraft , watched the grim reapers video too, i also note you can add them manually

[Chuck_Owl]

The other waypoints were already created in the Mission Editor. If you spawn in multiplayer, you can still create waypoints on the F10 map (with markers), then create a flight plan and load it in your Data Cartridge.

BTW I'm releasing on the 25th a completely new version of the guide. I agree that the current navigation tutorial isn't that great. If you want the WIP version of the new tutorial or want some more in-depth explanations on the Viggen, just let me know.

[jalsina]

引用自 razoleg (The Cunning Fox)：

Forget the guides, read the manual

Don't do this.
Follow Chuck's guides.

[startrekmike]

引用自 jalsina：

引用自 razoleg (The Cunning Fox)：

Forget the guides, read the manual

Don't do this.
Follow Chuck's guides.

Why? Why tell people to not use a good, complete information source?

[jalsina]

引用自 startrekmike：

引用自 jalsina：

Don't do this.
Follow Chuck's guides.

Why? Why tell people to not use a good, complete information source?

What? Chuck´s, manual, or both? Which is your good information source?

[startrekmike]

引用自 jalsina：

引用自 startrekmike：

Why? Why tell people to not use a good, complete information source?

What? Chuck´s, manual, or both? Which is your good information source?

I consider the manual (especially in the case of the Viggen) the best, most complete source for information. Chuck's guides are good alongside the manual (as a way to sometimes clarify via visuals) but saying that one should ONLY use Chuck's guides and not the manual really doesn't make a whole lot of sense and really only discourages players from using genuinely good sources of info.

[jalsina]

引用自 startrekmike：

引用自 jalsina：

What? Chuck´s, manual, or both? Which is your good information source?

I consider the manual (especially in the case of the Viggen) the best, most complete source for information. Chuck's guides are good alongside the manual (as a way to sometimes clarify via visuals) but saying that one should ONLY use Chuck's guides and not the manual really doesn't make a whole lot of sense and really only discourages players from using genuinely good sources of info.

I couldn't agree more with you. I would like however, to add along with the manual, the DCSW YouTubers tutorials and missions videos.
I have not the Viggen. Besides FC3 I have only the Mirage 2000C, in which I have been investing my DCSW time in the last weeks and learning slowly but secure, how to fly it and manage the cockpit.
Related to the M-2000C I find Chuck´s guide much more valuable, than the manual, which looks to me somewhat confusing in the order of the contents.
I´ll tell you more: for me, the SU-25T manual is less confusing than the M-2000C´s.

But you know. This is all about liking and flavors.

[consolepcgaming]

Thanks

[kalnaren]

引用自 startrekmike：

引用自 jalsina：

What? Chuck´s, manual, or both? Which is your good information source?

I consider the manual (especially in the case of the Viggen) the best, most complete source for information. Chuck's guides are good alongside the manual (as a way to sometimes clarify via visuals) but saying that one should ONLY use Chuck's guides and not the manual really doesn't make a whole lot of sense and really only discourages players from using genuinely good sources of info.

I'm constantly astounded at people's reluctance to use the actual documentation.

[spike2071]

I love Chuck's Guides for getting me up and running in a new module. While I agree that the manual is often the best source of in depth information, Chuck's Guides are great because of the reliance of pictures in conjunction with a checklist-like process. They make it more accessible when first learning a plane, and when re-learning a module. They're like a mix of a tutorial video and the manual, and I think it hits the sweet spot for people who want something between those two methods.

I tend to read the manual separate from playing the game. And that's where you can really learn about the neat stuff the CDU in the Warthog can do, or all the things the Data Panel in the Viggen can accomplish, etc. But when I'm trying start up the Viggen for the first time in a year, Chuck's Guide is what's open on my computer.

[kalnaren]

I don't want to give the wrong impression, I have no issue with Chuck's Guides being used as familiarization guides. I use them for that very purpose. That's really what they are and what they were designed for (to get you up in the air quickly), and they're great when dealing with your first module especially because they're a lot less intimidating than the manual. However, they have limitations and they're not a replacement for the official documentation. In the case of the Mirage I actually found a few things that are quite different between Chuck's and the official manual. Following Chuck's was faster and easier.. but following the manual led to less problems later down the road.

I guarantee a player who starts at Chapter 1 of the official documentation and works their way through it will not only learn the plane and how to use it, they'll learn it better than a large chunk of the DCS community that relies strictly on quick guides (youtube or otherwise). That's kind of my point.. not that there aren't good written/video guides.. but that they're a supplement. Not a replacement. Suggestions like 'ignoring the manual and following chucks guides instead'...just makes me SMH.

[jalsina]

引用自 kalnaren：

引用自 startrekmike：

I consider the manual (especially in the case of the Viggen) the best, most complete source for information. Chuck's guides are good alongside the manual (as a way to sometimes clarify via visuals) but saying that one should ONLY use Chuck's guides and not the manual really doesn't make a whole lot of sense and really only discourages players from using genuinely good sources of info.

I'm constantly astounded at people's reluctance to use the actual documentation.

The way I have criticized the Mirage official manual, doesn't mean I am reluctant to read it.
Actually, I have been always a manual reader for games and all kind of software. And it happens I have read the entire Mirage 2000C official manual.
But in my case, graphics rich Chuck's guide has helped a lot more.

[★Macman★]

I think the ingame Tutorials are a massive turn off. Also to those in VR it's a pain to have to have to switch between Headset on/off. Gladly FC3 isn't so hard to work out except for the setting Airfield Air Pressure which uses 2 different types of figures and none correspond to what we set our QFE to and this info is ONLY provided at the very point of Takeoff Permission!