Tanker Doctrine conflicts

[1nutworld]

Hey everyone,

So I've created a scenario for my own amusement, where I have a group of 6 KC-135 tankers set to launch on a support mission with a defined repeatable loop.

The mission status is active yet the tankers are sitting on the runway assigned to a mission that is active but the A/C in question have been on status "preparing to launch" for 15 minutes or longer.

How come they won't launch when directed, and what is the doctrine conflict error message that I am getting?

Tankers are allowed to unrep.

Tankers are NOT allowed to refuel other tankers

Tankers are allowed to refuel other allied units

[michaelm75au]

Normal reason for this would be it can't move to the runway. Is the runway length big enough?

[michaelm75au]

Checking the DB viewer. The KC-135e seems to want +2601m for TOD

[1nutworld]

ORIGINAL: michaelm75au

Checking the DB viewer. The KC-135e seems to want +2601m for TOD

That pesky meter at the end of the takeoff distance, bit me! [&o]

[1nutworld]

ORIGINAL: michaelm75au

Checking the DB viewer. The KC-135e seems to want +2601m for TOD

Thanks for spotting that, I just made the assumption that that runway at Sigonella was plenty long enough, given that it previously had hosted C-130, C-17, C-5 and KC-10 Tankers, as well as other KC-135's, I didn't pay attention to the TOD of the 135E

[cmanouser1]

This situation probably deserves another message in the status window clearly indicating the runway problem.

[Gunner98]

Another common fault is the Runway Access point. Some of the Pre-fabricated airbases in the import/export folder may only have access points for Large AC and you need them for Very Large. Easy to work around in the editor, just add what you need and group them and it will work.

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: cmanouser1

This situation probably deserves another message in the status window clearly indicating the runway problem.

I was thinking the same thing[:D] but it is not as simple as that.

[1nutworld]

ORIGINAL: michaelm75au

ORIGINAL: cmanouser1

This situation probably deserves another message in the status window clearly indicating the runway problem.

I was thinking the same thing[:D] but it is not as simple as that.

SOME sort of message noting the a/c take off distance vs runway length would obviously have been very helpful and a seemingly easy fix, but I think we would all be surprised at the effort it would take to create such a message. Says the guy that has no coding skills what-so-ever. Maybe it would be easier than presumed, likely we will never know. I suspect the Devs have bigger fish to catch and fry up in the pan, before moving on to this adventure.

[thewood1]

If the logic a player had to go through to diagnose the issue was torturous, I think the devs might prioritize it. But there are usually only two reasons for the issue, runway length and lack of access points. Both of which can be figured out with available resources. Runway length being the easier of the two. Access points are usually the first thing I look at if its a base and scenario I'm not familiar with. But you have to have a little experience with the game to deduce that.

[LORDPrometheus]

I think a simple warning in the message log that says something like "flight X on mission X unable to take off no runway"

[schweggy]

If you are populating an airbase and you try to stuff a "very large aircraft" into a hanger suitable for "2 medium aircraft" you can't. The sim doesn't give an error, it just won't put the plane in the hanger. However, if you have the entire airbase selected with hangers of all sizes and there's room in one of them, you can add the aircraft. The sim assigns a place. You can do this manually for non-single unit airbases. So, as someone else who knows very little about coding this sort of implies that there is some kind of logic check that goes on as far as aircraft size vs. aircraft parking is concerned. I would think it can be extended to access points and runways for non-single unit airbases. An error indicating the issue could likely be generated. Level of effort is another issue.

[michaelm75au]

As this should not happen to a player, it is a designer issue.
So I have made an update to 'Edit hosted a/c' to alert the designer that the aircraft being added can't be launched. The warning message lets them cancel the operation or force it thru (in case they are going to change the runway later).
In addition, if the a/c can't launch, a message will be added to the log and it will go into 'waiting for runway' status. At this point, the a/c is really unusable if it gets there. Thus again why the emphasis is on the initial adding to the a/c to the airfield.

[1nutworld]

ORIGINAL: michaelm75au

As this should not happen to a player, it is a designer issue.
So I have made an update to 'Edit hosted a/c' to alert the designer that the aircraft being added can't be launched. The warning message lets them cancel the operation or force it thru (in case they are going to change the runway later).
In addition, if the a/c can't launch, a message will be added to the log and it will go into 'waiting for runway' status. At this point, the a/c is really unusable if it gets there. Thus again why the emphasis is on the initial adding to the a/c to the airfield.

Is this an edit for CMO in general, to be included in the next update that is released?

[michaelm75au]

yes

[KnightHawk75]

ORIGINAL: michaelm75au

As this should not happen to a player, it is a designer issue.
So I have made an update to 'Edit hosted a/c' to alert the designer that the aircraft being added can't be launched. The warning message lets them cancel the operation or force it thru (in case they are going to change the runway later).
In addition, if the a/c can't launch, a message will be added to the log and it will go into 'waiting for runway' status. At this point, the a/c is really unusable if it gets there. Thus again why the emphasis is on the initial adding to the a/c to the airfield.

Smart.
Thanks for this addition, appreciate allowing option it force it through as I can think of cases where it might be desired to have it stranded initially, actually I can think of a couple.

[Gunner98]

Downstream effect is this will be tangible indicator to the player how bad a base has been damaged as well,

B

[1nutworld]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

Downstream effect is this will be tangible indicator to the player how bad a base has been damaged as well,

B

that will be something to look forward to!