[ANSWERED] Area validation for support missions

[jmax]

I'm setting up shipping lanes using support missions and scripting to create and assign random units, but I'm getting a lot of error messages about invalid areas. AFAIK this shouldn't be a problem for support missions as opposed to patrols—is there any way to disable these notifications?

[DWReese]

I don't know your level of experience with CMANO, so this might not be applicable to you.

In answer to your question....I don't know how to disable that, but your problem might be coming from another area. If you already know this, then just disregard it.

If you set up an area using Reference Points, the program is very sensitive to the order that they are selected. For example, you could create a rectangle using Reference Points 1, 2, 3, and 4. If, however, when you select (activate) those points for use to establish an area, and you don't put them in the proper order (like 1, then 2, then 3, then 4), you can end up with an invalid area. If you select 1, then 3, then 4, and then 2, then you will likely get two triangles instead of the expected rectangle that you wanted. Additionally, sometimes if some area overlaps with another, then you can have a conflict, and the program doesn't know exactly what you want to do.

What I am trying to say is, it's likely that the program is doing what it is designed to do, but YOU are inadvertently doing something to invalidate it. Don't feel bad, I do it all of the time. I am forever arranging something, usually with Lua, and I have substituted a period instead of a comma, and it won't work. I spend hours overlooking what I have done wrong. In the end, of course, it was something that I did. It wasn't the program's fault.

Again, if you already know this, and this isn't your issue, then simply disregard this message. I am only trying to help. But, I know of no way to disable the notifications.

Doug

[jmax]

Hi Doug, thanks for the reply even if it isn't applicable to my situation! The reference points in question are for long support tracks, so they act more as waypoints and not patrol areas. It's not a big deal if they can't be disabled (and I suspect there's no easy way to do so), it's just a minor annoyance getting a ton of popups at scenario start.

[serjames]

Hi, it can be a pain, but you simply need to re-order your waypoints so the "Shape" or Polygon that they create is whole with no crossing points. It can cause errors if you don't as the AI will not be able to properly navigate etc... hence all your errors. Just makesure all your shapes are created with each point following the last and not with random points added or then moved to cross each other. Hope it helps

[Rory Noonan]

Hey jmax can you upload a save file showing this? Could be a simple fix, could be a bug. Best way for us to help is with a save file.

[jmax]

ORIGINAL: apache85
Hey jmax can you upload a save file showing this? Could be a simple fix, could be a bug. Best way for us to help is with a save file.

Sure thing. Load up the Civilian side and you'll see what I mean by "long support tracks" and why I can't just rearrange the reference points to avoid this.

[mikmykWS]

I think I ran into this once and just fixed it.

[jmax]

ORIGINAL: mikmykWS
I think I ran into this once and just fixed it.

Not sure if you mean you created an invalid area once and simply fixed it, or if area validation for support missions is not WAD and you fixed that just now?

[michaelm75au]

I believe that the 'validation' check is assuming that RPs are enclosing an area, rather than a string of RPs (as in a support mission)

[ComDev]

The support mission ref points make up an area (polygon) that the game uses to evaluate 'on station'. The game 'buffers out' the area by 10nm, and if the unit is within it switches to station throttle etc.

As such, the area must be 'valid', as the warning says.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: jmax

ORIGINAL: mikmykWS
I think I ran into this once and just fixed it.

Not sure if you mean you created an invalid area once and simply fixed it, or if area validation for support missions is not WAD and you fixed that just now?

I fixed it in the editor. You need to make sure the paths didn't cross.

To model traffic, I generally use Lua to spawn the ships in out of the theater and attach them to a support mission with sequential reference points that don't cross. I then use Lua to delete the merchants once they enter a port. Seems to work well for what I'm trying to do and may help you as well.

Mike

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: emsoy

The support mission ref points make up an area (polygon) that the game uses to evaluate 'on station'. The game 'buffers out' the area by 10nm, and if the unit is within it switches to station throttle etc.

As such, the area must be 'valid', as the warning says.

Makes sense for patrol missions and all the issues that cropped up because of that. it has saved you a ton of support tickets due to to x shaped patrol zones as well! Could you case it so that support missions aren't evaluated? Does the reason they should be outweigh the issues reported?

Mike

[ComDev]

Support missions behave the same way when it comes to on-station behaviour, sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

Units on support missions also use the polygon to evaluate 'on station' or 'in pattern' or whatever to set speeds, altitude, sensors, etc. Its the most reliable way to do it atm.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Support missions behave the same way when it comes to on-station behaviour, sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

Units on support missions also use the polygon to evaluate 'on station' or 'in pattern' or whatever to set speeds, altitude, sensors, etc. Its the most reliable way to do it atm.

Ok thanks Rag.

Mike

[jmax]

ORIGINAL: mikmykWS
To model traffic, I generally use Lua to spawn the ships in out of the theater and attach them to a support mission with sequential reference points that don't cross. I then use Lua to delete the merchants once they enter a port. Seems to work well for what I'm trying to do and may help you as well.

Yep, that's what I'm doing here as well, but it's hard not to cross the streams on the return trip when they go all the way from e.g. Singapore to Yokohama. I suppose I could add a final junk reference point just to validate the track since the merchants are deleted or reassigned once they reach the endpoints anyway.