SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

propbeanie · 10-12-19, 08:01 AM

That is that ContactReport 50 file set, which irritates the fire out of me. Did it say
X DEFINITELY A LUCRATIVE TARGET X OTHER FORCES FOR ATTACKING ARE VECTORED THAT WAY X BREAK CONTACT IMMEDIATELY AND CONTINUE WITH ASSIGNED OPERATIONS OR RETURN TO BASE IF NECESSARY FOR FUEL SUPPLIES OR REPAIR X

??? A more appropriate response would be
X ATTACK IMMEDIATELY X DO NOT NEGLECT YOUR OTHER ASSIGNED DUTIES X

For whatever reason, the game has a knack for falling through to that first response, which is apparently the "default", similar to an East China Sea assignment if the game can't find a valid Objective to assign, whether you are out of Brisbane, or Dutch Harbor, if you get an ECS assignment from those locations or Fremantle, you know that propbeanie messed something up in the Flotillas.upc... However, with the Contact Report, the game relies upon these sets of lines:
EvaluationReason=ContactReport
AllMatch=TaskForce,Small ("medium" or "large" for other file sets)
PartialMatch=11,9,8,7,6
PartialMatchingMinimumPercentage=20

or similar (that is for the ContactReport 01) in the DynamicMiss.cfg file to "identify" which path to give preference to as to the game's response to the player for the contact report. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any way to "seed" the percentages of where the choices go, with that "default" 50 set apparently getting about 1/3 to 1/2 of the sent reports. It's tough enough fulfilling the game's requirements to make a contact report already, and then instead of getting a "Terminate immediately with extreme prejudice", you instead get a whimpy "break contact"... We do have a small tweak to the Dynamic Miss also, which might help, in that I've lowered some of the percentage requirements for the different types of ships for a grouping to be identified as something to attack. What may have happened in your case (I have no "scientific evidence" to support this assumption) is that your crew members were "seeing" the screen, which if you look at the PartialMatch= line, those are the ship types that will result in a Task Force being identified, and then you have the "20%" line, which means the group has to have that amount of the identified ships in it... Usually, you are on the fringe of a group when sending a report, so you might have 3 DD (which aren't on the "TaskForce" list), one CL and one BB visible, and the computer apparently "knows" (it cheats, remember) that the group has 21 ships in it. None of your ID'd ships reach that 20% threshold, so we're falling through to that 50 response you received instead - I think...

So for the next release, the percentage required has been lowered across the board (all files), and more classes of combatants have been added to the list for being identified. I have not been able to test the results too well, but we should be able to see how well that works (or doesn't) soon after release...

Edit: OK Immelmann, I did find issues (again) in the file... so more tweaks have been done now... sigh... we will have to see what happens with the "logic" after the next release though...

10-12-19, 08:01 AM	#8594
propbeanie CTD - it's not just a job Join Date: May 2016 Location: One hour from Music City USA! Posts: 9,761 Downloads: 441 Uploads: 2	That is that ContactReport 50 file set, which irritates the fire out of me. Did it say X DEFINITELY A LUCRATIVE TARGET X OTHER FORCES FOR ATTACKING ARE VECTORED THAT WAY X BREAK CONTACT IMMEDIATELY AND CONTINUE WITH ASSIGNED OPERATIONS OR RETURN TO BASE IF NECESSARY FOR FUEL SUPPLIES OR REPAIR X ??? A more appropriate response would be X ATTACK IMMEDIATELY X DO NOT NEGLECT YOUR OTHER ASSIGNED DUTIES X For whatever reason, the game has a knack for falling through to that first response, which is apparently the "default", similar to an East China Sea assignment if the game can't find a valid Objective to assign, whether you are out of Brisbane, or Dutch Harbor, if you get an ECS assignment from those locations or Fremantle, you know that propbeanie messed something up in the Flotillas.upc... However, with the Contact Report, the game relies upon these sets of lines: EvaluationReason=ContactReport AllMatch=TaskForce,Small ("medium" or "large" for other file sets) PartialMatch=11,9,8,7,6 PartialMatchingMinimumPercentage=20 or similar (that is for the ContactReport 01) in the DynamicMiss.cfg file to "identify" which path to give preference to as to the game's response to the player for the contact report. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any way to "seed" the percentages of where the choices go, with that "default" 50 set apparently getting about 1/3 to 1/2 of the sent reports. It's tough enough fulfilling the game's requirements to make a contact report already, and then instead of getting a "Terminate immediately with extreme prejudice", you instead get a whimpy "break contact"... We do have a small tweak to the Dynamic Miss also, which might help, in that I've lowered some of the percentage requirements for the different types of ships for a grouping to be identified as something to attack. What may have happened in your case (I have no "scientific evidence" to support this assumption) is that your crew members were "seeing" the screen, which if you look at the PartialMatch= line, those are the ship types that will result in a Task Force being identified, and then you have the "20%" line, which means the group has to have that amount of the identified ships in it... Usually, you are on the fringe of a group when sending a report, so you might have 3 DD (which aren't on the "TaskForce" list), one CL and one BB visible, and the computer apparently "knows" (it cheats, remember) that the group has 21 ships in it. None of your ID'd ships reach that 20% threshold, so we're falling through to that 50 response you received instead - I think... So for the next release, the percentage required has been lowered across the board (all files), and more classes of combatants have been added to the list for being identified. I have not been able to test the results too well, but we should be able to see how well that works (or doesn't) soon after release... Edit: OK Immelmann, I did find issues (again) in the file... so more tweaks have been done now... sigh... we will have to see what happens with the "logic" after the next release though... __________________ "...and bollocks to the naysayer/s" - Jimbuna Last edited by propbeanie; 10-12-19 at 09:14 AM. Reason: Say whuh???