Please drop PAK logic from 4.33+
-
PAKs are bad for tasking manager as they’re a totally inappropriate abstraction for scoring missions. Missions can be scored individually without taking them into account, better than user-supplied triggers to re-prioritize PAKs.
Please use either:
- vector to FLOT
- euclidean distance to FLOT
- influence map
The requirement for PAK-priority-changing triggers is the issue here. The campaign can play itself with right changes. PAK triggers push it toward DCS/arma missions.
cheers,
sh -
+1 for this, paks are not good.
-
And how should ATO work…? PAK system is one of the key element the dynamic campaign, at least as I can judge it. You cannot simply remove just because you do not like mission rating. It would be similar if you asked to remove from your car the gearbox while you still want a functional car. How could you that?
Or you wish to simply remove the link from scoring? Creating different and equivalent system would be hard to even “invent”. Just imagine. Rather destroying the designated airbase close to DPRK capital I bomb and empty airstrip far from FLOT and capital. You should get the same rating?. No, you should not.
In fact even currently you can cheat partially the dyn. cam. system because you can create as easy missions manually as you wish. You can seet up a CAP with 1 min patrol time than you can leave free to hunt. You can designate any target for strike mission, any civilan objective close to FLOT. You can send your wingman against a single bomb. Target detroyed, mission rating will be excellent. And now is you free to bomb anything else…
(Maybe was unwise to write down this, but as a player you can find out this you do not have to be a modder.)
-
I don’t think he is saying “scoring” like the player performance feedback but scoring relative value of objectives for the purposes of prioritizing ATO generation. He does give theoretically alternate ways of calculating importance (weighted math from positions of obj/units). molnibalage is talking about something else.
I have no idea the possibility of changing how campaign logic can be changed, if it is bad or good, or anything so I am interested what informed people say about this.
The impression I get is that campaigns can be much better without abandoning PAK at all. Different values of supply and changing links and mission values can radically alter the kinds of sorties which are generated. I don’t know specifically what is the matter with PAK. How exactly is PAK working and what is wrong with it at a fundamental level in concept?
-
PAK is fundamental for user and for air campaign engine (ATO). It is the Priorities and Mission Type which are deserving more sliders.
-
I don’t think he is saying “scoring” like the player performance feedback but scoring relative value of objectives for the purposes of prioritizing ATO generation. He does give theoretically alternate ways of calculating importance (weighted math from positions of obj/units). molnibalage is talking about something else.
I have no idea the possibility of changing how campaign logic can be changed, if it is bad or good, or anything so I am interested what informed people say about this.
The impression I get is that campaigns can be much better without abandoning PAK at all. Different values of supply and changing links and mission values can radically alter the kinds of sorties which are generated. I don’t know specifically what is the matter with PAK. How exactly is PAK working and what is wrong with it at a fundamental level in concept?
Precisely - Air tasking manager goes through ALL possible missions and scores them before submitting tasking orders.
PAKs aren’t dynamic, and their importance is overestimated. Since they’re necessary for tasking for the winning objectives, their weight could be decreased, and “score nearest to flot”, “suicide mission danger threshold” put into .aii.
And how should ATO work…? PAK system is one of the key element the dynamic campaign, at least as I can judge it. You cannot simply remove just because you do not like mission rating. It would be similar if you asked to remove from your car the gearbox while you still want a functional car. How could you that?
Or you wish to simply remove the link from scoring? Creating different and equivalent system would be hard to even “invent”. Just imagine. Rather destroying the designated airbase close to DPRK capital I bomb and empty airstrip far from FLOT and capital. You should get the same rating?. No, you should not.
Need to weight higher, the stuff closer to FLOT. See how FLOT progresses toward winning objective. It shouldn’t start with Deep Strikes. I consider adjusting PAK priorities in .tri antithetical to dynamic campaign idea.
In other terms - from ATM perspective treat PAKs as war objectives, not something to immediately prioritize for tasking. Progress toward them naturally.
-
More on how to progress toward PAK - use an influence map[1] and weight PAK values
[1]
- make sector map with number of units in cells where there are units. Add together positive for friendlies, negative for enemy. You can use here threat values depending on materiel type.
- propagate values outward. you can use here any arbitrary scaling, e.g. Euclid, Gaussian blur with appropriate kernel, etc.
Now, don’t pass areas with large concentrations of enemy forces in GTM/ATM. Merely direct toward these areas, to kill enemy forces. When influence map is recomputed and there are no enemy-occupied areas like that anymore, can launch PAST them toward PAK objectives.
sh
-
But PAK is also used to create a good dyamic campaign with tri files. Just ask A.S. about it.
-
PAKs are bad for tasking manager as they’re a totally inappropriate abstraction for scoring missions. Missions can be scored individually without taking them into account, better than user-supplied triggers to re-prioritize PAKs.
Please use either:
- vector to FLOT
- euclidean distance to FLOT
- influence map
The requirement for PAK-priority-changing triggers is the issue here. The campaign can play itself with right changes. PAK triggers push it toward DCS/arma missions.
cheers,
shahahaha another wizard! hahaha
The pak , are the heart of the campaign dynamics . Without those there would be no missions in the ATO . Without pak, fly with dcs world!
-
ahahaha another wizard! hahaha
The pak , are the heart of the campaign dynamics . Without those there would be no missions in the ATO . Without pak, fly with dcs world!
Obviously missions can be scored differently than with PAK.
But PAK is also used to create a good dyamic campaign with tri files. Just ask A.S. about it.
Is it right though? The scoring can get replaced with an automatic method, taking into account more states than author put in .tri.
-
The scoring can get replaced with an automatic method, taking into account more states than author put in .tri.
Aim is not to have a full automatic system. Aim is to keep the human in the loop. Goal of the game/sim is not to watch the computer fighting its war, but to let the player making some choices.
However, concerning opponent side (where human has usually no input) … “only the .tri” are taken in account.
-
Sthalik,
The debate will go on and on with no successful conclusion. Why not prove “out of the box” thoughts in proof of concept campaign, it has proven a good “show me” tool in recent past. Then let the debates continue.
Vags
-
Sthalik,
The debate will go on and on with no successful conclusion. Why not prove “out of the box” thoughts in proof of concept campaign, it has proven a good “show me” tool in recent past. Then let the debates continue.
Vags
That requires code changes, so I can’t do it on BMS version.
Also, can F4 be built without DirectX 7 SDK? That one’s pretty impossible to get.
-
This post is deleted!
