Bearfoot Posted May 15, 2016 Posted May 15, 2016 (edited) I've been playing around with creating custom formations using the "Perform Task": "Follow" advanced waypoint action. Here are things that I have found. (1) The x, y, and z, are wonky. At least on version of the documentation for the mission editor formation option indicated that "x" and "y" are port/starboard and fore/aft respectively. But this is wrong. The formation option settings in editor is more consistent the DCS script engine, where counter-intuitively (to me), "x" and "z" are the horizontal coordinates (NOT "x" and "y"), while "y" is the elevation. However, while in the DCS script engine, where the "x" coordinate is lateral (i.e., east/west, thus corresponding to left/right when facing north) and the "z" coordinate is forward/backward (where north is forward and south is backward, if facing north) here the "x" coordinate is fore and aft and "z" is left/right. I can see the formation options following the DCS script engine (where, however counter-intuitively, "y" is the altitude/elevation axis and "x" and "z" are horizontal), but it sees weird to me to have the "x" and "z" axes flipped in orientation. I can supply a track showing this if needed. (2) The collision avoidance logic kicks in over the formation following logic. This means that close formations are out! The collision avoidance takes over an the AI go crazy like hens clucking frantically around with a fox nipping at their heels. This probably depends on the size of the aircraft, but I have found, for e.g., with the a 70 feet separation on one axis (0 on the other) results in a lot of porpoising and careening and all around panicking which makes for 0 formation discipline, not to mention occasional collisions. 100 feet separation, on the other hand, makes for a pretty calm and steady formation. (3) It is better to set up all elements to follow on the primary lead, instead of daisy-chaining each wingman to its element lead and the element lead to the wingman of the previous element as might be natural. Corrections cascade down the chain in the latter causing ripples in the fabric of space-time, resulting in poor behavior. I think that (1) is a bug, or, at least, a feature that should be fixed for consistency. That is, the coordinate system should follow the DCS engine with x being lateral and z being fore and aft. On the other hand, if there are lots of missions and campaigns that have come to depend on this, the cost of fixing it would be lots of broken missions. In that case, it should at least be documented (sorry if it is and I have missed it; if someone could kindly point it out if it has been documented, I promise to hit myself on the head with it as penance!)? I might go ahead and suggest that the dialog boxes in the GUI could say something like "Fore/Aft ('z')" to clarify the orientation, and that might be the easiest way to clear all this up. Edited May 15, 2016 by Bearfoot
Recommended Posts