Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Tanker Doctrine conflicts

 
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 >> Tanker Doctrine conflicts Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Tanker Doctrine conflicts - 6/10/2021 2:19:19 AM   
1nutworld


Posts: 365
Joined: 4/13/2014
Status: offline 		Hey everyone,

So I've created a scenario for my own amusement, where I have a group of 6 KC-135 tankers set to launch on a support mission with a defined repeatable loop.

The mission status is active yet the tankers are sitting on the runway assigned to a mission that is active but the A/C in question have been on status "preparing to launch" for 15 minutes or longer.

How come they won't launch when directed, and what is the doctrine conflict error message that I am getting?

Tankers are allowed to unrep.

Tankers are NOT allowed to refuel other tankers

Tankers are allowed to refuel other allied units





Attachment (2)

< Message edited by 1nutworld -- 6/10/2021 2:25:14 AM >

_____________________________

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) 1990-1994.
Post #: 1
RE: Tanker Doctrine conflicts - 6/10/2021 10:10:36 AM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline 		Normal reason for this would be it can't move to the runway. Is the runway length big enough?

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to 1nutworld)
Post #: 2
RE: Tanker Doctrine conflicts - 6/10/2021 10:14:20 AM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline 		Checking the DB viewer. The KC-135e seems to want +2601m for TOD

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 3
RE: Tanker Doctrine conflicts - 6/10/2021 10:52:48 AM   
1nutworld


Posts: 365
Joined: 4/13/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm75au

Checking the DB viewer. The KC-135e seems to want +2601m for TOD


That pesky meter at the end of the takeoff distance, bit me!

_____________________________

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) 1990-1994.

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 4
RE: Tanker Doctrine conflicts - 6/10/2021 11:33:11 AM   
1nutworld


Posts: 365
Joined: 4/13/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm75au

Checking the DB viewer. The KC-135e seems to want +2601m for TOD



Thanks for spotting that, I just made the assumption that that runway at Sigonella was plenty long enough, given that it previously had hosted C-130, C-17, C-5 and KC-10 Tankers, as well as other KC-135's, I didn't pay attention to the TOD of the 135E

_____________________________

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) 1990-1994.

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 5
RE: Tanker Doctrine conflicts - 6/10/2021 6:44:08 PM   
cmanouser1

 

Posts: 167
Joined: 2/28/2020
Status: offline 		This situation probably deserves another message in the status window clearly indicating the runway problem.

(in reply to 1nutworld)
Post #: 6
RE: Tanker Doctrine conflicts - 6/11/2021 12:31:27 AM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline 		Another common fault is the Runway Access point. Some of the Pre-fabricated airbases in the import/export folder may only have access points for Large AC and you need them for Very Large. Easy to work around in the editor, just add what you need and group them and it will work.

_____________________________

Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/

(in reply to cmanouser1)
Post #: 7
RE: Tanker Doctrine conflicts - 6/11/2021 6:26:04 AM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cmanouser1

This situation probably deserves another message in the status window clearly indicating the runway problem.

I was thinking the same thing but it is not as simple as that.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to cmanouser1)
Post #: 8
RE: Tanker Doctrine conflicts - 6/11/2021 11:53:17 AM   
1nutworld


Posts: 365
Joined: 4/13/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm75au


quote:

ORIGINAL: cmanouser1

This situation probably deserves another message in the status window clearly indicating the runway problem.

I was thinking the same thing but it is not as simple as that.


SOME sort of message noting the a/c take off distance vs runway length would obviously have been very helpful and a seemingly easy fix, but I think we would all be surprised at the effort it would take to create such a message. Says the guy that has no coding skills what-so-ever. Maybe it would be easier than presumed, likely we will never know. I suspect the Devs have bigger fish to catch and fry up in the pan, before moving on to this adventure.

< Message edited by 1nutworld -- 6/11/2021 11:54:15 AM >

_____________________________

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) 1990-1994.

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 9
RE: Tanker Doctrine conflicts - 6/11/2021 12:10:09 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline 		If the logic a player had to go through to diagnose the issue was torturous, I think the devs might prioritize it. But there are usually only two reasons for the issue, runway length and lack of access points. Both of which can be figured out with available resources. Runway length being the easier of the two. Access points are usually the first thing I look at if its a base and scenario I'm not familiar with. But you have to have a little experience with the game to deduce that.

_____________________________

You are like puss filled boil on nice of ass of bikini model. You are nasty to everybody but then try to sweeten things up with a nice post somewhere else. That's nice but you're still a boil on a beautiful thing! - BDukes

(in reply to 1nutworld)
Post #: 10
RE: Tanker Doctrine conflicts - 6/11/2021 1:34:22 PM   
LORDPrometheus

 

Posts: 131
Joined: 1/8/2018
Status: offline 		I think a simple warning in the message log that says something like "flight X on mission X unable to take off no runway"

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 11
RE: Tanker Doctrine conflicts - 6/11/2021 3:26:18 PM   
schweggy

 

Posts: 87
Joined: 2/3/2015
Status: offline 		If you are populating an airbase and you try to stuff a "very large aircraft" into a hanger suitable for "2 medium aircraft" you can't. The sim doesn't give an error, it just won't put the plane in the hanger. However, if you have the entire airbase selected with hangers of all sizes and there's room in one of them, you can add the aircraft. The sim assigns a place. You can do this manually for non-single unit airbases. So, as someone else who knows very little about coding this sort of implies that there is some kind of logic check that goes on as far as aircraft size vs. aircraft parking is concerned. I would think it can be extended to access points and runways for non-single unit airbases. An error indicating the issue could likely be generated. Level of effort is another issue.

(in reply to LORDPrometheus)
Post #: 12
RE: Tanker Doctrine conflicts - 6/12/2021 8:05:41 AM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline 		As this should not happen to a player, it is a designer issue.
So I have made an update to 'Edit hosted a/c' to alert the designer that the aircraft being added can't be launched. The warning message lets them cancel the operation or force it thru (in case they are going to change the runway later).
In addition, if the a/c can't launch, a message will be added to the log and it will go into 'waiting for runway' status. At this point, the a/c is really unusable if it gets there. Thus again why the emphasis is on the initial adding to the a/c to the airfield.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to schweggy)
Post #: 13
RE: Tanker Doctrine conflicts - 6/12/2021 7:19:19 PM   
1nutworld


Posts: 365
Joined: 4/13/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm75au

As this should not happen to a player, it is a designer issue.
So I have made an update to 'Edit hosted a/c' to alert the designer that the aircraft being added can't be launched. The warning message lets them cancel the operation or force it thru (in case they are going to change the runway later).
In addition, if the a/c can't launch, a message will be added to the log and it will go into 'waiting for runway' status. At this point, the a/c is really unusable if it gets there. Thus again why the emphasis is on the initial adding to the a/c to the airfield.


Is this an edit for CMO in general, to be included in the next update that is released?

_____________________________

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) 1990-1994.

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 14
RE: Tanker Doctrine conflicts - 6/13/2021 2:11:29 AM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline 		yes








Attachment (2)

< Message edited by michaelm75au -- 6/13/2021 2:24:58 AM >

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to 1nutworld)
Post #: 15
RE: Tanker Doctrine conflicts - 6/13/2021 4:46:36 PM   
KnightHawk75

 

Posts: 1450
Joined: 11/15/2018
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm75au

As this should not happen to a player, it is a designer issue.
So I have made an update to 'Edit hosted a/c' to alert the designer that the aircraft being added can't be launched. The warning message lets them cancel the operation or force it thru (in case they are going to change the runway later).
In addition, if the a/c can't launch, a message will be added to the log and it will go into 'waiting for runway' status. At this point, the a/c is really unusable if it gets there. Thus again why the emphasis is on the initial adding to the a/c to the airfield.


Smart. :)
Thanks for this addition, appreciate allowing option it force it through as I can think of cases where it might be desired to have it stranded initially, actually I can think of a couple.

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 16
RE: Tanker Doctrine conflicts - 6/13/2021 5:26:25 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline 		Downstream effect is this will be tangible indicator to the player how bad a base has been damaged as well,

B

_____________________________

Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/

(in reply to KnightHawk75)
Post #: 17
RE: Tanker Doctrine conflicts - 6/14/2021 11:26:24 AM   
1nutworld


Posts: 365
Joined: 4/13/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

Downstream effect is this will be tangible indicator to the player how bad a base has been damaged as well,

B




that will be something to look forward to!

_____________________________

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) 1990-1994.

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 18
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tanker Doctrine conflicts 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

0.703