VictorInThePacific

I am still working on this post - needed to store the data somewhere, but I need to interrupt the process. new data Anecdote about a refueling problem. Strictly speaking, this does not belong in this thread, because it is not a refueling issue, although it arises as a consequence of a refueling situation. In EC2000 Battle for the Norwegian Sea 1 (Big Fish), you need to fly some EH 101 Merlin helicopters from Kinloss, Scotland to some friendly ships just S of Iceland, refuel there, and then assault some US ships NW of Iceland. The Merlins have a range of 500 nm, so they can just barely make it to the refueling point. However, all the target ships are more than 250 nm from the refueling point, and these helicopters (or any helicopters) are NOT CAPABLE OF IN-FLIGHT REFUELING ! This means that the helicopters have to fly suicide missions. Fortunately, the victory conditions do not require you to recover your helicopters, just get them to the target, so it’s not a game-breaking problem, but it certainly is strange. pictures norefuel targets

More refueling data. Harpoon version 2007.000. GIUK 1 (NATO) refueling EA-6B Prowler from A-6E tanker 1) from 25 nm of fuel to 1763 2) from 36 nm of fuel to 1763 3) from 199 nm of fuel to 1763 4) from 0 nm of fuel to "tried to refuel a unit but it did not exist". Oh well, can't win them all. As in the previous post, we see that if a lot of fuel is available (the entire tanker load for one plane), a variable amount of fuel is transferred, up to the total capacity of the refueled plane. The problem is that the Prowler can only carry fuel for 1440 nm. For reference, the A-6E tanker range is normally 1800 nm.

I have mentioned some errors in the refueling procedure earlier in this thread. In this post, I provide some more careful measurements to demonstrate this. The scenario is USNI 3 (RED). The Russian airbase is Olenya. It has one runway. The tanker being used is the Tu-16N Badger A. It has a normal range of 3100 nm. It cruises at 460 kn at medium. The test plane is the Tu-16K Badger G. With an ASuW loadout, it has a normal range of 2480 nm. It cruises at 460 kn at medium. The general procedure I used was to launch one bomber at the start of the scenario, then launch one tanker along the same path, then group them. This separates the planes in the unit window for easy identification. At 460 kn, the planes consume just under 8 nm of fuel per minute. Of course, they are also travelling, but that doesn't matter here. At specific times, I forced refueling (ALT-r). The planes were never actually low on fuel, and automatic refueling did not occur. After each measurement was done, I restarted the game for the next measurement. At 5 min, the bomber had 2444 nm of fuel left, and I forced refueling. After 1 min, its fuel went to 3028 nm. At 10 min, the bomber had 2404 nm of fuel left, and I forced refueling. After 1 min, its fuel went to 3037 nm. At 15 min, the bomber had 2366 nm of fuel left, and I forced refueling. After 1 min, its fuel went to 3037 nm. At 30 min, the bomber had 2251 nm of fuel left, and I forced refueling. After 1 min, its fuel went to 3037 nm. We can see that the bomber is using about 38 nm of fuel per 5 min, which is correct. Fluctuations can be accounted for by reaction time. The 5 min final fuel status is anomalous, but that may be due to a bad measurement. The other numbers are consistent. The main problem with these results is that the bomber is getting more fuel than it can actually carry. For the next measurement, I used 10 bombers in a group, but otherwise used the same procedure as above. Since there were only 8 of these bombers immediately available with the ASuW loadout, I used the same bomber, but these ones had the ASuW-LR loadout. The range is still 2480 nm, and for purposes of this test, I expect that there is no difference. Of course, it takes about 5 min to launch the 10-bomber group. At 15 min, the bombers had 2375 nm of fuel left, and I forced refueling. After 1 min, their fuel went to 2927 nm. At 30 min, the bombers had 2260 nm of fuel left, and I forced refueling. After 1 min, their fuel went to 2812 nm. In the first 15 min, the bombers used 105 nm of fuel. This is slightly less than the single bomber, due to the loitering during launch. In the second 15 min, the bombers used 115 nm of fuel, which is correct. We should now have a fairly good handle on the fuel transfer process. Since I recorded the bomber fuel status before and after the refueling process, which takes 60 s for forced refueling, we need to correct for the fuel used in that time, which is 8 nm. The 10-bomber group got 560 nm of fuel (x 10). Because this value is the same for both tries, and the bomber final fuel status is not constant, we know that this is the maximum amount of fuel one tanker can give. For the single-bomber tries, the final fuel status is constant, and the amount transferred is not constant, so we know that 3037 nm is the maximum fuel the bomber can hold (with this loadout). So then I decided to launch all 24 Badgers at once (16 ASuW-LR, 8 ASuW). For the first 4 minutes, they were launched in pairs. It took 4 minutes to launch the remaining 8. At 10 min, the bombers had 2419 nm of fuel left, and I forced refueling. They had used only 61 nm of fuel, considerably less than the normal 77 nm; this is due to the extended launch loiter time. After refueling, the 8 ASuW bombers had 2651 nm of fuel, but the 16 other bombers got nothing! After correcting for the transfer time, we can see that 240 nm (x 8) was received. However, if all the fuel is going to only 8 planes, then they should have received 5600 nm / 8 = 700 nm each. 5600 / 24 = 233, so the tanker gave away all its fuel, but 2/3 of it was simply dumped into deep space! Finally, I used the available group of 24 Su-24M Fencer Ds. These planes cruise at 561 kn at medium. I launched them all in one group, which took 12 min. I put them on afterburner for a while to use up fuel. Then I loitered them at high. Then I brought up one tanker, loitered it at low, and added it to the group. Then I forced refueling, using anti-gravity feed and a VERY long hose. The instant before the refueling was completed, the Fencers had 467 nm of fuel. The instant after the refueling was completed, the Fencers had 708 nm of fuel. Total fuel transferred was 241 nm x 24 = 5784. I can't account for the extra 184 nm of fuel. Interesting detail : 184 / 24 = 23 / 3 = 460 / 60. On the left, this is equal to the unexplained additional fuel each Fencer got. On the right, it is equal to the fuel a Badger (bomber or tanker) uses in one minute at cruise. Problems with the details of the process: 1) The Tu-16N Badger A tanker appears to hold 5600 nm of fuel for transferring. This is much more than its normal range of 3100 nm and may not be correct. 2) The Tu-16K Badger G can be refueled up to 3037 nm, which is about 22% higher than its normal range with this loadout. But its normal range probably expresses how far it can fly with tanks full, so the 3037 nm is probably incorrect. 3) When refueling a large group of planes from one tanker, if the planes are different by as little as having a different loadout (and I expect that it may be possible to reduce this difference to something even smaller), then the full number of planes is used to calculate how much fuel each plane gets, although only some of them actually get the fuel. 4) There may be a problem with determining how much fuel a tanker can give, because it seems to depend on which plane is getting the fuel. 5) If you are launching planes from a base with a limited number of runways, then the 30 s per launch per runway restriction is adhered to, as long as you are launching only one type of plane. But if the planes are different by as little as having a different loadout, then each different type uses the runways independently, so the effective number of runways is the actual number of runways multiplies by the number of different plane types. This is not a refueling bug, and it is not a new issue, but it is a mistake in the program, and players will need to take some care to avoid exploiting this (unless they like cheating).

Here are some bugs that I came across while doing experiments with tankers. Not really bugs as in the game doing something wrong and unintented when a player does something normal and appropriate, but rather me doing something abnormal that the game was not designed to do, and getting away with it. One of them may not have been seen before. I am posting it in this location because the hardcore testers might derive some amusement from it, but it might give the wrong impression to a more general audience. If you order a plane to "patrol" to a location that it doesn't have the fuel to reach, the game will not allow the plane to be launched. If the plane cannot be refueled in the air, you will also be informed of this. Bug #1 is that the restricted distance should be half the plane's fuel range, not the full distance, because the plane also has to return. However, if you first allocate a tanker to the launching group, you can then include the short-range plane in the group. The program also appears to consider how many tankers might be required for the short-range planes, and will prevent a launch with insufficient tankers. If you now remove the tankers from the launching group, you can get the short-range planes to attempt to fly to a location that they don't have the fuel to reach. This is not the only way of getting a plane to fly a path that it doesn't have enough fuel for. Notwithstanding the above, if you have somehow managed to get a plane to fly a path that it doesn't have enough fuel for, the game will still let you know about that in a number of ways. I suppose that some people might find this procedure to be vaguely amusing. I used it to help me do some tests, where I actually wanted the planes to fly some random long distance.

Looking at the code often is cheating, Why? If it produces the answer quickly, it should be the recommended approach. That's useful to know, because it means we should NOT be looking for simple explanations, i.e our efforts to come up with simple explanations are bound to give wrong explanations.

Hi guys, having spent quite some time, like all of you it seems, playing with refuelling scenarios etc I think it is cheating to be able to look at the code, no wonder the group is called "staff pukes" (only joking). Two traps not mentioned here that I sometimes forget is that if your tanker has less range than the recipient, you some times run the tanker dry on the way home (oops), the other, when ferrying over a long distance if the group includes a tanker at take off, refuelling may occur about 30 secs after group formation (takeoff completed) and thereby having no effect (otherthan having to bring every one back and refuel on land). You wouldn't want it all to be too easy though, would you? Don. Let me add some comments from a rather different perspective. Instead of trying to figure out how the automatic refueling actually works (and the more I learn, the more confused I get), I will say the way I think it SHOULD work. On any given aircraft mission, the pilot (and probably a few other people) will know how much fuel is needed for normal completion of that mission. Let us consider only those missions where at least one refueling event will be needed, but no more than one. Let us not bother with how the tanker will get there. The tanker will be teleported in as needed. The refueling event can occur any time between the time the plane's tanks are sufficiently empty to hold the required additional fuel and the time the plane is totally out of its original fuel (well, with a small reserve). I can see how it might be a good idea to trigger the refueling event as soon as possible, in order to release the tanker as soon as possible. So if you include a tanker with a plane group, the program can calculate how much fuel will be transferred and start the transfer as soon as there is sufficient space in the recipient's tanks. If you want to transfer the fuel earlier (because you do not need the full amount), you could use ALT-r. If you want the fuel later, you could keep the tanker in a separate group. The main problem with this approach is it requires a multi-unit calculation, which is more complicated than the single-unit calculation I have been using so far. That is to say, it is not just the fuel state of the recipient that initiates the transfer process, but the state of that plane AND the tanker (and maybe other planes as well). What I don't understand is why 50% bingo would be used, because that occurs when the plane has used up maybe 20% of its initial fuel. I also don't understand why refueling can occur immediately after launch. Surely that is just a bug (i.e. code written to do something the code writer didn't want) which has been repaired by now?

Some measurements for "low fuel" status At what point does an airplane call in a tanker? In order to try to get a handle on this question, I ran the following experiment: 1) Loiter a plane somewhere at some altitude. 2) Loiter a tanker nearby at a different altitude. 3) Group the two. 4) Wait, possibly increasing the clock rate. The different altitudes will hopefully provoke a prompt before refueling happens, so that the measurement can happen just before the event. Although an altitude difference is corrected if the group is moving, this does not happen if the group is loitering. What we learn: 1) At 10% above bingo fuel, you get a warning that the plane is approaching bingo fuel. This warning is suppressed if the plane is grouped with a tanker. 2) At 5% above bingo, the plane group starts to blink. 3) At 0% bingo, the plane will ask to be sent back to base, but not if the plane is grouped with a tanker. For the specific situations: Scenario is USNI 4 BLUE. The tankers are Vikings. 1) F-14A 185 nm from base refuels at 275 nm fuel remaining. 2) A-6E 235 nm from base refuels at 235 nm fuel remaining. 3) F/A-18A 310 nm from base refuels at 230 nm fuel remaining. 4) S-3B 390 nm from base refuels at 425 nm fuel remaining. Seems to be all over the map. If anyone can explain these results, please add your comments.

In what appears to be becoming a never-ending quest to understand the refueling process, I ran a few more tests and got some more anomalies. 1) Delay times (No anomaly in this section, just more details.) It appears to be the case that the critical factor deciding when IFR is to occur is when a plane is "low on fuel". The "low on fuel" check is done at 30 s intervals, on the minute and half-minute. If the tanker starts not grouped with the plane to be refueled, then the time between grouping and the next low fuel check must be added to the delay time. After that, there is a 60 s delay for the refueling process to start, and then there is a further 30 s delay for the refueling process to be finished. For example: 30 min 12 s - group planes 30 min 30 s - check fuel (invisible, you don't actually get notified of this, it's still a guess that this happens) 31 min 32 s - start refueling (additional 2 s delay for computer processing time) 32 min 2 s - refueling is finished If the planes were already grouped, the first 18 s delay would not exist. The above applies for automatic refueling. If you force refueling with ALT-r, then there is a 30 s delay to start the refueling process, and then a 30 s delay for it to be finished. For example: 30 min 12 s - ALT-r (you get a confirmation message, sometimes preceded by a confirmation request) 30 min 42 s - start refueling 31 min 12 s - refueling is finished 2) What is "low fuel"? As of post 15, this thread, I thought that "low fuel" meant that the plane in question was at least blinking. At that point, and even at 0% bingo, the plane still has enough fuel (wood or coal) to make it back to base on its own steam. But I now have at least one concrete example where the automatic refueling process would not start until the plane was no longer able to make it back to base with what remained in the tanks. Further investigations are indicated.

Interesting information. Today my previous "understanding" of the refueling procedure has been completely undone. I just ran another test. WestPac 7, 1 Phantom, 1 Viking. The Viking was cruising along at medium. The Phantom was zooming around at top speed to use up fuel. Once the Phantom was at 0% bingo, it cruised toward the Viking at low from the opposite direction. When they were close enough, I grouped the two planes, and both planes assumed the same course and speed (slowest cruise of the 2 planes). 60 s later (the usual refueling delay), I was prompted to set the planes to "cruise", although they were both at cruising at the time. I said OK. There was no change in the speed, but the Viking was forced to low. 30 s after that, the refueling was complete. So it would appear to be the case that automatic refueling has the following requirements: 1) A plane needs to be "low" on fuel (at least blinking). 2) Then a search is done (continuously i.e. every 30 s) for an available tanker in that group. 3) If found, then the computer takes care of altitude and speed issues. Cruise or loiter works. This procedure should be included in the manual. For certain long-range missions, especially involving multiple refueling, it will be necessary to ensure that the tankers are in individual groups, because you will probably want to run the tanks dry before manually requesting more fuel, and the automatic procedure doesn't do that. I have deleted my incorrect flowchart in post 9, this thread.

This would mean that loitering was not a precondition for fuel transfer (although that would help 2 groups to join), and perhaps the altitude requirement as well. It would also appear to indicate that the refueling check was not initiated at the time of grouping, but rather as soon as the plane was "low" on fuel.

I ran some trials, and I believe that I now have the answer to my own question. In WestPac 7 (using the demo of HCE), I launched 4 pairs of planes, one each of Phantoms, Corsairs, A-6As, and A-6Bs. Each of these groups was followed by a single Viking tanker. At about 100 nm out, all 8 groups loitered at low. The tankers were within about 5 nm of the refuelees. I saved the game at this point. In test 1, I grouped each of the first 4 pairs of planes with its accompanying tanker. Nothing happened. All planes had lots of fuel at this point. In test 2, I forced refueling (ALT-r) with each of the 4 combined groups. Fuel was transferred in each case. Then I reloaded the save game. Then I waited for the fuel to get used up, speeding up the game as necessary. As each group started blinking, I joined it with its accompanying tanker. In each case, I waited until the refuelees were at 0% bingo. (Just as an aside, the Phantoms run out first, then the Corsairs, then the A-6Bs, then the A-6As.) 0% bingo means that the planes still had 100-200 nm of range more than the distance to the carrier. In all 4 cases, fuel was transferred automatically. While this is not as good an answer as reading the algorithm, I think that it confirms the hypothesis that a plane must actually "need" fuel before the automatic refueling process kicks in, i.e. the flowchart in post 9, this thread, is correct, including the "need fuel ?" check. However, "needing fuel" happens when the plane still has a substantial fuel reserve. I believe that any discrepancies between this result and previous statements I made in this thread are because the previous measurements were not done carefully enough. I also collected data on the amount of fuel transferred. There are errors in the transfer amounts, but that will not be dealt with here.

Not a complete answer, but under settings/staff options, you can set the options so the staff assistant has less reasons to bother you. Of course, this may cause you unnecessary casualties.

I am thinking that there must be an additional requirement beyond what I have been considering for the normal refueling to work. I expect that the refueling check uses a robust algorithm i.e. if it ever works as intended, then it always works as intended, and all those instances where it doesn't appear to work are because some human eg. myself has done it wrong. The "refuel check" algorithm would be executed every time you join 2 aircraft groups. My current working hypothesis is that the extra condition is the one highlighted in red in the flowchart below. "Aircraft needs fuel" would most likely mean "aircraft does not have enough fuel to reach any friendly base". Otherwise, why transfer fuel? Of course, there are reasons, but for all those, you ought to give a special refuel order (ALT-r). While I think that this is a reasonable guess, it would be nice if a programmer (or progamer) who actually knows could confirm or deny it. ____________________________________________________________ See post 15, this thread, for the correct procedure.

Some more detailed information. The tanker I am using is the S-3A Viking. As a tanker, its range is 2600 nm. Attempting to refuel: a) RA-5C : refueling proceeds normally, except that the RA-5C never actually GETS the fuel (it is simply dumped into deep space!). ALT-r gives the same result. E-2B : refuels only with ALT-r, but the fuel is dumped. [1] c) F-4B : refuels only with ALT-r. d) A-6A : refueling proceeds normally. [2] e) A-6B : refuels only with ALT-r. [2] f) A-7E : refuels only with ALT-r. [2] So a) is incorrect, and that will be fixed by setting the refueling flag on the RA-5C. is correct. d) is correct. c), e), f) are workable by manually giving the refueling order. Is this also a case of a missing flag? Notes: [1] I never actually attempted to refuel the Hawkeye until I started running the tests. The Hawkeye has quite a long range and a very slow speed. This translates into a very long loiter time. I first noticed the "bug" when I tried to refuel a Phantom that hadn't yet expended its missiles. The Phantom tends to have the shortest loiter time in this scenario. [2] As I was working through the cases, I started to collect some additional information and got some very odd results. All my fighters and attack planes are operating in groups of 2. Thus they should be getting 1300 nm of range per plane. The A-7E went from 84% to 89% bingo (approx 1400 nm to 1950 nm). The A-6B went from 82% to 83% bingo (1550 to 1600 nm). The A-6A went from 11% to 88% bingo (435 to 2100 nm). The A-6A normal maximum range for the particular mission is only 1700 nm. One possible explanation is that the amount of fuel received is added not to the current amount of fuel, but to the bingo amount. This may only apply for manually forced refueling. I would expect that the fuel received would be added to actual fuel in the tanks, especially during normal refueling. But the fuel given should not exceed the volume of the tanks. One possible explanation for the "bug" is that a plane needs to have less than a certain amount of fuel in order to refuel normally, but I noticed the problem when I tried to refuel a Phantom that was definitely short of fuel, after which I started looking at the other planes. [3] b followed by right parenthesis produces a smiley.

In 1957, SAC's fighter units transferred to Tactical Air Command or were inactivated as part of a reorganization of Air Force strategic and tactical assets. However, they set the standard; by the end of the 1950s, trans-oceanic flights became commonplace. The Air Force never bought another fighter aircraft without in-flight refueling capability; a capability which proved its worth a few years later when Vietnam heated up. (from http://www.amc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123144488) The US Navy frequently used carrier-based aerial tankers like the KA-3 Skywarrior to refuel Navy and Marine aircraft such as the F-4, A-4 Skyhawk, A-6 Intruder, and A-7 Corsair II. This was particularly useful when a pilot returning from an airstrike was having difficulty landing and was running low on jet fuel. This gave him fuel for more attempts at landing for a successful "trap" on an aircraft carrier. The KA-3 could also refuel fighters on extended Combat Air Patrol.USMC jets based in South Vietnam and Thailand also used USMC KC-130 Hercules transports for air-to-air refueling on missions. (from http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/149765) Phantoms, Intruders, Corsairs; Viking tankers; that's the OB in the scenario. And then, of course, there's "Flight of the Intruder" which describes tanker operations, using Intruder tankers. So I think that all my planes SHOULD be capable of in-flight refueling, but it may be possible that a flag has been incorrectly set? thanks

I am sure that this has been hashed over many times before, and I thought I had it down pat, but ... I would like to get some information about refueling. 1) I am currently working my way through West Pac 7, Thanh Hoa Bridge, using the demo of HCE. I have never had a problem with refueling before (which isn't saying much, though). But in this scenario, I am having problems. It was my understanding that you bring the tanker group and the group to be refueled close together, loiter both at the same altitude, and then join the groups. After 60 s, the refueling starts automatically. I used this procedure several times with a "test" scenario and at various points in the main game, using various combinations, and over several game sessions. Only twice did the automatic refueling work (with the S-3B and an Intruder). All the other times, I had to resort to ALT-r. Now I don't have a problem with giving the planes explicit instructions to refuel. What I don't understand is why what appears to be the identical procedure for making something happen (the automatic refueling) does not produce identical results for each attempt. Surely computers are just big adding machines that obey the commands of their human masters? Is there an additional condition that I am not aware of? Is there a random aspect to the procedure? 2) I understand that a tanker can only refuel planes once. But how much fuel does the tanker carry i.e. how much fuel is transferred? And what happens when the group to be refueled contains multiple planes, possibly of various types?

simple If you see a sub coming, you better step aside. A lot of ships didn't; a lot of ships died.

Do more research. Brad, if your comment refers to "no missile does this", what I meant is that "no ASM that I am aware of (eg. from Harpoon) comes in from almost straight overhead from space". Some ASMs come in from almost straight overhead after having travelled a long distance horizontally in view of the ship's radar. So it seems to me that the ship's computer can identify such a missile as a threat well before it approaches the ship and the missile can later still be tracked even if is above the ship and heading straight down. But what about something that suddenly appears straight above the ship and heads straight down? Even if the radar can physically detect such an object, would the software have a clue how to respond? What I am suggesting with this question and my previous comment about the SAMs being turned off is that perhaps, if such a thing were to happen, nobody on the CV would even be aware of it until the meteors hit. Of course, you could also point out that it is probably impossible for a meteor to move straight down.

Maybe the SAMs were turned off at the time? If those things that hit the CV came in at high speeds from almost straight overhead (no missile does this), how would the radars treat them?

Personally, in this situation, I would shoot every available torpedo AND the kitchen sink. None of this "one torpedo per target stuff".

How would he ever be certain of this? There could be an ASW plane maneuvering above him, trying to get to point blank range (= instantaneous auto-kill).

If you live in a big city, you could try your local computer chop shop. I actually managed to get one, to use for my SSG game "Rommel, Battles for N. Africa".

Tony: Your PDFs look fine to me. For example, I can blow them up to 1600% without the slightest hint of fuzziness. However, I did go back and make my own, from the original originals, and then I posted them in the downloads area. The only substantial difference is that I was able to get a PDF for the keyboard drawing that has a size of only 20 kB, although it looks identical to yours. If there are any problems, I'm sure we'll find out soon enough. Victor

File Name: Keyboard Commands, by location File Submitter: VictorInThePacific File Submitted: 16 Apr 2009 File Category: Tools/Mods/Docs Authors: VictorInThePacific Provides a graphical display of the keyboard, with the HCE keyboard commands shown. Click here to download this file