Jump to content


Photo

Stuka ai attack issues


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 NETSCAPE

NETSCAPE
  • Member
  • Posts: 128
  • Location:Oregon

Posted 19 May 2017 - 02:53

Before we get started here... I have searched for stuka, ju 87 diving dive bomb ect and have read the relevant threads which were helpful. I was doing tests with single stukas, it seemed simple enough and continued learning other elements of mission making...

 

I've tried probably 15+ stuka dive bombing tests with varying altitudes, distance of waypoint to attack area, attack area range ect ect...

 

For example: In a current "dumbed down" test with a flight of 3 stuka's in a Vicc formation (in-air start for test purposes) with PLENTY of time (about 30km) to get in formation, flying in a straight line towards target area... all waypoints/attack area set at 4000m alt, priority high.

 

These possible scenarios tend to happen:

 

-lead stuka by the grace of god dives on the target, the other stukas in his flight may or may not engage targets, but IF 1 or both do it's always the SAME target that the flight lead attacked

 

-lead stuka derps out and flies about 5km away from targets after being right over them, then turns back and attacks the target, but by the flight leads odd maneuver the other stukas have broke/lost tight formation with lead and therefor will not attack any targets when the lead does, so they will still have bombs and try and reform on flight lead. unacceptable.

 

So. To remedy this I can and have made formations of many Stuka viccs  in an epic test mission and given them individual wp/attack commands. The issue with this is the only way to get it to work is to have the player and ai's "in-air" start rather than taxi/take off. The latter is more immersive and fun imo, so we have a serious issue here when thinking of a Ju 87 campaign... 

 

So. What would solve my problem is having a typical group of planes with a flight lead, taxi, take off, fly in formation via formation command near target area as normal like we all know. Then, the big question here!!! - DISABLE the flight lead / formation aspects and order every individual plane to attack specific targets. Then upon bombs bingo/rtb enable flight lead again with subordinates and formation command. 

 

Is that even possible??? It would solve my life problem right now. 

 

There is no way I will make let alone think of selling a campaign if the ai won't even attack and RTB's with bombs... I can get over the max 270kph cruise speed and slow climb speed of ai, in non player flight lead scenario... but the attacking issues are unacceptable to me as far as quality goes. 


  • 0

#2 Gambit21

Gambit21
  • Founder
  • Posts: 3153
  • Location:Pacific Northwest

Posted 19 May 2017 - 03:22



 

So. What would solve my problem is having a typical group of planes with a flight lead, taxi, take off, fly in formation via formation command near target area as normal like we all know. Then, the big question here!!! - DISABLE the flight lead / formation aspects and order every individual plane to attack specific targets. Then upon bombs bingo/rtb enable flight lead again with subordinates and formation command. 

 

Is that even possible??? It would solve my life problem right now. 

 

 

I think so...I'll have to do some looking.


  • 0

post-23599-0-81560100-1480876176.jpg       Coming soon...Warrant Officer 'Yamaha Kawasaki' on the loose again!       post-23599-0-30579300-1480901669.jpg


#3 Gambit21

Gambit21
  • Founder
  • Posts: 3153
  • Location:Pacific Northwest

Posted 19 May 2017 - 03:29

OK, one way would be to have them fly to a waypoint near the target area, then have a trigger link them to the next waypoint (that is not target linked to the previous one) that is now without a formation command.

That may or may not be the most elegant way, but cooking dinner and that's what my brain has come up with so far, and not being able to really sink my teeth into this right now or fire up the editor.

 

I'd use a check zone, or my preference, a complex trigger with "on entered" as the event trigger.

 

If you need me to fire up the editor tomorrow and make you a sample group to illustrate this I can.


Edited by Gambit21, 19 May 2017 - 03:51.

  • 0

post-23599-0-81560100-1480876176.jpg       Coming soon...Warrant Officer 'Yamaha Kawasaki' on the loose again!       post-23599-0-30579300-1480901669.jpg


#4 Gambit21

Gambit21
  • Founder
  • Posts: 3153
  • Location:Pacific Northwest

Posted 19 May 2017 - 14:40

I realized upon waking up this morning that my above methodology isn't the answer.

Maybe someone will chime in, but I have to ponder it a bit more.


  • 0

post-23599-0-81560100-1480876176.jpg       Coming soon...Warrant Officer 'Yamaha Kawasaki' on the loose again!       post-23599-0-30579300-1480901669.jpg


#5 TunaEatsLion

TunaEatsLion
  • Founder
  • Posts: 1220

Posted 19 May 2017 - 15:06

I currently have individual stukas air start at 2500m , which they seem to like. Each gets a slightly different target. The way point can't be further than a few hundred meters away from the bomb point, but also has to come before the bomb point. Preferebly in a straight line. Take offs take too many resources in mp currently, So I don't use them. I also set priority to medium, high prevents self preservation while being attacked. Speed is set to 270.

Edited by TunaEatsLion, 19 May 2017 - 15:12.

  • 0

#6 NETSCAPE

NETSCAPE
  • Member
  • Posts: 128
  • Location:Oregon

Posted 19 May 2017 - 17:43

I currently have individual stukas air start at 2500m , which they seem to like. Each gets a slightly different target. The way point can't be further than a few hundred meters away from the bomb point, but also has to come before the bomb point. Preferebly in a straight line. Take offs take too many resources in mp currently, So I don't use them. I also set priority to medium, high prevents self preservation while being attacked. Speed is set to 270.

 

Well I should have stated that I'm dealing with single player missions. 2500m seems very low for dive bombing as a player of the game or in real life. In the game I find 4000m to be great, maybe 3500m for better render distance. I personally pull out of my dive around 1000m-ish. In real life they would dive from even higher than 4000m sometimes. I also use speed 270, since that seems to be the max regardless of what value you enter exceeding 270. 

 

 

 

 

And thanks for looking into it Gambit. I tried some different methods, but in vain. I can't bypass the whole subordinates being attached to the flight lead thing... I tried a new waypoint, 3s delay, no formation, gave each plan an attack command, on bombs bingo go to a RTB wp, formation back on. But the aforementioned problems still exist.  


  • 0

#7 JimTM

JimTM
  • Founder
  • Posts: 1268
  • Location:Canada

Posted 19 May 2017 - 17:49

Here's a test mission that you can look at and change around. You are in an FW190 at 2200m, following three Ju-87s in a V-formation at 2000m. The Ju-87s, carrying three bombs each, fly through waypoint WP1 and WP2, and then attack Russian trucks on the ground. They do a wide circle before each attack run (three attacks, one for each bomb). The circling behaviour is built into the AI. When all three Ju-87s are bingo bombs, they proceed to waypoint WP3. You can also watch the action from a camera position near the trucks (F12 to access camera, F11 to free the camera to move around with your mouse).

 

Attached File  JimTM - Test Attack Russian Trucks.zip   5.94KB   6 downloads

 

Note that there was an AI behaviour bug that was solved with a hotfix yesterday, so recheck your original mission.


Edited by JimTM, 19 May 2017 - 18:06.

  • 0

#8 Gambit21

Gambit21
  • Founder
  • Posts: 3153
  • Location:Pacific Northwest

Posted 19 May 2017 - 18:27

Sounds more or less like what I was going to build for him later :)
  • 0

post-23599-0-81560100-1480876176.jpg       Coming soon...Warrant Officer 'Yamaha Kawasaki' on the loose again!       post-23599-0-30579300-1480901669.jpg


#9 NETSCAPE

NETSCAPE
  • Member
  • Posts: 128
  • Location:Oregon

Posted 19 May 2017 - 23:05

Here's a test mission that you can look at and change around. You are in an FW190 at 2200m, following three Ju-87s in a V-formation at 2000m. The Ju-87s, carrying three bombs each, fly through waypoint WP1 and WP2, and then attack Russian trucks on the ground. They do a wide circle before each attack run (three attacks, one for each bomb). The circling behaviour is built into the AI. When all three Ju-87s are bingo bombs, they proceed to waypoint WP3. You can also watch the action from a camera position near the trucks (F12 to access camera, F11 to free the camera to move around with your mouse).

 

attachicon.gifJimTM - Test Attack Russian Trucks.zip

 

Note that there was an AI behaviour bug that was solved with a hotfix yesterday, so recheck your original mission.

 

I just opened it up in the editor. There is nothing different in your mission than many of the test missions I have done... with one exception the attack area mcu altitude. 

 

I launched my last stuka attack test I did, unchanged. It works fine. Each stuka dives, they all engage separate targets. so it was just the recent bug that got solved!!!

 

I almost had an existential crisis yesterday haha  :lol:


  • 0

#10 NETSCAPE

NETSCAPE
  • Member
  • Posts: 128
  • Location:Oregon

Posted 20 May 2017 - 03:04

Well my tests against ground targets went well when there was only 3 stukas in formation... 5 and it does the same sort of issues (well issues that concern me regarding immersion and realism), regardless of the bug that was fixed.

 

Ships are a different story, same old issues.. only flight lead and 1 other stuka attack out of 3 or 5 stuka formation, doesn't matter in ship attack case... But moving alt from 4000m to 3500m helps a lot to ensure the first "run" they actually attack and not circle back around and attack, thus causing issues.

 

EDIT: After A LOT of testing I found the best solution: don't use dense formation type. so after the last waypoint before the attackarea mcu, do a formation change from say dense vicc to loose vicc. The main reason, as far as I can tell, is that the AI doesn't dive bomb all at once upon targets because they are avoiding collision with one another. Changing from dense formation helped a lot. I just had 5 tests in a row with 5 stuka's in loose or safe, vic or edge formation, 5 cargo ship targets, and 4 out of 5 stukas dive bomb all at once together, consistently. I can handle that. We'll just say Hans is a noob or hungover, perhaps his dive brakes malfunctioned? lol. And if you're curious, 2 stukas attacked a ship, and then 2 other stukas targeted another ship. So 4 out of 5 will dive, attacking 2 ships via a attackarea mcu that was 700m. (if you think the attack area mcu diameter has something to do with these issues, it doesn't. I tried down to 100m - which is illogical for attacking large ships anyways) 

 

I hope this helps someone in the future. By far formation density changes the results the most by what my testing has shown me. By default I think we all usually select dense type...

 

well there goes 2 days of work down the drain... back to making a mission for gods sake!!!  :angry: 


Edited by NETSCAPE, 20 May 2017 - 03:07.

  • 0

#11 Gambit21

Gambit21
  • Founder
  • Posts: 3153
  • Location:Pacific Northwest

Posted 20 May 2017 - 03:19

See you at mission 20. :P


  • 0

post-23599-0-81560100-1480876176.jpg       Coming soon...Warrant Officer 'Yamaha Kawasaki' on the loose again!       post-23599-0-30579300-1480901669.jpg


#12 TP_Jacko

TP_Jacko
  • Founder
  • Posts: 644
  • Location:Netherlands then UK most weekends

Posted 25 May 2017 - 10:56

Ahh there is a bug fix. Good it was something that broke along the way. I also had poor results with fighter AI wingman not attacking msybe thats fixed as well
  • 0

#13 TP_Jacko

TP_Jacko
  • Founder
  • Posts: 644
  • Location:Netherlands then UK most weekends

Posted 25 May 2017 - 19:03

Its fixed the AI Dive bomb. I had a flight of 3 Ju88 that now all dive and release bombs
  • 0

#14 NETSCAPE

NETSCAPE
  • Member
  • Posts: 128
  • Location:Oregon

Posted 26 May 2017 - 06:37

Its fixed the AI Dive bomb. I had a flight of 3 Ju88 that now all dive and release bombs

 

cool. I haven't tested the Ju88s dive bombing while still under formation command. But regardless of the fix I still stand by my conclusion about formation density, loose is better for the attack. At the last waypoint before the attack command I just changed formation to loose V rather than dense V. Substantial difference with Stuka's at least. 


  • 0

#15 Yogiflight

Yogiflight
  • Member
  • Posts: 978
  • Location:Franggn, Germany

Posted 26 May 2017 - 08:58

Did the Stukas fly in V- formation? When I see pics or films from that time, they are always in right handed formation.


  • 0

#16 NETSCAPE

NETSCAPE
  • Member
  • Posts: 128
  • Location:Oregon

Posted 26 May 2017 - 09:25

Hi yogi, they could easily switch from echelon to Vicc formation. Like this:

 

https://upload.wikim...ikom-napada.gif

 

I've read of viccs of 3-7 stukas. But 3 stuka's in a V or a "Kette" is the smallest tactical formation and common. So a Staffel of stukas can break apart slightly and attack different targets as called out by their respective flight lead (so think 9-12 stukas divided by 3 = individual "Kette". 

 

V formation seems very common from my reading. The V is great for defense as you can imagine, flying at different altitudes for MG coverage. 

 

But certain circumstances call for different things. There are examples of whole Staffel(s) attacking in a straight line, one after another, dropping on the same target (non-dive bomb) - there is an example of this in Stalingrad actually. 


72efba128a642d28c0efdfc46da4e5bc.jpg

e9a2deab518127de782fccd7ae70309b.jpg

Junkers%2BJu%2B87Ds%2Bin%2Bflight%2Boverjunkers-ju-87-stuka-dive-bomber-08.png


  • 0

#17 Yogiflight

Yogiflight
  • Member
  • Posts: 978
  • Location:Franggn, Germany

Posted 26 May 2017 - 13:39

Thanks for the answer, Netscape, I was always wondering, that I only saw them flying 'Kette', as, like you mentioned, the 'V' formation is much better for defense. Maybe they were flying the 'Kette' formation more for the camera. ;)


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users