Jump to content
PatrickAWlson

What's Left for the VVS

Recommended Posts

Unfortunately I have to agree Ive seen the same statements by the Devs saying 90/95% of players are SP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect singleplayer customers would be a serious cash cow if the game were to properly tap into that market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Secondly, what exactly was wrong with the info I posted

 

The La-7 B-20 version was never the ‘most common’ variant. There is a tendency to think that new = produced = delivered = used and this becomes a little tiresome, especially given the size of the team, their ability to handle various a/c and variants and the opportunity cost of doing so.

 

Thus, checking sources before firing opinions is useful. I thought you were part of the team - you certainly seemed to hold a role - so was concerned that such general ‘IIRC’ was influencing development priorities.

 

My apologies if I seemed unpleasant, your comment spiked my concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bzc3lk said:

 

Jason himself said that 90% of the customer base was single player in one of his Q&A sessions , from the man himself 2.33.00 time stamp.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0TawmZ49oU

 

 

Well noted, and thank you for pointing me to this!

 

What a shocker though - would never have thought this was the balance of SP vs. MP. You SP only guys don't know what you're missing!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, [_FLAPS_]Dirt_Merchant said:

You SP only guys don't know what you're missing!

 

Actually, some of us do know what we are 'missing'. And don't necessarily miss it.Or at least, don't miss the positive sides of it enough to put up with the negatives. The great thing about it is that we have the choice.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 

Actually, some of us do know what we are 'missing'. And don't necessarily miss it.Or at least, don't miss the positive sides of it enough to put up with the negatives. The great thing about it is that we have the choice.

 

 

Could you elaborate on these negatives?

 

I too am glad that you've got a choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not interested in the late war gumph... What would be great though, would be a package that gave us a 'Barbarossa' experience.

Su-2, Yak-4, DB-3F, TB-3, R-5, Ar-2, Polikarpovs I-15, I-153 etc... 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

The La-7 B-20 version was never the ‘most common’ variant. There is a tendency to think that new = produced = delivered = used and this becomes a little tiresome, especially given the size of the team, their ability to handle various a/c and variants and the opportunity cost of doing so.

 

Thus, checking sources before firing opinions is useful. I thought you were part of the team - you certainly seemed to hold a role - so was concerned that such general ‘IIRC’ was influencing development priorities.

 

My apologies if I seemed unpleasant, your comment spiked my concerns.

 

Not a problem. :) I was going off of my memory when I made that post yesterday, as I was at work and as such didn't have access to the book where it talks about the La-7's armament. Anyways, yes, it's as @Brano wrote: it was planned to fit the B-20 cannons from the start, but teething problems meant they had to go with the ShVAK at first, and so B-20 planes were a latecomer to the war - though yes, they were present, just in relatively small numbers.

Edited by LukeFF
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, [_FLAPS_]Dirt_Merchant said:

 

 

Well noted, and thank you for pointing me to this!

 

What a shocker though - would never have thought this was the balance of SP vs. MP. You SP only guys don't know what you're missing!

What make you think we do not know mp. I know enough to stay out of it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, [_FLAPS_]Dirt_Merchant said:

 

 

Could you elaborate on these negatives?

 

I too am glad that you've got a choice.

 

Negatives?

 

Hassles with connection, ping etc.

Having to find a server in use at the time I want to play.

Not being able to pause for real-word interruptions.

Having to put up with the behaviour of other players, from there merely annoying to the downright toxic.

And at the end of it, even when it is going right, the whole competitive nature of the thing - the individualist obsession with 'kills' and score over survival and actually carrying out a mission detracts from authenticity.

 

Like I said, my opinion. Based on my personal experience. Other people clearly feel differently. They should however bear in mind that without the single-player majority making the game a viable commercial product, there wouldn't be a multiplayer IL-2 GB.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, [_FLAPS_]Dirt_Merchant said:

 

 

Could you elaborate on these negatives?

 

I too am glad that you've got a choice.

 

The big thing for me is immersion, the long missions with full realism settings really do make for an enjoyable experience. It makes fights more meaningful and when you are outnumbered 5:1 the ai are more than a challenge. This is with PWCG mind you. Without that I would probably play more MP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well noted @LuseKofte and @AndyJWest, I appreciate your responses.

 

Andy, seems clear that you have some very specific gripes about online play - thank you for laying these out for me!

 

Like I said before - I too am glad you have the choice to stay away from MP.

 

@-LUCKY-ThanksSkeletor I can relate to that! I'll say though - so much more satisfaction to engage with humans regardless of their skill level, they're always unpredictable. 

Edited by [_FLAPS_]Dirt_Merchant
Reply for ThanksSkeletor
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

They should however bear in mind that without the single-player majority making the game a viable commercial product, there wouldn't be a multiplayer IL-2 GB.

 

 

It’s entirely possible that the game would not be a viable commercial product without MP, either.  AI and campaigns are extremely expensive to produce.  

Share this post


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

 

It’s entirely possible that the game would not be a viable commercial product without MP, either.  AI and campaigns are extremely expensive to produce.  

 

A product losing 10% of its customers would stand a much better chance of remaining viable than one losing 90%, I'd have thought. As for costs, software of the complexity necessary to support real-time multiplayer combat doesn't come cheap.  Not that it really matters, since the developers clearly wish to support both SP and MP play, and are in a better position than we are to assess costs and set priorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 

A product losing 10% of its customers would stand a much better chance of remaining viable than one losing 90%, I'd have thought.

 

That depends on the costs.  And MP is actually relatively cheap.  Certainly a lot cheaper than SP.  I’m not saying SP is not needed.  I just don’t understand the certainty that SP can survive on it’s own.  I really don’t think that’s the case.

 

Anywho, they’re not going to show us their books, so there is no way to really know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

It’s entirely possible that the game would not be a viable commercial product without MP, either.  AI and campaigns are extremely expensive to produce.  

 

You very may well be correct here, even if the player-base is truly 90% SP. So many intangibles around the success of consumer products, you never can know exactly all aspects of what will bring success!

 

 

18 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 

A product losing 10% of its customers would stand a much better chance of remaining viable than one losing 90%, I'd have thought. As for costs, software of the complexity necessary to support real-time multiplayer combat doesn't come cheap.  Not that it really matters, since the developers clearly wish to support both SP and MP play, and are in a better position than we are to assess costs and set priorities.

 

Well, there it is. (your statement in bold is what I reference)

 

5 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

That depends on the costs.  And MP is actually relatively cheap.  Certainly a lot cheaper than SP.  I’m not saying SP is not needed.  I just don’t understand the certainty that SP can survive on it’s own.  I really don’t think that’s the case.

 

Anywho, they’re not going to show us their books, so there is no way to really know.

 

Fully agree with you on these points, I'd wager that a combat flight sim would not sell very well if you couldn't fly it with your buddies. After all, what is the point if you're not able to show off your aerobatic prowess?

Edited by [_FLAPS_]Dirt_Merchant
Spacing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

It’s entirely possible that the game would not be a viable commercial product without MP, either.  AI and campaigns are extremely expensive to produce.  

It is a extremely bad business idea to rule out any of the two. I appreciate mp in short runs and I believe mp players do use SP occasionally. 

I also believe making quality SP and in special AI good is expensive and time consuming. 

It seems to me every brand have problems with AI behaviour

Share this post


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

It is a extremely bad business idea to rule out any of the two. I appreciate mp in short runs and I believe mp players do use SP occasionally. 

I also believe making quality SP and in special AI good is expensive and time consuming. 

It seems to me every brand have problems with AI behaviour

 

I'd say good and resource efficient AI is important in MP as well.

 

Effective AI allow for more compelling PvE elements in MP missions, even those with PvP focus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

That's why I was asked to do PWCG online.  As of 6.1.0 (released yesterday) you can fly with your friends in a cooperative or competitive environment. 

 

You are flying in a campaign.  You have a persona.  Your persona has a record.  If he gets killed he is gone and you start with a new persona.  This should make people more interested in survival.  How hard is it to score 50 victories against other humans without dying?  If you achieve something like that do you really want to throw that away to dive into 8 enemies by yourself?  Do you really want to continue the fight in your smoking wreck?

 

So yes, as of now you can fly a campaign, you can include other people, you can control who participates, you can fly exclusively with them or competitively against them. Your friends can fly in the same squadron or a different squadron.  They can all be fighter pilots or they can  do other things. 

 

If Joe and Al are flying as fighters in I/JG51 then they will be in the same flight.  Harry likes Stukas so his persona is in II/StG77 and he is in another flight doing a dive bombing mission.  John likes Yaks so he is in a Yak flying for the Russians.  Jane likes Il2s so she is in an IL2 doing ground attack.  All in the same coop mission.  You might meet.  You might not.  There is a ground war going on beneath you.  Harry and Jane are actively attacking ground units.  Joe, Al, and John in their fighters can choose to comedown and join the fun or not.  

 

The mission is run and events are calculated.  Victories are tabulated, medals and promotions are earned, pilots are killed or injured and equipment is lost.  A new day happens and new missions are flown.

 

I have gotten great support from Jason during this process.  He and the team really want every capability of this product to be maximized.  

Edited by PatrickAWlson
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

 

It seems to me every brand have problems with AI behaviour

 

That’s because AI that acts human and still functions on a $2000ish PC is probably impossible to code 

4 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

That's why I was asked to do PWCG online.  As of 6.1.0 (released yesterday) you can fly with your friends in a cooperative or competitive environment. 

 

You are flying in a campaign.  You have a persona.  Your persona has a record.  If he gets killed he is gone and you start with a new persona.  This should make people more interested in survival.  How hard is it to score 50 victories against other humans without dying?  If you achieve something like that do you really want to throw that away to dive into 8 enemies by yourself?  Do you really want to continue the fight in your smoking wreck?

 

So yes, as of now you can fly a campaign, you can include other people, you can control who participates, you can fly exclusively with them or competitively against them. Your friends can fly in the same squadron or a different squadron.  They can all be fighter pilots or they can  do other things. 

 

If Joe and Al are flying as fighters in I/JG51 then they will be in the same flight.  Harry likes Stukas so his persona is in II/StG77 and he is in another flight doing a dive bombing mission.  John likes Yaks so he is in a Yak flying for the Russians.  Jane likes Il2s so she is in an IL2 doing ground attack.  All in the same coop mission.  You might meet.  You might not.  There is a ground war going on beneath you.  Harry and Jane are actively attacking ground units.  Joe, Al, and John in their fighters can choose to comedown and join the fun or not.  

 

The mission is run and events are calculated.  Victories are tabulated, medals and promotions are earned, pilots are killed or injured and equipment is lost.  A new day happens and new missions are flown.

 

BTW, this is a GREAT project!  It’s just that a lot of MP people don’t want any AI flying at all.  But for people who don’t mind the AI and want to fly with some buddies, this is fantastic.

Share this post


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

 

That’s because AI that acts human and still functions on a $2000ish PC is probably impossible to code 

 

I respectfully disagree.  Difficult, yes.  But you can definitely come closer than we have today in IL2 or any other sim that I am aware of.

 

What you want to do is put a behavioral state machine on top of the existing AI.  The behavioral state machine need not be terribly complicated nor does it need to be executed terribly frequently.  The state machine would put the pilot in a mode: attack, help, evade, escape, etc.  The state defines the list of available actions.  Add a few basic parameters to the AI for variance (courage, experience, etc.) to further refine the list of available actions then perform said action.  Define conditions for change in state - example: threat noticed transition to evade.  Next cycle, threat is not there anymore transition to attack ... or threat still exists remain in evade.  Those sorts of decisions are already present to some degree but I suspect they are more ad hoc than is ideal.

 

Not easy and obviously not a perfect emulation of human behavior, but closer.  And it would not be compute intensive if it was done as a scheduled task instead of a tight loop.

 

The problem that I see with the AI is that it apparently does run in a tight loop.  Look at how the control surfaces flutter on AI planes.  The Ai is constantly correcting much more frequently than any human could or would.  If the frequency of AI decision making was reduced (say once . every 1/2 or 1/4 second instead of in a tight loop) that would immediately relieve CPU load probably with limited effect in the "goodness" of the AI.  

 

Anyhow, it can be done.  Not easily, I certainly concede that, and not perfectly, but better.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

 

I respectfully disagree.  Difficult, yes.  But you can definitely come closer than we have today in IL2 or any other sim that I am aware of.

 

So far the flight sim developers are Ofer in their attempts to create realistic humanesque AI.   I’m feeling pretty confident that this pattern isn’t going to change any time soon.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

That’s because AI that acts human and still functions on a $2000ish PC is probably impossible to code 

 

BTW, this is a GREAT project!  It’s just that a lot of MP people don’t want any AI flying at all.  But for people who don’t mind the AI and want to fly with some buddies, this is fantastic.

 

That would be another project but it is possible.  It would take a lot changes in the core product to make it happen.  it would somehow have to mash the current multiplayer server with PWCG or something like it.  

 

Start with the current multiplayer server.

Add a serverized PWCG like thing ... let's call it PWCGMulti

PWCGMulti decides what map, what date, what time.

PWCGMulti populates the server with ground units.  This is an ongoing process.

Players on this server would be obliged to create personas in PWCGMulti

Add lobby for multiplayer participants to get together and organize into flights.

- Participants choose the persona under which they wish to fly.  

- Participants would choose to fly together (or not)

- When a player or players wish to join the fun they press "Join" from the lobby.

PWCGMulti creates a flight for them.

PWCGMulti injects the flight into the server.

The participants fly.

PWCGMulti is constantly scraping logs or getting sever feedback some other way to update the persistent aspects of the campaign related to personas.

Once a day the server shuts down and external calculations are made on the personas.  Medals, promotions, etc.

The server restarts on a new day in the campaign.

If your persona is dead then make a new one.

If your persona is wounded ... make a new one and return to the old one when he is healed.

 

Perpetual campaign.  Would take over two years to complete the war.  Humans only.  Persistent world.  Open, so anybody can join at any time.

 

And although I mention PWCG it need not be PWCG.  The in game campaign engine would probably do just as well, maybe better since it is already integrated into the code base.

 

How long?  Probably at least a year.  But again ... possible.

22 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

So far the flight sim developers are Ofer in their attempts to create realistic humanesque AI.   I’m feeling pretty confident that this pattern isn’t going to change any time soon.  

 

You're probably right but prefer foolish optimism :) 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

You're probably right but prefer foolish optimism :) 

 

Everything in this forum is a optimistic wishlist

why not wish big 🙃

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

You're probably right but prefer foolish optimism :) 

 

The problem with foolish optimism is that people tend to forget the foolish part and just get frustrated that they’re not flying with/against realistic AI.  They quickly notice all the flaws and start crying about their immersion being ruined.  It’s better just to accept the AI for what it is or play MP.

Share this post


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

With the advent of the internet and multiplayer gaming, AI will probably remain simply trash by comparison.


The AI will always be omniscient...there's no way for the program not to "know" what is happening to it and within it. Therefore, there's no genuine suspense of the hunt. AI can't be "surprised" as such, nor can it be lured into overconfident mistakes or demoralized. It just chooses which routines to run in order to approximate a particular skill level.

 

 

You are describing how the AI currently works, but it does not have to be this way. Some wargames have been modelling concealment and demoralization for years, allowing players to surprise AI enemy units, sometimes even being able to rout them without inflicting casualties, or setting traps to lure overconfident AI armies. Just because the program knows where everything is, does not mean that each unit has to act as though it does. 

 

I am not saying that this is trivial to program - but if tactical wargames have been doing it for years it would be entirely possible for BoX to do it if the developers every decided to make it a priority. Which they should do, IMHO, especially given the established fact that MP accounts for  ~10% of total sales and indifferent AI is one of the weakest areas of the current BoX SP game.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

  It’s better just to accept the AI for what it is or play MP.

Absolutely not! - that is defeatist!  The AI can be better and will be better. It IS POSSIBLE. Darn it, OBD's AI for their sims is far far better and they utilize same flight models as player and they are a team of essentially two - if they can make a far more complex, believable and humanistic AI that takes into account so many factors that currently Il2 GBS does not, then 1C can do it too. 1C has admitted as much that their AI can be improved (but currently is a long way off). I won't simply say it is what it is regarding AI (if everyone did, then there would be no improvements). They can do better and will do better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Redwo1f said:

 The AI can be better and will be better. It IS POSSIBLE. Darn it, OBD's AI for their sims is far far better and they utilize same flight models as player and they are a team of essentially two -

 

Are you talking about WOFF?  I watched some video of AI in a SE5 trying to turn fight with a Dr1 on the deck in that game.  Their AI sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

WOFFUE, WOTR. Do you own it sir? Have you yourself played it? - not perfect (nothing is) - but the most humanistic modeled AI I have ever played - considers sight lines, moral, combat situation, aircraft situation, experience, etc. Doesn't fall into predictable patterns all the time. Battles are organic and fluid. Really great job. Not perfect...but really well done. Best experience with AI I have had since I started flight sim'ing with Ace's Of the Pacific and Original Red Baron. They have done a great job with it in that department, imho.

 

...and there is also no reason why 1C can't improve their AI. It has been getting better, but it is weak, and they know it. I won't be okay with simply saying - well, that's okay - it is what it is. They are working on it and now have a guy specifically for it. Things are going to improve. :)

Edited by Redwo1f

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Redwo1f said:

WOFFUE, WOTR. Do you own it sir? Have you yourself played it? 

 

No.  A WOFF fan on the RoF forum kept raving about how great the AI is.  So he eventually posted a video of the AI doing stupid AI things.  Seriously, he had a chance to show some great AI in action and he posted video of the AI sucking.  That was the best he could do.  

 

Do you play RoF or GB MP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have RoF, yes. ...and Il2 GBS MP - no. I play offline. My experience flight sim'ing has been SP with many different combat flight sims over the years. 

The only multiplayer game I play online at the moment is Mech Warrior Online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, [_FLAPS_]Dirt_Merchant said:

Well noted @LuseKofte and @AndyJWest, I appreciate your responses.

 

Andy, seems clear that you have some very specific gripes about online play - thank you for laying these out for me!

 

Like I said before - I too am glad you have the choice to stay away from MP.

 

@-LUCKY-ThanksSkeletor I can relate to that! I'll say though - so much more satisfaction to engage with humans regardless of their skill level, they're always unpredictable. 

So are good AI. There's a small dev team of pretty much 2 guys who have made two games with some of the best flight AI I've ever seen. It's called Wings Over Flanders Fields, and Wings Over the Reich. Even the AI in 1946 can be unpredictable. We just had a blast playing a co-op mission tonight flying p-38's over New Guinea, got engaged by KI-43's while covering the p-40's taking out their airfield. There was only 3 of us and it was a lot of fun. Can't do that in a PVP only server. At least not these days. Not only did we get a nice long flight across the island in a large formation, we had some incredible dogfights with all AI. I still play on front skies in 1946, or the various servers on BOX, but I always seem to have a lot more fun flying real missions instead of bomb the target to win the map.

5 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

No.  A WOFF fan on the RoF forum kept raving about how great the AI is.  So he eventually posted a video of the AI doing stupid AI things.  Seriously, he had a chance to show some great AI in action and he posted video of the AI sucking.  That was the best he could do.  

 

Do you play RoF or GB MP?

Dude you've been hating on those games every time they get mentioned. You don't have either one of them just please stop talking about things you don't know. I love how based off one video you saw on the ROF forum from some random guy you don't remember is enough for you to make comments like that. It's no wonder half the forum has you on their ignore list.

Edited by JonRedcorn
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Redwo1f said:

I have RoF, yes. ...and Il2 GBS MP - no. I play offline. My experience flight sim'ing has been SP with many different combat flight sims over the years. 

 

 

It doesn't take much MP experience to realize just how crappy the AI is in basically every flight sim that you play.  

3 minutes ago, JonRedcorn said:

Dude you've been hating on those games every time they get mentioned. 

 

What are you talking about?  I'm sure they're great games if you don't have a problem playing with/against AI.

 

Share this post


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

 

It doesn't take much MP experience to realize just how crappy the AI is in basically every flight sim that you play.  

....okay, if you feel that way, that is fine. 

...but, I never was comparing MP to SP. I was comparing AI of various games to AI of various games...

Share this post


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

 

It doesn't take much MP experience to realize just how crappy the AI is in basically every flight sim that you play.  

 

What are you talking about?  I'm sure they're great games if you don't have a problem playing with/against AI.

 

 

33 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Are you talking about WOFF?  I watched some video of AI in a SE5 trying to turn fight with a Dr1 on the deck in that game.  Their AI sucks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Redwo1f said:

....okay, if you feel that way, that is fine. 

...but, I never was comparing MP to SP. I was comparing AI of various games to AI of various games...

He was literally shitting on the games in a giveaway thread somebody made at one point. Just ignore him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Redwo1f said:

....okay, if you feel that way, that is fine. 

...but, I never was comparing MP to SP. I was comparing AI of various games to AI of various games...

 

Yeah, that's not really what this conversation is about.   The problem that we were lamenting is that even the best AI is still pretty crappy.

Share this post


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

Redcorn, you seem to be missing the point.  The AI in EVERY combat flight sim sucks.  

Hey! I'm earth have we met?

 

 

Share this post


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

Redcorn, you seem to be missing the point.  The AI in EVERY combat flight sim sucks.  

...okay, maybe we re-frame it to your personal perspective then if you feel that way...let me try this: There is different levels of suckage - some suck more than others but some suck far less! LOL - maybe that makes sense to you then? :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...