Gunner Training?

[hope2bpaindoc]

A

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[cetac]

I don't think FC has a lite mode. Therefore, you may have kept the same flagged topics but gained ALL the questions that would have been there had you used comprehensive mode on GT.

Good luck with your life, don't die.

That appears to be precisely what happened. I just did 50 or so of the Study Plan questions and all were questions I've seen before, or where on topics I've banked in GT.

FML

I don't understand why FC allows us to reschedule 'Review' and 'Catch-Up' questions but not 'Study Plan' questions.

 

[thawunandonly]

Yeah but the study plan questions aren't part of your review... so technically I think you could just do a few gradually and they won't technically pile up, especially since you can separate questions now. They just sit in your bank.

In GT if you banked cards and then started the quiz, you HAD to do them all before you could even hit your review again. Now they are separate... so it's a good thing?

 

[jhamaican]

I know I haven't always been the biggest supporter, but...

firecracker is pretty awesome. It is very responsive and a large improvement. I am glad I migrated. THANK YOU for for putting the x/# cards next to the topics. It makes it much easier to see. Also, it is great that we can use the numpad now.



Further suggestions:
1. Please let us review only 1 subsection. I have been asking for this for years now, literally. It would be amazing to just review only the cards from for example :viruses rather than all micro. I suppose I can go through and unflag all the rest of micro and then do the whole review but this shouldn't have to be the case. I don't want to sit there unflagging 50+ topics just to do a subsection review... Honestly, how hard can this be to implement?
2. more statistics. Lets have a mastery for each subject and break down each subject and sub section like you do questions for all flagged topics.
edit 3: One more suggestion: please put a link to a table of normal values for when we are doing our review questions.

 

[cetac]

Yeah but the study plan questions aren't part of your review... so technically I think you could just do a few gradually and they won't technically pile up, especially since you can separate questions now. They just sit in your bank.

In GT if you banked cards and then started the quiz, you HAD to do them all before you could even hit your review again. Now they are separate... so it's a good thing?

This might be worse than I originally thought. Are the "Study Plan" questions simply the questions you're supposed to answer immediately after you've banked ~20 new quiz questions on a topic (In GT when the number turns green)? If so, this means that before I can get back to using Firecracker as it was meant to be used (i.e., immediately quizzing myself on my most recently banked topics) I must go through and answer all ~2,500+ study plan questions.

 

[thawunandonly]

No that's not what I meant.

In GT that's what you had to do.

But as far as I've been doing it, in FC you can separate the two. Your study questions can be mixed in with your daily review or you can choose to do them as you please. Try it out.

 

[crazyozone]

This might be worse than I originally thought. Are the "Study Plan" questions simply the questions you're supposed to answer immediately after you've banked ~20 new quiz questions on a topic (In GT when the number turns green)? If so, this means that before I can get back to using Firecracker as it was meant to be used (i.e., immediately quizzing myself on my most recently banked topics) I must go through and answer all ~2,500+ study plan questions.

Yeah you're right cetac. Luckily I only got a couple hundred, but here's the only way I can see you mitigating that, but only by a little. Pick one subject that you want to keep flagging topics in. Work on that subject specifically in all of those 2500 questions. You can uncheck all other boxes when choosing to do your questions. Then, after you have done all of those questions from the respective 2500, any new card that you flag will give you the only cards for that particular subject. Uncheck all other subjects again and you can work on the card that you just flagged.

i.e. finish all the microbiology cards from the 2500. That way, when you select your review to only do the 2500 cards (less at this point), the subject of microbiology will have 0, while other subjects will be in the hundreds. From now on, you can flag a micro card--say one that has 20 questions--and of the 2500 the micro section will only show 20 questions in it. Uncheck all of the other subjects and now you're doing only the card that you just flagged.

 

[cetac]

Yeah you're right cetac. Luckily I only got a couple hundred, but here's the only way I can see you mitigating that, but only by a little. Pick one subject that you want to keep flagging topics in. Work on that subject specifically in all of those 2500 questions. You can uncheck all other boxes when choosing to do your questions. Then, after you have done all of those questions from the respective 2500, any new card that you flag will give you the only cards for that particular subject. Uncheck all other subjects again and you can work on the card that you just flagged.

i.e. finish all the microbiology cards from the 2500. That way, when you select your review to only do the 2500 cards (less at this point), the subject of microbiology will have 0, while other subjects will be in the hundreds. From now on, you can flag a micro card--say one that has 20 questions--and of the 2500 the micro section will only show 20 questions in it. Uncheck all of the other subjects and now you're doing only the card that you just flagged.

I appreciate you taking the time to provide me with a solution, but it's unacceptable as far as I'm concerned, as is the two days it's been since I've submitted a support request to FC without a response. We shouldn't have to come up with "hacks" to study for the most important test of our lives when that's precisely what we're supposed to have paid for by purchasing GT/FC.

 

[Druggernaut]

This might be worse than I originally thought. Are the "Study Plan" questions simply the questions you're supposed to answer immediately after you've banked ~20 new quiz questions on a topic (In GT when the number turns green)? If so, this means that before I can get back to using Firecracker as it was meant to be used (i.e., immediately quizzing myself on my most recently banked topics) I must go through and answer all ~2,500+ study plan questions.

On your main page, click on "Do Fewer." You can choose to just do the questions from the cards you just flagged (study), just the regularly scheduled daily review (Review), the ones you missed from previous days (Catch Up), or any combination of the above. You can also pick individual subjects from those categories to do. It gives you all the options you had previously and more.

I was pretty leery at first, but the biggest problems I'm seeing now is the lack of the pie chart and percentage showing your total progress, the bars showing total mastery, and the individual subject masteries. None of these things contributed to the content or quality as a study aid, they just made it more fun and motivational. And these are all things they've told us they're working on.

For all the doom-and-gloom this thread has had recently, some of which I contributed, I have to say that I'm coming around to Firecracker, and am optimistic about where it's headed.

EDIT: Oh, I see what you're saying. There's 2,500 questions in your study pile that you have to address before you add new material. Yeah, I think you're stuck either pounding through them or unflagging topics. Or just use the option to do specific subjects within those questions to target it towards what you just banked, though with that many questions, you'll still be facing a lot of other material.

 

[Isradoc16]

I've been using firecracker since it got started and I must say that I've noticed a huge amount of features getting added constantly. Many of the complaints raised here and features requested have been added, and I find the site to be much more responsive than GT was. I understand that the migration might have caused some issues, but for people thinking about signing up, FC is pretty great IMO.

 

[thawunandonly]

I still think there are wayyyyy to many MCQ's now.

 

[dragon529]

+1 to too many MCQ.... on one hand I want to skip them but on the other I don't want to miss any learning opportunity =/

 

[WarriorMD]

Way too many MCQ's that aren't really helping me, but overall I am happy to see features being added.

Algorithm is quite different, I'm getting 40 days as my next review for topics that I was doing every 90 days before.

 

[aidama]

seems like theyre adding new stuff everyday, cant wait until they add the % mastery of subjects, also loving the "do fewer" and selectively choosing a topic feature : )

 

[soccerboy2288]

Anyone notice there are some important learning points that WERE in GT, but somehow no longer in FC? So far I've noticed Amifostine (used with Cisplatin) and Endometrioid tumor of the ovary missing in FC. And I know these are both important points.

Sent FC a feedback but no response. Anyone else find other things that are missing that used to be there? Thanks!

 

[WarriorMD]

edit...nevermind

 

[madchemist89]

Lately, I have been doing the cardiology cards. I have noticed that portions of some cards, such as mtiral or aortic regurgitation, go into what would seem to be unnecessary depth about treatment and medical management, at least from a STEP 1 perspective. Does anyone have an opinion on the importance of this information?

 

[thawunandonly]

Lately, I have been doing the cardiology cards. I have noticed that portions of some cards, such as mtiral or aortic regurgitation, go into what would seem to be unnecessary depth about treatment and medical management, at least from a STEP 1 perspective. Does anyone have an opinion on the importance of this information?

I have no idea. I've wondered about this too.

My thought is that GT might be more detailed, but I don't know the line between "more detailed" and "TOO detailed" ends. But I memorize/learn it anyway, for now at least. It's weird because I compare FA and GT as I study, and FA misses a lot of stuff I feel would be important... e.g. unless I missed it, there was no dedicated section for Bordetella pertussis in FA2012... I swear that's one of the most important bugs....

 

[madchemist89]

I have no idea. I've wondered about this too.

My thought is that GT might be more detailed, but I don't know the line between "more detailed" and "TOO detailed" ends. But I memorize/learn it anyway, for now at least. It's weird because I compare FA and GT as I study, and FA misses a lot of stuff I feel would be important... e.g. unless I missed it, there was no dedicated section for Bordetella pertussis in FA2012... I swear that's one of the most important bugs....

Thanks for the quick response. FA does seem to be missing a lot.

 

[dmason24]

A few requests:

1) With Firecracker the calendar switches to the next day at 9pm for people on PST. This throws things off when I'm trying to spread review questions evenly across the calendar. Can we get the option of choosing time zones under settings?

2) Can we please add the perfect recall choice to Firecracker?

3) Also, with GT, it was nice to be able to do questions on my mobile device. Is there any idea when a mobile version of Firecracker might come out?

Thanks.

 

[WarriorMD]

Anybody think the new algorithm is a bit wack?

My options for recently banked cards are to review in 1, 6, or 18 days. That's pretty weird to me. 1 day is obvisouly too soon, but 6 days is about a week in which I'm guaranteed to forget.

On GT, I used to see 3-4-5 days a lot. I'm having to adjust my schedule for every question and my pace has dropped from 100 Q's an hour to about 60 Q's an hour because the "adjust" feature seems to be pretty slow.


Also, a 5 is now 40 days versus 90 days before and the max interval is 60 days for me. I kinda miss the 90 days interval for stuff that I really knew well.

 

[Signorina]

Anybody think the new algorithm is a bit wack?

My options for recently banked cards are to review in 1, 6, or 18 days. That's pretty weird to me. 1 day is obvisouly too soon, but 6 days is about a week in which I'm guaranteed to forget.

On GT, I used to see 3-4-5 days a lot. I'm having to adjust my schedule for every question and my pace has dropped from 100 Q's an hour to about 60 Q's an hour because the "adjust" feature seems to be pretty slow.


Also, a 5 is now 40 days versus 90 days before and the max interval is 60 days for me. I kinda miss the 90 days interval for stuff that I really knew well.

Yea. See. Since I also found myself constantly adjusting the schedule for most questions, I decided to change the settings to "Fixed Spacing" and I entered my own number to the max interval I find works best for me.

Most users might love the algorithm, but I love knowing how many days (or weeks) will pass before I see that question again. It's my favorite FC feature, and I was surprised to see this feature.

 

[soccerboy2288]

Anybody think the new algorithm is a bit wack?

My options for recently banked cards are to review in 1, 6, or 18 days. That's pretty weird to me. 1 day is obvisouly too soon, but 6 days is about a week in which I'm guaranteed to forget.

On GT, I used to see 3-4-5 days a lot. I'm having to adjust my schedule for every question and my pace has dropped from 100 Q's an hour to about 60 Q's an hour because the "adjust" feature seems to be pretty slow.


Also, a 5 is now 40 days versus 90 days before and the max interval is 60 days for me. I kinda miss the 90 days interval for stuff that I really knew well.

The algorithm is HORRIBLE. Absolutely horrible. I'm doing what you are doing and its slowing me down a lot too. Just one of the many problems I have with the new FC....

 

[jccrozb]

The algorithm is HORRIBLE. Absolutely horrible. I'm doing what you are doing and its slowing me down a lot too. Just one of the many problems I have with the new FC....

All of the questions that I banked before migration have a screwed up algorithm. They all have generally the same date of recurrence no matter the question.

The ones I've banked since the migration have been ok. So I'm starting to wonder if when they pushed our questions over from GT, they only kept the DATE that all our questions would be, but not the recall history.

 

[thawunandonly]

All of the questions that I banked before migration have a screwed up algorithm. They all have generally the same date of recurrence no matter the question.

The ones I've banked since the migration have been ok. So I'm starting to wonder if when they pushed our questions over from GT, they only kept the DATE that all our questions would be, but not the recall history.

That's what I thought at first. But a newly banked question rated 5 goes out to 10 days before you see it again. Old questions that I get and rate a 5 will go out to 45 days.

 

[WarriorMD]

My calendar and daily scheduled questions NEVER seem to match up.
What on earth is going on, anybody else have this too?

I am thinking I have 332 q's to do according to my calendar, but when I goto do my quiz there are only 269. This seems to be the case everyday

 

[thawunandonly]

@WarriorMD

Yeah, I get the same thing but it's not as often as you do. Maybe 1-2 days a week? And it's never as big a gap, usually 10-15 questions.

I honestly don't know where the discrepancy is, if some questions are getting lost or it's just the number. It also seems like there have been multiple repeat questions, but that could just be because of the question set for that card (e.g. I just banked the card for CGD and there were like 4 questions asking why patients are vulnerable to catalase positive organisms).

 

[premedmind]

The number of daily review questions is plain and simple overwhelming for even the most gunner of gunners. Most of the time I find myself taking barely even 1 second to run an answer through my head to the card before showing the answer just so I can get through the cards in a reasonable amount of time. Putting questions in the catch up section is really not the solution. Before you know it you have 1000+ questions in the catch up section, easily. I suggest doing a thorough review of the questions and taking out all the low yield stuff - if that's possible.

 

[premedmind]

The number of daily review questions is plain and simple overwhelming for even the most gunner of gunners. Most of the time I find myself taking barely even 1 second to run an answer through my head to the card before showing the answer just so I can get through the cards in a reasonable amount of time. Putting questions in the catch up section is really not the solution. Before you know it you have 1000+ questions in the catch up section, easily. I suggest doing a thorough review of the questions and taking out all the low yield stuff - if that's possible. What I mean to say is make the explanations more straight and to the point - kinda like First Aid.

 

[jccrozb]

Lately, I have been doing the cardiology cards. I have noticed that portions of some cards, such as mtiral or aortic regurgitation, go into what would seem to be unnecessary depth about treatment and medical management, at least from a STEP 1 perspective. Does anyone have an opinion on the importance of this information?

I just emailed them about that. I had Cardio banked on GT before the migration, and then when I looked at the section in FC and saw almost 20 new cards, I checked them out. They are all step 2 material cards. In fact, some of them say "for the purposes of step 2".... so they are clearly misplaced and need to be moved. I hope it's only in the cardio section.

I'm not a big fan of having Step 2 material smack dab in between Step 1 basic sciences and organ systems. I'm also not a big fan of the alphabetical way they organize cards. These are fixes that, to me, wouldn't be all that difficult to implement.

 

[projectlogic]

Anyone who did FC/GT start UW yet? What % correct are you averaging?

 

[WarriorMD]

There's a lot of low yield being thrown into the mix. I think they're trying to make a more complete resource without realizing that nobody wants to use it in that manner.

Having a whole bunch of q's on hantavirus really makes no sense. The increased # of mcq's drains a lot of my energy and I don't have the mental energy to push through more studying after doing 100-200 mcq's everyday.

 

[WarriorMD]

Anyone who did FC/GT start UW yet? What % correct are you averaging?

I've done some Qbank and found GT useless for musculo and physio, but pretty good for biochem so far. After doing Q's I feel like 80-90% of my time spent on daily review Q's were a total waste of my time and waste of valuable space in my memory.

I think skimming FA for an hour everyday would be way more HY and beneficial, but the issue is I probably wouldn't spend that hour reviewing my FA whereas with GT/FC I try to stay on schedule.

I think initially when you bank and review new Q's with small intervals it really helps bang things into your head, but after you move onto the next topic old q's are kind of a waste of time.

If I could dedicate myself to a different routine, I would probably bank cards and once I feel I mastered them I would unbank them and from then on every 2-3 weeks just quickly skim that section in FA to refresh eevrything in a quick 30 mins session versus hundreds of random q's everyday. I don't think I would properly commit to that so I'll stick with FC for now.

 

[withrye]

Anyone who did FC/GT start UW yet? What % correct are you averaging?

I haven't started UWorld, but on Rx I started around the 70s and am now at a cumulative average of 81.

 

[thawunandonly]

The new algortihm is all sorts of whack.

I don't like rating something a 1 a couple of times, then I see it the next day and rate it a 5 (probably on short term memory), and then I won't see it in 33 days. The differences between numbers are off too. A 1 might be tomorow, then 2 is 22 days......wtf?

Ratings should be weighted or something if they aren't already. If something is a 1, I see it more often and that holds much more important than the singular time I rate it a 5. 5's, and the ability to not see it for 40+ days should be hard to earn IMO. For all else you think you can manage, you can just PR anyway.

EDIT: Oh, out of curiosity, did the majority of you just move onto fixed spacing? What kind of numbers did you set?

 

[madchemist89]

The new algortihm is all sorts of whack.

I don't like rating something a 1 a couple of times, then I see it the next day and rate it a 5 (probably on short term memory), and then I won't see it in 33 days. The differences between numbers are off too. A 1 might be tomorow, then 2 is 22 days......wtf?

Ratings should be weighted or something if they aren't already. If something is a 1, I see it more often and that holds much more important than the singular time I rate it a 5. 5's, and the ability to not see it for 40+ days should be hard to earn IMO. For all else you think you can manage, you can just PR anyway.

EDIT: Oh, out of curiosity, did the majority of you just move onto fixed spacing? What kind of numbers did you set?

The FC algorithm has been brought up on the FC feedback forum. Exactly what needs to be done needs to be explained a little bit better there. If you are interested in seeing the algorithm changed, you should take a look at it.

https://firecrackerinc.uservoice.com/forums/116141-general

 

[premedmind]

UWorld definitely seems heavily based on FA for the most part, obviously. On the other hand I have gotten quite a few questions right on UWorld that I wouldn't have gotten correct if I didn't have those daily review questions from FC banging the concept/fact into my head. So I feel like if you want to make the most of UWorld you really also need to use FA with it and not just FC. I like to think of FA as a distilled version of FC.

I actually have a set number of pages in FA I have scheduled to go through each day, and I'll open up the corresponding FC section and do that section first, then do the corresponding section in FA (which you can fly through after having done the FC) So there is a lot of overlap but since FA is so succinct FC serves as the knowledge base, then FA is the high-yield summary. It works pretty well but getting through FC takes FOREVER - barely have enough time to squeeze in UWorld questions. Everybody in my class is doing DIT so I just hope this is not a gamble I'll regret taking.

Im about 15% through UWorld 1st pass (85% left to bank) and as of late with the method I use now averaging in the high 50's-low 60's. Every now and then have the outliers higher and lower. But am trying to aim for 70's average.

 

[thawunandonly]

Not sure if it was a bug, but today 2 questions I kept rating as 1's were scheduled to be seen next in 0.6666667 days and would not disappear off my review list.

So instead I manually marked them as 2's and adjusted the next day to 1 day (manually) and they finally got incorporated into my quiz results.

...seriously debating the switch on fixed intervals if this keeps up. Again, what kind of days do you have scheduled?

 

[jccrozb]

UWorld definitely seems heavily based on FA for the most part, obviously. On the other hand I have gotten quite a few questions right on UWorld that I wouldn't have gotten correct if I didn't have those daily review questions from FC banging the concept/fact into my head. So I feel like if you want to make the most of UWorld you really also need to use FA with it and not just FC. I like to think of FA as a distilled version of FC.

I actually have a set number of pages in FA I have scheduled to go through each day, and I'll open up the corresponding FC section and do that section first, then do the corresponding section in FA (which you can fly through after having done the FC) So there is a lot of overlap but since FA is so succinct FC serves as the knowledge base, then FA is the high-yield summary. It works pretty well but getting through FC takes FOREVER - barely have enough time to squeeze in UWorld questions. Everybody in my class is doing DIT so I just hope this is not a gamble I'll regret taking.

Im about 15% through UWorld 1st pass (85% left to bank) and as of late with the method I use now averaging in the high 50's-low 60's. Every now and then have the outliers higher and lower. But am trying to aim for 70's average.

Most people in my class are going the DIT route also, and I'm with you and taking a gamble with FC. But I believe it'll pay off well for us.

 

[cage92]

is there anyone noticed that the psych section of firecraker is a copy past for the brs behavioral science?

 

[WarriorMD]

The new algortihm is all sorts of whack.

I don't like rating something a 1 a couple of times, then I see it the next day and rate it a 5 (probably on short term memory), and then I won't see it in 33 days. The differences between numbers are off too. A 1 might be tomorow, then 2 is 22 days......wtf?

Ratings should be weighted or something if they aren't already. If something is a 1, I see it more often and that holds much more important than the singular time I rate it a 5. 5's, and the ability to not see it for 40+ days should be hard to earn IMO. For all else you think you can manage, you can just PR anyway.

EDIT: Oh, out of curiosity, did the majority of you just move onto fixed spacing? What kind of numbers did you set?

The algorithm is all sorts of crazy LOL, it seriously just shocks me sometimes. Just like you mentioned, for some q's I can review for them tommorow or next month, nothing in between haha.

I am thinking of moving onto fixed spacing, but I would much rather prefer an algorithm like Gunnertraining so I can fire through questions just rating them instead of using the uber slow "adjust" feature for every Q and then figuring out what I would like to adjust it to.

 

[thawunandonly]

The algorithm is all sorts of crazy LOL, it seriously just shocks me sometimes. Just like you mentioned, for some q's I can review for them tommorow or next month, nothing in between haha.

I am thinking of moving onto fixed spacing, but I would much rather prefer an algorithm like Gunnertraining so I can fire through questions just rating them instead of using the uber slow "adjust" feature for every Q and then figuring out what I would like to adjust it to.

Yeah somebody said it before...I think they might have forgotten to migrate our recall history.

What were you thinking for spaced intervals? I was thinking something like:

1 - 1 or 2
2 - 3
3 - 7
4 - 14
5 - 30

My main concerns are that the 1's and 2's will obviously be for those periods where I'm trying to drill things into my head, 3 might be where I get comfortable, etc. The problem I see is that questions will start to pile up more easily.

 

[crazyozone]

Thank you firecracker...% mastery is up. Can % flagged be separate for step 1 and step 2 though? Anyway, i've been waiting for the % mastery.

 

[madchemist89]

I'm really liking the new changes so far.

 

[withrye]

Yeah somebody said it before...I think they might have forgotten to migrate our recall history.

What were you thinking for spaced intervals? I was thinking something like:

1 - 1 or 2
2 - 3
3 - 7
4 - 14
5 - 30

My main concerns are that the 1's and 2's will obviously be for those periods where I'm trying to drill things into my head, 3 might be where I get comfortable, etc. The problem I see is that questions will start to pile up more easily.

The biggest problem with 30 days being your longest interval is that you're gonna have at least 300 questions per day (~9000 questions total in the Step 1 bank). This assumes everything's rated at a 5. If it's not, you're looking at 450-600+ each day. I don't think it's sustainable.

 

[thawunandonly]

The biggest problem with 30 days being your longest interval is that you're gonna have at least 300 questions per day (~9000 questions total in the Step 1 bank). This assumes everything's rated at a 5. If it's not, you're looking at 450-600+ each day. I don't think it's sustainable.

Yeah I mean it was just a thought; I'm not sure how else to manage it. The ratings in my experience don't seem to actually matter. I gave the example before that if I rate a question 1 for like a week straight then I remember it and give it a 5... somehow the system only counts the 5 and lets me see the question 40 days from now. (Not an actual example but you get the idea.)

 

[Signorina]

Nice! I like the new features that keep popping up. I'm very, very happy with FC ...but I don't have boards in a couple of months. I'll admit I've been focused on my first semester of medical school, so I'm just about to really get started with FC.

Okay. Out of curiosity I tweaked the settings I have on "fixed spacing" and I did some questions, then I tweaked the settings again and I noticed that once something is on your schedule it stays there and all future questions are scheduled depending on the new settings.

So for now I'm going to keep my settings (also from 1 to 30). If I do notice questions start piling up as the months go by, then I'll give my "4s" and "5s" a little more room.

 

[doctoritis]

Has the algorithm been updated yet?

How do you adjust a specific question's timing to when you will see it next?

Thanks!

 

[WarriorMD]

Nice to see some new additions to FC today, my goal is to bank/flag 1000 cards so I just figure out my % completion based off of that since they include step 2 stuff in % completion.

Yeah somebody said it before...I think they might have forgotten to migrate our recall history.

What were you thinking for spaced intervals? I was thinking something like:

1 - 1 or 2
2 - 3
3 - 7
4 - 14
5 - 30

My main concerns are that the 1's and 2's will obviously be for those periods where I'm trying to drill things into my head, 3 might be where I get comfortable, etc. The problem I see is that questions will start to pile up more easily.

I would need my longest interval to be around 90, so it's really hard to figure it out. If there were 6 options I would probably set it up exactly like you have and just add 60 or 90 as the 6th option.

 

[Jonnygraysen]

I tried this site for a little bit today. It seems to have a lot of facts but not too much clinical significance. It's probably useful for reviewing the basics but I tend to be more of a visual learner so I started searching for some review guides and videos and found this site, www.medstudentsource.com. It seems to be like a pintrest for medical student resources or something. Anyway it had some good videos and study guides that helped me more than the outlines on gunner training.

 

[dragon529]

FC took our feedback and implemented new changes! What a surprise..

http://blog.firecracker.me/new-in-firecracker-exam-simulation-lite-mode-more/