[WORKS AS DESIGNED (WAD)] 1.11 RC1 Build 802 climb to 35k' bug. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tech Support



Message

ghynson -> [WORKS AS DESIGNED (WAD)] 1.11 RC1 Build 802 climb to 35k' bug. (3/15/2016 5:47:01 AM)

As of 1.11 RC1 Build 802, C:MA/NO still has the climb to 35,000' on Winchester bug. Although manually set to 2000' on the attack run, the manual check box is unchecked, and the units climb to the default 35k' when all HARMS are spent and RTB. Created with a flight of 2 F-16's after launching a "bearing only attack", in the Syria 2.1 Sandbox scenario. I'm sure this is recurrent on any scenario, as I've seen it on every one I've tested and with any type of aircraft. Needs the ability to force aircraft to stay at stated altitude, even after Winchester RTB, or manually forced RTB.

Previous discussion:
I've got a question on RTB air units.
I always fly in low at 2000' with a Stealth enabled air unit like an F-35 in order to launch an AARGM/HARM at near maximum standoff range. However, once they go "winchester", or "RTB ordered" they automatically climb to 35,000'. Even though I have them set to 2000' manual override. This "always seems to allow detectors to find them. And at 40 miles out, that S-400 always kills them. I always get out undetected if they would stay at 2000'. Is this a bug, or am I missing a global ROE setting somewhere to force the AI to keep ALL air units in the air group at that altitude, even units breaking off into single RTB units?



ComDev -> RE: 1.11 RC1 Build 802 climb to 35k' bug. (3/15/2016 5:33:27 PM)

Hmmm tricky... the RTB code is called all over the place... gimme a day to think about it some...



BrianinMinnie -> RE: 1.11 RC1 Build 802 climb to 35k' bug. (3/15/2016 6:04:55 PM)

It would be nice if Aircraft on a RTB, could stay in a evasive type mode of some type until, outside of known threats radius, low or high altitude maybe based on said known threats and continue on towards its return base.



ComDev -> RE: 1.11 RC1 Build 802 climb to 35k' bug. (3/15/2016 9:07:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BrianinMinnie
It would be nice if Aircraft on a RTB, could stay in a evasive type mode of some type until, outside of known threats radius, low or high altitude maybe based on said known threats and continue on towards its return base.


Pretty certain the A/C go Engaged Defensive when RTB? If not, can you post a savegame?



ComDev -> RE: 1.11 RC1 Build 802 climb to 35k' bug. (3/15/2016 9:18:58 PM)

Okay here's how things are intended to work...

1) RTB cancels altitude and speed overrides. This is by design and ensures aircraft don't run themselves out of fuel. The aircraft is ordered to optimum altitude and speed for maximum range, but if there is extra fuel left aboard the aircraft will go to max throttle to exit the area as quickly as possible. This behaviour makes good sense and I seriously doubt we'll ever change it.

2) If you do not want aircraft to RTB when Winchester/Shotgun, you can change it in the Doctrine window. Doctrines can be set for the whole side, the mission, group, or individual unit. The RTB settings are described here:
http://www.warfaresims.com/?p=4182

3) The RTB rules for fuel state and weapon state are set independently of each other. I.e. you can set up your aircraft to RTB on Bingo/Joker fuel state, and not RTB on Winchester/Shotgun weapon state. Etc.

Did this help solve your problem?



BrianinMinnie -> RE: 1.11 RC1 Build 802 climb to 35k' bug. (3/15/2016 10:42:49 PM)

Emsoy, yes it works as you say, including defensive, I was generally going off of what ghynson was saying about being picked off 40 miles away RTBing at high altitude by the dreaded S-400 which seems to lock on tight. I know manually you can egress them off target down low, but I’m thinking it would be nice to have maybe a lower altitude RTB setting option, until fuel state would force a return to higher altitude automatically. Not looking closely enough at the new update is this may be already possible…

Thanks



ComDev -> RE: 1.11 RC1 Build 802 climb to 35k' bug. (3/15/2016 10:52:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BrianinMinnie

Emsoy, yes it works as you say, including defensive, I was generally going off of what ghynson was saying about being picked off 40 miles away RTBing at high altitude by the dreaded S-400 which seems to lock on tight. I know manually you can egress them off target down low, but I’m thinking it would be nice to have maybe a lower altitude RTB setting option, until fuel state would force a return to higher altitude automatically. Not looking closely enough at the new update is this may be already possible…

Thanks



Other than manually guiding them off target, the best way would be to use a strike mission [8D]

You can use strike missions for airborne aircraft too. When you assign (or re-assign) aircraft to strike missions they set up a proper flight plans with ingress and egress attack legs etc. Pretty neat stuff, please give it a try if you haven't already [8D]



zaytsev -> RE: 1.11 RC1 Build 802 climb to 35k' bug. (3/16/2016 9:41:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Okay here's how things are intended to work...

1) RTB cancels altitude and speed overrides. This is by design and ensures aircraft don't run themselves out of fuel. The aircraft is ordered to optimum altitude and speed for maximum range, but if there is extra fuel left aboard the aircraft will go to max throttle to exit the area as quickly as possible. This behaviour makes good sense and I seriously doubt we'll ever change it.



Regarding this setting I've encountered a problem, maybe bug?

So, I want manual mission, hi-lo-hi type, ingress and attack are ok, but as soon they rtb on winchester,
they stay at low alt locked all the way on egress route rather then climb, when rtb locked speed/alt is in effect.
That also leads to fuel calculations much higher because low level flight all the way back to airbase on egress.
And since the speed/alt setting is locked now, at 2/3 of the route, you have to unassign all panes from rtb, set them to high alt, then issue a manual rtb again.
Lots of micromanagement in the end.
Maybe this rtb speed/alt locked state needs some refining.

Thanks



ComDev -> RE: 1.11 RC1 Build 802 climb to 35k' bug. (3/16/2016 10:33:29 AM)

Again, no savegame. That's two beers [8D]

The flightplan generator sets up the profile according to the loadout settings. Im pretty sure it will tell you if there isn't enough fuel?

If you do not like the profile you can change it. Select the waypoints and press F2 to bring up the Speed/Altitude window for the waypoint. You can also right-click waypoints for additional options.

Pretty neat, yes?

(Currently you can only do this for airborne aircraft, functionality to manually create flight plans for aircraft on the ground will come in the Advanced Strike Planner.)



zaytsev -> RE: 1.11 RC1 Build 802 climb to 35k' bug. (3/16/2016 10:21:10 PM)

Tried flightplan generator. One word: It works :)

[sm=00000436.gif][sm=00000436.gif][sm=00000436.gif][sm=00000436.gif]




ComDev -> RE: 1.11 RC1 Build 802 climb to 35k' bug. (3/16/2016 10:24:25 PM)

Wonderful! [sm=00000280.gif]



ghynson -> RE: 1.11 RC1 Build 802 climb to 35k' bug. (3/17/2016 1:43:24 AM)

Well,

I'm divided on opinion on this.

1) It's nice that there is an RTB algorithm in place to automate the fuel/distance issue.
I like the ability to set aircraft to break from group after winchester, this means my group gets smaller
the closer it gets to target, as I use the lead aircraft to expend it's weapons first, then RTB, then repeat
with next craft in line. This means less aircraft to detect and shoot at, the closer they get to the detector.
I do not like to have winchester craft in the group at all. Especially on an attack approach.

But ,..

2) It's very annoying to have to click the breaking unit and re-force it back down to 2000'.
This causes the user to lose the focus on the group.

You can see what I mean by creating a flight of 8 F-35's, manually fly them to an S-300/400 at 2000' to within HARM/AARGM range.
Use the Lead aircraft to expend it's load. And then watch it get killed when it decides to climb on RTB.
If you manage to manually force each one back to 2k feet they will all get out alive.

Sometimes, over automation kills the task at hand.
Reminds me of Masters of Orion 3, where you could set the in game manager to perform automated tasks.
Automated the game to play itself, then what's the point of playing it? lol






mikmykWS -> RE: 1.11 RC1 Build 802 climb to 35k' bug. (3/17/2016 2:14:01 AM)

Thanks. We'll take a look

Mike



ComDev -> RE: 1.11 RC1 Build 802 climb to 35k' bug. (3/18/2016 6:55:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ghynson

Well,

I'm divided on opinion on this.

1) It's nice that there is an RTB algorithm in place to automate the fuel/distance issue.
I like the ability to set aircraft to break from group after winchester, this means my group gets smaller
the closer it gets to target, as I use the lead aircraft to expend it's weapons first, then RTB, then repeat
with next craft in line. This means less aircraft to detect and shoot at, the closer they get to the detector.
I do not like to have winchester craft in the group at all. Especially on an attack approach.



Right [8D] Using smaller flight sizes of two aircraft would help a fair bit I think. Very large groups, although maybe practical in-game, isn't very realistic. Especially the 'peal off' thingie.


quote:


But ,..

2) It's very annoying to have to click the breaking unit and re-force it back down to 2000'.
This causes the user to lose the focus on the group.

You can see what I mean by creating a flight of 8 F-35's, manually fly them to an S-300/400 at 2000' to within HARM/AARGM range.
Use the Lead aircraft to expend it's load. And then watch it get killed when it decides to climb on RTB.
If you manage to manually force each one back to 2k feet they will all get out alive.

Sometimes, over automation kills the task at hand.
Reminds me of Masters of Orion 3, where you could set the in game manager to perform automated tasks.
Automated the game to play itself, then what's the point of playing it? lol


I see [8D]

First of all I'd never create such a large group of aircraft. Harpoon used horribly large groups which resulted in a lot of weird behaviour. Because of this, Command assumes you use sensible sizes (typically 2x A/C for CAP and SEAD, up to 6 for dumb bombs) which kinda solves the problem?



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.9863281