v2.640 Bugs

[Tacbat]

Confirm the chopper was flying at top speed, and low level when it hit?

[Volcano]

IA Chopper crashed into building and was destroyed, never seen this before.

Thanks, yes, I noticed this too the other day and tried to reproduce it reliably with a test scenario. So far I have failed, but we are still trying... :shocked:

If you have a test scenario where it happens reliably then we would love to have it!

[12Alfa]

IA Chopper crashed into building and was destroyed, never seen this before.

This not just a building!! Its a DOME!!!:eek2:

They are mystical home for domeheads:smilelove-1: to be avoided at all costs.:sonic:

Those who dwell in them are masters of all things domey.:cul:

Having two is better for the end of the world in 2012.:cul:

[Matchstick101]

i don't know if anyone has posted this bug but the missile on the bmp-1 still shows up after the turret has been blown off. just sits there in mid air :cul:

[Ssnake]

Yep, known, will get fixed, thanks.

[SeanPatrick]

While testing a scenario unspawned vehicles displayed crews and these where detected and showed up as enemy units by BLUFOR, see screen shot.

Those guys look so sad and lonely...haha.

[Captain_Colossus]

Still devoted to their burning vehicle.

[Azure Lion]

Traffic jam at the bottom of a ravine

Edited January 3, 2012 by Azure Lion

[Ssnake]

...and the bug is...?

That they should never have driven into it in the first place, despite having clear orders to attempt a crossing, as the assault bridges in place suggest?

[Azure Lion]

The amphibious units I can sort of understand despite the steep embankments, but the trucks? If you'll notice from the perspectives, those trucks are no where near the bridges. I just think the non-amphibious units drown themselves in water way too often. And if we can figure out the AAR issue that I and at least one other person are having, I will gladly upload an AAR of units drowning themselves.

[Wicked]

The amphibious units I can sort of understand despite the steep embankments, but the trucks? If you'll notice from the perspectives, those trucks are no where near the bridges. I just think the non-amphibious units drown themselves in water way too often. And if we can figure out the AAR issue that I and at least one other person are having, I will gladly upload an AAR of units drowning themselves.

Looking at your above posted pictures. Its a kinda doomed scenario. I wouldnt cross that ravine. Unless you want to be easy target. I have seen plenty of rl pictures where tanks get stucked in even smaller ditches. If there is no way to cross, you have to go around.

[Ssnake]

I wouldn't be surprised if the units simply slid into the water while attempting to reach those bridges, or failed to get out of this extremely steep embankment on the far side.

I mean, look at it!

The slope is much steeper than what a military vehicle can handle, the bridge is several meters below the edge of embankment and surrounding terrain and therefore drastically exceeds the climb limits of usually about one meter that most tanks can handle (provided that the edge to climb over is actually firm like concrete or rock).

One might argue that the vehicles should even have attempted to drive across the assault bridges, but IMO the assault bridges should never have been placed there to begin with. This gorge is an absolute tank obstacle - without the help of engineering units to create entry and exit points (which, to create them, would be an effort of at least an hour if not much more).

[Azure Lion]

I would agree with you on all accounts.

The enemy bridge layer did make it across by some means.

These were enemy units I came across, so the bridge being laid there was not of my choosing, nor design, nor did I have any say on rerouting said units as in this scenario the enemy units were not controllable by the user.

And yes, I did not have my forces try to cross that ravine at all, and did go around. Thanks to the enemy units getting stuck there, it made my job easier.

However; I still have issues of my non-amphibious units having too great an affinity for water at times. It makes some scenarios unplayable without losing half my units to water unless I babysit nigh every unit, i.e. Beyond the Valley of the Jackal.

Please see my previous post with the pictures of drowned M1A1(HA)s. The units are to move along a major 4 lane road with a median lined on either side with water filled ditches about 20 meters or so distance from the outside edges of the road. There is maybe a meter drop from tarmac to water's edge. I've uploaded a picture to give you an idea.

As soon as the AAR issue is figured out, I will upload an AAR file of units drowning themselves with no intervention from the user other than selecting the "Convoy Move Out" trigger.

[Azure Lion]

I try very hard to keep units from drowning themselves...

I put a way point before and after the bridge in the hopes that they will not drive into the water.

And yet...

[Ssnake]

Keep in mind that a platoon of four vehicles with normal (=50m) spacing is 150m long in column (or 150m wide in line) formation. So crossing the bridge in column is an obvious choice (hopefully undisputed).

What many people forget is that upon reaching a waypoint with new formation orders, or when embarking a new route with different formation orders, this new order will be given when the FIRST vehicle reaches it. Therefore you must not place the end point of a column route closer than 150m (300m with wide spacing) behind the exit point of the bridge. Add some extra distance as a safety buffer in case that the last vehicle gets delayed a bit for some reason.

Then you can be sure that everybody is across the bridge before unfolding.

I wrote in the other thread already, formation changes are tactical decisions of importance. Transitioning from one formation to the other will take time, and it will also require maneuver space. The fewer complications (enemy presence, obstacles, difficult terrain, artillery fire...) influence the formation change, the better. Therefore it is imperative to consider

WHY you need

WHAT kind of formation,

WHEN to order the formation change, and

WHERE.

If you don't make a conscious decision for all of these four factors, you're opening the door to bad consequences (=friction and frustration).

[RENEGADE-623]

noticed playing a scenerio today that i was able to manuever a bradley even though track was off. to see if it was just that scenerio, i created one with 6 dif vehicles with right track off.. Again i was able to manuever the vehicle, albiet at a very slow speed. will upload scenerio this evening when i get internet access with my puter

[Volcano]

noticed playing a scenerio today that i was able to manuever a bradley even though track was off. to see if it was just that scenerio, i created one with 6 dif vehicles with right track off.. Again i was able to manuever the vehicle, albiet at a very slow speed. will upload scenerio this evening when i get internet access with my puter

No need, we discovered and fixed this already. :shocked:

[Volcano]

Still devoted to their burning vehicle.

Thanks. Have you seen this occur when a vehicle dies silently too, or just when it dies catastrophically by explosion/flames?

[Volcano]

Thanks. Have you seen this occur when a vehicle dies silently too, or just when it dies catastrophically by explosion/flames?

Never mind, I think this has been fixed now...

[Climber]

Teach your machines going around the stones, make stones border for a detour.

[Azure Lion]

Keep in mind that a platoon of four vehicles with normal (=50m) spacing is 150m long in column (or 150m wide in line) formation. So crossing the bridge in column is an obvious choice (hopefully undisputed).

What many people forget is that upon reaching a waypoint with new formation orders, or when embarking a new route with different formation orders, this new order will be given when the FIRST vehicle reaches it. Therefore you must not place the end point of a column route closer than 150m (300m with wide spacing) behind the exit point of the bridge. Add some extra distance as a safety buffer in case that the last vehicle gets delayed a bit for some reason.

Then you can be sure that everybody is across the bridge before unfolding.

I wrote in the other thread already, formation changes are tactical decisions of importance. Transitioning from one formation to the other will take time, and it will also require maneuver space. The fewer complications (enemy presence, obstacles, difficult terrain, artillery fire...) influence the formation change, the better. Therefore it is imperative to consider

WHY you need

WHAT kind of formation,

WHEN to order the formation change, and

WHERE.

If you don't make a conscious decision for all of these four factors, you're opening the door to bad consequences (=friction and frustration).

It was a single unit not in formation that drowned itself.

And I am already aware of the need of room for a platoon of units and take that into consideration.

Besides, shouldn't that procedure that keeps a single Bradley from driving into water also keep units in formation from driving into water? The hierarchy for keeping units in formation over avoiding water hazards seems backwards to me from your logic.

As I tire of getting answers directed at a child, might I add one small possible suggestion here:

IF WaterHazardEncounterd

THEN Hold

ELSE StayInFormation

[Tacbat]

Teach your machines going around the stones, make stones border for a detour.

Teach yourself not to route units through rock fields.

[Tacbat]

It was a single unit not in formation that drowned itself.

Post your scenario that shows this please.

[Volcano]

As I tire of getting answers directed at a child, might I add one small possible suggestion here:

IF WaterHazardEncounterd

THEN Hold

ELSE StayInFormation

It already does that for the most part. Perhaps you are you using time acceleration a lot or you are playing on maps where there are steep water banks, or your units are under direct or indirect fire. Time acceleration is known to cause issues with pathfinding (to put it briefly, the pathfinding calculations do not always work to its fullest with time acceleration on); time acceleration should be used sparingly. Also, if the water obstacles have steep banks, then it may very well be that the vehicles are sliding in while avoiding them (the vehicle's safe buffer zone around the water might be inside the steep water's bank). Units under direct and indirect fire will make "mistakes", especially for the later when a unit is buttoned up and avoiding the impacts.

The point is, there are a great deal of factors at play here. I already showed a test scenario where a Bradley was routed THROUGH a water obstacle and yet it avoids it (I was impressed myself). You can easily replace the single vehicle in that scenario with a platoon and see the same thing, so that implies that there is some other factor going on out of the range of infinite factors.

Beyond that, I think we all understand by now that you want water pathfinding to be better (we all do).

Edited January 6, 2012 by Volcano
clarification

[Ssnake]

As I tire of getting answers directed at a child,

...certainly not our intent. But time and again it has been proven dangerous in tech support to assume background knowledge. We have to rule out contributing factors, and if you care to look at the situation from our perspective for a moment, I'm sure that you will agree that we can't read your mind or know every circumstance just from looking at screenshots that show vehicles in the water.

might I add one small possible suggestion here:

IF WaterHazardEncounterd

THEN Hold

ELSE StayInFormation

If only it were that simple... I'm sorry, but this algorithm is incomplete.

For example, if the player is in the lead vehicle and finds a spot suitable for fording a river, you actually WANT the rest of the platoon to follow the trail that the human player created with his manual driving.

If the player creates a route that sends vehicles into certain doom by drowning(bogging down/breaking track, a good simulation is supposed to let that happen. User frustration in this case is desirable. Finding the right balance between teaching the user to pay attention to the limitations of the vehicles under his command, and avoiding the necessity to babysit every step of the computer-controlled vehicles is a thin line.

We don't want a carefree environment where the computer-controlled units shield the user completely from stupid decisions (not saying that you made stupid decisions in your testing; I'm mentioning it just as one of our software design principles). You want autonomous behavior - yet at the same time you also want predictable behavior. Well, you can't have both. You can only try to find a balance between totally deterministic behavior and complete autonomy. I admit that our current balance is not ideal, but it isn't quite as bad as you assert it to be.