[FIXED B1115.7] Same scenario, very different results

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

[FIXED B1115.7] Same scenario, very different results

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 >> Tech Support >> [FIXED B1115.7] Same scenario, very different results

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

[FIXED B1115.7] Same scenario, very different results - 11/17/2019 7:25:59 AM

mavfin

Posts: 274
Joined: 6/22/2010
Status: offline

Take the posted Scenario, you will probably recognize it.
I ran this in CMANO, then I turned around and ran it in CMO, in the form posted here (DB 478), and after updating it to DB 480.

This is a pure vanilla air/strike scenario. Nothing unusual, what should happen is pretty unsurprising...or it should be.

In CMANO, it worked as I expected. Make sure you do some off-axis attacks from your strike missions, so you can see the difference between CMANO and CMO with them...

In CMO, it didn't go as I expected.
In CMANO, the red fighters charged so they could get a shot at the blue fighters, but in CMO they just milled around in circles waiting to be killed.

In CMANO, I set up 3 2-plane strikes to kill the 3 SAM sites. They tried hard, with a steady stream of SAMS attempting to kill me, and did kill an A-7, but the Shrikes and the other A-7's bomblets finished the job.

In CMO, The off-axis attacks didn't even launch anything, except in one of the three cases. They went to the initial point...turned away and RTB'ed. The one 'normal' attack with Walleyes...went to the IP, turned around, and RTBed, never fired a shot. Also, there were no SAMS from the SAM sites. At all. The off-axis attacks overflew them, but no missiles were fired from the SAM sites, sort of the issues we've seen with AAW ships, etc.

You don't need to download this file if you don't want to. If you have CMANO, you can use your own copy.

Something's not right. Devs, run this in CMANO, then CMO twice, and see what happens.

EDIT: Try the Warship Operations, 2013 in CMANO and CMO as well. Watch the P-3 in CMO, and then the DDG when it finally fires the SLAMS. Run it a couple times if you need to. Half the time or more, it just sits there watching the SLAMS get closer...something's not right. Do some comparison, and some testing, please.

I just spent 90 bucks on CMO and Tacview, hoping to play this all weekend...but it's barely playable.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Dimitris -- 11/18/2019 4:04:02 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Same scenario, very different results - 11/17/2019 12:07:37 PM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

quote:

In CMANO, it worked as I expected. Make sure you do some off-axis attacks from your strike missions, so you can see the difference between CMANO and CMO with them...

In CMO, it didn't go as I expected.
In CMANO, the red fighters charged so they could get a shot at the blue fighters, but in CMO they just milled around in circles waiting to be killed.

In CMANO, I set up 3 2-plane strikes to kill the 3 SAM sites. They tried hard, with a steady stream of SAMS attempting to kill me, and did kill an A-7, but the Shrikes and the other A-7's bomblets finished the job.

In CMO, The off-axis attacks didn't even launch anything, except in one of the three cases. They went to the initial point...turned away and RTB'ed. The one 'normal' attack with Walleyes...went to the IP, turned around, and RTBed, never fired a shot. Also, there were no SAMS from the SAM sites. At all. The off-axis attacks overflew them, but no missiles were fired from the SAM sites, sort of the issues we've seen with AAW ships, etc.

I have been testing exactly the same thing that you have been doing (a bunch of different scenarios) and I have experienced the exact same results.

(in reply to mavfin)

Post #: 2

RE: Same scenario, very different results - 11/17/2019 12:14:41 PM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

Thanks, logged and we'll investigate this. I suspect it is related to some other reports on strange auto-engage behavior.

< Message edited by Dimitris -- 11/17/2019 12:19:37 PM >

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 3

RE: Same scenario, very different results - 11/17/2019 1:01:00 PM

muzzlehead

Posts: 15
Joined: 5/20/2000
Status: offline

I have been witnessing random RTB in combat also on automatic attacks...

No obvious reason waypoints or targets assigned, weapons and fuel available yet the assigned flight sections on a patrol or strike mission will close to engage and then suddenly RTB... if I unassign the flight section from the RTB, I can direct them via F1 or shift F1 to engage the target.

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 4

RE: Same scenario, very different results - 11/17/2019 2:54:59 PM

JOhnnyr

Posts: 136
Joined: 4/14/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mavfin

Take the posted Scenario, you will probably recognize it.
I ran this in CMANO, then I turned around and ran it in CMO, in the form posted here (DB 478), and after updating it to DB 480.

This is a pure vanilla air/strike scenario. Nothing unusual, what should happen is pretty unsurprising...or it should be.

In CMANO, it worked as I expected. Make sure you do some off-axis attacks from your strike missions, so you can see the difference between CMANO and CMO with them...

In CMO, it didn't go as I expected.
In CMANO, the red fighters charged so they could get a shot at the blue fighters, but in CMO they just milled around in circles waiting to be killed.

In CMANO, I set up 3 2-plane strikes to kill the 3 SAM sites. They tried hard, with a steady stream of SAMS attempting to kill me, and did kill an A-7, but the Shrikes and the other A-7's bomblets finished the job.

In CMO, The off-axis attacks didn't even launch anything, except in one of the three cases. They went to the initial point...turned away and RTB'ed. The one 'normal' attack with Walleyes...went to the IP, turned around, and RTBed, never fired a shot. Also, there were no SAMS from the SAM sites. At all. The off-axis attacks overflew them, but no missiles were fired from the SAM sites, sort of the issues we've seen with AAW ships, etc.

You don't need to download this file if you don't want to. If you have CMANO, you can use your own copy.

Something's not right. Devs, run this in CMANO, then CMO twice, and see what happens.

EDIT: Try the Warship Operations, 2013 in CMANO and CMO as well. Watch the P-3 in CMO, and then the DDG when it finally fires the SLAMS. Run it a couple times if you need to. Half the time or more, it just sits there watching the SLAMS get closer...something's not right. Do some comparison, and some testing, please.

I just spent 90 bucks on CMO and Tacview, hoping to play this all weekend...but it's barely playable.

Agreed, the bugs in the logic currently make it unplayable. The good news is everything else is fantastic, the UI, new sounds, responsiveness, etc.

Just need these bugs ironed out, some fog of war in tacview, and we have the best game since....well since CMANO! (Which is a hell of an achievement)

(in reply to mavfin)

Post #: 5

RE: Same scenario, very different results - 11/17/2019 4:50:24 PM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

Okay, we may have solved this.

Please download this test build (exe only): https://drive.google.com/open?id=1batSQ5GLxSUM7vQ3Vzzvu1u8tPmdvl49

To use it, unzip on your installation folder, overwriting the existing Command.exe .

This should solve the issue of units not targeting (and thus not engaging) contacts.

Let us know. Thanks!

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to JOhnnyr)

Post #: 6

RE: Same scenario, very different results - 11/17/2019 6:05:51 PM

mavfin

Posts: 274
Joined: 6/22/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

Okay, we may have solved this.

Please download this test build (exe only): https://drive.google.com/open?id=1batSQ5GLxSUM7vQ3Vzzvu1u8tPmdvl49

To use it, unzip on your installation folder, overwriting the existing Command.exe .

This should solve the issue of units not targeting (and thus not engaging) contacts.

Let us know. Thanks!

I'll try it out and see.

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 7

RE: Same scenario, very different results - 11/17/2019 7:13:57 PM

mavfin

Posts: 274
Joined: 6/22/2010
Status: offline

Ok, test build, using the Basic Warship Operations, 2013 from CMANO:
Great improvement, P-3 found the DDG, fired missiles, and DDG fired back, no hesitation.
Nanuchka fired at the DDG, probably using ESM. Didn't happen earlier. DDG defended itself.
Looks much better.

Running Basic Air Operations, 1983 now, see what the strike missions do. Note that I've shortened firing ranges a bit on standoff/AAW weapons as well in WRA. Will report in a few.
EDIT1: 1st up, Red aircraft charged in looking for a shot. Didn't get one, but they did try, didn't just sit back and circle waiting to die. Next up, strike missions.
EDIT2: Quick note: Air Intercept mission immediately RTB'ed when no more hostile targets. No hanging around. WAD?
EDIT3: Done. Worked pretty well. Bombing was much better. Would stay high and fire Shrikes, then dive for the low pass with the cluster bombs on the SAM sites. Other strike missions worked just fine. Evidently Walleye doesn't like off-axis attack. Maybe the game engine could tell us not to do that, rather than launch and immediate RTB(Mission Over) with the ordnance still aboard? I unassigned, unchecked the box, and re-assigned, and worked fine. Was just experimenting with the setting.

< Message edited by mavfin -- 11/17/2019 8:17:13 PM >

(in reply to mavfin)

Post #: 8

RE: Same scenario, very different results - 11/17/2019 7:58:50 PM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mavfin
EDIT2: Quick note: Air Intercept mission immediately RTB'ed when no more hostile targets. No hanging around. WAD?

I think so, the entire concept of both strike and air-intercept missions is to go in and out as rapidly as possible. Patrols cover the "loiter" behavior.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to mavfin)

Post #: 9

RE: Same scenario, very different results - 11/17/2019 8:16:22 PM

JOhnnyr

Posts: 136
Joined: 4/14/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

quote:

ORIGINAL: mavfin
EDIT2: Quick note: Air Intercept mission immediately RTB'ed when no more hostile targets. No hanging around. WAD?

I think so, the entire concept of both strike and air-intercept missions is to go in and out as rapidly as possible. Patrols cover the "loiter" behavior.

Dimitris,

Behavior with aircraft not going to the desired height during a mission (Strike tutorial 2 is a good example) is still the same. (Not sure if this patch was to address that or not)

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 10

RE: Same scenario, very different results - 11/17/2019 8:18:56 PM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

No, this test build was specifically about the "reluctance to auto-engage" issue.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to JOhnnyr)

Post #: 11

RE: Same scenario, very different results - 11/17/2019 8:20:17 PM

mavfin

Posts: 274
Joined: 6/22/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

quote:

ORIGINAL: mavfin
EDIT2: Quick note: Air Intercept mission immediately RTB'ed when no more hostile targets. No hanging around. WAD?

I think so, the entire concept of both strike and air-intercept missions is to go in and out as rapidly as possible. Patrols cover the "loiter" behavior.

Fair enough. Just have to adjust usage of same a bit. That's very workable. From thread you quoted, the finish:

quote:

EDIT3: Done. Worked pretty well. Bombing was much better. Would stay high and fire Shrikes, then dive for the low pass with the cluster bombs on the SAM sites. Other strike missions worked just fine. Evidently Walleye doesn't like off-axis attack. Maybe the game engine could tell us not to do that, rather than launch and immediate RTB(Mission Over) with the ordnance still aboard? I unassigned, unchecked the box, and re-assigned, and worked fine. Was just experimenting with the setting.

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 12

RE: Same scenario, very different results - 11/17/2019 8:21:01 PM

JOhnnyr

Posts: 136
Joined: 4/14/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

No, this test build was specifically about the "reluctance to auto-engage" issue.

Got it, thank you so much for all you do Dimitris. I hope you guys are holding up ok. You've got one of the best games of all time on your hands, so please know how much we all appreciate you guys.

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 13

RE: Same scenario, very different results - 11/17/2019 8:26:04 PM

mavfin

Posts: 274
Joined: 6/22/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

No, this test build was specifically about the "reluctance to auto-engage" issue.

Yeah, and that helped the Strike missions and the SAM/AAW ship issue a lot. I forgot to mention when running the Air Operations, LOTS of SAM firing this time. No lack of that this time.

Only nitpick is whether iron bomb intended bombing height is 36K ft? CBUs were dropped in a low pass, but iron bombs stayed high. Not an auto-engage issue, but not sure if a bug/issue for the 'small issue' list; i.e. is WAD or not.

Regardless, now things work mostly as expected, so we can pick out the small issues. Thanks for the quick fix!

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 14

RE: Same scenario, very different results - 11/17/2019 11:04:23 PM

mavfin

Posts: 274
Joined: 6/22/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

quote:

ORIGINAL: mavfin
EDIT2: Quick note: Air Intercept mission immediately RTB'ed when no more hostile targets. No hanging around. WAD?

I think so, the entire concept of both strike and air-intercept missions is to go in and out as rapidly as possible. Patrols cover the "loiter" behavior.

Found an issue with this behavior:

To re-create: go to Flight Tutorial 3 - AAW 1 - Simple Intercept

Set up an AAW patrol with 1 F-16, set up an Intercept with another F-16. Note that there's a hostile UAV already in the air, auto-detected.

AAW Patrol launches, and so does Intercept...but the Intercept immediately goes RTB(Mission Over). Hostile target is still inbound, auto-detected, *but* hasn't been painted by radar yet. I suspect that's why it RTBed? But, if that's the reason, why did it even launch? Waste of ready time...

Short version: If it's going to RTB immediately...maybe the launch conditions should be consistent so it doesn't waste the ready time?

EDIT1: Pic attached of issue. This is the Flight Tutorial 5 - AAW 3 - Challenged Intercept.
There's a hostile bogey in the air and two yellow (unident) bogies in the air. The AAW Patrol just has Pythons, and is penned in the box by the rules set on its mission.

Three F-15s have launched or are launching, but, if you look at the attached pic, the first interceptor is already RTBing. Nothing has happened to the red hostile that was launched to shoot at it, but it's RTBing anyway. There's two yellow bogies that need ident, but it's going to ignore those, too? Yeah, if it's WAD, then the D(esign) needs some work. Definitely some issues there.

EDIT2: Now, if I, immediately after this pic, unassign the Baz#1 from the pic, wait two seconds, and then assign it to the Intercept mission that launched it, it then goes after the hostile bogie. Got something in the decision loop messed up. It knows why it launched it, but it's wanting to put it on the ground too quickly.

EDIT3: Three more launched. (had 4 assigned to intercept, set to single plane) Still only 3 bogies out there. All 3 immediately auto-RTBed(Misson Over). Once again, I Unassigned them. Assigned two of them back to the Intercept mission, and now they're going after the two yellow unidentified bogies.

Conclusion: something is sending them back to base way too quickly.

EDIT4: with other bogies still in the air, one fired 2 missiles, killed one target, and went RTB Shotgun. The other shot 1 missile, killed one target, went RTB Shotgun. Is that WAD?

Looks like for the moment, I'll have to launch intercepts manually, and then can put them into a mission once they're in the air, and they should chase down, but I'll need to watch WRA and loadout stuff really close.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by mavfin -- 11/17/2019 11:43:59 PM >

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 15

RE: Same scenario, very different results - 11/18/2019 1:54:41 AM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

quote:

All 3 immediately auto-RTBed(Misson Over). Once again, I Unassigned them. Assigned two of them back to the Intercept mission, and now they're going after the two yellow unidentified bogies.

I had the exact same thing, but with ground strike missions.

As soon as they were in the air, their status was immediately changed to RTB (Mission Over). They hardly left the base. I immediately "Unassigned" them from their mission, and then promptly re-assigned them to their original mission, and they proceeded on toward their target. (You do have to watch to make sure that their fuel status didn't already go to BINGO. If it did, then there is no helping them.)

I also tried a version where I simply launched the planes, and then either create a mission for them after they are in the air, or I give them an assigned path toward the target. Both of these methods work, but they are conducive if you are designing scenarios. You can't "help" the AI for the computer opponent. <lol>

EDIT: One final thing that is related, but not directly involved with this. When switching back and forth from one side to the other, I see that that the Plotted Path of my striking aircraft (because I have him highlighted) is being displayed to the enemy when I switch to that side. The problem is that the enemy has not yet learned in the incoming attack. So, the plotted course of the attackers is essentially notifying that the enemy is coming.

< Message edited by DWReese -- 11/18/2019 3:13:57 AM >

(in reply to mavfin)

Post #: 16

RE: Same scenario, very different results - 11/18/2019 1:34:04 PM

LMychajluk

Posts: 126
Joined: 10/8/2017
Status: offline

Same issue w/ a Ground Attack mission as well. I set up a Ground Strike mission w/ no targets and assigned 4 F-18s w/ AGM-88Es, thinking that once enemy air defences were ID'd by other aircraft, they'd take off and strike the Radars. A few minutes later, once the radars were spotted by other units, I was looking for them because I didn't see them in the air and found them already completing landing.

FWIW, I've also seen something similar w/ a Poseidon assigned to a ASW Mission. Found him circling the airfield he took off from instead of heading to the patrol area.

I tend to assign aircraft to missions from the Aircraft screen once the mission is created, if that makes a difference.

Will try to capture the save next time.

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 17

RE: Same scenario, very different results - 11/18/2019 2:18:35 PM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

Can you check with the update that we released today? : https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4718983 . It includes some fixes for strike missions.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to LMychajluk)

Post #: 18

RE: Same scenario, very different results - 11/18/2019 2:27:12 PM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

I've been doing lots of testing on my own, and I believe that the version that was released this morning corrects this issue. I have tested it several times, and I am very pleased with it.

Download it, install it, and check to see if it corrects your issue. I believe that you will be very pleased.

Doug

(in reply to LMychajluk)

Post #: 19

RE: Same scenario, very different results - 11/18/2019 6:57:17 PM

dontpKaniC

Posts: 9
Joined: 12/12/2015
Status: offline

Does this update include the earlier fix for the AAW bug from earlier in the thread? There is no mention of it in the changelist.

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 20

RE: Same scenario, very different results - 11/18/2019 7:37:44 PM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

Yes.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to dontpKaniC)

Post #: 21

RE: Same scenario, very different results - 11/18/2019 9:14:11 PM

kevinkins

Posts: 2257
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline

Thanks for the quick reaction to important user observations as they were posted above since the re-launch. Just a quick question(s), what does B1115.7 exactly address? Are there any unresolved issues mentioned by users in this specific thread? I know there are other fixes on the way, but these issues are some of the most critical uncovered so far.

OK missed this, was auto-engage addressed in *.6? I think it was and all the issues related to this thread are now considered resolved:

Changes from B1115.6
---------------------------------------
* Includes a number of older DB versions, in order to support loading various community scenarios.
* FIXED: 3D shape for Arleigh Burke-class DDG missing from Tacview resources
* FIXED: Script issue in QBG template "Submarine 1v1 duel"
* FIXED: Car navigation bug on "Raid on Kismayo"
* FIXED: Startup freeze on high-DPI desktop when the automatic 4K-fix has been rejected
* FIXED: Aircraft on strike mission flight path not obeying manual (player-given) changes to waypoint altitude
* FIXED: Aircraft on strike mission may automatically enter RTB status after takeoff even though they still fly the path
* Map tweak: Show the flight paths of airborne strike flights

Kevin

< Message edited by kevinkins -- 11/18/2019 9:30:05 PM >

_____________________________

�The study of history lies at the foundation of all sound military conclusions and practice.�
― Alfred Thayer Mahan

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 22

RE: Same scenario, very different results - 11/18/2019 11:04:59 PM

LMychajluk

Posts: 126
Joined: 10/8/2017
Status: offline

Doesn't look like it's fixed in 1115.6. See attached.

The Seahawks on the Wasp (Redcocks) are assigned to the 'ASW Intercept' Mission with an 80nm range limit. No Targets currently assigned to the mission.
Hit 'Play'.
Within about 5 minutes, 2 of the Redcocks will launch, then immediately RTB as soon as they're in the air.

There is a ambiguous contact off to the west, and the 'center' of the ambiguity zone (where the unit icon is) is just at the edge of the 80nm limit of the Mission range. I'm guessing this is maybe triggering the mission?

May be a separate question/problem - Also note that changing the number of flights that can fly a mission will change the number of helo's launched. I may have this wrong, but I thought this was also be limited to 1 flight / target? So, a single target would only trigger 1 flight, with a Max of X Flights in the Air?

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by LMychajluk -- 11/18/2019 11:06:01 PM >

(in reply to kevinkins)

Post #: 23

RE: Same scenario, very different results - 11/18/2019 11:31:04 PM

JOhnnyr

Posts: 136
Joined: 4/14/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LMychajluk

Doesn't look like it's fixed in 1115.6. See attached.

The Seahawks on the Wasp (Redcocks) are assigned to the 'ASW Intercept' Mission with an 80nm range limit. No Targets currently assigned to the mission.
Hit 'Play'.
Within about 5 minutes, 2 of the Redcocks will launch, then immediately RTB as soon as they're in the air.

There is a ambiguous contact off to the west, and the 'center' of the ambiguity zone (where the unit icon is) is just at the edge of the 80nm limit of the Mission range. I'm guessing this is maybe triggering the mission?

May be a separate question/problem - Also note that changing the number of flights that can fly a mission will change the number of helo's launched. I may have this wrong, but I thought this was also be limited to 1 flight / target? So, a single target would only trigger 1 flight, with a Max of X Flights in the Air?

1115.6 is old news! we're on to v1115.7!!

(in reply to LMychajluk)

Post #: 24

RE: Same scenario, very different results - 11/18/2019 11:43:47 PM

mavfin

Posts: 274
Joined: 6/22/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LMychajluk

Doesn't look like it's fixed in 1115.6. See attached.

Go to the main page and get the 1115.7 patch, and test again. Supposed to be fixed now.

EDIT: Just did the Intercept stuff with 1115.7. Seems to be fixed. Not RTBing too quickly.

< Message edited by mavfin -- 11/19/2019 12:04:41 AM >

(in reply to LMychajluk)

Post #: 25

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tech Support >> [FIXED B1115.7] Same scenario, very different results

Page: [1]