What counts?

[Xargos]

I need a Goody Powder.

[2bighorn]

Whether a term is a part of some universal vernacular or not doesn't really matter for the purpose of expounding upon a complex subject in discussion and debate format.

The more complex the subject, the more important standardized vocabulary, understanding of underlaying concepts of specific terms (and in which context are they used) becomes, otherwise conveying the meaning would be practically impossible.

It is the reason why terminology exists. 

My use of terms is almost never a simple parroting of something extracted verbatim from a textbook or other formally published document. I will often use creative solutions and coined terminology to explain and describe, in a more refined way, concepts that when left grossly generalized are not necessarily most conducive to ease of understanding and application.

SA is a well defined term and by most understood in the right context.
How can coinage of multiple alternatives or incorrect usage of existing terms, each with its own new meaning, described at twice the necessary length, ease the understanding?

Keep it simple...

If in a complex engagement however, not only do you need and care about that extra information, but it suddenly becomes the focal point of your attention to varying degrees throughout the engagement. So, all of the decisions you make based upon that extra information, although also a result of observations, are not in the same realm as the purely tactical decision making processes, they differ greatly in terms variability, complexity, and the types of decisions you must make.

As an example, in a complex engagement vigilant active SA requires you always be open minded to breaking off one bandit to switch to another. Not only that but, your information precipitating this decision has to be incredibly accurate as precise timing is hugely important. In an isolated 1 vs 1 encounter, no such information is even gathered, the entire decision making process specifically relating to that type of information and subsequent decisions need not be entertained at all. The entire premise of the engagement is fundamentally based upon different information leading to potentially very different decisions.

OK, lets just say that your SA and especially decision making process is up to such level and speed, that you're actually capable of dealing with multiple cons in complex engagement, how comes you found yourself there in the first place? Wouldn't that suggest flaw in either SA, decision making process, or both?

 

[Guppy35]

Jeez you gents think too hard about this.

What counts is having fun and enjoying the people I fly with and against.

The second it stops being fun, all the SA in the world won't make a bit of difference

[Zazen13]

Jeez you gents think too hard about this.

What counts is having fun and enjoying the people I fly with and against.

The second it stops being fun, all the SA in the world won't make a bit of difference

I don't know about my fellow debaters, but I wouldn't be spending time discussing entertaining topics if I wasn't also having a blast playing the game. You can tell those on the forums who don't enjoy playing the game, there's a lot less intellectual debate and a lot more, "HTC and AH sucks, I quit!"...

[Zazen13]

OK, lets just say that your SA and especially decision making process is up to such level and speed, that you're actually capable of dealing with multiple cons in complex engagement, how comes you found yourself there in the first place? Wouldn't that suggest flaw in either SA, decision making process, or both?

 

Is this is a serious question or are you pretending you're ignorant just to try the old bait n' switch routine again?

[Zazen13]

There is not one word copied and posted by me to this thread.

Take it easy! I didn't mention any names, no need to get defensive!

[2bighorn]

There is not one word copied and posted by me to this thread.

He means my ad hominem and fish rain quotes.

[Murdr]

He means my ad hominem and fish rain quotes.

I know who copied and posted stuff    The old quote and post routine is an open invitation to reply.

[2bighorn]

are you pretending you're ignorant just to try the old bait n' switch routine again?

Oh, you know I wouldn't do that.

[Zazen13]

Oh, you know I wouldn't do that.

 

[Zazen13]

Do I come off as arrogant with this post?  Let me tell you what is arrogant.  Your assumption that everyone should just adopt the Zazeneeze language and piss on the century of concepts preceeding you.

Actually that is the fundamental defining principle of innovation. Luckily for humankind human nature does in fact tend to piss on the status quo. If that didn't happen a certain untrained, underachieving patent clerk would never have turned the world of theoretical physics on its ear. If humankind in general never questioned the status quo, in a creative and innovative way, we'd all still be rubbing sticks together and clubbing rats for dinner with a sharpened femur.

Just because an idea is postulated, repeated and widely disseminated doesn't make it necessarily either true or the only truth. People being so incredibly close-minded and chained to the ideas of others like little robot parrots, to the exclusion of their own original thinking and questioning, is really quite scary. History has proven nothing is etched in stone, what is accepted fact today is an outdated myth tomorrow, it's the evolution of human understanding. You can either choose to participate in that evolution or get run over by it like a squirrel by a truck...

[Murdr]

Here again you make assumptions and have the process backwards.  We often reach our own conclusions individually, and then find it validated by existing works.  (Of course most of us don't do this as a public work in progress disguised as fact on the bbs).  Even by being disappointed to find the "new" thing we figured out is not new at all.  This is a prop combat sim.  There isn't really anything new to be discovered about prop driven air combat in general, and in the sim environment it is limited to quirks of the specific flight model.

I have not seen anything new in this thread other than the hi-jacking and redefining existing terms.

[Zazen13]

Here again you make assumptions and have the process backwards.  We often reach our own conclusions individually, and then find it validated by existing works. (Of course most of us don't do this as a public work in progress disguised as fact on the bbs).  Even by being disappointed to find the "new" thing we figured out is not new at all. 

I highly suggest you do a Google search of Wikipedia and read up on Greek philosophy and philosophers, the cornerstone of Western civilization. Formal and informal public debate and questioning of established concepts was the engine that fueled civilization's evolution of understanding of almost everything from mathematics to government. That evolution of understanding continues unabated from that period to the present. It is in this spirit that I enjoy debate on discussion forums.

[Murdr]

I suggest you make very minor compositional choices to qualify the source and intentions of your statements.

This is presented as a statement of fact.

It's important to establish that there's a not so subtle difference between Situational Awareness and Tactical Awareness. Situational Awareness implies the assimilation of area wide information consisting of multiple bandits, friendlies, their relative E states, projected vectors and likely intentions on an ongoing basis. Then using that information to formulate a dynamic action plan for working the entire engagement.

Tactical Awareness is the diligent scrutiny of a single opponent's moves, behaviors and likely intentions in order to decide the proper counter-maneuvers to deal with him specifically, in hermetic isolation, as efficiently as possible. Tactical Awareness is always required in any engagement, situational awareness is not.

This is presented as a matter of opinion.

I like that distillation. I like to think of them differently because in your mind, when you are fighting they are quite different. I find having distinct terminology for them makes the fundamental principles involved easier to conceptualize. Instead of Situational Awareness we could probably call it Strategic Awareness then when you refer to Tactical Awareness the differences are very clear. 

This is a presentation of facts, alternate facts, and opinion all together.

Again, tactical awareness involves assesment of all immediate threats.  Though I can site military instances where the scope is expanded to include the entire immediate battlefield.

The scope of strategic awareness goes beyond visual range.  Academically it is a needed leadership skill of knowing not only your own plan of action needs to be, but also what others need to be doing in order to achieve the group objective.  In practice in Aces High, beyond the obvious mission context, I'd argue that strategic awareness applies to interpreting radar, marker, and radio traffic info, comprehending its significance on the evolving situation, and integrating that information into ones decision making process.

[A8Jaraxl]

I don't think we are arguing the logic of decision making based on observations, that same logic is not even unique to warfare in general let alone SA. I think the contentious issue is the type of information and the type of decision making required. There is a large swath of information you don't need or particularly care about if isolated in a 1 vs 1 fight. It's not just that the unnecessary information is 1/100th as important as it would be if you were fighting 100 enemy as opposed to just 1 enemy, it's actually of absolutely ZERO significance, therefore has absolutely zero effect on your combat efficiency, it doesn't even need to be considered.

If in a complex engagement however, not only do you need and care about that extra information, but it suddenly becomes the focal point of your attention to varying degrees throughout the engagement. So, all of the decisions you make based upon that extra information, although also a result of observations, are not in the same realm as the purely tactical decision making processes, they differ greatly in terms variability, complexity, and the types of decisions you must make.

As an example, in a complex engagement vigilant active SA requires you always be open minded to breaking off one bandit to switch to another. Not only that but, your information precipitating this decision has to be incredibly accurate as precise timing is hugely important. In an isolated 1 vs 1 encounter, no such information is even gathered, the entire decision making process specifically relating to that type of information and subsequent decisions need not be entertained at all. The entire premise of the engagement is fundamentally based upon different information leading to potentially very different decisions.

????

You basically just said the same thing I did, just in your own words, what "point in fact" are you trying to send in this conversation, as it stands now?

The absolute "Zero" of certain bits of information (yet not all) is no different then saying you have less information to deal with. Your discussing when and where "type's" of SA come in and out of play. It just doesn't work like that. In a combat situation, be it 1v1 or multiple targets, you don't break sight of your target just to have a look around once you enter CQB. As you track your target, you gather info on other objects within sight. Yes, there is an occasional "look over your shoulder". This is where wing tactics come in, since WW2, as you said, there where very few times when you had a 1v1. Even then they did not have the comfort of knowing if they where truly alone with this NME. Wing Tactics however where not a part of this conversation, so moving on.

So in a 1v1, your completely focused on the task at hand, that one fighter, every bit of SA that you once used in a multiple engagement is still in play. Just because your not looking for other cons, or friendlies does not mean any "form" of SA is not used, there is so much more you are still looking for, terrain, the position of the sun, can I use these to my benefit, can my NME. Its all the same.... you simply just have less information.

As far as looking for other cons, i don't know to many fights 1v1 that I have not used just about every view during, this is where your "additional" SA comes from, I am watching the NME go into a low yo-yo behind me, while I am looking back, I take the snap shot of the entire scene, sky, ground, anything I can see, if there is a con there, its added to the "big picture" if not, so be it, all still part of the same deal.

Your trying to break the SA into categories, and to be honest you really can not. SA is so intertwined with each component of Combat its like making a house out of cards. If you remove a card, the house will crumble.


Murder and the rest are trying to explain this to you, yet you seem to want to over analyze the situation, or reinvent it.

Its like working on electricity. A ground is a ground is a ground....

Soo.. I will say it like this... SA is TA is SA, slice it how you want, its still SA (being totally intertwined with EVERYTHING else) when dealing with combat of any type.