Static Aircraft vs Uncontrolled FPS?

[Rex]

How much more resources do uncontrolled aircraft use when they have not yet been started?

How does a fourship of, say, Uncontrolled F/A-18s compare with a four ship of Static F/A-18s when it comes to FPS?

I want to build a mission where there are several POTENTIAL active aircraft (Triggered Actions -> Perform Command -> Start) at every airfield,  which I will activate with triggers (Part of coalition in trigger zones or random on-mission-start) and/or scripts.

The overwhelming majority of flights will never be started during an instance of any particular mission, and the un-started flights will act as defacto static flights, to serve as scenery and potential targets for the enemy.  A mission like this would contain scores of 'Uncontrolled' flights, possibly even approaching 100.

Does anyone know how Static Units and Uncontrolled Units behave from a resource-usage perspective?

 

P.S. In a related question, how to "Late Activation" flights effect Framerates?  Can you have 1,000 L/A flights queued up, that use zero resources until activated, or do they always use something, active or not?

 

Edited to Add:

 

I found a year-old thread related to my question.  It looks like Uncontrolled does use more, about double, and I wonder if the practical implications of this have improved with multi-threading?

 

Edited May 31, 2023 by Rex

[cfrag]

On 6/1/2023 at 1:12 AM, Rex said:

The overwhelming majority of flights will never be started during an instance of any particular mission, and the un-started flights will act as defacto static flights, to serve as scenery and potential targets for the enemy.  A mission like this would contain scores of 'Uncontrolled' flights, possibly even approaching 100.

There are a couple of facets here that contribute to this.

First, AI / potentially AI controlled (i.e. non-static, so they can be activated) units are managed differently from statics. Static objects are regarded as stage props. They are disregarded by AI. This does not apply to inactive AI, they will be attacked by enemy AI, and therefore have to be considered in the AI's decision tree. And this has consequences: The more units you have on your map, the more unit-unit checks need be performed for the AI to decide what to do. And this count rises near exponentially with each new unit that you add (2 units: 2 checks; 3 units: 6 checks, 4 units: 12 checks, 5 units: 20, n units: n * (n-1)). Now, as long as the unit is uncontrolled, the overhead rises linear (they still have to be checked, but since their AI is not yet active, inactive AI units don't check for all others). But each AI unit adds to the number of units that need be checked, and this effort rises for every additional unit. It does not for statics, "they don't count". 

Of course, like statics, these uncontrolled flights also require to be drawn, and they will impact the GPU (AI impacts mainly CPU). Uncontrolled planes may use more GPU power than static objects because they are often drawn with the armament that you have chosen, requiring more polygons and textures. Unless you overdo it, this should not create a heavy toll, but uncontrolled AI planes can demand more from the GPU than a static.

On 6/1/2023 at 1:12 AM, Rex said:

how to "Late Activation" flights effect Framerates?

Late Activation flights are less resource intensive because they - up to the point that they are activated - do not exist in the game. The AI does not check against them until they become active (neutral to CPU), and they have no model representation, so they also don't hit the GPU. They do demand a tiny amount of CPU for simple housekeeping, but other than that, Late Activation flights should be neutral to performance as long as they aren't activated. Once they activate, they count like any other AI does. Also note that not all units are alike, and some active AI require more from your CPU than others: an M4 Soldier's "AI" does not require as many cycles as, for example a Flanker's AI. Generally speaking, aircraft AI requires more CPU than ground or naval AI.

 

Edited June 2, 2023 by cfrag

[PravusJSB]

Uncontrolled should be no more of a CPU drain than a static object, as that's all it is. It has no brains.

[twistking]

On 6/2/2023 at 12:10 PM, PravusJSB said:

Uncontrolled should be no more of a CPU drain than a static object, as that's all it is. It has no brains.

I'd assume that uncontrolled aircraft track damage more precisely than a static. An uncontrolled AC will eventually fly and therefore accumulated damage must feed into the FM. I would guess that damage to statics is just hitpoint based... no?

[cfrag]

46 minutes ago, twistking said:

I'd assume that uncontrolled aircraft track damage more precisely than a static.

I have nothing to base that assumption on, as I don't think that an uncontrolled AI plane is running a flight model (that would be an incredible waste of time), and I believe that the damage model is a function of the flight model, so ground un-controiled AI units may as well run a simple hit point statistic. In any event, running a damage model on a plane that's sitting on the ground is IMHO a complete waste of time. No pilot in their right mind would ever knowingly climb into a damaged airplane and try to take off (maybe a warbird). Once it's hit (or merely suspected to be hit) by anything (much less than a projectile), it stays down until the chief clears it. Come to think of it, as many as 50% of combat-ready aircraft have failed readiness after start-up and remained on the ground during Gulf combat engagements, so visibly damaged ones would not even be attempted to start up. So why would they need a damage model? A simple hit box is enough. 

I'm hoping that DCS uses a simple hitpoint based damage model for uncontrolled AI. I haven't checked, but will AI try to take a damaged plane to battle? I hope not.

[twistking]

2 hours ago, cfrag said:

I have nothing to base that assumption on, as I don't think that an uncontrolled AI plane is running a flight model (that would be an incredible waste of time), and I believe that the damage model is a function of the flight model, so ground un-controiled AI units may as well run a simple hit point statistic. In any event, running a damage model on a plane that's sitting on the ground is IMHO a complete waste of time. No pilot in their right mind would ever knowingly climb into a damaged airplane and try to take off (maybe a warbird). Once it's hit (or merely suspected to be hit) by anything (much less than a projectile), it stays down until the chief clears it. Come to think of it, as many as 50% of combat-ready aircraft have failed readiness after start-up and remained on the ground during Gulf combat engagements, so visibly damaged ones would not even be attempted to start up. So why would they need a damage model? A simple hit box is enough. 

I'm hoping that DCS uses a simple hitpoint based damage model for uncontrolled AI. I haven't checked, but will AI try to take a damaged plane to battle? I hope not.

you are right. i have however seen a slightly damaged aircraft continue taxi... but that damage came after the "start" and AI taking control. so i'd give DCS a pass on that one...