The first air ops tutorial

[MarkShot]

At even closer ranges, it oscillates along the intended flight path when there are waypoints rather than doing some type of leading moving average to get on course. It kind of looks like the first day of driving school!

[Randomizer]

ORIGINAL: Kitchens Sink

Curtis LeMay would definitely approve!

Probably not since A: most sources assert that he hated seeing SAC's BUFFS used in Vietnam since every B-52 deployed there was one less for the alert forces; and B: the bombs are conventional and being based in Guam or Thailand meant the crews were not training to attack the USSR with nucs.

Very much looking forward to this feature.

-C

[ComDev]

Good to hear, thanks [8D]

Improved strike planning stuff incl pre-generated flightplans is on the way.

In the meantime, you can right-click on the unit and assign it to a mission, and then edit the plotted course.

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

At even closer ranges, it oscillates along the intended flight path when there are waypoints rather than doing some type of leading moving average to get on course. It kind of looks like the first day of driving school!

Savegame and screenshot please?

[ComDev]

Rocket attack by two Sea Harriers, each carrying 76x 68mm rockets. Note how the buildings actually cover a pretty large physical area and are hit by quite a few weapons.

[MarkShot]

To be specific I was testing how well I could do manually.

Thus, I was trying to plot the bombing run to pass in direct axis over the buildings. With shorter way points intervals even in a straight line the plane may ski slalom. With a long way point like 20-30 miles out, it will still shift the bearing on manual flight.

Rather than sending you screenshots when I get a chance I will send this as two YouTube videos; much more obvious.

The thing is that the flight unit AI is reacting and not anticipating the waypoints; thus chasing them. There needs to be some form of forward moving average algorithm to smooth out (dampen) flight corrections as opposed to amplify them.

This also happens on flight planning prior to switching over to a mission. It is bad on land when you are trying to fly it tight course through valleys. I realize the AI keeps it at AGL 300' or so, but not necessarily in the groove.

Thanks for the dumb bomb fix and other time invested!

[ComDev]

Hm Im pretty certain we do that already, so will be interesting to watch those movies [8D]

[MarkShot]

Okay, I was looking at this this morning to create the videos. Here is what I found.

First, if you put those way points in a straight line spaced maybe 3-4nm apart and approach at the perpendicular to the first, you can create an endless oscillating affect of flight corrections. But if you provide a long distance between way points, the flight path will smooth out.

Second, if you put a manual bomb run at say bearing 270 with two way points and approach from the perpendicular it will shift the bearing. But how much is a function of the distance between the way points. The angular distance is significant and noticeable on short legs like 10nm and not of much consequence at 30nm. This is of course, for dumb bombs. For anything guided, the shift in flight path is not really a factor.

I guess you know this much already from programming it. Without an option for strict adherence to flight path, there will always be cutoffs where this type of behavior becomes dominant and noticeable. I can live with it. Thanks for your interest!

[ComDev]

Bump?

[MarkShot]

Emsoy,

What's up? You have my findings.

Yes, you can definitely make an amusing video with a straight line of way points at 3nm apart and approach perpendicular. The AI unlike a human doesn't perceive that the way points are nothing more than flying straight. So, it flies for the points and not the line.

Thanks.

[thewood1]

Hey, since you disappeared from the "detaching from group" thread...did that get resolved?

[MarkShot]

No. It did not. I kept a save of it.

[thewood1]

But your save had no isssues. So you just bailed on the thread? Why don'y you post a video of it so we can see the issue in action.

[MarkShot]

Here have it!

[thewood1]

SO why would it take someone coming into this thread? You just abandoned the issue?

[thewood1]

Hold on a minute. That is the exact same file you posted in the other thread where no one found an issue. You are doing something funny here. 6-7 people have taken your save and can't reproduce the issue. We have given several things you could be doing wrong. People have burned up a lot of time on threads trying to help you with mechanics and understanding the game. Yet you seem to lack the common courtesy to those people by posting, at minimium, a save...until one is demanded. You have yet to reply, except 1) disappear from the thread, 2) post the exact same save file, and 3) said "have at it". You went on in previous threads about how you are this top notch SQA person, yet you seem to be exhibiting the behavior of some not quite like that.

Again, post a video of you playing the game and demonstrating the issue. Or at least some screen shots, although, I might have some suspicions about any screen shots as well.

You're beginning to sound an awful lot like a couple other people that have passed through this forum thinking they know a lot about a lot, yet when push comes to shove, they quietly, and sometimes not so quietly, leave threads they have started, never to return. You're a pretty demanding guy of the devs, but not really willing to follow through to the end yourself. We have seen the ilk before. Guys who prance on about how they have beta-tested this game and that. Yet exhibit very poor procedural skills in reproducing issues. I tend to find guys who love to talk about their beta testing skills the guys who only play the game to break things, yet do little beyond a shallow veneer help solve problems.

Again, I'll ask, why did you abandon the thread you started. You were pretty hopped up to demand to know what was going on...so let's turn it around a little and put the same demands on you. Maybe you'll prove me wrong. Maybe you'll actually bring a video to the forum and show an issue that actually exists. But my guess is you found you were doing something wrong and you're the kind of guy who can't admit it.

[MarkShot]

If the save game doesn't have the problem, then:

(a) It was the runtime data structures which were the problem and not a static relationship in the save game.

(b) Possibly my install is somehow different than yours/others.

(c) There are always the odd hardware aberrations.

Now, you are quite rude. Because for me CMANO is a game. When I am billing whilst dealing with those such as yourself, you'll find me full of love and patience. But not here; not now. Goodbye.

[thewood1]

Does it still happen? If it does, post the video. I think you just plain won't admit you were doing something wrong. You knew the save didn't have the problem. It was discussed with you in YOUR original thread. So now you are trying to obfuscate the issue by throwing out a save file we already saw.

Throw your linkedin profile to me and let's see what you really do besides waste people's time.

[Sensei.Tokugawa]

I decide to resurrect this thread as Mark seemed to have hit the point, especially when it comes to air ops here, when he said that the game / sim that aims at operations needs to be operational not only in scale, but mainly regarding the way it works. After years with both Command Ops and CMANO I can only say that the previous faired and still does so much better in that regard perhaps mainly due to the fact that it is generally land warfare only in horizontal dimension or pretty much confined spaces and not a 360 degree vast battlefield. Micromanaging sucks and I am still observing - for instance - planes abandoning their mission, either set through a mission editor or manually assigned, with bombs still hanging, enough fuel to perform a few runs, valid targets in range and sight and they're regulars at least, not the foot conscripts below - I am assuming that (how to asses that if the Argies don't have airborne radars in the Falklands, but it's still an apparently pleasant day with presumably decent visibility ?... Well, it's still possible to loose a track of your target if your only sensor is a Mark 20 eyeball moving fast and quite hight above a sea/ocean). I have been trying to master that skill, read through this and that, here and there, bought everything released just to support the development process to see a major change in the way I am allowed to run my operations, but I am still banging my head against the wall many a time. The last statement is for any thread killing wooden goblin / troll that haunts this place. To translate that from mine to yours - I have done the homework.