Livai Posted September 16, 2014 Posted September 16, 2014 They do. Not sure, maybe not now? I have seen only one AI plane that gets a realistic stall and that was the Fw-190. All other AI planes fly with different FM and thats not the same difficult player FM. Stukas, IL-2 or the Pe-2 can dogfighting you like a fighter. You have still the advantage but keep your eyes open to stay away from their rear guns.
Sokol1 Posted September 16, 2014 Posted September 16, 2014 These Stuka AI pilots are modeled as this guy - 34 aerial kills http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Kennel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_World_War_II_ground_attack_aces "Kennel is also believed to have shot down Soviet fighter ace Nikolay Abramashvili over Stalingrad on 30 November 1942." Sokol1
Matt Posted September 16, 2014 Posted September 16, 2014 Not sure, maybe not now? I have seen only one AI plane that gets a realistic stall and that was the Fw-190. All other AI planes fly with different FM and thats not the same difficult player FM. Stukas, IL-2 or the Pe-2 can dogfighting you like a fighter. You have still the advantage but keep your eyes open to stay away from their rear guns. And can they dogfight better than you if you're flying the same plane? Seriously, everybody who believes that the AI is using a different/simplified FM should just fly against the AI in the exact same plane.
senseispcc Posted September 16, 2014 Posted September 16, 2014 First the Stuka Ju-87 b1 was the plane how had the horrible honor to down in combat the first plane in the official world war two the first September 1939 an Polish PZL 11 fighter it seems and if remember right! Second this a earlier and lighter version of the Stuka without bombs secondly the quality of the pilot has also is importance, a rocky is not the same has a pilot with 500 missions on his flight log book! It is the same if you fly a Soviet plane again a German fighter in this game, you know you are slower and so you use to try to get your opponent to lose his energy advantage and engage into an dogfight. If you are successful in getting him into this position you have all chances to get out of it the Victor. So against bomber keep your energy and hit and run then hit again if the first pass did not result in destroying your opponent but never engage him in a condition where you could have difficulties to disengage him.
HagarTheHorrible Posted September 16, 2014 Posted September 16, 2014 Been here before but, the Stuka would have sucked big time. It was built for precision bombing, a vital requirement of which is stability, not agility, It would have out energyed quickly and struggled to get it back quickly enough to do anything other than set up for the next defensive manouver, it would have rolled very slowly compared to most, if not all fighters of the day. Also bear in mind that fighter aircraft rarely worked alone. Even if a Stuka evaded a fighter attack by turning hard into the attack forcing the attacker to overshoot, he would have blown a large chunk of his energy reserves, or ability to manouver, but more importantly he would have comited himself to a predictable course of action that would have been all to easy for a second following fighter to make allowance for, rolling to turn in a different direction would not have been an option, It's only realistic course was to dive away, if that option was indeed available, in the hope that the following fighters would get board and go away or that they had other considerations to take into account. If a powerfull 110 couldn't compete against single seat fighters there's no way in hell that a Stuka could. Even if it could turn tightly, and I think that turn was energy limited rather than simply wing loading any attacking fighter should be able to easily stay with it with a series of rolling scissors, sure it's more difficult than banking and yanking but it's hardly novel
1CGS LukeFF Posted September 16, 2014 1CGS Posted September 16, 2014 Not sure, maybe not now? I have seen only one AI plane that gets a realistic stall and that was the Fw-190. All other AI planes fly with different FM and thats not the same difficult player FM. Stukas, IL-2 or the Pe-2 can dogfighting you like a fighter. You have still the advantage but keep your eyes open to stay away from their rear guns. There has only ever been on FM for both RoF and BoS, and it's used by both the player and the computer. Like it's been said repeatedly, the AI for the bombers isn't complete yet. That's why you're seeing them fly as fighters right now. They're probably fine-tuning the bomber AI inherited from ROF and making it work with WWII-era technology. 1
Finkeren Posted September 16, 2014 Posted September 16, 2014 Not sure, maybe not now? I have seen only one AI plane that gets a realistic stall and that was the Fw-190. All other AI planes fly with different FM and thats not the same difficult player FM. Stukas, IL-2 or the Pe-2 can dogfighting you like a fighter. You have still the advantage but keep your eyes open to stay away from their rear guns. You're completely wrong about the AI. They do use the same FM and CEM as we do, it's not open for interpretation. As for the Stukas and Pe-2s flying like fighters: The Stuka has great low speed maneuverability, and we have already covered why. The reason that the Pe-2 handles like a fighter is because it WAS a fighter. It was designed as a high altitude escort fighter much in the same vein as the Bf 110, but with far better performance. It was only redesigned as a dive bomber at the last moment before it went into production (based on the experience of the Luftwaffe early in the war) The redesign simply involved installing a couple small internal bomb compartments, deleting the high altitude superchargers and cabin pressurization and slapping a pair of dive brakes under the wings. The rest of the Pe-2 design was still that of a heavy fighter - not a bomber. 3
1CGS LukeFF Posted September 17, 2014 1CGS Posted September 17, 2014 As for the Stukas and Pe-2s flying like fighters: The Stuka has great low speed maneuverability, and we have already covered why. The reason that the Pe-2 handles like a fighter is because it WAS a fighter. It was designed as a high altitude escort fighter much in the same vein as the Bf 110, but with far better performance. It was only redesigned as a dive bomber at the last moment before it went into production (based on the experience of the Luftwaffe early in the war) The redesign simply involved installing a couple small internal bomb compartments, deleting the high altitude superchargers and cabin pressurization and slapping a pair of dive brakes under the wings. The rest of the Pe-2 design was still that of a heavy fighter - not a bomber. And...it came back again officially as a fighter in the form of the Pe-3.
Elem Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 And...it came back again officially as a fighter in the form of the Pe-3. So I guess we'll be seeing the Pe-3 at somepoint?
LLv34_Flanker Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 S! No combat reports by FiAF indicate Pe-2's doing any kind of aerial combat maneuvering except running away after delivering their cargo. I bet the same applied to bomber pilots in VVS as in any other air force, they were not trained to do ACM. Their task was to deliver their ordnance to target with precision, not trying to outmaneuver fighters. Stuka could for sure do limited evasion and the tail gunner helped a little bit in preventing a fighter sitting comfortably on 6oc for long. But a fighter, no. Pe-3 could be put in same category as Me110, heavy fighter with limited maneuverability due high mass and low power. With AI not being ready and general assumptions just give a false picture of plane capabilities now.
Finkeren Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 Flanker: I'm not argueing the AI, there is no question, that currently AI bombers don't behave correctly in most instances. I'm talking specifically about aircraft capabilities, and there both Ju87 and Pe-2 seem allright to me.
Finkeren Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 So I guess we'll be seeing the Pe-3 at somepoint? By the end of 1942 the Pe-3 was more or less phased out with only a few dozen serving primarily as recon. The Pe-3 were only ever available in very limited numbers and very few squadrons operated them exclusively.
HagarTheHorrible Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 (edited) There has been suspicion, by some, that the A.I uses a different FM to players, any serious analysis of either BoS or RoF would probably shatter that myth, not to mention that it has been said from inception that RoF and BoS use the same FM. I see no reason not to take the Dev's at their word. However that is not the whole story and just because the A.I uses the same FM does not mean it has the same limitations as human players. In some respects both sides of the argument are probably correct when discussing aircraft capabilities in the hands of the A.I. Where's your proof I hear you ask ! Following this discussion I tried out several quick missions last night pitting my La 5 against A.I Stukas of varying abilities, we both started with 50% fuel,( not that it has much bearing ). I had no problem shooting down Stukas nor did I have problems with them out flying me, regardless of ability unless I made a stupid mistake. However where they did challenge,regardless of ability was their capability of pulling off trick shots that even an Ace might have struggled with. Here's my example, flying against novice A.I, 1000 meters, head on set up. I roll right and pull to give me a little separation from head on. The Stuka rolls left so that he can cut me off or intercept and get on my tail. I reverse my turn by rolling left. The Stuka should struggle to respond to this giving me the initial advantage at the merge. However, and remember this is novice A.I, he increases his left bank from 80 deg to approx 150 pushes in negative pitch and shoots me down. The FM's might be the same but the ability at getting shooting solutions is not. As it was in RoF, it is now in BoS. Edited September 17, 2014 by HagarTheHorrible 1
LLv34_Flanker Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 S! Pretty much nailed it Hagar. The AI can shoot reliably from almost any angle and distance, and hits you most of the times. What does same FM mean if AI can see 360deg and get near perfect firing solutions a lot of times.
AA_Engadin Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 These Stuka AI pilots are modeled as this guy - 34 aerial kills http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Kennel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_World_War_II_ground_attack_aces "Kennel is also believed to have shot down Soviet fighter ace Nikolay Abramashvili over Stalingrad on 30 November 1942." Sokol1 Yessss, it was me! 2
jarg1 Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 These Stuka AI pilots are modeled as this guy - 34 aerial kills http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Kennel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_World_War_II_ground_attack_aces "Kennel is also believed to have shot down Soviet fighter ace Nikolay Abramashvili over Stalingrad on 30 November 1942." Sokol1 From the info on this site, it isn't clear that he was flying a Stuka. http://www.luftwaffe.cz/kennel.html
SYN_Ricky Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 Yessss, it was me! Happy Stuka is happy! :D
smink1701 Posted September 17, 2014 Author Posted September 17, 2014 Maybe I'm confused by watching the movie "Battle of Britain" with my fave, Michael Caine! In that movie the Stuka's were meat on the table. When attacked by Spits they were sitting ducks and took defensive action. I didn't see them shooting anything down. They were dive bombers not dive fighters. Just a movie I know but seems to make sense.
AA_Engadin Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 (edited) Happy Stuka is happy! :D Say Cheese! Colgate smile. Love this photo. AA_Engadin Edited September 17, 2014 by AA_Engadin
Matt Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 S! Pretty much nailed it Hagar. The AI can shoot reliably from almost any angle and distance, and hits you most of the times. What does same FM mean if AI can see 360deg and get near perfect firing solutions a lot of times. Actually, it cannot see 360 degrees. Its view has blind spots. However, it can see in every direction at the same time, so it's not like it has to scan around. So if you're not in its blind spot, it will see you. But then i think that's the case for every AI in every flightsim. Accuracy wise, the AI is pretty good, but it seems to be unable to compensate for side slipping (in a headon for instance) and will miss 90% of the time in those cases, unless at very short range.
FuriousMeow Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 AI can see everywhere all of the time in all games. It has to be programmed not to see everywhere all of the time. That's why programming AI to not see through clouds is quite a difficult task. It has been done, however, in both RoF and BoS. Additionally, the AI knows how to lead because leading is simply a computer calculation and they are part of that calculation. So in order for them to suck at aiming, they have to be programmed to suck at aiming. They have to be programmed not to aim center mass, but then what? They aim at the wing root? Then they'll hit the wing root right away. So then they have to be programmed to aim at the wing root, then the tail, then the space behind the plane, etc. With seeing and aiming (simply firing when they have a firing solution) they have to be programmed directly to suck, they aren't programmed to be good - they already are the best at seeing and aiming - they have more coding to be worse. AI programming is incredibly complicated. I don't think there is anything that could place enough emphasis on that statement in this world for most to understand. 2
unreasonable Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 Well they could be programmed to identify the intended target (as now), calculate the required deflection (as now), then have a random variation in angle off to get the actual flight line before shooting. The variation being much bigger for novices than for aces, obviously. Not too difficult. I suspect the programming of realistic ACM is harder. Perhaps they are already doing this, we just do not notice so much when they miss: anecdotal evidence is prone to selection bias.
AA_Engadin Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 Well they could be programmed to identify the intended target (as now), calculate the required deflection (as now), then have a random variation in angle off to get the actual flight line before shooting. The variation being much bigger for novices than for aces, obviously. Not too difficult. I suspect the programming of realistic ACM is harder. Perhaps they are already doing this, we just do not notice so much when they miss: anecdotal evidence is prone to selection bias. +1 here. To introduce ramdomness in the AI behaviour is far from being a hard task for a team of experienced programmers as those at 1C Game Studios, AFAIK. It could be assumed as some sort of wind burst at the moment of shooting, that ruins AI's aim in one or other direction. AA_Engadin.
JtD Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 In Il-2:1946 we found it difficult to tune shooting, while some of our testers were complaining about lack of accuracy, others were complaining about sniper AI. It's not as easy as it looks on the paper to not only find proper balance, but also implement something like realistic behaviour.
Gambit21 Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 What is your opinion based on? I doubt it's much else... ...and just what do you think my opinion is? Read again dear Falke.
SCG_Space_Ghost Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 ...and just what do you think my opinion is? Read again dear Falke. Good question. Your post had no context. Yawn... Anywayyy...
Rama Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 And another post derailed by a private dispute... Closing.
Recommended Posts