Dynamic Campaign Engine - Page 68 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-27-2018, 02:45 PM   #671
71st_AH Rob
Member
 
71st_AH Rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 535
Default

Quote:
I don't know the score an attack on Creech AFB would have, but it must be much higher as its priority is much highter (3), as well as the capability of the possible loadouts, while the threat should be much lower. So I don't really understand why it ignores Creech AFB and instead sends me to Altes Lager deep in enemy territory. It seems like it doesn't even consider Creech AFB for some reasons, that I haven't figured out yet, but I keep digging.
I think that the fundamental problem is that you made the same assumption I did that the lower the priority number the higher priority the target. I had assumed that the he #1 priority target would be the one that had a priority of 1 in the target list, however I believe I read last week that the highest number priority in the target list is your #1 priority target. I read through all 67 pages of this thread looking for an answer to a problem I was having and was surprised to see it, I should have bookmarked it. Your formula above would seem to corroborate that post though.
__________________
Georgian Spring Server: Join the Revolution!
http://georgianspring.enjin.com/

Training for Sabre Pilots
http://1-fighter-otu.enjin.com/

http://www.il2aceshigh.com/
71st_AH Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 03:00 PM   #672
QuiGon
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 7,920
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 71st_AH Rob View Post
I think that the fundamental problem is that you made the same assumption I did that the lower the priority number the higher priority the target. I had assumed that the he #1 priority target would be the one that had a priority of 1 in the target list, however I believe I read last week that the highest number priority in the target list is your #1 priority target. I read through all 67 pages of this thread looking for an answer to a problem I was having and was surprised to see it, I should have bookmarked it. Your formula above would seem to corroborate that post though.
I actually did not make this assumption
The formula makes it pretty clear that higher numbers mean higher priority, which is why I don't understand why the ATO is assigning this sortie when there should be sorties with much higher priority and much lower thrat levels, resulting in much higher score. I think something prevents the ATO from even considering the other sorties, at least that's the only explanation that seems to make sense to me atm. I'm still digging for the cause of this behaviour.
__________________
Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + Windows 10 64Bit

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

QuiGon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 03:23 PM   #673
wedge_one
Member
 
wedge_one's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 131
Default

any possibility of converting Screaming Eagle to the new Caucasus map?
__________________
¬ wedge

Wishlist: DCS: F-16C

wedgeDCS - Modern Custom CSS themes for the Forum
wedge_one is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 03:52 PM   #674
MBot
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuiGon View Post
I actually did not make this assumption
The formula makes it pretty clear that higher numbers mean higher priority, which is why I don't understand why the ATO is assigning this sortie when there should be sorties with much higher priority and much lower thrat levels, resulting in much higher score. I think something prevents the ATO from even considering the other sorties, at least that's the only explanation that seems to make sense to me atm. I'm still digging for the cause of this behaviour.
Things you could check:
-Target has an attribute that the loadout does not mirror?
-Loadout has a low sortie rate? If a loadout has a sortie rate of 1, then each each aircraft will on average fly one such mission per day.
-Loadout has insufficient range?

You could try to disable the dominant target (give it an attribute like "cabbage") then check if the other target is selected.
MBot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 05:03 PM   #675
QuiGon
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 7,920
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MBot View Post
Things you could check:
-Target has an attribute that the loadout does not mirror?
-Loadout has a low sortie rate? If a loadout has a sortie rate of 1, then each each aircraft will on average fly one such mission per day.
-Loadout has insufficient range?

You could try to disable the dominant target (give it an attribute like "cabbage") then check if the other target is selected.
The target (Altes Lager) has the bunker attribute and I have one bunker loadout (with a capability of 1) which gets choosen for this. I tried disabling the bunker loadout but then the ATO gives me a sortie to kill tanks deep in enemy territory with an armor loadout. I tried to make the attributes and values of my Viggen loadouts very similar to the F-5 loadouts and yet the ATO still sends the F-5s to bomb Creech AFB (attributes "hard", "SR" both target and loadout) , while it sends the Viggens to do suicide stuff deep in enemy territory although the loadouts are similar attribute wise. Sortie rate is 2, just like it is for the F-5s. Same with range.
__________________
Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + Windows 10 64Bit

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

QuiGon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2018, 01:07 PM   #676
MBot
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,208
Default

The F-5 and Viggen are in the campaign simultaneously? It sounds as if the F-5 are assigned first (targets and escorts) and as Creech gets covered, the Viggen get the next best thing with no escorts remaining. You could try to give the Viggen more capability so that they have priority over the F-5 (all other things being equal) and then put any surplus F-5 into intercept missions to keep them out of harms way, if there are no other easy targets remaining.

As you can see, setting up good campaigns is a balance act
MBot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2018, 01:32 PM   #677
QuiGon
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 7,920
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MBot View Post
The F-5 and Viggen are in the campaign simultaneously? It sounds as if the F-5 are assigned first (targets and escorts) and as Creech gets covered, the Viggen get the next best thing with no escorts remaining. You could try to give the Viggen more capability so that they have priority over the F-5 (all other things being equal) and then put any surplus F-5 into intercept missions to keep them out of harms way, if there are no other easy targets remaining.
Yes, they are together for now, but I suspected this might be the issue here as well, so I removed the F-5s for testing and it did not change the Viggen sorties. You only have to remove them from the oob_air_init, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MBot View Post
As you can see, setting up good campaigns is a balance act
It is indeed
__________________
Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + Windows 10 64Bit

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

QuiGon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2018, 10:59 AM   #678
PB0_CEF
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: ST DIZIER FRANCE
Posts: 446
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge_one View Post
any possibility of converting Screaming Eagle to the new Caucasus map?
If you want to fly F-15C over Caucasus map, may be can you try my Mbot's DCE mod : Eagle over Caucasus that you can find here :
https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=191858

Less historical and more basic but it's on Caucasus map
PB0_CEF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2018, 11:17 AM   #679
PB0_CEF
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: ST DIZIER FRANCE
Posts: 446
Default

I wanted to make a limited Gazelle war over Inguri River with DCE but it seems that it's not yet possible
What's the problem ? Speed ? Waypoints with hover possibilities ? Weapon's use ?
DCE is not really done for CAS but it's a good way to practice in an interesting way
I wanted only tanks and BMP's Cie on the north side of Inguri river with rear artillery and maybe HQ targets. Mainly shoppers near the front with strike and escort missions and only sometimes one CAP or strike plane mission ...
DCE was not able to generate a mission ("Player aircraft type cannot operate at this time of day") : loadouts were day, night and adverse weather capable A problem with Time on Target ?
PB0_CEF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2018, 09:05 PM   #680
QuiGon
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 7,920
Default

I did some more testing now. To do this I removed all loadouts except a single bomb loadout with attributes "hard" and "SR" and a capability of 5. When I now run the generator it finally gives me the mission to bomb Creech AFB (priority = 3). That's exactly what I would expect and it has a pretty decent score of 1.79.

Now when I add another loadout, which is a exact copy of the first loadout except that it has different attributes: "soft" and "SR". When I run the generator now it gives me a mission to bomb the 102 EWR site (priority = 3), which is located on a small hill just next to the Creech AFB. Therefore the score is again at 1.79, because the threat is the same as before and so is the loadout capability (5).

So the two missions are exactly the same stats wise (except a very minor difference in distance). Just the target type is a different one (soft instead of hard). So it seems like the ATO generator prefers the soft loadout over the hard loadout, because it always gives me the mission to bomb the EWR side instead of the air base as soon as I add the soft loadout. This is still fine, as the stats of the two missions are pretty much the same and the ATO has to choose something.

So far, so good, but now it gets weird: I turn down the capability of the soft loadout (the one the ATO prefers) from 5 to 1, while leaving the capability of the hard loadout at 5. This changes the score of the EWR mission from 1.79 to 0.35, so in theory, the ATO should now give me the mission to attack Creech AFB, because the score of this mission remains at 1.79.
Well, it doesn't. It still prefers the soft loadout and gives me the mission to attack the EWR site although this mission has a much lower score as the alternative.

@MBot: Do you have an idea what happens there and why the ATO acts like this?


Summary:

Test 1

Loadout 1: "hard"
attributes = "hard", "SR"
capability = 5

Given mission: Attack Creech AFB
attributes = "hard", "SR"
priority = 3
threat = 0.5
score = 1.79


Test 2

Loadout 1: "hard"
attributes = "hard", "SR"
capability = 5

Loadout 2: "soft"
attributes = "soft", "SR"
capability = 5

Given mission: Attack 102 EWR site
attributes = "soft", "SR"
priority = 3
threat = 0.5
score = 1.79


Test 3

Loadout 1: "hard"
attributes = "hard", "SR"
capability = 5

Loadout 2: "soft"
attributes = "soft", "SR"
capability = 1

Given mission: Attack 102 EWR site
attributes = "soft", "SR"
priority = 3
threat = 0.5
score = 0.35

__________________
Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + Windows 10 64Bit

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!


Last edited by QuiGon; 03-01-2018 at 09:35 PM.
QuiGon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:43 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.