Redglyph Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 I just assumed, I hate to say it, but to me SP in this game stink more than my old underwear. I just assumed everybody was of the same opinion. I think people have very different expectations of a sim. This one has some level of depth, it's more detailed in the animations and the damage modelling than DCS, but less detailed in the systems and a bit random in the flight (or taxi) model. Still, enough for some to just enjoy flying WWII birds! IL-2 seems to have many history enthusiasts too, so perhaps some SP enjoy missions in a historical environment. But yeah, I find the sim a bit lacking in SP content, fixing a few AI problems and improving the mission editing would really help, though we see the exact same problem in other sims, as long as it's just good enough they'll give priority to new airplanes and features rather than improving what is already there. Then others would rather hang together or DM. I have no idea on the ratios of those expectations, is SP really 90%? And does that mean 90% of people, of revenue, or time spent? I have no idea where this is coming from either, since the sim can be used offline. Is that from a pool, what was the confidence percentage of the statistics? Is that an educated guess? It would be interesting to know, even if that's not the most important for us
sniperton Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 In the livechat on November 18, Jason said that 90% of the customers are singleplayers. Which is interesting, because they receive 10% of the gameplay. The problem is that the SP majority is relatively silent compared to the passionate and hard-core MP guys who populate the servers and also dominate this site with hundreds and thousands of posts. The devs respond to customer feedback, but the feedback generated by the community represents the needs and wishes of MP gaming more effectively due to the mis-representation of the customer base. It's something like in politics where politicians try to please active voters first. 1
Redglyph Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 (edited) I can vouch for that, not receiving any feedback from them or even knowing they saw bug reports doesn't motivate to buy more. For example I was tempted by the Ju-52, but then I saw all the non-implemented or non-working items, I just thought it was too big a risk, and changed my mind. Had I seen any reply from the devs or the support, it would have been different. Not sure it's a shared feeling however. To me each DLC here is a gamble. Overall it's positive, though Edited December 28, 2017 by Redglyph
Thad Posted August 15, 2018 Posted August 15, 2018 (edited) On 11/2/2017 at 10:25 AM, katdog5 said: AI seems more than decent to me. The purchasable campaigns are great. The Butcher first mission is fantastic. Taxiing etc. great job. After that, I think the mission maker said he needs to rework the campaign. Keep in mind that in order to have cooperative AI you needs hours and hours of testing and getting your settings and timing for each plane just right. ie. veteran, rookie etc. A lot to ask for mission makers who dont necc have the time to test the same mission 30 times to perfect it for your one 25 min flawless experience. Not sure how much AI can be blamed? In the purchased campaign Ten days of Autumn, we were intercepted by inferior planes, but because I didn't act correctly I was hit and shot down...it was great. AI was perfect. Im writing this from the gulag. Send help Salutations, As a mission creator I can confirm that it takes a LOT of mission playtesting to get units to perform as desired and present a quality player experience. Even then, things might not be perfect. Currently, there are some AI performance limitations that can't be overcome or, for that matter, understood. We do the best we can. Edited August 15, 2018 by Thad
NETSCAPE Posted September 7, 2018 Posted September 7, 2018 (edited) On 12/28/2017 at 3:36 AM, sniperton said: The problem is that the SP majority is relatively silent compared to the passionate and hard-core MP guys who populate the servers and also dominate this site with hundreds and thousands of posts. Here's some passion for you: Ju 87: If AI releases bombs in dive it does so prematurely, up to 2000m alt. Should be 700m +/- 200m... Common that AI doesn't drop bombs or misses target dramatically... Hs 129: AI Wingmen climb at 2 m/s with 33% fuel load even... AI Wingmen can't catch flight lead using slowest possible waypoint speed (level flight)... AI Cruises at a max of 80-83% throttle when it could be 100%... AI fries their own engines during attack runs over 10 minutes long... AI does bizarre vertical changes trying to fly in formation... Most planes, (the bigger and or slower the more problematic): AI wingmen handicapped due to constant 0-100 up/down throttle changes for no apparent reason which, results in inefficient climb, forming on lead, consistent cruise speed ect... AI wingmen formation has weird oscillation in regards to distance from flight lead (possibly caused from above issue)... AI wingmen (especially bombers) take forever to reform after a simple change of course, typically looks like swaying left and right along with "wing wiggle" and of course - falling behind... --------- I used to rule out what scripted campaign/mission ideas I would work on based on historical airfields, frontlines, flight times, fun factor ect. Now I just test planes for hours to determine if the missions I want to create are even possible. I've ruled out the Ju 87, Hs 129 and He 111 for various reasons. I'd like to make more singleplayer content but I'm really asking myself what's the point in trying any more? I can't rewrite the AI. I've got 12 missions for two more campaigns that have just been sitting... And for the above reasons I listed and silly giant V formations, AI collision, bombs not dropped ect - I just can't enjoy the career mode either... which is a pity taking into account all the effort they put into it because of the demand for it. I didn't ask for career mode because I didn't play RoF, so I wasn't on that train. In hindsight I rather all the time and resources that went into career mode have been spent on AI coding instead. If the AI got polished the singleplayer content would be so epic and awesome. I understand it's not a priority and that most players play multiplayer probably. I get the whole concept of "the AI actually has to fly like a human in this simulation!" which in theory seems cool, but in practice it actually sucks and results in the issues I've listed above. I don't care at this point. I rather have an AI flight stick to a ****ing given speed and fly in formation correctly than have to deal with all the same factors as the human player has to. At some point I have to draw the line. In turn I will stop paying for new maps and planes until AI is improved. Edited January 29, 2019 by NETSCAPE 9
sniperton Posted September 7, 2018 Posted September 7, 2018 3 hours ago, NETSCAPE said: I get the whole concept of "the AI actually has to fly like a human in this simulation!" which in theory seems cool, but in practice it actually sucks and results in the issues I've listed above. I don't care at this point. I rather have an AI flight stick to a ****ing given speed and fly in formation correctly than have to deal with all the same factors as the human player has to. Yep, the AI actually flying the FM seems to have been a highly questionable design decision. We've discussed it from the perspective of CPU usage here, see the posts on 29 August: I'm very much afraid that the AI cannot be retained and simply 'repaired', it should be completely redone almost from scratch, which is unlikely to happen, unless it's already being worked on silently for quite some time. 1 2
Donik Posted November 18, 2018 Posted November 18, 2018 I've got upwards of $60 for the next iteration of the sim: IL-2 Battle of the Fixed AI. We're obviously not going to get improved AI any other way - might as well throw money at them for incentive. 1
NETSCAPE Posted December 31, 2018 Posted December 31, 2018 (edited) On 11/18/2018 at 1:13 PM, Donik said: I've got upwards of $60 for the next iteration of the sim: IL-2 Battle of the Fixed AI. We're obviously not going to get improved AI any other way - might as well throw money at them for incentive. I do plan on picking up Tank Crew after it is released. I'm far more interested in the ground war than the air war. Edited June 14, 2019 by NETSCAPE
Donik Posted January 1, 2019 Posted January 1, 2019 1 hour ago, NETSCAPE said: I do plan on picking up Tank Crew after it is released. I'm far more interested in the ground war than the air war. I'm sure I'll pick it up eventually. Though I don't have a huge interest in it like I do planes. I am still more than willing to put my money where my mouth is though, for the AI expansion.
Thad Posted January 1, 2019 Posted January 1, 2019 On 11/21/2017 at 4:12 PM, Gambit21 said: Also, I need the flights to attack when ordered, and not spend 3 minutes making a sightseeing circuit first. Agreed. I have seen this behavior over and over in my single player mission testing. It is most frustrating. ?
Sky_Wolf Posted April 17, 2020 Author Posted April 17, 2020 Judging from the recent posts about AI in campaigns and career mode (see links below), it seems that the AI problems that have been known for many years have still yet to be addressed sufficiently. Why don't the developers prioritize AI improvements? 1 1
Jason_Williams Posted April 17, 2020 Posted April 17, 2020 1 hour ago, Pericles said: Judging from the recent posts about AI in campaigns and career mode (see links below), it seems that the AI problems that have been known for many years have still yet to be addressed sufficiently. Why don't the developers prioritize AI improvements? Sorry you are wrong. We have hired a dedicated AI programmer and AI work has been a priority for months. But AI programming takes time and it is tricky work, but he has already greatly improved our AI. It's not perfect now and won't ever be perfect. Jason 7 2 10
Recommended Posts