Jump to content
Andre0815

rendering 50 bombers

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

On Quick Missions I can select maximum of 8 enemy bombers. Is there a way to bring the sky full of 50 bombers ?

 

André

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in this game.  But I’m hoping one day a developer will come along that builds a game around the expectation of having large numbers of bombers in the air at once and designs things accordingly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many bombers can be on screen until things start going awry? Mission designers know? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends - I’ve done tests with over 20 He111’s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With those kind of numbers the engine might be able to squeeze out at least that much in a combat scenario at higher altitude. Tweaks for higher numbers seems feasible too. The engine seems viable to me if the time can be dedicated to that particular type of aerial combat. I dont see why we would need a new engine already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cant give you an exact answer, but basically each AI gunner and each AI pilot is a separate AI routine that has to run all the time, so if a bomber has 3 gunners plus a pilot, then thats 4 AI routines per plane. Then also remember that things like trucks(1 AI), AA truck (2 AI) squadron mates (>= 1 AI) are also running in the mission usually and it all adds up very quickly. Back in the RoF days you couldnt really go much higher than 100-150 AI routines active in a mission at once before things start to break down. I believe there was some work done to increase this number for IL-2, but its still painfully low, so forget any ideas you may have about "realistic" mass formations of planes at once because the engine just cant do it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

 

So, why are you still here, then, if your dislike for the game is so obvious?

 

I really like the game.  I’ve been locked into the Il-2 series for almost twenty years.  I do love it so.  The only things that really push my buttons are the AI issues and the short-lived smoke and fire effects.  

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK its a performance thing. Currently my fps goes down to 20 at 8 bombers when a bomber engine explodes :) , I have a 3GHz QuadCore, 4GB Ram and a GTX 570 :) , but it's playable @1080p 3D VIsion , makes a lot of fun hunting bombers. May the developer extend the drop down list in a BoS update to 10 bombers so that 20 bombers would fly. A warning can be shown when selecting more than 5. 

 

Whats the biggest bomber in BoS ? .. wanna hunt 4 engine bombers

Edited by Andre0815

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Andre0815 said:

Whats the biggest bomber in BoS ? .. wanna hunt 4 engine bombers

 

List of dedicated bombers in the sim is: He 111, Ju 88, Ju 87, Pe-2 and A-20 from the top of my head, so no heavy stuff yet. Also, no viermots on the horizon as of now,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Andre0815 said:

OK its a performance thing. Currently my fps goes down to 20 at 8 bombers when a bomber engine explodes :) , I have a 3GHz QuadCore, 4GB Ram and a GTX 570 :) , ..

Indeed it is a performance thing ... you're at the (very) low end with your hardware. Scaled down all the settings? No graphic gimmicks at all?

With my mid-range PC (I5 2500K @4.4 Ghz, 16 GB RAM, Nvidia 1060 6 GB, 1920 * 1080, Ultra settings without worst eye candy) I sometimes test with a Quick setup 4 x Ju-88 + 4x He-111 vs. 4x A-20 + 4x Pe-2 on the Kuban map. That's still ok, FPS > 60 FPS anytime. But compared to > 90 FPS usually the old horse feels the workload! Formations up to 32 bombers should be a way to go with mid-range hardware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My setup is still settings to High/Ultra even with the GTX570. In game 3D-Vision looks perfect and makes a lot of fun. Normaly i get 28 FPS. Specially the smoke effects looking nice in 3D.

-> Only the menu has 3D errors. (left side is a map displayed and right side the loading-game picture ) , but I haven't jet installed HelixMod 3D Fix which is available in "3D Fix Manager" for BoS. 

 

I bought BoS because is has officially 3D-Vision support in its version history.

I run BoS in 3D on my Toshiba TV 55M7463D (passive glasses , 3DTV Play) and Acer 5390W beamer (3D Vision 120Hz)

------------------

 

In Assetto Corsa I can define 22 opponents which results in stutter on my system. In BoS I want to check if 22 opponents/bombers can be rendered, so please extend the opponent count drop down list to 10. Thanks :) 

Edited by Andre0815

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That we can't have four engine bombers doesn't count because Rise of Flight has four engine bombers facts are facts that this is the same game engine! The Ai-plane limitation is the same as in Rise of Flight - Rise of Flight, Great Battles even Flying Circus limits their Ai-planes to 20 where WW2 planes have a lot more Ai-gunner on their planes than in WW1 + where WW2 planes have even more complex systems to simulate than WW1 planes - are WW1 planes now even more demanding than WW2 planes??? ->  :dry:

 

Speaking about Flying Circus is a good point to see how well the game engine code improved over the year compared to Rise of Flight. Did the Ai-plane limitation for WW1 increased beyond 20 -> Nope - pretty the same Ai-plane limitation as in 2009 but we have 2019. Is this the result of ten years of Development on the same game, great indeed great :dry:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Livai said:

Ai-plane limitation for WW1 increased beyond 20 -> Nope - pretty the same Ai-plane limitation as in 2009 but we have 2019. Is this the result of ten years of Development on the same game, great indeed great :dry:

It's all been said before but, "resources, time and money." Furthermore, say you wanted to accurately model a B-24 you would need AI for 11 crew members. Then you would have to model turret technology etc. If you wanted 50 bombers that means you would have 550 independent AI working all at once and that is just for the crew. If it was an easy fix to introduce heavies into GB, I think the developers would have done it long ago.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Livai said:

That we can't have four engine bombers doesn't count because Rise of Flight has four engine bombers facts are facts that this is the same game engine!

 

No, it is not the same engine - ROF is Digital Nature, BOS is Digital Warfare. That's a hard and fast fact straight from 1CGS.

 

Secondly, there is one four-engine bomber in ROF, yes, but it has only 2 crewmen. It's not the number of engines that is the problem, but rather the number of AI slots that need to be allocated to each plane. Otherwise, the Ju 52 would be a performance hog, but it is obviously not.

Edited by LukeFF
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LukeFF said:

 

No, it is not the same engine - ROF is Digital Nature, BOS is Digital Warfare. That's a hard and fast fact straight from 1CGS.

 

Secondly, there is one four-engine bomber in ROF, yes, but it has only 2 crewmen. It's not the number of engines that is the problem, but rather the number of AI slots that need to be allocated to each plane. Otherwise, the Ju 52 would be a performance hog, but it is obviously not.

 

I'm confused regarding the whole 4 engine bomber issue although you mention a 3 engine aircraft above then talk about AI crew numbers being the limiting factor as I always thought it is was the 4 engines that was the limiting factor and not AI positions within a frame!? 

Surely with the He111 as an example, we have multiple AI slots for crews (I make it 5 or is there some software work around) so are you saying that if the He111 were a 4 engine bomber then there wouldn't be an issue?  I'm a mechanical engineer and need the magic ones and zeros (not the Jap types) explained to me in simple terms! 

 

Therefore, could somebody that is really in the know explain to me the real issue please?

 

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Haza said:

 

I'm confused regarding the whole 4 engine bomber issue although you mention a 3 engine aircraft above then talk about AI crew numbers being the limiting factor as I always thought it is was the 4 engines that was the limiting factor and not AI positions within a frame!? 

Surely with the He111 as an example, we have multiple AI slots for crews (I make it 5 or is there some software work around) so are you saying that if the He111 were a 4 engine bomber then there wouldn't be an issue?  I'm a mechanical engineer and need the magic ones and zeros (not the Jap types) explained to me in simple terms! 

 

Therefore, could somebody that is really in the know explain to me the real issue please?

 

 

Regards

 

More engines = more systems needed to be models and worked on by the AI pilot.

Although this is an issue, the real performance issue arises from the number of AI entities with seperate routines: you can put a lot more Bf-110s in a mission than He-111s because the number of AI crew is alot higher on the He-111 while both planes feature two engines. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Haza said:

 

I'm confused regarding the whole 4 engine bomber issue although you mention a 3 engine aircraft above then talk about AI crew numbers being the limiting factor as I always thought it is was the 4 engines that was the limiting factor and not AI positions within a frame!? 

Surely with the He111 as an example, we have multiple AI slots for crews (I make it 5 or is there some software work around) so are you saying that if the He111 were a 4 engine bomber then there wouldn't be an issue?  I'm a mechanical engineer and need the magic ones and zeros (not the Jap types) explained to me in simple terms! 

 

Therefore, could somebody that is really in the know explain to me the real issue please?

 

 

Regards

 

First, only 1C really knows the answer.  I have been writing code for 30 years and the first thing that I have learned about performance issues is that when you start to investigate them you are usually surprised with the results.  Software (C++ in this case) has performance analysis tools.  You need to use those tools, make improvements, test again rinse wash repeat.  

 

Poor performance comes in two forms.  The first is pure CPU usage.  The code is just using too much compute power to do the job, therefore it cannot do many instances of the job.  The second is latency.  Your code is structured such that it is spending too much time waiting and not enough time doing.  In my experience performance issues are usually a combination of both.  On one performance improvement job I made many changes that all added up to a significant improvement.  Then I found a single errant line of code that introduced latency across threads - fixing that gave as much improvement as all of the other fixes combined.  Going into the job I had a good idea that the former was an issue and no idea that the latter existed.  

 

So ... Four engines will require AI changes such that it knows how to fly a four engine plane.  Then it will require compute cycles for monitoring and calculating the status of four engines instead of two.  Then there will be up to 10 AI crewmen per plane instead of 5.  And it's hard to know which will be the biggest contributor to performance degradation.  One thing that is almost certain is that any performance improvements made with respect to 4 engine types will help everything and not just 4 engine bombers.  If they can halve the CPU cycles dedicated to AI gunners, for example, that cuts across every plane with a gunner. 

 

I have noticed that the AI pilot loop is way too tight.  Watch the speed with which the AI performs corrections.  The control surfaces practically flutter under AI control.  Can something be done where the AI makes a decision and then operates the controls to carry through on the decision, rather than making a new decision every cycle?  Would this help (I can't help but think it would)?  How much code would have to change to do something like this (I suspect quite a lot)?

 

So there are a few considerations.  It's a complicated subject and no easy task.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

...

 

So there are a few considerations.  It's a complicated subject and no easy task.

 

 

I remember back in the RoF days we did quite a few tests on Single player AI (MP is a whole different story due to the synchronization that needs to happen between all players and all objects in a mission, and that is a different discussion) and we found that it didn't really matter much how much CPU power or memory you threw at the problem, the results were always the same - the game would start to get unstable and crash at around the 150 AI mark. Sure, more CPU power kept the frame rate up for longer, but there seems to be a hard limit at around that 150 mark that just couldn't really be broken by brute force. Maybe it has to do with the engine not being able to use multiple CPU cores for AI (or AI not using multi-threading) or something like that, or as you say Pat, the AI just doing calculations too often when it doesnt need to and bogging itself down. I mean, you can kinda understand why that might be desirable for  AI gunners (although it could also make them too good since they are correcting their aim every 50 ms!) but it really doesnt make sense for the AI driving trucks or flying planes to be that busy - it should be working at roughly the same speed as a human would IMO, like every 500ms..

 

Its difficult to understand what those programmers back in the old Neoqb days were thinking when they were coding the engine. I mean, there must have been a point where one of them realised: "hang on, if we code it like this, that'll mean the game will only be able to support a few hundred AI, maybe 500 tops" and instead of the other guys throwing pencils at him and saying: "Ivan you idiot, that'll never work! We have a map thats 50 000 sq km, you cant only have a few hundred AI! Thats like 0.004 AI's per sq kilometer - go find a better way to do it!", But instead  they said: "200 AI for 50 000 sq km? perfect! That'll be plenty!"..  :P

 

And it really is a shame because its the most serious flaw in both RoF and Il-2 BoX IMO because it just makes the world feel so sterile and empty not being able to have many ground objects. If you go back and read the reviews of RoF back in 2008/9, many of them mentioned how little "life" the world seemed to have and how barren it was, and although improvements have been made in the newer version of the engine, its still much the same story unfortunately. And kudos to the developers for making improvements in other areas like graphics and physics and performance, but the underlying object limit issue still remains.  Its a bit like having a car with 4 flat tyres - you can spend all the time and money you want putting on race suspension, getting more power out of the engine, respraying it and installing body kits, installing a roll cage etc, but as long as the tyres are flat you're always going to have a very slow top speed..

Edited by Flashy
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Flashy

That is very true.  I have spent a lot of hours in PWCG limiting what it can do.  My life would be so much easier and the missions would be so much better if I could turn it loose and let the code do the things it is capable of.  Instead I am constantly concerned about ground and air unit density, with large chunks of code first limiting density and then compressing and arranging what can be included into the space of the mission.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

Could a second graphics card be used to manage some of the AI workload?

 

No

 

 

I find that for single player missions, ground objects can me managed in a way that to the player, the environment seems quite alive (within reason) - same with air activity.

 

Simply using triggers to activate (or spawn)/ and if necessary deactivate units within the player's flight path.

 

Large bomber formations is another story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2017 at 4:16 PM, Gambit21 said:

More progress - some altitude adjustments.

Wife due home any minute!

post-23599-0-59023400-1511309777_thumb.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graphics cards can apparently be used for AI functions. They are a topic of discussion in medical imaging. So why could they not be used for AI functions in games? My guess that they could in fact be used but that programmers who could make it so would be prohibitively expensive to hire/retain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

No

 

 

I find that for single player missions, ground objects can me managed in a way that to the player, the environment seems quite alive (within reason) - same with air activity.

 

Simply using triggers to activate (or spawn)/ and if necessary deactivate units within the player's flight path.

 

Large bomber formations is another story.

 

I do that with every AI entity, but I still get complaints that things are not hopping enough, or complaints of slow downs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

I do that with every AI entity, but I still get complaints that things are not hopping enough, or complaints of slow downs.  

 

Well that's the advantage of hand crafting a mission vs generating - enabling the builder to fine tuning these things, making sure the player sees aircraft vs aircraft that might be spawned

just out of site etc. In other words an aircraft going about it's business in the general area is great, but if the player doesn't see it then it's just wasted CPU cycles.

 

The advantage with a generator of course is more missions. It's a trade off.

 

I'm curious if you notice a difference in CPU usage between units that are placed (inactive) and waiting to be spawned/vs inactive units places waiting to be activated.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Haza said:

 

I'm confused regarding the whole 4 engine bomber issue although you mention a 3 engine aircraft above then talk about AI crew numbers being the limiting factor as I always thought it is was the 4 engines that was the limiting factor and not AI positions within a frame!? 

Surely with the He111 as an example, we have multiple AI slots for crews (I make it 5 or is there some software work around) so are you saying that if the He111 were a 4 engine bomber then there wouldn't be an issue?  I'm a mechanical engineer and need the magic ones and zeros (not the Jap types) explained to me in simple terms! 

 

Therefore, could somebody that is really in the know explain to me the real issue please?

 

 

Regards

 

The number of engines has nothing to do with it. It's everything that comes with four engine heavy bombers. Namely, a large number of turrets. What does that do? Well the Heinkel has 5 and the B-17 has 7. What's two more gun positions? Now multiply the 5 AI positions across a formation. You can have about 10 with ok performance (50 AI actors) but 10 B-17s? Now we're up to 70 for the same number of planes.

 

That's one issue. The second issue is that the He111 was a major undertaking by the team according to the developer diaries. So was the Ju88. So was the smaller A-20. The B-17 is bigger and more complex of a bomber and doing it would take a lot of time to do. That, for a small team, means scrimping on other aircraft and means fewer sales on other new aircraft.

 

Now, I would like to see a heavy bomber make its way into the sim and I'd like that heavy bomber to be either a B-17 or a B-24 because those would easily be the most useful for the most number of scenarios over the long run. 1CGS may yet pull a rabbit out of their hat and make the B-17 or B-24 possible, potentially with third party support, but that may still be years down the line. I'm still pretty hopeful for the B-25 which will be AI for now but it holds the hope of being a flyable in the nearer term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Field-Ops said:

How many bombers can be on screen until things start going awry? Mission designers know? 

 

i7770k, gtx 1080 here @ 3440x1440p. I tested multiples of 3 up to a whole group strength (he 111s). But I found anything over 24 and it starts to hit frames bad. I settled on a a personal max of 27. I've done a pile of research on KG 55 as others have here as well. But AI limits really hold us back... I have templates for campaigns for KG 55, StG 2 among other things... no point if they can't fly in formation or attack, let alone the performance issues which are a byproduct of bad design choices early on. 

 

For more on performance and AI read this thread:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/32011-scripted-campaigns-will-never-be-excellent-until-ai-is-improved/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

The number of engines has nothing to do with it. It's everything that comes with four engine heavy bombers. Namely, a large number of turrets. What does that do? Well the Heinkel has 5 and the B-17 has 7. What's two more gun positions? Now multiply the 5 AI positions across a formation. You can have about 10 with ok performance (50 AI actors) but 10 B-17s? Now we're up to 70 for the same number of planes.

 

That's one issue. The second issue is that the He111 was a major undertaking by the team according to the developer diaries. So was the Ju88. So was the smaller A-20. The B-17 is bigger and more complex of a bomber and doing it would take a lot of time to do. That, for a small team, means scrimping on other aircraft and means fewer sales on other new aircraft.

 

Now, I would like to see a heavy bomber make its way into the sim and I'd like that heavy bomber to be either a B-17 or a B-24 because those would easily be the most useful for the most number of scenarios over the long run. 1CGS may yet pull a rabbit out of their hat and make the B-17 or B-24 possible, potentially with third party support, but that may still be years down the line. I'm still pretty hopeful for the B-25 which will be AI for now but it holds the hope of being a flyable in the nearer term.

 

@Shamrock 1-5

 

Thank you for that clarification, although I notice that with the current Ju-52 as explained by LukeFF, we don't have a co-pilot and we manage, therefore I see as a comparison with regards to the following aircraft Ju-88. He-111,B-17, Lancaster and B-24, the AI that would be required with your experience, would it be something like this?

 

Ju-88

Pilot:1

Navigator: Not required (IRL Nav was also ventral gunner)

Bombardier:2 (IRL Bombardier was also front gunner)

Front gunner:3

Rear gunner:4 possibly 5 with left and right (IRL 1 rear gunner covered both rear dorsal guns and radio)

Lower gondola gunner:6 

Min AI Total: 6

Total Gunners: 4

IRL:4

 

He-111

Pilot:1

Navigator:not required (Although Nav was Bombardier and Front gunner IRL)

Bombardier:2

Front gunner:3

Dorsal Top gunner:4

Lower ventral gondola front gunner:5

Lower ventral gondola rear gunner:6

Right Waist gunner:7

Left Waist gunner:8

Min AI Total:8

Total Gunners:6

IRL:5

 

B-17

Pilot:1

Co-Pilot: As per Ju52 none (not required)

Navigator: Currently not required

Bombardier:3

Radio operator: Currently not required

Dorsal Top gunner:4

Right waist gunner:5

Left waist gunner:6

Ventral Ball gunner:7

Tail gunner:8

Front guns (1 or possibly 3 including those 2 on the front side of front fuselage) 

Min AI Total:9 or possibly 11

Total AI Gunners:7 possibly 9 (although according to wiki 8 gun positions)

IRL: 10

 

Lancaster

Pilot:1

Flight Engineer:2   

Navigator: Not required

Bombardier:3  (IRL was nose gunner)

Nose gunner:4

Wireless operator: Not required

Dorsal Top gunner:5

Rear gunner:6

Min AI Total: 6

Total AI Gunners:3

IRL: 7

 

B-24

Pilot:1

Co-pilot: As per Ju-52 not required

Navigator: Currently Not required

Radio operator: Currently Not required

Bombardier:2

Nose turret:3

Dorsal Top turret:4

Right waist gunner:5

Left waist gunner:6

Ventral Ball turret:7

Tail gunner:8

Min AI Total: 8

Total AI Gunners:6

IRL:11

 

Edit:

 

I forgot the 2 front side fuselage guns on the B-17 (School boy error)!!!

 

 

Therefore, with your reasoning and me being a software ludite, surely with the crew configuration everything is within the limit of the He-111 AI gunner of 6 (EDIT wiki says 8 gun positions so perhaps B-17 not in scope) with a total of 8, although perhaps we are more likely to see the Lanc before the B-17.  However, I concur with your belief and hopes in the team to do something as my gut feeling is that they wouldn't want to miss out on such an important aspect of WW2, although at this stage perhaps day-light ops would be easier to play, I'm sure!

 

Anyway, I'm sure whatever the team are planning in the future, I'm sure with Jason at the helm we will not be disappointed!

 

Regards

 

H

 

 

 

 

Edited by Haza
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m sure it’s been explained elsewhere already, but what is the benefit of having independent AI for gunners, or using full flight models for AI aircraft for that matter?

 

Genuine question. Would it not ease the processor burden to give each non-player aircraft a single AI that controls everything?

 

And is there not an argument that giving AI a full-fidelity flight model is cancelled out by their inherent poor piloting skill? Surely the AI doesn’t need a full FM to turn in a lazy right-hand circle, or fly into the ground after trying to bomb a target.

 

Not a critique, I don’t expect this is likely to change. But as it’s a limiting factor in future development, I’m just wondering what the benefits are in designing the sim this way. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to see a simplified AI and FM for AI-operated bombers.  One that would allow them to fly in numbers larger than half a squadron.  I think it would be a very reasonable tradeoff.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

It's all been said before but, "resources, time and money." Furthermore, say you wanted to accurately model a B-24 you would need AI for 11 crew members. Then you would have to model turret technology etc. If you wanted 50 bombers that means you would have 550 independent AI working all at once and that is just for the crew. If it was an easy fix to introduce heavies into GB, I think the developers would have done it long ago.

 

Now say this again for Flying Circus WW1 same Ai plane limitation as for WW2 , see that part how to model turret technology etc or how much Ai or crew members are needed will not work when speaking about WW1. When WW1 is already complex what is WW2 then? Everyone know that WW1 never was complex how WW2 is. But at the moment is WW1 already a lot more complex than WW2. But what you hear is always too much crew member and turrets to simulate too complex stuff are needed to simulate then if this not helps then it is the map, too small for this stuff where will you start then in the air? For me is this just making excuses.................

 

Do you think the current Ai is independent and use the same CPU State? - never ever. Even Game Consoles can simulate more Ai than they can handle but to do so they use technique better LoD, how shader are loaded, skip Ai animations at long range etc....................

 

22 hours ago, LukeFF said:

No, it is not the same engine - ROF is Digital Nature, BOS is Digital Warfare. That's a hard and fast fact straight from 1CGS.

 

 

Until now

I and others were thinking that the -> Digital Nature Game Engine is just wearing Digital Warfare clothing.

 

Now

thanks to your Statement "facts straight from 1CGS" changed everything!

We now value  this as an official statement that they have the resources, time and money for a completely new Game Engine.

Good to know, thanks again that you share this kind of intel, informations, statements with us :thank_you:

 

22 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Secondly, there is one four-engine bomber in ROF, yes, but it has only 2 crewmen. It's not the number of engines that is the problem, but rather the number of AI slots that need to be allocated to each plane. Otherwise, the Ju 52 would be a performance hog, but it is obviously not.

 

Hard to tell, if it's not the number of the engines then it should be the number of the crewmens, gunners if this is not the problem then it is the map, just too small for four engine long-range bombers, now what? - Always there will be something to avoid discussion about that thing.

 

With Flying Circus they can't hide anymore. Flying Circus is running on a completely new Game Engine + DX11 and 64-bit support and still this 20 Ai limitation for what for simple WW1 planes same as in Rise of Flight but Rise of Flight had only DX9 and 32-bit  support. So DX11 and 64-bit support + completely new Game Engine didn't nothing to remove or to raise the Ai limitation beyond 20 for simple WW1 planes. They can't raise the Ai limitation for WW1 planes in their completely new Game Engine with DX11 and 64-bit what is indeed a huge disappointment. What only proof that the jump from Rise of Flight "Digital Nature" to Flying Circus "Digital Warfare" and 10 years of develoment was just a deadlock. Not everyone use VR but every Rise of Flight customer will ask a familiar Question " Why the Ai limitation for WW1 planes is the same as for WW2 when WW2 is a lot more complex than WW1" 

 

Now explain us when WW1 with less a lot less crewmans, number of Ai slots can't raise the Ai limitation beyond the 20 mark. How you explain us WW2 when already WW1 is a lot more demanding and complex that even DX11 and 64-bit support and a completely new Game Engine "Digital Warfare" can't handle more WW1 Ai planes but the same number of WW2 Ai-planes. Is this not confusing? WW1 has around two crewmens where WW2 have around five crewmens - this is a increasement more than 50% not counting how complex is simulate WW2 planes compared to WW1 but "Digital Warfare" only manage to simulate 20 WW1 Ai planes...............:big_boss:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Livai said:

Until now

I and others were thinking that the -> Digital Nature Game Engine is just wearing Digital Warfare clothing. 

 

You can name a pig a swan, it still stays a pig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Livai said:

Now say this again for Flying Circus WW1 same Ai plane limitation as for WW2 , see that part how to model turret technology etc or how much Ai or crew members are needed will not work when speaking about WW1. When WW1 is already complex what is WW2 then? Everyone know that WW1 never was complex how WW2 is. But at the moment is WW1 already a lot more complex than WW2. But what you hear is always too much crew member and turrets to simulate too complex stuff are needed to simulate then if this not helps then it is the map, too small for this stuff where will you start then in the air? For me is this just making excuses.................

Again, resources money time and multiple AI operating at once. Tail gunner, top turret gunner, ball turret, 2 waist gunners, pilot, co pilot. Multiply that by 50. Engine management x4 multiply that by 50. I suppose if everyone had a Cray at home it would be easy to model all these complexities. I'm not sure if you seem to think that this is all rather easy to achieve? If so, then you have set you expectations rather high. If it was an easy thing to do it would of already been done.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Feathered_IV said:

I'd love to see a simplified AI and FM for AI-operated bombers.  One that would allow them to fly in numbers larger than half a squadron.  I think it would be a very reasonable tradeoff.

 

Yes, it would help a lot the get some very relevant AI planes in the game. Not so much for the eastfront, but for ETO, MTO and PTO that would help a lot. Even CloD can handle more planes, not to speak of 1946. Without solving this problem with this game-engine, they will forever stay limited to pure tactical small engagements. Sooner or later that will bite them in the buttocks.

Edited by sevenless
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every single flight sim that I can think of, since my childhood, has featured 'heavies' - AI or not. I'm inclined to agree with sevenless above; at some point in the distant future, it will become evident that there is a large hole in the design and authenticity of the BoX series. I should imagine that there will be a point  where most versions of single-prop (and the handful of twin-prop) aircraft have been implemented? What happens then? 😅

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Leifr said:

 

I should imagine that there will be a point  where most versions of single-prop (and the handful of twin-prop) aircraft have been implemented? What happens then? 😅

 

Jets!  :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CanadaOne said:

 

Jets!  :biggrin:

 

Oh shoot, I forgot about the jets!

But you mean those jets that were used to intercept bomber streams? 😉

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Leifr said:

 

Oh shoot, I forgot about the jets!

But you mean those jets that were used to intercept bomber streams? 😉

 

Oh, I don't know. I'm tragically uninformed. I just like all the BOX planes.  :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Locked for insulting the Devs. You guys gotta stop calling us and our engine rude names. 

 

Jason

  • Confused 9
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...