Jump to content

Simple FM discussion


Recommended Posts

Hello all,

 

i am pretty sure that this has been discussed before, but i can not find exactly what i want to say.

 

We all know that the current AI FM uses the same FM we all have. I would like to know what is the major advantage in the current stage. 

We have many drawbacks using this AI FM, developement is extrem slowly and every new patch we got new bugs. As a programmer i know that advanced methods are sexy, but often it leads to a complexity no one understands anymore or it consumes huge resources. 

 

Wouldn't it be the time to stop development of this AI FM and start doing it better. Many pilots lost its fun with bad AI and crave to old IL2 standards. Year after year we hope to get a AI that sticks to some standards. Seeing the development here is extremly slow and new bugs occure recently is leaving me hopeless. As a single player it is driving me nuts seeing how bad AI is flying comparing the first impressions i had 20 years ago with IL2. 

 

Flying a campaign is so frustrating. 

 

- AI is still crashing ground, happens in 1 from 10 missions

- If you are not the leader you have no radio message system, you can not call for help even if you are high ranked

- Radio messages appear endlessly

- AI is very passive, it wont engange properly or it wont help you

- In the current version AI wont hit enemy fighter and shoots long bursts

- AI is only circling, in career i have never seen advanced dog fighting

 

Please, if the current AI FM is too complex, give us a simple AI FM with all it advantages. After 10 years trying it might be the time to think it over.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm I like the idea of the fighters I'm dogfighting having the exact same FM, but for the bombers and transports I could not care less. So if it helps having massive swarms, I'd much rather have 20 or so C47s to attack than 5 C47s that somehow try to dodge my bullets a tiny bit more accurately than with a simple FM.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not something that is that easy to turn around.  Currently the AI has to fly the plane the same as a human.  What you want is to let the AI fly a simplified FM to solve some of the problems that you see. I don't think you would get what you want using the solution you are suggesting.

 

The problem that I see is that the AI does not fly a plane LIKE a human.  It makes many micro decisions where a human makes a larger decision and then performs the micro actions to implement that decision.  What you are looking for (I think - and it's the same thing that I want to see) is better decision making at the macro level.  I am being shot at, therefore I will - loop, barrel roll, roll and break ... something else.  Then the AI goes through the mechanics to make that decision happen.

 

Even for the simplified AI flying you still need that macro decision making process, which I believe is what is lacking.  Unlike you I have definitely seen improvements in that regard, but there is more work to be done.  Perhaps going to a simplified FM would speed the process.  Don't know one way or the other.  However, once you bring in the simplified FM you trade bad flying for UFO behavior.  

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

One needs only to face off against the DCS WWII AI to see that having a simplified AI flight model is not a solution that you want to go with. That sim is also eventually moving to a more complex modeling which I think vindicates what IL-2 has been doing all along.

 

Pat makes the excellent point that what we really want to see are more macro level decisions. Essentially a greater bag of tricks. We've seen major improvements here from the AI strafing targets better to better evasive and defensive flying when attacked. Can it get better? Sure absolutely. Does changing the paradigm behind how the AI operates get us there... no I don't think it does and it takes us back a step.

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Having done a bit of AI programming myself I second what the others are saying- it's the high-level decision-making that's the really hard part in making convincing behaviors. FEAR is a first-person shooter that made a lot of waves when it came out due to aggressive, dynamic enemy behavior, and if you read the documentation on it you find that the key was developing a robust decision-making priority system for the AI. Lots of games use more short-term stimulus-response, and that tends to mean both simple behavior and a tendency to get stuck in loops between two states.

 

When I get caught in endless looping dogfights in Il-2, that reads like a straightforward short-term evasion response being continuously applied until I close the angles sufficiently to reach a breakpoint and snap them out of it. It feels like the AI often responds on a second-by-second basis without memory (turning endlessly hasn't been getting me an advantage, I should try something else) or the willingness to assume a temporary disadvantage for a longer-term gain (if I perform a lag displacement roll, I won't get to make a tough deflection shot, but it'll set me up on their tail).

 

Implementing full physics for the AI planes is a tall order, but now that it's already in-game, the work is done. The challenge of making convincing decision-making for AI aircraft is present regardless of how they're implemented physically, and it's a really tough thing to get right.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I think AI is not that bad for individual planes, the problem comes with groups of planes as in most cases they kept acting as if each pilot were "solo". It looks like the AI leadership is null, aside of pretty basic commands mostly based on waypoints.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JG27_Steini said:

We all know that the current AI FM uses the same FM we all have. I would like to know what is the major advantage in the current stage. 

We have many drawbacks using this AI FM, developement is extrem slowly and every new patch we got new bugs. As a programmer i know that advanced methods are sexy, but often it leads to a complexity no one understands anymore or it consumes huge resources. 

 

Without further information, I wouldn't assume that this FM scheme slows down development or causes bugs. If anything, it could be easier because there is only one FM to develop instead of two.

 

As others have said, the main advantage is that you (should) never see AI doing things that are impossible for the player. Unfortunately, this kind of UFO behaviour is all too common in other games.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

 

Without further information, I wouldn't assume that this FM scheme slows down development or causes bugs. If anything, it could be easier because there is only one FM to develop instead of two.

 

This ^

 

I'm fairly certain that earlier air combat sims use simplified flight models for AI not because it is 'easier to program' two different FMs, but because there simply wasn't the processing power available to use the full FM with multiple AI aircraft. It was a compromise necessary at the time. It isn't necessary now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with respect to bombers and transports but not for fighters.  The reason I spend far more time playing IL2 than DCS is that AI fighters do not use a realistic flight model in DCS.  Typically they complete maneuvers that are way over the top and would be impossible in real life.  Makes dog fighting extremely frustrating and boring.  I think one of the best features of IL2 is that the AI uses the same flight model as I do.

Edited by S10JlAbraxis
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunno about the AI development. What I do know is that I hated old IL2 AI just as much but for different reasons. Dynamic campaign in old IL2 sucked way more than anyone would like to admit. Old AI also interfered in online scenarios often breaking the show altoghether.

 

I don`t know if scrapping what we have now is the answer. Maybe an alternative simple AI mode but I can`t see the point in that.

45 minutes ago, Mandoble said:

Actually I think AI is not that bad for individual planes, the problem comes with groups of planes as in most cases they kept acting as if each pilot were "solo". It looks like the AI leadership is null, aside of pretty basic commands mostly based on waypoints.

The AI does perform team tasks. It just seems that one needs to set up a case for that. I`ve tried doing different things with AI and one time it does everything I`d like, another it seems just lost.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JG27_Steini said:

 

- If you are not the leader you have no radio message system, you can not call for help even if you are high ranked

 

 

This is nothing to do with the AI's FM; but it and the whole of the radio comms between the player, the AI planes and the ground really does need rethinking and reprogramming. It is the worst performing part of the whole sim, whether you fly SP or MP.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AndyJWest said:

 

This ^

 

I'm fairly certain that earlier air combat sims use simplified flight models for AI not because it is 'easier to program' two different FMs, but because there simply wasn't the processing power available to use the full FM with multiple AI aircraft. It was a compromise necessary at the time. It isn't necessary now.

 

Red baron had the AI flying the same FM as the player 20+ years ago.  Now it could be that neither said AI nor FM were all that much to write home about, but it was done.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for you opinions. I dont know how many of you fly the old IL2. Yes the AI did rarerly strange maneuver, but it was in no way an advantage, it was fun. Fighting here AI is is 90% circling. For every advanced pilot it boring. I am sorry but this discussion goes for over 8 years now. We had several FM updates, we had several DM updates, the engine was updates several times. I really would appreciate more manpower in AI or at least an Development Diary about those problems (as we had for DM). We all know that there will be no major impact here, because the problems are massive and the progress is homeopathic.

Edited by JG27_Steini
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The AI can be effective but I think that a lot depends on the settings and the use of the mission editor to force it do certain things, for example flying as a pair and if one is damaged they both try to escape.

 

What I don't think we'll see for a very long time is things like scissor or rolling scissors, or even basic manoeuvres like a Split-S.  Having said that, I don't often see those things online because combat happens so fast and you tend not to have time.

 

von Tom

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JG27_Steini said:

Thanks for you opinions. I dont know how many of you fly the old IL2. Yes the AI did rarerly strange maneuver, but it was in no way an advantage, it was fun. Fighting here AI is is 90% circling. For every advanced pilot it boring. I am sorry but this discussion goes for over 8 years now. We had several FM updates, we had several DM updates, the engine was updates several times. I really would appreciate more manpower in AI. We all know that there will be no major impact here, because the problems are massive and the progress homeopathic.

 

I think there is a misunderstanding (or at least, a disagreement) as to what 'FM' means in this context. As I've understood from what the developers have said, the 'FM' they are referring to is only the actual 'flight modelling physics' part of the code - the part that actually takes in current aircraft position & velocity, control movements etc as input, and updates the position etc of the aircraft. This has nothing to do with the 'AI' combat decision-making part of the code, so simplifying the 'FM' isn't going to alter AI combat behaviour.  It is the AI that needs more work, not the FM. And the AI is being worked on, albeit not as fast as we'd like.

Edited by AndyJWest
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I flew the old Il2 from the beginning and yes, some of the AI behavior there was pretty appalling...it took time to be polished.

 

There has been steady AI improvement here, and the rate of improvement seems to be increasing. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JG27_Steini said:

AI is only circling, in career i have never seen advanced dog fighting

 

You aren't playing single player enough, then, because I see the AI perform tremendously good maneuvers all the time - both in career mode and scripted campaigns.

2 hours ago, von_Tom said:

What I don't think we'll see for a very long time is things like scissor or rolling scissors, or even basic manoeuvres like a Split-S. 

 

AI fighters definitely perform Split-S maneuvers. I've been flying the Kerch-Eltigen campaign recently, and I've seen it more than once.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

You aren't playing single player enough, then, because I see the AI perform tremendously good maneuvers all the time - both in career mode and scripted campaigns.

 

AI fighters definitely perform Split-S maneuvers. I've been flying the Kerch-Eltigen campaign recently, and I've seen it more than once.

I play mostly online but I do run into AI fighters on Berloga sometimes when things are empty. I'm not saying the AI is perfect, it does still tend to default to a circle after a while, but they use vertical maneuvering a lot more often now and are generally smarter about energy advantages.

The easiest way to tell the AI on Berloga is the lack of erratic flip-flopping when you get on their tail, lmao.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

You aren't playing single player enough, then, because I see the AI perform tremendously good maneuvers all the time - both in career mode and scripted campaigns.

 

AI fighters definitely perform Split-S maneuvers. I've been flying the Kerch-Eltigen campaign recently, and I've seen it more than once.

 

Split-S is generally an escape maneuver, unless it is used to bounce an enemy well beneath you.  If you split -S in a more or less co-alt fight you should just keep going.  The Ai does tend to try to return to the fight.  One thing the AI does very well is make the best of a zoom.  I'm pretty impressed with how much altitude they can recoup.  

 

The circling behavior usually happens down low, but that is appropriate.  Not that many options at that point.

 

I am sticking to the idea that it is the higher level "thought process" that needs to be extended.  Start with the thought and then embed the fine grain AI to act on the thought.  I also would like to see the devs slow down the decision loop.  This could not only create more human behavior but it could potentially save a lot of CPU.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The AI is fairly conservative and decent at fighting at high altitude. The problem is when you drag them into the floor they tend to run out of options, and don't have the foresight to disengage to fight another day. I'd like to see them have a good repetoire of desperation moves, like cutting throttle and weaving violently to try and force an overshoot, stuff that maybe isn't optimal but is at least exciting and varied, but I understand that that would be hard to program to work for every airplane

 

Also they can't really lead shots very well at all, but once upon a time they were actually decent shooters, so I'm considering that a bug

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JG27_Steini said:

Thanks for you opinions. I dont know how many of you fly the old IL2. Yes the AI did rarerly strange maneuver, but it was in no way an advantage, it was fun. Fighting here AI is is 90% circling. For every advanced pilot it boring. I am sorry but this discussion goes for over 8 years now. We had several FM updates, we had several DM updates, the engine was updates several times. I really would appreciate more manpower in AI or at least an Development Diary about those problems (as we had for DM). We all know that there will be no major impact here, because the problems are massive and the progress is homeopathic.

 

Since 2002 I've flown something from the IL-2 series essentially from the original Sturmovik to the very latest in Great Battles. Many of us here date back to then. We remember what it was like in the early days and how that evolved. I also remembered it doing the most ridiculous rolling evasive maneuvers because the AI didn't use the same flight model as the human pilot did. I'm glad those days are behind us.

 

We've had several FM updates, DM updates AND AI updates. Ignoring those and the progress made doesn't help make the point.

 

I don't think you'll find anyone here arguing that the AI should stay absolutely static and not progress. Today is perhaps the second time where I've had to remind folks that 1CGS is an absolutely tiny dev studio compare to most out there. For a while they did not have an AI programmer on staff. They made due with what they had. They have one now and thanks to that, we've seen some renewed progress on the AI. It continues to get better.

Edited by ShamrockOneFive
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

1CGS is an absolutely tiny dev studio compare to most out there

 

 

Thats the point. Several moduls in the game have been revised several times. Several SP moduls are standard from the beginning and they have been left behind. Tragic is that some of the moduls are the core moduls for the SP part of the game. I feel the SP community is not strong enough for any demands. When you have been flying simulation for over 30 years now it really hurts. Each update we see shiny new models or graphic updates, but i encourage you to press the "tilde" key during a mission (not as leader) and you will see what i mean. Why revising existing and functioning modules when core modules are just not in game or not working? 

Edited by JG27_Steini
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JG27_Steini said:

 

Thats the point. Several moduls in the game have been revised several times. Several SP moduls are standard from the beginning and they have been left behind. Tragic is that some of the moduls are the core moduls for the SP part of the game. I feel the SP community is not strong enough for any demands. When you have been flying simulation for over 30 years now it really hurts. Each update we see shiny new models or graphic updates, but i encourage you to press the "tilde" key during a mission (not as leader) and you will see what i mean. Why revising existing and functioning modules when core modules are just not in game or not working? 

 

The AI has also been revised several times.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JG27_Steini said:

 

Thats the point. Several moduls in the game have been revised several times. Several SP moduls are standard from the beginning and they have been left behind. Tragic is that some of the moduls are the core moduls for the SP part of the game. I feel the SP community is not strong enough for any demands. When you have been flying simulation for over 30 years now it really hurts. Each update we see shiny new models or graphic updates, but i encourage you to press the "tilde" key during a mission (not as leader) and you will see what i mean. Why revising existing and functioning modules when core modules are just not in game or not working? 

Just for discussion` sake, which sp core modules do you find missing? Please be more constructive.

 

I remember quite well what ShamrockOneFive described. I`m glad that AI is long gone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mac_Messer said:

Just for discussion` sake, which sp core modules do you find missing? Please be more constructive.

 

I remember quite well what ShamrockOneFive described. I`m glad that AI is long gone.

 

Following SP modules are not working or missing:

 

1. The current radio system is useless. If you are not the leader there are no options. This is the most anoying.

2. Even if you are high rank you fly often as a wingmen instead of leading a rookie other pilot. 

3. German squadron had smaller units (Staffel) with fixed orders and structures. In the campaign all is random.

4. Your wingmen is always following the flight leader. There is no "wingmen" implemented.

5. Radio messages are often endlessly, while fighting i have to listen to dozen of landing permissions and requestes.

6. There is no simple kill history to show when you have shot down which aircraft. 

7. AI is dump, while you are in fight it is just following the route. The is no chance to call for help.

8. A whole whole squad AI is fighting fighting low level a single target and crashing in to ground while the target is not watched.

 

There are many more things missing. The most anoying is the useless and bugged radio system and the bad mission AI.

3 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

The AI has also been revised several times.

 

You sure? I have not seen a news about it. Remember the DM? We had long before and after DD for it. Can't remember any similar for AI. Only a few notes for bug fixing. I might be wrong. 

18 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

You aren't playing single player enough, then, because I see the AI perform tremendously good maneuvers all the time - both in career mode and scripted campaigns.

 

AI fighters definitely perform Split-S maneuvers. I've been flying the Kerch-Eltigen campaign recently, and I've seen it more than once.

 

I currently play Moscow. The flight begins low, the enemy is arriving low, the IL2's are attacking low. That is my experience. At Kuban a few weeks ago it was all the same. Might be other in Bodenplatte, but for Moscow it is 95% circling. Got over 60 missions now. In what height are the fights in Bodenplatte mainly?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JG27_Steini said:

You sure? I have not seen a news about it. Remember the DM? We had long before and after DD for it. Can't remember any similar for AI. Only a few notes for bug fixing. I might be wrong.

🙄

Here:

Quote

It's February already and we continue to improve the project as a whole. In the next update, we plan to significantly improve the airframe damage calculations and the explosive and fragmentation damage calculations for all objects in the sim in general. More AI improvements are in the pipeline too - for instance, further improvements for the vertical maneuvering in a dogfight. We have found and fixed another possible culprit for the missing aircraft hit sounds in multiplayer. There are more other corrections and fixes being worked on simultaneously with the full-scale work on Normandy theater that is already underway.

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/?do=findComment&comment=891412

 

And here:

Quote

We're also working on further AI improvements, namely on how they dogfight. Update 4.005 will include these improvements. In the future, we'll begin working on its tactical level and on how they follow the commands. 4.005 will also contain new ground vehicles - Soviet and German fuel trucks and ambulance cars. There are many other improvements across the board - for instance, you'll better hear the hits on your aircraft in multiplayer.

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/?do=findComment&comment=897165

 

And here:

Quote

After completing the next iteration of improving lower level logic for air combat AI fighter aircraft - maneuvering and aiming, we have moved on to improvements in matters of the upper level - the choice of targets and operational solutions.

 

And here:

 

Quote

Today we have mostly images for you. Soon we'll be able to share news on the Battle of Normandy progress in various areas, but today we can show you the first in-game screenshots of Fw 190 A-6. This aircraft will include the assault modifications G3, G3/R5 and Sturmjager and is planned to be released in the coming update along with the new graphical effects and aircraft AI improvements.

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/?do=findComment&comment=1053869

 

And... if you'd like to do a bit of research you can examine the patch notes of which several have entire sections on AI improvements including Update 3.101, Update 3.201, 4.002, 4.003, 4.004 and onwards...

 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

🙄

Here:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/?do=findComment&comment=891412

 

And here:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/?do=findComment&comment=897165

 

And here:

 

And here:

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/?do=findComment&comment=1053869

 

And... if you'd like to do a bit of research you can examine the patch notes of which several have entire sections on AI improvements including Update 3.101, Update 3.201, 4.002, 4.003, 4.004 and onwards...

 

 

You dont get my point. The AI is bad and i wanted to say that more manpower is needed instead of rebuild the DM or new features that needs resources. The AI is way more important than other functions and it improves sure, but in which timeframe? Tryout a new moscow campaign and fly some mission, i am sure you will understand my point better. A current bug is that AI is not engaging anymore or fighter shooting endlessly without hitting. 

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

There is no such thing as a simple FM discussion.

 

This 'FM' discussion isn't even about FMs. There are legitimate concerns regarding the slow pace of development of the AI - which is what this is actually about - but this isn't remotely the way to voice them.

 

 

Just now, JG27_Steini said:

 

You dont get my point. The AI is bad and i wanted to say that more manpower is needed instead of rebuild the DM or new features that needs resources. The AI is way more important than other functions and it improves sure, but in which timeframe? Tryout a new moscow campaign and fly some mission, i am sure you will understand my point better. A current bug is that AI is not engaging anymore or fighter shooting endlessly without hitting. 

 Has anyone else reported this bug? Have you?

Edited by AndyJWest
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JG27_Steini said:

 

You dont get my point. The AI is bad and i wanted to say that more manpower is needed instead of rebuild the DM or new features that needs resources. The AI is way more important than other functions and it improves sure, but in which timeframe? Tryout a new moscow campaign and fly some mission, i am sure you will understand my point better. A current bug is that AI is not engaging anymore or fighter shooting endlessly without hitting. 

 

You keep making different points. Your last point was that you had not seen news about it but clearly there was. You started with a point about flight modeling needing to be simplified so the AI would fly better but that was shown to not be necessarily what you then were asking about. Then there was some interlude about radio commands. That's different then again.

 

Now your new point seems to finally acknowledge that the AI has indeed improved after previously denying it ("You sure? I have not seen a news about it. Remember the DM? We had long before and after DD for it. Can't remember any similar for AI.") but that it's not quick enough. Ok, fair enough. You think the AI should be given more of a priority so that it does X, Y and Z better. Why not lead with just that instead?

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

 

This 'FM' discussion isn't even about FMs. There are legitimate concerns regarding the slow pace of development of the AI - which is what this is actually about - but this isn't remotely the way to voice them.

 

 

 Has anyone else reported this bug? Have you?

 

Bug was reported. Here for your interest.

 

 

8 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

You keep making different points. Your last point was that you had not seen news about it but clearly there was. You started with a point about flight modeling needing to be simplified so the AI would fly better but that was shown to not be necessarily what you then were asking about. Then there was some interlude about radio commands. That's different then again.

 

Now your new point seems to finally acknowledge that the AI has indeed improved after previously denying it ("You sure? I have not seen a news about it. Remember the DM? We had long before and after DD for it. Can't remember any similar for AI.") but that it's not quick enough. Ok, fair enough. You think the AI should be given more of a priority so that it does X, Y and Z better. Why not lead with just that instead?

 

Many said that simple FM is not a good way and would make any sence. We are discussing here. Do you have any ideas that would improve AI development?

Edited by JG27_Steini
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JG27_Steini said:

 

Bug was reported

 

Many said that simple FM is not a good way and would make any sence. We are discussing here. Do you have any ideas that would improve AI development?

 

Who is many? Can you quote these people?

 

Ideas? Sure. To be brief, a two phase effort focused on two main areas of deficiency.

 

1 Updates to the AI focused on improving the AI's ability to operate as individuals in combat. That would include better tactical maneuvering and defensive abilities with the highest level AI being better able to execute the maneuvers down to rookie level AI that would be less capable and possibly even programmed to panic and react poorly either under or over controlling their aircraft. For ground attack, better judging of distance to target and effective engagement range (right now they open fire a little too late) and better switching from one to another target if the first is destroyed.

2) Once phase 1 was complete, move to team tactics where AI leaders and wingmen would operate as more cohesive teams with a wingman looking out for and flying defensively with their wingleader. More coordination around AI performing ground attacks where they break off into 'wheel of death' or 'cab rank' style attack runs. They already sort of do this but the coordination and separation could be better. Phase 2 could have better radio controls built in but I'd have to think about the specifics of how that would work and what features it should have and then if additional radio lines would need to be recorded or if that'd be out of scope for that kind of improvement.

 

Not in my plan here is what the timeline would be and how 1CGS would hire the added staff members required to do this. If using the project management paradigm of the triple constraint, I suspect that we can have it done well and done cheaply but not quickly which is what the current method is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

Who is many? Can you quote these people?

 

Ideas? Sure. To be brief, a two phase effort focused on two main areas of deficiency.

 

1 Updates to the AI focused on improving the AI's ability to operate as individuals in combat. That would include better tactical maneuvering and defensive abilities with the highest level AI being better able to execute the maneuvers down to rookie level AI that would be less capable and possibly even programmed to panic and react poorly either under or over controlling their aircraft. For ground attack, better judging of distance to target and effective engagement range (right now they open fire a little too late) and better switching from one to another target if the first is destroyed.

2) Once phase 1 was complete, move to team tactics where AI leaders and wingmen would operate as more cohesive teams with a wingman looking out for and flying defensively with their wingleader. More coordination around AI performing ground attacks where they break off into 'wheel of death' or 'cab rank' style attack runs. They already sort of do this but the coordination and separation could be better. Phase 2 could have better radio controls built in but I'd have to think about the specifics of how that would work and what features it should have and then if additional radio lines would need to be recorded or if that'd be out of scope for that kind of improvement.

 

Not in my plan here is what the timeline would be and how 1CGS would hire the added staff members required to do this. If using the project management paradigm of the triple constraint, I suspect that we can have it done well and done cheaply but not quickly which is what the current method is.

 

11 minutes ago, JG27_Steini said:

 

Just scroll up, many said that simple FM is not a good idea.

 

19 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

1 Updates to the AI focused on improving the AI's ability to operate as individuals in combat. That would include better tactical maneuvering and defensive abilities with the highest level AI being better able to execute the maneuvers down to rookie level AI that would be less capable and possibly even programmed to panic and react poorly either under or over controlling their aircraft. For ground attack, better judging of distance to target and effective engagement range (right now they open fire a little too late) and better switching from one to another target if the first is destroyed.

2) Once phase 1 was complete, move to team tactics where AI leaders and wingmen would operate as more cohesive teams with a wingman looking out for and flying defensively with their wingleader. More coordination around AI performing ground attacks where they break off into 'wheel of death' or 'cab rank' style attack runs. They already sort of do this but the coordination and separation could be better. Phase 2 could have better radio controls built in but I'd have to think about the specifics of how that would work and what features it should have and then if additional radio lines would need to be recorded or if that'd be out of scope for that kind of improvement.

 

Not in my plan here is what the timeline would be and how 1CGS would hire the added staff members required to do this. If using the project management paradigm of the triple constraint, I suspect that we can have it done well and done cheaply but not quickly which is what the current method is.

 

That all sounds good, if i haven't not seen in many simulation before i would say "bravo". But i have seen this long before. I think at some point 1CGS got stock in AI programming, a natural process but hard to get over. It happens to me daily. At the end the code had to be rewritten often. 

Edited by JG27_Steini
Link to post
Share on other sites

JG27_Steini, as a programmer, do you find it helpful if the people you are coding for make vague complaints about all sorts of different issues all at once, and then suggest that you aren't doing your job properly because not everything gets fixed immediately? 

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Can't find anyone who thought a simple flight model was a good idea. Is that many?

 

2 hours ago, JG27_Steini said:

 

That all sounds good, if i haven't not seen in many simulation before i would say "bravo". But i have seen this long before. I think at some point 1CGS got stock in AI programming, a natural process but hard to get over. It happens to me daily. At the end the code had to be rewritten often. 

 

I said above what happened. They did not have an AI programmer on staff for a long time. Recent successes and expanding scope has allowed them to hire one again.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

Can't find anyone who thought a simple flight model was a good idea. Is that many?

 

 

 

Have not said that. Read my post again. You asked why i talk about different things. I said "because many pilot did not like the idea of simple FM". Scroll up, you will see. Greetings.

52 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

JG27_Steini, as a programmer, do you find it helpful if the people you are coding for make vague complaints about all sorts of different issues all at once, and then suggest that you aren't doing your job properly because not everything gets fixed immediately? 

 

You can all read those in hundreds of other threads or bug reports. I was asked to be more constructive and those points are valid. Some of them might be pretty easy to get done like score board or bugged radio messages. Please tell me what complaints where vague. I might be wrong or you have another opinion.

Edited by JG27_Steini
Link to post
Share on other sites

The developers have made it very clear that if people want bugs addressed, they need to submit proper bug reports. And if people want to make suggestions, they can do that - there is a subforum for that too. On the whole though, I can't imagine they are going to spend much time looking at a thread that starts off on a fundamental misunderstanding over what 'FM' and 'AI' are, and which goes on to discuss other things that have nothing to do with either.

Edited by AndyJWest
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JG27_Steini said:

 

Following SP modules are not working or missing:

 

1. The current radio system is useless. If you are not the leader there are no options. This is the most anoying.

2. Even if you are high rank you fly often as a wingmen instead of leading a rookie other pilot. 

3. German squadron had smaller units (Staffel) with fixed orders and structures. In the campaign all is random.

4. Your wingmen is always following the flight leader. There is no "wingmen" implemented.

5. Radio messages are often endlessly, while fighting i have to listen to dozen of landing permissions and requestes.

6. There is no simple kill history to show when you have shot down which aircraft. 

7. AI is dump, while you are in fight it is just following the route. The is no chance to call for help.

8. A whole whole squad AI is fighting fighting low level a single target and crashing in to ground while the target is not watched.

1. I would describe it as a WIP.  Not useless, just not finished yet. I flew careers on both commander and simple pilot settings. While being one of the latter numbers I tried numerous commands for my wingmen. "Cover" me works in some circumstances, I`d say when I did follow my flight. But when I wandered off too far, my wingman would bank out and return to flight leader. I do miss the rtb tower directions though.

2. Yeh, confirmed. What core module missing is that again?

3. Well, yea confirmed I guess. I can get around it by being commander though. Doesn`t bother me and I can`t say it is a core module missing.

4. As in #1, I disagree. The wingman behavior is there, though AI seems to treat flight leader with top priority.

5. Can be muted AFAIK.  I don`t since it is info for me. What core module missing is that?

6. That would be nice. Although still far from what I would describe as "core module".

7. AI I would say suffers from two behaviors. One is being fixated on immediate enemy, second is following flight leader priority.

So in order to get help from AI you need to be in vicinity of flight leader and close to your flight.

After trying different approach to missions I found that getting detached from your flight is often lethal. Enemy AI converges on you, you ded soon.

8. Not sure I understand.  Do you mean friendly AI attacking a single target with numerical advantage. Yes, it`s there. But it does watch for additional enemy planes entering the scene and it reacts to them. Crashing into ground behavior was fixed a while ago.

Besides this, I did notice many times fights taking place on several different altitude levels. I would describe it again as AI noticing new targets entering vicinity and reacting to them. As a single human player in such cases I try to take advantage of that.

 

In my opinion none of this is simple or easy to fix. Yes, it causes frustration but I did notice that when I acted different, AI changed their act also.  Obviously, when I was in the inferior ac type, it was even harder to survive.

 

I agree with others on this. This is all but a simple FM for AI issue. People described what I wrote in much more technical terms and proposed solutions. And simple FM for AI fixes none of that.

 

You wold probably ask me what I think is a 'core module' missing. A good example is lack of droptanks and fuel modelling. It is coming though.

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...