Recent AI Tweaks?

[gorice]

So, maybe I'm just lucky, and maybe it's been like this for a while and I haven't noticed, but I just had AI 109 F-4s set to ace use rope-a-dope and boom and zoom tactics against me in quick battles. It was honestly very impressive. I was flying an La-5 the first time (after I'd defeated two enemies, the next one spawned at higher altitude and did a credible job of keeping my energy state low by making passes and climbs), and a Yak-1 the second (in which the F-4 gained a better energy state in vertical merges after the initial merge, then went into a gentle chandelle, and when I followed, turned against me once my airspeed was around 150kph).

 

I've also noticed that even novice AI pilots now seem to make much jerkier rolling movements than they used to, and are more willing to do things like try and force overshoots, use scissors, etc.

 

It's still far from perfect (you can still trick the ace AI into entering a turning fight if its energy margin isn't much bigger), but I was pleasantly surprised.

[RedKestrel]

Yes, a i has improved quite a bit in the last while. Nothing crazy but noticeable to be sure.

[Redwo1f]

Yes it is definitely improving - probably more gains this past year than any previous. Series as a whole's AI has probably gone from an "F" at it's genesis to now a C,  maybe C+. They are getting there. Still lots of improvement to be done, but they are getting there.

[dburne]

Definitely has been improving, an Ace 109 pilot can now be quite the handful for me in my Spit.

They are quite good at boom and zoom.

Edited April 27, 2019 by dburne

[JonRedcorn]

1 hour ago, dburne said:

Definitely has been improving, an Ace 109 pilot can now be quite the handful for me in my Spit.

They are quite good at boom and zoom.

Which spit is that? Considering I can down all 4 ace 190 whatever versions in a mk9 before my teammates even get their bearings. Now go and try that in 1946 and you'll be dead real quick.

Edited April 27, 2019 by JonRedcorn

[EAF_51_FOX]

1 hour ago, JonRedcorn said:

Which spit is that? Considering I can down all 4 ace 190 whatever versions in a mk9 before my teammates even get their bearings. Now go and try that in 1946 and you'll be dead real quick.

 

Old il2 A.I. is and will stay the best for loong time if 1C dev. team don't start -really- to think about improving BoX one in the right way : take on "board" of 1C Company a dedicated developer/coder expert of sim-flight A.I..

[dburne]

2 hours ago, JonRedcorn said:

Which spit is that? Considering I can down all 4 ace 190 whatever versions in a mk9 before my teammates even get their bearings. Now go and try that in 1946 and you'll be dead real quick.

 

Mk Vb versus Ace 109.

Edited April 27, 2019 by dburne

[Redwo1f]

5 hours ago, EAF_51_FOX said:

 

Old il2 A.I. is and will stay the best for loong time if 1C dev. team don't start -really- to think about improving BoX one in the right way : take on "board" of 1C Company a dedicated developer/coder expert of sim-flight A.I..

Yes, IL2 1946 has pretty good A.I. Little OBD studio though, is the master of having really complex and immersive A.I. though - what they have been able to pull off with essentially 2 programmers is the bomb and truly truly impressive (but that is their strength (and single player dynamic campaign generation)). 

But I do feel BOX should be given credit for working away at theirs and making some decent strides (and I am grateful for that  - it used to be horrible remember, it isn't anymore) - but yes I'd like to see that continuing and yes I would like major attention paid to it.

(But I think there has been some subtle hints that something is perhaps up with this that Jason hasn't come out and said yet - just an impression based on comments and what not here and there...could be wrong - time will tell.) 

Happy Gaming all

Edited April 28, 2019 by Redwo1f

[SAS_Storebror]

I agree to the common feeling that something has changed, even though it's hard to tell exactly what has changed.

For me it looks like AI has better ideas than doing endless flat circling games now.

 

Yesterday I've been chasing a 190 D-9 with my trusty rusty Lagg-3.

Would have been a cakewalk about a month ago because every time when you entered a fight against AI with altitude advantage and managed to maintain some of it, AI would inevitably circle down to the ground and eventually you could catch them there.

Not this time.

That 190 D9 applied really good energy tactics when we met at ~1000m altitude (he's been down at 500 and I was at 1500 when we started), a few scissors when it was level with me, and finally climbed away to extend, turn around and try to attack me head-on from above.

I've had another AI La-5 S.8 with me, that's probably what kept me alive because the 190 couldn't concentrate on me alone.

 

It's definitely been an improvement of AI to me, I've never had such an epic fight with AI before.

What told me that we're not there yet was:

1. Eventually I got the 190. Not my La-5 AI buddy, he never even got close to a shooting solution.
2. When I got the 190, we've been up at 7000m altitude. At that altitude, a 190 D-9 should be virtually invulnerable to a Lagg-3.

Mike

Edited April 28, 2019 by SAS_Storebror

[JonRedcorn]

58 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

I agree to the common feeling that something has changed, even though it's hard to tell exactly what has changed.

For me it looks like AI has better ideas than doing endless flat circling games now.

 

Yesterday I've been chasing a 190 D-9 with my trusty rusty Lagg-3.

Would have been a cakewalk about a month ago because every time when you entered a fight against AI with altitude advantage and managed to maintain some of it, AI would inevitably circle down to the ground and eventually you could catch them there.

Not this time.

That 190 D9 applied really good energy tactics when we met at ~1000m altitude (he's been down at 500 and I was at 1500 when we started), a few scissors when it was level with me, and finally climbed away to extend, turn around and try to attack me head-on from above.

I've had another AI La-5 S.8 with me, that's probably what kept me alive because the 190 couldn't concentrate on me alone.

 

It's definitely been an improvement of AI to me, I've never had such an epic fight with AI before.

What told me that we're not there yet was:

1. Eventually I got the 190. Not my La-5 AI buddy, he never even got close to a shooting solution.
2. When I got the 190, we've been up at 7000m altitude. At that altitude, a 190 D-9 should be virtually invulnerable to a Lagg-3.

Mike

Really the combat isn't awful.

 

The bombers need work, ground attacking routines and decision making. The command system is what needs the biggest overhaul. Issuing orders and having wingmen follow those orders, giving AI more fight or flight options, a morale system of sorts. They start losing a battle and should turn for home not fight till the last man. Bomber formations shouldn't be breaking apart at first contact. Even though that's an issue now with 1946 as well after 4.12, 4.13 and 4.14 are both broken in that regard.

 

If we could get some of these fixes it'd be a really fun singleplayer experience. Really it's the biggest thing Box needs in order for it to be the best ww2 flight sim ever. A competent artificial intelligence would put this game on another level. I wish they'd figure out how to make the AI cheat so they could actually get stuff done. I don't care if the AI is following the same physics as I am as long as it gives the impression that I am fighting something that went through pilot training.

Edited April 28, 2019 by JonRedcorn

[Feathered_IV]

Once you get down to 500m the AI will still go into a continuous bobbing turn until their engine quits for lack of fuel.

[Pict]

The AI in GB series is getting better all the time. It's never been a big issue for me as I keep in mind that it is and always will be "artificial" intelligence as opposed to real intelligence and is often better than the real thing, at least the real thing found on some online servers 

 

That said I'm never expecting too much from it and like the op, I am often pleasantly surprised. Given the opportunity I always set AI skills level to random and avoid the one on one head to head scenario.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I hate when AI decide that the best defense manuver to begin with is endless circle which always ends bad to them. 

[JSOflyer69]

I should never shot down an ace AI pilot ( as I am a crap pilot )

the day that the ace AI planes become nearly impossible too shot down will be the day when they are really getting realism.

tactics ie hiding in the sun or clouds.

i think complex AI is very resource hogging,so it’s a line between smooth gameplay and lower frame rates.

the AI have improved a lot over the last year,so hats off for the devs for this,and as tech gets better we will see more improvements as we go along

[EAF_51_FOX]

For all folks who still think: "A.I. Box isn't too bad all in all now.." please yourself and re-install or play 5 min. dogfight vs. A.I. with the original Il2-1946 patched at 4.13.4 , then come back here and write again about A.I. BoX.cheers.

 

[JonRedcorn]

30 minutes ago, EAF_51_FOX said:

For all folks who still think: "A.I. Box isn't too bad all in all now.." please yourself and re-install or play 5 min. dogfight vs. A.I. with the original Il2-1946 patched at 4.13.4 , then come back here and write again about A.I. BoX.cheers.

 

 

Couldn't agree more. I get shot down all the time in 1946, never get shot down in box unless it's a tail gunner.

[danielprates]

The AI in il21946 sure was a superior one. It would give you a run for your money all the  time. 

[Gambit21]

I test AI a lot, it's probably the one thing I test more than anything else since I build missions that are contingent on AI behavior.

 

The AI is constantly changing...sometimes it's 2 steps forward, one step back...but it's always steadily getting better, and certainly has improved lately.

Sometimes there's a certain aspect, or behavior with a given aircraft that remains problematic over a longer period, but overall things are improving and I see only good things

coming in this department. Be patient.

 

AI logic is certainly not static.

[JonRedcorn]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

I test AI a lot, it's probably the one thing I test more than anything else since I build missions that are contingent on AI behavior.

 

The AI is constantly changing...sometimes it's 2 steps forward, one step back...but it's always steadily getting better, and certainly has improved lately.

Sometimes there's a certain aspect, or behavior with a given aircraft that remains problematic over a longer period, but overall things are improving and I see only good things

coming in this department. Be patient.

 

AI logic is certainly not static.

I don't disagree, the AI has certainly improved since I started playing a lot last year. It really did just turn in circles before. Like I've said it's not so much the combat AI that is troublesome, it's like the logic. It doesn't take or follow orders, (barely any orders to give) its routines are poor, the ground attacking is also a major issue. We can't even use certain aircraft because they can't carry out the proper ways in which they should be utilizing their aircraft.

 

I wish they'd scrap the entire idea of making them follow the same physics and restrictions players have to and allow them to cheat a bit to give us something worth playing with. There's a reason nobody else does this with their AI. It's too hard and costs too much performance. If the end user experience turns out great then who cares how it gets there.

[Redwo1f]

1 hour ago, JonRedcorn said:

There's a reason nobody else does this with their AI. It's too hard and costs too much performance. If the end user experience turns out great then who cares how it gets there.

Ummm...you sure about that one Jon?

WOFFUE AI uses the same as the player, as does WOTR - it can completely be done and done well - and look at all the other factors they (OBD) have been able to model (morale, vision, combat skill, fatigue, etc. etc).

Edited April 29, 2019 by Redwo1f

[Fennec]

Well, I respect the opposite view but personally I would really not like to come back to the cheating AI, that seriously annoyed me in the past. 

 

I appreciate the approach chosen by the devs for Il2 box even though it will take more work to improve it and despite the shortcomings. They ll surely get it right at some point and lately it became much better.

[Feathered_IV]

6 minutes ago, Fennec said:

 

Well, I respect the opposite view but personally I would really not like to come back to the cheating AI, that seriously annoyed me in the past. 

 

 

It wasn’t that the AI were cheating as such.  Their speeds and rate of climb just needed to be capped to slightly more realistic limits.  The concept of a simplified AI was the right one.  It was just the calibration that needed adjusting.  

[=621=Samikatz]

I like the realistic but slightly dumb AI of Il-2 a lot more than DCS' "Bf-109K catching afterburning jets in a climb" AI for fighters, for sure. I think simplified versions of the bombers and attack aircraft, stuff that doesn't need to dogfight would be more than fine. Have them as something mission creators can select. Advanced, CPU hogging FMs for the player's squadron, every other bomber is nice and cheap dumb bots

[danielprates]

8 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

I test AI a lot, it's probably the one thing I test more than anything else since I build missions that are contingent on AI behavior.

 

The AI is constantly changing...sometimes it's 2 steps forward, one step back...but it's always steadily getting better, and certainly has improved lately.

Sometimes there's a certain aspect, or behavior with a given aircraft that remains problematic over a longer period, but overall things are improving and I see only good things

coming in this department. Be patient.

 

AI logic is certainly not static.

 

This is true. I play SP mostly and my experience says the same: though there is still room for improvement (in fact a lot of it) the AI visibly gets a little better periodically. My impression is that the team works at it more than they annouce it.

[JSOflyer69]

every Ai bot should have pilot training school,ie different countries had good or poor pilot training,or different stages off the battle ( at the end of the war Germany had only a small amount off good pilots left) hence a lot of green pilots with only basic training.

my point is not too make Ai bots fly like robots.

a sort off dice effect built into the code,if you meet an AI bot who flys in straight line or turning circles or crash into ground in panic,you know it’s a green pilot with poor pilot training

[Adger]

I'm also seeing small improvements,there is for me still a way to go especially regarding as Jon above mentions.."ground attacking". Also what's with the lazer like accuracy of the A.I gunners? Hitting you whilst their disintegrating and spinning to earth. I'd also Personnally love a improved command system.

 

Im also seeing less of the constant turning although low down it still happens fairly frequently. Hopefully going forward the Devs can keep improving the series. 

Thanks Gambit21 for your insight..As a tester I'm sure you've got maybe 1000,s of hrs in the series,and I always respect your comments regarding BOX.

Are there any other testers that,d be willing to add to Gambits comments and give us their thoughts regarding the subject matter?

[gorice]

So, I was flying another quick mission dual last night, my La-5 against an ace 109 g-2, and the AI was able to consistently climb away after firing passes and showed remarkable discipline, refusing to be baited into a turn fight. Eventually, I had to drag it into a chase on the deck before I could reverse the situation and get the kill.

[JonRedcorn]

13 hours ago, Redwo1f said:

Ummm...you sure about that one Jon?

WOFFUE AI uses the same as the player, as does WOTR - it can completely be done and done well - and look at all the other factors they (OBD) have been able to model (morale, vision, combat skill, fatigue, etc. etc).

That game also has a much simpler flight model. I get what you are saying but with a game with a FM like this it's too much work.

 

Also just like to point out that the AI was made before jason took over, and I would assume had he been leading the charge since day one the AI would be much better. Regardless, the AI is something that apparently 90% of the player base has to deal with and as such should be made to be the best that it can. A command menu like in 1946 with pilots that actually follow the commands would be a huge plus. I don't want to say the AI doesn't follow the simple orders we have right now, they certainly try, it's just not up to snuff in my opinion.

Edited April 29, 2019 by JonRedcorn

[EAF_51_FOX]

16 hours ago, JonRedcorn said:

I don't disagree, the AI has certainly improved since I started playing a lot last year. It really did just turn in circles before. Like I've said it's not so much the combat AI that is troublesome, it's like the logic. It doesn't take or follow orders, (barely any orders to give) its routines are poor, the ground attacking is also a major issue. We can't even use certain aircraft because they can't carry out the proper ways in which they should be utilizing their aircraft.

 

I wish they'd scrap the entire idea of making them follow the same physics and restrictions players have to and allow them to cheat a bit to give us something worth playing with. There's a reason nobody else does this with their AI. It's too hard and costs too much performance. If the end user experience turns out great then who cares how it gets there.

 

 

This may be a solution. hoping that Developers will "hear" constructive suggestions like this.

 

[LuftManu]

AI keeps getting better and better. It might seem that this thing is going at slow pace but looking back 6 months ago the changes are noticeable. 

 

What can we expect 6 months from now? ?

[CAFulcrum]

It isn't fair to compare to il2:1946, that had ai better than most games, and only after a long development and patch.  It used to have the same issue BoS had where you couldn't even keep up with your flight.  I've been flying a lot of career (with QMB in between to take breaks) and I think there's been a huge improvement just since picking the game up a few updates ago.  Planes used to just do the endless circle of maximum turn performance, now I see all kinds of behavior depending on the matchup.

 

I've seen 109s perform hammerheads, P40s fly at high speed and perform yoyo loops, faster planes fly off to gain altitude.  I've seen differences in skill too, with some planes pulling into steady turns while others jink excessively, and sometimes the ai will change its mind about a turning fight and fly away to regain energy.  Also seen a La5 drag me to one of his squadmates, and managed to bounce a couple of aircraft in career, though I wasn't sure if they were just locked into escaping, but sometimes when approaching il2s they will either keep flying straight or start turning in evasive maneuvers.  Also they always attack bombers from directly behind, even climbing to engage instead of making high speed or slashing attacks, so you can easily lose your whole flight if they decide to attack something with a tailgun.

 

Overall I think it's slightly better than what criquet's mod did for RoF.  The maximum performance turn still pops up but it seems like it's only if the ai is in a better turning plane (saw it in a 109 vs. a spitfire).  The only issue I have had is that when leading a flight and attacking from high altitude sometimes my squadmates will slam into the ground, but that's semi historical.  I still have an easy time shooting the planes down too -- most of the enemy aircraft don't seem to fire during HO (though it's harder in this sim than others for some reason) and sometimes they seem to make dumb moves.  It does give a decent experience though, enough to feel like you're fighting at least semi-thinking enemies instead of just drones.  In big e

[unlikely_spider]

The ai boom and zoom has definitely gotten better. However, most every video game shooter that has been developed in the past two decades has a cone of awareness for the ai, and sneaking up on enemies is a big part of many of them. Heck, I remember it being a critical element in Metal Gear Solid in the late 90's. I wish that behavior was modeled in BoX, instead of the ai practically having 360 degrees of sight and are flying transparent planes.

[Jade_Monkey]

For me one of the biggest pain points is the landing pattern for AI, it just takes forever to land those planes. I would love to see this addressed.

[dburne]

1 minute ago, Jade_Monkey said:

For me one of the biggest pain points is the landing pattern for AI, it just takes forever to land those planes. I would love to see this addressed.

 

I certainly agree with that.

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, Jade_Monkey said:

For me one of the biggest pain points is the landing pattern for AI, it just takes forever to land those planes. I would love to see this addressed.

 

Agreed. It seems as though the AI does not recognize the runway as being clear to land until the plane in front has taxied completely off it.  If the runway was "clear" once the landing plane was 50% of the way down the runway, there would be far fewer aborted approaches and formations would land in about 1/3 of the time.

 

The other thing that would help the AI in career SP would be if the mission generator did not force sharp turns.  For instance, bombers approaching your base for you to take off to escort, then having to turn nearly 180 degrees towards the next WP.  There are almost always collisions. Even fighter formations struggle with turns of more than about 45 degrees.

[Gambit21]

I’ve asked Han about landing logic - changing it isn’t a simple matter unfortunately.

 

Regarding turns - It’s more of a waypoint logic interprolation issue than a generator issue.

 

Even if the next waypoint is only 40 degrees offset and quite distant, it results in a harsh, nearly max effort turn on the part of the aircraft.

 

We need a “gentle turn” check box in the waypoint properties.

[seafireliv]

The AI in BOS isn`t too bad, but I must say as someone who almost overdosed on SP Campaigns against AI in Maddox`s IL2, that AI gave me some of the most memorable dogfights ever.

[RedKestrel]

On 4/29/2019 at 6:07 PM, engrish_major said:

The ai boom and zoom has definitely gotten better. However, most every video game shooter that has been developed in the past two decades has a cone of awareness for the ai, and sneaking up on enemies is a big part of many of them. Heck, I remember it being a critical element in Metal Gear Solid in the late 90's. I wish that behavior was modeled in BoX, instead of the ai practically having 360 degrees of sight and are flying transparent planes.

The AI can be sneaked up on. I've done it. You basically have to approach at all times from a blind spot - if you drift out of it for a moment they will probably see you. They can't see through their planes and they can't see through clouds. Sometimes people think the AI sees through clouds because they are spotted through a small gap, or they aren't entirely within the cloud. I lose AI by diving into or climbing through cloud all the time.

The AI 'cone of awareness' appears to amount to having perfect visibility at all times through the canopy. Most planes in game have a pretty good field of view provided you can look in every direction simultaneously. So if you're within viewing range and field of view, you get spotted. Unlike with people, who might miss you against ground clutter, or just not look in the right direction at the right time. 

Probably the reason they don't have a cone of awareness depending on, say, where a pilot might be looking is that it would be yet another thing that the engine has to calculate. More overhead, slower gameplay.