Stennis aircraft spawning

[Bankler]

Dear ED, currently, there is a limit where you can only spawn 6 cold client aircraft on the deck. To spawn more, you need to have the first 6 aircraft taxi around to clear spaces, and then you can spawn in more people (who will spawn cold on cat 3/4 for whatever reason). While it's possible to work around in this manner, it takes A LOT of time, and with the poor network position synchronization of aircraft on a moving deck (which I can certainly understand is quite a technical challenge), it often results in aircraft bumping into each other, delayed flights and so on.

 

Question:

 

Is it reasonable to expect that you will fix these problems anytime soon, or is the Stennis considered "working as intended"? (It's an honest question. If it's considered done, then at least we know that we need to keep looking for workarounds on our own, instead of hoping for a fix)

 

Our use-case:

 

We are a larger group, fans of carrier ops, loving the Hornet module, flying weekly missions with 12-20 players. We want to cold start together from Stennis, launching as a package.

 

My specific requests:

 

Prio 1) Open up at least 16 spawn points for client aircraft on the carrier deck in MP, where players can consistently spawn, without getting "flight delayed" messages or spawning into someone else.

 

Prio 2) Upon spawning, disable aircraft collision with other aircraft for 10 seconds or so. This should solve most of the problems with spawn related rubberbanding, killing aircraft (each time, making ~15 other people sit around and wait for that guy's respawn/startup).

Edited June 6, 2019 by Bankler

[mikethebike89]

+1

[Pikey]

For sure. I know it's complex in a small space and there is AI to consider for the SP'd and moving clients and ATC and people in the groove, but it's such a popular activity and folks tend to always have something go wrong on deck. I hope we can keep moving towards a good deck experience.

[BlueAngel]

I think this Stennis will never be improved upon what it already is.

 

If you want to have a better platform, better wait for the two new Carriers, that other Stennis ED will sell separately or the new Forrestal class HB is building.

[viper2097]

+2

 

PLEASE fix that spawing behavor on the Stennis (also in the ME).

[Bankler]

I think this Stennis will never be improved upon what it already is.

 

If you want to have a better platform, better wait for the two new Carriers, that other Stennis ED will sell separately or the new Forrestal class HB is building.

 

Maybe. But I try to not get too cynical about it. Somewhere I believe ED realizes that this is a quite crucial flaw, since it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect that their flagship module (i.e the Hornet) should operate from a carrier (which is... kind of its thing) even in MP.

 

Expecting ED to release the new carrier with the incentive "pay to get a carrier with less bugs" (in contrast to "more functionality")... well, maybe. But I honestly think better of them. :thumbup: Again, what's most interesting for me is getting word from ED on their stance; if they have the ambition to fix it or not.

[Ramses]

+3

[JayBird]

+1000 this only gets worse if you try and place Tomcats in the mission.

[A2597]

I think that you'll be waiting for the Carrier with working elevators for this.

 

 

 

The collision detection would be a big plus, but expecting 16+ spawnable spaces isn't likely. Maybe 8 is possible, but they have to keep the runway and catapults as clear as possible.

[Bankler]

The collision detection would be a big plus, but expecting 16+ spawnable spaces isn't likely. Maybe 8 is possible, but they have to keep the runway and catapults as clear as possible.

 

I see you point, but I don't agree. Since we're talking about client aircraft, they could open up any number of spawn points, as long as there is physical room on the deck. It should be up to the players to understand that it's a bad idea to land on parked aircraft or launch cat 1/2 if there are aircraft parked on the bow.

That said, obviously I wouldn't mind if the system prioritized in a way keeping the places you mention as clean if possible.

 

The attached picture isn't meant to illustrate a perfect spawn position priority, but at least gives a picture of how much more room there is.

 

[Rennes]

I agree there is certainly room for 16 spawn points. If I recall when I was on the carrier we had a total of 85 aircraft aboard. If they can fit 85 IRL, granted they were packed tight, we can fit 16.

 

The other part of this I would like to see is the mission designer being able to specify spawn location priorities. So that the designer could specify which spawn points get filled first. And being able to change priority based on a trigger would really be great. That way you could specify the spawn points on the fantail get used at the start of the mission but once all aircraft are airborne or something the spots on the starboard side become priority so that anyone joining in late doesn't spawn in the landing area.

Edited June 6, 2019 by Rennes
Typos

[Pocket]

+4

[Bankler]

Noticed the thread was moved from the Hornet forum to the Bugs and Problems/Object Errors forum, without any comment. It wasn't really meant as a bug report (I assume the issues are already well known), but as a request to ED for confirmation if this is something they agree needs fixing at all, or if you're happy with the current implementation?

 

Sorry for being persistent, but I have already spent such an insane amount of time and energy trying to find workarounds (involving time after time gathering 8+ people for trying different spawn strategies), that I at the very least expect ED to tell us if you intend to work on it or not.

[viper2097]

Just another idea without knowing anything about lua, but aren't the spawnpoints somehow defined, so that we could probably mod them on our own?

As possible solution until ED does something...

[Bankler]

Just another idea without knowing anything about lua, but aren't the spawnpoints somehow defined, so that we could probably mod them on our own?

As possible solution until ED does something...

 

Actually, in ...\DCS World\CoreMods\tech\USS John C Stennis\USS_John_C_Stennis_RunwaysAndRoutes.lua there are 16 parking shots/taxiways defined (actually 20, but the last 4 have been commented out). This leads me to think the code (i.e on the C++ side) is written in a way that it only uses some of them. But sure, one could always try fiddling around with those numbers and see what happens! :)

[viper2097]

But at least, this would lead nore to an bug instead of a missing feature, so chances are high that it should be fixed...

Or ED?

[Grimes]

Actually, in ...\DCS World\CoreMods\tech\USS John C Stennis\USS_John_C_Stennis_RunwaysAndRoutes.lua there are 16 parking shots/taxiways defined (actually 20, but the last 4 have been commented out). This leads me to think the code (i.e on the C++ side) is written in a way that it only uses some of them. But sure, one could always try fiddling around with those numbers and see what happens! :)

 

If I had to guess those define where AI go to park their aircraft after landing. With spawn points being defined by TaxiForTORoutes and HelicopterSpawnTerminal. Whether you can change that on a server and have it filter down to clients or not is another question entirely. What I mean is I don't know if the server tells players to "spawn at parking ID X" or "Spawn at X, Y, Z coordinate".

 

 

I kinda get the sense that this will only ever be looked at by ED when they work on the carrier DLC and hope that whatever they do transfers down to other ship spawning.

 

There is a bug report open on objects spawning on top of each other though, so that might be fixed independently.

[Dutch Baron]

I understand that it might be a difficult technical task to achieve, but I hope ED will indeed focus on this issue soon.

 

See here a thread I posted a while ago, asking for some help on the issues we have in Naval Operations:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=239213

 

Currently I spawn 6 carriers in order to get around 30 pilots to be able to spawn and take off in a relatively swift manner, which forces me to make 6 x TACAN, ICLS and briefing notes and it looks not so nice with 6 carriers in close proximity.

 

Let's hope ED hears our concerns and bring us the option to spawn clients as if they are statics that we can place on the deck.

Indeed it's up to the mission creator to decide where and how many planes can spawn, which could potentially cause a recovering plane to crash into a just spawned plane on the deck.

But if you fly a mission in a realistic manner with a large group of pilots, normally there will be no spawning during Charlie time recoveries.

[viper2097]

Let's hope ED hears our concerns and bring us the option to spawn clients as if they are statics that we can place on the deck.

 

That would be awesome. In generally...

And also to have them as static object when not being used by a client...

[Bankler]

I understand that it might be a difficult technical task to achieve, but I hope ED will indeed focus on this issue soon.

 

See here a thread I posted a while ago, asking for some help on the issues we have in Naval Operations:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=239213

 

Currently I spawn 6 carriers in order to get around 30 pilots to be able to spawn and take off in a relatively swift manner, which forces me to make 6 x TACAN, ICLS and briefing notes and it looks not so nice with 6 carriers in close proximity.

 

Let's hope ED hears our concerns and bring us the option to spawn clients as if they are statics that we can place on the deck.

Indeed it's up to the mission creator to decide where and how many planes can spawn, which could potentially cause a recovering plane to crash into a just spawned plane on the deck.

But if you fly a mission in a realistic manner with a large group of pilots, normally there will be no spawning during Charlie time recoveries.

 

While I agree with every word you say, here are some workaround advice

 

The multiple carrier approach is quite solid (yet looks a bit silly). However, I suggest you only put TCN and ILS on one of the carriers (the main one) and everyone in your package recovers on that one carrier.

For the other carriers (the” spawn carriers”), you can set their route so that they go 30 minutes straight forward, then turn in a different direction away from your recovery carrier, so it looks neat when you get back. Or you can have an F10 command to despawn them (deactivate group).

Another approach is to have the spawn carriers not moving at all. This might actually be the most practical way since it reduces the risk of rubberband taxi accidents.

 

Please ping me on Discord if you want to discuss details on this stuff.

[Bankler]

Wags, NineLine, ED: Any comment on this? (see first post) Can we expect a fix at some point, or is the carrier finalized?

[Bankler]

Some notes from extensive testing. This can be reproduced even with one player only on the server (you can delay your own flight).

 

* First six spawns will get spots depending on spawn order (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Delayed/6). It doesn't matter who is spawning.

* Additional spawns will put you in "cat spawn state" and get spots depending on flight number, and will spawn on cats (1, 3, 2, 4) or (1, 2, 3, 4).

 

Regarding changing of slots, when we are in "cat spawn state":

* If you successfully spawn (or have never spawned), and then change to a slot in any other flight, you will get delayed.

* If you successfully spawn in one slot, you may change to another slot in that same flight without getting delayed.

* If you successfully spawn in one flight, and want to change to another flight, you must first try spawning in one slot in that flight, then another (or attempt one slot, then go spectator and try again).

(In other words, to change from one flight to another, you need to attempt twice)

[viper2097]

I just tried it alone with a self made mission:

Flight 1:

Hornet 1: Cat1

Hornet 2: Cat2

Hornet 3: Cat3

Hornet 4: Cat4

 

Flight 2:

Tomcat 1: Cat1

Tomcat 2: Cat2

Tomcat 3: Cat3

Tomcat 4: Cat4

 

 

Reffering to your Post here:

 

Spawn Nr.1:

Flight1Hornet1: 30

 

SpNr2,F1H2: 1

SpNr3,F1H3: 2

SpNr4,F1H4: 3

SpNr5,F2T1: 4

SpNr6,F2T2: 5

SpNr7,F2T3: 6

SpNr8,F2T4: Cat 4 (also it is there in the ME)

SpNr9,F1H1: Delayed

SpNr10,F1H2: Cat 2 (As in ME)

SpNr11,F1H3: Cat 3 (As in ME)

SpNr12,F1H4: Cat 4 (As in ME)

SpNr13,F2T1: Delayed

SpNr14,F2T2: Crash to Desktop

 

Above behavor can be repeated with the same results.

At least, and in theory, I would have been able to spawn 7 aircrafts on unique parking positions.

In theory, as those aircrafts would stay there and don't taxi to block a cat, wouldn't it be possible to spawn 11 player? (7 parking positions, +4 cats)

Edited June 19, 2019 by viper2097

[viper2097]

I'm scared nobody else seems more interested in that topic?

[Bankler]

I'm scared nobody else seems more interested in that topic?

 

I am unsure why this is being ignored and not even commented on. :unsure: To me, it sounds like:

 

1) A fundamentally important thing to fix as the Hornet is the current flagship module. It's the first thing that happens, in every mp mission, and it's 100% reproducable.

2) Something that shouldn't be that hard to fix. Sure, MP stuff is always complicated. But if we can spawn 5-6 aircraft on parking spaces today, why couldn't that be increased to any number? The current system seems to make things much more complicated than they need to be. I don't understand why cold client aircraft are being spawned on cats at all? There's lots of room on the deck!

 

It would be great if a dev could shed some light over what's happening with this!