Spawn At Me query...

[Gambit21]

@JimTM and anyone else.

 

I'm looking to leverage the "spawn at me" logic heavily in my next project in order to minimize the number of inactive aircraft on the map.

The idea is, say with a single 110 and multiple possible (highly randomized) spawners, I can create 1 enemy aircraft, or 5 when needed for the cost of the single inactive aircraft on the map

when not in use.

 

Is there any downside/problem that you've run into with this logic? If I have multiple instances/clones, is there any issue with the player getting credit for kills if he say kills 2 of the clones?

In other words, aside from how the aircraft are spawned into the world, is everything else normal?

 

I tested with AAA guns and it seems they act a bit 'off' (5 guns spawned from 1) so I gave up on using it for them.

The plan is using this logic for trains, aircraft and some vehicles.

[JimTM]

I assume you have seen the example of a random "spawn at me" scenario on pg. 112 of my manual. That's the only experience I have with a setup like that so others can probably give you a more reliable answer on any issues that may occur. I don't remember running into any issues with the example when I tested it, but I wasn't doing the sophisticated stuff that you do in your campaigns.

[Sketch]

 

[LLv34_Temuri]

In addition to what Sketch said, IIRC, if you use multiple spawners for one single plane, all spawned planes are destroyed when one spawned plane is destroyed. At least that how it was some time ago with vehicles.

[Gambit21]

I was afraid of that.

That was nice of you Sketch - thank you.

 

What I can still do still is use this MCU to highly randomize the spawn location of a individual/desperate aircraft (like a night fighter) so all is not lost. I was hoping I could use the other way as well - oh well.

 

Thanks again!

4 minutes ago, LLv34_Temuri said:

In addition to what Sketch said, IIRC, if you use multiple spawners for one single plane, all spawned planes are destroyed when one spawned plane is destroyed. At least that how it was some time ago with vehicles.

 

Now that I did test with spawned/parked aircraft and wasn’t the case, but hadn’t gone beyond that yet. That was another concern though. Moot now I guess.

[LLv34_Temuri]

3 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Now that I did test with spawned/parked aircraft and wasn’t the case, but hadn’t gone beyond that yet.

So if using multiple spawners for one plane, and one plane is destroyed, only that one plane is destroyed? Maybe it was changed, then.

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, LLv34_Temuri said:

So if using multiple spawners for one plane, and one plane is destroyed, only that one plane is destroyed? Maybe it was changed, then.

 

Actually thinkiing on it more - I think they all damaged separately, but all died/deleted at the same time.

[JG4_Deciman]

@Sketch

 

You can use that logic (1 plane, multiple spawning locations and related movings)

with a slight modification...

 

Let only 1 'SpawnOnMe' be triggered and only the first waypoint of the desired route

So you can use a randomizer to have a plane spawn and fly.

 

But for more planes you'll need the same logic again.

So for having 1 of 5 planes acting randomized you need only 1 plane (instead of 5)

but you'll need the entire rest (waypoints, ...)

 

And you'll need all that again for a second plane.

 

 

Deci

Edited September 30, 2020 by JG4_Deciman

[Sketch]

Yes, spawn at me with randomization works. I'm using it in our training server extensively.

[JG4_Deciman]

22 minutes ago, Sketch said:

Yes, spawn at me with randomization works. I'm using it in our training server extensively.

 

I'm implementing it for my train logic (overtaking and passing on track)

 

Deci

[Sketch]

Here's how I'm using Spawn at Me for randomly spawned trains.

[JG4_Deciman]

5 minutes ago, Sketch said:

Here's how I'm using Spawn at Me for randomly spawned trains.

 

My logic is a bit (ok, very much) more complex...

(Group '__CHECKPOINT 0131-3-8')

 

Deci

 

 

 

 

[Gambit21]

On 9/29/2020 at 10:36 PM, LLv34_Temuri said:

So if using multiple spawners for one plane, and one plane is destroyed, only that one plane is destroyed? Maybe it was changed, then.

 

Just tested again...the clones die one at a time.

On 9/30/2020 at 5:57 AM, Sketch said:

Here's how I'm using Spawn at Me for randomly spawned trains.

 

That's my plan.

12 or 16 possible locations for a single locomotive, with those spawners in turn on random timer output.

 

[=RS=Stix_09]

I'd be curious to know what resources are used to have inactive objects in the game. (CPU/Ram)

 

What's the difference from  a spawned plane vs activating a plane instance in this regard.

I would think the resource is not allocated until the object is. I suspect there is no big difference, of course functionally there is a big difference.

 

You could probably test this with windows performance monitoring , by spawning and or activating a larger quantity of objects to see id there is a difference.

Edited October 2, 2020 by =RS=Stix_09

[coconut]

The problems that @Sketch and @LLv34_Temuri describe are AFAIK not specific to the spawn at me option. Whenever an instance has multiple copies alive at the same time, you should expect problems. The mission logic construct (instances and object links) isn’t built to cope with this.

[Alonzo]

I'm curious - do the inactive vehicles cause a lot of load on the game engine? I had always assumed they basically did nothing while 'inactive' but Sketch said someone had done a benchmark where like 500 inactive vehicles on a map actually caused quite a lot of tick time load. I'm curious why this is.

 

On Combat Box we use inactive stuff 95% of the time. For non-moving things, should we instead standardize on spawn/delete, for this savings? (And if so, do you have to spawn-then-delete the object at map start to actually get the benefit?)

[Gambit21]

I loaded 300 inactive aircraft and had no issues - but that’s single player mind you.

[JG7_X-Man]

2 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

I loaded 300 inactive aircraft and had no issues - but that’s single player mind you.

 

Question: How many were active at once (or an average), ballpark?

[Sketch]

I think it's time for another test. "Gordan, you're needed in the test chamber!"

[Gambit21]

6 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

 

Question: How many were active at once (or an average), ballpark?

 

 

Zero

I was checking to see if inactive aircraft were ‘invisible’ to the CPU.

 

I didn’t have them connected to anything else (spawn/activate)  I’ll do that next time if one of you doesn’t get to it first.

[[DBS]Tx_Tip]

18 hours ago, Alonzo said:

I'm curious - do the inactive vehicles cause a lot of load on the game engine? I had always assumed they basically did nothing while 'inactive' but Sketch said someone had done a benchmark where like 500 inactive vehicles on a map actually caused quite a lot of tick time load. I'm curious why this is.

 

On Combat Box we use inactive stuff 95% of the time. For non-moving things, should we instead standardize on spawn/delete, for this savings? (And if so, do you have to spawn-then-delete the object at map start to actually get the benefit?)

 

Checked in the Paravane mission Alonzo and basically your flak setups are spot on with what we can do with regards to saving CPU use within MP. Didn't look at anything else.

There is no need to spawn/delete object on start as the object is apparently completely inert while waiting to be spawned as opposed to being inactive. This is a hard-coded functioning difference between the Activation and Spawner MCUs. There is no other explanation that I have ever come up with.

 

Edit:

Come to think of it at one time IIRC years ago an object that wasn't checked "Enabled" would not Spawn. Could only be Activated.

A look back at your Paravane mission and I see that none of the Flak pieces are checked "Enabled" before being Spawned. Would having that extra step within the hard-code of "enabling" then Spawning them cause serious CPU uptick? Haven't a clue as its just guesswork that that is the way its coded to begin with.

Just a thought though.

Edited October 7, 2020 by [DBS]Tx_Tip

[JG4_Deciman]

13 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

 

Question: How many were active at once (or an average), ballpark?

 

I use 'SpawnOnMe' for my trains.

Up to now I noticed no problems (exept trying to spawn random sub-instances)

Here disabeling the sub-instances (in my case having 5 different sub-trains) by trying to disable the train object won't work.

But having a seperate 'SpawnOnMe' for each of the sub-trains and a logic that disables all spawners (SpawnOnMe) for the unused sub-trains can handle that.

 

I didn't notice any difference in server load between having 1 train or 5 sub-trains using the same base logic.

 

Deci

[IckyATLAS]

On 10/7/2020 at 12:22 AM, Gambit21 said:

I loaded 300 inactive aircraft and had no issues - but that’s single player mind you.

You mean that there was no load time difference between 300 inactive aircraft and no aircraft?

[Gambit21]

Not at all.