RTB Exhaustion improvement suggestion

[UncertainlyCertain]

Good time of day, been roaming the forums for some time now and never been an active poster but felt like I could chime in and drop a few thoughts on a current feature being implemented.

It's about the "RTB Exhaustion" feature recently added. It's a very nice touch that adds a new layer of realism (and more planning for me ) but in it's current iteration I feel that it is not "complete" yet.

Here the problems how I see them :

- First is the fact that said RTB order appears to be "absolute", meaning it seems to be, either as intended or as a "byproduct" of coding, overriding all orders issued to A/Cs. For a typical RTB (weapons state / fuel) I can dismiss the needs of the unit and instead redirect it to a new task as I see fit regardless the consequences (like a fuel starvation crash) and this can be set even at doctrine level. This doesn't apply to an RTB Exhaustion status.

- Unfortunately it appears that currently (as of B1265.1) on top of being unable to override the RTB Exhaustion status / order it completely disregards any possible "issues" on the way to base (like no-nav zones)

- Lastly, and this is my personal opinion, I think that a plain RTB on reaching exhaustion is not correct(?).
Just think about the following situation :

"Flight Bravo 22, we need you to remain on station for 30 more minutes, Echo 32 had to take a detour and will arrive on position later than predicted, ETA 20 minutes, over" - "No can do Center, I've been airborne for 7 h and 52 min, I'm clocking out in 8 min, no overtime, bye" ... ... ... *static*

I mean they are flying a combat mission and are on duty, if I've been caught "with my pants down" and have to order them to engage a flight of strike A/Cs inbound to my SAG while they have 20 minutes of fuel left and will likely crash afterwards why can't I do the same if they are tired and sleepy? We may loose a couple ships and a war if they don't sacrifice some sleep time...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Critic over now to the suggestions :

- Remove the RTB order. Now wait I will explain why.

- Introduce a "fatigue" counter instead of the current "time" counter. It will work similarly but instead of counting time it will accumulate "fatigue points".

- "Fatigue points" will be added linearly over time and a multiplier will be applied any time the unit will experience :
G tolerance decrease, Engaged Offensive / Defensive, any other status as you see fit.
Fatigue points will be accumulated until they top the unit's "fatigue tank" (say in the same 8 h for a fighter but in fatigue points minus any detraction by multiplier etc... if it makes sense)

- Once the "fatigue threshold" level has been reached (i.e. "fatigue tank" topped) :
> The fatigue counter will be stopped and a malus will begin to be applied

- The malus :
> Will negatively impact OODA values, they will exponentially grow over time for every minute after reaching "fatigue threshold" level

> Will negatively impact G tolerance values, they will exponentially decrease over time for every minute after reaching "fatigue threshold" level

> Will negatively impact sensor cueing. Now this one I will admit, I have no idea how to implement... Maybe the mk.1 Eyeballs will be the only affected with a diminished range / sector scan? I mean a RADAR or RWR works without input but you have to monitor it...

> Will impact any other mechanic you may want to include. The plus is that said system should be "modular" (add / remove maluses as you see fit / new features get implemented)

- Two new mechanics will come into play :

> Sleep deprivation mechanic : every X minutes the "dice will roll" for a chance of the pilot falling asleep, for every "not asleep" dice roll the next chance for "asleep" multiplies. When the "asleep" dice rolls the A/C enters "No comms" status and all contact is lost. Now the dice will roll again but this time it will be a "wake up / don't wake up" roll. Unlike the first this one will not receive any chance multiplier for a successive "don't wake up" roll. Once "wake up" is rolled comms are reestabilished and the "asleep / not asleep" cycle will restart.

> Accidental crash mechanic : every X minutes a dice rolls for a chance of air crash cause pilot error. The chance is "flat" (as opposed to the sleep roll). If the dice rolls "crash" you loose an A/C. If during dice roll the status of the A/C is also "asleep" a flat bonus to the "crash" dice roll is applied.

Both mechanics will persist until "over fatigue threshold" status is removed (that is by landing).

The idea is that this fatigue mechanic will be toggleable in the "scenario features".

This are just my 2 cents on the idea... I understand that compared to what we have now it would require more work so I don't know how feasible it is (and honestly I don't even know how to implement it) but since this is a public beta and essentially WIP I thought my suggestion could have a right to be discussed.

That's all that comes to mind for the moment.

[c3k]

I like your suggestions.

I would add another:

- For multi-pilot airplanes, allow/simulate one pilot to be resting and that will erase fatigue.

[UncertainlyCertain]

[...]
- For multi-pilot airplanes, allow/simulate one pilot to be resting and that will erase fatigue.

Interesting suggestion but I would argue against an erase of fatigue as a situation in which fatigue points are erased partially or fully may lead to a unit staying airborne indefinitely (as long as it's refueled) and this will negate the very reason the RTB Exhaustion mechanic was introduced in the first place.

Multi-crewed A/Cs usually operate with both pilots "in the game" and whilst one is piloting it's not like the other is completely idle, maybe a commercial-like ISTAR plane (like an AEW) can allow itself the luxury of having one pilot giving the other some rest but for a strike fighter or attack / bomber the other "pilot" is actually a Weapons Officer of sorts and not so pilots the A/C as manages weaponry and onboard systems thereby reducing pilot workload.

Instead multi-crewed A/Cs could have their "fatigue gauge" enlarged or have a reduced linear fatigue multiplier (like 0.7x or 0.67x times the regular fatigue points build-up) that would simulate reduced pilot workload. This may be represented by a unit propriety like "multi-crewed airframe - reduced workload".

Further this "reduced workload mechanic / propriety" could be mated with the new cockpit instrumentation mechanic : a glass cockpit equipped A/C will have it's linear fatigue points accumulation de-escalated with a negative multiplier (ex. 0.75x or any other value), a steam gauges cockpit will have a larger multiplier and the newest wide angle MFDs (F-35-ish) will have further reduced multipliers.

[bsq]

Doesn't get round engine oil. Most engines run on a total loss system, so that used oil is eventually burnt. For the engines on my old aircraft it used to be around 1 pt per hour on a total capacity of 22 pts, so the limit would be 22 hours (or just under). Of course by that point, both pilots would be exhausted, regardless. We would have run out of food and water and the toilet would be full .

This is on an aeroplane with several engines, a large crew and a scope for an extra pilot.

Then you have to factor in 'the rules', modern rules limit the amount of flying you can do in any given period 'legally', bust the rules and have an accident... well where there's blame, there's a claim. And before you say, its a war (or a special operation ), tell that to Joe Bloggs who house has just been flattened on the approach to 'Somewhere' AFB, in a country not at war, just because someone ignored the 'rules'. You arent suing the pilot, more likely the authorising officer who said it was 'ok'. So IMO the rules, as they are now, are quite good. Maybe the times in some instances are too short and in some they are too long, but it's in its infancy and it is a good start and it gets around gaming AAR which was never the intention of the Devs, I'm sure.

[alphali]

yes, it is a very interesting and (imo) important feature to add. The current form is the easiest and simplest to implement. But I don't think it will remain this way because it will cause a lot of frustrating and weird behaviors.

The mechanics you suggested at the end may be too much for the game, but the exhaustion having an effect on the OODA loop and g-tolerance makes it much more realistic than the current way of implementation. I don't think it would be difficult to implement but could be time-consuming and thus take some time depending on their priorities.

[boogabooga]

For a comprehensive pilot fatigue model, please see this:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 4#p4958344

For everyone else, I am still of the opinion that the simplest, fairest, and smoothest solution is to (after the critical time has elapsed) simply lock out the AAR refueling doctrine so that the A/C will RTB naturally as they BINGO/Joker.


Also, regarding how long a single-seat fighter can stay airborne, there is this:
https://youtu.be/jYTES85S1kI?t=985

[BDukes]

For everyone else, I am still of the opinion that the simplest, fairest, and smoothest solution is to (after the critical time has elapsed) simply lock out the AAR refueling doctrine so that the A/C will RTB naturally as they BINGO/Joker.

I like this approach too.

Mike

[alphali]

For a comprehensive pilot fatigue model, please see this:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 4#p4958344

For everyone else, I am still of the opinion that the simplest, fairest, and smoothest solution is to (after the critical time has elapsed) simply lock out the AAR refueling doctrine so that the A/C will RTB naturally as they BINGO/Joker.


Also, regarding how long a single-seat fighter can stay airborne, there is this:
https://youtu.be/jYTES85S1kI?t=985

That has the same fuel problem that is emerging now with the current implementation. If the plane doesn't have enough fuel to return to base and it can't refuel that means it will crash, not an elegant solution at all. The players will have to keep track of the plane's fuel levels and exhaustion levels to rtb the planes, which is crazy micro in any decent size scenario.
Any lock on fuel like the current implementation and your suggestion will cause weird problems. There should be soft penalties (like on ooda loop/veterancy.. as suggested by op) that make the planes unusable and thus incentivizing the player to RTB rather than hard locks as currently implemented.

[boogabooga]

For a comprehensive pilot fatigue model, please see this:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 4#p4958344

For everyone else, I am still of the opinion that the simplest, fairest, and smoothest solution is to (after the critical time has elapsed) simply lock out the AAR refueling doctrine so that the A/C will RTB naturally as they BINGO/Joker.


Also, regarding how long a single-seat fighter can stay airborne, there is this:
https://youtu.be/jYTES85S1kI?t=985

That has the same fuel problem that is emerging now with the current implementation. If the plane doesn't have enough fuel to return to base and it can't refuel that means it will crash, not an elegant solution at all. The players will have to keep track of the plane's fuel levels and exhaustion levels to rtb the planes, which is crazy micro in any decent size scenario.
Any lock on fuel like the current implementation and your suggestion will cause weird problems. There should be soft penalties (like on ooda loop/veterancy.. as suggested by op) that make the planes unusable and thus incentivizing the player to RTB rather than hard locks as currently implemented.

I've never had a problem with RTB-Bingo that I didn't deserve. If you find your A/C crashing out of fuel before they can get back to base, set a Joker level instead of Bingo. It's all about doctrine.

[c3k]

[...]
- For multi-pilot airplanes, allow/simulate one pilot to be resting and that will erase fatigue.

Interesting suggestion but I would argue against an erase of fatigue as a situation in which fatigue points are erased partially or fully may lead to a unit staying airborne indefinitely (as long as it's refueled) and this will negate the very reason the RTB Exhaustion mechanic was introduced in the first place.

Multi-crewed A/Cs usually operate with both pilots "in the game" and whilst one is piloting it's not like the other is completely idle, maybe a commercial-like ISTAR plane (like an AEW) can allow itself the luxury of having one pilot giving the other some rest but for a strike fighter or attack / bomber the other "pilot" is actually a Weapons Officer of sorts and not so pilots the A/C as manages weaponry and onboard systems thereby reducing pilot workload.

Instead multi-crewed A/Cs could have their "fatigue gauge" enlarged or have a reduced linear fatigue multiplier (like 0.7x or 0.67x times the regular fatigue points build-up) that would simulate reduced pilot workload. This may be represented by a unit propriety like "multi-crewed airframe - reduced workload".

Further this "reduced workload mechanic / propriety" could be mated with the new cockpit instrumentation mechanic : a glass cockpit equipped A/C will have it's linear fatigue points accumulation de-escalated with a negative multiplier (ex. 0.75x or any other value), a steam gauges cockpit will have a larger multiplier and the newest wide angle MFDs (F-35-ish) will have further reduced multipliers.

Well, "multi-crewed" is NOT "multi-pilot".

Long-haul aircraft have extra pilots onboard specifically to allow fatigue to be "erased". That's why there are crew-rest facilities on those aircraft.

So, rather than "multi-pilot", perhaps limit this idea to aircraft with crew-rest spaces.

Of course, the B2 has used the ability to rest up on the positioning legs (a cot/inflatable mattress in the aisle) to allow 24 hour missions with better pilot performance.

And, other than human factors and fuel, yes, oil and other consumables are another factor.

This is from a guy whose longest non-stop leg was 19 1/2 hours. FWIW.

[alphali]

I've never had a problem with RTB-Bingo that I didn't deserve. If you find your A/C crashing out of fuel before they can get back to base, set a Joker level instead of Bingo. It's all about doctrine.

In a scenario with aerial refueling, it will never be that simple. If I am depending on aerial refueling I won't have all my planes always with enough fuel to return to base, and if suddenly AAR is locked, the planes will crash. Again it can be mitigated but with scenarios with large air assets it will require a lot of micros. It would be better than the current implementation, but again I think soft penalties are much better than hard locks.

[UncertainlyCertain]

Doesn't get round engine oil. Most engines run on a total loss system, so that used oil is eventually burnt. [...]

This is a problem all of it's own that my suggestion doesn't address simply because I'm looking at the problem from a "person" stand point instead of a "machine" one.

[...]
Then you have to factor in 'the rules', modern rules limit the amount of flying you can do in any given period 'legally' [...]

And that is the direction I'm pushing this suggestion to : I want this new exhaustion mechanic to disincentivize the player from keeping a unit airborne over it's "allotted" time least said unit turns into a liability instead of an asset. This clashes with the current forced RTB mechanic of which the player has no control (but IMHO should, at least partially, have) and gives instead the tactical option of keeping a unit in the fight but at ever increasing risks.
You want to keep that plane up for 3 hours more? Sure, it's not really a healthy practice but if you wish you can, be ready to bear the consequences though...

Personally I tend to roleplay through scenarios and if I have the chance rotate my pixel pilots once I deem enough time has passed for them to start seeing double on their monitors.

As I said the game does not simulate airframe life. You could keep a plane in the air forever on air to air refueling (if the pilot is an issue assume it's a drone). The airframe will wear out from G force after a few turns and in real life you can't keep sending planes out on missions.
[...]

I don't think such issue is a factor in CMO's reality. Most scenarios have a duration between a few hours and a few days and even the "campaigns" don't span long enough for airframe write-off.
Even in the event of strenuous maneuvering for hours on end it's not like the airframe will be damaged to the point it will become unusable further in the scenario.

For a comprehensive pilot fatigue model, please see this:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 4#p4958344
[...]

Thank you for the link, caught my eye. Looks very similar to what I'm suggesting tough it seems that the mod designer goes even further and simulates the pilots in a deeper, less abstractive way than how I proposed.

[...]
For everyone else, I am still of the opinion that the simplest, fairest, and smoothest solution is to (after the critical time has elapsed) simply lock out the AAR refueling doctrine so that the A/C will RTB naturally as they BINGO/Joker.
[...]

I would indeed prefer this solution to the current one. With one but : there may come a time in the future when, for one reason or another, fatigue simulation could be "required" to make some new changes/features "click". This is why I tried to come up with a system as modular as possible, one which you can adapt to new changes, for ex. as I suggested earlier by making use of the cockpit generation propriety as a way to influence unit performance (more/less pilot workload).

[...]
Also, regarding how long a single-seat fighter can stay airborne, there is this:
https://youtu.be/jYTES85S1kI?t=985

Tweaking the "fatigue bar" and it's multipliers can take on this issue. Current fatigue figures for combat planes are 8 h before RTB Exhaustion, that is close to what is mentioned in the video.

[...]
Long-haul aircraft have extra pilots onboard specifically to allow fatigue to be "erased". That's why there are crew-rest facilities on those aircraft.
[...]

As stated above, tweaking the fatigue progression speed / fatigue threshold level can somehow mitigate this problem.
The idea behind both the current RTB Exhaustion mechanic and my suggestion is to "crack down" on having a plane airborne indefinitely.
A bomber or transport A/C could have a progress bar that tops in a matter of 36+ hours. Considering the fact that these planes aren't really designed to serve on the "front edge" (well maybe apart the bombers) they won't be susceptible to any G tolerance or Engaged offensive/defensive mechanic. They simply fly leg-to-leg and the fatigue bar could very well reflect this.
As of now, for example, bombers and other "bulky" units have a 48 hours grace before RTB. Seems more than enough.

[Gizzmoe]

Airframe life definitely matters, planes only last a few hours and not thousands or whatever wikipedia says.

If you look at actual flight schedules there's only a few dozen aircraft over america at any time. Out of the thousands available each flies a few hours in its entire life and not the Wikipedia lifespan of 35,000 hours.

I don't even know where to start..... Seek some help, seriously.

[Gizzmoe]

Each aircraft is flying about ten days of its entire life

So a passenger plane that costs a fuckton of money only flies about 240 hours in its entire life... I wonder how the airlines survive.... Can you tell us?

[thewood1]

"On average, an aircraft is operable for about 30 years before it has to be retired. A Boeing 747 can endure about 35,000 pressurization cycles and flights—roughly 135,000 to 165,000 flight hours—before metal fatigue sets in"

https://www.flexport.com/blog/decommiss ... 0sets%20in.

[thewood1]

"Modern fighter jets have typically been designed to withstand 8,000 total hours of flight time during their operational lifespan. With an average of 200 hours in the air each year, this means they are expected to continue delivering high performance in sorties and missions for somewhere between thirty and forty years."

https://www.saab.com/newsroom/stories/2 ... ty%20years.

[thewood1]

Screenshot 2022-07-18 215036.jpg (81.58 KiB) Viewed 1606 times

[Rob322]

"Modern fighter jets have typically been designed to withstand 8,000 total hours of flight time during their operational lifespan. With an average of 200 hours in the air each year, this means they are expected to continue delivering high performance in sorties and missions for somewhere between thirty and forty years."

https://www.saab.com/newsroom/stories/2 ... ty%20years.

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

[UncertainlyCertain]

Look how they massacred my thread...

[Maromak]

Look how they massacred my thread...

This is why we can't have nice things.