I don't like the AI

[Gambit21]

Oh Look - test 5

 

Each screen shot is a different pass on the "player" aircraft

5 passes before I quite the test, not a single pass on any of the other 9 Ju52's

This again despite being attacked by the defending 109's

 

I'm now 100% sure of what I'm seeing.

 

I titles the images "Pass 1" etc, although I could have easily called them "Robin is Wrong 1, 2, etc)  

Edited February 4, 2017 by Gambit21

[BraveSirRobin]

I titles the images "Pass 1" etc, although I could have easily called them "Robin is Wrong 1, 2, etc)  

 

Maybe you should rename them "Han is lying to us", because I'm just repeating what Han has said.  What are your options if Han tells you that you're still wrong?  

[Gambit21]

What happens when the guy who has access to the code tells the guy doing the testing that he's still wrong?

 

Maybe you're not familiar with how other people communicate and solve problems in our world...including in this community...that's OK.

Let me educate you - take a seat for a moment.

 

Here we go...pay close attention and stop me if I lose you.

This may come as a shock to you, as there's no belittling or arrogance or hyperbole involved.

Brace yourself.

 

You see I'll give this mission to Habu or Han...and they'll test and see if they get the same result.

Then they'll go from there, and try to recreate it on their end and determine if it's a global problem or a problem with this aircraft.

On my end, I'll probably swap the Ju52's for He111's first and see if I get the same result, just to save them some work.

They'll go from there.

Maybe they won't have time to do anything about it for quite some time - that's beside the point.

I don't need them to "tell" me anything, I'm now certain of the results...as I've duplicated them time after time.

 

What I find fascinating is your steadfast, kneejerk denial (right fighting really)  just because Han "said something"

Bugs. odd behavior are being brought to light all the time...sometimes it's aircraft specific. Han knows this.

If you would have asked him a few weeks ago if wind speed over 4KPH would keep an aircraft from landing and taxiing correctly

he would have told you "no" not because he's lying, but because he wasn't yet aware of the problem with the Ju52 and wind setting.

 

That's all the typing I'll be directing at you on this subject.

Edited February 4, 2017 by Gambit21

[BraveSirRobin]

Maybe you're not familiar with how other people communicate and solve problems in our world...including in this community...that's OK.

Let me educate you - take a seat for a moment.

 

 

I didn't ask what you're going to do before he tells you that you're still wrong.  I asked what you're going to do AFTER he tells you that you're still wrong.

BTW, the images you posted show the AI attacking the flight leader.  That's what they're supposed to do.

[Gambit21]

...and by the way, to others reading this.

My posts and screen shots are not meant as complaints...simply empirical data.

I didn't ask what you're going to do before he tells you that you're still wrong.  I asked what you're going to do AFTER he tells you that you're still wrong.

BTW, the images you posted show the AI attacking the flight leader.  That's what they're supposed to do.

 

FFS

The player aircraft is #2 - the flight leader is cropped out.

Here's the entire flight showing the Leader.

Player AC is the "Gambit 21" in the #2 position - flown on autopilot.

 

 

[BraveSirRobin]

It will be interesting to see Han's response.

[Thad]

AI not ganging on player ?

Might be a myth, might be a reality.

 

 

So this picture might not be the result of AI targeting human.

But it might be the result of wingmen not doing their job then.

You never get any kind of assistance from your wingmen, each time they encounter any kind of plane, it's "let's go after him"

So if you try to keep on with the mission, you'll be on your own, hence the target of choice. If your ****** number 2 would at least stick with you instead of going for mushrooms each time a dot appear on the horizon, that may help at least.

 

BUT

 

Get a yak on your 6 and any number of your wingmates shooting at him, he'll break off when his plane is totally out of control our you are dead.

Get a yak on your wingmen's 6, and start following that yak, he will usually break of even before you start shooting at him.

 

I don't see any logical reason that might explain this difference of behaviour

 

ALSO

 

There was one mission, I flew with the E7, after hitting the objective, I was chased by 7 i16

I wish I had a record of that because that was soooo stupid.

 

My wingman was (once again) not with me so I ran away, of course no big deal to escape from ratas.

Then I saw my wingman tailing the i16 group, which was approx 1.2km behind me. He was gaining on them, perfect for getting one of them at least.

 

But no

 

He went THROUGH the whole i16 formation, and back on my wing. Neither him or the i16 gave a single f*** about each other.

Not a single round was fired even when my wingman was just in front of the sight of 7 red planes.

 

So something IS obviously wrong on how AI prioritize their targets, and switch behavior depending on situation, and despite what Han said about the matter, I still have big doubts about them making no difference between the AI and the player

Wow, this report, if correct, seems to clearly indicate a problem with the AI target prioritization.

[Extreme_One]

It will be interesting to see Han's response.

I'd imagine, he'd say 'thanks for bringing this to our attention, we'll look into it"

 

Nobody, except you, had made any reference to Han lying.

 

The suggestion is merely that he's unaware of the bug(s) affecting AI behaviour.

 

Han explained how the AI is programmed.

Others have pointed out it's not working as intended.

That's not the same as saying he's lying.

 

Was Han lying about the 190 FM? Did anyone claim he was?

 

No on both counts, but it's been 'fixed' anyway.

[BraveSirRobin]

Han explained how the AI is programmed.

 

Han said that the AI does not know whether the aircraft it targets has a human pilot. If the AI actually does know when there is a human pilot, that should be obvious to any programmer who looks at the code. Some bugs can be very difficult to find. Others, like this (if it's really a bug), should be blindingly obvious.

 

This is not related to the 190 FM in any way whatsoever. The 190 was working as they intended. The problem was bad test data. This situation has nothing to do with test data.

[Extreme_One]

Han said ...

That's fascinating ...

 

Anyway, the AI clearly does latch onto the human player.

 

This phenomenon has been witnessed and described by numerous players, including Pat Wilson who knows a darn sight more about this than you do.

 

Clearly it's not intended behaviour.

 

It might very well be the mission designers that need to do things differently, or it could be a bug with the global AI code.

 

Whatever the issue is, I'm sure it'll be sorted out eventually.

 

Hopefully Gambit will open a useful dialogue with the testers and developers.

 

In the meantime its very noble of you to defend Han. I'm sure he's grateful.

[BraveSirRobin]

In the meantime its very noble of you to defend Han. I'm sure he's grateful.

I'm not defending him at all. I simply asked him if the AI treats the human pilots as a priority. He responded that the AI don't even know which aircraft have human pilots, If he's wrong about that it would be pretty embarrassing for him. Because, as I have repeatedly pointed out, that should be a pretty obvious issue for a programmer to spot.

 

This phenomenon has been witnessed and described by numerous players, including Pat Wilson who knows a darn sight more about this than you do.

 

Han has access to the code. Pat does not.

[Gambit21]

What does access to code have to do with direct, repeated observation of reproducible behavior?

You're so obsessed with being right and having the last word that simple logic is eluding you.

 

If 'access to code' is all that mattered, then there wouldn't be the need for the constant...and I do mean constant testing that is going on

by the testers.

Non-intended issues are brought to the Dev's attention all the time, despite them having access to the code.

[BraveSirRobin]

What does access to code have to do with direct, repeated observation of reproducible behavior?

You're so obsessed with being right and having the last word that simple logic is eluding you.

 

Because the behavior may not be due to the what you think the cause is.  Everyone is screaming about the AI knowing which aircraft are human.  If that is really a problem then it would be easy to fix, or change if it was a design decision.  Now you have an example of AI attacking a human when he isn't the flight lead.  Maybe they're just trying to kill the flight lead and you happen to be in the way?   Should they fix that?

 

Whatever it is, all I asked Han about was whether the AI focus on the human pilot.  He said they don't even know who is human.  That is why I suggest that people use different tactics.  It's just from my personal experience.  If your experience is different, try something different.

[Gambit21]

I for one haven't 'screamed' about anything, nor have I seen this behavior in others.

For my part I'm simply helping out by demonstrating the behavior we're seeing in the sim.

 

Also if it were the player aircraft just 'getting in the way' that would be obvious after so many tests and gun passes...and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Edited February 4, 2017 by Gambit21

[BraveSirRobin]

 

Also if it were the player aircraft just 'getting in the way' that would be obvious after so many tests and gun passes...and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

So you tried this with the human player in the #4 slot and it's still the AI's primary target?

[Gambit21]

Not yet - but I shall.

That has no bearing on the repeated firing passes with the player in the #2 position however.

The aircraft in the flight are not that close to each other.

[BraveSirRobin]

This is taking a lot longer than I expected. The AI doesn't go after the human in the #4 slot, does it?

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

This is taking a lot longer than I expected. The AI doesn't go after the human in the #4 slot, does it?

 

Yeah, Gambit, how dare you not take time out of your personal life to deliver results to BSR on his timeframe so he can further dissonance himself from the quantitative observations of a community at whole.

 

/s

[BraveSirRobin]

Yeah, Gambit, how dare you not take time out of your personal life to deliver results to BSR on his timeframe so he can further dissonance himself from the quantitative observations of a community at whole.

 

/s

He seemed really determined to show that the AI targets the human player. He put a lot of his personal time into it without any prompting. Until now.

[Extreme_One]

[Edited]

 

Knock it off..

Edited February 7, 2017 by Bearcat

[BraveSirRobin]

[Edited]

 

Knock it off..

Edited February 7, 2017 by Bearcat

[Extreme_One]

Except, I don't crap all over every thread I participate in.

 

You, on the other hand...

 

 

You give nothing to this community, except overtly negative commentary.

 

 

Clearly you enjoy the bad-boy persona you've created for yourself, unfortunately, that enjoyment is limited to just one person.

 

You're one of a small band of people that make this forum a thoroughly unenjoyable place.

Edited February 5, 2017 by Extreme_One

[Thad]

The AI has to choose between following orders set by the mission designer and the current situation it finds itself in. Too much situational awareness and players complain that AIs don't follow orders. Too much following orders and people complain the AI's behaviour is stupid and unrealistic.

Blend in the fact that orders to the AI come from both the mission design and the player, and you get many situations that just look wrong from the player's point of view.

Salutations,

 

I such cases, the games AI should make Player Orders their 'overriding' or number one priority over any mission design directions. It should simply be a matter of programming said behavior in.

[BraveSirRobin]

Except, I don't crap all over every thread I participate in.

 

You're crapping all over this thread. I'm trying to help a member of the community test out something that he thinks is a bug. If you could just drag your ignorant ass away from the thread, we might make some progress.

You're one of a small band of people that make this forum a thoroughly unenjoyable place.

Welcome to the band!

[Gambit21]

Robin...a few things.

First, with respect - you are not helping me.

If you want to know what actual "help" looks like, then spend some time in the mission making and mission editor forum. There we actually do HELP each other, and it looks NOTHING like your behavior. In fact causing me to type post after post to deal with inane notions based on no testing and no actual knowledge of the game logic

whatsoever is a waste of my time, and very much the opposite of "help"

So just an FYI in that department.

 

Further you lack the proper insight and temperment to help if your intentions were truly in that realm.

 

Next, I didn't need to do this next test, and frankly if your intention was actually to help rather than be right or cause discord,  you have enough information by now that you should't need to ask this test. Again, with respect if you knew anything about mission logic or the editor you'd ask if the "attack" command was object linked to the player, or if it was simply an "attack area" command, etc.

But you don't have this knowledge, so you don't even know what questions to ask in order to "help"

 

To clarify, the P-40's are spawned with an "attack area" command set to "Axis"...not object linked to any particular aircraft.

 

However, in the spirit of proper testing and trouble shooting I did make the 'player' aircraft the #4 airplane.

 

Results were as expected.

One of the P-40's immediately made a pass on the #4 (Player) Ju52, followed by further passes until all of the P-40's were this time

eliminated by the escort. In the screen shot you can see a P-40 making a pass on the player aircraft even though it has a 109 on it's 6.

 

No passes were made on any other Ju52's.

Because the P-40 AI is turned down to "low" in order to allow the player a better chance at survival, not every pass resulted in guns firing.

However, once again no passes were made, guns firing or otherwise at any other Ju52.

Were the AI turned up to high or ace or even normal as I started out with before, the "player" aircraft would have been shot down in short order as it was

on the first test test when the AI was "normal"

 

 

 

 

 

[Gambit21]

He seemed really determined to show that the AI targets the human player. He put a lot of his personal time into it without any prompting. Until now.

 

I'm building a campaign, which requires a F* load of testing, which is how I discovered this behavior...in the process of testing a mission.

I didn't set out to test this issue.

[Gambit21]

Just for grins...latest run through.

The smoking aircraft is the player aircraft.

Not only that, but yet again no other Ju52's were fired upon.

I'm ready to send this to Han I think.

 

Interestingly, adding a cloud layer just below the flight completely changes this behavior.

[BraveSirRobin]

Robin...a few things.

First, with respect - you are not helping me.

If you want to know what actual "help" looks like, then spend some time in the mission making and mission editor forum. There we actually do HELP each other, and it looks NOTHING like your behavior. In fact causing me to type post after post to deal with inane notions based on no testing and no actual knowledge of the game logic

whatsoever is a waste of my time, and very much the opposite of "help"

So just an FYI in that department.

 

Further you lack the proper insight and temperment to help if your intentions were truly in that realm.

 

Next, I didn't need to do this next test, and frankly if your intention was actually to help rather than be right or cause discord,  you have enough information by now that you should't need to ask this test. Again, with respect if you knew anything about mission logic or the editor you'd ask if the "attack" command was object linked to the player, or if it was simply an "attack area" command, etc.

But you don't have this knowledge, so you don't even know what questions to ask in order to "help"

 

To clarify, the P-40's are spawned with an "attack area" command set to "Axis"...not object linked to any particular aircraft.

 

However, in the spirit of proper testing and trouble shooting I did make the 'player' aircraft the #4 airplane.

 

Results were as expected.

One of the P-40's immediately made a pass on the #4 (Player) Ju52, followed by further passes until all of the P-40's were this time

eliminated by the escort. In the screen shot you can see a P-40 making a pass on the player aircraft even though it has a 109 on it's 6.

 

No passes were made on any other Ju52's.

Because the P-40 AI is turned down to "low" in order to allow the player a better chance at survival, not every pass resulted in guns firing.

However, once again no passes were made, guns firing or otherwise at any other Ju52.

Were the AI turned up to high or ace or even normal as I started out with before, the "player" aircraft would have been shot down in short order as it was

on the first test test when the AI was "normal"

[Edited]

 

Send the results to Han. I'm looking forward to his response.

Edited February 7, 2017 by Bearcat

[Gambit21]

If by "blah blah blah" you mean:

"Sorry for being so dysfunctionaly egocentric and thick, and you're right I don't have the knowledge, and no I'm not being helpful - and sorry about my needless disrespect, lack of self awareness and acute case of advanced lastworditis...it's an ongoing problem and I can't help it"

 

You're only human and it's never too late to build a new history.

 

Also - I promise you will not be informed of anything.

Edited February 6, 2017 by Gambit21

[Trooper117]

Thanks for your good work Gambit... it's people like you, and others who bother to test for things like this that really make a contribution to the community...

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

I second Trooper's statement.

 

I'm sure that your testing and consistent replication will go a mile for having AI target acquisition logic reviewed.

[Extreme_One]

Good on you Gambit!   Thanks for persisting with your testing.

 

I look forward to hearing the outcome of the conversation with Han.

 

I'm sure they have bigger fish to fry but it'll be great if we hear that they can schedule a little time to investigate and fix this issue.

 

ps. Thank goodness for the Ignore function, this forum has suddenly become a much better place.

[Gambit21]

Thanks guys - and thanks for the reminder about the ignore function. That will be a quality of life improvement.

[C6_lefuneste]

Thanks for adding elements to help improving AI, with scenariis that can be (re) played by the devs.

I hope that it will lead to improvement in the future.

[Bearcat]

OK .. I have seen enough in this thread..  PMs inbound where applicable.. 

 

If you haven't checked out the IL2 4.12 AI of the original game, I think you should. After years of tweaking, I think TD has come up with a fairly credible AI. It's not perfect and never will be or can be. The low and slow dogfight with the AI is much more challenging than it was in years past.*   I don't really know about their high speed/high alt performance. I'm not implying that any of that is applicable to this series, but it is an example of how it could be improved.

 

*It had been very easy to get the AI into a low looping fight and force them into crashing into the ground. Imagine my chagrin after a 5 min dogfight to have the AI crash me into the ground. Maybe I just suck, but I was actually feeling like I should give my AI opponent an ~S~.

 

Cloyd

 I agree Cloyd.. although they still have their moments depending on how the mission is designed as far as AI go .. you can even call for help.. and often get it if you can hang on..  

[Gambit21]

S! Bearcat

Edited February 7, 2017 by Gambit21

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Posted in the Questions to Developer thread:

 

-snip-

 

If player is a leader of the flight and if he have overtook his flight and become closed to enemy than all other planes of his flight - than he becomes most yummy target for enemy AI.

There is no any special "priority" on player as target for AI.

 

EDIT: AI ganging on player confirmen in my own test. F... too often I got to re-check things by myself   To be fixed in 2.008. Thank you for rising this issue again.

 

-snip- 

Edited February 13, 2017 by 4./JG52_Space_Ghost

[Trooper117]

Yep, great news... we all knew it was wrong, glad it's getting sorted

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Yep, great news... we all knew it was wrong, glad it's getting sorted

 

Seems like all of us, minus one. 

[BraveSirRobin]

It was more than one.