Please, please,please address the AI!

[smink1701]

You have brought many enhancements to this fine piece of work.  But, before you introduce any more tweaks like bouncing landing gear, please X 3 fix the AI.  I just chased a bogie in SP and he's flopping around like a freshly caught trout in the bottom of a fishing boat.  It doesn't resemble flight at all.  Like trying to shoot a humming bird.  IL2 1946 was much more fluid.  Anyone else agree?

[Gambit21]

Discussed plenty - devs are aware.

[6./ZG26_McKvack]

Devs are working on improving the AI already. Improvements to the AI comes in every patch.

[Finkeren]

IL2 1946 was much more fluid. Anyone else agree?

1946 had simplified on-rails FM, and the AI didn't even use that FM but an even more simplistic version.

 

That's why it looked fluid.

[Sokol1]

 I just chased a bogie in SP and he's flopping around like a freshly caught trout in the bottom of a fishing boat.  It doesn't resemble flight at all.  

 

Use this, maybe?  

[smink1701]

1946 had simplified on-rails FM, and the AI didn't even use that FM but an even more simplistic version.

 

That's why it looked fluid.

Yes, simplistic, fluid but it looked like the plane was flying rather that jumping around like a butterfly.  IMHO it can't be mentioned enough because the current version takes you right out of the game. BOS is a "flight simulator" so simulating flight should be a huge priority and I feel it isn't.  Maybe its on a "To-Do" list but it needs to be moved to the top before fixing things like jumpy landing gear.  Just sayin.

[deWaardt]

The devs are aware.

 

In the meanhwile, have fun looking at AI whirl through the air after forgetting how to physics.

Also, laugh at AI cardwheeling over the runway after they strike their wing on the ground while you still can 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I think the ideal solution is in the middle. In 1946, the AI flew the aircraft so obnoxiously perfectly that it made it look synthetic. Here the AI can be very, very clumsy, but at the same time entering stalls and sometimes screwing up some basic manoeuvres when under pressure is realistic considering that a real pilot would do the same in some cases.

[PantsPilot]

I always get the feeling that the ai's behaviour is somehow linked to the pressing of my gun trigger, because it has an uncanny knack of doing something weird to get out of the way, again, just at the right moment, every bloody time. Funny thing is whilst you're sailing along behind this clown, the enemy ai of the other planes involved in the fight (if there are any), don't take any advantage of your vulnerable position or come to his aid? 

The battle descends into this flying around at 50 ft in ever decreasing circles trying to second guess which way he's bobbing next like a punch drunk fighter, as you continue to miss with almost every burst whilst draining your rounds at an alarming rate, as the war continues above you as if you weren't part of it. Surreal.   

 

All I can say is if there going to put a Zero in front of an F4F in this thing then you'd better go to unlimited ammo!

[smink1701]

What he said!!!

[BraveSirRobin]

You guys know that the AI uses the same flight model as humans, right? It gets more cautious when it gets low.

Edited October 3, 2016 by BraveSirRobin

[JG13_opcode]

That wing-waggling thing they do is so unrealistic the flight model the AI uses is irrelevant.

[BraveSirRobin]

The AI is NEVER going to be realistic. 1946 was no better. In fact, I feel it was worse.

[smink1701]

That wing-waggling thing they do is so unrealistic the flight model the AI uses is irrelevant.

Right!

The AI is NEVER going to be realistic. 1946 was no better. In fact, I feel it was worse.

Wrong!

[Jade_Monkey]

I do hope that they addres the sloppy fish behaviour and the tendency to bring the fight to the deck.

 

I have a theory that the AI is actually doing too much work, and that it needs to do less (at the current levels of complexity) to get better results.

This is what I think it might be happening:

• The AI is constantly assessing what to do next
• That results in the flopping around when the decision to turn one way or the other are too close to each other.
• If we gave the AI time to finish a decision it would look more fluid (e.g. if it starts a right turn, let the AI go right for at least a few seconds and then re-evaluate the situation).

If this theory is any good, then letting the AI do less by carrying out the actions it decided to do, this may be also a source of less CPU intensive processing?

 

This is clearly speculation from a non-expert on the AI field, but I thought I would share.

[BraveSirRobin]

Wrong!

 

Please.  The 1946 AI sucked.

[Gambit21]

I could fly as lead and tell the AI to do things, and they would more or less do it.

 

For instance in a CoOp if I was lead and had 3 AI wingmen I could order them to attack another player below me and they would do just that.

Not much in a dogfight, but they followed orders to a good extent.

[JtD]

1946 had simplified on-rails FM, and the AI didn't even use that FM but an even more simplistic version.

1946 did not have an on-rails FM, and the AI used the same FM. Please stop talking nonsense.

 

I'm starting to understand the devs here. It's really hard to take when clueless people continuously take a piss at other folks hard work.

[CUJO_1970]

I actually think this is some of the best AI I've seen overall. Practicing with FW offline against ace and veteran VVS level AI behaves in many cases like an average human online. I have flights recorded where you can hardly tell the difference.

 

Not to detract from the old Il2 but what we have now is better. Old Il2 the AI is always running away at full power with full rudder deflection. I'm glad not to see that and some of the other old behavior any more.

[PatrickAWlson]

I agree.  

 

I do hope that they addres the sloppy fish behaviour and the tendency to bring the fight to the deck.

 

I have a theory that the AI is actually doing too much work, and that it needs to do less (at the current levels of complexity) to get better results.

This is what I think it might be happening:

• The AI is constantly assessing what to do next
• That results in the flopping around when the decision to turn one way or the other are too close to each other.
• If we gave the AI time to finish a decision it would look more fluid (e.g. if it starts a right turn, let the AI go right for at least a few seconds and then re-evaluate the situation).

If this theory is any good, then letting the AI do less by carrying out the actions it decided to do, this may be also a source of less CPU intensive processing?

 

This is clearly speculation from a non-expert on the AI field, but I thought I would share.

 

I think you're right.

[Gambit21]

I don't know about CPU cycles, but that seems to characterize the AI well enough - so from a logical standpoint I would guess it's taking up more resources than necessary to make

all those decisions. Not really my area of expertise though.

[hames123]

I think they really have to work on ground attackers AI for the new career. The AI for ground attackers now makes a huge loop around before hitting the target, which makes them easy prey. Often, my Stukas will fly all over the place as a flight once we reach the trouble spot, and then attack after 5-6 minutes, if they are not destroyed by the AA and enemy fighters.

[FlyingNutcase]

The AI is NEVER going to be realistic. ...

 

My I parry with a "bollocks". Hardware and AI algo development keep progressing in the right direction. The ability to make it happen may well may be a few years away and it'll need to be a core focus for a good while but if the devs want to make it happen, it'll come. 

Edited October 4, 2016 by FlyingNutcase

[Gambit21]

Yeah that's bogus - in the old IL2 they'd go straight in

[Feathered_IV]

1946 did not have an on-rails FM, and the AI used the same FM. Please stop talking nonsense.

 

I'm starting to understand the devs here. It's really hard to take when clueless people continuously take a piss at other folks hard work.

 

I think Finkeren is referring to the initial releases of what grew to be the 1946 series.  Up until around 2008 the Il-2 FB/PF AI used it's own simplified FM that was separate from the one the player used.  This was later changed so that both player and AI used the same FM.  Oleg Maddox was still posting in those days and seemed very proud of this advance.

 

The AI quality was later improved drastically too, about 18 months after the modding scene took off.  Initially by one fellow (forgot his name, something nautical I think) did the work.  A couple of years later he refined his work to become part of the Diadalos Team and the version the series enjoys today was released around 2011. 

[Finkeren]

True enough Feathered. I played 1946 with the SAS mod pack, and the AI was much improved.

 

Still doesn't change the fact, that the FM for the old IL-2 was far simpler.

 

"On-rails" is a matter of oppinion I guess.

[LLv24_Zami]

Devs are working on improving the AI already. Improvements to the AI comes in every patch.

This. 

 

A lot have been done for better AI already in the patches and I have no doubt  there will be more improvements ahead. The AI in BoS is not perfect yet but IMO it`s mostly pretty decent. 

[JtD]

I've recently been looking at the AI using 4 vs. 4 veteran pilot combat in plane vs. all other planes in the quick mission builder. Fights starting at 5km. Two rounds. 12 fighter type aircraft make 22 fights per type and 88 aircraft per type. Half of the Fw190 involved in these tests dove straight into the ground for no reason.

 

That's far from pretty decent.

[LLv24_Zami]

I've recently been looking at the AI using 4 vs. 4 veteran pilot combat in plane vs. all other planes in the quick mission builder. Fights starting at 5km. Two rounds. 12 fighter type aircraft make 22 fights per type and 88 aircraft per type. Half of the Fw190 involved in these tests dove straight into the ground for no reason.

 

That's far from pretty decent.

I`ll put this again: The AI in BoS is not perfect but mostly pretty decent.

 

Ground collisions happen in sometimes campaign too, mostly with P-40. It`s something that devs need to look at.

Edited October 4, 2016 by Zami

[JtD]

I'm not talking about "ground collisions". I'm talking about aircraft diving into the ground for no reason whatsoever from 4km straight down. It appears to be 190 specific, but half the 190 will just dig a hole.

 

So let me put it this way: It might be a pretty descent, but it's not pretty decent.

 

40% might even be, but together with 10% of excellent, 40% unsatisfactory and 10% fail it overall doesn't qualify as such. Edit: Yet.

Edited October 4, 2016 by JtD

[LLv24_Zami]

I'm not talking about "ground collisions". I'm talking about aircraft diving into the ground for no reason whatsoever from 4km straight down. It appears to be 190 specific, but half the 190 will just dig a hole.

 

So let me put it this way: It might be a pretty descent, but it's not pretty decent.

 

40% might even be, but together with 10% of excellent, 40% unsatisfactory and 10% fail it overall doesn't qualify as such. Edit: Yet.

Then make a bug report and stop arguing with me. 

 

IMO overall AI is acting decent when playing a campaign, end of it. I`ve seen a lot worse in my years of gaming. And I`m not talking just about "ground collisions" or aircraft diving to the ground. 

Edited October 4, 2016 by Zami

[JtD]

And I have a different opinion. I find it very odd that you appear to take offence in that.

[Finkeren]

I have honestly never, ever seen the AI diving straight into the ground for no reason JtD, and I've played SP in this sim more than most ppl here.

 

I'm not saying it doesn't happen (I just haven't seen it), and I definately acknowledge, that the AI is far from perfect. The 'wobbly' behavior in some planes is a real issue, but if you remember back to the earliest alpha, the AI was barely able to fly the LaGG at all, a plane it flies quite well at the moment, so improvements are definately possible.

 

What I'm objecting to is comparing the AI to the one in 1946. That's like saying that the AI is much better at driving the cars in Mario Cart than in Project Cars.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I get the nosediving AI when flying convoy or artillery attacks in the MiG-3. If I tell them to attack the nearest ground target, they will do a nice circuit, line up for the shot, come in, do a very well-executed rocket attack then inexplicably I will see some craters some 500m off the target. It isn't a regular occurrence, but one of those small things that could be a little better.

[Matt]

I think the AI just changes its mind too often and too quickly.

 

Very often, the AI would initiate a turn, then level out again, roll again to turn, level out again, maybe try to turn the other way around, level out again etc etc. In the end, it may have turned a few degrees, but wasted all its energy in the process.

 

I can't imagine how hard it is to teach the AI all kind of complex maneuvers but maybe it would help if the AI would stick to one behaviour for a certain amount of time, before changing its mind and trying something else instead. It currently just always wants to point its nose at the enemy.

[LLv24_Zami]

And I have a different opinion. I find it very odd that you appear to take offence in that.

I`ve taken no offence. 

 

At least we agree that AI needs further improvement. 

[JtD]

I have honestly never, ever seen the AI diving straight into the ground for no reason JtD, and I've played SP in this sim more than most ppl here.

 

I'm not saying it doesn't happen (I just haven't seen it), and I definately acknowledge, that the AI is far from perfect. The 'wobbly' behavior in some planes is a real issue, but if you remember back to the earliest alpha, the AI was barely able to fly the LaGG at all, a plane it flies quite well at the moment, so improvements are definately possible.

 

What I'm objecting to is comparing the AI to the one in 1946. That's like saying that the AI is much better at driving the cars in Mario Cart than in Project Cars.

I take it you are referring to the more complex flight model of BoS. I think that flying the aircraft is just a very small part of AI work, tactics and team work are a much bigger part. And here you can very well compare older games with a current one, because WW2 air combat has not changed in the last 10 years. I've done my AI fight thing mainly to observe AI, and secondly to see what the aircraft can do (when AI controlled). My interest got sparked by the a topic started some weeks ago, never paid much attention before.

 

And closely observing individual AI veteran aircraft is almost causing physical pain. They are extremely limited in their elements, often tactically extremely stupid, ill coordinated and appear to benefit and suffer from issues that have been resolved in 1946 years ago. It is much less evident when you just focus on yourself, but once you start to wonder 'where did my wingman go', it quickly gets very ugly. No AI ever fights for superior tactical position, they always only go for superior geometric position, i.e. the enemies tail. My 2 4vs4 AI battles of I-16 vs. Fw190 went 8:0 total for the I-16. That's how AI fights. To me, a major fail.

 

Fw190 lawndarting typically starts with a split S performed for various reasons at high altitude. It looks as if the AI can't deal with compressibility. If you like, that's a (hypothetical) reason.

 

I'm currently focussed on fighter AI, but I also stopped playing the campaign because I found the bomber AI annoying. Admittedly, that was a year ago, so I would need to see what it is like now.

Edited October 4, 2016 by JtD

[Habu]

I think the AI just changes its mind too often and too quickly.

 

Very often, the AI would initiate a turn, then level out again, roll again to turn, level out again, maybe try to turn the other way around, level out again etc etc. In the end, it may have turned a few degrees, but wasted all its energy in the process.

 

I can't imagine how hard it is to teach the AI all kind of complex maneuvers but maybe it would help if the AI would stick to one behaviour for a certain amount of time, before changing its mind and trying something else instead. It currently just always wants to point its nose at the enemy.

I agree with you Matt.

[Jade_Monkey]

I agree. Thats what i said but i said it in a less eloquent manner

[Habu]

I agree. Thats what i said but i said it in a less eloquent manner

Sorry Jade, i forgott to quote you.