Command v1.11 Service Release 7 - Release Candidate [CURRENT: B906.21]

Take command of air and naval assets from post-WW2 to the near future in tactical and operational scale, complete with historical and hypothetical scenarios and an integrated scenario editor.

Moderator: MOD_Command

Dimitris
Posts: 15239
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:29 am
Contact:

RE: Command v1.11 Service Release 7 - Release Candidate

Post by Dimitris »

ORIGINAL: Cik

well, actual RMAX shots have near zero hitrate for a reason.

the sim is probably more realistic now than it was, just the AI needs to be tuned to work within the new reality.

most actual missile misses will be out of energy, if you can't decoy it and it has enough energy to reach you you are probably a dead man; most modern missiles have absurd G abilities so dodging it, even in something considered supermaneuverable is questionable.

A relatively simple adjustment would be to increase the "slack" on pre-fire DLZ calculations, so that every entity becomes more careful/conservative with its long-range shots.

However, this would make it more difficult to model actors that, for any number of reasons (typically associated with insufficient training or combat experience), really do fire at the extreme edge of the envelope - and rarely hit even easy targets.
Eggstor
Posts: 353
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:04 pm

RE: Command v1.11 Service Release 7 - Release Candidate

Post by Eggstor »

ORIGINAL: Sunburn
ORIGINAL: Cik

well, actual RMAX shots have near zero hitrate for a reason.

the sim is probably more realistic now than it was, just the AI needs to be tuned to work within the new reality.

most actual missile misses will be out of energy, if you can't decoy it and it has enough energy to reach you you are probably a dead man; most modern missiles have absurd G abilities so dodging it, even in something considered supermaneuverable is questionable.

A relatively simple adjustment would be to increase the "slack" on pre-fire DLZ calculations, so that every entity becomes more careful/conservative with its long-range shots.

However, this would make it more difficult to model actors that, for any number of reasons (typically associated with insufficient training or combat experience), really do fire at the extreme edge of the envelope - and rarely hit even easy targets.
Perhaps the increase in "slack" could be tied to unit proficiency then?
Dimitris
Posts: 15239
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:29 am
Contact:

RE: Command v1.11 Service Release 7 - Release Candidate

Post by Dimitris »

Perhaps the increase in "slack" could be tied to unit proficiency then?

This could work, but leads to two other issues:

1) "Ace" and "Rookie" pilot face up in the air. Rookie pilot fires first because his DLZ slack is less. The shot will almost certainly miss, but the mere evasion manouver (lose speed, lose altitude, lose SA for a while unless off-board supported) puts the Ace at a disadvantage.

2) This in turn would entice players to micromanage in order to compensate for the built-in deficiencies of their assets ("I know that this rookie pilot will fire at max range because he's a fish, so instead I'll restrict him through WRA [or manual inputs] to avoid this handicap". This (a) runs counter to Command's mantra "the player should not be encouraged to win through micromanagement" (yes, we're not perfect in that but at least we consciously try) and (b) it's not how things go in RL ops: In the cockpit, the rookie will forget all the WRA rules the squadron briefing tried to instill into him and will go fangs-out.

Gain something, lose something...
Cik
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 3:22 am

RE: Command v1.11 Service Release 7 - Release Candidate

Post by Cik »

well, there are legitimate reasons to fire Rmax/Ropt, generally to play keep away, prevent targets from closing, to scare or intimidate, or to attack unaware, very slow targets (cargo planes with no RWR, very old fighters, what have you) you could probably tie shooting range to some mix of experience and target type. generally there's no use shooting at agile, fast fighters at anything past Rpi, and you don't really gain a good PK until you reach Rtr / NEZ

anyway, what i'm trying to say is that there may be legitimate reasons an expert pilot would take a shot he knew would have a near 100% chance of being trashed. to force the enemy to defend, losing energy (altitude also, maybe) to exploit his numerical missile advantage, to affect their mental state, increase the chaos, break up their formation, etc





Dimitris
Posts: 15239
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:29 am
Contact:

RE: Command v1.11 Service Release 7 - Release Candidate

Post by Dimitris »

You just described the rationale for the WRAs [:)]
Raptorx7_slith
Posts: 669
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:14 pm

RE: Command v1.11 Service Release 7 - Release Candidate

Post by Raptorx7_slith »

Cockpit visibility + Aircraft with only rear-aspect missiles and no cannon leads to interesting situations. The dog fight seems a bit more unpredictable with aircraft losing a contact as it goes past them which is pretty cool. I've noticed that the change in behavior for getting a rear aspect shot is mostly evident in 2 v 2 engagements which are of course the most common.
Cik
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 3:22 am

RE: Command v1.11 Service Release 7 - Release Candidate

Post by Cik »

yeah, i've blasted a lot of 21s in RC# that didn't even defend themselves. which seems WAD :^) considering the structure of the canopy. generally it's less of a disadvantage the more planes you have in the air, which seems as it should be. (granted there's an upper bound on how many threat calls you can jam into a radio but that's outside scope anyway)

standoff for the GBUs seems pretty neat too.
DWReese
Posts: 2404
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Miami, Florida

RE: Command v1.11 Service Release 7 - Release Candidate

Post by DWReese »

Resolved
DWReese
Posts: 2404
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Miami, Florida

RE: Command v1.11 Service Release 7 - Release Candidate

Post by DWReese »

This is not a bug concerning 17, I just want to know if you believe that this behavior is accurate.

Attack planes are entering an area flying at 36000 ft.
Only a few SAMs can reach that high.
The SAMs that can start shooting.
The planes dive. I assume that they can evade better, and can pick up speed. This appears to be what they should do.
But, in diving, the planes have now descended into even more trouble. Now, all of those SAMs and AAA that couldn't hit them, now have a chance to fore at them because they are so low.
Do you think that this is the way that it should be?
I'm not saying that it isn't how it should work, but it seems odd to me that you would jump out of the frying pan, and into the fire to escape.

If it is, then that's okay.

Doug
Dimitris
Posts: 15239
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:29 am
Contact:

RE: Command v1.11 Service Release 7 - Release Candidate

Post by Dimitris »

Command v1.11 Service Release 7 - Release Candidate - Build 906.18

Download: Superseded by Build 906.19

See OP for instructions, warnings and release notes.

Fixes/Changes
#10319 - Fuel burn rates for aircraft
#10312 - Yak-3, Il-4 fuel/range issues
#11335 - CWDB: AIM-9C Not Working
FIXED: ASMs may glide perpetually if their target is destroyed

* Added more slack on pre-fire DLZ calculations. This makes fires more conservative in their long-range shots.

* Includes the DB3000 v461 and CWDB v460 databases.
mikmykWS
Posts: 7185
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 4:34 pm

RE: Command v1.11 Service Release 7 - Release Candidate

Post by mikmykWS »

ORIGINAL: gosnold

Hi,

Just wanted to report on my 906.16 experience. Everything seems to be working, except a few times I couldn't launch a saved game: the "accept scenario options" button did not work (for "The Big Stick" scenario). Launching it with the scenario editor did work though.

Also I tried a few things based on the update log:
* "#11166 - SBIRS sats not working as expected": I added SBIRS to the game and it did not detect a DF-21D launch, so I am not sure they are working. Sensor range in the DB viewer is also at 2000nm so I am not sure they can see the ground.
* "#11129 - DB3k: DB-110 and Areos Pod Range updates": they have a 20nm range in the DB, so when using a Rafale to do recon, I get all of my detections from the onboard IRST (at a 30nm distance), and not from the recon pod. So there is no point using the recon pod. I think the range should be further increased, to at least the same value as modern laser designation pods.

Hi addressed these items in the new db in 906.18. Let me know.

Mike
Dimitris
Posts: 15239
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:29 am
Contact:

RE: Command v1.11 Service Release 7 - Release Candidate

Post by Dimitris »

Command v1.11 Service Release 7 - Release Candidate - Build 906.19

Download: Superseded by Build 906.20

See OP for instructions, warnings and release notes.

Fixes/Changes
#11360 -[B906.18] Engagment of aircraft beyond AAM range
#11356 - (B906.18) Aircraft altitude all over the sky over land
#11348 - Display or hide city country names
#11359 - [B906.18] Ship heading constantly changing during ASuW patrol mission
#9512 - ARM shots against unknown radar type's id'ing them in their datablock
#11354 - [B906.18]Subs continously diving to max depth and teleporting to surface
FIXED: Aircraft has trouble intercepting from low altitude
FIXED: [B906.18] aircraft suddenly drop to min Alt in patrol zone
Kitchens Sink
Posts: 402
Joined: Sun May 04, 2014 8:55 pm

RE: Command v1.11 Service Release 7 - Release Candidate

Post by Kitchens Sink »

906.19 upload link doesn't seem to be working for me. Anyone else?
Eggstor
Posts: 353
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:04 pm

RE: Command v1.11 Service Release 7 - Release Candidate

Post by Eggstor »

ORIGINAL: Kitchens Sink

906.19 upload link doesn't seem to be working for me. Anyone else?
Ignore the spinning icon in the middle of the window and click on the download icon in the upper-right corner. That works.
Kitchens Sink
Posts: 402
Joined: Sun May 04, 2014 8:55 pm

RE: Command v1.11 Service Release 7 - Release Candidate

Post by Kitchens Sink »

Bravo! That worked. Thanks
DWReese
Posts: 2404
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Miami, Florida

RE: Command v1.11 Service Release 7 - Release Candidate

Post by DWReese »

I just saw your response here. I had re-posted it over in tech support. You can disregard that, of course.

I don't doubt anything that you have said. I makes perfect sense. Diving planes have more speed, and speed keeps them alive. Climbing means that they will go slower. So that makes sense.

Regarding your option, perhaps a button or toggle could be created and placed in with the Missions that instruct the pilots to stay above a certain altitude during all times, except under dire emergency? That might keep them going. Another aspect of this, to my situation anyway, is that the attackers have to launch from 11000 feet above the target. They see the SAMs being fired at them. These are old Sa-6 SAMs that only have a 1% chance of hitting them from that great of distance. The attacking planes all dive. Of course, the SAM comes nowhere near hitting them. The planes start to climb again so that they can attack. The SA-6 fires another SAM. The attackers all dive again. And, this goes on for awhile. Eventually, the SA-6 runs out of missiles, but it seems odd that all of 24 of the attackers would continue to dive and climb because of one Sa-6 missile being fired at them. Plus, as I said, it takes a while to be able to climb up to 11000 feet again.

Just a thought.

Thanks for responding.

Doug
AceOfSpadeszzzzzz
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 9:06 am

RE: Command v1.11 Service Release 7 - Release Candidate

Post by AceOfSpadeszzzzzz »

I think there is something wrong with in-game windows, like when I tried to create a new mission I can't even click the confirm button because it was missing.
User avatar
lowchi
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 4:39 pm

RE: Command v1.11 Service Release 7 - Release Candidate

Post by lowchi »

ORIGINAL: AceOfSpadeszzzzzz

I think there is something wrong with in-game windows, like when I tried to create a new mission I can't even click the confirm button because it was missing.

try to delete your command.ini
Image
User avatar
wild_Willie2
Posts: 2934
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:33 am
Location: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...

RE: Command v1.11 Service Release 7 - Release Candidate

Post by wild_Willie2 »

Yep, deleting the .ini file in the game directory will remedy this....
In vinum illic est sapientia , in matera illic est vires , in aqua illic es bacteria.

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.
mikefolks
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 9:11 pm

RE: Command v1.11 Service Release 7 - Release Candidate

Post by mikefolks »

Wow team, I'm very impressed with the update!
I've been following development since the Red Pill days, and been playing since beta testing began. One of things that slightly irked me from the beginning was the way in witch there didn't seam to be a difference between air speed and ground speed. Imagine my shock last night to see my JDAMs appear to slow down as they approached their target. a quick check reviled that it was the ground speed slowing as they started a terminal dive!
Every iteration just keeps getting better and better. Keep up the good work guys, you are doing some truly amazing things[:)]
Post Reply

Return to “Command: Modern Operations series”