AI a/c stopped on taxiway due to wrecks

[Wrecking Crew]

AI aircraft that are taxiing will stop if there is an obstacle on the taxiway such as a destroyed vehicle. Another ground vehicle will drive right on through the wreck, but not an aircraft.

 

Please fix this behavior to allow aircraft to continue their taxi.

 

WC

[cichlidfan]

Since the thread list only showed the beginning of the title, my mind, for some reason, expected it to say '... due to cows.' I don't know why. :)

[outlawal2]

AI aircraft that are taxiing will stop if there is an obstacle on the taxiway such as a destroyed vehicle. Another ground vehicle will drive right on through the wreck, but not an aircraft.

 

Please fix this behavior to allow aircraft to continue their taxi.

 

WC

 

So what you are saying is that if you are piloting a fighter plane and there is a burning hulk of a vehicle right in your way, you would simply push right thru, right?

 

That would be more "realistic" than stopping?

[fltsimbuff]

I think we need some M1A2s with the bulldozer setup.... Or Engineers that can deploy mobile bridges, bulldoze makeshift airstrips, and clear wreckages out of the way. Might as well throw in some operational firetrucks too.

[Fishbreath]

So what you are saying is that if you are piloting a fighter plane and there is a burning hulk of a vehicle right in your way, you would simply push right thru, right?

 

That would be more "realistic" than stopping?

 

Which is more realistic:

 

1. Aircraft continuing to taxi, because these are military airfields, and there's *would* be at least one bulldozer on hand to clear off a blocked taxiway, even if that reality isn't currently simulated,

 

2. A long line of AI planes waiting to take off because they're not smart enough to taxi around, and the game doesn't let them taxi through?

[Wrecking Crew]

Well, I tried to reduce the wreck with a Bradley but that just caused mucho damage to the four Yak-40s that were queued up.

 

Here's what happens with these unattended AI aircraft -- they are sposed to provide eye candy and background to the missions, but if something blocks the taxiway then the aircraft will nose right up to the wreck and stop, then the next a/c comes up and stops, etc. Things that were to happen with these a/c don't, and the story line is destroyed.

 

 

LOL, if it was cows we could be eating steaks!

 

WC

[Grimes]

Aircraft have damage models, if their collision mesh intersects with any other collision mesh then damage will occur. There was an old bug where a light pole was to close to the taxi way and larger aircraft like the B-52 would hit it with their wing. Wreckage is the same basic thing.

 

Wreckage at airbases is pretty game breaking for AI since they can't take alternate routes to the runway.

[Shahdoh]

Would be great if we could script a cleanup of said wrecks... hint, hint.... heheheh

[Wrecking Crew]

Yes, or a/c that have stalled for >5 minutes, i.e.: are sposed to be someplace but have zero speed and climb.

 

Here's a scene of Su's that positively had to be someplace but couldn't get by a damaged vehicle.

 

I'm thinking now, "How did that vehicle get there on the taxiway, anyway?"... and what could be done to prevent that from an ME POV. I need to check if Disperse is on for this vehicle group; if it is then I will turn off Disperse If Attacked for all groups supporting airbases.

 

WC

[Stonehouse]

There is that sort of logic in the GCI CAP script where essentially when an AI aircraft spawns in the time is recorded in a table and the script will read through the table and checks to see if the aircraft is airborne within a certain elapsed time and if not then it does a destroy on the group - unfortunately there is no working destroy unit available at present which is a shame as you effectively have to despawn the whole group

 

Maybe flip it around and do it on ground units below a certain life value within a trigger zone

Edited January 21, 2015 by Stonehouse

[Grimes]

Here's a scene of Su's that positively had to be someplace but couldn't get by a damaged vehicle.

 

I'm thinking now, "How did that vehicle get there on the taxiway, anyway?"... and what could be done to prevent that from an ME POV. I need to check if Disperse is on for this vehicle group; if it is then I will turn off Disperse If Attacked for all groups supporting airbases.

 

The traditional problem with airbases has always been any form of aircraft damage or destruction because if it occurs at an airbase the aircraft would always be on a taxiway or runway and AI would get stuck. With ground vehicles the problems can be mitigated by object placement. Generally it is a bad idea to put ground vehicles anywhere inside an airbase. If you must you can always make it a single unit group, static object, or disable dispersing when attacked.

 

Also aircraft spawn positions are helpful. I try to spawn AI fighters at a reasonable parking areas while leaving the default "taxi to" locations open. But it really depends on the airbase layout and types of aircraft spawning. At Senaki this means parking 1-30 is an option for the default runway heading. But I never use parking 7-14 as that is where the AI will always taxi to after landing. The general rule of thumb is to never let AI spawn from a position that has only a single taxiway axis to the runway. For some bases this is unavoidable.

 

unfortunately there is no working destroy unit available at present which is a shame as you effectively have to despawn the whole group

 

Unit.getByName('you cant destroy me muahahahahahha'):destroy()

env.info('Hasta la vista baby')

 

I had to double check because that would have been a new bug to me, but its working in 1.2.14. However I believe Object.destroy() isn't currently working on world objects and possibly static objects.

[Stonehouse]

Thank you Grimes, it's been bugging me for ages that the stuck aircraft and landing routines in GCICAP despawn the group rather than the individual aircraft but historically in the script's life whenever it was attempted to despawn at the unit level it didn't work. I guess either the collective working on it did it wrong or something got fixed along the way. The instruction to do it was always there but it just didn't work. lol ok next version just got a new feature. Thanks again!