Developer Diary, Part 63

[VR-DriftaholiC]

We've no plan to make first person view when bailing from a plane. It was a imperfection and we've disabled it. We can't make this feature well now.

That's disappointing. I would prefer to only see 1st person when playing Expert mode.

[BlackSix]

That's disappointing. I would prefer to only see 1st person when playing Expert mode.

I understand but in the current situation we can't do otherwise.

[Panzerlang]

I begin to worry that the Digital Nature engine isn't quite fit for purpose. My biggest worry is that servers will be unable to field a decent amount of airborne AI with which to spice-up MP campaigns. CloD has a far more complex engine, yet is able to handle a decent amount of AI too. And 1st-person bailouts AND a chance of parachute failure.

 

Some of the apparent issues are, individually, of little importance but they each amount to levels of immersion and collectively they may have a significant impact on the perceived overall quality of the sim.

[FuriousMeow]

I begin to worry that the Digital Nature engine isn't quite fit for purpose. My biggest worry is that servers will be unable to field a decent amount of airborne AI with which to spice-up MP campaigns. CloD has a far more complex engine, yet is able to handle a decent amount of AI too. And 1st-person bailouts AND a chance of parachute failure.

 

Some of the apparent issues are, individually, of little importance but they each amount to levels of immersion and collectively they may have a significant impact on the perceived overall quality of the sim.

 

You can have unlimited AI in the air when they don't abide by the same physics as the players. Fortunately here, the all aircraft obey the same physics.

 

Its not the engine, its the lack of what one engine models that allows it to have so many AI.

 

No two engines perform the same either or do things the same, there are a lot of things DN does that other engines can't do - even the fabled engine you mention above. Such as proper ground handling, trees that mean something and not just eye candy, clouds out to the horizon and in varying density amounts.

Edited May 5, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[Tab]

You can have unlimited AI in the air when they don't abide by the same physics as the players. Fortunately here, the all aircraft obey the same physics.

 

Its not the engine, its the lack of what one engine models that allows it to have so many AI.

 

No two engines perform the same either or do things the same, there are a lot of things DN does that other engines can't do - even the fabled engine you mention above. Such as proper ground handling, trees that mean something and not just eye candy, clouds out to the horizon and in varying density amounts.

It's all about optimization and not about what an engine can model.

MP performance for clients is still way worse than SP performance givern the same aircraft number, although it should be the other way around. But it got a bit better with the last patch, so it's something being worked on.

[FuriousMeow]

It's all about optimization and not about what an engine can model.

MP performance for clients is still way worse than SP performance givern the same aircraft number, although it should be the other way around. But it got a bit better with the last patch, so it's something being worked on.

 

This is unrelated to what I was responding to. Performance itself is going to vary until the final product. However, MP in RoF is quite stable and significantly smoother with 40 aircraft in the air while 30 aircraft in SP puts a lot of load on the CPU.

Edited May 5, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[Panzerlang]

You can have unlimited AI in the air when they don't abide by the same physics as the players. Fortunately here, the all aircraft obey the same physics.

 

Its not the engine, its the lack of what one engine models that allows it to have so many AI.

 

No two engines perform the same either or do things the same, there are a lot of things DN does that other engines can't do - even the fabled engine you mention above. Such as proper ground handling, trees that mean something and not just eye candy, clouds out to the horizon and in varying density amounts.

 

I'm not sure what "proper" ground handling means here. Sure, the planes in CloD can be squirrily on the ground until one is used to them and develops the finesse required.

 

The non-collidable trees are down to the devs choosing 'speed trees', I don't believe it's a limitation in the engine per se.

 

And aren't the clouds a graphics-rendering issue? Same as the pop-up houses etc. Given more GPU power I'm sure the pop-up bubble could be extended.

 

As for the AI and physics thereof, the CloD AI is pretty dumb but I don't see its planes doing anything that defies the general laws of physics. BoS AI is smarter but if it's using superior physics calculations they're not evident to me particularly.

Edited May 5, 2014 by II/JG3Siggi

[Brano]

In old sturm and in ClOD (but this is only my personal asumption) AI planes use different FM than players.It is simplified FM.

In RoF and eventualy BoS AI use same FM as player=complex one.

Question remains,to which extent is AI FM required to be 100% of players full FM.This is very sensitive point,as some would argue that AI must follow same FM as player and some would sacrifice certain part of full FM to have more CPU potential put into more planes in the air.

And what is THE answer? Ofcourse,42

[DD_Arthur]

I don't think the amount of a.i. able to be put into a map has anything to do with the flight model it uses.  Having the a.i. use the same flight model as players is a big bonus.

 

In the Digital Nature engine every a.i. object that moves and functions has a "brain".  This is what limits the amount of a.i. available.  Lots of a.i. puts much more load on the cpu.   Putting thirty planes in the air in RoF single player is much more demanding on a system than seventy players on a multiplayer server.

[BraveSirRobin]

I don't think the amount of a.i. able to be put into a map has anything to do with the flight model it uses.  

 

It does.  If the AI uses a simplified flight model it will require less processor cycles to deal with AI flight control decisions.  The more realistic the AI, the fewer AI that can be included.

 

edit...  I obviously need to type faster...

Edited May 5, 2014 by BraveSirRobin

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Having the a.i. use the same flight model as players is a big bonus.

This. As far as I can tell RoF and BoS have competent ai simulation models which doesn't gain them any priveledges compared to a player while latter has his expirience as advantage.

 

Modeling simplyfied FMs for ais is a serious issue that brings lots of issues, as a War Thunder cosed beta tester I know what things might lead to (anyone remembers uncatchable bombers traveling with 600+ km/h or Tie-Fighter like Chaikas?).

 

It's difficult to simplify FMs without effecting performance and handling significantly and it requires a good ammount of work to correct such issues once the decision has been made.

Edited May 5, 2014 by [Jg26]5tuk4

[DD_Arthur]

Of course it does and your explanation goes on to explain why.

 

The more complex the AI, the more calculations required to 'fly' the AI, the fewer AI can be managed before the CPU is unable to manage things adequately.

 

Our PCs are only capable of so much before things start to slow down.

 

This is the one reason why in other sims the AI uses a simplified FM.

 

 

Don't the later versions of IL2 1946 share the same flight model for player and a.i.?   Its a benefit but its not magic.  The a.i. could have a simplified FM but the devs see this - correctly - as a selling point for the game.  Unlike other flight sims the Digital Nature engine deals with a.i. by giving it a brain.  This has advantages and disadvantages.   One of the disadvantages is a limit to the amount of a.i. objects that are able to be used on each map before the sim comes to a ( very smooth ) halt.

 

Making this run as efficiently as possible is one of the reasons damaged planes and parts disappear so quickly.

[FuriousMeow]

I'm not sure what "proper" ground handling means here. Sure, the planes in CloD can be squirrily on the ground until one is used to them and develops the finesse required.

 

Really? You can side slip down the runway, there is no lateral grip with the tires on the ground. You can NOT ground loop in CloD.

 

And the AI rolled the Beaufighters 360 degrees almost instantly. Yeah, the AI does not use the same physics as the humans and what they were performing as obvious that it was very simplified.

 

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=21719&page=2

Edited May 5, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[FuriousMeow]

So dn engine is great for air quake, offline not, co-ops or mds with ai involved not.

 

Awesome.

 

What? That is just nonsense.

 

Its great for simulating combat on the Eastern Front. There weren't frequent mass air raids like the Western Front, so you don't need hundreds of airplanes in the sky.

 

There are tons of simulated battles and wars in RoF, the same thing will be done here and this title fully capable of it. Honestly, responses here just leave me flummoxed very often. "1+1= Up yours, I can't math so I'm gonna make up my own answer!"

Edited May 5, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[DD_Arthur]

No.

 

 

It's a balancing act. Trying to manage performance with available system resources versus complex features.

 

As others have stated, there are different ways of prioritising.

 

On the current topic, it's a choice between greater AI numbers with a simplified FM or a fewer number of AI with a more complex FM.

 

Aha, thanks for the info Extreme_One.   I agree its a balancing act.  Personally, I'm not too bothered by whether or not its important to have dozens of a.i. aircraft in the sky at one time.  I'm more interested in what  decisions the a.i. makes during its flight.  I would imagine making a.i. behave like a breather is the most difficult thing to do in any computer game.

 

What I think is concerning is that although the Digital Nature engine gives the a.i. a brain, if RoF is anything to go by this intellect is wasted on it.

Edited May 5, 2014 by arthursmedley

[FuriousMeow]

What I think is concerning is that although the Digital Nature engine gives the a.i. a brain, if RoF is anything to go by this intellect is wasted on it.

 

And yet if you put up a player with only a week's worth of playing air combat games, they'd be getting waxed by that same AI.

 

AI is a wasted effort in every manner. They are boring, predictable and worthless. I play QMB just to test out certain things. I go online if I want a real challenge, and that is with every single air combat game I've ever played which goes back to the first Red Baron.

 

Either the AI relies on a simplified FM to cheat its way to victory, or it has a real FM that will still throttle a newbie to this genre but is still beatable.

 

If you are playing against an AI that uses a simple FM, then you aren't playing against anything worthwhile - it may as well just be a F-16 against your Sopwith Camel because it sure as hell isn't abiding by any realistic restrictions that match the plane's 3D model.

Edited May 5, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[BraveSirRobin]

The main problem with AI is that people want the impossible.  They want AI that will put up a good fight, but eventually die.  That is difficult enough, but people also want the AI to be able to continue to do that as the human playing against the AI gets better at playing the game.  There is no way the game developer can win under those conditions.

[DD_fruitbat]

Best ai around at the moment is il2 1946 post 4.10 or 4.11 patch. Beats RoFs, Clods and this game by miles.

[DD_bongodriver]

very true, team daidalos have nailed AI

[DD_Arthur]

And yet if you put up a player with only a week's worth of playing air combat games, they'd be getting waxed by that same AI.

 

AI is a wasted effort in every manner. They are boring, predictable and worthless. I play QMB just to test out certain things. I go online if I want a real challenge, and that is with every single air combat game I've ever played which goes back to the first Red Baron.

 

 

 

 I agree.  The real challenge is always going to be against fellow breathers but the great majority of people who will buy this sim will not be interested in multiplayer - which is fair enough.  After the first week or so they'll be looking for a challenging experience.  At the moment the a.i. in RoF can break and make a downward spiral just like you or I.  Or do a half roll and fly inverted for several seconds - just like you or I. Or fly straight and level, etc, etc.

 

It is very predictable regardless of the FM it uses.  Its like this in BoS now.  Load up the QMB.  Fly against the 109.  Start at 6000 m.  Latch onto a 109.  How soon will you find yourself at ground level?

 

Also, with these limitations in single player,  a lack of coop mode or mds online, etc. isn't Mr. fruitbat right?   After all, the DN engine  was originally developed to er...power what was primarily an online combat flight sim.

The main problem with AI is that people want the impossible.  They want AI that will put up a good fight, but eventually die.  That is difficult enough, but people also want the AI to be able to continue to do that as the human playing against the AI gets better at playing the game.  There is no way the game developer can win under those conditions.

 

Hmmm....I think this is a very good point.  I also agree that what TD has done with IL2 1946 is something worth aiming for.

[II/JG17KaC_Wolfe]

I think the AI I just encountered seemed pretty good. The gunners were dangerous and the the AI threw the plane all over.  The developers should be applauded for the efforts they are putting into this game and remember its only 46% complete.

 

The graphics are absolutely superb on a high end rig.

 

Best game I have played in years and totally addictive.

[BraveSirRobin]

Hmmm....I think this is a very good point.  I also agree that what TD has done with IL2 1946 is something worth aiming for.

 

That AI is the result of many years of development.

[FuriousMeow]

Also, with these limitations in single player,  a lack of coop mode or mds online, etc. isn't Mr. fruitbat right?   After all, the DN engine  was originally developed to er...power what was primarily an online combat flight sim.

 

No, he's very wrong. Case in point - Rise of Flight. The "coop mode" is a throw-back term, it means nothing except in the context of the old Il-2 series only. RoF's current online servers are "coop mode" - they have clear mission objectives and those missions objectives yield results - such as better planes being available based on defense or destruction of factories.

 

This "coop mode" nonsense is old, and died from exhaustion - just like the horse it rode in on.

 

Online combat flight sims aren't dogfight only, that just an eventual outcome that will always occur. You want a coop? I don't know how many times it must be repeated, but the tools and functionality are fully there and present in RoF, and will be in BoS when its reached it's completion, so go try out a coop in RoF because every battle or war that has been run through RoF runs exactly like the "coop mode." You do NOT need seperate labels to achieve the same end result. Multi-player is called multi-player in RoF and BoS because there is NO dogfight mode.

[DD_fruitbat]

That AI is the result of many years of development.

No, it was a result of fatcat reworking it in either 4.10 or 4.11 cant remember which. Up until then it had barely changed in years.

[FuriousMeow]

Hmmm....I think this is a very good point.  I also agree that what TD has done with IL2 1946 is something worth aiming for.

 

TD did not build their own game. TD has access to the source code though, so they are improving and patching a 13 year old title that had everything already laid out for them, they just have to tweak things here and there. Have them start from scratch, they won't be able to just focus on refining since they will be focused on building.

[DD_fruitbat]

You completly miss the point meow, it was nothing to do with co-ops, but nevermind.

[FuriousMeow]

That was brought up by Arthur and I responded to him. I already responded to your post, but nevermind indeed because you never had a point just an off-the-cuff jump to conclusions one line post in which you did bring up co-ops, so I'm guessing you don't even know your own point since they weren't the point but were in fact in your post as a point.

Edited May 5, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[216th_Peterla]

I loose the point :-(

[ATAG_Bliss]

No, he's very wrong. Case in point - Rise of Flight. The "coop mode" is a throw-back term, it means nothing except in the context of the old Il-2 series only. RoF's current online servers are "coop mode" - they have clear mission objectives and those missions objectives yield results - such as better planes being available based on defense or destruction of factories.

 

This "coop mode" nonsense is old, and died from exhaustion - just like the horse it rode in on.

 

Online combat flight sims aren't dogfight only, that just an eventual outcome that will always occur. You want a coop? I don't know how many times it must be repeated, but the tools and functionality are fully there and present in RoF, and will be in BoS when its reached it's completion, so go try out a coop in RoF because every battle or war that has been run through RoF runs exactly like the "coop mode." You do NOT need seperate labels to achieve the same end result. Multi-player is called multi-player in RoF and BoS because there is NO dogfight mode.

 

You don't seem to know much about ROF coop either.  1st question: How many players are allowed in a ROF coop mission?  Then you'll find the 1st difference between the titles.  I take it you've also don't know or heard  anything about SEOW/ADW etc?  A 30 player limit like ROF has, doesn't exactly "cut it" for a real coop/campaign like in IL2/IL2COD/

 

Some people actually want to fly in an environment that has 100 humans on a server with lots of stuff going on.  That is the point. And that is also the reason why you're lucky to find 30 people online at peak time anytime during the day for ROF online.  It's not capable of much else than what fruitbat said.  So there's no reason to insult people you don't agree with.  Just realize some of those people have experienced what was possible with the old game or IL2COD.   And the DN engine is far from making that possible again in it's current form.  It's not even close.

[DD_Arthur]

No, he's very wrong. Case in point - Rise of Flight. The "coop mode" is a throw-back term, it means nothing except in the context of the old Il-2 series only. RoF's current online servers are "coop mode" - they have clear mission objectives and those missions objectives yield results - such as better planes being available based on defense or destruction of factories.

 

This "coop mode" nonsense is old, and died from exhaustion - just like the horse it rode in on.

 

Online combat flight sims aren't dogfight only, that just an eventual outcome that will always occur. You want a coop? I don't know how many times it must be repeated, but the tools and functionality are fully there and present in RoF, and will be in BoS when its reached it's completion, so go try out a coop in RoF because every battle or war that has been run through RoF runs exactly like the "coop mode." You do NOT need seperate labels to achieve the same end result. Multi-player is called multi-player in RoF and BoS because there is NO dogfight mode.

 

Sorry but I disagree with you almost entirely.  What we have at present in RoF and BoS and in CLoD for that matter is a dogfight.  Looks fantastic and  has some extra bells and whistles but its a rinse and repeat dogfight none the less.  All server operators will feel the same old constraints; try and limit respawns or time limits or use the a.i. creatively so people don't act like kamakazi's or idiots and they'll worry the online population will desert their server for one offering instant gratification.

 

The present multiplayer interface with its big scores and skull and crossbones screams "Quake!!!!" to me.

 

However..............as has been pointed out, even though we now have the full map, weather, vehicles, flak, QMB, multiplayer and more than two-thirds of the plane set, intriguingly my game is still marked at only 46% complete.   There is surely an awful lot more to come in the way of functionality and refinement before release. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hope.

Edited May 5, 2014 by arthursmedley

[Panzerlang]

 You can NOT ground loop in CloD.

 

 

 

Er, lol whut?!  Until I learned to hold the stick full back on landings ground-loops were my standard finale of just about every landing. Maybe you haven't played it since the TF mods though?

[BraveSirRobin]

Sorry but I disagree with you almost entirely.  What we have at present in RoF and BoS and in CLoD for that matter is a dogfight.  Looks fantastic and  has some extra bells and whistles but its a rinse and repeat dogfight none the less.  All server operators will feel the same old constraints; try and limit respawns or time limits or use the a.i. creatively so people don't act like kamakazi's or idiots and they'll worry the online population will desert their server for one offering instant gratification.

 

You are confusing what is possible with what is currently popular on the servers.  

 

Coops are absolutely possible.  They are not popular.  That is not the fault of the game.

 

BTW, there is nothing that can be done about kamikazes.

Edited May 5, 2014 by BraveSirRobin

[Panzerlang]

And yet if you put up a player with only a week's worth of playing air combat games, they'd be getting waxed by that same AI.

 

AI is a wasted effort in every manner. They are boring, predictable and worthless. I play QMB just to test out certain things. I go online if I want a real challenge, and that is with every single air combat game I've ever played which goes back to the first Red Baron.

 

Either the AI relies on a simplified FM to cheat its way to victory, or it has a real FM that will still throttle a newbie to this genre but is still beatable.

 

If you are playing against an AI that uses a simple FM, then you aren't playing against anything worthwhile - it may as well just be a F-16 against your Sopwith Camel because it sure as hell isn't abiding by any realistic restrictions that match the plane's 3D model.

 

You're kind of missing the obvious. If an online server has nothing but humans it's little more than an air-quake experience. Realistically you want to be facing a mix of rookies/average pilots (the AI) and a far fewer number of aces/veterans (the humans). Well, that's if you're after a historically realistic scenario, aka online wars.

 

I find it tedious in the extreme to know every plane I meet on a server will be flown by a human, the vast majority of whom are very competant. Just as I'd find it equally tedious to know every plane was AI. The not knowing for sure if I'm going to get a relatively easy kill or have to fight hard for my virtual life is part of the spice of a well run online war scenario. If I want air-quake I know where to find it, it's called War Thunder.

Edited May 5, 2014 by II/JG3Siggi

[SYN_Mike77]

But I really hate the 15 player limit in CloD.  Hey making crap up IS fun!

 

Siggi:  A mix of human and ai is not only possible with the DN engine it happens quite often in some servers with RoF. 

Edited May 5, 2014 by SYN_Mike77

[BraveSirRobin]

You're kind of missing the obvious.

 

He's not the only one.  I also missed that you're in favor of more AI because it sucks, and is therefor more realistic.  Maybe that argument is not so obvious as you think it is.

 

BTW, I despise the AI in MP missions.  If I want to fight AI I'll stick with SP.

[AndyJWest]

Siggi, you want AI aircraft included in multiplayer because it's "historically realistic"? 

[SYN_Haashashin]

People, this topic is for the discussion of DD 63, not about what an engine can do or can not do. keep it on topic, please. All following off-topic posts will be deleted.

 

Thanks

[Bearcat]

I begin to worry that the Digital Nature engine isn't quite fit for purpose. My biggest worry is that servers will be unable to field a decent amount of airborne AI with which to spice-up MP campaigns. CloD has a far more complex engine, yet is able to handle a decent amount of AI too. And 1st-person bailouts AND a chance of parachute failure.

 

Some of the apparent issues are, individually, of little importance but they each amount to levels of immersion and collectively they may have a significant impact on the perceived overall quality of the sim.

 

I wouldn't worry about that. I think we still have not seen what this engine can do just as we could not see with the original IL2 engine would be forthcoming with the modified engine that brought us Forgotten Battles.. The FB engine was the same orinal engine but modified, opened up, tweaked or what ever you want to call it.. It was not a new engine .. just as the one used for BoS is not ..

 

In old sturm and in ClOD (but this is only my personal asumption) AI planes use different FM than players.It is simplified FM.

In RoF and eventualy BoS AI use same FM as player=complex one.

Question remains,to which extent is AI FM required to be 100% of players full FM.This is very sensitive point,as some would argue that AI must follow same FM as player and some would sacrifice certain part of full FM to have more CPU potential put into more planes in the air.

And what is THE answer? Ofcourse,42

 

If I am not mistaken the FM was the same.. it was just the AI flying them that used the physics in a more "programmed" way for lack of a better term. The AI used the CEM perfectly .. where as we cold not do that..

 

Of course it does and your explanation goes on to explain why.

 

The more complex the AI, the more calculations required to 'fly' the AI, the fewer AI can be managed before the CPU is unable to manage things adequately.

 

Our PCs are only capable of so much before things start to slow down.

 

This is the one reason why in other sims the AI uses a simplified FM.

 

Exactly.. but the FM is the same.

 

Don't the later versions of IL2 1946 share the same flight model for player and a.i.?   Its a benefit but its not magic.  The a.i. could have a simplified FM but the devs see this - correctly - as a selling point for the game.  Unlike other flight sims the Digital Nature engine deals with a.i. by giving it a brain.  This has advantages and disadvantages.   One of the disadvantages is a limit to the amount of a.i. objects that are able to be used on each map before the sim comes to a ( very smooth ) halt.

 

Making this run as efficiently as possible is one of the reasons damaged planes and parts disappear so quickly.

 

I think you are right..

 

Best ai around at the moment is il2 1946 post 4.10 or 4.11 patch. Beats RoFs, Clods and this game by miles.

 

Agreed... in fact this AI is so good sometimes you can't tell if it is a human or not.. but the FM is still the same .. it is the AI that is improved .. not the AI FM..

 

TD did not build their own game. TD has access to the source code though, so they are improving and patching a 13 year old title that had everything already laid out for them, they just have to tweak things here and there. Have them start from scratch, they won't be able to just focus on refining since they will be focused on building.

 

This is true .. but in reality that is all that these devs need to do... but first they need to finish the sim on time or as close to it as possible ... I have no doubt that once the sim is out and established they will go back and look at some other things.. from my understanding of the DN engine what we have seen in BoS and RoF so far between the two sims is not a full indication of what the engine itself is capable of.. just as FB 1.0 was not a full indicator of that 46 4.12.2 would be..

 

Back OT... One of the things I have noticed about the "unlocks" in BoS that I like BTW.. (I was skeptical at first.. the whole notion of "unlocks" smacked of some kind of arcade game to me.. ) it is that they seem to follow a logical pattern that is relevant to the sim.. and the simming.. not just "bigger, better guns" ... it seems to me that it looks more like patterns of upgrades.. as opposed to "power ups"

[Lusekofte]

I flown the PE-2 for a week and I love it, my only concern right now is stutter when I am low over airfield with others in it. The game almost freeze. I moved to  a new house so it might be my internet connection.

[StarLightSong]

42

 

 

 

 

seriously, I'd love to experience 40-50 planes in the air, that would be crazy good.