Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

45 Excellent

About Ram399

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Orlando Florida

Recent Profile Visitors

138 profile views
  1. Wow thats a great source, I might have to read through the entire thing lol I do see what you mean by the tail attack being common and effective, as the opening abstract of the report lays out: I'm not sure if I'd describe the FW-190 as invulnerable, but an above 50% chance of scoring a kill on a heavy 4-motor from the back is impressive, clearly the USAAF didn't have access to AI Pe-2 gunners.
  2. I've been able to get the AI to do this by acting as flight leader and positioning my flight in the path of the bombers, but they only hit the bombers very rarely- and after the initial run they continue on with standard attacks straight onto the bombers 6, generally getting torn up by gunners in the process. As far as engagement ranges for bombers go historically, these guncam videos are a great resource- just be advised some of them are a bit graphic.
  3. Though my knowledge of programming extends effectively no further than the basic python scripts I did back in high school, and there's an assumedly 200% chance that this solution would hit far more than one roadblock along the way in implementation, do you think that there would be a way for a given AI pilot to effectively keep track of the rounds they fire without murdering the sim speed? Keeping the AI's existing aiming point intact- and for reasons of both simplicity and realism applying this tracking only to tracer rounds, the AI could adjust its aiming point based off of whether or not the rounds are making contact rather than some extrapolation of target data. While this is obviously an extremely simplified scenario, the tracer rounds fired from an AI aircraft at a target could effectively run a series if/then statements upon reaching the target's range, whereupon they would determine if the rounds were either long, short, or on target, causing the AI to adjust accordingly and effectively zero in on the target. Here's a laughable attempt at trying to explain what I mean in computer logic in an ideal world which is definitely not realistic. I don't even know what language IL2 is written in so expect my syntax to be even further off than the AI's aim. (Like a whole dimension off of any language for that matter) For Tracer Round: [ If distance traveled = target range [ If Target hit: aircraft maintain attitude else [ If undershot: aircraft pitch up else If overshot: aircraft pitch down ] else [ If left: aircraft yaw right else If right: aircraft yaw left] ] ] else [ If distance traveled < target range: check distance traveled else If distance traveled > target range: do nothing ] ] Again, please don't take this series of if/then statements literally as some sort of magic solution in my eyes, I haven't coded anything in years and am definitely not a game developer. I could maybe get a computer to say hello world if given like a day to bash my head against a keyboard, but this is just a history major's scatterbrained attempt at speculating a potential solution. If anyone wants to tell me one of the probably hundred or so reasons this wouldn't work please do so lol.
  4. Of course not every AI pilot would suddenly become the lovechild of William Tell and Hans Joachim Marseille lol, and I'd be entirely fine with the "rookie" AI level continuing on just as they are. But for the upper level "ace" pilot AIs, their gunnery definitely needs some work. In my career I currently have two AI pilots with over 100 air kills, and I would hope them at least somewhat capable of leading their targets by now. While I've noticed they actually seem to fire in bursts rather than holding the trigger down, and they use energy tactics surprisingly well, they still suffer from the same accuracy problems as the rookies do. For the Bf-109 it defaults to 400 meters, not sure about other aircraft though.
  5. I want to start by saying that I'm not trying to add to the plethora of threads we already have on "AI bad why?????!!" The AI is always going to be a work in progress and I'm grateful for the recent AI improvements which have been phenomenal. Their dogfighting ability has improved to the point that certain aircraft in the hands of the AI actually scare me (Spitfires, anything but Spitfires). Recently I almost lost a 1v2 fight in my Kuban career against AI Spitfires in my Bf-109 G4, and I was covered in bullet holes with a severed rudder cable unironically sweating by the time I managed to land hits on them. Funnily enough, had it not been for the intervention of my AI wingman (100+ kill Hauptmann Weizsacker ftw) I very likely would have died, which is great- the new AI is awesome. I have, however, noticed what appears to be a slight issue which I'd like to get a bit of feedback on to see if anyone else can either corroborate or perhaps offer some sort of solution. In short, though the AI is now far better at maneuvering, it seems like AI fighters cannot hit each other to save their lives. (With the exception of the aforementioned Spitfires who absolutely raked me because I tried to zoom climb away and the Spits responded by going into prop-hangs making me a still target and turning my Messer into Swiss Cheese.) In most dogfighting cases however, where the AI now responds to threats by turning or diving away, it seems as if the pursuing aircraft is consistently unable to compensate for this with their gunnery. As such they seem to regularly move into kill positions, only to continuously undershoot their targets- often times by only a couple feet. While this is understandable for targets which can easily out-turn their pursuers, and will respond to a tail by regularly pulling hard into their attacker (Yaks and Spits mainly), it doesn't seem to take even a particularly hard turn to completely spoof the AI's targeting. In the two attached screenshots for example, this already damaged AI LaGG managed to get an AI FW-190 to waste its entire ammo belt from close range in a shallow left bank without the German landing even a single MG round (though all of the rounds passed in very close proximity to the LaGG's tail). I'm the furthest thing from an AI programmer, but I can understand the difficulty which must surround trying to code AI aiming points that shift in real time in response to target speed and orientation. None the less, I feel that even a marginal improvement here would make the already challenging AI a genuine threat not only to eachother but the player as well. As a slightly related sidenote, I know that the AI's convergence range is tied to the player, and as such have been experimenting with various ranges to see if they alter AI accuracy. For AI Bf-109s and Yaks which are similarly armed with the 2 higher velocity MGs supplemented by the single lower velocity cannon, I've noticed that on the occasions they manage to hit their target, it is often only the MG rounds which make contact and not the heavier hitting cannons, this results in only light damage (with the occasional kill should they get lucky and hit the Oil/Coolant). In my Kuban career whenever I have to fly aircovers over Novorossiysk, and am often accompanied by several supplemental AI "Swift" flights, this inability to land killing hits becomes incredibly apparent. Often times flights of 3 Yaks will be launched from the nearby Gelendzhik airfields, and I will shoot down the first 2 only to let the final Yak contend with my AI Bf-109 friends who often number anywhere from 15 to 20. Consistently, the AI Yak will dodge attack run after attack run from every direction with only slight maneuvers, taking only light damage from MG-17 fire. These fights will often go on for 5 minutes or more, starting at altitude and generally descending to sea level (often resulting in a number of AI Bf-109 collisions with either the ground or eachother) Generally the action ends when the Yak either gets rammed by a presumably frustrated Bf-109, or finally submits to the death by 1,000 paper cuts that is the MG17 fire coming at it from all angles. I've had some success setting the convergence range upwards to around ~470 or so, but the improvement is marginal at best. Has anyone done a similar experiment and been able to find a sweet spot for the AI's cannon targeting? As a final pic related, here are the AI Spits absolutely thrashing me with Hispano fire.
  6. I've had the exact same issue in my JG.52 career flying the Bf-109 where once you stop the engine it cannot be started again. Going, as you said, for the Bf-109 F4, G2, and G4. This seems to be relatively recent issue, as I distinctly remember around 9 months ago in the same career being able to stop the engine upon parking and then restarting it at a later time should one wish to. I haven't found any solution. Thankfully this issue doesn't apply should you cut the engine in flight for whatever reason lol.
  7. Wow that sounds like a hell of a story. I've got the old cardboard E6B and a formula sheet buried in my flight bag waiting for their day to come lol You are correct, I got the terms confused. Thats a the way of doing it in the plane, but as far as I'm aware there is no way in IL 2 to adjust your altimeter setting so I used the ground formula. If there is a way to adjust that please let me know lol.
  8. It might be a somewhat crude way to calculate OAT, but you could get a rough estimate by using the ground temp and just walking it up the standard lapse rate. I don't really know how in depth the temperature modeling goes for IL 2, but I'd imagine its not far off from -2 degrees Celsius per 1000 feet/300 meters. In effect, under standard conditions a ground temp of 20 C should hypothetically be 18 C at 1000' AGL and then 16 C at 2000' and so on. This would of course vary depending on a number of local conditions. For example, the current METAR at my airport has the ground temp at 16 C, and winds aloft are indicating 12 C at 3000'. That's 2 degrees warmer than it would at ISP, but considering that the current pressure is higher than usual at 30.04 in Hg it more or less fits (Woe to the man who tries to predict Florida weather anyhow). For TAS you'd need pressure altitude, OAT which I think you'll have to get using the rough lapse rate method, and then just IAS. Pressure altitude can be found using the field altitude, barometric pressure, and the temperature at ground level, all of which IL 2 luckily provides us. Pressure altitude = (standard pressure - current pressure setting) x 1,000 + field elevation Using the current in-game conditions from my IL 2 career for May 26th, 1943 at Anapa airfield this time: Current pressure: 758 mm Hg (29.84 in Hg), Field Elevation: 49 m (160 ft) PA = (29.92 - 29.84) x 1,000 + 160 PA = 240' at Anapa So we'll calculate for my Bf-109 G4 flying at 2000 meters (6,561 ft) over Anapa, with a ground temp of 24 C roughly adjusted using lapse rate to 11 C, my IAS of 400 km/h (215 knots), and a pressure altitude of 6,641' If we run that through the TAS formula (which I'm going to do on my electronic E6B cause I'm lazy, and can also be done here: http://indoavis.co.id/main/tas.html) I should have a hypothetical TAS of approximately 238 Knots, or 440 km/h. Now if we want to get really fancy we can use that to calculate both GS as well as wind correction. The wind at Anapa is currently Northeast (I'll assume its from 45) at 5 m/s (~10 knots), and I've got no idea how we'd manage to get winds aloft data so we'll just use that. I want to fly straight north on a heading of 0, and at my TS of 238 kts. Technology has spoiled me (and also I don't remember the formula) so I'm gonna us the electronic E6B again, you can find it on the app store its called Sporty's E6B, I highly recommend it- just relearn the formulas before any checkrides lol. (Can also do it here: https://e6bx.com/e6b/) Anyhow the magic computer says my GS should be 231 knots, and my wind correction a positive 2 degrees. All in all though, as far as IL 2 goes, I generally just go dead reckoning all over the place and worry more about getting blown out of the sky than I do about GS and all that fun stuff lol. Also forgive me for any mistakes I might have made, its 2 AM and I'm procrastinating an essay.
  9. The AI skill of your squadronmates corresponds directly to the rank and experience of each individual pilot as seen under the unit HQ screen. The AI skill of the random friendly squads encountered around the map on the other hand have a set level based off of the selected career difficulty (as do enemy squads). The AI tends to be more aggressive when under the command of an AI leader for whatever reason, I have had some marginal success with abusing the "Patrol this area for air enemies" command in order to force an engagement however. If you have the patience for it you can cultivate better pilots by keeping your wingmen alive and helping them gain experience. It's incredibly tedious and honestly feels like herding cats at times- especially when the AI Bf-109s waste all of their ammo firing at nothing, and then black-out before diving into the ground. It does pay off eventually however. For reference in pic related: my better pilots regularly score 1-2 kills per flight as they've reached what I believe to be the ace level AI, while the lower level Feldwebels are equally as likely to fly into the ground as they are to actually engage anything.
  10. I've found that if you switch over to manual pitch control for the G2 you can up the RPM in order to squeeze out a bit more acceleration at crucial points. You have to be careful with it though, because if you do it for too long or too hard the engine will seize with effectively no warning.
  11. I've noticed that as well. It makes taking down A-20s far too easy in German fighter careers as they become giant deflection targets as soon as they turn off course. A massive group like that should stay together rather than fragment at the first sign of damage.
  12. Can't speak for the RAF or USAAF as I don't own Bodenplatte yet, I am however familiar with the AI VVS and Luftwaffe. As Gretsch_Man said, the Luftwaffe usually flies fighter formations of 2, 4, and 6, while the VVS favors flights of 3 and 6- with the exception of VVS escort flights which fly with either 3 or 5 aircraft for whatever reason. The default formation for all fighter flights regardless of size is right edge. This is once again with the exception of escorting flights of fighters however, as both sides fly escort flights in a vertical weaving column of sorts above the aircraft they are escorting with the leader at the bottom and then each successive aircraft around 150 meters above him. For Luftwaffe ground attack aircraft such as FW-190s, Bf-109 Es, and Bf-110s they fly in right edge formation as fighters do, generally in flights of 6. For VVS ground attack aircraft, aka all the IL-2s, they generally fly in flights of either 3 or 6 and do so in V formation with the leader at the front. For Luftwaffe bombers, He-111s and Ju-88s both fly in V formation, while Stukas fly in the standard right edge. All three types generally fly in flights of 3, 6, or 9 with one leader. For VVS bombers, both Pe-2s and A-20s fly in V elements of 3 aircraft, each with their own flight leader, with a number of these V elements being combined to form larger flights. There can be as few as a single V element of 3 bombers in small raids, and up to 4 V elements of 3 bombers for large raids- making for the largest in-game formations seen in the career, as there can be up to 12 Soviet bombers divided into 4 V formations escorted by an additional 5 fighter aircraft in extreme cases. It is important to note however, that each V element retains its own leader and can effectively act as an independent flight should it need to. Historically, Luftwaffe fighter Schwarms were divided into two pairs known as Rottes and flew in finger-four formation (as did the USAAF). This isn't replicated by default in-game. However, if in career mode your pilot has been appointed squadron commander, or is leading a flight with 3 wingmen, you can replicate a sort of finger-four by ordering the flight into V formation. This can be done either pre-mission by the commander who can adjust the formations for each waypoint on the Headquarters tab of the career menu, or by the flight leader in-game by opening the leader commands with the ~ key and then going to formation section and selecting V formation. This way, assuming there are 4 aircraft counting the player, the flight will adopt a formation with 2 aircraft left of the leader and 1 aircraft to the right, effectively resulting in a backwards finger-four. Pics Related are 4 Bf-109 G4s turning in right-edge, and 3 V-Elements of Soviet A-20s being attacked by more Bf-109s
  13. My first 4 Careers I never made it past Moscow lol. Currently 120 hours in on the 5th Career in Kuban and practically suffering from PTSD at this point. Had my left wing get torn off back in Stalingrad at around 200 meters altitude by grazing head-on collision with an enemy La-5. I had enough time before it broke to look left and watch my disfigured wing slowly bending upwards. Thought I was a goner for sure, but managed to stand enough on the right rudder to survive a hard impact with the ground. Didn't play again for a solid week after that.
  14. Had some fun recently flying against B-25s in a Bf-110 G2 at night. I know it'd probably be hell to develop but I'd love to see some sort of night campaign at some point.
  15. When the career mode first came out there was some sort of issue that I remember where you could get the awards in the wrong order, but that got patched early and I haven't seen it since. It is possible that the latest update altered the criteria and you were retroactively awarded the medals, or maybe its decided to factor in the number of missions flown, I'm not sure. I do know that for my career, the first time I started a new day with the latest patch active I got spammed with medals for my AI squadronmates who had reached the required status but had not been awarded them. I myself was re-awarded the bronze and silver flying clasps for whatever reason, since I had already achieved the gold clasp which used to supplant those, I guess now I get to keep them. Other than that though, I haven't seen anything particularly odd pertaining to player awards. You being awarded a Gold Wound Badge seems especially unusual as a retroactive award though, have you been seriously wounded at any point in your campaign?
  • Create New...