Jump to content

Dynamic Campaign Engine


MBot

Recommended Posts

This is implemented quite simple. From IP to Egress Point, the laser illumination aircraft will point a laser at the first target element. If it gets destroyed, the laser will immediately switch to the next element. That is really all there is to it. As you can see this is not meant for loitering and pickling against a large number of individual targets, but to support a single strike. It should work rather well against a bridge for example, where the laser can switch from one span to the next as they get destroyed.

Well I understand the way it should be used but I can say that it works very well with AI airplanes making several bombing runs against multiple targets ;)

 

Did you tune your LGB to the laser code that is mentioned in the briefing?

Yes I did :)

[/url]All known Dynamic Campaign Engine Campaigns

Last DCE news : Crisis in PG - Blue version

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, my Mirage over Caucasus own version seems to work but to be really sure of targets coordinates I searched for them again ... I will release a new version soon I hope ;)

 

I noticed on my Caucasus campaign that some ground units are invisible or underground. Will investigate further when I get home. You may need to place units again or make the base mission over again from the beginning worst case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am also waiting for a WWII DCE campaign. I think there is enough content to make one now. Some quick ideas would be pre-invasion patrol and escort missions (Allied) to D-Day 0+ patrol and close air support/strike on German airfields and positions, breaking down axis air power over Normandy during the course of the campaign.


Edited by Raptor341
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, a WW2 DCE campaign would be a great indeed.

 

@Mbot

What's the status on this:

The Viggen is one of my favorite aircraft in DCS and I am looking forward to having the best possible and immersive experience with it. I am also very excited to learn about details what you have in store map wise. As you know I have my Dynamic Campaign Engine in place and already did a couple of campaigns, some which I think came out quite well. I am sitting on hot coals to finally apply it to the Viggen once it is truly ready.

I'm really waiting for this as the Viggen imho is the best suited aircraft in DCS currently for your DCE.

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

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

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am also waiting for a WWII DCE campaign. I think there is enough content to make one now. Some quick ideas would be pre-invasion patrol and escort missions (Allied) to D-Day 0+ patrol and close air support/strike on German airfields and positions, breaking down axis air power over Normandy during the course of the campaign.
^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^

 

+1,000,000.

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mbot

What's the status on this:

 

I'm really waiting for this as the Viggen imho is the best suited aircraft in DCS currently for your DCE.

 

 

For a year now I have a NTTR Viggen campaign waiting on my HD. But since it heavily involves dispersed basing and the AI still crashes upon taking off from many of the smaller Nevada airfields, it is shelved indefinitely.

 

The new Caucasus map looks promising, as with the vast new forested areas it could be a reasonable stand in for Sweden. The cluttered ground should also greatly improve tactical options for the Viggen. The featureless Nevada deserts are not particularly well suited to the Viggen's operational doctrine. Once stable 2.5 is released I will start to work on a Viggen campaign.

 

The big question is still how the AI will perform. Since the AI is pretty much unable to perform NOE flight and pop-up attacks in DCS, chances are Viggen flights are going to be wiped out on most missions. Might as well be that a realistic Viggen campaign with authentic tactics and threats is unfeasable in DCS. AI is a HUGE issue for the Viggen currently.

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=158470&stc=1&d=1488748732

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a year now I have a NTTR Viggen campaign waiting on my HD. But since it heavily involves dispersed basing and the AI still crashes upon taking off from many of the smaller Nevada airfields, it is shelved indefinitely.

 

The new Caucasus map looks promising, as with the vast new forested areas it could be a reasonable stand in for Sweden. The cluttered ground should also greatly improve tactical options for the Viggen. The featureless Nevada deserts are not particularly well suited to the Viggen's operational doctrine. Once stable 2.5 is released I will start to work on a Viggen campaign.

 

The big question is still how the AI will perform. Since the AI is pretty much unable to perform NOE flight and pop-up attacks in DCS, chances are Viggen flights are going to be wiped out on most missions. Might as well be that a realistic Viggen campaign with authentic tactics and threats is unfeasable in DCS. AI is a HUGE issue for the Viggen currently.

 

Indeed, I have pretty much given up on any AI operations with the Viggen. :(

But flying the Viggen as a player in such a dynamic campaign would be really great. I'm really looking forward to that, especially on the new Caucasus map :)

 

That makes me wonder: How does the DCE handle terrain elevation? I think you wrote somewhere that it assumes the terrain to be flat. Wouldn't that cause some issues with route planning in the high caucasian mountains?

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

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

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes me wonder: How does the DCE handle terrain elevation? I think you wrote somewhere that it assumes the terrain to be flat. Wouldn't that cause some issues with route planning in the high caucasian mountains?

 

Indeed. I think a setup with mountains between the sides would not be feasible unless both sides are set up to employ medium-high altitude tactics. But the lower terrain in the Kuban area could possibly work well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm currently converting the Desert Tiger campaign to be playable with the Viggen. It works great so far, but I ran into a problem now that I can't solve:

I edited the db_loadouts.lua to include various Viggen loadouts. Now when I check the mission planer prior to mission start I can see the weapon loadout on the aircraft as it should be, but once I started the mission and sitting in the cockpit the aircraft is unarmed. Rearming did not work either as it doesn't offer me any weapons to hang on the plane. That told me, that the warehouse of the air field has probably been modified, so I checked it in the mission planner. There I could see that my assumption was correct and only certain weapons were available (mostly F-5 and F-4 weapons). So I searched through the campaign files for any warehouse definitions, but I couldn't find any.

 

So I wonder: How are the air base warehouses configured?

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

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

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will have to modify the warehouses file which is in the Base_mission.miz in the Init folder.

To avoid this, load my Desert Mirage 86 campaign an use its warehouse file : it should work fine ;)

Well, that makes sense... and should have been pretty ovious :doh:

 

Thanks!

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

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

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I would pay any day for such a module instead new airplane modules.,,

 

 

 

And me too.

 

Even simple system like old EF2000 tactcom etc..

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oculus CV1, Odyssey, Pimax 5k+ (i5 8400, 24gb ddr4 3000mhz, 1080Ti OC )

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Priority: Higher number = higher priority. The ATO keeps assigning aircraft to targets/objectives, starting with highest priority targets, until all available aircraft are tasked. Priority is modified by the threat level of a mission. Of two possible missions with the same priority, the lower threat mission gets aircraft first for example.

In my Viggen conversion of your Desert Tiger campaign I had some suicide missions assigned to me, so I digged a bit into your code and as far as I can see there is no hard cap for the score (score = loadout capability * priority / threat). By that I mean the ATO generator does not drop sorties under a certain score threshold, because the risk would be too high. Instead it assigns aircraft to sorties (sorted by score) as long as there are aircraft available. If there are enough aircraft available it will even assign suicide sorties with a score as low as 0.03.

Am I seeing this right?


Edited by QuiGon

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

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

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my Viggen conversion of your Desert Tiger campaign I had some suicide missions assigned to me, so I digged a bit into your code and as far as I can see there is no hard cap for the score (score = loadout capability * priority / threat). By that I mean the ATO generator does not drop sorties under a certain score threshold, because the risk would be too high. Instead it assigns aircraft to sorties (sorted by score) as long as there are aircraft available. If there are enough aircraft available it will even assign suicide sorties with a score as low as 0.03.

Am I seeing this right?

 

Yes this is correct. You can control this by making sure that there are always sufficient alternative objectives which are scored higher than your desired threshold. If you are running into problems with this despite your regular targets, then intercept objectives are very thankful for this job. Make an intercept target with a very high aircraft requirement and your desired priority and it will suck up and block all remaining aircraft from being assigned to lower scored missions (intercept threat value is always 1). I think if you give the intercept target a radius of 0, then it should even prevent the assigned aircraft from ever launching and affecting your missions (hopefully a radius of 0 does not crash the game, haven't tested it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes this is correct. You can control this by making sure that there are always sufficient alternative objectives which are scored higher than your desired threshold. If you are running into problems with this despite your regular targets, then intercept objectives are very thankful for this job. Make an intercept target with a very high aircraft requirement and your desired priority and it will suck up and block all remaining aircraft from being assigned to lower scored missions (intercept threat value is always 1). I think if you give the intercept target a radius of 0, then it should even prevent the assigned aircraft from ever launching and affecting your missions (hopefully a radius of 0 does not crash the game, haven't tested it).

Hmm, alternative objectives are actually the reason why I digged into the code, because I get pretty risky sorties when there should be much better sorties available.

 

In my Viggen variant of the Desert Tiger campaign, the ATO always sends me on a suicidal mission to bomb the ammo depots at Altes Lager, instead to send me to the much less defended Creech AFB like it does in the original F-5 version. Originally I thought this might be due to some loadout settings of my Viggens, but I can't see anything there what might cause this ATO behaviour, so I started digging to understand ATO process.

 

So far I figured out that the sortie to attack Altes Lager has a very low score of just 0,037, because the target priority and the capaility of the choosen loadout is very low (both just 1), while the threat is very high (27):

capability * priority / threat = score

1 * 1 / 27 = 0,037

 

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.

 

Anyways, digging through all this well written code made me realize even more how much work you put in there. The DCE is a monster and a great piece of work! :thumbup:

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

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

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

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

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

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

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...