Posted by: Father Tim
« on: January 31, 2010, 01:58:53 AM »Quote from: "sloanjh"
I think I remember Steve saying something about poor station-keeping being one of the results of realistic training - is that what I'm seeing?
John
Yes it is.
Yes it is.
Posted by: Erik L
« on: January 30, 2010, 10:05:55 PM »The last battle I ran, I had one TG at 100% training, the other was an ad-hoc get it out there formation. When I issued movement commands the second TG took ages to figure out how to move, while the other responded very quickly.
Posted by: sloanjh
« on: January 30, 2010, 06:01:03 PM »I think this is a "working as intended" issue, but want to double-check:
I've got two TG: "A" and "B". They are in different TF, and neither has a very high training rating. I've got realistic training (or whatever it's called) turned on.
I've set A as the target TG for B in the Protect Threat Axis panel (2nd tab of the F12 screen). Left the distance at N/A, and the offset at "no offset".
If I understand things correctly, in principle this should tell B to always move so that it's coincident with A. In practice, B is bouncing around A with an average distance of about 20k km.
I think I remember Steve saying something about poor station-keeping being one of the results of realistic training - is that what I'm seeing?
John
I've got two TG: "A" and "B". They are in different TF, and neither has a very high training rating. I've got realistic training (or whatever it's called) turned on.
I've set A as the target TG for B in the Protect Threat Axis panel (2nd tab of the F12 screen). Left the distance at N/A, and the offset at "no offset".
If I understand things correctly, in principle this should tell B to always move so that it's coincident with A. In practice, B is bouncing around A with an average distance of about 20k km.
I think I remember Steve saying something about poor station-keeping being one of the results of realistic training - is that what I'm seeing?
John
