Well clicking where you are told is the first step, then once you master that it's good to learn why, but the why doesn't really matter to be honest.. as long as you know what to do after you click it, there's only mental benefits to understanding it
That's perhaps true in a simple kind of simulations where things never go wrong, where instruments always show simulated truth and where equipment always works.
It's certainly not true in a realistic simulation.
Simple example - you get an engine warning light. What you should do depends on, well, whether the engine is actually out, or whether the warning light shows wrong. Whether the engine is actually out you can try to determine by looking at the accelerometer - if you know where to find it and what it's supposed to currently show during a nominal ascent.
Such a situation you can not handle correctly without knowing what acceleration you can expect during a nominal launch.
Another example worked out in greater detail: See me working through an
electrical bus failure, first trying to determine what the fault is, and then, based on that knowledge, what to do.
In this case, a wrong diagnosis of the situation combined with mindless switch-flicking could leave you without power - or blow a fuel cell.
Well, perhaps you should re-consider whether you
really enjoy realistic simulations...
