Jump to content
von_Michelstamm

how big can we expect bomber formations to be in BP?

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, TheOldCrow said:

 

I'd rather them continue to do work on it and continually improve it. Putting them on rails gives up the realism the sim strives for. 

When I see how bombers, flying in formation, act when I attack them, starting to turn like fighters, even with bombload on board, instead of staying in formation and defend themselves with their defensive weapons, this has not a lot to do with realism. And when I see them staying in formation, when they get attacked by AI, where they start turning, when attacked by me, this, too, has not a lot to do with realism. The flying on rails in old IL-2 looked much more realistic to me.

Share this post


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

When I see how bombers, flying in formation, act when I attack them, starting to turn like fighters, even with bombload on board, instead of staying in formation and defend themselves with their defensive weapons, this has not a lot to do with realism. And when I see them staying in formation, when they get attacked by AI, where they start turning, when attacked by me, this, too, has not a lot to do with realism. The flying on rails in old IL-2 looked much more realistic to me.

 

I’m pretty sure that the AI bombers stay in formation in career or scripted missions.  Are you playing quick missions?

Share this post


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

 

I’m pretty sure that the AI bombers stay in formation in career or scripted missions.

 

They do. Only if one plane out of the three plane formation element is severely damadged or shot down and the element reduced, the other two of this element break formation and turn home. As long as no plane is damaged the other nondamaged/nonreduced elements stay on course. In career I usually encounter bomber formations of either 9 ( 3 times 3 plane formations) or 12 (4 times 3 plane formation) bombers.

Share this post


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

 

I’m pretty sure that the AI bombers stay in formation in career or scripted missions.  Are you playing quick missions?

No I am usually flying PWCG.

 

20 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

They do. Only if one plane out of the three plane formation element is severely damadged or shot down and the element reduced, the other two of this element break formation and turn home. As long as no plane is damaged the other nondamaged/nonreduced elements stay on course. In career I usually encounter bomber formations of either 9 ( 3 times 3 plane formations) or 12 (4 times 3 plane formation) bombers.

This is interesting. After the release of BOK I experienced exactly what you describe, when i attacked A20s (I don't remember anymore about attacks on Pe2s). And it was great. But after the next update i only had bomber formations of six planes and, like I described, they broke away to turn, as soon as I started to attack, even from clean three plane formations. 

Share this post


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

No I am usually flying PWCG.

 

This is interesting. After the release of BOK I experienced exactly what you describe, when i attacked A20s (I don't remember anymore about attacks on Pe2s). And it was great. But after the next update i only had bomber formations of six planes and, like I described, they broke away to turn, as soon as I started to attack, even from clean three plane formations. 

 

You should probably talk to Pat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Yogiflight said:

No I am usually flying PWCG.

 

This is interesting. After the release of BOK I experienced exactly what you describe, when i attacked A20s (I don't remember anymore about attacks on Pe2s). And it was great. But after the next update i only had bomber formations of six planes and, like I described, they broke away to turn, as soon as I started to attack, even from clean three plane formations. 

 

Turning of bombers like fighter planes for me only happens in quick missions, never saw that in career. In quick missions it is the norm and not an exception. Maybe something in PWCG formation scripting is different from career formation scripting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in ROF days I had to make the bombers fly waypoints at medium priority.  When they flew WPs at high priority they took no evasive action but the also did not return fire, return home when damaged, or anything else.  They just flew straight and defenseless.  Wonder if that has changed?

Share this post


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

Back in ROF days I had to make the bombers fly waypoints at medium priority.  When they flew WPs at high priority they took no evasive action but the also did not return fire, return home when damaged, or anything else.  They just flew straight and defenseless.  Wonder if that has changed?

 

That sounds like a bug.  They should shoot at serious threats no matter the priority of the waypoint.

Share this post


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

Back in ROF days I had to make the bombers fly waypoints at medium priority.  When they flew WPs at high priority they took no evasive action but the also did not return fire, return home when damaged, or anything else.  They just flew straight and defenseless.  Wonder if that has changed?

Hi Patrick,

 

It hasnt change. If you use high priority their priority would be to get there no matter what. Not a bug, hopefully with the AI been work on they can take a look at that.

 

Haash

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2019 at 1:44 PM, 56RAF_Stickz said:

and in clod, those servers that did put ai he111s and ju88, do17 suffered continual complaints because they had to reduce the number of flyable slots, and caused issues when they spawn in etc.

 

 

 

7 years of ACG campaigns with large bomber raids..... We only complained when the latest patch couldn't handle it anymore.

 

ATAG just before the server died had player spawnable air raids with a dozen bombers. We would spawn them in with the intention of playing escort. It was epic fun. I loved the ATAG server.

 

Video with bomber raids, has spoiler due to Haukencruz.

 

Spoiler

ACG campaign has haukencruz, nearly forgot forum rules.   :P

 

 

 

 

Edited by ACG_Smokejumper
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

That sounds like a bug.  They should shoot at serious threats no matter the priority of the waypoint.

Absolutely, and it works in scripted campaigns and it works obviously in the game's career missions, too (no idea, why it stopped working for me after the first update past BOK release). I experienced it for the first time in the first mission of Juri's  Platzschutzstaffel Pitomnik campaign. 

Share this post


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

Hi Patrick,

 

It hasnt change. If you use high priority their priority would be to get there no matter what. Not a bug, hopefully with the AI been work on they can take a look at that.

 

Haash

 

Sometimes with an update however AI behavior changes relative to waypoint or other MCU priority setting. I saw this at least once while building the A-20 campaign.

 

For instance suddenly I had fighter cover attacking ground targets instead of covering the bombers. So I had to change the ‘Cover’ command from med to high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SYN_Haashashin said:

Hi Patrick,

 

It hasnt change. If you use high priority their priority would be to get there no matter what. Not a bug, hopefully with the AI been work on they can take a look at that.

 

Haash

It's something i ask since a few years. A real formation for bomber. And i though to ask again yesterday, because, i'm fade up to see my bomber formation which evide like a fighter when you attack them. There is only one phase where it's ok, it's when they are between the last waypoint and the Attack area cmmand.

 

I thought that they changed that when they worked oin the formation a few patch ago, but it was for the tank. And we are a few to ask that feature.

 

So we have to ask again.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Engine does not utilize modern hardware like 8 cores from high end ryzen or high end I7, I9's.

Game engine needs modernization.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Godspeed said:

This Engine does not utilize modern hardware like 8 cores from high end ryzen or high end I7, I9's.

Game engine needs modernization.

 

 

 

No games really have engines that utilize even 6 cores on a CPU, it's why intel rains supreme in gaming because of its single core performance. 

 

I do agree the engine feels a bit outdated but compared to a lot of games out there it's far better. It's also unique which makes things better and worse in some aspects. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not really sure the gane engine limits the number of engines. 

I always believed it was the number of crew. 

We currently have 4 crews at best

Share this post


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

I am not really sure the gane engine limits the number of engines. 

I always believed it was the number of crew. 

We currently have 4 crews at best

5 (He 111)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, IIN8II said:

Ilya Muromets was a 4 engine bomber in RoF

 

It was. Which is presumably why someone has already posted a screenshot of it in this thread. The problem isn't 'too many engines' though. Or at least, that is only a small part of it, from what the developers have stated. The issues are the development time (and therefore money) necessary to create something with the complexity of a WW2 4-engined bomber (much more involved than the Muromets, with more involved systems, and multiple crew positions ),  and the CPU/GPU/network resources necessary to run them in-game. 

Share this post


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

5 (He 111)

Yes your right. But they flew with 4 also. Was not sure what we got. 

I always looked at a empty ventral while manning a waistgun 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IIN8II said:

Ilya Muromets was a 4 engine bomber in RoF

crew number is bigger problem, they all have separate ai brain (not all one like in il-2 1946) 

 

so B-17 is basicly double demand then most heavy thing in game, that is he-111 now, so basicly if you can run max of 40 he-111s in offline mission , you would probably be able to run max of 20 B-17s, or maybe 4-8 online 😄

B-17G-Cutaway.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not at all saying I won't support the game, I'm was more than happy to support ROF through the years and keep finding excuses to throw my money at this sim.  It is silly to be all or nothing over 4 engine bombers.  My point is I do think there's more than enough 'business potential' for them to invest in the B17, and that the issues that keep the B17 from being modeled need to be addressed anyhow.  What good is modeling the ai gunners so intensely now when everyone complains about them as being too accurate and not behaving realistically?  Why do they take so many more resources to model than they did in other games in the past, what could have possibly changed wrt the coding of gun positions to make them so much more memory intensive?  And what is the point of modeling ai planes at as high a fidelity as the player when 1) we don't have ai that puts that performance to full use as it is (though it's good to see work being done, but honestly what needs to be done with ai is not getting the best performance out of an aircraft but behaving in a realistic tactical way to the situation.) and 2) it's completely unneeded for bombers that are either going to fly straight or go down in flames.  Enemy fighters the player is engaged with, I can see the logic in, but why do it for aircraft that are 20km away and could just be represented with a simpler FM that approximates what they're doing?

 

The thing is this game relies on continuous development, and if it starts having limitations they will start running out of 'appropriate' battles to model and as the game grows with more aircraft more people will want more battles that won't be doable.  I mean, how are they going to ever model battleships or carriers when each one has batteries of dozens of AA guns?  Are the guns on ships at the moment given the same ai as planes?

 

I think they could also easily generate interest and sales just with a flyable B17, on account of its iconic status.  If they could make an entire game series on the B17 in the 90s I doubt they're going to have trouble attracting interest.  Then they can open to other large aircraft in other campaigns.  In the mean time I think the advantage of being able to show larger numbers of airplanes would itself make a huge improvement for the sim and open it up a lot more to realistic large scale aerial battles.

 

I am enjoying this game immensely for what it is, and I hope it's doing well with its business model.  The product is definitely superior and worth the money.  I just have to say when you play it there is a feeling of lost potential, and like you're doing something loosely representative of the war that's just made to give you something to do, and I'd like to see the game achieve as much as it can because the alternatives right now are basically arcades like war thunder that will never give you the FM and graphical immersion that BoX provides.  It's kind of between older games like Warbirds, Airwarrior, 1946, targetware that had a ton of WWII aircraft with no limitations and DCS which is a one plane at a time venture.  I worry something else with the same graphical look and an inferior FM modeling system, like Microsoft combat flight simulator could easily wipe it out if it had any sort of monetary backing, and I feel like the game could be a lot more popular if it fielded a more robust single player experience and something a little more gamey/grindy just to keep a sense of achievement in the game. 

 

It is ultimately their decision though, no one is making demands here... so far they seem to have made the right ones.  Whatever keeps development going and money coming in seems to be the deciding factor in the success of these games, despite forumite rebellions and individual ultimatums...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's awfully easy for us armchair game designers and programmers to offer suggestions, but actually implementing things is always a whole lot harder than you might think. For example the calls for a simplified FM -- while it sounds simpler, it might be a whole can of worms to change it. When I look at the AI, they seem to 'flutter' the controls, making control input changes many times per second. Well that seems wasteful, as does a full-fidelity FM for the AI. But those two things are probably coupled together -- if you had the AI just make control input changes a few times a second, the whole thing might fall apart (I'm just speculating).

 

The good news is that 1C have a new AI programmer and we've already seen some improvements. I think the constant zoom climbs to hammerhead turns are kind of a silly move (the AI is a sitting duck at the top of the climb) but I also saw a Spitfire AI do a barrel roll to cause a 109 on its six to overshoot. That's definitely new. I'm hopeful we'll continue to see improvements over time. As a server operator and VR enthusiast I absolutely welcome any performance improvement.

  • Upvote 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...