TRACOM Bug

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

TRACOM Bug

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] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> TRACOM Bug

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

TRACOM Bug - 12/17/2020 11:43:26 PM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

I can provide independent evidence elsewhere that the TRACOM bug mentioned elsewhere (here, for example) appears to exists in the latest version (1.8.11.26b)

Number of pilots in TRACOM when this screenshot was taken was:
IJA - 151
IJN - 429 (!)

As can be seen, adding a substantial number of pilots to TRACOM leads to large increases to IJN pilot skills, allowing unnamed pilots to be drawn from the replacement pool with EXP much higher than they should have. Range I have observed from drawing unnamed pilots was from 67 EXP down to 48 EXP.

Interestingly, IJA pilots do not seem to be affected by this large increase. However, it is possible that this is a reflection of smaller numbers of IJA pilots on TRACOM duty.

While it takes a fairly substantial effort on the part of a player to amass this number of pilots in TRACOM, it does pose the potential to be game-breaking in that large numbers of pilots can be churned out with high EXP values, and potentially (if sufficient pilots are added to TRACOM) to create a positive feedback loop by enabling pilots to be drawn from the replacement pool with EXP greater than 81, and then immediately be sent back into the pool to provide a further boost.

Post #: 1

RE: TRACOM Bug - 12/18/2020 12:03:33 AM

Kull

Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline

This is not a surprise. The only aspect which hasn't been proven is whether the bug also affects the Allies. And yes, it affects IJA equally - GetAssista's post (the one you linked) has screenshots which prove that.

< Message edited by Kull -- 12/18/2020 12:07:13 AM >

_____________________________

AE-Japan Setup

AE-Allied Setup

Japan Air-Engine Plan

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 2

RE: TRACOM Bug - 12/18/2020 2:24:02 AM

GetAssista

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull
And yes, it affects IJA equally - GetAssista's post (the one you linked) has screenshots which prove that.

Umm, I think all of the screenshots there are about IJNAF affected. IJA sits near normal 35 xp in all of them. I'm swamped with work rn at the year end, but plan to do a clean experiment some time in the vacations for all the nations

(in reply to Kull)

Post #: 3

RE: TRACOM Bug - 12/18/2020 2:09:17 PM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

This is not a surprise. The only aspect which hasn't been proven is whether the bug also affects the Allies. And yes, it affects IJA equally - GetAssista's post (the one you linked) has screenshots which prove that.

No evidence to suggest that IJA is impacted by this also as of yet. Both myself and GetAssista's post show's IJA EXP fairly close to the mark.

As I have said, could be that it is not affected, could be that there's just not a critical mass of TRACOM pilots in the IJA TRACOM programme.

(in reply to Kull)

Post #: 4

RE: TRACOM Bug - 12/18/2020 2:28:20 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

Another thing that jumped out to me: there are hardly any IJN pilots in there, maybe the number of pilots has something to do with it.

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 5

RE: TRACOM Bug - 12/18/2020 2:36:16 PM

Kull

Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull
And yes, it affects IJA equally - GetAssista's post (the one you linked) has screenshots which prove that.

Umm, I think all of the screenshots there are about IJNAF affected. IJA sits near normal 35 xp in all of them. I'm swamped with work rn at the year end, but plan to do a clean experiment some time in the vacations for all the nations

Yeah, the IJN numbers are more obvious, but even with the IJA we see that 100 pilots has edged the base-level experience to 36, which is one point higher than the supposed "cannot be exceeded under circumstances" maximum of 35 (see the graphic in my post, right below his).

So at least there we have an indication that the IJA is also affected. But yes, pumping a few hundred IJA pilots into TRACOM would confirm it, either way.

_____________________________

AE-Japan Setup

AE-Allied Setup

Japan Air-Engine Plan

(in reply to GetAssista)

Post #: 6

RE: TRACOM Bug - 12/18/2020 2:40:15 PM

Kull

Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Another thing that jumped out to me: there are hardly any IJN pilots in there, maybe the number of pilots has something to do with it.

Not likely - see the graphics in GetAssista's linked post. He has 1561 IJN pilots in October 1943 and the base experience level is even higher than mind_messing's

_____________________________

AE-Japan Setup

AE-Allied Setup

Japan Air-Engine Plan

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 7

RE: TRACOM Bug - 12/21/2020 4:53:49 PM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Another thing that jumped out to me: there are hardly any IJN pilots in there, maybe the number of pilots has something to do with it.

Worth pointing out that this is roughly 12 months on from gutting the IJN replacement pool for to stack the resized groups.

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 8

RE: TRACOM Bug - 12/12/2021 3:35:20 AM

michaelm75au

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

Is it possible to get a save showing this?

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 9

RE: TRACOM Bug - 12/12/2021 3:17:35 PM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm75au

Is it possible to get a save showing this?

Drop me a PM with an email address and we can discuss

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 10

RE: TRACOM Bug - 12/30/2021 2:18:06 AM

michaelm75au

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

Can I get a save? I just need to see what players are seeing. There should be limit on the number of 'instructors' being use to do the calculation, so I need to understand what is happening.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 11

RE: TRACOM Bug - 12/30/2021 4:57:59 AM

michaelm75au

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

I have a few saves I will look at. There should be a cap on the number of 'instructors' being used. It isn't there as I don't think anyone expected players to load all their experienced pilots in Training Command in such volumes.
For the IJN, they didn't have many experienced pilots left after all the mid-war year losses in planes/pilots/carriers. Over weighting the Command I don't think was really expected.

Let me get my head around the current process, and what may be wrong or may need tweaking.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 12

RE: TRACOM Bug - 12/30/2021 1:17:50 PM

GetAssista

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm75au

Can I get a save? I just need to see what players are seeing. There should be limit on the number of 'instructors' being use to do the calculation, so I need to understand what is happening.

Woah, woah, you are on the .exe again, what a treat on the NY Eve! I'll get you my TRACOM save too, see attachment

Also, a while back I compiled the few of the left reproducible bugs/inconsistencies in the last beta https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4923122. Feel free to check in and see if something catches your eye

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm75au
For the IJN, they didn't have many experienced pilots left after all the mid-war year losses in planes/pilots/carriers. Over weighting the Command I don't think was really expected.

Stacking Tracom is what JFBs would naturally do while waiting for better (armored) planes for their early war aces

Regards, GA

Attachment (1)

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 13

RE: TRACOM Bug - 12/30/2021 3:14:23 PM

Yaab

Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

michaelm75au, are TRACOM effects relative to the number of pilots in replacemnt pool?

I just had 1 British pilot in TRACOM accelerate 19 pilots

(in reply to GetAssista)

Post #: 14

RE: TRACOM Bug - 1/1/2022 3:11:12 AM

michaelm75au

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

The 'number' of pilots in TRACOM influences the speed of the monthly training cycle. Thus overloading it will speed up the overall training.
Even with one pilot there, it can 'speed' up the cycle if the month's experience level is one close to the national experience level.

As we only do this check on the first of each month, it may look strange sometimes.

Currently every pilot in TRACOM counts towards the 'instructor' count which is how overloading TRACOM is being 'misused'.

I am playing around with some tweaks on how it determines the instructors.
Currently I am going with:
1. must be in Training Command [as is]
2. must have flown more than 10 missions or had more than 10 kills [ must have flown some sort of mission in order to be a 'veteran']
3. must not be wounded [to cater for the possibility that a training mission injures them. As the next time this check runs will be a month later, the pilot will probably had returned to duty]
4. can be injured or killed while being treated as an instructor
In addition, there will be some randomness if the pilot will be included as an instructor for each of the 12 training cycles for the month.

quote:

Woah, woah, you are on the .exe again, what a treat on the NY Eve!

When you think it is behind you, you get pulled in again.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Yaab)

Post #: 15

RE: TRACOM Bug - 1/1/2022 3:27:03 AM

Nomad

Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline

I have had accelerated training for Chinese and Soviet pilots, I am very sure neither has any TRACOM pilots.

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 16

RE: TRACOM Bug - 1/1/2022 3:52:31 AM

michaelm75au

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

I have had accelerated training for Chinese and Soviet pilots, I am very sure neither has any TRACOM pilots.

You don't need TRACOM pilots to get 'accelerated'. If the normal experience improvement reaches the current national level, some pilots jump to the next level automatically.
TRACOM experience improvements allows this jump also.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Nomad)

Post #: 17

RE: TRACOM Bug - 1/1/2022 3:57:23 AM

Nomad

Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm75au

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

I have had accelerated training for Chinese and Soviet pilots, I am very sure neither has any TRACOM pilots.

You don't need TRACOM pilots to get 'accelerated'. If the normal experience improvement reaches the current national level, some pilots jump to the next level automatically.
TRACOM experience improvements allows this jump also.

This was supposed to be in response to Yaab, sorry I should have quoted him.

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 18

RE: TRACOM Bug - 1/1/2022 2:25:33 PM

Kull

Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm75au

3. must not be wounded [to cater for the possibility that a training mission injures them. As the next time this check runs will be a month later, the pilot will probably had returned to duty]
4. can be injured or killed while being treated as an instructor

It's interesting that TRACOM instructors will have the possibility of being injured or killed, because on-map training is completely penalty-free. You can run 100 air units at 100% training for the duration of the war, and won't lose a single airframe or trainee, much less an instructor. Nobody has ever listed this as a bug, but realistically? That's not very realistic. There should be *some* chance that bad things can happen. Even ships on normal supply runs can hit a whale every now and then.

_____________________________

AE-Japan Setup

AE-Allied Setup

Japan Air-Engine Plan

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 19

RE: TRACOM Bug - 1/2/2022 12:26:15 AM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm75au

3. must not be wounded [to cater for the possibility that a training mission injures them. As the next time this check runs will be a month later, the pilot will probably had returned to duty]
4. can be injured or killed while being treated as an instructor

It's interesting that TRACOM instructors will have the possibility of being injured or killed, because on-map training is completely penalty-free. You can run 100 air units at 100% training for the duration of the war, and won't lose a single airframe or trainee, much less an instructor. Nobody has ever listed this as a bug, but realistically? That's not very realistic. There should be *some* chance that bad things can happen. Even ships on normal supply runs can hit a whale every now and then.

That was answered in the past - along the lines of it would be too much coding to make it a feature of the game, so they adjusted the training numbers to account for the lost pilots and instructors and aircraft.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Kull)

Post #: 20

RE: TRACOM Bug - 1/2/2022 2:06:24 AM

Kull

Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm75au

3. must not be wounded [to cater for the possibility that a training mission injures them. As the next time this check runs will be a month later, the pilot will probably had returned to duty]
4. can be injured or killed while being treated as an instructor

It's interesting that TRACOM instructors will have the possibility of being injured or killed, because on-map training is completely penalty-free. You can run 100 air units at 100% training for the duration of the war, and won't lose a single airframe or trainee, much less an instructor. Nobody has ever listed this as a bug, but realistically? That's not very realistic. There should be *some* chance that bad things can happen. Even ships on normal supply runs can hit a whale every now and then.

That was answered in the past - along the lines of it would be too much coding to make it a feature of the game, so they adjusted the training numbers to account for the lost pilots and instructors and aircraft.

Right, but that's the off-map pilot training, i.e. the stuff TRACOM assists with. I'm pointing out that on-map training is completely unrealistic since it's impossible to lose planes or pilots to training accidents - since there aren't any. Which is obviously ludicrous.

Edit: Just looking at the US alone, "over the course of the war 200,000 trainees flunked out or died in training accidents." That quote comes from an interesting article on that topic. Reading it carefully, you can see that a lot of the carnage is covered by "Ops losses" in AE and one could even make a case that the 200K trainees noted above are covered by the unseen offmap attrition. But even with that, it should be obvious that flight training is never a casualty-free exercise. Except in AE, where it is completely safe.

< Message edited by Kull -- 1/2/2022 2:20:09 AM >

_____________________________

AE-Japan Setup

AE-Allied Setup

Japan Air-Engine Plan

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 21

RE: TRACOM Bug - 1/2/2022 3:17:09 AM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm75au

3. must not be wounded [to cater for the possibility that a training mission injures them. As the next time this check runs will be a month later, the pilot will probably had returned to duty]
4. can be injured or killed while being treated as an instructor

It's interesting that TRACOM instructors will have the possibility of being injured or killed, because on-map training is completely penalty-free. You can run 100 air units at 100% training for the duration of the war, and won't lose a single airframe or trainee, much less an instructor. Nobody has ever listed this as a bug, but realistically? That's not very realistic. There should be *some* chance that bad things can happen. Even ships on normal supply runs can hit a whale every now and then.

That was answered in the past - along the lines of it would be too much coding to make it a feature of the game, so they adjusted the training numbers to account for the lost pilots and instructors and aircraft.

Right, but that's the off-map pilot training, i.e. the stuff TRACOM assists with. I'm pointing out that on-map training is completely unrealistic since it's impossible to lose planes or pilots to training accidents - since there aren't any. Which is obviously ludicrous.

Edit: Just looking at the US alone, "over the course of the war 200,000 trainees flunked out or died in training accidents." That quote comes from an interesting article on that topic. Reading it carefully, you can see that a lot of the carnage is covered by "Ops losses" in AE and one could even make a case that the 200K trainees noted above are covered by the unseen offmap attrition. But even with that, it should be obvious that flight training is never a casualty-free exercise. Except in AE, where it is completely safe.

No, the adjustment was meant to cover on-map training too - because that is where you would need the coding to handle it. Just another abstracted shortcut to keep the game within size parameters and within budget.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Kull)

Post #: 22

RE: TRACOM Bug - 1/2/2022 12:08:48 PM

michaelm75au

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

A group Training mission should have a chance to 'crash' a plane on landing as with any other landing. I'll have a look but I had thought there were Op losses happening during training.
Low experienced pilots have an increased chance of crashing a plane on landing. The reverse is also true that experienced pilots have less a chance to have a crash.
In-group training is more a case of honing skills rather than training how to fly from scratch.
The off-map training will 'drop' some pilots from each cycle - this represent those trainees washing out or being killed.

< Message edited by michaelm75au -- 1/2/2022 1:48:58 PM >

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 23

RE: TRACOM Bug - 1/2/2022 2:46:08 PM

Kull

Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm75au

A group Training mission should have a chance to 'crash' a plane on landing as with any other landing. I'll have a look but I had thought there were Op losses happening during training.
Low experienced pilots have an increased chance of crashing a plane on landing. The reverse is also true that experienced pilots have less a chance to have a crash.
In-group training is more a case of honing skills rather than training how to fly from scratch.
The off-map training will 'drop' some pilots from each cycle - this represent those trainees washing out or being killed.

Looking specifically at on-map training, one would expect that heavy use of airframes would increase airframe fatigue, and that Ops Losses would follow. No need for a separate mechanism to attrit on-map trainees, I completely agree. However, that's the problem. You can run training missions at 100% - forever - and airframe fatigue will never climb out of the low-to-mid teens. As an example, look at this P-39D unit in San Fran. It's been training at 100%, every day since the unit arrived in July 1942. It's now March of 1943, and look at the fatigue numbers. And that is not an outlier - all airframes, regardless of service rating, show similar effects.