RE: more air combat issues

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: more air combat issues

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 >> Tech Support >> RE: more air combat issues

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: more air combat issues - 12/26/2016 7:45:07 AM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jmsimer
Here's another save. Group 4352, with radars on, is going to continue flying right at these approaching MiG-29s and never fire a round. They will both get shot down without even attempting to engage. I realize it can get depressing if you're stationed up near the Arctic Circle in winter and haven't seen the sun for three months, but if they're suicidal I would have expected them to just fly into the ground!

Just tested this. Starting from the provided save, the F-16s have a 15-sec OODA delay which prevents them from engaging immediately (you can see this if you enable targeting vectors). Once the countdown reaches zero they do begin firing their weapons.

I would suggest playing a few smaller scenarios and getting familiar with the detect-track-prosecute killchain.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to Jmsimer)

Post #: 31

RE: more air combat issues - 11/15/2018 4:49:11 PM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

Is any of the OP reports still an issue ?

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 32

RE: more air combat issues - 11/15/2018 5:37:44 PM

Ancalagon451

Posts: 330
Joined: 1/4/2018
Status: offline

Number 3 is very much alive and well. In fact not only shots are taken against a contact "teleporting" within range due to uncertainty, but weapons fired against uncertain ground contacts change trayectorie to follow the uncertain contact even when the target jumps a hundred miles or more.

This generates ridiculous results when you lose the weapons quality sensor track while the missile is flying and the target starts "dancing" due to uncertainty. The missile tries to follow the new position and goes totally off target. This often happens when you fire a ARM missile against a radiating SAM, if it stops radiating during the flytime and you only have a bad surface search radar tracking it the missile goes totally off target.

It's in fact better have no sensors than bad sensor in this case since if you merely lose the contact a memory equipped ARM (or any inertial-GPS weapon) keeps attacking the last known position and can still score a hit.

Ancalagon

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 33

RE: more air combat issues - 11/15/2018 6:22:15 PM

Scorpion86

Posts: 239
Joined: 2/26/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ancalagon451
This generates ridiculous results when you lose the weapons quality sensor track while the missile is flying and the target starts "dancing" due to uncertainty. The missile tries to follow the new position and goes totally off target. This often happens when you fire a ARM missile against a radiating SAM, if it stops radiating during the flytime and you only have a bad surface search radar tracking it the missile goes totally off target.

I can confirm this. Playing Crimea River, I lost many a good HARM this way.

(in reply to Ancalagon451)

Post #: 34

RE: more air combat issues - 11/15/2018 7:31:35 PM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ancalagon451

Number 3 is very much alive and well. In fact not only shots are taken against a contact "teleporting" within range due to uncertainty, but weapons fired against uncertain ground contacts change trayectorie to follow the uncertain contact even when the target jumps a hundred miles or more.

This generates ridiculous results when you lose the weapons quality sensor track while the missile is flying and the target starts "dancing" due to uncertainty. The missile tries to follow the new position and goes totally off target. This often happens when you fire a ARM missile against a radiating SAM, if it stops radiating during the flytime and you only have a bad surface search radar tracking it the missile goes totally off target.

It's in fact better have no sensors than bad sensor in this case since if you merely lose the contact a memory equipped ARM (or any inertial-GPS weapon) keeps attacking the last known position and can still score a hit.

Ancalagon

Is there a suitable pre-fire save file we can investigate? Thanks!

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to Ancalagon451)

Post #: 35

RE: more air combat issues - 11/15/2018 7:31:47 PM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scorpion86

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ancalagon451
This generates ridiculous results when you lose the weapons quality sensor track while the missile is flying and the target starts "dancing" due to uncertainty. The missile tries to follow the new position and goes totally off target. This often happens when you fire a ARM missile against a radiating SAM, if it stops radiating during the flytime and you only have a bad surface search radar tracking it the missile goes totally off target.

I can confirm this. Playing Crimea River, I lost many a good HARM this way.

Is there a suitable pre-fire save file we can investigate? Thanks!

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to Scorpion86)

Post #: 36

RE: more air combat issues - 11/15/2018 11:14:44 PM

Ancalagon451

Posts: 330
Joined: 1/4/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

Is there a suitable pre-fire save file we can investigate? Thanks!

Well, I'll be damned.

I've been trying for an hour to make you a testbed and I haven't been able to reproduce the conduct. Which annoys me to hell and back because I'm SURE I've seen the issue in action but I can't generate hard proof so, unless Scorpion86 manages to do it, I'll have to retract my words here.

If I ever see the bug again I'll make a propert report. Until then sorry for the bother.

Ancalagon

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 37

RE: more air combat issues - 11/16/2018 8:01:00 PM

ARCNA442

Posts: 158
Joined: 4/7/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

Is any of the OP reports still an issue ?

I believe that 1, 2, and 3 are still issues (though perhaps not as bad as they seem to have been when the OP posted 4 years ago) but I don't currently have any saved games to prove it.

With point 1, aircraft in turning fights appear to fire on the first enemy to get within boresight, which can result in them prioritizing distant targets rather than more dangerous close targets.

For point 2, it seems that with both aircraft and ships, if multiple weapon types are available the AI defaults to the longest-ranged weapon rather than the closest shooter. In a recent scenario I played Hornets with AMRAAM were deferring to Tomcats with Phoenix even when the Hornets were much closer to the enemy. In the past I also have seen ships with short range SAM's hold their fire against incoming missiles to let ships with long range SAM's engage even though the long range SAM's cannot possibly intercept the missiles before they reach the ship with short range SAM's. However, in both cases the shorter ranged weapons will eventually be employed at point blank range.

(another, possibly related point is that planes with combinations of Phoenix/AMRAAM/Sidewinder will often fire their longest-ranged weapons even when they are within range for their shortest-ranged weapons - this can be infuriating because it wastes the more valuable weapons and causes the planes to RTB to reload instead of staying on station).

Point 3 definitely still happens with antiradiation weapons on ESM contacts.

I'll see if I can create a test scenario to prove some of these.

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 38

RE: more air combat issues - 11/19/2018 10:16:57 AM

Der Zeitgeist

Posts: 280
Joined: 9/5/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scorpion86

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ancalagon451
This generates ridiculous results when you lose the weapons quality sensor track while the missile is flying and the target starts "dancing" due to uncertainty. The missile tries to follow the new position and goes totally off target. This often happens when you fire a ARM missile against a radiating SAM, if it stops radiating during the flytime and you only have a bad surface search radar tracking it the missile goes totally off target.

I can confirm this. Playing Crimea River, I lost many a good HARM this way.

Is there a suitable pre-fire save file we can investigate? Thanks!

You can maybe use the save file from my bug report on the same issue back in 2014:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3564688&mpage=1&key=�

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 39

RE: more air combat issues - 11/25/2018 9:24:23 AM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

Hi,

quote:

ORIGINAL: ARCNA442
With point 1, aircraft in turning fights appear to fire on the first enemy to get within boresight, which can result in them prioritizing distant targets rather than more dangerous close targets.

I can see how that can be a problem, but I'm sure you can also easily imagine the backlash if we change that behavior: "My turning aircraft had A BLOODY CLEAR SHOT at this more distant but incoming threat, and instead it just kept turning with that nearby MiG that was not an immediate threat to him. In air combat if you have a shot against any of the bad guys YOU BLOODY TAKE IT. Just how dumb are the pilots in this game?"

So there is no clear-cut optimum algorithm here, it's all very case-specific.

quote:

For point 2, it seems that with both aircraft and ships, if multiple weapon types are available the AI defaults to the longest-ranged weapon rather than the closest shooter. In a recent scenario I played Hornets with AMRAAM were deferring to Tomcats with Phoenix even when the Hornets were much closer to the enemy. In the past I also have seen ships with short range SAM's hold their fire against incoming missiles to let ships with long range SAM's engage even though the long range SAM's cannot possibly intercept the missiles before they reach the ship with short range SAM's. However, in both cases the shorter ranged weapons will eventually be employed at point blank range.

I think this is WAD. You need to keep in mind what was happening before we enforced this behavior. Long-range shooters would first fire against the incoming, then short-ranged AAM fighters would close in and also fire regardless of the LR missiles already being in the air, so there was a large waste of weapons. We changed the behavior so that the short-armed fighters are aware of other shots incoming and hold their fire unless the target crosses the self-defence threshold, in which case they fire regardless. It's not a 100% solution (then again what is), but it works better than before.

quote:

(another, possibly related point is that planes with combinations of Phoenix/AMRAAM/Sidewinder will often fire their longest-ranged weapons even when they are within range for their shortest-ranged weapons - this can be infuriating because it wastes the more valuable weapons and causes the planes to RTB to reload instead of staying on station).

This is hard to examine without a save at hand. Perhaps at the time of firing the target is within _nominal_ range of the SR-AAM but outside its _effective DLZ_ at this moment? A save would help a lot here.

quote:

Point 3 definitely still happens with antiradiation weapons on ESM contacts.

I'll see if I can create a test scenario to prove some of these.

That would help a lot, thanks!

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to ARCNA442)

Post #: 40

RE: more air combat issues - 11/25/2018 12:43:15 PM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yokes
4. I like that BVR-equipped fighters Winchester when all the BVRs are gone, but I hate that they seem to think they are completely unarmed. I have Eagles heading home with sidewinders and someone starts shooting at them from close range (gun shots!) and they just go defensive and never attempt to fight back. Would it be possible for some offensive shots to be part of a defensive engagement? Or is there some other way to do this? I am guessing the answer is to turn the "Winchester RTB" option off, but I don't want them charging into a gun fight wielding a knife. I only want them using the knife when they are in a knife fight. Make sense?

This one is easily fixed using a doctrine setting under "Weapon state, pre-planned":

"Shotgun: All BVR or Stand-Off Weapons Have Been Expended. Allow easy targets of opportunity with BVR or strike weapons.."

There's two of them, one allows air to air guns, the other does not. Exactly what the AI considers to be an "easy" target is probably an interesting discussion to be had.

(in reply to Yokes)

Post #: 41

RE: more air combat issues - 11/26/2018 5:33:54 AM

Scorpion86

Posts: 239
Joined: 2/26/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scorpion86
I can confirm this. Playing Crimea River, I lost many a good HARM this way.

Is there a suitable pre-fire save file we can investigate? Thanks!

I tried to reproduce the issue in this mini-mission, but I couldn't. The HARM could be (manually) fired whenever the ambiguous zone was within the missile's range. It initially tracked the ambiguous zone marker at launch, but then turned to the radar's true location, I suppose when the missile's nose picked up the scent. Then, the radar would lose the ambiguous zone.

I also discovered a minor bug in this mission, but I'll make a thread just for that.