fixed AI Aircraft Formation Station-keeping: now "butterfles"

[Bowie]

Hello DCS/Dev Team:

 

Fly daily P-51D-25 missions from cold start/Normandy44 map.

Flight generally consists of:

- Four(4) Sections of...

- Four(4) P-51D-25's ea., Three(3) of which are AI, including the Flight leader Section.

- All pilot skill level Trained or higher.

- All in "finger four" Section formation.

- In a staggered altitude diamond Flight box formation, set in missions manually with way-point data.

 

With the last up-date:

AI aircraft formation station-keeping now resembles massless "butterflies."

 

Will trim for "hands-off" flying (great fidelity) for the initial climb (12,000 ft/160 mph/1,000 fpm.)

Generally spend the time practicing very close formation flying, moving between the Three(3) AI Sections, with no issues.

 

Now, it is visually ridiculous and dangerous, as the AI Aircraft struggle to hold station within the Section and Formation while zipping back and forth in every axis.

This occurs in both Std. and MT modes.

 

Formation Butterflies.trk

 

Please advise.

 

 

Bowie

 

 

Edited July 20, 2024 by Bowie

[rob10]

You'll get a lot more traction if you post a track file of this happening.

[Bowie]

1 hour ago, rob10 said:

You'll get a lot more traction if you post a track file of this happening.

It could be construed as random wandering, but it occurs at a magic hyper-speed, say 5x normal.

 

It was fine before the last update.

 

Formation flying - should be a simple test and observation for the DCS Dev Group.

 

 

Bowie

[rob10]

39 minutes ago, Bowie said:

It could be construed as random wandering, but it occurs at a magic hyper-speed, say 5x normal.

It was fine before the last update.

Formation flying - should be a simple test and observation for the DCS Dev Group.

Bowie

Is it really that difficult to post a track?  It would likely make it that much easier for the dev's, especially when, as an example, you didn't mention this happens at 5x speed in your original post.  The dev's would have wasted a bunch of time setting things up and totally missed the conditions where this is occurring.  That's why they ask for a track.

[Bowie]

15 hours ago, rob10 said:

Is it really that difficult to post a track?  It would likely make it that much easier for the dev's, especially when, as an example, you didn't mention this happens at 5x speed in your original post.  The dev's would have wasted a bunch of time setting things up and totally missed the conditions where this is occurring.  That's why they ask for a track.

And you are?

 

22 hours ago, Bowie said:

With the last up-date:

AI aircraft formation station-keeping now resembles massless "butterflies."

Now, it is visually ridiculous and dangerous, as the AI Aircraft struggle to hold station within the Section and Formation while zipping back and forth in every axis.

This occurs in both Std. and MT modes.

 

Have you set up a test mission to confirm it?

A matter of a coupla minutes to anyone that's interested.

 

Look forward to your observations.

 

 

Bowie

 

[Bowie]

Sounds like this is a systemic issue.

 

Started w/ the last update.

 

DCS/Dev Group... ?

 

 

Bowie

[Northstar98]

15 hours ago, Bowie said:

And you are?

Somebody trying to help make sure your bug report actually gets addressed. You're not doing yourself any favours by refusing to post one.

If you don't post a track it's unlikely any developer will address the issue, this thread (if it gets looked at) will simply be marked "missing track file" and that'll be the end of it.

15 hours ago, Bowie said:

Have you set up a test mission to confirm it?

A matter of a coupla minutes to anyone that's interested.

It barely takes more than single digit seconds to hit "save track" and then drag the file into the attachments when making or editing a post.

[Bowie]

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Somebody trying to help make sure your bug report actually gets addressed. You're not doing yourself any favours by refusing to post one.

If you don't post a track it's unlikely any developer will address the issue, this thread (if it gets looked at) will simply be marked "missing track file" and that'll be the end of it.

It barely takes more than single digit seconds to hit "save track" and then drag the file into the attachments when making or editing a post.

Seems to me that "somebody trying to help make sure your bug report actually gets addressed," would recreate the simple condition described, and make an observation of their own.

 

And if posting a track is that simple, show us how simple it is with one of your own as support.

 

Or, maybe DCS/Dev Group could do it, as they are the ones who created the issue, along with being the ones to fix it.

 

As it didn't exist before the last update.

 

DCS/Dev Group... ?

 

 

Bowie

Edited July 19, 2024 by Bowie

[Northstar98]

9 hours ago, Bowie said:

Seems to me that "somebody trying to help make sure your bug report actually gets addressed," would recreate the simple condition described, and make an observation of their own.

Sorry - not how this works.

You want your bug report to get addressed, you post a track.

9 hours ago, Bowie said:

And if posting a track is that simple, show us how simple it is with one of your own as support.

It is that simple - no if about it. Well, at least for people who don't seem to have some attitude problem with it, for some reason...

See attached, no idea if it's the same behaviour you're describing, not sure if it replicates your set up, because I don't know the spacing, the speed, whether you're using big formation/escort tasks or what they're set to - kinda why you should post a track, lot less effort on your part.

P-51_formation_300kts.trk P-51_formation.trk

Edited July 19, 2024 by Northstar98

[MAXsenna]

7 hours ago, Bowie said:

Seems to me that "somebody trying to help make sure your bug report actually gets addressed," would recreate the simple condition described, and make an observation of their own.

They are trying to be helpful. If you had posted a track, (which take way less time than trying to recreate whatever your observations are), everyone could immediately observe whatever's happening. You're not doing yourself any favours by going into arguments.

Enjoy your weekend! 

[rob10]

10 hours ago, Bowie said:

Seems to me that "somebody trying to help make sure your bug report actually gets addressed," would recreate the simple condition described, and make an observation of their own.

I wasn't going to bother responding to you again, but you seem don't seem to want to understand that (even if I had the aircraft installed to be able to attempt to reproduce it) me dropping aircraft in a mission is meaningless because (as the others who've responded said) who knows if you've got one small setting different that causes or doesn't cause the problem.  That's why the dev's will ask for a track so they can ACTUALLY SEE THE PROBLEM without having to waste time going on a wild goose chase to create it.  And NO there is no guarantee that a dev "just creating a track" is going to capture how you have it set up where the problem shows.  It also allows them to see if you have a mod installed (even one that you may have forgotten about and might respond with "I have no mods" if asked).  Rather than just saying a 2nd time that they would want a track file, I tried to help you understand why they would ask for that, but apparently you don't care.

They've been down enough rabbit holes trying to recreate "issues" that I don't blame them for tagging threads as "missing track file" (considering how simple it is: at mission debrief screen "SAVE TRACK", come back here and add it to a post)

Good luck getting a response.  You can keep posting "DCS/Dev Group... ?" but I'll be really surprised if the response you finally get back from them isn't a tag of "MISSING TRACK FILE"

[Bowie]

DCS/Dev Group... ?

Track added to OP.

 

Also getting uninitiated random failures now, since the last update.

One engine out( fuel?) on take-off, and twice failure of right landing gear retraction after take-off.

 

Please advise

 

Bowie

Edited July 20, 2024 by Bowie

[GumidekCZ]

@NineLine  I can confirm this BUG. I have flown as a GAMBLERS campaign tester AI formations for hours and hours ... ALL OK!
But after recent patch in Mission 01, Weasel 12 (Formation Echelon left) is NOT STABLE and is doing small side waves. - THIS LOOKS AND I CAN NOT FLY CLOSE FORMATION WITH SUCH AI

Edited July 20, 2024 by GumidekCZ

[Bowie]

- Still persists.

- Track provided in OP

- Not acknowledged by DCS/Dev

- Not addressed in latest patch

 

This needs a look, as it is pretty awful.

 

Please advise.

 

 

Bowie

[GumidekCZ]

Dont be frustrated @Bowie . Be cool and patient.
If you cant help yourself on your own, here are some of my advices:
                     1) FIND ANOTHER GAME with which you can forget how bad you feel about ED and DCS.
                     2) NEVER EVER use DCS AI units in your / your friends mission
                     3) NEVER EVER be campaign or mission creator - I know some of them and they are speachless of ED's inability to maintain DCS bugless.

Edited July 24, 2024 by GumidekCZ

[Bowie]

On 7/24/2024 at 1:19 PM, GumidekCZ said:

Dont be frustrated @Bowie . Be cool and patient.
If you cant help yourself on your own, here are some of my advices:
                     1) FIND ANOTHER GAME with which you can forget how bad you feel about ED and DCS.
                     2) NEVER EVER use DCS AI units in your / your friends mission
                     3) NEVER EVER be campaign or mission creator - I know some of them and they are speachless of ED's inability to maintain DCS bugless.

 

Probably good advice.

Coming from CFS2/1%, mission building is the canon.

Might look into the WWII Servers.

Growling Sidewinder's "World At War" server looks interesting from the YouTube vids, but can't find out where it is or how to access it.

 

 

Bowie

Edited July 30, 2024 by Bowie

[NineLine]

Hey thanks all, I am on station now. I will digest this and see if I can see what is going on. 

[Bowie]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

Hey thanks all, I am on station now. I will digest this and see if I can see what is going on. 

Out-standing.

May seem to be a little thing, but it turns out to be pretty important.

 

Four Sections from two different airfields, join up and climb to elevation, and then patrol the combat zone, the first 15 min. of every flight.

The immersive pilot workload of formation and navigation is always in sharp contrast to the 16 on 16 furball to follow, one of eight unique missions - with four different situations that occur twice at four different times of day, morning and evening.

 

Thanks for the work.

 

B/E:

Bowie

[NineLine]

Is this your mission if I may ask?

The reason why I ask is that from take-off to WP1 the speed is set to 157kn, this is much too slow so you have the AI trying to fly slower than expected, but also keep up with their own formation, and then follow others. The AI will 'cheat' a little to hold formation, but it looks and feels worse when they are flying outside normal limits. Try increasing the speed to WP1. I suggest increasing this to achieve the altitude you have set at WP. 

[Ironhand]

8 hours ago, NineLine said:

The reason why I ask is that from take-off to WP1 the speed is set to 157kn

Isn’t 157 kn somewhere close to best rate of climb speed for that airframe? Just wondering.

Edited July 31, 2024 by Ironhand

[Nealius]

175 is correct, but in mph on the gauge. Mission Editor only works in knots and kmh, unfortunately.

[NineLine]

2 hours ago, Ironhand said:

Isn’t 157 kn somewhere close to best rate of climb speed for that airframe? Just wondering.

 

So I replied late last night I should expand.

The mission is set up to have 4 groups form up from 2 different airfields. 1 Group has you as a pilot, so these groups are set up to follow one lead unit which is all AI. In that time, travel to waypoint 1 is 29nm away at 12000 feet. The distance to 20,000 feet can be done in 10 minutes roughly at normal power. But the mission is asking for a distance of 10 minutes, to nearly half that altitude, limited to a set speed which I feel is slower for the rate of climb they are expected, and again asking 3 AI groups and 1 Player group to form up before this. COnsider the AI in the formation, if the lead is set to a set speed, the other AI in that group may have to slow or speed up to maintain, if its very restrictive (and in this case slower than it needs to be) the AI will struggle to maintain. 

The AI is AI, an all-player-controlled group could think about this, form up and then climb, but the AI is being told to do it all at once. It would make more sense to set up a more up WP after take off, then allow a proper climb speed either for the requested altitude, I feel that 12000 feet, could be a little faster. 

In WWII missions I usually set up an orbit to allow some sort of time to allow all aircraft to get airborne and then form up somewhat. You can set an orbit until a set time or condition. Once this is met, then sending them on their way ends up working better. 

[Bowie]

13 hours ago, NineLine said:

So I replied late last night I should expand.

The mission is set up to have 4 groups form up from 2 different airfields. 1 Group has you as a pilot, so these groups are set up to follow one lead unit which is all AI. In that time, travel to waypoint 1 is 29nm away at 12000 feet. The distance to 20,000 feet can be done in 10 minutes roughly at normal power. But the mission is asking for a distance of 10 minutes, to nearly half that altitude, limited to a set speed which I feel is slower for the rate of climb they are expected, and again asking 3 AI groups and 1 Player group to form up before this. COnsider the AI in the formation, if the lead is set to a set speed, the other AI in that group may have to slow or speed up to maintain, if its very restrictive (and in this case slower than it needs to be) the AI will struggle to maintain. 

The AI is AI, an all-player-controlled group could think about this, form up and then climb, but the AI is being told to do it all at once. It would make more sense to set up a more up WP after take off, then allow a proper climb speed either for the requested altitude, I feel that 12000 feet, could be a little faster. 

In WWII missions I usually set up an orbit to allow some sort of time to allow all aircraft to get airborne and then form up somewhat. You can set an orbit until a set time or condition. Once this is met, then sending them on their way ends up working better. 

First off - Before the last big update, not only these 16 on 16 missions, but the Omni mission from which they were derived, with 26 Allied Fighter(4) and Bomber(3) Sections, and 18 Axis Fighter(4) and Bomber(3) Sections, with all set as AI - took off/formed up/climbed/patrolled/attacked/returned/landed/parked in their original location... flawlessly.

Being set up this way for testing, could jump into any/every plane to observe throughout the entire mission.

Different climb/cruise/patrol speeds were used, depending on the individual Section A/C and route requirements.

Flawless.

 

Second - 160mph IAS is just slightly below 165mph IAS considered optimum. Have slowed them down to 130mph IAS without issue.

 

Third - IF this was a climb speed issue, it would still be associated with the last big update, and does Not address the radical side-to-side formation station keeping movements.

 

Understand, this project was several Months worth of careful building and testing, to generate the omni missions, at three different altitudes (LF/F/HF) after the Normandy map was corrupted due to its integration into the Channel map plan.

 

Lots and lots of hours spent observing and correcting routes/speeds/timing marks/interactions.

 

Flawless.

 

It's the last big update.

 

Requesting that DCS/Dev look into it, as someone missed a comma or decimal point somewhere.

 

 

Bowie.

Edited August 1, 2024 by Bowie

[Bowie]

@NineLine - Attached please find one of the missions of the series, varying only as to elevation, route, and time.

This one is "F" elevation, initial route, early morning, second Section, out of Cricqueville, Normandy map.

 

Give it a run, and anyone else interested, and try to hold formation on another Section, and then enjoy the fight.

Or, set Doghouse-1 from "player" to "Veteran," and then use the "F2" key to cycle through the A/C on mission.

Look particularly at Cactus flight, the lead Section for Doghouse flight.

The station keeping is awful, and new since the last big update.

 

Doghouse Flight - CV-0430-1600v0808-SL Disp-F.miz

 

 

Bowie

Edited August 3, 2024 by Bowie

[Bowie]

Am seeing some stable formations of late, on some new missions set up on the old format.

Was this a stealth resolution?

Whatever, am likin' the formations either way.

Will continue to investigate to see if it is systemic.

 

Bowie.