Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Support Mission Routing Logic

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Support Mission Routing Logic Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Support Mission Routing Logic - 12/22/2013 9:31:32 AM   
bsq


Posts: 517
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline 		Seems to me that support mission route logic only works for some types of routes.

What I would like to see it work for is A - B - C (reverse course as in C - B - A). This is after all what IRL support missions such as GMTI, ELINT, AAR do after all. At the momemt, if I put in A B and C, the unit would fly A to B to C to A - which is not what I intend at all.

The more complex the routes, the worse it gets to the point where cyclic land routes are near impossible to do, because the unit hightails it back to point A in a straight line, which is the behaviour of ships (sometimes aeroplanes) but most definately not land units.
Post #: 1
RE: Support Mission Routing Logic - 12/22/2013 11:48:35 AM   
Jakob Wedman

 

Posts: 202
Joined: 3/20/2013
Status: offline 		Have you tried A - B - C - B* [new RP close to B]?

_____________________________


(in reply to bsq)
Post #: 2
RE: Support Mission Routing Logic - 12/22/2013 12:46:55 PM   
bsq


Posts: 517
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline 		True would work fine for ABC, now how about A,B...YZ,ZZ where A and ZZ are 100 miles apart on a road? Looks a bit stupid when a truck or car takes the return route through a mountain range Would work if you could put a reverse route or how about being able to add waypoints more than once? I'd be quite happy to work that out when I enter the route...

< Message edited by bsq -- 12/22/2013 1:47:30 PM >

(in reply to Jakob Wedman)
Post #: 3
RE: Support Mission Routing Logic - 12/22/2013 1:39:03 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline 		Can I point out this is an air/naval simulation. I mean really...of all the things the devs want to add, we are focused on cars and their routing looking unrealistic. I think maybe we should cut these guys a little slack and hold off on complaining about some things that are really tangential to what this game is. I am concerned we are heading down the same path H3 went. As more detailed activity was added, people wanted even more detail. There is a concept that comes into play at a point...abstraction.

(in reply to bsq)
Post #: 4
RE: Support Mission Routing Logic - 12/22/2013 2:07:50 PM   
Blu3wolf


Posts: 198
Joined: 9/30/2013
From: Western Australia
Status: offline 		well I for one will say that abstraction is a word I do not like to hear in conjunction with the word simulation.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 5
RE: Support Mission Routing Logic - 12/22/2013 2:18:46 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline 		No matter how detailed a simulation is, you are fooling yourself if you think there is no abstraction in any simulation. Everything is an abstraction. Detail is the enemy of efficiency. There is no way even a Cray can eliminate abstraction. It's a matter of focus for the processing power and the devs. They can speak for themselves, But I really hope we aren't in one of those loops where this game will never be good enough for some people to the point the devs give up or go down a rathole.

By the way, your statement shows an extreme level of naivete in how simulations work and software is developed. I am tired of coming here looking for information on the development of the game and seeing this constant nitpicking at peripheral things that have no bearing on how it plays out.

(in reply to Blu3wolf)
Post #: 6
RE: Support Mission Routing Logic - 12/22/2013 2:33:09 PM   
Blu3wolf


Posts: 198
Joined: 9/30/2013
From: Western Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

No matter how detailed a simulation is, you are fooling yourself if you think there is no abstraction in any simulation. Everything is an abstraction. Detail is the enemy of efficiency. There is no way even a Cray can eliminate abstraction. It's a matter of focus for the processing power and the devs. They can speak for themselves, But I really hope we aren't in one of those loops where this game will never be good enough for some people to the point the devs give up or go down a rathole.

By the way, your statement shows an extreme level of naivete in how simulations work and software is developed. I am tired of coming here looking for information on the development of the game and seeing this constant nitpicking at peripheral things that have no bearing on how it plays out.

Didn't your mother ever teach you, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it at all"?

Tone of language aside, the first statement in your second paragraph has nothing to do with your point. I was going to continue with my understanding (or lack thereof, in your view) of simulation and software development, but frankly I don't see why I bothered typing it out in the first place.




(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 7
RE: Support Mission Routing Logic - 12/22/2013 2:34:46 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline 		We pay attention and consider everything that is posted as we value all but at the end of the day we do ask ourselves is the request necessary and adding game value to the simulation.

_____________________________


(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 8
RE: Support Mission Routing Logic - 12/22/2013 2:35:29 PM   
bsq


Posts: 517
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

No matter how detailed a simulation is, you are fooling yourself if you think there is no abstraction in any simulation. Everything is an abstraction. Detail is the enemy of efficiency. There is no way even a Cray can eliminate abstraction. It's a matter of focus for the processing power and the devs. They can speak for themselves, But I really hope we aren't in one of those loops where this game will never be enough for some people to the point the devs give up or go down a rathole.

By the way, your statement shows an extreme level of naivete in how simulations work and software is developed. I am tired of coming here looking for information on the development of the game and seeing this constant nitpicking at peripheral things that have no bearing on how it plays out.

It very much has a bearing and here is why...

I would like to be able to move TacSAMs along a road. I would like to disguise this activity with civillian/non-miltiary traffic. I want to do this to help 'confuse' the GMTI picture so these units are harder to nail...

May I remind you that whilst is a Naval and Air sim, most action takes place nowadays in the litoral or overland and I am not being nit-picking, I am trying to make a damn good sim better.

Additionally if you read my original post, this has bearing on how the routing works with aeroplanes as well as land traffic and, if land was an irrelavance in the great scheme of things, why bother with any of it at all? (oh and we'd all have gills or wings now wouldn't we )

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 9
RE: Support Mission Routing Logic - 12/22/2013 3:57:53 PM   
navwarcol

 

Posts: 637
Joined: 12/2/2009
Status: offline 		The fact that land units are included, and do move, is a plus over H3. I do think that the entire reason you fight in the air or at sea, is to achieve objectives on the land. I am sure the land combat will itself be much better at some point. The pathing idea can definitely help in that, as once you solve an issue, it generally stays solved and makes it easier for future advances.
My only worry is that as thewood implied above, the more detail that is added, the more of a load on cpu the simulation will need. Our imaginations can most definitely work at a far higher level than current technology.

(in reply to bsq)
Post #: 10
RE: Support Mission Routing Logic - 12/22/2013 4:49:12 PM   
bsq


Posts: 517
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline 		To be honest, it is easily fixed. Allow points to be put in the list more than once then we can enter A,B,C,B or similar and force the unit along the path we set. I am trying not to load up the CPU, which I am sure tracking double the number of RP's would do, if it could be acheived just by a reverse route type of logic.

< Message edited by bsq -- 12/22/2013 5:54:45 PM >

(in reply to navwarcol)
Post #: 11
RE: Support Mission Routing Logic - 12/22/2013 5:00:52 PM   
navwarcol

 

Posts: 637
Joined: 12/2/2009
Status: offline 		Oh I misunderstood you then, my apologies. This would definitely seem easy to do.
quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

To be honest, it is easily fixed. Allow points to be put in the list more than once then we can enter A,B,C,B or similar and force the unit along the path we set. I am trying not to load up the CPU, which I am sure tracking double the number of RP's would do, if it could be acheived just by a reverse route type of logic.


(in reply to bsq)
Post #: 12
RE: Support Mission Routing Logic - 12/22/2013 5:28:37 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline 		Guys, I have seen this movie before. Intense excitement at the beginning, then the rivet counters show up and completely distract the developers and send them down ratholes of detail and everyone loses sight that its a game that can't do everything. Comments like easy, simple, quick get thrown around. What we will end up with is a morass of patched up detailed features and functions to amuse a small niche of people that want every frequency and every drop of fuel accounted for. Meanwhile, the paying masses, what few there are, have moved on for something that might be a little more manageable. See Combat Mission, Steel Panthers, Falcon, etc. Very active, and very small market.

I will just keep playing and enjoying it. As things get fixed, I'll be happy. But I know where this is going and it bums me out. By the way, I am not hiding my tone. My tone is disbelief, anger, and disappointment.

(in reply to navwarcol)
Post #: 13
RE: Support Mission Routing Logic - 12/22/2013 6:48:40 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline 		Guys no worries really We have developed a good barometer over what's important and do blow things bye active players to see if they really matter.



_____________________________


(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 14
RE: Support Mission Routing Logic - 12/23/2013 3:24:54 PM   
navwarcol

 

Posts: 637
Joined: 12/2/2009
Status: offline 		Thewood... please don't get me wrong.. I also "keep playing and enjoying it"... as well, the reason in my post above, that you replied to about the "easy" being thrown around... please note that I placed that word as follows "...definitely seem easy..."
Those faces were because, as someone working on my own project for two militaries, I KNOW that it is not 'easy' to do anything.. each thing done, risks messing up other things, I know that. I also know, that as mentioned in the original ads for this game, land warfare was always something intended to do, so bsq's request with that regard is not immaterial. For myself I would also love a game where one could posit an entire clash, for example to run a real "wargame" where the entire war effort was able to be played out, land, sea, and air. I am not sure if "CMANO" may, someday, be this... some of the screenshots and comments before it was released, suggested that it may someday be up to that. I will not be "disappointed" if it does not, but I will be thrilled, if it does. In the meantime, it won't stop me from enjoying a great sim already.

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 15
RE: Support Mission Routing Logic - 12/23/2013 5:02:03 PM   
bsq


Posts: 517
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline 		It was a simple request, to make some units behave as they do IRL whether simulated, emulated or abstracted. I dont want the devs going down rat holes and I dont want the game to dive into the minutiae of logistics and bean counting. Maybe my examples were a bad choice, but, the point is valid, the routing could be improved so that cyclic routes are exactly that.

BUT if certain units aren't there as just eye candy, then they should behave as IRL. The way some people view the land aspects of the sim smack very much of 'naval' types who forget there are several other domains in which warefare is conducted. In this sim we have Sea, Air, Land and Space - so lets not forget aspects of it because we have been tarnished by what has happened in the past to projects like H3, because this isn't H3.

(in reply to navwarcol)
Post #: 16
RE: Support Mission Routing Logic - 12/23/2013 5:09:54 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline 		Very constructive.

Have a nice holiday all.

Mike

_____________________________


(in reply to bsq)
Post #: 17
RE: Support Mission Routing Logic - 12/23/2013 5:49:54 PM   
bsq


Posts: 517
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline 		Sorry, I'll get back in my (light blue) box

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 18
RE: Support Mission Routing Logic - 12/23/2013 8:45:24 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline 		Much appreciated. Thanks!

_____________________________


(in reply to bsq)
Post #: 19
RE: Support Mission Routing Logic - 12/23/2013 11:41:42 PM   
navwarcol

 

Posts: 637
Joined: 12/2/2009
Status: offline 		To you and yours as well Mike.
quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Very constructive.

Have a nice holiday all.

Mike


(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 20
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Support Mission Routing Logic Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.730