Are custom formations possible?

[Black_Hat]

Hi,

 

as example, i want to make a typical B-26 Box, which looked like this:

 

(Min.) 90% they flew in 2 or 3 boxe's, but i think that would effect the performance too much.

 

I want them to fly curves and they should reunite after action. Not only following waypoints in a straight line!

Maybe using speed restrection's for the formation, addicted.

 

I only find action's where this formation was flown. It think it would be strange if they are not in the game.

 

Are there any methode's out there? I didn't find one. 

Are they not requested by the cummunity? Why is it not possible?  

 

Edited May 9, 2023 by Back_Hat

[Jaegermeister]

Each formation is a different flight. What you have in the diagram is a “V” of 3 planes with another one just behind and below it and 2 more behind that one. You can make that formation by putting 6 different formations near each other.
 

I can tell you from past experience that once they make a turn, they will not be that close together anymore.

 

They only follow waypoints in a straight line, but obviously they do not make 90 degree turns. If you put waypoints fairly close together it would create a curving path. Don’t expect them to maintain the “V” formation through a turn though.
 

You would have to figure out how to get them to do what you want by trial and error.

[Zooropa_Fly]

I always thought there should be a 'custom' setting for the Formation Command..

i.e. the planes will simply try to maintain the shape of their original placement.

[IckyATLAS]

In theory yes you can. In short it is an enormous expense of time (scales with the number of bombers) to make it work properly and with turns, and there is not perfect solution.

Either you use flights and each flight with its trajectory and sets of waypoints, or you have each plane programmed as an independent plane. You have to set the waypoints for each of them and then define the speeds and altitudes so that the whole stuff works as the custom formation you want. There are other parameters like priority that I wioll not discuss here. There are many posts on this subject.

If you use flights, then in the event of a perturbation (AAA hits, fighter attack etc.) the problem is that if for whatever reason the leader has not a correct behavior and goes amok, all the planes connected to it will follow. It can easily lead to chaos. But when the perturbation is out more or less each plane in a flight will try to regain its position.

If each plane is independent then whatever happens to their neighbor, they will try to avoid collision if necessary but then be back on their trajectory. However they will keep the speed set in the active waypoint. So if due to the perturbation they fall behind they will stay at the programmed speed and so they will not catch up.

 

Formations in this sim are acceptable for fighters that have little inertia and a lot of power and so able to accelerate easily, and most probably this function was made just for them. It is really not made for the massive bomber waves of the European theater. This would necessitate the development of a specific formation code. 

 

 

 

[jollyjack]

Been experimenting with 4 flights of 4 bombers (or c47s), 2x4 fighters covering, and my system (12700 I9, 3080ti, 64GB ram) can handle that,

but without to much other active actions ... Dunno how they do it in DCS, i am a rookie there) but it seems capable of handling more planes at once ..

[Black_Hat]

On 5/9/2023 at 9:25 AM, IckyATLAS said:

So if due to the perturbation they fall behind they will stay at the programmed speed and so they will not catch up.

Then let them return to base?(onDamage event)

 

Anyway, want to present my solution:

So the problem with only using waypoints is, that every plane having one, isn't dependent on the other one's and like said, after flying curves, attacks, ... won't reunite!

So I created a logic to prevent this. A simple idea. Here is how it works:

 

At the beginning of the mission I place every plane in the right position. 

Let's say the leader hits a waypoint(Leader Waypoint). At that moment I check where the other plane's are, relative to him(Check zone). And Deactivate it after 20ms.

 

If the wingman is detected in "Before_zone" a "Take Slow_speed" Waypoint is connected to him! In Aft_zone -"- "Take High_speed". When the counter hits, these output's will be deactivated and a "Take Fine_speed" WP is connected.

If placing this every 5000m and using B-26, these waypoints should have 3km/h difference. So everytime the wingman is too fast/slow relative to the leader, he will be slowed down for the next 5000m.

 

Here is what it look's like for Box Lead and Deputy Box Lead.

 

and when there's a curve use waypoint's, give them enough place and test on what works best for your formation/plane. After flying the curve place this logic. The wingman's will locate where they are, relative to the leader, and the formation will reunite after some time.

 

In the whole formation is only one leader. No plane's are targeted to another, because, targeted formation's dont care about 3km/h differences.

 

I  have tested this and it works on an accuracy of 30m which works fine. When choosing better accuracy, the important thing is that the plane's don't bounce from Befor_zone to Aft_zone. But that's a lot of testing.

I would say you can make every custom formation.

 

The only proplem i see, is if the lead get's hit and can't keep up, the whole formation's need to return to base. You can choose another lead and copy this logic for him, that should work but would be a lot of work.

 

I think it's unlikly that im the first one having this idea, but anyway.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 1, 2023 by Back_Hat

[No_85_Gramps]

Always amazed at the ability of mission builders to come up with solutions for various problems!

[Black_Hat]

Thanks

 

[Black_Hat]

11 hours ago, Jaegermeister said:

I can tell you from past experience that once they make a turn, they will not be that close together anymore.

 

They only follow waypoints in a straight line, but obviously they do not make 90 degree turns. If you put waypoints fairly close together it would create a curving path. Don’t expect them to maintain the “V” formation through a turn though.

 

Have a look at this:

 

Here, my custom formation at the beginning of the flight,

 

 

 

My formation after flying even 40km and a 90° turn,

 

 they would easily be ready for way more 90° turn's☺️. Every 5km the plane's have located themself based on their leader and corrected any mistakes and made a stable formation, the whole flight!

 

 

 

Edited May 9, 2023 by Back_Hat

[Black_Hat]

Here is the template i've used.

 

Please not that mistake's(Plane's leaving the formation), are very likely du to check_zone's which I've choosen a little bit to small, missclicked target's, or not accurate speed's. It took too much time...

 

Maybe in the future i will post some accurate template's, for now im fine with that.

 

If there are any issue's, improvement's or question's please let me know!

Testing.rar

Edited May 9, 2023 by Back_Hat

[IckyATLAS]

6 hours ago, Back_Hat said:

Then let them return to base?(onDamage event)

 

Anyway, want to present my solution:

So the problem with only using waypoints is, that every plane having one, isn't dependent on the other one's and like said, after flying curves, attacks, ... won't reunite!

So I created a logic to prevent this. A simple idea. Here is how it works:

 

At the beginning of the mission I place every plane in the right position. 

Let's say the leader hits a waypoint(Leader Waypoint). At that moment I check where the other plane's are, relative to him(Check zone). And Deactivate it after 20ms.

 

If the wingman is detected in "Before_zone" a "Take Slow_speed" Waypoint is connected to him! In Aft_zone -"- "Take High_speed". When the counter hits, these output's will be deactivated and a "Take Fine_speed" WP is connected.

If placing this every 5000m and using B-26, these waypoints should have 3km/h difference. So everytime the wingman is too fast/slow relative to the leader, he will be slowed down for the next 5000m.

 

Here is what it look's like for Box Lead and Deputy Box Lead.

 

and when there's a curve use waypoint's, give them enough place and test on what works best for your formation/plane. After flying the curve place this logic. The wingman's will locate where they are, relative to the leader, and the formation will reunite after some time.

 

In the whole formation is only one leader. No plane's are targeted to another, because, (in case of B-26), targeted formation's dont care about 3km/h differences.

 

I  have tested this and it works on an accuracy of 30m which works fine. When choosing better accuracy, the important thing is that the plane's don't bounce from Befor_zone to Aft_zone. But that's a lot of testing.

I would say you can make every custom formation.

 

The only proplem i see, is if the lead get's hit and can't keep up, the whole formation's need to return to base. You can choose another lead and copy this logic for him, that should work but would be a lot of work.

 

I think it's unlikly that im the first one having this idea, but anyway.

 

 

 

 

I did this system many years ago but for ship convoys only (Kuban map) where different ships even for the same speed do not go at the same speed. I made many posts on this. The difference is small but on long distances the whole convoy gets disorganized and you cannot do a convoy with ships like with vehicles. I tried but it did not seem to work well as ships have very large inertia to change of their speed and settle to a new stabilized speed. Convoys had to be very spread apart. 

Finally it made a pretty complex code so I resorted to calculate an equivalent speed (I published this in a post) for each type of ship. In this way you can build a convoy that will keep formation for very long distances and avoid all the speed-up or slow-down waypoints to control the ships. 

The advantage with ships is that compared with planes motion is slow and basically they keep well the formation for whatever the mission duration, and stay more naturally on track.

 

Planes are much faster and move in all directions so I did not bother doing it, but good you tried. This flying method will work in calm and enemy free areas.

 

Regarding bombers If you have all your waypoints with Priority set to High then with some work you can indeed keep the formations together even in enemy areas. But beware if you get attacked by fighters or ground based AAA the bombers will fly their course without moving an inch aside and go through flak, which is okay.  But all the gunners on board will remain silent and enemy fighters will shoot down the bombers easily. If you set the Priority to Medium then the bomber gunners will defend against fighters but also the pilot may do evasive maneuvers. If it is the leader that is attacked when maneuvering he will take all the flight with him. In a large bomber formation with flights staged at different levels chaos will happen quickly. If you set Priority to Low just for information then the planes forget about the flight path and will attack all enemy targets in their area, this means your formation completely brakes up as soon as the enemy appears and it's the end of coordinated flight.  

 

If the leader of one flight in the formation gets damaged then a return to base will make the whole flight to follow. But if he is destroyed/killed then another plane in the flight becomes leader and the flight may continue. I tried to correct this by using the Command Damage MCU to destroy a leader that gets only damaged to get a new leader, but unfortunately the whole flight gets destroyed all together. This because the Damage Command will propagate to all the planes connected to the leader plane. Bad coding here. But it could work with the Trigger Delete MCU triggered by an OnDamaged Event link. This will delete only the leader and so have it replaced. But it will not avoid evasive maneuvers.

Here I would mention a technique which I  came up lately that could mitigate this issue. I never mentioned it but others may have thought about it. here it is:

 

You setup your flight in a special way. You make your Leader Invulnerable and Not Engageable (you do not tick the corresponding boxes in the advance properties). He will be visible and will fly but he will not be attacked and he cannot be damaged. But all the planes in the flight can be attacked and destroyed. The waypoints of the corresponding course are set to Priority Medium.

If you have say 3 flights of six bombers. That is a total of 18 bombers and 3 leaders. The five leaders will never be shot down and attacked but all the others can be. The idea is to keep a high ratio between bombers and leaders. When a plane (wingman) is attacked it will have its gunners firing back but will stay in the flight course because he will follow the leader so its pilot may not make evasive maneuvers. He will do everything to keep with its leader or just go down in flames and if just damaged (up to the threshold) he may go back to base but on its own and leave the flight which is a very realistic behavior.  The only strange behaviors that can happen is a bomber going down hitting a leader that will be completely unscathed and will continue flying straight on. Not realistic but Okay I said that I can mitigate and not solve the issue.

 

This has not been fully tested yet. I am implementing it in a bomber mission that is in development on the Kuban map. I will let you know.

 

[Black_Hat]

Thanks for the information.

Okay...

 

You mention 2 problems, (but is there one?)

 

1) Waypoint priroty's

I would use medium prirorty. When attacking B-26 i don't see any pilot's making evasive manouver's. I didn't found a way to bring them with enemy action offcours.

And the gunner's will fire at you. When using smaller plane's i would target them into action (or whatever). Then they should wait together on the next waypoint, wait 5km, and let them form a formation.

 

2)If a lead of a formation is damaged, his formation follow's still

Luckily,

9 hours ago, Back_Hat said:

In the whole formation is only one leader. No plane's are targeted to another, because, (in case of B-26), targeted formation's dont care about 3km/h differences.

I can individually send every plane back home.

 

 

Besides,

even if the formation would be far apart from another, a proximitry could detect this and the "lost plane" could rejoin on the nearest waypoint. Or by using vector's, or anything in that direction.

 

 

   

 

Edited May 9, 2023 by Back_Hat

[Black_Hat]

Finally, that's kind of how I imagined it!

It works i think.

 

My custom formation:

• Consists of 11 planes. (2 Groups)
• Each group dropping bombs on targets/(seperate, close to another).
• The Formation can be attacked(e.g fighter's or AAA), and covered.
• A plane that's "OnDamage" will return to base.
• The formation holds, as there would be a customFormation command.
• I have not noticed performance difference, compared to a "Formation command".
• Can fly at the highest or any speed possible for the plane(a Formation command can't).
• (Im not aware of anything the "Formation Command" can do, and the "custom formation mechanism" don't). 

 

Nice to have:

• the covering planes are just circling above the bomber formation. I think it would be more realistic/look better, if they would follow up in V-Formations. Therefore they need to be integrated in the bomber formation logic, with the same idea.
• To get a 2nd leader, my idea is to copy every "Leader_waypoint" which would have been the leaders task and activate it for another plane.
• I thought about a proximitry, which could detect a lost plane. It than can trigger it home, or a mechanism which vectors it back to the formation.
• Or perhaps better looking curves with more waypoints.

Sadly, placing bomber's takes much performance. At 15 i've noticed them stuttering. I decided to make 11 (plus 8-10 fighters), and that's ~working. But to less to be realistic... A very rare case perhaps.

 

however... if you have enough time i would say every custom formation is possible using that mechanism.

 

Is there anything to add?

 

 

(I've attached the used example. Flying 134km and 3 45degree turns.) 

Testing.rar

Edited May 16, 2023 by Back_Hat

[IckyATLAS]

Thanks for sharing Back_Hat. I looked at the file in the editor but I see no enemies and no Flak units. It is the perfect ideal flight.

You should check how the bombers behave with flak nearby the target area and enemy fighters attacking. 

[Gambit21]

4 hours ago, IckyATLAS said:

Thanks for sharing Back_Hat. I looked at the file in the editor but I see no enemies and no Flak units. It is the perfect ideal flight.

You should check how the bombers behave with flak nearby the target area and enemy fighters attacking. 

 

That's exactly it.

 

I've done extensive testing with bombers as you have...I've had 30 plus.

Problem is now add escorts, attackers, flak etc like you say...that's the problem.

 

 

 

Bombers is no trick at all...a fleshed out mission with bombers...that's the issue.

[Black_Hat]

Hi,

Sorry for the late answer, been bussy...? 

 

------------------------------

On 5/26/2023 at 10:21 PM, IckyATLAS said:

You should check how the bombers behave with flak nearby the target area and enemy fighters attacking.

Yes, I didn't notice anything divergent. Works fine...

like I sad here:

On 5/10/2023 at 1:16 AM, Back_Hat said:

1) Waypoint priroty's

I would use medium prirorty. When attacking B-26 i don't see any pilot's making evasive manouver's. I didn't find a way to bring them with enemy action offcours.

And the gunner's will fire at you.

 

------------------------------

On 5/27/2023 at 2:57 AM, Gambit21 said:

Problem is now add escorts, attackers, flak etc like you say...that's the problem.

I know 2 ways to escort the formation:

• You can use the cover command.
• Or:

On 5/16/2023 at 3:58 AM, Back_Hat said:

Nice to have:

• the covering planes are just circling above the bomber formation. I think it would be more realistic/look better, if they would follow up in V-Formations. Therefore they need to be integrated in the bomber formation logic, with the same idea.

 

-------------------------------

On 5/27/2023 at 2:57 AM, Gambit21 said:

Bombers is no trick at all...a fleshed out mission with bombers...that's the issue.

Im not exactly sure what you mean there. Can you explain what you mean with  "fleshed"? 

 

--------------------------------

Btw.

On 5/16/2023 at 3:58 AM, Back_Hat said:

Testing.rar 122.41 kB · 3 downloads

(I've noticed, that in some rare cases, the right group was too fast and overshoot the following "controll zone", due to too dense curves I've choosen. Just leave a little bit more space after the curve is flown(if necessary))

 

Edited June 17, 2023 by Back_Hat

[Gambit21]

3 hours ago, Back_Hat said:

Hi,

Sorry for the late answer, been bussy...? 

 

------------------------------

Yes, I didn't notice anything divergent. Works fine...

like I sad here:

 

------------------------------

I know 2 ways to escort the formation:

• You can use the cover command.
• Or:

 

-------------------------------

Im not exactly sure what you mean there. Can you explain what you mean with  "fleshed"? 

 

--------------------------------

Btw.

(I've noticed, that in some rare cases, the right group was too fast and overshoot the following "controll zone", due to too dense curves I've choosen. Just leave a little bit more space after the curve is flown(if necessary))

 

WRT cover/escorts etc I’m afraid you missed the point. The point is all of the other units needed in an actual, complex (fleshed out) mission. In other words, a formation of 30 bombers isn’t the problem

 

 

[Black_Hat]

I think I still dont get it?

 

I assume, you mean with "complex (fleshed out)" that the formation is not compatible with anything outside the designated route. 

 

What are "all the other units". Can you give a example  for an "actual, complex (fleshed out)" mission.

 

Yes, a formation of 30 bombers isn't the problem(just performance stutter), but cover/escort or enemys aren't the problem either... 

What is "WRT". Enemy action maybe?

 

Can you explain your reply more accurate?

[Gambit21]

12 hours ago, Back_Hat said:

I think I still dont get it?

 

I assume, you mean with "complex (fleshed out)" that the formation is not compatible with anything outside the designated route. 

 

What are "all the other units". Can you give a example  for an "actual, complex (fleshed out)" mission.

 

Yes, a formation of 30 bombers isn't the problem(just performance stutter), but cover/escort or enemys aren't the problem either... 

What is "WRT". Enemy action maybe?

 

Can you explain your reply more accurate?

 

 

 

Of course...I simply mean that bombers by themselves do not make a mission, but you need all of the other elements. Escorts, attackers, etc etc.

So by the time you add all of these other things, you no longer have the computational resources for 30 bombers.  

So 30 bombers alone is totally possible, while 30 bombers with all of the other needed elements for a full mission present as well...not so possible.

 

 

[Black_Hat]

I agree, that's very annoying. Of course you can take less plane's , but it's just not the same...

like I said:

On 5/16/2023 at 3:58 AM, Back_Hat said:

Sadly, placing bomber's takes much performance. At 15 i've noticed them stuttering. I decided to make 11 (plus 8-10 fighters), and that's ~working. But to less to be realistic... A very rare case perhaps.

 

[kraut1]

What would be helpful would be a "Follow Unit" with the option to define the deviation / the distances of a squadron to the lead squadron of a group box formation.

Yestersay I found this by chance in War Thunder CDK Mission Builder:

The individual squadrons can be defined with only one plane object, a so called "armada"

with this you can define e.g. a whole squadron (but only on same altitute)

eg. B17 squadron 3 vics with each 3 B17 looks like this:

the 3 plane vic flights are the wing_formation and the arrangement of the vics is defined with the super_formation

If the bomber group shall e.g. consist of 3 squadrons the squadrons can be just copied.

And now the 2nd and the 3rd  squadron can be attached to the 1st lead squadron by using the trigger action unitMoveTo with the option "follow_target".

And the special feature of this option is, that you can define the relative position to the lead squadron ("follow_offset") in x/y/z direction.

This has to be done only on time at the mission. After that the 2nd/3rd squadron stay at the defined relative position.

This trigger action would be very helpful for IL2-GB too.

I use it for single player 1943/44 bomber intercept missions

 

 

 

Edited June 23, 2023 by kraut1

[Black_Hat]

Helpful is nicely said.

I would say its disappointing that its not availible.

 

Programming this formation algorythm like you mentioned or DCS does, is not a huge problem. Or just having a basic - Simple mechanics, which wouldnt be hard to programm, dont show up in the Editor.

If the Mission Editor would work/speak with any outside language , the "Follow Unit Command" would have been out years ago.

As example in a programming language, mechanically my example would already be a soloution out of many. Just not the best...

 

But a "Follow Unit Command" wouldnt be helpful, as thers a performance barrier at about 20 - 25 planes.. 

-Does anyone knowe why that is?

Edited June 23, 2023 by Back_Hat

[kraut1]

9 hours ago, Back_Hat said:

 

But a "Follow Unit Command" wouldnt be helpful, as thers a performance barrier at about 20 - 25 planes.. 

-Does anyone knowe why that is?

I suppose 1 reason for the limit is the big number of AI bomber gunners in such a formation, that are scanning the sky for targets.

On my old computer with VR I use only smaller formations up to 6 planes in IL2-GB.

For DCS is the performance not sufficient.

I can use currently only in War Thunder B17 / B24 bomber groups of realistic size.

But these single player missions have to be manually designed with CDK Mission Editor.

In IL2 1946 with the BAT mod and the il2dcg dynamic campaign generator the maximum squadron size was 4x4=16 planes and I had performance issues over populated big cities (Berlin) too. To have a "realistic" ratio bombers/interceptors I defined the interceptor and the escort flights very small with only 4 or 2 planes.

Edited June 23, 2023 by kraut1

[Black_Hat]

3 hours ago, kraut1 said:

I suppose 1 reason for the limit is the big number of AI bomber gunners in such a formation, that are scanning the sky for targets.

Dont think that plays a role. A gunner only activate when a enemy closes up to him. And thats regardless of performance...

 

Heres what i guess...

 

I guess that the very complex physics in the game(-flight behavior, -damage modell, -graphicall(-reflections)) of planes is responsible. In comparrission with WarThunder this process is also used by the AI in IL2!

The game basics/-idea are/is not designed/programmed for that scenario.

 

Placing a bomber takes even more performance than a fighter does. Espessialy when placed in formation the bomber should follow a simple (Master-Slave)algorythm. And not the full (self standing) programm as it does by now.  

 

Imagine you can take the B-17 of War thunder and with all its physic-programmed/ algorythm put it into IL2. That should make a bomber scenario possible.

 

Anything to add?

 

But I dont think thats gonna happen as the game goes in a whole other direction.... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 23, 2023 by Back_Hat

[AEthelraedUnraed]

On 6/23/2023 at 3:55 PM, Back_Hat said:

Dont think that plays a role. A gunner only activate when a enemy closes up to him. And thats regardless of performance...

 

Heres what i guess...

 

I guess that the very complex physics in the game(-flight behavior, -damage modell, -graphicall(-reflections)) of planes is responsible. In comparrission with WarThunder this process is also used by the AI in IL2!

The game basics/-idea are/is not designed/programmed for that scenario.

 

Placing a bomber takes even more performance than a fighter does. Espessialy when placed in formation the bomber should follow a simple (Master-Slave)algorythm. And not the full (self standing) programm as it does by now.  

 

Imagine you can take the B-17 of War thunder and with all its physic-programmed/ algorythm put it into IL2. That should make a bomber scenario possible.

 

Anything to add?

 

But I dont think thats gonna happen as the game goes in a whole other direction.... 

My 2 cents, note there's a big "AFAIK disclaimer" though.

 

Gunners are always active, although they *may* do more advanced calculations if there's a nearby enemy. Every gunner is independently active, so if a plane has 4 gunners, that's 4 AI in addition to the pilot.

 

Physics are always fully detailed for all aircraft, even if they're 100km away from the player and flying straight and level.

 

Likewise, AI is always active and fully detailed. 6 bombers in formation 100km from the player are just as bad as 6 individual bombers close by.

 

Graphics don't have a big influence on the gameplay as they run mostly (like 99%) on the GPU. If your computer cannot handle the graphics, you get stuttering rather than time dilation.

[IckyATLAS]

The recent tests I did on time dilation with 100+ bombers and on two different CPU's with the same GPU (4090) show that the CPU performance impacts time dilation very much.

As an example going from a 11900K to an 13900KS the time dilation effect was improved by 50%.

 

A mission that plays well on a "supercomputer" when played by someone that has an average machine may make a very big difference and seem sluggish. Time Dilation affects perceived plane motion speeds and thing like that. A fighter may become sluggish depending on the magnitude of Time Dilation. I mean for a sizable effect like over 2-3%. In the end it will depend for what audience you make your mission, you will have to tailor it accordingly. 

[Jaegermeister]

On 6/26/2023 at 12:38 PM, AEthelraedUnraed said:

My 2 cents, note there's a big "AFAIK disclaimer" though.

 

Gunners are always active, although they *may* do more advanced calculations if there's a nearby enemy. Every gunner is independently active, so if a plane has 4 gunners, that's 4 AI in addition to the pilot.

 

Physics are always fully detailed for all aircraft, even if they're 100km away from the player and flying straight and level.

 

Likewise, AI is always active and fully detailed. 6 bombers in formation 100km from the player are just as bad as 6 individual bombers close by.

 

Graphics don't have a big influence on the gameplay as they run mostly (like 99%) on the GPU. If your computer cannot handle the graphics, you get stuttering rather than time dilation.

 

 

That's all basically true. The best way to reduce time dilation is to have as few linked entities and graphics effects active as possible. Delete them when they are passed and reactivate a new one if you need it again. Do not hold them in a deactivated state or they will continue to accrue like an unpaid credit account.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

On 9/2/2023 at 3:25 AM, Jaegermeister said:

Delete them when they are passed and reactivate a new one if you need it again. Do not hold them in a deactivated state or they will continue to accrue like an unpaid credit account.

Did you confirm that by testing? I always thought there'd be little difference apart from maybe a little extra RAM usage.

[Jaegermeister]

2 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Did you confirm that by testing? I always thought there'd be little difference apart from maybe a little extra RAM usage.

 

I don't have any numerical data, but I have been able to tell the difference in some recent missions when I deleted various ground convoys after they were out of player range (activate @ 8,000 meters, deactivate @ 10,000 meters) range instead of deactivating them and letting them reactivate when the player was back in range. I would say somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 convoys with 8 or 10 vehicles, some of which were complex tanks which take up a fair amount of CPU usage. I was getting time distortion later in the mission with a reasonable number of active planes (12-18). I went in and changed the deactivation on the convoys to delete and the distortion went away. I have found the same issue with too many stationary complex tanks that are not following a road in convoy, but to a lesser degree.

 

You can make your own tests if you like, but that was enough to convince me.

 

I would say we have strayed a bit OT though, perhaps we should discuss elsewhere?

 

 

Edited September 4, 2023 by Jaegermeister

[Gambit21]

On 9/3/2023 at 6:52 PM, Jaegermeister said:

 

I don't have any numerical data, but I have been able to tell the difference in some recent missions when I deleted various ground convoys after they were out of player range (activate @ 8,000 meters, deactivate @ 10,000 meters) range instead of deactivating them and letting them reactivate when the player was back in range. I would say somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 convoys with 8 or 10 vehicles, some of which were complex tanks which take up a fair amount of CPU usage. I was getting time distortion later in the mission with a reasonable number of active planes (12-18). I went in and changed the deactivation on the convoys to delete and the distortion went away. I have found the same issue with too many stationary complex tanks that are not following a road in convoy, but to a lesser degree.

 

You can make your own tests if you like, but that was enough to convince me.

 

I would say we have strayed a bit OT though, perhaps we should discuss elsewhere?

 

 

Yeah complex tanks are ridiculously expensive. They should be cheaper than aircraft but quite the opposite and then some. There’s a huge inefficiency going on somewhere with regard to those guys.

[357th_KW]

Just to add a data point, I'm currently running 18 B-26's with 4-8 AI fighters active at any given time, and ran this with 40 players.  The tick rate never got above 12, and the game ran smoothly, even with me playing IL-2 on the same box.  This is with a water cooled i5 13600KF at 5.1 ghz.  The issue we ran into was that the game engine doesn't seem to be able to render all the aircraft in close proximity as you get above around 40, so while it's running smoothly, you aren't necessarily seeing all the planes around you.  As a result I cut the player limit back to 32.

 

In regards to the formation stuff, I'm using a much simpler version of what's above - 6 groups of 3, all at the same altitude - this is key, otherwise they all fly at slightly different speeds.  Using this method, there's minimal overhead and they handle gentle turns from waypoint to waypoint.

 

 

[STG77Jeeves]

Some interesting solutions here!  I have been working this problem for many weeks.  Very time consuming.  If I get my solution working, I'll share it.  Meanwhile . . .

 

Question for the group:  Are waypoint speed outputs inconsistent over multiple tests of the same set up? What I'm seeing is that a flight set up to fly to a waypoint at, for example, 350 KPH may fly at 350 KPH in one test, then fly 16 KPH slower or faster in the next test, with nothing changed in the mission editor.  Has anyone else seen this?  It's making me crazy but if that's normal, I'll spare my sanity and work with it.  Thanks!

[IckyATLAS]

On 9/29/2023 at 5:04 AM, StG77Jeeves said:

Some interesting solutions here!  I have been working this problem for many weeks.  Very time consuming.  If I get my solution working, I'll share it.  Meanwhile . . .

 

Question for the group:  Are waypoint speed outputs inconsistent over multiple tests of the same set up? What I'm seeing is that a flight set up to fly to a waypoint at, for example, 350 KPH may fly at 350 KPH in one test, then fly 16 KPH slower or faster in the next test, with nothing changed in the mission editor.  Has anyone else seen this?  It's making me crazy but if that's normal, I'll spare my sanity and work with it.  Thanks!

I have not done extensive tests but the speed given as target speed in waypoints are not strictly the effective ones. Do not forget that you have a given target speed but you also have an altitude one. The real final speed may vary according to how loaded a plane can be, mainly for bombers or if your fighter is carrying rockets, external bombs, etc. this may impact weight but also the drag. The plane has a certain power curve with altitude. The higher you go the less power you have and the less effective your propeller becomes due to the low air density. So, if you combine all this and I have no idea how this is modeled in the sim you clearly may have some important discrepancies in certain conditions. To make things clear your waypoint speed indication is just an indicative target that the plane may or not reach depending on its capabilities at that precise flight configuration and altitude.

Edited October 1, 2023 by IckyATLAS

[Black_Hat]

You mentioned important points, hers what I know;

 

If you use "Formation Command",

Note that for the group, retaining the Formation is more important, than the given "Way point"-Speed. That is why the results differentiate a lot!

 

If you use a single plane,

Here are good results, as Example,

On 5/9/2023 at 4:09 PM, Back_Hat said:

If placing this every 5000m and using B-26, these waypoints should have 3km/h difference. So everytime the wingman is too fast/slow relative to the leader, he will be slowed down for the next 5000m.

That works, on 5000m there is an accuracy of +-15m! (I used 305kmh ,with full Load as "Fine Speed"). My example is somewhere up.

Don't use the Max Speed, this would result in something like +0 and -more than 80m i think, strange programming here. 

"STG77Jeeves", did you use formation command? And why are you looking for a solution, I have a working one. look some posts up. Do you need something specific?

And can I get some feedback on my Solution?

On 5/16/2023 at 3:58 AM, Back_Hat said:

Testing.rar 122.41 kB · 5 downloads

 

Edited October 1, 2023 by Back_Hat

[STG77Jeeves]

I was able to create a set up for four AI flights plus the player to taxi, take off, rendezvous, and head out in a decent formation.  I failed to build it in a way that is easily explained by sharing a picture from the mission editor, so I've put the file here:

 

https://1drv.ms/f/s!AlNZTUsM30nai786FlVhvuW1m7wrmQ?e=5hgho9

 

The heart of it is a series of proximity triggers that force the trailing flights to close up on the leader.  The key is to make sure the leader is always moving slightly faster than the rest (if anyone overshoots the lead flight, it all goes to hell).  I used this for a Channel transit.  It's not meant for combat:

 

 

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by StG77Jeeves

[STG77Jeeves]

Hi @Black_Hat:

 

I finally got a chance to run some tests on your bomber formation set up.  First, I can see you must have put a lot of time into this.  Good on you!  And the logic seems sound.  However, I am not able to get it to run consistently.  I have run it 4 or 5 times on a coop server.  I have some notes that will hopefully assist you to run down the issues.

 

I've attached a graphic labeling the waypoint/checkzone groups from the start to the first turn as 1 through 4.

 

All 11 bombers go to point 1.

At point 1,  anywhere from 1 to 10 of the bombers seem to not get a waypoint command and start circling.  At least one bomber always continues on and I am fairly certain that is the leader.

Similar at point 2.  Some bombers get the command to continue to point 3, some do not.

At point 3, ALL bombers get the command to go to point 4.  Bombers at point 3 go to point 4, and any bombers left at points 1 or 2 continue to point 4.

No bombers ever get beyond point 4.  They just circle point 4 and then I shoot them down for fun (not very sporting, I know).

 

Looking in the editor, all waypoints seem to have a triggering event and a link to a bomber. 

 

Hope this helps. I was really looking forward to saving myself some time by using it!

Edited December 10, 2023 by STG77Jeeves

[Black_Hat]

Okay, I've solved one mistake(Aft-Zone at WP1 not connected). There where no problemes, back when I've tested this mission. Maybe some little aviation/physic updates, which now make some mistakes visible.

The next mistake the formation does, is they get lost at WP4(curve-speed). 

 

I'll have a look at it!

But at the time I'm not spending much time into IL2. So I will probably need some time...

When you want to try it by yourself, youre free to ask questions!