[CORRECT AS IS] AI airplane will take-off through static planes

[marek.babic]

When placing parked static airplanes e.g. on catapult 1. The AI will normally taxi to catapult and take-off through static airplanes.

 

No collision simulated.

 

Two possible solutions:

- better AI should recognize airplane being parked in catapult area and taxi to different catapult

- other solution: possibility to disable certain catapult in mission editor so mission creator may place static airplanes on deck and disable catapult

[hein22]

They also taxi through static planes in normal parking spots. Too bad.

[NineLine]

Track please.

[hein22]

Track attached

static on catapult.trk

[hein22]

Friendly bump. Track attached above.

[NineLine]

Passing through static is by design in the case of a Mission Creator putting something in the wrong spot and not to break then entire mission. The best thing to do is to not put static objects in the way of AI or players. thanks.

[Nealius]

We don't really know what's in the way/out of the way of AI. The manual shows green areas for static objects in launch and recovery situations, but the AI still move through those green areas.

[hein22]

We don't really know what's in the way/out of the way of AI. The manual shows green areas for static objects in launch and recovery situations, but the AI still move through those green areas.

 

This is exactly what I was trying to explain to ED in many threads but didn't succeed. Currently ANY static will be treated like a ghost by AI, no matter where you put it.

[NineLine]

Yes, and again, that is by design, because it will cause too many issues having them try to dance around every static object you might put down.

 

The AI uses those areas if statics are there because they ignore statics, its kind of a double edge sword in this case.

[Nealius]

Is it safe to assume, then, that the diagrams in the manual about where to put statics are only valid in multiplayer with no AI assets on deck?

[discwalker]

A mediocre and not super thing to AI not to recognize blocked catapults.

In the yesterday VHUNAF MP SC mission cat 2 was blocked by numerous statics, this is the real usage of the module.

[VirusAM]

A mediocre and not super thing to AI not to recognize blocked catapults.

In the yesterday VHUNAF MP SC mission cat 2 was blocked by numerous statics, this is the real usage of the module.

 

This particular one is still WIP, it will be solved i guess.

[Highwayman-Ed]

Further to this, it would be nice to 'disable' a cat in the ME on the carrier for Full deck simulation on take-offs, and allow for simultaneous take-off and recoveries on MP servers.

 

Passing through static is by design in the case of a Mission Creator putting something in the wrong spot and not to break then entire mission. The best thing to do is to not put static objects in the way of AI or players. thanks.

 

If the scenario depicted below is intended behavior, maybe it should be logged as a feature request.

 

Edited May 24, 2020 by Highwayman-Ed

[NineLine]

A mediocre and not super thing to AI not to recognize blocked catapults.

In the yesterday VHUNAF MP SC mission cat 2 was blocked by numerous statics, this is the real usage of the module.

 

Interested to know why statics would be put on the Cat if it was known to be used?

[Highwayman-Ed]

Interested to know why statics would be put on the Cat if it was known to be used?

 

So is there a way that we can make them ‘not used’? That’s what we’re looking for I believe... as it stands now, the AI will use cats in order... 1, if that’s busy, 2, and so on

[Nealius]

Interested to know why statics would be put on the Cat if it was known to be used?

 

If we can't put statics on cats that are known to be used by AI, then we can't put statics on the bow, full stop.

[Cerdon]

this thread feels more like a wish than a bug

[Eldur]

Interested to know why statics would be put on the Cat if it was known to be used?

 

You're literally asking why we want to set up a real carrier flight deck for the sake of immersion. You should start thinking outside the box - inside the chimney

 

I understand why this happens, since it would be much work to program the AI to actively dance around objects to get to their destination and it would also cost us some CPU cycles most probably so there's also a performance reason behind it

 

But we should have at least some checks there. The carrier has those lines on the deck that indicate which area should be kept free for recovery and every cat launch ops. Let the sim check that and block the AI from using the cats which are not free. That alone would boost the immersion a lot and shouldn't be too hard to realize

 

All the other occurences probably can get edited by the mission maker when he sees something taxi through a mule placed somewhere on the deck for example

 

Although it would be great to be able to switch the possible AI taxi routes visible in the ME, generally for carrier decks as well as airbases. This would help avoiding such problems for the mission makers in the first place

[Tobi1304]

+1

 

Especially if we consider that even a nearly 20 years old game had the ability to show the taxi routes and parking spots for ai planes.

 

And I would be interested to know why we can’t deactivate cats in the first place if at least 50% of all pictures of any carrier on google show at least one or more cats obstructed by parking planes.

[rag48]

Agree that it would be a very useful feature to be able to shut down cats manually to take advantage of "flex deck" and other setups. This could be accomplished through tick boxes that are initialized in the mission editor and subsequently controlled (e.g. via scripts, radio menu, etc) by the mission host only. Later in early access this feature could be transitioned to the AIR BOSS role if desired.

 

In this image if CAT2 was disabled, the AI F/A-18 waiting for it indefinitely (and blocking the plane behind it) could route to another CAT like the other planes have done.

 

[Eagle7907]

Been wanting this feature ever since Hornet released.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[discwalker]

Just in case for Player placed to a blocked catapult, we need the cancel function of the launch for SC.

For example: the free Hornet campaign once spawned me to a blocked catapult, but on non SC Stennis we could unhook the shuttle!

[MemphisBelle]

On 5/23/2020 at 7:49 AM, NineLine said:

Yes, and again, that is by design, because it will cause too many issues having them try to dance around every static object you might put down.

 

The AI uses those areas if statics are there because they ignore statics, its kind of a double edge sword in this case.

sorry for resurrecting this Thread, but that is....not smart. ED treats People like children if they do this. If a Mission Designer is causing a crash on Deck because of AI Aircraft crash into statics, then the Mission Designer will move statics around to make it not happen again. I think the main reason is that ED does not want to fiddle around too much in the AIs core engine which would make the AI to select that Catapult which is not blocked by statics (mentioned above already a couple of times, @Eldur made a smart Statement about it. But I think that it should really be possible to have a realistic Deck set up, I mean DCS is no War Thunder, if people cant deal with it, then DCS is not for them...my 2 cents.

 

 

Edited July 24, 2024 by MemphisBelle

[draconus]

Yeah, it's really in need of update. There are pathways already created for AI on the SC deck. It can (or does already) work like a road network pathfinding, just keep some paths unavailable when they are blocked by static objects. There's even off road pathfinding working for ground units.

Current "ghosting through" looks bad and is not realistic. It simply doesn't fit in DCS at all.