Matrix Games Forums

117.>Sonobuoy endurance display error

Sonobuoy endurance display only shows "0 Fuel" and "00:00:00" under unit display.

This is probably a misunderstanding of what Sonobuoy fuel is meant to represent. Firstly, the sonobuoy weapon type has no engine assigned and therefore logic dictates, that there's nothing for the database to provide the GE with so it might calculate the the expenditure of the weapon's fuel load.

The value assigned should represent the lifetime of the buoy, and I've personally tried out a series of "sonobuoy" propulsion systems during testing here and it's not possible to have the display function as a "countdown" clock for sonobuoy death. The default display should be as Herman has shown in his screen shot and the best method for DB editors concerned with this should be the inclusion of text info in the name database field.

Most Editors would probably only have a few classes of sonobuoy lifetime so a simple system could be developed or the minis rules consulted. There's a level of lack of explanation here but I tend to take the attitude when something's added of jumping into the DB and trying out some numbers. I admit to not sharing a lot of what I find, then again there's a level of self interest if you've sunk in the hours. I did discuss this with Russell and I'm fairly sure I've covered everything.

Cheers

Darren

This is not just a cosmetic issue. The sonobuoys work according to the battery endurance either assigned or from the default values. The appearance of the 0:00:00 Endurance in the display is just a bit mis-leading. It can be useful if it actually showed the remaining operational life of a particular buoy as this lets the player know which ones might need replacement as they near expiration.

While it is true that buoys have no assigned propulsion unit, the fact that they can use the battery values to determine endurance is important. Simply noting the full endurance of the buoy in the text field is helpful, but does not solve this particular problem. If a player lays a field of buoys and wants to replace them in a timely manner so that there are no gaps, he needs to see the timer ticking down on the buoys. Simply knowing that the buoy has #hrs of endurance when initially deployed is insufficient.

Since there's nothing to burn the fuel those numbers simply won't work, Russell would have to add new code to "make it happen". I know how you love new things and the problems they cause so why not meet halfway?

When I'm home in a couple of hours I'll post the minis Buoy times and a Picture of coverage without helos slipping behind. Sometimes it's just not the game it's what you're interpreting or asking it to do that runs counter to the coding. All games have limitations, and often you simply need to look a little deeper.

Anyway Herman you'll never agree with any explanation I give, kinda getting pointless trying to educate people to how it works now isn't it?

Darren - Who throws his hands in the air, I'll stop there before I say anything I'll be proud of [8D]

ORIGINAL: Bucks

Since there's nothing to burn the fuel those numbers simply won't work, Russell would have to add new code to "make it happen". I know how you love new things and the problems they cause so why not meet halfway?

When I'm home in a couple of hours I'll post the minis Buoy times and a Picture of coverage without helos slipping behind. Sometimes it's just not the game it's what you're interpreting or asking it to do that runs counter to the coding. All games have limitations, and often you simply need to look a little deeper.

Anyway Herman you'll never agree with any explanation I give, kinda getting pointless trying to educate people to how it works now isn't it?

Darren - Who throws his hands in the air, I'll stop there before I say anything I'll be proud of [8D]

Is it even possible for someone to have an opinion different from yours? Your idea won't fly and I've already pointed out some reasons for it. Instead of sticking to the technical discussion, you try to blame it on anyone and everyone else.

Drop this attitude, already.

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

Is it even possible for someone to have an opinion different from yours? Your idea won't fly and I've already pointed out some reasons for it. Instead of sticking to the technical discussion, you try to blame it on anyone and everyone else.

Drop this attitude, already.

Herman you haven't accepted a single explanation I've put forward. The same question of opinion apllies to YOU. You think Larry Bond is a fool to listen to anything I say or point out in his work???? Please say that, we'd all like to see it in print...

I pointed out this issue to Russell before it made your list, we do consider stuff, it's just not a "big ticket" item, it's almost a "freebie" and so my opinion is where Russell and I got with this, it's kinda a limbo item because really if you start getting concerned about micro managing Sonobuoys what's happening on the rest of that big map, or are we constantly hitting "Pause"? There's a few British RN captains from '82 still looking for the pause button...

I'm telling you THERE IS NO, "BURN SONOBUOY FUEL" --> to keep display accurate. As such Russell would have to then redesign part of the GUI (clunkiest part of ANW code) to update your requested figure. Seems like a lot of work to me. So you have a choice as I see it. Leave Sonobuoy fuel alone or add a text reminder if you changed your DB's numbers because they won't behave as they did.

There is no attitude, there's me, your intransigence or there's the road mate. If you think I have "attitude", bit of advice, never, ever, ever come to Australia.

Keep smiling and bye for now

Darren

ORIGINAL: Bucks

I'm telling you THERE IS NO, "BURN SONOBUOY FUEL" --> to keep display accurate. As such Russell would have to then redesign part of the GUI (clunkiest part of ANW code) to update your requested figure. Seems like a lot of work to me. So you have a choice as I see it. Leave Sonobuoy fuel alone or add a text reminder if you changed your DB's numbers because they won't behave as they did.

This is correct. If the developers are unable to correct the display, that's their prerogative. The problem remains on the list because it still exists.

If the developers want to acknowledge that it is one of those, "Things that cannot or will not be corrected.", that's okay, too. This item can then be moved over to that particular list.

[blockquote]* Known Harpoon [ANW] Issues

These are behaviours acknowledged by AGSI, but they will not be 'fixed' as they are not deemed 'Bugs'. They have been listed here for the edification of players.[/blockquote]

ORIGINAL: Bucks

Herman you haven't accepted a single explanation I've put forward. The same question of opinion apllies to YOU. You think Larry Bond is a fool to listen to anything I say or point out in his work???? Please say that, we'd all like to see it in print...

<<edit>>

Keep smiling and bye for now

Darren

No answer to this?

Why would anyone keep looking for things to fight over?&nbsp; That is non-productive behaviour.&nbsp;

Since Mr. Bond is not party to this discussion, there's no point in answering to irrelevant points and extraneous data.&nbsp; This thread was about the sonobuoy information display and nothing useful was indicated within that clause.

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

Why would anyone keep looking for things to fight over?  That is non-productive behaviour. 

Since Mr. Bond is not party to this discussion, there's no point in answering to irrelevant points and extraneous data.  This thread was about the sonobuoy information display and nothing useful was indicated within that clause.

Sorry was just pointing out how you can be selective with your quotations dat's all...

Gentlemen,

As a player/scen designer I dont care how (through DB or hard coding), but I dont want my helo's to falll behind the formation or continue patrolling when out of buoys.

I've seen helo's and MPAs continue to hunt subs on substrike missions when out of buoys and I think its unproductive, the sub is not going to reveal itself at persicope depth (in the modern world) and I think on balance the helo's and MPAs in all missions are better off to RTB for more buoys than to continue to search without primary search sensors.

This was the prior behaviour and I really see no advantages for the change that was obviously made (I'm not even sure if it was by accident or intentional).

Freek

ORIGINAL: Bucks

Sorry was just pointing out how you can be selective with your quotations dat's all...

Yup. I leave out all the irrelevant parts.

Freek,

I agree, but I'd love to see some more testing with fitting the timing of buoy life and A/c endurance. I think one of the main reasons there might have been a change was losing comms with the SB lines laid by RTB aircraft. Nothing worse than getting a hit on a buoy and having your Helo RTB because it's out of buoys but maybe still has an hour's hunting time left. I have had this happen in prior versions and it sucks about as much as having them sit around at other times.

I've got a "feature" request in to have aircraft relieve each other "on station". That would mean a relieving aircraft would reach the patrol zone just as the on station aircraft was ready to leave. I'll make an additional note to ensure we look at the current behaviour and I'll see if I can find where it was added by searhing through Mantis.

Cheers

Darren

So why bother typing anything... [:D]

Freek,

I'm not really sure your post is directly related to the thread as I'm not following these post fests that closely.

However, the issue with sonobuoy formation patrol craft falling behind the formation is fixed in the 3.10 betas. It was a bug in the formation patrol behavior itself. It was not related to how sonobuoys work but was caused by the what the GE thought 'on-station' constituted. (Hint: It thought almost everything was on-station.)

Thanks,

ORIGINAL: FreekS

As a player/scen designer I dont care how (through DB or hard coding), but I dont want my helo's to falll behind the formation or continue patrolling when out of buoys.

I've seen helo's and MPAs continue to hunt subs on substrike missions when out of buoys and I think its unproductive, the sub is not going to reveal itself at persicope depth (in the modern world) and I think on balance the helo's and MPAs in all missions are better off to RTB for more buoys than to continue to search without primary search sensors.

This was the prior behaviour and I really see no advantages for the change that was obviously made (I'm not even sure if it was by accident or intentional).

This behavioural problem has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, though. I agree that it is really, really bad.

The problem lies in the fact that the planes do not Return to Base when they run out of relevant ordnance (i.e. Sonobuoys). This behaviour was in H3, but is missing from ANW. In ANW, the planes will not return to base until they run out of fuel.

In H3, as soon as the last sonobuoy is deployed from a plane, this message appears. This is a game problem and not a display problem.

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

However, the issue with sonobuoy formation patrol craft falling behind the formation is fixed in the 3.10 betas. It was a bug in the formation patrol behavior itself. It was not related to how sonobuoys work but was caused by the what the GE thought 'on-station' constituted. (Hint: It thought almost everything was on-station.)

With only your text description as a guide, I think that you may have solved the wrong behaviour/problem.

The position of the helo may very well have been in the wrong position and out if its zone while it sat and monitored its sonobuoys. However, the problematic behaviour that Freek, Vincenzo, and I have all reported is the fact that the planes/helos are not Returning to Base after running out of sonobuoys (like they did in H3).

They may be sitting in the correct formation patrol zone position after your fix for 3.10. However, it is moot since their sonobuoys have expired long ago and they are just deaf, dumb, and blind sitting there monitoring nothing; waiting for their fuel to run out.

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

<< edit>>

In H3, as soon as the last sonobuoy is deployed from a plane, this message appears. This is a game problem and not a display problem.

The Lynx only carries Active buoys, it will loiter and do nothing. Using the HUD3, the RN Lynx should only be used to intercept subs (Sub Strike Mission). As far as I know aircraft with nothing but active buoys are unless for GE controlled ASW Patrol missions and formation zones.

Not wanting to cause a fuss, just checking all the facts behind the example.

Cheers

Darren

Well, French Lynx helos carry passive LOFARs. However, that is a fair observation.

Unfortunately, the same behaviour occurs with a helo or plane that carried passive sonobuoys.

I did leave out that they winchester for their mission target when they are considered off-station. This would cause the "Out of relevant ammo" message if they indeed have no relevant ammo.

So, when they are out of deployable sonobuoys, they are considered "winchester state"?&nbsp;

Or, will they count the non-deployable Active sonobuoys remaining in their mounts and stay on station with no chance of using those remaining sonobuoys?