Jump to content

Tarawa shortcomings


BrzI

Recommended Posts

Much yes!!!! Please! This is the most annoyance of Tarawa.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Win 10, AMD FX9590/water cooled, 32GB RAM, 250GB SSD system, 1TB SSD (DCS installed), 2TB HD, Warthog HOTAS, MFG rudders, Track IR 5, LG Ultrawide, Logitech Speakers w/sub, Fans, Case, cell phone, wallet, keys.....printer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess if you're doing SP nothing really matters much, but in MP nobody should ever spawn on the tram line... EVER. JMHO.

 

The question is for MP, what to do about being able to station 6-8 AV-8B's on the Tarawa -- depending on where you look -- but only having room to spawn 5 at a time. I've played around with it, and I think you could easily spawn 5 AV-8B's on the right rear deck, without them interfering with each other -- barring any idiots -- pretty much like Shadow illustrated.

 

But what to do with the other 1-3. And what to do if some dummies have fallen asleep on the 5 'Hot'' spawn points.

 

I think ED is going to have to come up with some mechanics for all carriers, because even on the big ones, you can't have one spawn point per aircraft. In fact, it's probably even a worse situation there, because you could host a couple dozen aircraft, but not spawn them, without blocking something or other.

When you hit the wrong button on take-off

hwl7xqL.gif

System Specs.

Spoiler
System board: MSI X670E ACE Memory: 64GB DDR5-6000 G.Skill Ripjaw System disk: Crucial P5 M.2 2TB
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D PSU: Corsair HX1200 PSU Monitor: ASUS MG279Q, 27"
CPU cooling: Noctua NH-D15S Graphics card: MSI RTX 3090Ti SuprimX VR: Oculus Rift CV1
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess if you're doing SP nothing really matters much, but in MP nobody should ever spawn on the tram line... EVER. JMHO.

 

I hear where you are coming from, but the same goes for the catapult or the runway. But it should be an option.

 

I do A LOT of mission making and by extension testing, either the time it takes me or an AI to taxi adds up after testing soemthing 10s of times. But I don't use runway starts for the final product. But yeah, basically I get it. I disagree though.

 

 

I asked them directly about this on the discord, no answer....

 

It's not on them. The jet is classified as a VTOL in the Sim, it's complicated, but it's not the same as other jets. It has different restrictions within the Sim than other jets. That needs to be addressed by ED.

 

To see what I mean, try spawning more than one harrier in the Stennis, it doesn't work. That stuff needs to be fixed before anything else can happen. In the mean time we are kind of stuck.

 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Aurora R7 || i7K 8700K || 2TB 7200RPM SATA 6Gb/s || 2TB M.2 PCIe x4 SSD || GTX 1080 Ti with 11GB GDDR5X || Windows 10 Pro || 32GB Dual Channel DDR4 at 2667MHz || Virpil Warbird Base || Virpil T-50 Stick || Virpil MT-50 Throttle || Thrustmaster TPR Pedals || Oculus Rift

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Respectfully it is their module and their asset. I expected the boiler plate "waiting on ED code" but I got nothing.

 

That could very well be a result of several others, myself included, that have been "on their backs" about this issue since the Harrier first came out. Prowler has been very patient, with me anyway, in trying to explain that the interactions with the aircraft and the carriers is strictly an ED (game engine) thing. Maybe they are just tired of having to explain that over and over again. Having said that, I see that Sunstag is able to make some changes that affect the AI at least and I am hopeful that there has to be a way to make things right. I am hopeful and patient.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That could very well be a result of several others, myself included, that have been "on their backs" about this issue since the Harrier first came out. Prowler has been very patient, with me anyway, in trying to explain that the interactions with the aircraft and the carriers is strictly an ED (game engine) thing. Maybe they are just tired of having to explain that over and over again. Having said that, I see that Sunstag is able to make some changes that affect the AI at least and I am hopeful that there has to be a way to make things right. I am hopeful and patient.

 

I spoke with Sunstag recently, he's said he put in some work (there was a video) but he couldn't do much more. Not until changes are made in how the carriers handle the Harriers.

 

I get that people get annoyed, but I mean, ED has a lot to do, and aren't exactly known to getting around to 'smaller' (ie non game breaking) bugs particularly quickly. So I wouldn't hold your breath unfortunately.

 

EDIT: To point out this issue even further, Heatblur who, as far as we can all tell, has been very adimate on developing their own technology outside of the base sim, said there carrier will act just like the Stennis insofar as parking and what not. Which should be very telling.


Edited by Shadow_1stVFW

Aurora R7 || i7K 8700K || 2TB 7200RPM SATA 6Gb/s || 2TB M.2 PCIe x4 SSD || GTX 1080 Ti with 11GB GDDR5X || Windows 10 Pro || 32GB Dual Channel DDR4 at 2667MHz || Virpil Warbird Base || Virpil T-50 Stick || Virpil MT-50 Throttle || Thrustmaster TPR Pedals || Oculus Rift

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess if you're doing SP nothing really matters much, but in MP nobody should ever spawn on the tram line... EVER. JMHO.

 

The question is for MP, what to do about being able to station 6-8 AV-8B's on the Tarawa -- depending on where you look -- but only having room to spawn 5 at a time. I've played around with it, and I think you could easily spawn 5 AV-8B's on the right rear deck, without them interfering with each other -- barring any idiots -- pretty much like Shadow illustrated.

 

But what to do with the other 1-3. And what to do if some dummies have fallen asleep on the 5 'Hot'' spawn points.

 

I think ED is going to have to come up with some mechanics for all carriers, because even on the big ones, you can't have one spawn point per aircraft. In fact, it's probably even a worse situation there, because you could host a couple dozen aircraft, but not spawn them, without blocking something or other.

 

It seems a lot of these spawning issues stem from the ED devs making a single player sim with MP as an afterthought. Max ships in a flight is 4 in the mission editor, and all that would have to be considered in SP. How the carriers have tons of placements for static objects, yet can't sort out the spawning issues boggles my mind. Even airfields reach a point where aircraft will start spawning on top of each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would guess its a work in progress in the sense that ED did say we are supposed to get a "carrier sim" of the Stennis (IIRC) where you can wander around it and so forth. So hopefully improved plane handling logic would be part of that. They seemed to imply moving planes on elevators etc. How much of that would apply to the Tarawa model is anyone's guess though.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems a lot of these spawning issues stem from the ED devs making a single player sim with MP as an afterthought. Max ships in a flight is 4 in the mission editor, and all that would have to be considered in SP. How the carriers have tons of placements for static objects, yet can't sort out the spawning issues boggles my mind. Even airfields reach a point where aircraft will start spawning on top of each other.

 

All of the static aircraft you see on the carriers are placed by hand. They do not occupy "slots" so to speak on the carrier. That is why you see the many different layouts on those carriers. Some one took the time to place them very carefully.

 

This does bring up an interesting idea though. Maybe if ED treated Client aircraft in the same way they do statics it would allow them to be placed the same way on the carriers and alleviate this issue?

 

However, the problem lies in the AI aircraft. They most likely require slots to spawn from to aid in path logic to make sure they can navigate correctly on the deck to avoid crashing into each other and the player in SP. The same probably applies to taking off/launching and trapping/landing on said carriers.

 

 

 

Edit: Now that I think about it... The AI controlling the ATC in the sim probably needs client and player aircraft to spawn in those areas for tracking purposes as well.


Edited by Repth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear where you are coming from, but the same goes for the catapult or the runway. But it should be an option.

 

I do A LOT of mission making and by extension testing, either the time it takes me or an AI to taxi adds up after testing soemthing 10s of times. But I don't use runway starts for the final product. But yeah, basically I get it. I disagree though.

8<

 

I understand completely, but during mission testing I'm guessing you are running the mission in SP, although maybe not.

 

Anyway, the mission creator can always simply abstain from configuring any aircraft to spawn on catapults, so it's more a question of self-control.

 

I spoke with Sunstag recently, he's said he put in some work (there was a video) but he couldn't do much more. Not until changes are made in how the carriers handle the Harriers.

 

I get that people get annoyed, but I mean, ED has a lot to do, and aren't exactly known to getting around to 'smaller' (ie non game breaking) bugs particularly quickly. So I wouldn't hold your breath unfortunately.

 

EDIT: To point out this issue even further, Heatblur who, as far as we can all tell, has been very adimate on developing their own technology outside of the base sim, said there carrier will act just like the Stennis insofar as parking and what not. Which should be very telling.

 

I think HB is simply not addressing the spawning issues, which I imaging is going to require a major overhaul in the coding to allow for an actual working solution, and not just what would basically be a work-around. But we will see... some day... maybe.

 

It seems a lot of these spawning issues stem from the ED devs making a single player sim with MP as an afterthought. Max ships in a flight is 4 in the mission editor, and all that would have to be considered in SP. How the carriers have tons of placements for static objects, yet can't sort out the spawning issues boggles my mind. Even airfields reach a point where aircraft will start spawning on top of each other.

 

A lot of what ED did with airfields -- and the maps -- is IMHO quick-n-dirty. For example, if you look at Sochi-Adler Apron 1, there are a large number of parking spaces painted on the ground, only the half of which are actually configured in DCS, and thus usable. You might say, 'but who would every need so many parking spaces', but I once did, but I'm kind of weird so... :music_whistling:

 

I'm not going to even mention the ramps up to bridges which in reality only a monster-truck could get over... not even mention... ummm.... :huh:

When you hit the wrong button on take-off

hwl7xqL.gif

System Specs.

Spoiler
System board: MSI X670E ACE Memory: 64GB DDR5-6000 G.Skill Ripjaw System disk: Crucial P5 M.2 2TB
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D PSU: Corsair HX1200 PSU Monitor: ASUS MG279Q, 27"
CPU cooling: Noctua NH-D15S Graphics card: MSI RTX 3090Ti SuprimX VR: Oculus Rift CV1
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm not going to even mention the ramps up to bridges which in reality only a monster-truck could get over... not even mention... ummm.... :huh:

 

I only noticed it when flying Helos... But yeah it looks funny. But I don't think you need a monster truck.

 

giphy.gif

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason that the Tarawa cannot simply use the Stennis lua format is down to the code associated with VTOL aircraft within DCS. It can clearly be demonstrated by spawning AV8Bs on the deck of the Stennis (RAMP START or PARKING HOT) and eventually you will see them spawn inside each other.

 

If I change the AV8B code I can indeed spawn aircraft on the deck as per the image below. Doing this means that AI airframes would lose VTOL capability.

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=205420&stc=1&d=1551518152

 

Similarly the helo spawning for the Stennis cannot be ported across to the Tarawa at present either. Which is why in my mod, a helo has to be placed as a RUNWAY start in slot 4, to appear in front of the island.

 

I have no idea which party needs to address these issues moving forward and I am by no means a lua genius (just a mod coder) so after many many hours of tinkering with the code, these are my findings. They are by no means definitive but give you an insight as to what the issues are.

Screen_190302_090540.thumb.jpg.c141a772bf67db7900fc65c4b0ae92fd.jpg

Callsign: NAKED

My YouTube Channel

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That literally makes no logical sense to me. I am in no way questioning your knowledge Suntsag, I'm saying that as you describe it, it tells me that some underlying code is seriously borked, which may simply include the way lua coding works; in other words, lua may be the wrong coding langue to achieve what is necessary, but that is only conditional supposition.

 

To spawn into a fixed position on the deck, you need

- define the position, which must be relative to the ship and not the world

- insure the position is free of obstruction (other A/C, units, and movable cargo, etc)

- reserve the position, so that no competing spawns can occur

- execute the spawn

 

That should be it, and it should have no affect on the functioning of the A/C. The A/C should be defined independent of it's spawn location.

When you hit the wrong button on take-off

hwl7xqL.gif

System Specs.

Spoiler
System board: MSI X670E ACE Memory: 64GB DDR5-6000 G.Skill Ripjaw System disk: Crucial P5 M.2 2TB
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D PSU: Corsair HX1200 PSU Monitor: ASUS MG279Q, 27"
CPU cooling: Noctua NH-D15S Graphics card: MSI RTX 3090Ti SuprimX VR: Oculus Rift CV1
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Suntsag. Looks like "someone" has some work to do.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason that the Tarawa cannot simply use the Stennis lua format is down to the code associated with VTOL aircraft within DCS. It can clearly be demonstrated by spawning AV8Bs on the deck of the Stennis (RAMP START or PARKING HOT) and eventually you will see them spawn inside each other.

 

 

 

If I change the AV8B code I can indeed spawn aircraft on the deck as per the image below. Doing this means that AI airframes would lose VTOL capability.

 

 

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=205420&stc=1&d=1551518152

 

 

 

Similarly the helo spawning for the Stennis cannot be ported across to the Tarawa at present either. Which is why in my mod, a helo has to be placed as a RUNWAY start in slot 4, to appear in front of the island.

 

 

 

I have no idea which party needs to address these issues moving forward and I am by no means a lua genius (just a mod coder) so after many many hours of tinkering with the code, these are my findings. They are by no means definitive but give you an insight as to what the issues are.

 

 

 

I, like many others, appreciate your work. But let's be real here. The AI Harriers presently have no VTOL capability on the Tarawa. If they do, then mine is broken. I've never seen them fully land, then taxi to shutdown. They just disappear or crash.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Win 10, AMD FX9590/water cooled, 32GB RAM, 250GB SSD system, 1TB SSD (DCS installed), 2TB HD, Warthog HOTAS, MFG rudders, Track IR 5, LG Ultrawide, Logitech Speakers w/sub, Fans, Case, cell phone, wallet, keys.....printer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, like many others, appreciate your work. But let's be real here. The AI Harriers presently have no VTOL capability on the Tarawa. If they do, then mine is broken. I've never seen them fully land, then taxi to shutdown. They just disappear or crash.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Personally I'd rather they just disappear. It's a pain to deal with taxiing aircraft on the Stennis. If you've got statics on the ship you either need to set the AI to invulerable, or the crash and make a mess, or just 'know' where they will taxi, which with no documentation on where the AI taxi and park, is a stupidly long process of trail and error.

 

Don't get me wrong, I like the taxiing AI. Some of the time. But I'd rather my ships look a little more busy than a clean deck until planes come to land.

 

So I get into this situation where using AI kills the start up process because the ship is empty, or I use statics and can't really use AI.

 

I kind of rather liked the approach Jane's F-18 used whereby all flight deck movements where scripted. But we don't have that here.

 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Aurora R7 || i7K 8700K || 2TB 7200RPM SATA 6Gb/s || 2TB M.2 PCIe x4 SSD || GTX 1080 Ti with 11GB GDDR5X || Windows 10 Pro || 32GB Dual Channel DDR4 at 2667MHz || Virpil Warbird Base || Virpil T-50 Stick || Virpil MT-50 Throttle || Thrustmaster TPR Pedals || Oculus Rift

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tarawa shortcomings

 

Personally I'd rather they just disappear. It's a pain to deal with taxiing aircraft on the Stennis. If you've got statics on the ship you either need to set the AI to invulerable, or the crash and make a mess, or just 'know' where they will taxi, which with no documentation on where the AI taxi and park, is a stupidly long process of trail and error.

 

Don't get me wrong, I like the taxiing AI. Some of the time. But I'd rather my ships look a little more busy than a clean deck until planes come to land.

 

So I get into this situation where using AI kills the start up process because the ship is empty, or I use statics and can't really use AI.

 

I kind of rather liked the approach Jane's F-18 used whereby all flight deck movements where scripted. But we don't have that here.

 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

 

 

I agree, the Stennis taxi procedures don’t really work well. I think they should reserve an elevator for AI arrivals and despawn once lowered below. That way the mission creators can keep the deck space for players/static if wanted and the AI are predictable and get out of the way quick. As far as the spawning goes, the only solution I can think of is a timer or metering method that keeps the vital deck areas clear and allows an efficient operation for launch and recovery like they currently do.

 

Otherwise, the problem is going from an operation that has clear cut, long, spacious taxiways/movement areas to some very limited square feet of flat surface.

 

Tarawa just compounds the problem because it’s much smaller. However, still utilizing a lift to despawn on is still a good tactic.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Edited by Eagle7907

Win 10, AMD FX9590/water cooled, 32GB RAM, 250GB SSD system, 1TB SSD (DCS installed), 2TB HD, Warthog HOTAS, MFG rudders, Track IR 5, LG Ultrawide, Logitech Speakers w/sub, Fans, Case, cell phone, wallet, keys.....printer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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