Wingman didn't attack and burned fuel
-
hi
I was flying an OCA Strike on a radar and barracks.I fixed 4 targets to SPT 15, 16, 17 and 18 accordingly (radar, tower, barracks, barracks) thinking for me to hit 15, my wingman 16, and element 17 with LGBs.
So as I got to IP, I assigned each STP to the flight (select STP16 on DED, press W-1 , select SPT17 and Press E-1 ), then dropped my bombs on 15, and egressed hoping to see more explosions. When I realized 10 minutes later, all the 3 wingmen were flying in circles, at Angels22 with half AB and then they called Joker while I still had fuel 7.0+
How can I get them to attack? This is the first time it has happened but now I’m afraid it might repeat in a another mission.
-
I think you need to lock each target up in the FCR before saying “attack my target” and make sure DL is on cont. I normally fly as a wingman with AI lead and attack a different target.
-
Yep, that’s correct. I’m not at my BMS computer right now, so i can’t check, but isn’t the “attack my target” command “greyed out” when you haven’t got a target assigned?
-
I think you need to lock each target up in the FCR before saying “attack my target” and make sure DL is on cont
Yes, FTT is needed to be acquired for each call-out, but I’am not sure if DL is really necessary. More importantly you have to be rather far away from the target (> 20 nm) in order to motivate your AI buddies to attack successfully.
-
More importantly you have to be rather far away from the target (> 20 nm) in order to motivate your AI buddies to attack successfully.
That’s new for me, can you explain that? I usually give the command when i’m in range my self, often a lot closer then 20 nm (AG), never had motivational problems.
-
That’s new for me, can you explain that? I usually give the command when i’m in range my self, often a lot closer then 20 nm (AG), never had motivational problems.
That was in 4.32
Now in 4.33 it works closer least for me
-
The AI is known to be a little “balky” when it comes to using them efficiently in the AG role. There are many threads on this issue (for example see here: https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?11401-How-to-perform-attack-run-with-AI&highlight=wingmen), but after all: if you are closer than 20 nm it doesn’t nmean that they will fail in attacking. In your case (human leader in range) they seem to do fine for example.
However, it seems like the closer you get to your target the more likely it is for the AI to screw up. If the targets are known and pre-briefed, ordering the AI to attack early and from far out is the way to go. On contrary, orbiting close to the target area and ordering them to execute their bomb run on movers or targets of opportunity doesn’t work well. I never had much luck with them in the latter case …
and by referring to the 4.33 manuals which stateThe AI is now much better at energy management, timing and fuel efficiency thanks to updated climb profiles, top of climb and top of descent management. Holding points and push points have been improved. AI now perform baseline intercepts much more effectively (be warned). This is important for BVR combat but also for tanker rendezvous. The ATO features new target selection logic and package constitution.
we can say that this particulary behaviour hasn’t changed in 4.33. But at least they are not burning fuel like crazy as they used to do in 4.32
Cheers,
Eggs -
I think you need to lock each target up in the FCR before saying “attack my target” and make sure DL is on cont. I normally fly as a wingman with AI lead and attack a different target.
FCR doesn’t have to be FTT/MTT. It’s really easy to test. Slew the FCR over an empty piece of ground and see the “AMT” is grayed out because there is no valid target under the cursors. Slew it over an actionable object and watch that option enable. No FTT/MTT required. It also doesn’t have to be the FCR cursors. Maverick, TGP, padlock and possibly some others I’m not remembering also works. Also datalink doesn’t come into it at all.
There are a few issues with flight member attacks. One aspect you have to realize is that most weapons have a prescribed AI delivery profile which mandates an altitude. If you’re at 2,000’ and order a JDAM attack the wingman is going to fly up to 20,000’ before he even thinks about a release. Another aspect is the range to target. If you’re too close then the first thing a wingman will do is peel off to get some distance before turning in. Angular misalignment adds extra time and distance to the ingress as well which they do at not the sharpest turn rate.
I suspect there is some kind of IP-target relationship that AI use based on your current steerpoint. I haven’t tested this nearly enough but I swear there is a difference between when you designate a target and your current steerpoint is the mission target steerpoint and if your steer is some sky high out-of-flight-plan or markpoint number.
The normal method of a strike mission is supposed to be passing IP or otherwise close to the target area flight members should call “hound dog” that has nothing to do with AA threats. Then you give them a WF and they self-select targets. The problem in 4.33 is that they are doing this way too close to the target if at all where in 4.32 they would ask at 10-15 miles.
“Attack my targets” (notice the S) is often a better command because it auto-sorts certain flight members to certain targets within that target group. So an AMTS command while locking up vehicle 1 might have #2 attack vehicle 2, #3 attack vehicle 3, and so on. I’d have to test that #2 goes for #2 or the indicated.
If you have PGMs on the flight like LGBs you’ll find they release one bomb per delivery and since they generally have two they will go around. Any AMT/AMTS/WF command sets the AI into the WF state so you have to WH if you want to break the cycle of continuing to attack. They will often rejoin before expending all weapons if the mission target is entirely destroyed with weapons remaining.
A 4-ship strike against an objective with 3 AI flight members is the most complex AI management task there is in Falcon. It requires a deep understanding of the AI commands and how the AI work.
-
Thanks Frederf for clarifying!
A 4-ship strike against an objective with 3 AI flight members is the most complex AI management task there is in Falcon. It requires a deep understanding of the AI commands and how the AI work.
… which can only be gained by extensive testing, or is there an elaborate guide outthere that you could point me to?
-
+1 on Frederf.
Previously to this I have assigned targets as STPS and ordered them to attack, which they did, without FTT or TGP lock etc.
I was thinking this as a maybe:
Since I attacked first and dropped 2PAIR of GBU, in the mission debrief it said I knocked the targets (100% hit, damaged barracks, radar, tower etc). Maybe I destroyed the targets and they had nothing to attack, still I managed to order them “attack my target” since I had Target STP selected.
-
-
CTD ate my post so I’ll bullet point the redo.
I’m trying to document this sort of thing as we speak. 4.33 changes enough to reset a lot of the data collected.
The three methods of AG engagement I’m going to call Request Permission to Engage (RPtE), Attack My Targets (AMTS), Attack My Target (AMT).
I’m going to differentiate from the mission target (MT) and non-mission target (NMT).I recommend whenever possible to use the RPtE method for a strike on a MT. You can’t use it for NMTs. The AI are supposed to do this at a proper distance on ingress but I’ve had more trouble than normal in 4.33. If the AI are still thinking AA then this is problematic as well. It can be hard to tell a RPtE for AA vs AG.
Use the send DL ground target to see if that AI is currently or considering a specific ground target. If he asks RPtE and doesn’t have a DL AG target to share, he means it AA for sure.
AMTS is functional for NMTs or MTs. To get the most deconfliction in targeting issue to the entire flight at once (wingman AMTS and element AMTS issues separately don’t coordinate and may overlap). It seems the AI likes to go down the recon list (or some other analysis, killing ZSU-23-4 first for example) of the target group when given AMTS. The specific item in your target group might not actually be attacked in favor of other item in that group.
AMT is kill this item in this group specifically. Giving a whole flight AMT on a single item will mean they all try to kill it. As such element is better AMTS and leave the exact work to you and #2.
“Good hit” reporting is on destruction of target (not damage).
“GBU” is not a good category to talk about since AI uses different GBUs differently. LGB for example should all act the same. They won’t release more than 1 at a time so GBU-24 attack for example you may decide to WH after initial attack and maneuver back to IP or RTB. Left alone the AI will repeat with the second bomb flying all sorts of directions to turn around (about 15nm).
-
Use the send DL ground target to see if that AI is currently or considering a specific ground target. If he asks RPtE and doesn’t have a DL AG target to share, he means it AA for sure.
I’m guessing here, but I think that, likewise, they should have a bugged air target on DL if they RPtE while “air minded”. Not sure though as I don’t normally fly with CONT DL with AI, but based on past experiences it may be the case.
