Dynamic Campaign Engine

[MBot]

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 :)

[QuiGon]

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?

 

As you can see, setting up good campaigns is a balance act :)

It is indeed :)

[PB0_CEF]

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 :thumbup:

[PB0_CEF]

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 :huh: A problem with Time on Target ?

[QuiGon]

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. :huh:

 

@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

 

:dunno:

Edited March 1, 2018 by QuiGon

[QuiGon]

After reading PB0_CEFs comment I did another test and changed the day/night capability of the two loadouts with the following results:

 

Test 1

 

Loadout 1: "hard"

Night Only

 

Loadout 2: "soft"

Day Only

 

Result: Only Day missions could be flown. The ATO refused to assign night missions ("Player aircraft type cannot operate at this time of day").

 

 

Test 2

 

Loadout 1: "hard"

Day Only

 

Loadout 2: "soft"

Night Only

 

Result: Only Night missions could be flown. The ATO refused to assign day missions ("Player aircraft type cannot operate at this time of day").

 

 

This reinforces my previous tests as the ATO prefers the soft loadout over the hard loadout even if the soft loadout is not available for the time of day while the hard loadout would be available. But I still wonder why?

 

 

 

Edit: I finally found the issue! I just did another test where I swapped the two loadouts in the order of the loadout table (db_loadouts). This finally did change the ATOs preference from the soft loadout to the hard loadout, but now the ATO prefers the hard loadout no matter what. So it seems like the ATO logic for loadout selection needs some improvements.

Edited March 2, 2018 by QuiGon

[MBot]

Well it sounds as if multiple loadouts for a given aircraft type/task are not iterated. I just checked the Screaming Eagle campaign, which has multiple loadouts for the MiG-23 with different weapons but otherwise identical. Both loadouts are processed and one is chosen randomly. Generating a mission multiple times, both loadouts are used randomly. So everything seems to work in order as far as I can tell.

 

Perhaps there is a problem with the formatting of your db_loadouts table that interrupts iteration of the individual entries? Do all your loadouts have unique names?

[QuiGon]

Well it sounds as if multiple loadouts for a given aircraft type/task are not iterated. I just checked the Screaming Eagle campaign, which has multiple loadouts for the MiG-23 with different weapons but otherwise identical. Both loadouts are processed and one is chosen randomly. Generating a mission multiple times, both loadouts are used randomly. So everything seems to work in order as far as I can tell.

 

Perhaps there is a problem with the formatting of your db_loadouts table that interrupts iteration of the individual entries? Do all your loadouts have unique names?

 

Yes, in my tests mentioned above, I had only two loadouts named "hard" and "soft" respectively. The ATO only picks the one that comes later in the loadout table and ignores the other loadout. Both loadouts are identical except the name and the attributes ("hard", "SR" and "soft" "SR" respectively). So when I put the hard loadout before the soft loadout in the loadout table, the ATO only makes use of the soft loadout. I even removed all soft targets from the targetlist and the ATO still refused to use the hard loadout to create sorties against hard targets. Instead it just told me it wasn't able to create a playbale sortie.

 

But you're right, the MiG-23 in the Screaming Eagle campaign gets both loadouts randomly. The ATO code is unchanged to the Desert Tiger campaign?

Edited March 3, 2018 by QuiGon

[PB0_CEF]

Well, after more than 2 months with the new DCE I just discovered why reds muds never attack with the new version : I forget to remove one code line from the old red loadouts files to the new ones : It took nearly 2 hours to find this bug after trying many many other changes to OOB, targetlists, etc...

All this to say that it's often a simple code problem : so try to copy/past the good loadout and to modify it to be sure you didn't forget something.

There's not always errors messages ! :doh:

[QuiGon]

Oh my god, I've found the cause for my issues... I must have been blind.

Sorry MBot for bothering, it was my fault of course. It's just as PB0_CEF said... :doh:

[MBot]

Glad both of you could sort things out :)

[wedge_one]

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 :thumbup:

 

Awesome! Gonna try ASAP!

[QuiGon]

I ran into a different issue now :music_whistling:

 

The problem are now the firepower values. This time the problem should be easy to reproduce though: Just take the stock Desert Tiger 76 campaign and change the firepower value of the first ("MR, Mk-82*4, AIM-9P*2, Fuel_275*1") or second ("SR, Mk-82*5, AIM-9P*2") strike loadout (or both) from 10 to 20 (haven't tested other loadouts). If you now run the generator it will often (not always) result in an error. I'm not sure what happens there.

 

I ran into this issue as I wanted to reduce flight sizes from 4 to 2 aircraft.

[falken76]

That thread is 69 pages long and the file isn't posted at the top of the OP. Is there a direct link? Or could someone at least tell us what page it is on? I've gone through 15 of them and I just gave up, there's too many to look through.

[tn_prvteye]

On the first page under the 4 campaign images, there are links to the posts about that particular campaign. Links to download are there.

[falken76]

On the first page under the 4 campaign images, there are links to the posts about that particular campaign. Links to download are there.

 

Oh, I thought DCE was a component that we could use to make our own missions with. Is DCE these actual campaigns by Mbot? Or is DCE itself actually something someone making missions could use themselves? I thought it was something specific to making and designing your own missions, not existing campaigns. I thought those were made using DCE and the OP was the author of both the campaigns and DCE itself, is that not the case?

[tn_prvteye]

Well, it IS a component you can make missions with, but nothing you download separately. People have taken his existing campaigns and made their own from it. If you look at the code that's included with the campaigns, it explains a great deal about what and how to change.

[PB0_CEF]

Look here if you want more example of DCE campaigns :

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=191858 ;)

[Tomsk]

I've been really wanting to play these as they look awesome, but I just can't get satisfactory framerates for VR (e.g. >= 45) in any version (even the "Lite" version of CEF's Mirage over Caucuses) no matter what I try. This is despite running minimum settings in my fairly strong rig (3.5GHz, GTX 1080, 16Gb RAM).

 

Is anyone successfully playing these campaigns in VR?

Edited April 8, 2018 by Tomsk

[Hazzerboraco]

Is anyone planning on making a dynamic campaign for the helicopters - specifically the Ka50?

[PB0_CEF]

I tryed (for the Gazelle) but I've never been able to make it work :(

A problem with path calcul it seems ?

Edited April 9, 2018 by PB0_CEF

[falcon_120]

It would need a total rework of the DCE according to MBOT. It is not gonna happen soon.

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

[harf4ng]

Hi,

 

Interesting module, will have to take a look.

Though your notepad stuff and accept result means if we play in VR we have to remove headset between two missions, right? :)

 

Thanks

 

Envoyé de mon SM-G955F en utilisant Tapatalk

[idenwen]

Anyone tried to adapt this for the harrier?

[PB0_CEF]

There's a problem with IA take off : to be able to take off, their loadings need to be very light. One solution could be to put very little fuel and to use tankers before going to the target but it's not very useful :(