Issue with formation station patrols (Full Version)

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



Message

rsharp@advancedgamin -> Issue with formation station patrols (12/11/2009 9:46:11 PM)

From another thread:

quote:

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

quote:

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

quote:

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

quote:

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

What were doing about it is introducing automated regression testing, code reviews, and dedicated QA. We believe these will ratchet Harpoon forward.

Are all these ideas actually supposed to be working at this very moment for the upcoming 3.10 release? Or, do they only come into effect after 3.10 is released?

They are being used and test scenarios are being developed in 3.10. However, it's an ongoing process. I'll not promise perfection.

Emphasis mine by HH

Well, at least AGSI is able to deliver on one promise. AGSI doesn't promise perfection and boy, AGSI delivers! [:D]

I tried out this latest claimed 'fix' for the sonobuoy formation patrols and it not only does NOT fix the game, it actually makes it WORSE! Now, instead of wasting a single aircraft on a sonobuoy patrol, the change ties up all available resources on just one patrol.

I fear that the only claim by AGSI that I tested will not be the sole problem in the 3.10 patch and just cringe at the thought of what other untested and undiscovered bombs lie in wait for the unsuspecting ANW user.

So much for AGSI's vaunted new QA programs...


I took a look at sonobuoy formation stations in RC1 and could not replicate the issue but maybe I'm not looking at the right thing or setting up the scenario as you do. When I set up a sonobuoy station I set the polygon, leave the sensor settings passive, and assign 2 helos. When those helos rtb, two more launch to replace them.

"Now, instead of wasting a single aircraft on a sonobuoy patrol, the change ties up all available resources on just one patrol."

Not sure what you mean by 'wasting a single aircraft' and I can't replicate any issue where it launches more than two. I also tried it with active sensor settings.

How many did you assign to the station? How many were available?

What game settings did you use? Specifically, what staff assistance settings did you use?

What mission, if any, was the group on?

What behavior were you expecting?

Thanks,





hermanhum -> Problem (12/12/2009 12:30:09 AM)

Better to start off with a sample scenario. In this simple H3 test scenario, there is a single carrier in the group with two sonobuoy patrol zones set along the ASW axis. One is at the 16nm range and is 1nm wide while the other is at 30nm and about 5nm wide. This scenario is for demonstration purposes, only, and is meant to show how the patrol zones worked in H2/H3.



hermanhum -> Problem (12/12/2009 12:31:01 AM)

The two patrol zones set at 16-17nm and 25-30nm.

[image]local://upfiles/18146/4FB9E56B4A104F08BD2DF94C97DC3D14.gif[/image]



hermanhum -> Problem (12/12/2009 12:33:13 AM)

Aircraft are laying buoys. Note the position of the aircraft assigned to the 16nm patrol zone and the fact that it is outside the zone. The position of the monitoring aircraft is irrelevant. If it drifts a bit, there should be no problem. The only thing that matters is the position of the sonobuoys as they are they method used for detection and they were laid properly in the zone.

[image]local://upfiles/18146/FDB074E21ED84899B7D1AE68339348C4.gif[/image]



hermanhum -> Problem (12/12/2009 12:40:15 AM)

Here is the same test scenario for ANW for PlayersDB. For simplicity, it has:

1. One sonobuoy patrol zone set at 30 nm with 1 Viking assigned. All passive sensor settings for the plane.
2. Ship is sailing East towards the Ref. Pt.
3. Easiest to run in SE



hermanhum -> Problem (12/12/2009 12:42:21 AM)

The patrol zone can be seen set in this image at approx 30nm and is 1nm in width. This is just a sample patrol zone. Any patrol zone will suffice.

[image]local://upfiles/18146/C1C43B5CBCDE47C596BDFAF32D70166D.gif[/image]



hermanhum -> Problem (12/12/2009 1:25:02 AM)

Run the test scenario in SE and watch what unfolds:

  1. The first Viking launches and lays first sonobuoy line correctly in the PZ
  2. All passive buoys are now expended and the plane stays nearby to monitor them.
  3. First buoy line and plane now outside of the PZ
  4. Second Viking launches and moves 30nm to the PZ to lay a second buoy line
  5. Second buoy line and plane now outside of the PZ
  6. Third Viking launches and moves 30nm to the PZ to lay a second buoy line
  7. Third buoy line and plane now outside of the PZ

The problem is that the entire air wing (12 Vikings in this case) can be used up to service that single patrol zone because the planes are not retiring once their relief has been launched.

In H2/H3, it usually takes only 2-3 aircraft to fully service a PZ. One plane is laying monitoring while the other(s) is re-fueling and re-arming. This is because planes in H2/H3 RTB as soon as their last buoy is laid.

The problem comes from the ANW planes lingering in order to monitor their line of sonobuoys until the buoys' batteries are exhausted. Only then do they return to base.

The H2/H3 behaviour is superior because there is a constantly replenished buoy line at the PZ. As soon as the first aircraft is out of buoys, the relief is launched. The planes pass each other about 1/2 way to the PZ (one inbound and one outbound). As soon as the plane lands, the buoys it laid become defunct. While this might appear to be less efficient, it is superior because the relief plane has already laid a new buoy line at the prescribed PZ. As well, while the plane is returning to base, the buoys it laid are still live. If they detect anything, the relief plane is easily able to pounce on the contact. There may be a slight gap in coverage, but it is rarely more than a few minutes so it can be deemed insignificant.

The ANW behaviour is understandable and logical because you don't want the appearance of wasting buoy endurance. However, when a ship group is in motion, the most important aspect of the buoy line is the fact that it is maintained at the distance set by the user. The value of 'inner lines of buoys' is limited since the only really important one is the most distantly set one (the original PZ). As buoy lines are replaced by 'fresh' ones at the PZ distance, they are generally superfluous since the most distant line should be the one most likely to make contact with a sub.

[image]local://upfiles/18146/8142EC776FD449D4A2F5C4AC21E31474.gif[/image]



navwarcol -> RE: Problem (12/12/2009 5:53:11 AM)

Hey Herman,
You have a pretty good point there..but there should be a compromise between the two positions..because if the plane lands as soon as dropping off its buoys, it never will monitor them, as it doesnt monitor until they are dropped.  So in your "wished for" case..it would be a waste as the plane would lay a line of buoys, not bother ever monitoring them, land, and a new plane lay another line of unmonitored buoys. Hope you are paying for it, cause as a taxpayer, I dont want to [8D]
But the other end, you are correct, because they shouldn't run through a whole squadron to keep up a buoy line. One thing that will help a little bit, is that the planes are coming off a carrier, which should be in the center of formation, a lot further from the buoy line, which will make the  planes bingo faster..but I dont think that alone will make enough difference. Still is a lot better to use shorter range helos for the buoys, and faster response planes to prosecute the subs when found though. Then the helos range will only allow them on station almost exactly long enough anyway, and you keep a S-3 on Alert-5 to shoot off after a sub that is located.



FreekS -> RE: Problem (12/12/2009 8:43:11 AM)

I concur with Ralf and Herman

Freek



FreekS -> RE: Problem (12/12/2009 12:19:09 PM)

Mostly its a waste of ships.
Freek



navwarcol -> RE: Problem (12/12/2009 4:06:42 PM)

You are saying that regardless of the distance to the patrol, (meaning that a/c fuel status has nothing to do with it)the new a/c launches as soon as the defined zone has "moved away" from the buoy line?
I agree also that would be a problem. However, the solution cannot be just flying home after laying is complete, as someone needs to be monitoring them also. Has anyone tested to see if wider zones (thus making it take longer for the buoy line to move out of the zone) help any? I will check that myself too.



FreekS -> RE: Problem (12/12/2009 8:44:40 PM)

This has been discussed several times. new a/c only launch when the patrolling one RTBs; which in ANW (394) happens only when the original plane runs out of fuel. By then the loitering plane and any buoy line are way behind the formation. In 3.6.3 the planes RTB as soon as they are out of buoys. They will have monitored the buoys they have laid untill thez actually land.

It obvious to me thats the better behaviour as it keeps the buoy lines intact and ahead of the PIM; and as it does not require me as the poor scen designer to do rediculous calculations to determine when my helos might bingo and adjust the distance of the PZ to the fuel load out the helo (and oftentimes I can have multiple helo types on the same or adjoining buoy PZs.

Freek



navwarcol -> RE: Problem (12/13/2009 1:31:29 AM)

Hi schepers, long time [:)]
What is needed, is not a "rediculous calculation"... the sonobuoy line should already be far enough out to make bingo fuel for helos almost exact. One should not have a line that is too close to the leading ships.
But as I said, there maybe shoud be some sort of compromise between the two.



FreekS -> RE: Problem (12/13/2009 10:25:59 AM)

sorry Nav War Collage.

Most ship groups have several kind of helos on board with different fuel loads. Designers typically set up several buoy lines, and different helos may be servicing different lines.

I think you idea is impractical as:
1. the distance of the buoy line from the group should not be determined by the fuel load of the helo
2. designers (me) should not be required to calculate what the best fitting distance from the PZ to the group is given the fuel load
3. DB editors whould not set fuel load to fit with a certain doctrine distance (say 80nm) as helos also carry out other missions with same fuel

Respectfully

Freek



hermanhum -> Problem (12/13/2009 9:09:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FreekS

Most ship groups have several kind of helos on board with different fuel loads. Designers typically set up several buoy lines, and different helos may be servicing different lines.

I think you idea is impractical as:
1. the distance of the buoy line from the group should not be determined by the fuel load of the helo
2. designers (me) should not be required to calculate what the best fitting distance from the PZ to the group is given the fuel load
3. DB editors whould not set fuel load to fit with a certain doctrine distance (say 80nm) as helos also carry out other missions with same fuel

The idea for matching aircraft range with patrol zone range is as unworkable as it is impractical.

Patrol zones are not limited to one type of aircraft. A patrol zone originally assigned to a helo may, at some time in the future, but serviced by a plane. This is not a bug. This is a vital feature and gives the AI desperately needed flexibility to adapt to game situations.

Unless helos are given the endurance of Vikings/Orions/Bears or Vikings/Orions/Bears are given the endurance of helos, this idea cannot be implemented.



navwarcol -> RE: Problem (12/15/2009 6:55:16 AM)

I think you three, are misunderstanding what I wrote.
I am not saying "run calcs on your fuel, and set the buoy line there"
What I am saying is, that if the buoy line is correctly placed, it will already be near there, to begin with. Of course, if you plan to place a buoy line 5 minutes flight out from your ships, that is entirely your prerogative. But if a submarine is able to evade that buoy line, that close on your formation's location, your ships are likely to resemble those in Herman's "Harplonk" picture..whereas, if you keep the buoy line out further, it gives you time to prosecute the contact, before the contact sinks your shiny cans [:)] There are no calculations, etc, necessary. My point is that if the buoy line is placed correctly there will be no need to worry about the fuel.
And, as I stated, I agree in principle, that you should not need to go through an entire squadron maintaining a buoy line.

As a last note, the fixed wing aircraft, based upon carriers, are much further back anyway, than the helos which typically are based upon the ASW screen ships. . This also serves to account for a range difference. Also fixed wing a/c are rarely used for Sonobuoy line work, anyway, as their own noise often 'voids out' the passive sonobuoys.The carrier based Helos (SH-60F) do not have sonobuoy processors, and use their dipping sonar primarily.And, as for the multiple helo types, for the most part, navies only carry 1 type..US surface ships have SH-60B, US carriers SH-60F(and not used for sonbuoys) Britain SeaKings, etc. It would be quite irregular to have different ASW/Sonobuoy helos in the same formation, and even most EU surface units, were they to be in a combined task force, have helos that are roughly the same in range and capacity.



navwarcol -> RE: Problem (12/15/2009 8:41:38 AM)

Probably, if something were to be changed, what SHOULD be happening, is the original helo (Say, Helo 1) should lay a portion of their sonobuoys in a line, rather than all of them,.monitor them for a short time while the formation is advancing, then fly forward, laying another line, and repeat this until it is nearly bingo fuel, at which point, helo 2 takes off, they pass in the air, and helo 2 proceeds to do the same.



hermanhum -> Problem (12/15/2009 9:12:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: navwarcol

Probably, if something were to be changed, what SHOULD be happening, is the original helo (Say, Helo 1) should lay a portion of their sonobuoys in a line, rather than all of them,.monitor them for a short time while the formation is advancing, then fly forward, laying another line, and repeat this until it is nearly bingo fuel, at which point, helo 2 takes off, they pass in the air, and helo 2 proceeds to do the same.

Emphasis by HH

That is how things operated in H2 and H3 and what everyone else in this thread is already advocating. The fact that the aircraft can run out of buoys has more to do with the size of the patrol zone assigned and the problem with the ANW AI' refusal to employ any buoys with active sonar. That is not the problem currently under discussion.



rsharp@advancedgamin -> RE: Problem (12/15/2009 6:29:03 PM)

The intended behavior is for the aircraft to maintain station and monitor a sonobuoy line. The last couple of posts have laid that out concisely. If aircraft are off station because they moved or the formation moved then they should move to their station and lay another sonobuoy line. If they cannot they should RTB. As Freek pointed out, we've covered this before.

I disagree that aircraft should land as soon as their last sonobuoy is laid. I believe they should RTB when they can no longer cover their station. Doing otherwise is a potential waste and not every set up can maintain this.

So what is new in this thread is a bug reported by Herman in RC1 and confirmed by using his test scenario. Thanks for that Herman. What is happening is the aircraft is being replaced because it is off station and out of viable sonobuoys (another issue there). However, the aircraft are not being ordered to RTB. That's the bug I wanted to handle and is in fact new in RC1. This leaves the aircraft off station and idling until they hit Bingo fuel.

Working on the fix now.

Thanks,



hermanhum -> Problem (12/15/2009 8:34:59 PM)

I believe that some clarification is in order so that the correct problem is solved and not a mis-perception.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

I believe they should RTB when they can no longer cover their station.

This is the correct behaviour and was what happened in H2 and H3. Planes RtB after they try to lay another line and find that there are no more buoys available.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

So what is new in this thread is a bug reported by Herman in RC1 and confirmed by using his test scenario. Thanks for that Herman. What is happening is the aircraft is being replaced because it is off station and out of viable sonobuoys (another issue there). However, the aircraft are not being ordered to RTB. That's the bug I wanted to handle and is in fact new in RC1. This leaves the aircraft off station and idling until they hit Bingo fuel.

Emphasis by HH

This is not what is happening. The planes are not waiting to exhaust all of the planes' fuel before they RtB. They are waiting for the sonobuoy fuel to expire. Once the battery power from every last sonobuoy laid by that particular plane is exhausted, then the plane will RtB.

However, the corrective measure suggested (having the plane RtB once it is out of viable sononbuoys and unable to lay a new buoy line) is the proper one and should fix the problem in either case.



rsharp@advancedgamin -> RE: Problem (12/15/2009 8:44:57 PM)

So the aircraft assigned to sonobuoy stations will now RTB when they are out of passive sonobuoys and are off station.

How soon aircraft will become off station depends on the group's speed, the number of sonobuoys available, and the shape of the station area. I'll continue testing this in other missions.

Something I noticed was that aircraft could plot a series of waypoints to lay a new sonobuoy line while having insufficient sonobuoys. Despite running out of sonobuoys around the 5th (for example) position, it would still go through the motions of laying the rest of the 12 sonobuoy line. What do you guys think should happen for this case?

Thanks,



hermanhum -> Problem (12/15/2009 8:55:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

Something I noticed was that aircraft could plot a series of waypoints to lay a new sonobuoy line while having insufficient sonobuoys. Despite running out of sonobuoys around the 5th (for example) position, it would still go through the motions of laying the rest of the 12 sonobuoy line.

That has always been the behaviour for H2 and H3. If a plane starts to lay a new buoy line and has just one possible sonobuoy available, it will lay it, go through the motions of laying the other non-existent sonobuoys, then stop and monitor the single buoy. Only when it tries to lay the next buoy line and finds absolutely no buoys available does it RtB at that point.

I believe that this behaviour is acceptable.



FreekS -> RE: Problem (12/15/2009 9:46:12 PM)

I agree, good enough. Freek



Bucks -> RE: Problem (2/16/2010 2:35:41 AM)

Gents,

I did some testing on this months ago (well before this discussion). I found a link between the "unacceptable" behaviour and maybe what's "expected".

The size of the zone has to fit the size of the sonobuoy line the aircraft will drop. The buoys are spaced at something like 1.5 x the maximum range of the sensor (sonar) carried on the buoy. For example 2nm Passive Sonar Range would produce a 3nm buoy separation. Don't quote me 100% but it's something like that from memory.

So say we have an aircraft with a flight time of 120mins. 10mins out to station, 10mins back to ship, 10mins reserve, leaving 90mins of sonobuoy dropping. If the aircraft drops every say 30mins and carries 24 sonobuoys, we should observe 3 lines of 8 buoys at 3nm spacing (from above). The 3 lines will have a "speed of advance" spacing of the parent formation. If your convoy is moving at 12kts, your lines are 6nm in advance of the last (line dropped every 30 mins or 1/2 hour, therefore 12kts/2 = 6kts.

X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X = 21nm line
|
|
| 6nm
|
|
|
X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X = 21nm line
|
|
| 6nm
|
|
|
X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X = 21nm


That might be for say a SH-60B. If you make a Patrol Poly with a width of less than 21nm you'll find unexpended buoys or multiples dropped at the last point in the line.

A S-3 Viking might have 90 Passive buoys and be able to stay on station for maybe 240mins, you assign it a formation zone of say 30nm breadth meaning it will drop 11 sonobuoys per line. That would give 8 lines of 11 buoys and 240mins/8lines = 30mins/line QED [:)]

I'll try to find the screens I have of what I consider to be correct behaviour (formation zone positioning), concluding in a sucessful prosecution of a RED force sub when it crosses a USN sonobuoy line and post them here asap.

Cheers

Darren



hermanhum -> Problem (2/16/2010 4:22:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bucks

The buoys are spaced at something like 1.5 x the maximum range of the sensor (sonar) carried on the buoy. For example 2nm Passive Sonar Range would produce a 3nm buoy separation. Don't quote me 100% but it's something like that from memory.

At this time with ANW 3.9.4, sensor sensitivity is irrelevant to the the spacing of sonobuoys. AI-controlled platforms will drop buoys at the same interval regardless of sensor performance.

This image shows two aircraft. One is a P-3 Orion and the other is Il-38 May. (It does not matter which is which). Sensor sensitivity is also irrelevant as both aircraft drop sonobuoys at the same intervals when ordered to lay a string of sonobuoys. If sensor performance determined buoy spacing, then at least some variance would appear.

[image]local://upfiles/18146/B0CB355706584E91BC0E2B8115B1147D.gif[/image]



Bucks -> RE: Problem (2/16/2010 7:16:54 AM)

Herman,

Sorry wrong value quoted. Check the passive sonar sensitivities of those two sonobuoy types in your test. I bet they are very close i.e one might be -30 the other -31 or -32 or even identical.

Try some test sonobuoys with passive sensitivity values ranging from say -27, -28, -30, -34 & -38. You'll notice a change in the size of the indicated sonar range ring and a varied spacing for drop points based on the range ring displayed.

On a map with varying sea states you will also notice changes for individual sonobuoy types based on the sea state effect on "estimated" detection ranges. The game engine drops the buoys with a spacing that should allow an overlap of the 25% detection band of the sensor.

The sonar range ring you see is I believe displayed at the 50% detection band. I've just confirmed it here. The spacing can actually be calculated using the HUD3 sonar spreadsheet. No insult intended Herman, but you have yourself admitted your sensor system is based on copying a similar system already existing in the PDB. Here's a quick example of differing sonobuoy spacings in the screen shot provided.

Top of map buoys are SSQ-801 Barra, bottom buoys are SSQ-41 - LOFAR. At top of screen notice the effect of Sea State on "estimated" detection range. At bottom the buoys are being dropped at 4.2nm intervals in Sea State 1. In Sea State 0 the SSQ-41 - LOFAR drops at 6.8nm spacings. The Barra's long range is due to the limited CZ capability.

Cheers

[image]local://upfiles/21733/D4D3A708EFA14649958ED7F22ABB4A2D.jpg[/image]



hermanhum -> Problem (2/16/2010 7:26:41 AM)

The passive value for the VLAD employed by the Orion is -13 for Low Freq and -2 for the BM-2 with a Med Freq.

The test may not be that good since it mixes a Low and Med freq system and thus can be difficult to compare. I'll try other sonobuoys and values that are more similar. Here is my test scenario.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.90625