AI losing consciousness

[Ouky1991]

About half of enemy fighters kill themselves in my missions. It was hilarious at the beginning, but now it's a little annoying. Is there any difference between novice/ace AI when it comes to suicide? Is it a feature of novice fighters?

[MasserME262]

I played against Ace AI pilots several times in QMBs, they still crash a lot. Annoying as hell indeed.

 

What I want to know is, how often that happened in real life? Im curious about it

[Ouky1991]

9 minutes ago, ME-BFMasserME262 said:

I played against Ace AI pilots several times in QMBs, they still crash a lot. Annoying as hell indeed.

 

What I want to know is, how often that happened in real life? Im curious about it

Have you tried untick the new physiology model in settings? I don't hnow if that affects AI though, I'm off to work so I can't check right now. That could temporarily fix it but I quiet like the new model so... tough choice.

[von_Michelstamm]

Flying against novice LAGGS, I16s and P40s, I've only seen one crash, and that was when he spawned in high and just dove on me on the deck, which may not have even been physiology.
I don't see any difference in how they fly from before (same patterns), except they're harder because I can't keep up with their looping anymore without blacking out so have to learn to fly smarter and better.
What planes/difficulties are you seeing them black out?

Edited October 3, 2019 by von_Michelstamm

[Ouky1991]

I fly against novice migs (in editor made missions) and tried spitfires in QMB. Usually about 2 - 4 out of 9 enemy planes slam it to the ground, but I tried QMB migs on ace difficulty today and none of them killed themselves. Maybe it has to do something with accuracy of aces and that thay can down planes quicker, because longer you dogfight, higher the chance of blackout.

[easyhomewin]

I think they need to tone it down a bit for sure for human and ai players.

[69TD_Hajo_Garlic]

I’m glad ai can and do black out at the same level humans do but the ai, at least the ace and veteran should control their planes better. It’s annoying to fight tempests that just throw their a/c into the trees once you start pulling lead on them.

 

Usaf and bf109 ai rarely black out in my experience, probably due to the g suit and reclined seat.

 

it is very amusing online though, I love the new system there

Edited October 3, 2019 by Hajo_Garlic

[danielprates]

5 hours ago, ME-BFMasserME262 said:

What I want to know is, how often that happened in real life? Im curious about it

 

This is by far the most interesting part of this conversarion, hope one of the many forum's savants can shed some light on this matter.

[Goffik]

In my first test of the new physiology system I did an 8v8 battle, veteran 109s vs normal Migs. All of the Migs were eventually shot down and none crashed on their own , but two of the 109s did indeed apparently black out and crash.

 

Then in my career, in the space of just one day and two missions, all but two of my squadron crashed into the ground after blacking out. It left me in command of a squadron with three pilots and just one 109. That's really not much fun at all.

 

So yeah, I really love the physiology system but the AI does need to be tweaked to deal with it better. I have no doubt that in the panic of a life and death struggle, there were many instances of pilots pushing too far, losing consciousness, and crashing. However, at the very most it was probably 1:10 maximum... not entire, experienced squadrons!

Edited October 4, 2019 by Goffik

[Krisu]

22 hours ago, danielprates said:

 

This is by far the most interesting part of this conversarion, hope one of the many forum's savants can shed some light on this matter.

 

GOT YOU RIGHT NOW FAM

 

swear I had something else to continue with 

[BletchleyGeek]

Automatic flight control that takes into account g-loads takes way too much cpu time for being used in a video game. I can see it being doable for one plane at 60fps, for a dozen AI controlled planes not really.

 

They will need to allow the AI to bend the physio rules a bit, and see what combination of smoke and mirrors works best to offer a credible experience for human players.

Edited October 4, 2019 by BletchleyGeek

[unreasonable]

16 minutes ago, BletchleyGeek said:

Automatic flight control that takes into account g-loads takes way too much cpu time for being used in a video game. I can see it being doable for one plane at 60fps, for a dozen AI controlled planes not really.

 

They will need to allow the AI to bend the physio rules a bit, and see what combination of smoke and mirrors works best to offer a credible experience for human players.

 

I do not think this is right - I have never seen an AI plane pull so hard that his wings came off, unless they were damaged first, so there must, I think, already be G limits for the AI. They just need to reflect the pilot's limits rather than the plane's.

[Goffik]

33 minutes ago, BletchleyGeek said:

Automatic flight control that takes into account g-loads takes way too much cpu time for being used in a video game. I can see it being doable for one plane at 60fps, for a dozen AI controlled planes not really.

 

They will need to allow the AI to bend the physio rules a bit, and see what combination of smoke and mirrors works best to offer a credible experience for human players.

 

There are plenty of games and sims with AI that have to account for all kinds of inputs and variables, so I really don't think that dealing with the new physiological system is beyond the AI or our current-tech PCs. It just needs to be tweaked so that the AI is less likely to go beyond the limits, that's all. Like every new feature, it takes time to test it in real-world conditions (ie, people playing the game) and iron out the issues.

[Jaegermeister]

On 10/3/2019 at 1:12 PM, ME-BFMasserME262 said:

What I want to know is, how often that happened in real life? Im curious about it

 

On 10/3/2019 at 7:07 PM, danielprates said:

This is by far the most interesting part of this conversarion, hope one of the many forum's savants can shed some light on this matter.

 

You will never get any type of accurate answer to that. Anyone that over G’ed and crashed never told anyone why they went in....

[EAF19_Marsh]

3 hours ago, Jaegermeister said:

 

 

You will never get any type of accurate answer to that. Anyone that over G’ed and crashed never told anyone why they went in....

 

It has been mentioned in the accounts of survivors, though from an observer’s perspective it is difficult to know if it was G-LOC, control stiffness or a misjudgment. 

 

Have seen the AI do it a few times and I certainly have done it. They seem to be effected in turn, loosening the rate after a number of seconds.

[danielprates]

6 hours ago, Jaegermeister said:

 

 

You will never get any type of accurate answer to that. Anyone that over G’ed and crashed never told anyone why they went in....

 

Oh, I'm pretty sure there has to be accounts or studies about that. People are always talking about pilot-written books around here, I imagine those may contain some information. I read Chuck Yeager's memoirs, I dont remember him talking about this passing out issue but he does talk about physical aptness at some point. I remember him saying that more able-bodied pilots could have a further advantage and that - get this! - he could sometimes notice a german pilot was tired from the way he was flying! 

 

Pilots suffering from high Gs must have left some statistical trace of their problems, even if it's incomplete. I think this was a too important issue to just evade all inquiries.

 

Edited October 5, 2019 by danielprates

[Zooropa_Fly]

Maybe some of them had their elevators shot off

 

[MasserME262]

11 hours ago, Jaegermeister said:

 

 

You will never get any type of accurate answer to that. Anyone that over G’ed and crashed never told anyone why they went in....

You can see enemy crashing, or even an ally crashing.

 

Im not stupid enough to ask to a death pilot to tell me that he crashed and died so I can have an accurate statistics ?

[[CPT]Crunch]

How do you know it's a G limit problem?  This wouldn't be the first time the series had a problem with IA's having ground collision problems, probably showing up more because your overall speeds have suddenly increased.  There were already issues from long ago with them slamming into the ground running intercepts when too close and from much higher altitudes when you were at low level.  In classic IL-2 the 109's would go into a full elevator up lock mode and ride a stall all the way into the ground from 5000 feet. 

[Dakpilot]

Try qmb Dogfights and leave the a/c in autopilot, 

 

You will see him blackout before hitting the deck. 

 

Am sure/hopeful this issue of new feature will be worked on/tweaked and integrated more with regard to AI because it is a huge leap forwards overall 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[Goffik]

On 10/5/2019 at 4:27 PM, [CPT]Crunch said:

How do you know it's a G limit problem?

 

Because in 50+ missions in my current career pre-patch, I only once saw AI craft slam into the ground... a flight of ground attack 109s who just didn't bother pulling up. Restarted the mission and they never did it again. Post-patch, every single mission has at least 2-3 planes doing this during a dogfight (often more, like... my entire squadron!), which is a bit ridiculous. Those numbers might be ok if we had realistic squadron sizes, but not with the reduced sizes we have.

 

I realise that the AI was updated to fly more aggressively in the patch too, but I'd say the weight of probability is in favour of them not handling the new physiological system properly. I don't think that system needs tweaking, just the way the AI handles it so that they don't push quite so hard.