Different refuel settings - and I missing something?
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
- Chad Harrison
- Posts: 1384
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 9:07 pm
- Location: Boise, ID - USA
RE: Different refuel settings - and I missing something?
Nevermind [:D]
- jhdeerslayer
- Posts: 1224
- Joined: Sat May 25, 2002 3:24 pm
- Location: Michigan
RE: Different refuel settings - and I missing something?
ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison
Nevermind [:D]
Did you ever send in Saves to Dan or did you figure something out?
RE: Different refuel settings - and I missing something?
Found a burp, and it's being fixed as we speak.
RE: Different refuel settings - and I missing something?
There are two issues here.
First, the decision to have MANUAL refueling be fully refuel was by design. The thought was that a player that ordered refueling wanted to fill'er up. Refuel options were only for automatic refueling, over which the player used to have no control other than Do Not Refuel. After some discussion, this has been changed (for next Patch). Manual refueling will obey the TF refuel option - the player is responsible for setting it correctly.
Second, there was an issue in the minimal/tactical refuel calculations. Long story short, the calculations were done at TF level using TF endurance and TF endurance required. A refuel factor was generated and applied to refueling for all ships in the TF. Neat and simple, and did not work. The TF endurance already reflected the lowest endurance ship in the TF so every ship ended up getting refueled based on a factor generated from the lowest endurance ship. And, since the lowest endurance ship's endurance was frequently levels of magnitude below average TF endurance, refueling factors approached (or reached) 100% refueling. Calculations have been reworked to be ship-by-ship instead of TF endurance based.
- jhdeerslayer
- Posts: 1224
- Joined: Sat May 25, 2002 3:24 pm
- Location: Michigan
RE: Different refuel settings - and I missing something?
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
There are two issues here.
First, the decision to have MANUAL refueling be fully refuel was by design. The thought was that a player that ordered refueling wanted to fill'er up. Refuel options were only for automatic refueling, over which the player used to have no control other than Do Not Refuel. After some discussion, this has been changed (for next Patch). Manual refueling will obey the TF refuel option - the player is responsible for setting it correctly.
Second, there was an issue in the minimal/tactical refuel calculations. Long story short, the calculations were done at TF level using TF endurance and TF endurance required. A refuel factor was generated and applied to refueling for all ships in the TF. Neat and simple, and did not work. The TF endurance already reflected the lowest endurance ship in the TF so every ship ended up getting refueled based on a factor generated from the lowest endurance ship. And, since the lowest endurance ship's endurance was frequently levels of magnitude below average TF endurance, refueling factors approached (or reached) 100% refueling. Calculations have been reworked to be ship-by-ship instead of TF endurance based.
Glad to hear I hadn't lost my mind! Thanks guys. xoxoxoxo
- Rob Brennan UK
- Posts: 3685
- Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 8:36 pm
- Location: London UK
RE: Different refuel settings - and I missing something?
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
There are two issues here.
First, the decision to have MANUAL refueling be fully refuel was by design. The thought was that a player that ordered refueling wanted to fill'er up. Refuel options were only for automatic refueling, over which the player used to have no control other than Do Not Refuel. After some discussion, this has been changed (for next Patch). Manual refueling will obey the TF refuel option - the player is responsible for setting it correctly.
Second, there was an issue in the minimal/tactical refuel calculations. Long story short, the calculations were done at TF level using TF endurance and TF endurance required. A refuel factor was generated and applied to refueling for all ships in the TF. Neat and simple, and did not work. The TF endurance already reflected the lowest endurance ship in the TF so every ship ended up getting refueled based on a factor generated from the lowest endurance ship. And, since the lowest endurance ship's endurance was frequently levels of magnitude below average TF endurance, refueling factors approached (or reached) 100% refueling. Calculations have been reworked to be ship-by-ship instead of TF endurance based.
WOW [&o][&o], you guys are fantastic !
sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit 
RE: Different refuel settings - and I missing something?
That's my thoughts as well.ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK
WOW, you guys are fantastic !
Extremely impressed with how quickly these issues are fixed after being mentioned by the playerbase.
"In times of war, the Devil makes more room in Hell"
-
Buck Beach
- Posts: 1974
- Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Upland,CA,USA
RE: Different refuel settings - and I missing something?
ORIGINAL: Deerslayer
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
There are two issues here.
First, the decision to have MANUAL refueling be fully refuel was by design. The thought was that a player that ordered refueling wanted to fill'er up. Refuel options were only for automatic refueling, over which the player used to have no control other than Do Not Refuel. After some discussion, this has been changed (for next Patch). Manual refueling will obey the TF refuel option - the player is responsible for setting it correctly.
Second, there was an issue in the minimal/tactical refuel calculations. Long story short, the calculations were done at TF level using TF endurance and TF endurance required. A refuel factor was generated and applied to refueling for all ships in the TF. Neat and simple, and did not work. The TF endurance already reflected the lowest endurance ship in the TF so every ship ended up getting refueled based on a factor generated from the lowest endurance ship. And, since the lowest endurance ship's endurance was frequently levels of magnitude below average TF endurance, refueling factors approached (or reached) 100% refueling. Calculations have been reworked to be ship-by-ship instead of TF endurance based.
Glad to hear I hadn't lost my mind! Thanks guys. xoxoxoxo
Tell me you didn't send hugs and kisses to the Dev-Team!![X(] Any more of that stuff and you risk subjecting Michigan to the stigma we have out here in California.[:D][:D]
- jhdeerslayer
- Posts: 1224
- Joined: Sat May 25, 2002 3:24 pm
- Location: Michigan
RE: Different refuel settings - and I missing something?
ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
ORIGINAL: Deerslayer
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
There are two issues here.
First, the decision to have MANUAL refueling be fully refuel was by design. The thought was that a player that ordered refueling wanted to fill'er up. Refuel options were only for automatic refueling, over which the player used to have no control other than Do Not Refuel. After some discussion, this has been changed (for next Patch). Manual refueling will obey the TF refuel option - the player is responsible for setting it correctly.
Second, there was an issue in the minimal/tactical refuel calculations. Long story short, the calculations were done at TF level using TF endurance and TF endurance required. A refuel factor was generated and applied to refueling for all ships in the TF. Neat and simple, and did not work. The TF endurance already reflected the lowest endurance ship in the TF so every ship ended up getting refueled based on a factor generated from the lowest endurance ship. And, since the lowest endurance ship's endurance was frequently levels of magnitude below average TF endurance, refueling factors approached (or reached) 100% refueling. Calculations have been reworked to be ship-by-ship instead of TF endurance based.
Glad to hear I hadn't lost my mind! Thanks guys. xoxoxoxo
Tell me you didn't send hugs and kisses to the Dev-Team!![X(] Any more of that stuff and you risk subjecting Michigan to the stigma we have out here in California.[:D][:D]
[;)]
- Chad Harrison
- Posts: 1384
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 9:07 pm
- Location: Boise, ID - USA
RE: Different refuel settings - and I missing something?
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
There are two issues here.
First, the decision to have MANUAL refueling be fully refuel was by design. The thought was that a player that ordered refueling wanted to fill'er up. Refuel options were only for automatic refueling, over which the player used to have no control other than Do Not Refuel. After some discussion, this has been changed (for next Patch). Manual refueling will obey the TF refuel option - the player is responsible for setting it correctly.
Second, there was an issue in the minimal/tactical refuel calculations. Long story short, the calculations were done at TF level using TF endurance and TF endurance required. A refuel factor was generated and applied to refueling for all ships in the TF. Neat and simple, and did not work. The TF endurance already reflected the lowest endurance ship in the TF so every ship ended up getting refueled based on a factor generated from the lowest endurance ship. And, since the lowest endurance ship's endurance was frequently levels of magnitude below average TF endurance, refueling factors approached (or reached) 100% refueling. Calculations have been reworked to be ship-by-ship instead of TF endurance based.
Don and John
Thanks for looking into it. Sorry you two keep getting stuck with the issues and obscoure questions that I dig up. Thank you for adding the ability to control it manually. That will help greatly for the traditional LA to Sydney trip so your not having to micromanage that.
As always, great work! Thanks for the great service as always!
Chad
RE: Different refuel settings - and I missing something?
Don,
I think the implementation y'all are using to fix this is absolutely the correct choice.
More importantly, thanks for the excellent work. This kind of responsiveness to issues puts other developers to shame. [&o]
I think the implementation y'all are using to fix this is absolutely the correct choice.
More importantly, thanks for the excellent work. This kind of responsiveness to issues puts other developers to shame. [&o]







