RTB Exhaustion improvement suggestion

[bsq]

The idiot poster aside. I think you are going to need several things to make this work.

The consumables will give you an absolute limit on how long an aircraft can fly.

The 'rules' will give you a flex within the absolute to determine the actual hours flown by any given crew on a single sortie.

For bigger platforms it is force dependent
Some have rules that state an 18 hour duty day, out to 24 if authorised.
Others state duty day is 16 hours with extensions allowed if authorised in increments depending on the rank of the officer increasing the duty period. Some apply difference based on the time of day you show up to fly.
Smaller platforms have shorter duty days.

[Gizzmoe]

Ok, well, if you look at the schedule for SFO there are only 100 flights scheduled the entire day.

Ummm, no, there are better and easier ways to figure this out than googling it. Flightaware shows the airport data for SFO shows they're currently averaging 1000 departures and arrivals daily. That's still down from pre-pandemic volumes but it is climbing.

https://flightaware.com/live/airport/KS ... -container

That proves my math. You proved aircraft have a 100 hour life and didn't read your own source which proved my math.

In order to reply you have to do math which you obviously can't.

You are either one of the most deliberate trolls I've every met in my 30+ years of online experience, in which case you are to blame 100% for your trolling, or you have (that's not mutually exclusive), like I said before, a mental condition, which would be nothing to be ashamed of, I had my share of mental issues in my 50+ years. But please try to keep that out of this forum as much as possible, it makes you look very ridiculous.

[alphali]

You are either one of the most deliberate trolls I've every met in my 30+ years of online experience, in which case you are to blame 100% for your trolling, or you have (that's not mutually exclusive), like I said before, a mental condition, which would be nothing to be ashamed of, I had my share of mental issues in my 50+ years. But please try to keep that out of this forum as much as possible, it makes you look very ridiculous.

The fact that he is changing accounts tells me it's most likely the first one.

[Gizzmoe]

The fact that he is changing accounts tells me it's most likely the first one.

I hope so, for him. If he truly believes many of the things he writes, then........

[thewood1]

Yeah, but its actually a combination of both. Smart trolls can easily pass themselves off as normal for a while. This is not an example of that.

[Gizzmoe]

Yeah, but its actually a combination of both. Smart trolls can easily pass themselves off as normal for a while. This is not an example of that.

No, totally not.

[Zanthra]

What about a simple RTB - Exhaution Doctrine, which similar to Bingo or Winchester, will order a normal RTB when the aircraft reaches 50 to 90 percent of it's fatigue (user selectable in Doctrine). This way the Miucromanagement is eliminated while still maintaining controllability of the aircraft on the way back to base. If the aircraft does reach it's fatigue limit, it turns into a forced RTB as it is now.

The doctrine limit is the "rule" so to speak, and aircraft will automatically follow that. You can break that rule within limits, but reduces your safety margins before the aircraft is forced to RTB.

[thewood1]

What about a simple RTB - Exhaution Doctrine, which similar to Bingo or Winchester, will order a normal RTB when the aircraft reaches 50 to 90 percent of it's fatigue (user selectable in Doctrine). This way the Miucromanagement is eliminated while still maintaining controllability of the aircraft on the way back to base. If the aircraft does reach it's fatigue limit, it turns into a forced RTB as it is now.

The doctrine limit is the "rule" so to speak, and aircraft will automatically follow that. You can break that rule within limits, but reduces your safety margins before the aircraft is forced to RTB.

Thats probably the simplest and most workable solution. While I don't believe in too many settings, when I do, I like them in the doctrine so its easier to use for the AI.

[UncertainlyCertain]

What about a simple RTB - Exhaution Doctrine, which similar to Bingo or Winchester, will order a normal RTB when the aircraft reaches 50 to 90 percent of it's fatigue (user selectable in Doctrine). This way the Miucromanagement is eliminated while still maintaining controllability of the aircraft on the way back to base. If the aircraft does reach it's fatigue limit, it turns into a forced RTB as it is now.

The doctrine limit is the "rule" so to speak, and aircraft will automatically follow that. You can break that rule within limits, but reduces your safety margins before the aircraft is forced to RTB.

If I understand correctly, you propose a system in which the player is first issued a warning (akin to a JOKER fuel state) and the unit sets course back to base, then, once the limit is reached, the same RTB Exhaustion logic as is now kicks in and forcibly sends the unit back.
This somewhat goes around the problem yet doesn't really solve it : I still have no control over a "hard locked" RTB order.

The main problem with a forced RTB is that it can lead to a frustrating moment when I need a unit, I have said unit close but suddenly it simply turns around and flies back.
Some may say that this is a planning problem, one should always plan ahead so as to avoid such situations. But as practice, both IRL and in game, has shown even a well thought plan is not fool-proof and the occurrence of such situations may not be entirely avoided but rather just significantly reduced.

Hence the need for tactical flexibility: I thought I could do it but suddenly X happened (and left me dumbfounded) and I need resources/strategies to counter it. But if I'm precluded from using certain resources/strategies (e.g. "hard locked" plane just flies away) I have less possibilities to recover.

[Blast33]

Not often that I agree on you thewood1 but now I do

[thewood1]

What about a simple RTB - Exhaution Doctrine, which similar to Bingo or Winchester, will order a normal RTB when the aircraft reaches 50 to 90 percent of it's fatigue (user selectable in Doctrine). This way the Miucromanagement is eliminated while still maintaining controllability of the aircraft on the way back to base. If the aircraft does reach it's fatigue limit, it turns into a forced RTB as it is now.

The doctrine limit is the "rule" so to speak, and aircraft will automatically follow that. You can break that rule within limits, but reduces your safety margins before the aircraft is forced to RTB.

If I understand correctly, you propose a system in which the player is first issued a warning (akin to a JOKER fuel state) and the unit sets course back to base, then, once the limit is reached, the same RTB Exhaustion logic as is now kicks in and forcibly sends the unit back.
This somewhat goes around the problem yet doesn't really solve it : I still have no control over a "hard locked" RTB order.

The main problem with a forced RTB is that it can lead to a frustrating moment when I need a unit, I have said unit close but suddenly it simply turns around and flies back.
Some may say that this is a planning problem, one should always plan ahead so as to avoid such situations. But as practice, both IRL and in game, has shown even a well thought plan is not fool-proof and the occurrence of such situations may not be entirely avoided but rather just significantly reduced.

Hence the need for tactical flexibility: I thought I could do it but suddenly X happened (and left me dumbfounded) and I need resources/strategies to counter it. But if I'm precluded from using certain resources/strategies (e.g. "hard locked" plane just flies away) I have less possibilities to recover.

And thats why putting it on doctrine is good solution. If you don't want it, set the doctrine. Nothing in ROE/doctrine is set in stone. It can be changed any time by the player, an event, or lua.

[tylerblakebrandon]

Don't feed the trolls. Just ignore them.

[Zanthra]

What about a simple RTB - Exhaution Doctrine, which similar to Bingo or Winchester, will order a normal RTB when the aircraft reaches 50 to 90 percent of it's fatigue (user selectable in Doctrine). This way the Miucromanagement is eliminated while still maintaining controllability of the aircraft on the way back to base. If the aircraft does reach it's fatigue limit, it turns into a forced RTB as it is now.

The doctrine limit is the "rule" so to speak, and aircraft will automatically follow that. You can break that rule within limits, but reduces your safety margins before the aircraft is forced to RTB.

If I understand correctly, you propose a system in which the player is first issued a warning (akin to a JOKER fuel state) and the unit sets course back to base, then, once the limit is reached, the same RTB Exhaustion logic as is now kicks in and forcibly sends the unit back.
This somewhat goes around the problem yet doesn't really solve it : I still have no control over a "hard locked" RTB order.

The main problem with a forced RTB is that it can lead to a frustrating moment when I need a unit, I have said unit close but suddenly it simply turns around and flies back.
Some may say that this is a planning problem, one should always plan ahead so as to avoid such situations. But as practice, both IRL and in game, has shown even a well thought plan is not fool-proof and the occurrence of such situations may not be entirely avoided but rather just significantly reduced.

Hence the need for tactical flexibility: I thought I could do it but suddenly X happened (and left me dumbfounded) and I need resources/strategies to counter it. But if I'm precluded from using certain resources/strategies (e.g. "hard locked" plane just flies away) I have less possibilities to recover.

Sure, but at the same time, like a Joker fuel state (or Bingo fuel state), if you override that you have to consider whether you might be "hard locked" into the plane crashing and being destroyed too when it runs out of fuel before it can make it to a tanker or base. You might need that unit, and that unit may be close, but has no fuel and crashes. If you choose to override the initial RTB, you are using the reserve that the doctrine is there to provide. If you run out of the reserve, you lose the utility of the aircraft. Unlike with fuel though, the plane may still make it back to base to fly again.

[Gizzmoe]

Hence the need for tactical flexibility: I thought I could do it but suddenly X happened (and left me dumbfounded) and I need resources/strategies to counter it. But if I'm precluded from using certain resources/strategies (e.g. "hard locked" plane just flies away) I have less possibilities to recover.

And thats why putting it on doctrine is good solution. If you don't want it, set the doctrine.

+1

Now the question is, should there be any penalties if we decide to switch off Exhaustion RTB?

[Airborne Rifles]

What about a setting in the "Ready/Arm" tab of the "Aircraft" dialogue similar to the Enable Quick Turnaround option?

This might look like a tick box that allows the player waive the RTB Exhaustion mechanic for an aircraft for certain loadouts, with the cost being a significantly longer recovery time when the aircraft does RTB. Just like Quick Turnaround, this option would only be available for certain loadouts. This would allow extended range missions like EDC, while also still implementing the exhaustion mechanic, which I think is a really good addition to the sim.

[thewood1]

In doctrine, its easier to use as a template and move it in and out.

[KnightHawk75]

+1 Doctrine setting for this would be welcome.

Thats probably the simplest and most workable solution. While I don't believe in too many settings, when I do, I like them in the doctrine so its easier to use for the AI.

Agreed, and then some. Doctrine that can be turned on/off/etc in this case is much better then having to a reoccurring scan for units or a unit that needs to be overridden via unit wrapper method of adjustment that I think exists for this atm, vs touched once with a doctrine assignment - not to mention doctrine exposes the option to more players\authors.

In doctrine, its easier to use as a template and move it in and out.

Also agree.

Now the question is, should there be any penalties if we decide to switch off Exhaustion RTB?

I don't think it needs hard-coded penalty, I'm thinking you basically saying use realism model in this regard, don't use realism model in this regard.
Now an author could always script detection of a situation and consequences if they wanted even with it disabled (as the inuse presumabily is still counted and accessible at unitwrapper level), or for that matter lockout a player playing in normal mode, or IKE setups from selecting\changing it, which is another plus for doctrine setting.

-2cents

[Gizzmoe]

Now the question is, should there be any penalties if we decide to switch off Exhaustion RTB?

I don't think it needs hard-coded penalty, I'm thinking you basically saying use realism model in this regard, don't use realism model in this regard.

I also think that it doesn't need hard-coded penalties. What was the second part you wrote about, I don't get what you are trying to say

[KnightHawk75]

Now the question is, should there be any penalties if we decide to switch off Exhaustion RTB?

I don't think it needs hard-coded penalty, I'm thinking you basically saying use realism model in this regard, don't use realism model in this regard.

I also think that it doesn't need hard-coded penalties. What was the second part you wrote about, I don't get what you are trying to say

It has to do with scripting a solution to override things, IF there was not a doctrine setting for it.
Such as once every 5m check airtime via unitwrapper field, vs exhaustion cap (presumably also available somewhere), if close to exhaustion time reset via lua airtime on the unit to 0 to keep the exhaustion system from kicking in. Rinse and repeat for everything you wanted excepted. With a doctrine setting, one wouldn't need to do that, nor keep checking.

The later part is saying if there was a doctrine it also allows an author to selectively enforce the exhaustion system or not for their scene or selective sides\units\etc with-in the scene, since most doctrine settings can be toggled by an author to not allow user to change them in non-editor-mode play. Hope the clears it up more.

[Gizzmoe]

Such as once every 5m check airtime via unitwrapper field, vs exhaustion cap (presumably also available somewhere), if close to exhaustion time reset via lua airtime on the unit to 0 to keep the exhaustion system from kicking in.

I'm no lua guy, it's good to know that there is solution for that, I didn't know lua can change Airtime. I assume a script to keep Airtime at 0 for everyone would be pretty trivial to make for someone who knows how to do it