A Detected In Zone Trigger.

[FlankerKiller]

  Can we get a Part of Coalition Detected in Zone trigger. It would be really cool to have alert flights standing by that would scramb if we screw up our low level. Or just more organically scrambled when we enter the target area. 

[Tippis]

That  already exists.

[FlankerKiller]

Where, because I've looked and never found it. There ia a part of Coalition in zone, but that is far from the same thing. 

[Exorcet]

5 hours ago, Tippis said:

That  already exists.

The existing trigger is all knowing though. It would be nice if detection depended on actual functioning radars. It would be much more realistic and dynamic (ie you could destroy the radars to prevent the trigger from functioning, etc).

[Harker]

I like it. +1

[Tippis]

8 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

Where, because I've looked and never found it. There ia a part of Coalition in zone, but that is far from the same thing. 

Part  of coalition works for most parts at the moment, if you lay them out properly and add a few altitude checks as side triggers. There are plans to update it with altitude boundaries and the like, which will get rid of the need for separate altitude checks, and will emulate the effect closely enough for most purposes in one fell swoop.

 

The thing to realise is that you only ever need to check player units, and those are easy to enumerate and attach triggers to as it is — you don't need to do it for the entire coalition. You have enough control over AI units to say when, where (and if) they ever get detected so tying triggers to them ends up being far more likely to break things.

 

If you really want to do it by detection — and given how very simplistic, and cheaty those methods are, I'd almost advise against it — and really want it to apply equally to all aircraft. which only  makes sense if you intend to send interceptors out against anything that crosses the boundaries, be they AI or players, you'd need something far more advanced that a simple zone trigger anyway. You'd need a way to detect which group did what, where, and direct the interceptors accordingly. For that kind of work, you pretty much have to go the scripting route, in which case the MOOSE A2A Dispatcher framework will fit your needs far more than a zone trigger ever can.

[FlankerKiller]

10 hours ago, Tippis said:

Part  of coalition works for most parts at the moment, if you lay them out properly and add a few altitude checks as side triggers. There are plans to update it with altitude boundaries and the like, which will get rid of the need for separate altitude checks, and will emulate the effect closely enough for most purposes in one fell swoop.

 

The thing to realise is that you only ever need to check player units, and those are easy to enumerate and attach triggers to as it is — you don't need to do it for the entire coalition. You have enough control over AI units to say when, where (and if) they ever get detected so tying triggers to them ends up being far more likely to break things.

 

If you really want to do it by detection — and given how very simplistic, and cheaty those methods are, I'd almost advise against it — and really want it to apply equally to all aircraft. which only  makes sense if you intend to send interceptors out against anything that crosses the boundaries, be they AI or players, you'd need something far more advanced that a simple zone trigger anyway. You'd need a way to detect which group did what, where, and direct the interceptors accordingly. For that kind of work, you pretty much have to go the scripting route, in which case the MOOSE A2A Dispatcher framework will fit your needs far more than a zone trigger ever can.

So yes I would like Alert interceptors to act as they are intended IRL. And all that scripting is exactly why I would like a simple yes you've been spotted, no you haven't trigger. As for how they detect, it seems ok to me. I've  been practicing notching the AI lately, and if you stay in the notch, and stay below the EW's line of sight they loose you. If you don't notch, or get in the EW's LOS, then they reacquire you. You can have a CAP up and on a search then engaged in zone, and do the same thing. But there is no way to organically do alert aircraft. Which is exactly what a point interceptor like the Mig-21 would be doing. Again, I like my missions to be as organic as possible, and on the whole the AI dose a decent job. This would just alow for more organic, and less scripted alert aircraft. 

[FlankerKiller]

19 hours ago, Exorcet said:

The existing trigger is all knowing though. It would be nice if detection depended on actual functioning radars. It would be much more realistic and dynamic (ie you could destroy the radars to prevent the trigger from functioning, etc).

I didn't even think about that. But yeah low level in and do a prebrief HARM, or JDAM strike on an EW. Although that might set off the trigger, and IRL might result is alert aircraft scrambling anyway. But also maybe not. Depending on Coms. But yeah surgical strikes would be much more interesting.

[Tippis]

7 minutes ago, FlankerKiller said:

So yes I would like Alert interceptors to act as they are intended IRL. And all that scripting is exactly why I would like a simple yes you've been spotted, no you haven't trigger. As for how they detect, it seems ok to me. I've  been practicing notching the AI lately, and if you stay in the notch, and stay below the EW's line of sight they loose you. If you don't notch, or get in the EW's LOS, then they reacquire you. You can have a CAP up and on a search then engaged in zone, and do the same thing. But there is no way to organically do alert aircraft. Which is exactly what a point interceptor like the Mig-21 would be doing. Again, I like my missions to be as organic as possible, and on the whole the AI dose a decent job. This would just alow for more organic, and less scripted alert aircraft. 

Well, once the altitude limits for zones are in, you'll be able to do that, if all you're doing is relying on search-and-engage zones. And you can replicate the altitude limits already, so it's really more of a syntactic sugar for functionality that is already in. But you will never get “organic” intercepts without scripting — the AI just isn't capable of that.

 

The problem with relying on the detection mechanics (and the scripting exposes this to an annoying degree) is that while you can notch and lose them, you're still being game-mechanically detected and this will trigger everything else in turn. If you've played around with the default CAP action, you'll have noticed how no amount of hiding will keep radarless aircraft from detecting you at 400nm distance — it's just an unfortunate limitation in how the AI acts and the shortcuts in the underlying code. That organic behaviour you're after would rely on such a mess of turning default behaviours and engagement limits on and off, even if sensor detection was part of the initial trigger, that you'll end up having to script it to make it manageable, especially if you want it to work coalition-wide.

 

It's a neat idea, but relying on the zone and detection logic alone won't suffice unless the entire AI is rewritten. Until then, what we have as far as zones and altitude triggers (or, if you want to be really fancy, LUA predicate triggers using the isTargetDetected function) covers what you need to create a sufficiently sensible behaviour.

[FlankerKiller]

So obviously your so convinced of your own rightness, even tuough your very first statement was wrong, that there is no amont of discussion can have any effect. Fine whatever, I don't really see why you would want to script everything, but hay. Kf something like this becomes a thing don't use it. I've been making missions for a long time in DCS. Well i started in LOMAC but hay. I use the CAP function all the time. And I can assure you if you staying out of line of sight they don't see you. I've snuck up behind Migs, and warbirds several times as of late. I've low leveled into flack batteries, and been out before they could react. And ive definitely hid from CAP's there was a time when they were omniscient, but I believe this was listed as fixd back in 2020. As for organic intercepts, place an uncontroled group, with a start trigger. Make it a CAP, and give them the zone to engage in. Set a teigger to once, part of group/coalition detected in zone, and fly. If your low leveling into a target, then accidentally brake cover, and get spotted, then they will go active, start up and launch. If your still being detected they should go starit for you.  Ok I'm done. Sure I don't know anything, and am totally wrong, and this is a pointless suggestion. But hay, others seem to agree it would be a cool functionality, and maybe, just maybe ED will too, fingers crossed. 

[Tippis]

6 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

So obviously your so convinced of your own rightness, even tuough your very first statement was wrong,

The first statement was made under the assumption that you meant “detection” in a generic sense. As you clarified matters, however, it remains largely true for three reasons:

 

One is that you can indeed already do this with existing trigger functions – coalition in zone + altitude replicates the functionality with minimal fuss and gives you the benefit that you don't have to rely on the unreliable detection and target-knowledge logic DCS AI uses. The other is that there are plans to hard-code this combination into a single trigger, making it even more generic, just like you're asking for. The third is that we already have detection triggers via Lua predicates, if you really want to go that way.

 

Now, if you want a syntactic-sugar variant of that trigger, then fine, but realise that it can already be done, and due to how detection works, it is likely not to yield any better (in fact, quite likely it will yield worse) results than the altitude variant. Also realise that if you want anything more than the detect trigger + engage in zone task we can set up right now, a new combo trigger will not let you do any more than you already can so you still have to rely on scripts for any kind of complex setup.

 

6 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

I use the CAP function all the time. And I can assure you if you staying out of line of sight they don't see you. I've snuck up behind Migs, and warbirds several times as of late. I've low leveled into flack batteries, and been out before they could react. And ive definitely hid from CAP's there was a time when they were omniscient, but I believe this was listed as fixd back in 2020.

They can't see you, no, visual target tracking was exactly what was “fixed”. And by fixed, I mean they will still know about your presence and location at infinite range, and will happily and immediately react to your actions when you have snuck up on them. The “instant defence against unknown missiles” behaviour is still alive and well, for instance. The CAP task remains as pointless as ever since it always has to be moderated by an engage-in-zone task of some variety… and those tasks already fully replicate what you want from the CAP behaviour.

 

6 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

As for organic intercepts, place an uncontroled group, with a start trigger. Make it a CAP, and give them the zone to engage in. Set a teigger to once, part of group/coalition detected in zone, and fly. If your low leveling into a target, then accidentally brake cover, and get spotted, then they will go active, start up and launch. If your still being detected they should go starit for you.

And I'm saying that this can already be done. I know it can because I've done it. I have also used scripted variants, but those only really make sense if you're creating a 24/7 on-going dynamic scenario where you have no idea beforehand where friendly and enemy units will go — if you have something more distinctly defined and less chaotic, not going the scripted route (and not relying on sensor detection logic) will let you make the enemy AI behave the way you want even in the presence of friendly AI that will make the most bafflingly suicidal decisions.

 

Then again, by the sound of it, the same update that will give us altitude zones will also give us some functions to fix that kind of behaviour, and even make radar coverage matter, so your wish is (redundantly) granted — especially if you pay for it.  

[FlankerKiller]

So I ran the experiment. You stated that if placed on a CAP mission that the AI will react at a range of 400mi even without radar. They do not, and they can be hidden from at much much closer ranges. So there is a definite detection logic at play. You go on and on about scripting, and zone heights. Intense scripting is exactly the thing I would like this to get away from. A simple detected in zone trigger would be useful to cause actions based on when or if a detection is made. As for zone heights that isn't as good of workaround as your implying. You can be much higher in mountains and still be missed. I I don't disagree that with a crap lode of scripting you can kinda simulate detection in zone actions. But thats what I'm asking ED to try to improve. So based on observations of AI behavior there is definitely a detection logic at play. Since that is the case then it would seem actions could be triggered by it. So my wish to ED still stands. Can we get detected in zone triggers? I apologize that this offends you so much, but i believe it could make the game experience even better then it is. I don't see how more options are a bad thing. 

[Tippis]

23 minutes ago, FlankerKiller said:

So I ran the experiment. You stated that if placed on a CAP mission that the AI will react at a range of 400mi even without radar.

No. I stated that the CAP mission (and indeed just in general) will detect and react to enemy aircraft even under circumstances when no such detection should be possible. It may very well be that they are being detected by radar (or some other sensor in radarless aircraft), and that the AI simply cheat - it's not exactly a foreign concept in DCS AI. But if that's what's going on, detection-based logic on the triggers will break anyway.

 

23 minutes ago, FlankerKiller said:

As for zone heights that isn't as good of workaround as your implying. You can be much higher in mountains and still be missed.

...and so, in mountains, you adjust the height.

 

23 minutes ago, FlankerKiller said:

So based on observations of AI behavior there is definitely a detection logic at play. Since that is the case then it would seem actions could be triggered by it.

And as mentioned, you can do that already. It's not a very good method, so others (which you can also do already) was offered as better solutions. In additions, those solutions (and something more in line with what you're asking, but we'll see if the detection logic is actually improved and made sane by that) are planned to be updated already.

 

23 minutes ago, FlankerKiller said:

I don't see how more options are a bad thing. 

No-one has has suggested that it would be. Only that the options already exist, and that with the current AI what you're asking for is actually the least useful of those options.

Edited July 15, 2021 by Tippis

[Exorcet]

6 hours ago, Tippis said:

And I'm saying that this can already be done. I know it can because I've done it. I have also used scripted variants, but those only really make sense if you're creating a 24/7 on-going dynamic scenario where you have no idea beforehand where friendly and enemy units will go

I have to disagree here. The basis of pretty much all of my missions is to rely on randomization to avoid knowing exactly what will happen. In this case some fallibility from a detection in zone trigger is actually a welcome improvement, and I'd consider it to be the much better standard method for operating triggers. Worst case scenario the AI are overly observant and it works like Coalition in Zone, but DCS does have some limitations on senors that would make detect vs in zone distinct in at least some situations.

 

There are of course the mentioned scripted methods, but I'd personally value the little bit of user friendliness gain from being able to do this through the ME GUI directly.

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, Exorcet said:

I have to disagree here. The basis of pretty much all of my missions is to rely on randomization to avoid knowing exactly what will happen. In this case some fallibility from a detection in zone trigger is actually a welcome improvement, and I'd consider it to be the much better standard method for operating triggers.

That's also the basis of my disagreement: I don't think it would actually yield any valuable fallibility due to how cheaty AI sensors are. As mentioned, you can test it using Lua predicates already, and while I'll admit that my experimentation has been limited, it was just not worth it.

 

That said, and now that you mention it, I wonder if this idea couldn't be turned on its head in rather interesting and constructive ways. Rather than checking detection in the AI, what if you could (reasonably) trivially check warning systems on the client end, preferably on a group (or larger) level? You can jump through a bunch of hoops to get device readings on “player” aircraft, but those don't work for “clients”. The downside is of course that not all aircraft have such warning systems, or that they are limited in what they can detect; the upside is that this is a reliable limitation, which at least intuitively feels more likely to yield the faliability you're looking for.

 

Then again, that's really just an extension of ye olde “let us use ‘player’ triggers on ‘clients’” request, which is a whole different topic.

[Exorcet]

On 7/15/2021 at 8:55 AM, Tippis said:

That's also the basis of my disagreement: I don't think it would actually yield any valuable fallibility due to how cheaty AI sensors are. As mentioned, you can test it using Lua predicates already, and while I'll admit that my experimentation has been limited, it was just not worth it.

Well I decided to do some testing and the detection functionality seems to work pretty well. The biggest factor in cheaty AI detection is probably that they gain way too much information RWR's. But you can separate AI detection by sensor:

 

local _targets = _controller:getDetectedTargets(Controller.Detection.RADAR);

So in this case only detection by a unit's radar matters. The trigger should be able to do the same thing. This takes into account differences in RCS and aspect, unlike the existing all seeing trigger. In my testing I got a JF-17 to set off the trigger at 173 miles while a F-117 went undetected until 40 miles from an AWACS unit.

[FlankerKiller]

2 hours ago, Exorcet said:

Well I decided to do some testing and the detection functionality seems to work pretty well. The biggest factor in cheaty AI detection is probably that they gain way too much information RWR's. But you can separate AI detection by sensor:

 

local _targets = _controller:getDetectedTargets(Controller.Detection.RADAR);

So in this case only detection by a unit's radar matters. The trigger should be able to do the same thing. This takes into account differences in RCS and aspect, unlike the existing all seeing trigger. In my testing I got a JF-17 to set off the trigger at 173 miles while a F-117 went undetected until 40 miles from an AWACS unit.

Thank's, also it's cool to knida see how it works. Off topic but honestly I think the visual detecton has been nerfed a little too much. But it is nice to ba able to be sneaky.