correct as-is AI Wingmen can't handle divert waypoints, abandoning the player

[cfrag]

In "Navigation And Landing", Wags tells us that when setting up a route for the Fulcrum in Mission Editor, the first three Waypoints are divert airfields, and WP number 4 (silly as it may seem) is the first "real" route point. 

Currently, AI FF Fulcrums do NOT interpret the first three WP as Divert Airfields. Worse, if you set up a group for you and an AI wingman, and follow Wag's instructions, your Wingman will happily fly to the first route point (your first divert Airfield), abandoning you while you fly to WP 4.

Here's a simple demo. Enter the airborne group, and see your wingmen fly off to Kobuleti, while your first mission WP is Sukumi.

fulcrum me tests.miz

Edited September 17 by cfrag

[NineLine]

Thanks I will run this by the team. 

[NineLine]

Just reviewing your mission vs Wag's video, he set the first waypoint to the recovery airfield, and the next 2 would be the divert airfields. This corresponds to the 3 buttons on then Nav panel, button 1 being the recovery airfield and the other 2 the diverts, this is when the switch is in AD (Aerodrome). Setting my own flight like this seems to work as expected based on Wag's video. The AI seems to follow along as expected. Let me know if I am missing the issue you are seeing. 

[cfrag]

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

Setting my own flight like this seems to work as expected based on Wag's video.

Indeed, and that is only a problem from a UX perspective (the player FF Fulcrum now is the only unit that does not follow the route in sequential order, the semantics of waypoints in a route have changed for FF Fulcrums of skill Player or Client). The semantics for a 'correct' (as I understand it) flight set up for a FF Fulcrum group's route is RoutePoint 1 --> AeroDromepoint 1, RP 2 --> AD 2, RP 3 --> AD3 (i.e. the first three route points as assigned in Mission Editor go to AD points 1-3). The FOURTH route point (as assigned in ME) is the first 'mission waypoint', i.e. the route point that you are heading for in an engagement: RP 4 -> MWP 1, RP 5 -> MWP2, RP 6 -> MWP3 (I'm using non-standard terms 'route point' RP, 'aerodrome point' AD, 'mission waypoint' MWP for clarity only)

HOWEVER:
In Wag's Video, the first AD (airodromepoint) [02:00 in the video: "The first three points that I'm going to lay down are going to be the aerodromes corresponding to the switch in the AD position"] is Shindand then Farah (first divert) and the last AD is Qala. At 02:39 Wags then proceeds to add three more route points: "Next will be the three waypoints which correspond to the switch being in the WP position", and then proceeds to place three points enroute from Herat to Shindant, which all happen to be collinear with a route directly from Herat to Shindant. The last bit is important to recall in your analysis.

Imagine that there was a known SAM location between Herat and Shindant that we want to avoid so we move route points 4 to 6 to the West. The  waypoints 1-3 (route points 4 to 6) are no longer in line with the straight route from Herat to Shindant.

Add an AI wingman, fly the route and see what happens: Your wingman will fly directly from Herat to Shindant - because it takes Route Point 1 (= AP 1 Shindant) as its first destination. It will fly directly into the SAM site. AI wingmen DO NOT follow the "first three route points are aerodromes" semantic of the route, they simply fly from from route points 1-6: Herat (spawn)-Shindant-Farah-Qata-routepoint 4-routepoint 5-routepoint 6, and then land at the closest faction-owned airfield. This is VERY different from what you want it to do: Fly from Herat to Shindant while avoiding the SAM site and following the player.

So the only reason why it looks as if AI is doing what you want is because route points 4 - 6 are (by coincidence) in line with the route from Herat to Shindant. You should have known that something was amiss when you tested the scenario and found that instead of landing at Shindant, your wingman would go on to Farah.

If you arrange your tests against your expectations, you will quickly see that your desired scenario falls apart, that AI wingmen do not follow a player FF Fulcrum's route point semantic. Below please find a demo mission with a Roland SAM site that kills the AI Fulcrum because it does not follow the player's route.

 

fulcrum me tests2.miz

Edited September 18 by cfrag

[NineLine]

9 hours ago, cfrag said:

The last bit is important to recall in your analysis.

Ok I will look again, but you did not have a route set up like this in your original mission, so I will need to re-analyze what you have now. 

[NineLine]

From what I see in your new mission, you have the client set to position 2 in the flight, so in this case, you are the one breaking formation as you are not the flight lead. Changing the client to aircraft 1, the wingman happily follows you to the waypoint of your choosing. Let me know if I am missing something here, thanks. 

[cfrag]

If you change both Fulcrums to AI Skill, they will fly into the SAM, and not follow the route that was set up exactly as Wags recommended, meaning that routes for AI and players now follow different semantics. If what you say is how it works in the game now (and I have no reason to doubt you) then as a result it now also becomes relevant which number in a group the player is, and I surmise that the only reason that the AI unit follows the leader (player) is that it would always follow leader, and not the route as marked in ME. This means that any group set up with an AI will not follow the route setup as shown by wags, and if a player follows an AI unit, the setup for AP and WP can't be used as shown by Wags.

I believe that this only comes up because assigning these AD points via re-purposed route points is terrible design (it would have been much better if this was set up in an plane-specific panel, but I believe I've already written as much in a different post where I enumerate the reasons why re-purposing route points in ME is a bad idea). For the record, below could be an implementation of AD assignments if it was integrated into ME using basic integration- and UX skills. A pity that the team chose a different approach.

The fact that AI Fulcrums do not follow the semantics as shown by Wags seems like a bug to me. Re-purposing route points for Fulcrum IMHO is bad design that feels cheap. Re-purposing them just for Fulcrums with Skill "Player" or "Client" makes a bad design decision worse. I strongly recommend that the team drops the 'repurpose' approach and spends the effort to correctly integrate this into ME. 

 

[NineLine]

If you are talking a full AI flight, no player, if I understand you correctly, then yes, you will need to assign then routes as previous as they jump to other waypoints or locations based on other things in the missions like triggers and such. 

I am confused how you can call this cheap, of course real people understand and interact with a mission different than AI. Also this report seems to keep changing what you are reporting with each post. If we are talking AI, then no, AI as lead will need to be guided to which waypoint you want like AI always have, or make the player a lead and do it like a real person. 

[cfrag]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

If you are talking a full AI flight, no player, if I understand you correctly, then yes, you will need to assign then routes as previous as they jump to other waypoints

So the semantics for routes in Mission Editor is different between AI and player for Fulcrums. It's now the only unit in DCS that uses route points different based on skill. I do not think that this is good design, but at least we have cleared up that it's not a bug but a new 'feature' for the Fulcrum.

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

I am confused how you can call this cheap

Because re-purposing Mission Editor Routepoints 1-3 for a player fulcrum allows your team to skip implementing a good, dedicated UX to designate AD points - for example like in the mock-up I showed above. You are sacrificing some usability fidelity for all your customers in return for saving a small amount of effort building the experience. I've been in software development long enough (30+ years) to recognize when designs or implementations cut corners.

All that is immaterial, you build your software as you see fit. I would have preferred better design, but that's just me.

Edited September 18 by cfrag

[NineLine]

3 hours ago, cfrag said:

it's not a bug but a new 'feature' for the Fulcrum.

Correct