Impact of strike logic (ANW 393) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Modern] >> Harpoon 3 - Advanced Naval Warfare >> Harpoon 3 ANW Support



Message

FreekS -> Impact of strike logic (ANW 393) (12/9/2008 10:52:19 AM)

Hi all,

This is one of what I would call 'high priority' 'undesired' behaviour by the AI.

I built a new scen in which missions have been programmed for the AI to perform a air strike from a US Carrier on a Russian Battlecruiser (Petr Vellikiy). PlayersDB was used and the scen was built in 3.6 SE.

I played 3 groups of 4 F/A-18E Super Hornets on three separate Specific Strike missions. The planes had mixed HARM/harpoon loadouts.
I usually use three missions set to launch at the same time to prevent the planes taking off the three groups of 4 with 12 minutes in between groups.
In 3.6 all 3 strike missions would launch at the same time and all 12 planes would arrive in Harm or Harpoon range at the same time.

Behaviour in 3.9.3:
One mission (4 F/A-18s) launch, fly to the target, fire their missiles, sometimes score some hits but the SAM defences get most.
Then when the first attack is over the next group launches. And when that attack is over the third mission launches. So ANW actually delays two missions to await outcome of the first mission, assuming (I guess) the first mission will sink the cruiser.

Result is an easy ride for the defences, and the 12 planes have no chance to seriously damage the battlecruiser.
In 3.6, the planes would all launch at the same time and launch missiles at the same time, doing a lot more damage.

Discussion
Obviously I'm aware this is a new 'feature' in ANW. However I question the quality of the implementation of the feature. I assume ANW does some sort of calculation to determine that only 4 hornets have enough Damagepoints on board (including gun!) to sink the cruiser. I would like to know if the cruisers defenses, let alone the defenses of any escorts (in this case there were none) are taken into account.
I'd also like to know if the 'Focused Strike' button in the ANW SE would make all planes launch at the same time (I suspect not as its purpose is to prevent the strikers firing on other targets than their mission dictates)

My suggestion would be twofold:
1. This 'feature' in my opinion is redundant as the Scen designer should do a calculation how many planes to assign to a strike mission. When I write a scen I would take into account the SAM defenses and the likelihood of CAP coverage to be overcome.
2. If in spite of the above the 'feature' has value to some designers, then could the parameters to determine the size of the actual strike package that launches be adjusted to have a more realistic chance of success of the strike.

Respectfully,

Freek




hermanhum -> Problem (12/9/2008 5:28:34 PM)

This catastrophic behaviour has already been reported and documented 01 Oct 2006, 03:55

quote:

All strikers fail to launch

All aircraft assigned to a strike mission fail to launch.

Since it hasn't been fixed in over two years, it looks like yet another case of "User Priority" not equating to "AGSI Priority". [:(]



rsharp@advancedgamin -> RE: Problem (12/9/2008 6:21:13 PM)

FreekS,

Thanks for bringing this back into the spotlight. I'll take a look at it.




hermanhum -> Problem (12/11/2008 7:52:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: koelbach

It was IMO reported long ago by Ragnar Emsoy in his list as a main ANW issue; a game stopping problem regarding the type of scens described above.

This problem was first reported 01 Oct 2006, 03:55 on GameSquad.

Even though Ragnar's list incorporates most of the GameSquad findings, it did not even appear until December 20, 2006 and does not make any mention of this particular problem.



FreekS -> RE: Problem (12/11/2008 8:06:32 AM)

OK, OK, I do not claim ownership of this bug ! [:)] I'm just another victim of it and I reported it again because this was such a simple example of how the AI chooses the worst attack logic. In other scens with multiregiment Tu22 attacks (such as Pacific Recon) it also appeared but to a far lesser extent (maybe because that attack was at a US CVBG). Thanks Ralf for support! Freek



hermanhum -> Problem (12/11/2008 8:12:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FreekS

I'm just another victim of it and I reported it again because this was such a simple example of how the AI chooses the worst attack logic. In other scens with multiregiment Tu22 attacks (such as Pacific Recon) it also appeared but to a far lesser extent (maybe because that attack was at a US CVBG).

I find that the really odd thing about this behaviour is there doesn't seem to be any "rule". Some strikes will launch in their entirety while others seem to suffer from this problem. The logic does seem perplexing. [:(]



FreekS -> RE: Problem (12/11/2008 10:00:44 AM)

Exactly, and thats why, while I'm certain it works OK in some situations, the fundamental choice should be to trust the Scenario Designer to get design strike packages right (taking into account SAM, CAP, target DP etc) and for the ANW logic to not then try to interfere.

I believe all designers spend a lot of time setting up strike missions and testing that they've assigned just enough to kill the target.

The interesting thing with this 'feature' is that while it may look like the AI is being more economical with strikers; in reality, the planes placed on missions by the designer that do not take off because of this 'feature' are not going to be doing anything else during the duration of the scen! I.e. they are wasted anyway, better for them to just execute their mission! I really see no benefit.

Also, there are good to place a larger number of strikers on a mission than necessary to kill the target; for example:
TARCAP: As there is no good way for a Air Patrol mission to be set so its fighters accompany a strike (and land once the strike is over), then I frequently use some strikers with mixed loadout (say AMRAAM and Harpoon), so the strike package has self defense capacity against CAP.

So I'd be interested in the logic for including this 'feature', and my vote would be to eliminate it altogether.

Freek 



rsharp@advancedgamin -> RE: Problem (12/12/2008 9:25:01 PM)

Freek,

I've found some suspects in this issue but I would need a good example to find a proper fix. Would you please send me your scenario you found this issue in?




hermanhum -> Problem (12/12/2008 10:26:51 PM)

It doesn't get any simpler than this:

quote:

All strikers fail to launch

All aircraft assigned to a strike mission fail to launch.

Although it's over 2 years old, Freek's scenario shows the same problem as the day it was originally discovered.



noxious -> RE: Problem (12/12/2008 10:55:29 PM)

herman, I think Russell is asking for a specific instance as this is not a 100% reproducible bug every time there is a launch.
Hence why he would like a save or scenario file



hermanhum -> Problem (12/12/2008 11:24:22 PM)

It's 100% reproducible for me from the file posted Oct 2006. 

Are you having a replication problem with that test file?




FreekS -> RE: Problem (12/13/2008 8:29:39 AM)

Gents Herman is right that the SpecOp scen is reproducible, I think 24 of 32 programmed strikers launch. However I'va also sent Russell my new scen as in it only 4 out of twelve seem to launch on a stronger target. I think Russell will have to vary test scens to figure out the actual logic used.

Freek



rsharp@advancedgamin -> RE: Problem (12/14/2008 11:56:46 AM)

Folks,

The issue Herman is referring to is most likely a separate but related issue. Airgroups currently have a maximum 24 count and this is an arbitrary number. I believe the reason behind it that the airplanes would not burn too much fuel while launching and forming up. At any rate, it will be user configurable in 3.10 by mission parameters.

Freek's issue is related to multiple strike missions targeting the same set of targets. Strike missions will not pursue targets pursued by other missions. The scenario he provided has 3 missions with 4 craft each. All three missions have the same target list. So if the targets were localized the missions would engage one target each. I had a few runs where two ships in the target list had been detected & localized and two missions launched. Otherwise, the norm was one ship localized and one mission attacking.

I tried a few variations a few times each. The better results seemed to be to assign all three airgroups to one mission. For this set of circumstances anyway. I'm not sure why three identical missions were created but I'm sure there is some reason.

Let me know what you think,



FreekS -> RE: Problem (12/14/2008 3:49:55 PM)

Ok, Russell

I created 3 identical missions, because in the past (3.6) if you assigned 12 planes to a mission theyd take off in three groups of 4; with 12 min in between (the time for a group to launch). So in 3.6 creating 3 missions results in all 12 planes attacking at the same time.

I'll try assigning 12 planes to one mission in ANW, if I understand you correctly ANW will then launch them all at the same time (but 3.6 will not). So thanks a lot for the advise, I'll report back findings.

Freek



FreekS -> RE: Problem (12/14/2008 6:06:41 PM)

Russell,

Made a quick testscen, put 24 hornets with three different loadouts on one strike mission targeting Petr Vellikiy. Good news is all planes launched from the start and all 24 attacked. However because the number of planes per loadout was different (4 harm, 8 Walley, 12 Harpoon) they attacked in three groups with about 80nm between groups.

By making the number of planes per loadout the same (8 each) they would all attack at the same time.

So you were right and its not the allocation of DPs to the target but the use of multiple missions that was the problem.

However, I do submit that the 3.6 method of basically creating one mission per 4 planes which would result in all groups launching at the same time is more flexible. Now I'm forced to make sure that I have equal number of planes of each loadout on the mission.

So I don't really see the benefit of the ANW situation where multiple missions with the same target will NOT launch at the same time but you can make one big mission with 24 planes. It seems to take away some of my flexibility of weapon mix for no benefit. But I guess it is a smaller problem now that I can at least make the strike work.

Freek



rsharp@advancedgamin -> RE: Problem (12/14/2008 8:23:26 PM)

I'll look into why loadouts impact aircraft launching in ANW. If I can make that more consistent then I think ANW will have a superior or at least equal solution. Further, I will consider an overkill/redudant mission parameter in 3.10 so you can have the 3.6 behavior on a per mission basis.




FreekS -> RE: Problem (12/14/2008 9:38:30 PM)

Its pretty simple, as groups can only contain one loadout, several groups (in my testscen 3) start launching when the mission triggers. If there are only 4 hornets with Harm loadout, then when the 4 planes have formed up they depart on the mission, obviously if there are 8 planes with Walleay loadout then they take longer to form up and depart on the mission 12 min later (80nm).

Not sure it makes sense to change that logic; I always worry about undesired consequences.

I still think the 3.6 logic on balance makes most sense to me; and not only because there are so many scens out with duplicate or triplicate identical missions to control time on target.

Appreciate you looking at what can be done though.

Freek



hermanhum -> Problem (12/14/2008 10:32:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

Airgroups currently have a maximum 24 count and this is an arbitrary number. I believe the reason behind it that the airplanes would not burn too much fuel while launching and forming up. At any rate, it will be user configurable in 3.10 by mission parameters.

Herein lies the fundamental problem. A number is arbitrarily introduced with no consideration for the consequences. The fact that this modus operandi is pretty much standard with AGSI is deeply disconcerting. It certainly appears as though the developers change things for no reason whatsoever except for the sake of change, itself.

There are lots of H2 and H3 scenarios that rely upon the unlimited nature of the strike missions. One prime example is the work by Klaus Behrmann. He has written over 60 positively splendid monster-sized scenarios and they are very economical. Often, one strike mission is all that is needed and then hundreds of air, ship, land, and sub units are added. This means that attacks can be launched from multiple axes all at the same time and coordinated according to the designer's timing. If the maximum count is going to be configurable in the future, the default needs to be infinite because that is the circumstance under which many scenarios have been/are being built.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

Freek's issue is related to multiple strike missions targeting the same set of targets. Strike missions will not pursue targets pursued by other missions. The scenario he provided has 3 missions with 4 craft each. All three missions have the same target list. So if the targets were localized the missions would engage one target each. I had a few runs where two ships in the target list had been detected & localized and two missions launched. Otherwise, the norm was one ship localized and one mission attacking.

I tried a few variations a few times each. The better results seemed to be to assign all three airgroups to one mission. For this set of circumstances anyway. I'm not sure why three identical missions were created but I'm sure there is some reason.

Emphasis added by HH

This is a fundamental change in behaviour from H2 and H3. I think that the inability for more than one mission to launch against the same target to be wrong. In H3, the three distinctly individual missions with 4 aircraft each will launch at the same time and will appear over the target as a massive group of 12 strike aircraft. This is what the scenario authors intend to happen.

The proposed solution to place all 12 aircraft within the same strike mission is already an option open to scenario writers. However, in this particular case and circumstance, the author does not want to see a 'stream of strike groups' (3x groups of 4 planes attacking the target sequentially) and has deliberately set up the scenario in this manner. He wants the entire strike to arrive Time-over-Target (simultaneously). If he wanted to set up only one group as Rufford has suggested, that option is already open to him. He's actively investigated and rejected it because it does not meet his needs.

There are two problems being presented at this time and I think that they are being confused.

Problem 1:

Only 24 planes from any strike will launch.

Problem 2:

Strike missions will not pursue targets pursued by other missions.

These are separate problems. Each needs a solution in and of itself. The only possible solution for #1 is to remove the restriction. If 3.10 has it as an option, then the default must be unlimited because all scenarios built to date are made with this expectation.

Problem #2 is more daunting, but also needs the restriction to be removed for the same reasons.

I have attached a sample file. Run it in ANW SE from the Blue side with the Show All function activated.

The test scenario has 3x carriers each with a separate and individual strike allocated to the same single target.
Each carrier is attempting to launch 12 strike planes.
You will see that only a single carrier launches it's air wing at the target.

This is totally wrong behaviour. In H3, each of the three carriers would be launching their strikes at the same time. This is a necessary behaviour.



hermanhum -> Problem (12/14/2008 11:15:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FreekS

Made a quick testscen, put 24 hornets with three different loadouts on one strike mission targeting Petr Vellikiy. Good news is all planes launched from the start and all 24 attacked. However because the number of planes per loadout was different (4 harm, 8 Walley, 12 Harpoon) they attacked in three groups with about 80nm between groups.

By making the number of planes per loadout the same (8 each) they would all attack at the same time.

Basically, you are looking for a work-around solution when you shouldn't need to do so in the first place.

Having different loadouts will allow the strike groups to launch and arrive at the same time, but you are forced to select munitions that you might not want in the first place. If you wanted to arm all the planes with stand-off munitions in the first place, you are now forced to re-arm them with other weapons that may not be as lethal or effective such as rockets or iron bombs.

You can jigger the formations and I could mess with the database to get the desired results, but the fundamental question remains, "Why is this kind of jury-rigged process even necessary when previous behaviour already worked so well?"



hermanhum -> Problem (12/15/2008 2:22:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

The issue Herman is referring to is most likely a separate but related issue. Airgroups currently have a maximum 24 count and this is an arbitrary number.

I think that we may all be wrong on this. Here is a test file showing 30+ aircraft launching. All aircraft are the same with the same loadout. You can see a stream of nearly 40 planes launching when you run it in ANW SE from the Blue side with Show All activated.



rsharp@advancedgamin -> RE: Problem (12/15/2008 9:28:20 AM)

Herman,

24 is only a limit of the number of planes in one airgroup. Do you see more than this in an airgroup launched by a mission? If that's the case then there is something different going on.

Freek,

I looked into why airgroups assigned to a mission are launched in sequence when they share a loadout and in parallel when they do not. Missions group them together and handle them as one airgroup in its representation but then use the original (split) airgroups when considering how to launch. Later it catches the unlaunched planes and sends them off.

In the case of assigning 3 airgroups to one strike mission:
So what we should have seen was one group of 8 planes with one loadout (2 of the 4 count airgroups shared a loadout type) and second group of 4 planes. This is an actual bug that I'm still looking for the proper fix.

In the case of assigning 1 airgroup to each of 3 missions with identical target lists:
This was your original solution. As I said, strike missions will not launch against targets already being pursued by other missions. I do see how this could be very useful when planning multi-axis attacks that require missions with differing delay times to achieve the one ToT. I'm considering a user option (ini setting) to enable the desired redundancy in the strikes. By default, ANW will not allow redundant strikes. This is my comprimise to allow desirable scenario editing and prevent any bad behavior being introduced. In 3.10, this would be configurable on a per mission basis.

Thanks and let me know what you think,



FreekS -> RE: Problem (12/15/2008 10:03:07 AM)

Russell,

1. This is what I would need to do to ensure the full strikes launched in ANW: I will need to eliminate all redundent strike missions from all my scens. However this will not lead to the intended Time-on-Target in either 3.6 or ANW, in 3.6 it will generate a series of 4-ship planegroups and in ANW it will depend on having equal numbers of different weapon types assigned (i.e. need to edit the loadouts of all scens and therefore also rebuild all formation air patrols, as they are reset when you edit the loadouts).

If I do this also then I can get intended Time-on-Target in ANW but not in 3.6. So my conclusion is I need to do a lot of work to get partially the intended behaviour that I already had in 3.6. And is there actually a benefit of this new strike logic? (Why does ANW treat multiple identical missions different from 3.6? What's the benefit?).

2. I don't understand what the actual bug is you describe above; my observation was that with 24 planes (4 Harm, 8 Walleye, 12 Harpoon) assigned to the strike on the Battlecruiser, three airgroups started launching at the same time, and started flying to the target as soon as they were formed up (Harm first, x min later Walleye, x min later Harpoon, reflecting it takes x min to launch an additional 4 planes). Personally I don't see how you are going to be able to change this (and I worry about what consequences such a change would be if you did).

So once 3.9.4 has been released, then I would like to understand what I need to change in all my scens. At the moment, with the possibility of further changes in strike logic coming (in 394) I won't modify my scens.

3. Now, on you last point, I sort of understand some benefits of your idea for 3.10 to make missions configurable through an ini file. It sounds interesting (and very difficult to oversee the consequenses of). I think it needs a separate thread for people to discuss it. It would be nice to understand the list of configurable parameters and the possible impact of all. Also if it is done through the ini file, then would players not need to have the same ini-file settings as the designer to get the intended mission behaviour? I cannot think this stuff through with the little info I have. Now of course feel free to limit that discussion to the CCC group, but have they not been the group to support you introducing these new features that we have been repairing?

Freek





hermanhum -> Problem (12/15/2008 10:05:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

24 is only a limit of the number of planes in one airgroup. Do you see more than this in an airgroup launched by a mission? If that's the case then there is something different going on.

That may be the case for strikes with the "Forced Strike" option enabled, but that is not the case in either of the aforementioned examples. In each of these examples, a 'stream' of groups attacks the target. Each group consists of 4 planes.

The difference is that the first example
( http://forums.gamesquad.com/showpost.php?p=588607&postcount=68 )
shows 24 planes out of 32 are launched while the second example

( http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1974249&mpage=1&key=&# )
shows nearly 40 in the air (10x groups of 4 planes).

I think that it clearly shows that the number of planes launched against on a strike is not limited to 24 planes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

In the case of assigning 3 airgroups to one strike mission:
So what we should have seen was one group of 8 planes with one loadout (2 of the 4 count airgroups shared a loadout type) and second group of 4 planes. This is an actual bug that I'm still looking for the proper fix.

I must disagree. The current behaviour in this example (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1978929) with each type of loadout forming groups of 4 planes is how it has always worked. Designers who wanted to do something differently already have the tools available at hand if they did not like this behaviour. (i.e. Multiple strikes at the same target)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

In the case of assigning 1 airgroup to each of 3 missions with identical target lists:
This was your original solution. As I said, strike missions will not launch against targets already being pursued by other missions. I do see how this could be very useful when planning multi-axis attacks that require missions with differing delay times to achieve the one ToT. I'm considering a user option (ini setting) to enable the desired redundancy in the strikes. By default, ANW will not allow redundant strikes. This is my comprimise to allow desirable scenario editing and prevent any bad behavior being introduced. In 3.10, this would be configurable on a per mission basis.

Emphasis added by HH

As I see, the situation is thus for the "strike missions will not launch against targets already being pursued by other missions" situation:

1) There can only be one default
2) There are two choices -- Allow or disallow redundant strikes.

The H3 default is Allow. So, why use the direct opposite as the default for ANW? If you can only choose one, is it not logical to choose the current default rather than turning things around 180 degrees? It is not as if there is a third option.

Anyone using the ANW SE can always toggle select the option to disallow redundant strikes. This would allow for easier transition of H3 scenarios to ANW users. Also, IIRC, a number of ODb scenarios also share the need for redundant strikes.

Caveat: I am assuming that only the Ship/Land strike behaviour is being discussed at this time. I am not certain how any of this discussion may or may not affect aerial interceptions.



FreekS -> RE: Problem (12/15/2008 10:56:53 AM)

Jeez, I just ran the test scen with 'Focused strike' off instead of on, and guess what; still 24 planes launch but now in 5 groups of 4, first three groups (each with different loaout) then 2, then one. Just like in 3.6.

So the 'Focused strike' switch does things I don't understand, which have nothing to do with focus on one target. I think I'll give up trying to understand the logic of strike behaviour and wait for the Scenario Editor manual.

Freek




rsharp@advancedgamin -> RE: Problem (12/16/2008 1:21:54 AM)

Freek,

As I see it, the change you will need to implement to get the same effect of your coordinated strike missions in 3.9.4 as 3.6 will be to add 1 line in the harpoon3.ini file. Additionally, you would have to recommend the same harpoon3.ini setting to the users. Not the best solution but a comprimise. In 3.10, the settings will be contained in the missions themselves.

Yes, there is not enough information for you to fully understand what parameterized missions will do. That will come as the feature is polished.

Herman,

There is no simple switch to just turn back on the 3.6 behavior. Don't expect me to change the default mission behavior without further study. Surely you can understand this as you've been preaching about it for some time.

Thanks,



hermanhum -> Problem (12/16/2008 1:46:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

There is no simple switch to just turn back on the 3.6 behavior. Don't expect me to change the default mission behavior without further study. Surely you can understand this as you've been preaching about it for some time.

The desire to examine the long-term consequences is certainly understandable. However, this mess was born from an arbitrary act and it seems pretty clear (at least to me) that only an arbitrary act is going to be able to rectify the situation.

Continuing to follow this path in the forlorn hope of salvaging an inelegant solution is just as likely to cause more future problems, IMO. Even though the solution may not be a simple on/off switch, biting the bullet now is far less painful than prolonging the agony (like the DD-X project).



th3flyboy -> RE: Impact of strike logic (ANW 393) (2/5/2009 10:10:37 AM)

Pardon me if I'm just rewording what has already been said, why not just make the allow multiple strikes on same target to be an option similar to the allow nuclear weapons option in the launcher, and add that in the next patch? I know the 3.9.x series is feature frozen, but honestly, this sounds more like a FIX to me. It makes perfect sense to me to launch multiple missions on one target to arrive at the same time, the only other option that would really rectify that situation would be to add a timer on the mission creation screen to allow for you to specify the TOT, and have the TOT not go under the minimum amount of time needed for the whole strike package to get there. Then the package would be on target and attack at the same time. Furthermore, I believe that the arbitrary number should be changed to unlimited right off the bat, as that just ruins the kinds of massive strike packages I may want to make to simulate something like a cold war scenario where Soviet bombers are swarming the CBG with an attack. I may not have gotten a copy of 3.6 but I certainly understand what Freek and HH are saying, this appears to me like something that reduces the scenario maker's freedom from doing something that should be able to be done in the first place.



rsharp@advancedgamin -> RE: Impact of strike logic (ANW 393) (2/5/2009 4:07:07 PM)

Hi,

Actually, your recommendation is exactly what I ending up doing for 3.9.4. I've set up an .opt file (just like UseNukes.opt) to allow, what I call, redundant strikes. I can see the reasoning for both the default and this optional behavior so I left it up to the user.

The other option of a ToT manager would definitely be a new feature and one I've even designed out a bit. I'm saving it for a rainy day.

As to the number of planes per air group, the real issue is the fuel in the first plane of the air group versus the fuel in the last plane to launch. Not a huge problem but then it will also just launch multiple air groups simultaneously to put just as many planes in the sky.

I have a few tests to run and then I'll put up a 3.9.4 release candidate if you would like to try.

Thanks,




th3flyboy -> RE: Impact of strike logic (ANW 393) (2/5/2009 4:48:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

Hi,

Actually, your recommendation is exactly what I ending up doing for 3.9.4. I've set up an .opt file (just like UseNukes.opt) to allow, what I call, redundant strikes. I can see the reasoning for both the default and this optional behavior so I left it up to the user.

The other option of a ToT manager would definitely be a new feature and one I've even designed out a bit. I'm saving it for a rainy day.

As to the number of planes per air group, the real issue is the fuel in the first plane of the air group versus the fuel in the last plane to launch. Not a huge problem but then it will also just launch multiple air groups simultaneously to put just as many planes in the sky.

I have a few tests to run and then I'll put up a 3.9.4 release candidate if you would like to try.

Thanks,




That's good to hear about having that as an option, and I can understand the putting the idea for a TOT manager on hold, as I do understand that is a new feature, but it's nice to hear that that idea is being taken seriously, as in various other communities usually new feature ideas like that would be given the brush off. I guess I can see the planes per group reasoning, it's just to me there is one little flaw in that plan, setting up a mission with aircraft from multiple bases. That would seem to me like something which might need to be experimented with. Also I'd love to try that 3.9.4 RC, and I'll see what I can do about posting any bug reports I find.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.1875