Jump to content

TheTacticalCat

Members
  • Content Count

    115
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

42 Excellent

About TheTacticalCat

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    UK
  • Interests
    Aircraft (especially design), history (especially WW1/2), German culture (besonders die Geschichte des Deutschland und Deutschsprache), Music (especially EDM).

Recent Profile Visitors

977 profile views
  1. wololololololololololollolloololo
  2. So, to preface this, I have minimal experience in AI, but, I love to think about these kinds of problems. The following is in reference to a quote (quote is in this post too) this post in the general discussions section. I thought I'd put it here too. I think it would introduce a really awesome aspect if we had functioning early radar systems, but the problems with this are: Difficulty of implementing the system (though I have absolutely no doubt the fantastic devs will work it out eventually!) Radar was ineffective against smaller targets, and was mainly used to find bomber targets, which leads me to point 3: In its current state, the IL-2 engine cannot handle large amounts of AI. This means that night campaigns would be lackluster, and the only places you'd find realistic simulation of the actual usage, would be in well co-ordinated MP missions with many players manning bombers. However, they'd be manning night-bombers, the gunners could hardly see a thing, and the only person really enjoying SHOOTING would be a radar equipped mossie/Me 410. So unless the devs find a way to produce cohesive and communicative AI bomber formations, not much we can hope for. On the point of the AI, perhaps a hive-mind-esque steering AI? I don't know much about programming AI, but maybe formations could be placed in the editor specially (or could be connected with some kind of flag saying "these bombers are supposed to be formation controlled" with their own sort of hive-mind AI that steers and directs all the bombers at once, then a separate, hopefully less taxing AI/section of code can be used to convert these directions into control surface movements on individual planes (thus you have multiple instances of less taxing conversion and collision avoidance AI, and one more taxing AI that steers the entire formation together, directing aircraft into box formations and closing the box up if a bomber falls by instructing another bomber to move into this new gap.) You could also then separate the large AI down into a non-intelligent NAV section, that instructs the formation to follow a course set by the mission maker (in QMB, this could be an AI made course, since this instance of AI is not being used at runtime of the actual simulation, just in the menus, meaning it is running separate from all the other AIs that run in the sim of the formation), and an intelligent "formation controller" who instructs planes relative to a coordinate "box" that the formation is controlled in. Bombers are then ordered to co-ordinates within this box. The NAV code moves this box across the map, and is essentially the "bomber formation", for all intents and purposes in the backend. Movement within the box is actuated by the AI of each plane as each plane then uses AI to construct a path to a co-ordinate set that it is given by the formation controller, with the requirements that the path must not collide with any other bomber. Then the other part of the AI converts this path into a set of control surface movements and power changes, and the bomber slots itself into place within the formation. However, once in formation, each plane's overall mapwide movement is controlled by the formation controller, which instructs planes directly (e.g. all planes climb, all planes throttle 75%). For turns, it would be a little more complex, as in a (for example) right hand turn, the leftmost bombers will turn a wider circle than the rightmost. This is (I believe) solved by a circular motion expression utilising the box co-ordinates. The expression could state that as your x-coordinate (assuming the box is oriented such that the Y axis is vertical in relation to the bomber roofs, the X axis spans from left to right, and the Z axis from front to rear, meaning 0,0,0 is at the bottom front left of the box) increases, your turn rate increases linearly (since all the bombers need the same angular velocity, which is a product of their linear velocity and distance from the focus of the turn). Then each plane AI can interpret this and fly the turn correctly, just like a formation. This is a gross oversimplification, since the bomber could be slotting in with a loitering formation, meaning it has to take the curve of the box's flight path into account, but this is my idea of a solution to the problem. It almost certainly won't work, because I have no idea how taxing this is, or how taxing it is relative to the current implementation of bomber AI. Again, just brainstorming and practicing thinking about algorithms. I should probably do my CS coursework instead but oh well!
  3. I think it would introduce a really awesome aspect if we had functioning early radar systems, but the problems with this are: Difficulty of implementing the system (though I have absolutely no doubt the fantastic devs will work it out eventually!) Radar was ineffective against smaller targets, and was mainly used to find bomber targets, which leads me to point 3: In its current state, the IL-2 engine cannot handle large amounts of AI. This means that night campaigns would be lackluster, and the only places you'd find realistic simulation of the actual usage, would be in well co-ordinated MP missions with many players manning bombers. However, they'd be manning night-bombers, the gunners could hardly see a thing, and the only person really enjoying SHOOTING would be a radar equipped mossie/Me 410. So unless the devs find a way to produce cohesive and communicative AI bomber formations, not much we can hope for. On the point of the AI, perhaps a hive-mind-esque steering AI? I don't know much about programming AI, but maybe formations could be placed in the editor specially (or could be connected with some kind of flag saying "these bombers are supposed to be formation controlled" with their own sort of hive-mind AI that steers and directs all the bombers at once, then a separate, hopefully less taxing AI/section of code can be used to convert these directions into control surface movements on individual planes (thus you have multiple instances of less taxing conversion and collision avoidance AI, and one more taxing AI that steers the entire formation together, directing aircraft into box formations and closing the box up if a bomber falls by instructing another bomber to move into this new gap.) You could also then separate the large AI down into a non-intelligent NAV section, that instructs the formation to follow a course set by the mission maker (in QMB, this could be an AI made course, since this instance of AI is not being used at runtime of the actual simulation, just in the menus, meaning it is running separate from all the other AIs that run in the sim of the formation), and an intelligent "formation controller" who instructs planes relative to a coordinate "box" that the formation is controlled in. Bombers are then ordered to co-ordinates within this box. The NAV code moves this box across the map, and is essentially the "bomber formation", for all intents and purposes in the backend. Movement within the box is actuated by the AI of each plane as each plane then uses AI to construct a path to a co-ordinate set that it is given by the formation controller, with the requirements that the path must not collide with any other bomber. Then the other part of the AI converts this path into a set of control surface movements and power changes, and the bomber slots itself into place within the formation. However, once in formation, each plane's overall mapwide movement is controlled by the formation controller, which instructs planes directly (e.g. all planes climb, all planes throttle 75%). For turns, it would be a little more complex, as in a (for example) right hand turn, the leftmost bombers will turn a wider circle than the rightmost. This is (I believe) solved by a circular motion expression utilising the box co-ordinates. The expression could state that as your x-coordinate (assuming the box is oriented such that the Y axis is vertical in relation to the bomber roofs, the X axis spans from left to right, and the Z axis from front to rear, meaning 0,0,0 is at the bottom front left of the box) increases, your turn rate increases linearly (since all the bombers need the same angular velocity, which is a product of their linear velocity and distance from the focus of the turn). Then each plane AI can interpret this and fly the turn correctly, just like a formation. This is a gross oversimplification, since the bomber could be slotting in with a loitering formation, meaning it has to take the curve of the box's flight path into account, but this is my idea of a solution to the problem. It almost certainly won't work, because I have no idea how taxing this is, or how taxing it is relative to the current implementation of bomber AI. Again, just brainstorming and practicing thinking about algorithms. I should probably do my CS coursework instead but oh well!
  4. I have run the calculations on all the Wolololo It is clear: 262 NEXT TUESDAY BE SURE
  5. I have had shootdowns where it would seem no fuel had been ignited, and there was certainly not enough space to get to the explosion ratio of vapour to air in the tank. So I have to conclude that the ammunition had detonated (for example wing hits on a non-wet-wing fighter) and caused the explosion. This was also before the update where aircraft were given the chance to have an instantaneous fuel explosion on a tank hit. On that note, do you think the tank detonation probability is based on real world factors like tank-fullness, temperature and altitude?
  6. As a quick aside: can someone tell me all the possible modifications? I haven’t the time to download it yet but I’m sure excited for it!
  7. Possibly depends on what ammo load you're using. I can say for certain the Fw190A-8's 30mm cannons can destroy G-5 torpedo boats (the small ones with DSHK's, torpedos on the back and rocket artillery arrays atop them). However I could imagine a particularly stubborn boat would not sink from a few round of minengeschoss. However, I am confused by the fact that, presumably, 1 bullet managed to knock out an IL-2 (unless you clipped the edge of the possibly pre-damaged wing with a minengeschoss), and likewise am thoroughly confused by 1 shot per boat, since from my testing of the A8, it takes a hearty salvo with 5 good hits from an array of 20s and 30s to destroy it outright. Not sure what's happening, but that's my experience.
  8. Back when I was about 11 or 12, I was watching a lot of 1946 gameplay, from Playthroughs of the Pacific with 1 F Jef, to "historical content )))))))". One that really stuck was Danny Sinclair's 2 parter on Rhubarb Missions: Unfortunately, this video featured it's predecessor, the Typhoon, but I'm looking forward to reenacting these missions, and possibly, if I ever get round to it, recreating shot-for-shot this fantastic 2 parter that inspired me back half a decade ago.
  9. Under "Open cockpit" there is an option to "open window". Where does this specific action apply vs. opening the canopy?
  10. Yes on the peshka and He111 you can, but that's because that's their "canopy"
×
×
  • Create New...