Jump to content
Gibsonm

Rolling Thunder: Operation Rising Bear

Recommended Posts

Well that was "fun". :(

7 hours of trying to get things to work.

Ssnake was along so we have sent him some log files (both user and server) to see if its a 3.011 "issue" and if yes then whether it can be addressed in 3.012 or 3.something.

Ssnake did mention it may have been contributed to by people running into memory issues with the 32Bit version and that maybe the 64Bit version might help with this. No idea when you might see this though.

Also there is a chance of a pure server version (so the server doesn't do the 3D work) but again no timeframe.

They are all longer term "fixes".

Shorter term fixes:

1. Will see if I can persuade Sean or Volcano to run one of the missions as a TGIF activity to see if the server/networking is an issue.

If we get similar "performance" as we did with the PzBtl server, then maybe its the file. Whilst we did test using the PzBtl911 server and 9-10 players, the additional load of 50 plus may well have made a difference.

If it works "fine" compared to the PzBtl server, then maybe its the server and I need to ask Sean if he is willing to host (and stay up for) the full series.

2. Whilst our playtesting indicated that the larger maps had no impact on FPS or lag, there is again a chance that this was due to our relatively small sample size.

So concurrent with "1" I'll crop the maps to 22 x 22 just in case and create smaller map versions of the same scenarios.

This will have little impact on the missions as the combat area fits within the 22 x 22 but helos, artillery, etc. might have to stage from the white space off the map.

Mid Term fixes:

It was suggested that reducing the number of sides might reduce the burden (LOS checks for each side? - unsure if someone who knows can confirm).

Assuming removing say the US side has no impact on RusFed or ZSU then this might be possible but would probably destroy the call sign templates and skins we can currently dedicate to each nation.

If removing the US ruins the other sides as well, then I probably wont do that as it effectively means starting from scratch.

Going forward ...

If the TGIF trial indicates that the files are OK (or at least the combination of TGIF server and bandwidth makes them workable).

Then I'll need to run a fresh poll asking for availability (will still be 1800 GMT on a Saturday).

I'll be able to do this once I get a short list of dates based on:

Sean's availability

My availability

BG ANZAC staff availability

At this early stage though I wouldn't expect it to be before the Pz Btl 911 LNoT activity planned for July, since if they have similar issues, it might help focus the search for a fix on their server.

So again thanks for your patience during this period of shared frustration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the work on this, Mark and all the other contributors. Having been involved in the wonderful world of IT for a couple of decades I've been involved in my share of large software launches that ran into initial technical problems and so can imagine the today must have been similarly frustrating for you.

Nonetheless I enjoyed hanging with the CT and look forward to the next attempt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is "Eve" (apart from the Biblical character)?

Well I kept the CT and supporting arms commanders informed with a running commentary.

If they didn't pass it on. ....

That is what delegation is all about.

I certainly couldn't jump down to every platoon grouping and say the same thing 15 times or so.

If you want everybody on the one TS channel then I suspect that isn't going to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who is "Eve" (apart from the Biblical character)?.

I believe he means the "Eve Online" massively-multiplayer online game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the effort.

Gibson, I have some fairly minimal scenario editing ideas on how to get it working without removing any side. I can discuss in TS if you like; I would hate to see all the effort to to waste. :(

Trust me, I am skilled with surgically editing scenarios as I have had to do it to my own campaigns and scenarios more times than I can remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That could very easily be fixed so you as the host or any other of the exercise leaders could push a simple button and speak to every body thats just one of the improvements i am talking about but lets talk about it later as the time is 04:41B here in Denmark so i am heeding for some nap time :)

But I don't want to talk to every body.

A military radio net is structured.

I talk to a small group of subordinates and each of them talk to theirs.

The intermediaries are responsible for relaying the information up and down what is called the Chain of Command. Most of my conversations about the "non in game" issues started with "tell your subordinates ..."

I'm sorry if your relatively short "chain" didn't work.

But I'm sure in other organisations the "chain" from:

Me to CT

CT to Platoon / Troop

Platoon / Troop to individual vehicle

DID work.

Part of the "attraction" of taking a command appointment is this management of subordinates and developing your part of the overall plan. If I just speak to everyone all at once part of this is taken away.

The other practical benefit from this approach to this is that it covers multiple languages. So the French, Spanish and German CT and Platoon commanders can translate my English comments into the relevant language for the Troop / Platoon.

Otherwise (pardon up front to my Canadian friends) it starts to look and sound like a Canadian railway station with the same announcement being made in multiple languages (most of which I'm useless at).

It may well work in some SiFi based game, but this is meant to reflect reality where possible and the approach I used (and will continue to use) reflects this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for all the effort.

It wont go to waste. :)

Gibson, I have some fairly minimal scenario editing ideas on how to get it working without removing any side. I can discuss in TS if you like; I would hate to see all the effort to to waste. :(

Trust me, I am skilled with surgically editing scenarios as I have had to do it to my own campaigns and scenarios more times than I can remember.

Well Mission 1 is already updated to remove those "surplus" units we spoke of and fixed some graphic issues (control measures, etc.) that "slipped through to the keeper"

Happy to talk on TS, if we can find a mutually acceptable time. But I would like to look at running this on Sean's machine if possible to remove the PzBtl 911 setup from the equation.

As mentioned previously this combination worked OK with a test group of 10 or so but finding a "test" group of 50 (short of TGIF) will be problematic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happy to talk on TS, if we can find a mutually acceptable time. But I would like to look at running this on Sean's machine if possible to remove the PzBtl 911 setup from the equation.

As mentioned previously this combination worked OK with a test group of 10 or so but finding a "test" group of 50 (short of TGIF) will be problematic.

Yes, I can understand wanting to figure out if it is the server or not, but from my experience the primary culprit is the number of units in each of these scenarios. Each scenario is essentially twice the size of Red Tide's scenarios and that was pushing the boundaries of what a WAN setup can handle (Red Tide = one battalion vs. three battalions, Rolling Thunder = two battalions vs. six battalions). Of course if we were all on a LAN setup with uniform high end PCs then the unit size could increase.

Honestly though, Sean's setup will not do much better, considering that (and he can second this) Red Tide's unit count put some considerable strain on the network, but it was tolerable. To alleviate the network strain, I actually had 1/3rd of Red's force spawn in in the middle of the scenario which helped make it possible, because the other 2/3rds would be depleted by then, so that gives an idea of what results you can expect for the WAN setup.

I will be on all week if you want to talk, just send me a PM whenever you want during the week. I have ideas on what to surgically remove in order to maximum performance and minimize the impact on the campaign. I am happy to help. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What major duck meant was that while we don't have that much steelbeast experience, we have some experience in using Ts coordinating as many as 1000 people in different channels.

Channel commander, global channel commander etc Is run exactly as military comms. So instead of using whisper list (and some have more than one) and adding people to and from whisper list then you use the built in channel commander option.

Ex: when US co had to leave all had to add one or two to whisper list. If channel command system was used all the new guy had to do was turn on channel command.

This is not criticism. I know it's not easy to set all that up. I am all for passing down information and chain of command etc.

This was simply meant as a way to make it easier for you and everybody else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Count me in for the retry. :)

Same here, if I can make it I will, I appreciate the effort that has gone into this :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of can I saw a big well done to Mark.

The amount of planning that was put into this and then the way he kept his head when things when wrong on the night was unbelievable. I know if I was in the same situation I would not have had such a cool head!

Never has one man coped with such adversity and kept such a motley gaggle of cats in order in the realm of digital combat :P

I (and the rest of UKA) look forward to attempting this again once the niggles are ironed out.

As far as issues with Comms...

I think Mark had a definite idea on how he wanted to communicate with the various CT's. If information was not passed down to you then I think that may have been an issue with your CT chain of command, not the TS structure being used.

However I am sure there is something we can learn from the way other gaming groups use TS and better ways of doing things rather than sub-channels and whisper lists but maybe discussing it in a different thread would be a good idea?

I for one would love to learn how we can get more from TS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ex: when US co had to leave all had to add one or two to whisper list. If channel command system was used all the new guy had to do was turn on channel command.

This is not criticism. I know it's not easy to set all that up. I am all for passing down information and chain of command etc.

This was simply meant as a way to make it easier for you and everybody else.

But its not easier because Channel commander only works up and down.

We have a network with "peers" (so each CT is at the top of their pyramid) and Channel Commanders don't work in that environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just some help full advice from someone that have worked a long time in a brigade staff and knows all about military com channels and chain of command.

Right so how often did your Brigade Commander give an "all hands" briefing to everyone in their Brigade?

In my work at Brigade, Division, Joint Task Force and Coalition Headquarters its always been an O Gp by the Commander to their subordinates and then those at that O Gp convey the information to their subordinates via their own O Gp.

If its straight information its relayed. If its orders, the subordinates develop their own plan (including things relevant at their level) and then convey the information.

I don't think its suitable for what we are doing and wont be pursing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The existing system worked fine for us (UKA). Each platoon/unit had its own channel and access to an 'All Callsigns' CT channel (whisper list). (You could do it the other way round, of course). Hoggy had a code phrase ('Quiet Please) to shut us up when he wanted to listen to the Brigade net. This allowed him to receive upper echelon commands without distraction - and pass them down to us as and when the opportunity arose. As a result everyone was kept informed of what was going on at all times. An understanding of the procedure and a bit of comms discipline was all that was required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok well the existing system didnt work well for all then since I had people in my whisper list but couldnt hear what they where saying on cmd list.

That means that either did those people not have me on whisper or something else was wrong.

I am just saying the channel commander works in different channel and sub channels also.

qKj3RDD.png

I understand its your show and respect if you dont wanna use it.

Will be my last post about this now.

I will of course be ready for next run also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Killjoy

What about something like:

Tank Commander > Everyone in squadron (inc. Squadron leader)

Squadron leader > CT Commander

CT Commander > Command.

Or am repeating what's just been said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be there for another attempt. I was looking forward to this one and will look forward to a rerun when the issues are sorted out with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok well the existing system didnt work well for all then since I had people in my whisper list but couldnt hear what they where saying on cmd list.

That means that either did those people not have me on whisper or something else was wrong.

If you could not hear them it was almost certainly because they had not put you on their list. You can put them on your WL and they will hear you, but unless they put you on theirs you won't hear them. IMHO it's by the far the simplest and most easily understandable method going - but it does require people to use the main channel to set the lists (and do appropriate 'radio checks') before the game starts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TS was working just fine.

As with any software one must practice using it. We here have little use in such large scale ops in this area, say what, maybe 10-15 times using TS for this scale.

What we need is more training and more large scale missions where we can practice using the system

As was said, if info was not passed along it was a command to sub commander issue.

We will get better at TS with more campaigns or large missions that force us to use whisper and other features of the system.

I though it went well myself:luxhello:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But I don't want to talk to every body.

A military radio net is structured.

I talk to a small group of subordinates and each of them talk to theirs.

The intermediaries are responsible for relaying the information up and down what is called the Chain of Command. Most of my conversations about the "non in game" issues started with "tell your subordinates ..."

I'm sorry if your relatively short "chain" didn't work.

But I'm sure in other organisations the "chain" from:

Me to CT

CT to Platoon / Troop

Platoon / Troop to individual vehicle

DID work.

Part of the "attraction" of taking a command appointment is this management of subordinates and developing your part of the overall plan. If I just speak to everyone all at once part of this is taken away.

The other practical benefit from this approach to this is that it covers multiple languages. So the French, Spanish and German CT and Platoon commanders can translate my English comments into the relevant language for the Troop / Platoon.

Otherwise (pardon up front to my Canadian friends) it starts to look and sound like a Canadian railway station with the same announcement being made in multiple languages (most of which I'm useless at).

It may well work in some SiFi based game, but this is meant to reflect reality where possible and the approach I used (and will continue to use) reflects this.

And that's why I fly:bigsmile:

Edited by 12Alfa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...