any work planned on dogfighting AI?

[silent_one]

Ive been away for a long time.   I got really sick of the boring AI. The enemy flying round in circles until your engine overheated really sucked..  Has the AI been improved ? Are there plans to improve it?  I remember maybe over year ago devs said they knew the circle flying was boring and they were going to overhaul AI. But when I played a few months ago it appeared just the same. anyone know anything?  

[Dagwoodyt]

19 minutes ago, silent_one said:

Ive been away for a long time.   I got really sick of the boring AI. The enemy flying round in circles until your engine overheated really sucked..  Has the AI been improved ? Are there plans to improve it?  I remember maybe over year ago devs said they knew the circle flying was boring and they were going to overhaul AI. But when I played a few months ago it appeared just the same. anyone know anything?  

Much work has been done since Oct. 2017 when I first started. Avoiding overheating engines is always a challenge in those allied aircraft that have few automated engine controls.

[Feldgrun]

40 minutes ago, silent_one said:

I got really sick of the boring AI. 

 

Me too, so I've been playing more on Multiplayer. It's far more challenging.

[Lusekofte]

7 hours ago, silent_one said:

Ive been away for a long time.   I got really sick of the boring AI. The enemy flying round in circles until your engine overheated really sucked..  Has the AI been improved ? Are there plans to improve it?  I remember maybe over year ago devs said they knew the circle flying was boring and they were going to overhaul AI. But when I played a few months ago it appeared just the same. anyone know anything?  

Depends on when you took a leave,

We fly coop, and following a mission they can be a real danger bouncing on you. They do more maneuvers and are better than before.

I really do like them in coop, and flying underdogs in SP. 

I prefer ai instead of being a target drone in MP. Because gunners are now dead weight.

This is a fighter focused mp community.

The rest of us await something better coming along

 

[Dagwoodyt]

I've noted that while a number of posts state that the AI is no challenge in SP there are few, if any, videos on YouTube to demonstrate such a deficiency. I've tried flying "underdogs" in 1v1 SP and it can be quite a challenge. P40 against 109E7 or MC.202 is an example. I always give the AI "Ace" status and similar fuel %. MP deficiency is that you never know what's behind the "curtain". I doubt that MP fights are ever "even" unless you are part of two or more competing groups. What's left on the MP "cutting room floor" to keep ping from becoming prohibitively high we do not know. MP has always been like that and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future.

Edited April 23, 2022 by Dagwoodyt

[Lusekofte]

40 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

I've noted that while a number of posts state that the AI is no challenge in SP there are few, if any, videos on YouTube to demonstrate such a deficiency. I've tried flying "underdogs" in 1v1 SP and it can be quite a challenge. P40 against 109E7 or MC.202 is an example. I always give the AI "Ace" status and similar fuel %. MP deficiency is that you never know what's behind the "curtain". I doubt that MP fights are ever "even" unless you are part of two or more competing groups. What's left on the MP "cutting room floor" to keep ping from becoming prohibitively high we do not know. MP has always been like that and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future.

I am talking on general bases, you can set opposition as you like in coop using Patrick Wilson. And in coop they are dangerous until they go into some kind of war out competition.

Once you are almost on their tail, they really do not surprised you.

But they do bouncing attacks and leave, if you get attacked by them, you might not understand what hit you or not find them.

In some campaigns / career/ aqmb where you are out gunned and fly underdog or bomber it is to me impossible to survive or escape 

[Avimimus]

There have been a lot of improvements - but I think there is still room to grow. AI is probably the biggest area where this (or any other sim) has potential for improvement.

 

They'll probably need to do some reworks to better support the large 'dogfighters' we're getting like the Mosquito and the Ju-88C-6a. It is currently pretty easy to bait the Ju-88C6 into the ground. Rethinking the approach to gunners (and gunner inaccuracy) is also an area which could do with work - either to speed up the computations or to bring in more layers of things like ranging errors (similar to those of tank gunners).

[Dagwoodyt]

16 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

I am talking on general bases, you can set opposition as you like in coop using Patrick Wilson. And in coop they are dangerous until they go into some kind of war out competition.

Once you are almost on their tail, they really do not surprised you.

But they do bouncing attacks and leave, if you get attacked by them, you might not understand what hit you or not find them.

In some campaigns / career/ aqmb where you are out gunned and fly underdog or bomber it is to me impossible to survive or escape 

Not disagreeing with your post. I am not referencing co-op MP, but rather the typical MP experience where the player is not part of an organized squad.

[KevPBur]

As the OP is asking about ai I assume is if refering more to Single Player.

Yes, the ai have gotten a lot better especially in career mode. The enemy aces at least tend to fly to their planes strengths.

This week in an La-5 the ai 109G's refused to come down and play on the deck prefering to circle above swooping down, attacking and climbing again and working in 2's and 3's just as they should. Given enough time the non-ace opponents and your flight ai will resort to turning in anything irrespective of opponent but then so can I far to often!

 

On to your own flight. If you are in the underdog plane you too often come home (or at least try to) on your own.

First time up in the 190A8 last night and I came home with 4 kills (and I'm claiming an assist) against P38's and Typhoons to find I was the only man standing. Unfortunately for the 3 P38's that chased me home a friendly flight was in the circuit around my home field. As of the latest update they now break of from landing, turn off their nav lights and we sent 2 forked devils down and one home with his tail between his legs.

[RyanR]

They keep changing things with each update. I've seen new tricks (like some weird negative G's) to force an overshoot.

 

Overall, the AI is sooooo much less predictable than the AI back in IL-2 1946. I used to know exactly where to put the gunsight for the end of each cookbook maneuver.

 

When you consider how difficult developing the AI's decision-tree has to be, I'm betting that AI has to be a work in progress for, like, ever.

 

-Ryan

[Dagwoodyt]

If I view my missions in Tacview it is pretty clear that in 1v1's the AI is capable of more than just flying circles. Nevertheless a basic challenge is to defeat the circle as a "bread and butter" AI defensive tactic.

[smink1701]

It’s the Achilles’ heel of IL2.

Better than it used to be but nowhere near where it should be. Cliffs is much better. It’s my understanding that it would be very expensive to make significant improvements so they kick the can down the road. Would probably need all new code and Jason and company don’t have the money. So we get a lot of other stuff like clouds which do you look beautiful. Nonetheless, after 15 minutes in SP I get bored and go back to MSFS 2020. 

Maybe someday but I doubt it. 

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

IMHO, the biggest problem with making the AI more "interesting" all around is that each plane (yes, ALL of them) would need to be programmed with its own custom AI that could load in as needed.   

 

The reason I say this is that a human wouldn't fly a P-51 the way they would fly a Hurricane or a Me.262 like an Mc.202.  Well, when piloting a sim, humans try it all the time ? but, it's really a bad idea.  A hurricane can get pretty slow and fly some very tight aerobatics for extended amounts of time.  Try that with a P-51 and you'll run out of energy very quickly and flop right over, out of control.  

 

The point is that each plane has its own strengths and weaknesses and for them to be 'challenging' as AI, they all would need to be programmed to fly each plane to its strengths + be able to occasionally attempt 'outside the box' maneuvers like a real pilot might do.  Granted, some planes in the sim could probably do with a 'blanket' AI program that covers a particular set of models, but that's still alot of individual planes that would need to be custom-programmed.  

As much as I like to dream, I'm pretty sure that the dev team currently has much bigger fish to fry.

[Dagwoodyt]

49 minutes ago, smink1701 said:

It’s the Achilles’ heel of IL2.

Better than it used to be but nowhere near where it should be. Cliffs is much better. It’s my understanding that it would be very expensive to make significant improvements so they kick the can down the road. Would probably need all new code and Jason and company don’t have the money. So we get a lot of other stuff like clouds which do you look beautiful. Nonetheless, after 15 minutes in SP I get bored and go back to MSFS 2020. 

Maybe someday but I doubt it. 

No CFS has a monopoly on AI programming. Some of them however do make Tacview recordings possible.

[oc2209]

AI behavior is variable based on what you do, altitude, and performance differences between you and the AI's plane.

 

At low altitude, the AI's pretty basic and will typically do one of 4 things: it will turn; it will attempt to force you to overshoot by jinking; or if it is faster than you, it will pull away in a straight dash, usually climbing gradually while doing so; and finally, if it has a plane capable of doing so, it will zoom climb.

 

At higher altitudes (3,000 feet+), it will add the following to the above tactics: Split-S; diving/slashing attacks on you; high speed barrel rolls.

 

Unfortunately I couldn't get a recording of a fast (usually in a shallow dive) barrel roll, but I got the Split-S and diving attacks:

 

Spoiler

 

 

The 109 pilot also blacked out from G-fatigue towards the end of the clip. Something of a rarity.

 

Here's another example of the AI doing a zoom climb that I was able to stay with long enough to paste him:

 

Spoiler

 

 

For some reason, the 20mm impact puffs don't show up in this recording. But he was hit very hard.

 

Anyway, the AI has a few tricks up its sleeves. Not enough to be a real challenge in a 1v1 scenario. Where it begins to shine is group fights. It can be very dangerous in a career at Ace level.

 

Quick example:

 

Spoiler

 

 

[oc2209]

Here's two quick duels I did consecutively. Same loadouts and starting altitude (3500m). The 109K has the engine mod, 70% fuel. The Spitfire has the E wing, 60% fuel, no other mods.

 

Spoiler

 

 

I didn't fire any cannons; the 109's wing broke just from the .50s.

 

Here's an example of the AI doing a diving barrel roll (starting a little after the first minute). I've seen it perform better ones, with more revolutions, but this will have to do for today:

 

Spoiler

 

 

I was afraid of spinning the Spit, which is why I didn't try to follow him very closely through the roll. At a shallower dive angle, I would've tried to stay closer to him.

 

I'm not proud of any of my gunnery today; it took me another 1.5 minutes to finish him off in the second recording (after it ends). I was really low on G-endurance by the end of this clip.

 

The 109 remained as nimble as it did because it hadn't suffered any HE cannon hits to its wings or tail.

Edited April 24, 2022 by oc2209

[Gambit21]

9 hours ago, KevPBur said:

As the OP is asking about ai I assume is if refering more to Single Player.

Yes, the ai have gotten a lot better especially in career mode. The enemy aces at least tend to fly to their planes strengths.

This week in an La-5 the ai 109G's refused to come down and play on the deck prefering to circle above swooping down, attacking and climbing again and working in 2's and 3's just as they should. Given enough time the non-ace opponents and your flight ai will resort to turning in anything irrespective of opponent but then so can I far to often!

 

On to your own flight. If you are in the underdog plane you too often come home (or at least try to) on your own.

First time up in the 190A8 last night and I came home with 4 kills (and I'm claiming an assist) against P38's and Typhoons to find I was the only man standing. Unfortunately for the 3 P38's that chased me home a friendly flight was in the circuit around my home field. As of the latest update they now break of from landing, turn off their nav lights and we sent 2 forked devils down and one home with his tail between his legs.

There is no such thing as “career mode AI” There’s simply AI that exists regardless of career, quick mission, campaign etc. All same same.

 

Mission design is another consideration and has nothing to do with AI. 

[Yogiflight]

7 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

There is no such thing as “career mode AI” There’s simply AI that exists regardless of career, quick mission, campaign etc. All same same.

I didn't fly QMB lately, but when I did AI definitely acted completey different than in career mode. The best example is a P-38 I duelled with in a FW 190 A8. In career mode it will always take the fight, in QMB it simply ran away. I don't think AI is programmed differently, but the behaviour for some reason is different.

[Eisenfaustus]

16 hours ago, smink1701 said:

Cliffs is much better.

I have to disagree here - while CLOD AI maybe more difficult to defeat it cheats. Most combat flight sim AIs do and CLOD is among the overall better ones - yet seeing my enemy do stuff he shouldn’t be able to due to physics is quite immersion breaking for me. That GB AI has to actually fly the planes has it‘s downsides but it makes their maneuvering much more immersive in my opinion. 
 

16 hours ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

The point is that each plane has its own strengths and weaknesses and for them to be 'challenging' as AI, they all would need to be programmed to fly each plane to its strengths

They do - try to fight a Spad XIII in a Albatros: She‘ll use speed and climb in an attempt to stay untouchable. Fly the opposite setup and the Albatros will try to outturn you. 

 

3 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

I didn't fly QMB lately, but when I did AI definitely acted completey different than in career mode. The best example is a P-38 I duelled with in a FW 190 A8. In career mode it will always take the fight, in QMB it simply ran away. I don't think AI is programmed differently, but the behaviour for some reason is different.

Agree - it’s probably as Gambit suggests mission setting. In PWCG AI also behaves differently then in career. In both though I had very fun fights. The larger the fight the more immersive the AI. Yes in a single fight the AI struggles with a player - as it should. Compared to contemporary pilots we have absurd much knowledge about BFM. However in larger dogfights tactical errors are punished correctly. Yesterday I ended an Ironman career by becoming target fixated. I got bounced and never saw my killer. Quite realistic outcome I think

[AEthelraedUnraed]

3 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

I didn't fly QMB lately, but when I did AI definitely acted completey different than in career mode. The best example is a P-38 I duelled with in a FW 190 A8. In career mode it will always take the fight, in QMB it simply ran away. I don't think AI is programmed differently, but the behaviour for some reason is different.

The reason is given in the final part of Gambit's post that you didn't quote . It's mission design.

 

9 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

That GB AI has to actually fly the planes has it‘s downsides but it makes their maneuvering much more immersive in my opinion.

Also, you occasionally see AI make mistakes and end up spinning or blacking out, which is realistic IMO.

 

10 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

They do - try to fight a Spad XIII in a Albatros: She‘ll use speed and climb in an attempt to stay untouchable. Fly the opposite setup and the Albatros will try to outturn you.

Definitely. One of my most memorable - and frustrating! - fights was in a Dr.III against a Spad XIII. After 20 minutes of dogfighting, we both had scored maybe 10 non-vital hits and I just gave up. Whenever he'd attack I'd just turn out of the way, but as soon as I'd turned back and had him in my crosshairs, he'd already be well outside range.

[Lusekofte]

18 hours ago, smink1701 said:

It’s the Achilles’ heel of IL2.

Better than it used to be but nowhere near where it should be. Cliffs is much better. It’s my understanding that it would be very expensive to make significant improvements so they kick the can down the road. Would probably need all new code and Jason and company don’t have the money. So we get a lot of other stuff like clouds which do you look beautiful. Nonetheless, after 15 minutes in SP I get bored and go back to MSFS 2020. 

Maybe someday but I doubt it. 

Clod got the same ai as old IL 2

I like it better because you can have a lot of them. But I am not sure they act better.

Old IL 2 ai was improving a lot on the way. I guess we will see ai improvements in GB quite or relative often. But not in numbers

[Dragon1-1]

2 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Also, you occasionally see AI make mistakes and end up spinning or blacking out, which is realistic IMO.

Yup, I loved it when I went vertical in a Bf-109 and saw the Spitfire I was fighting drop a wing and stall out. He had me on the ropes before, with that I was able to turn the tables and get on his tail. 

[Koziolek]

3 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

I have to disagree here - while CLOD AI maybe more difficult to defeat it cheats. Most combat flight sim AIs do and CLOD is among the overall better ones - yet seeing my enemy do stuff he shouldn’t be able to due to physics is quite immersion breaking for me. That GB AI has to actually fly the planes has it‘s downsides but it makes their maneuvering much more immersive in my opinion. 
 

 

I am 100% with you. What AI is doing in CLoD is what 's keeping me from going back to it more often than once a month.  Maybe it is much better in MP maybe player controlled plane behaves differently, I do not know but as a SP player I have enough of BF-100 doing a 180 roll in a split of a second. Even Blenheim can do maneuvers more like a fighter sometimes. If one day they will be able to remedy it we will have two nice sims covering different theaters of WW2. But for the moment I stick with GB where maybe AI is not perfect but keeps improving

Edited April 24, 2022 by Koziolek

[Gambit21]

6 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

I didn't fly QMB lately, but when I did AI definitely acted completey different than in career mode. The best example is a P-38 I duelled with in a FW 190 A8. In career mode it will always take the fight, in QMB it simply ran away. I don't think AI is programmed differently, but the behaviour for some reason is different.

That’s mission design - not AI.

People conflate the two.

 

Post a QMB mission where the 190’s ran away and I’ll look at the mission logic. Likely a “force complete” MCU and a high priority waypoint heading home. That’s how I do it.

 

In any case, again, there’s no such thing as “QMB AI” etc.

[BlitzPig_EL]

47 minutes ago, Koziolek said:

 

I am 100% with you. What AI is doing in CLoD is what 's keeping me from going back to it more often than once a month.  Maybe it is much better in MP maybe player controlled plane behaves differently, I do not know but as a SP player I have enough of BF-100 doing a 180 roll in a split of a second. Even Blenheim can do maneuvers more like a fighter sometimes. If one day they will be able to remedy it we will have two nice sims covering different theaters of WW2. But for the moment I stick with GB where maybe AI is not perfect but keeps improving

 Agree.  

 

The last time the BlitzPigs tried CloD, after the Tobruk release, I was in a P40 and chasing a CR 42.  It started rolling like a Pitts Special or Extra 300.  We all got a chuckle out of it, then uninstalled it and never looked back.

[DD_Arthur]

On 4/23/2022 at 5:13 PM, RyanR said:

When you consider how difficult developing the AI's decision-tree has to be, I'm betting that AI has to be a work in progress for, like, ever.

 

I think this is the essence of it.

Making machine code make decisions like a human being?

In a sixty bucks game?

 

What would be nice would be to deprive the ai of their almost 

360 degree radar so they could be bounced properly.

 

 

[Yogiflight]

4 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Post a QMB mission where the 190’s ran away and I’ll look at the mission logic. Likely a “force complete” MCU and a high priority waypoint heading home. That’s how I do it.

Sorry mate, you misunderstood me. I was flying the 190, the AI ran away in the P-38. And in 1 vs. 1 duels in QMB, there is no higher waypoint priority, like in career mode missions. The 1 vs. 1 duels are thought, that your enemy fights with you. I don't know, if that still happens, but I remember way back, I had a QMB duel, flying the Me 262, with a A-20. And the A-20 constantly turned at me and tried to attack me. Something, which never would happen in a career mode mission. Another thing is, that the enemies in QMB seem to me much more agressivs than in career mode. Even when I fly Rhineland career on hard difficulty, the Spits I fight against in a FW 190 A8, are pretty easy preys. Only Tempests, so far were really challenging. Last time I was flying the ground attack Me 262 I had a few P-51 kills, and they were easy to do, because they didn't really try to stay alive. I never experienced such behaviour in QMB duels. I have no idea, what might be the reason for that.

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, Yogiflight said:

Sorry mate, you misunderstood me. I was flying the 190, the AI ran away in the P-38. And in 1 vs. 1 duels in QMB, there is no higher waypoint priority, like in career mode missions. The 1 vs. 1 duels are thought, that your enemy fights with you. I don't know, if that still happens, but I remember way back, I had a QMB duel, flying the Me 262, with a A-20. And the A-20 constantly turned at me and tried to attack me. Something, which never would happen in a career mode mission. Another thing is, that the enemies in QMB seem to me much more agressivs than in career mode. Even when I fly Rhineland career on hard difficulty, the Spits I fight against in a FW 190 A8, are pretty easy preys. Only Tempests, so far were really challenging. Last time I was flying the ground attack Me 262 I had a few P-51 kills, and they were easy to do, because they didn't really try to stay alive. I never experienced such behaviour in QMB duels. I have no idea, what might be the reason for that.

Don’t know.

All I can say for certain is that the ‘under the hood’ AI is the same in all cases. The only possible variable is mission logic, and in the QMB mission logic is generated/exists similar to career, single missions, scripted campaign missions etc. In other words - just editor logic. AI set to “Ace” in QMB and “novice” etc in career would account for that difference as well. In any case I can promise that it’s the mission logic, not hard-coded AI that’s accounting for the difference.

 

No matter what you’re flying, it’s simply editor logic/MCU’s and settings.

Edited April 24, 2022 by Gambit21

[oc2209]

2 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

Another thing is, that the enemies in QMB seem to me much more agressivs than in career mode. Even when I fly Rhineland career on hard difficulty, the Spits I fight against in a FW 190 A8, are pretty easy preys. Only Tempests, so far were really challenging. Last time I was flying the ground attack Me 262 I had a few P-51 kills, and they were easy to do, because they didn't really try to stay alive. I never experienced such behaviour in QMB duels. I have no idea, what might be the reason for that.

 

I've noticed things like this too. There must be a lot of variables that alter AI behavior from QMB to career. I agree with Gambit in the broad sense that the AI for both surely must be the same, but some behaviors are triggered while others are dormant, depending on the situation.

 

The Spitfire in QMB, 1v1, is pretty tough to kill because it really tries to keep an altitude advantage. In career, it doesn't seem to focus on maintaining that advantage to the same degree.

 

In QMB, I'm pretty equally matched when flying a 109F-4 versus a Spitfire V (with the Merlin 45). It usually takes me 5-10 minutes of maneuvering to succeed. By contrast, in an F4 versus a Yak-9, I can get a kill within 2 minutes, reliably. The AI doesn't turn the Yak as hard as it should.

 

The AI tries to turn the Spitfire almost to the plane's limit; but where the AI fails compared to a human, is riding the edge of the Spitfire's stall in a turn.

 

Here's a long example of the AI flying a Spit V against me in a Yak-9:

 

Spoiler

 

 

I admit to completely losing sight of him for the first minute or so of the fight. I had no clue he was on my ass. I just kept turning until I could regain sight of him.

 

The AI comes close to stalling out of a turn on a few different occasions.

[Dagwoodyt]

On 4/23/2022 at 11:51 AM, smink1701 said:

It’s the Achilles’ heel of IL2.

Better than it used to be but nowhere near where it should be. Cliffs is much better. It’s my understanding that it would be very expensive to make significant improvements so they kick the can down the road. Would probably need all new code and Jason and company don’t have the money. So we get a lot of other stuff like clouds which do you look beautiful. Nonetheless, after 15 minutes in SP I get bored and go back to MSFS 2020. 

Maybe someday but I doubt it. 

It seems to me that AI routines are improving in Blitz and GB and presumably in DCS though I fly DCS much less. Two defects of CloD/Blitz have always stood out to me. The first is that the AI would react to me pressing the trigger button once I closed to my set convergence distance. The second is that the AI would simply stop fighting and function as a target drone after making a number of unsuccessful attack passes. Both were accompanied by very bizarre looking rolls as if AI on stimulants. These issues were pointed out repeatedly and have been improved per recent experience. As such it is best not to be too dogmatic in faulting AI behavior in previous iterations of these CFS's. Unfortunately Blitz does not support Tacview like the other CFS's mentioned. That would be helpful.

Edited April 25, 2022 by Dagwoodyt

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

An issue with the AI that needs to be fixed ASAP is its tendancy to be idle when there's actully a fight going nearby.

 

How many times have I engaged enemy fighters alone while all of my wingmen were circling above the fight at low throttle? This is so infuriating! Ordering them to engage or cover me is useless, of course.

 

Even when engaged they'll just wait for death. Sometimes a wingman will go evasive when shot at but will resume its idle mode as soon as the enemy is not on his tail anymore.

 

The AI in this game is crap on so many levels its shocking. It can do good things but what sucks about it is beyond any common sense. Its like it was programmed in the 80s on a calculator.

 

 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

9 minutes ago, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

An issue with the AI that needs to be fixed ASAP is its tendancy to be idle when there's actully a fight going nearby.

 

How many times have I engaged enemy fighters alone while all of my wingmen were circling above the fight at low throttle? This is so infuriating! Ordering them to engage or cover me is useless, of course.

 

Even when engaged they'll just wait for death. Sometimes a wingman will go evasive when shot at but will resume its idle mode as soon as the enemy is not on his tail anymore.

 

The AI in this game is crap on so many levels its shocking. It can do good things but what sucks about it is beyond any common sense. Its like it was programmed in the 80s on a calculator.

Again, this is something that's related to mission logic rather than AI, in my experience.

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

2 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Again, this is something that's related to mission logic rather than AI, in my experience.

 

Then it should be easier to fix, as this really cripples the gameplay quality in the campaign. 

 

I mean.....REALLY. 

Edited April 25, 2022 by I./JG52_Woutwocampe

[AEthelraedUnraed]

10 minutes ago, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

Then it should be easier to fix

I don't really see why mission logic problems should necessarily be easier to fix than AI problems?

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

19 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I don't really see why mission logic problems should necessarily be easier to fix than AI problems?

 

Ok? As long as the devs do, we're good. The root of the problem is their problem.

 

Wether we think its easy or not makes no difference. My opinion is that nothing is more delicate than AI programming but at the end of the day, the devs will do what they must do (hopefully).

 

 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

54 minutes ago, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

As long as the devs do, we're good. The root of the problem is their problem.

 

Wether we think its easy or not makes no difference.

I can agree with that to some extent; it is an issue that needs to be fixed.

 

However, it does make a difference for the timeline that we should expect. I'm sure you're aware the Devs have pressing deadlines (with one even being described as that if they miss it, their "ability to make any further products will be jeopardized"), more than enough work to do, and a lack of qualified staff to do it all. I'm sure the Devs will fix this mission logic issue at some point, but if you expect this to happen sooner rather than later, you'll likely be disappointed. Best to expect this to happen months or even years from now, and in the meantime play with some of the things that do work properly (there's some nice single-player campaigns out there, both free and payware).

Edited April 25, 2022 by AEthelraedUnraed

[PatrickAWlson]

One has to concede that AI is tough.  Even the simple "get the AI to engage" decision involves several potential conflicts: the mission assignment (waypoint priority), player commands, and free running decision making (example: I am under attack, what now). 

 

• AI logic must be a single unit of logic per AI entity (a plane, a vehicle, whatever). 
  • This way coherent decisions are made.
  • It also allows AI to be worked on  outside of other changes, avoiding conflicts.  This is important for longer running changes.
• You need the ability to retain state to prevent unintentional overrides. 
  • Example: if you give a command to attack you don't want the AI to forget that event the next AI cycle. 
• The AI has to fly the plane just as we do - no FM simplifications that create ridiculous outcomes. 
• You need state and state transitions to give the impression of believable decision making.
  • Transitions from combat flying, to formation flying, to takeoff and landing, spin recovery, emergency, etc.  All made for the right reasons.
• Randomizations to prevent the AI from always doing the same thing, all while ensuring that the AI is at least doing something believable.  
• It all has to work coherently. 
• It has to perform. 

This is not easy.

 

Why has this not been done?  Probably time, money, and resources.  This basic AI has probably been in place since RoF.  While work has been done to improve the AI, and much of that has been effective, I seriously doubt the core of the AI process has changed. 

 

[[CPT]Crunch]

Mono on mono in the QMB if you pick your plane match ups right its the best its ever been in any game I've ever experienced, I like setting up unlimited ammo and than set up the wave, one after the other.  I never seem to get bored or pissed at all these days, so job there is well done.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

8 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

One has to concede that AI is tough.  Even the simple "get the AI to engage" decision involves several potential conflicts: the mission assignment (waypoint priority), player commands, and free running decision making (example: I am under attack, what now). 

 

• AI logic must be a single unit of logic per AI entity (a plane, a vehicle, whatever). 
  • This way coherent decisions are made.
  • It also allows AI to be worked on  outside of other changes, avoiding conflicts.  This is important for longer running changes.
• You need the ability to retain state to prevent unintentional overrides. 
  • Example: if you give a command to attack you don't want the AI to forget that event the next AI cycle. 
• The AI has to fly the plane just as we do - no FM simplifications that create ridiculous outcomes. 
• You need state and state transitions to give the impression of believable decision making.
  • Transitions from combat flying, to formation flying, to takeoff and landing, spin recovery, emergency, etc.  All made for the right reasons.
• Randomizations to prevent the AI from always doing the same thing, all while ensuring that the AI is at least doing something believable.  
• It all has to work coherently. 
• It has to perform. 

This is not easy.

 

Why has this not been done?  Probably time, money, and resources.  This basic AI has probably been in place since RoF.  While work has been done to improve the AI, and much of that has been effective, I seriously doubt the core of the AI process has changed. 

 

Good explanation on why it's tough to program, but I just want to add that again, a lot of the things that people complain about are mission logic rather than AI.

 

Compare, for instance, a late-war Allied "armed recon" flight with a German attack on the bridge at Remagen. The Allied planes should attack anything and everything in sight, regardless of if that makes them deviate from their flight path. The German planes, on the other hand, should only deviate from their assignment as a last resort, i.e. if they're actively attacked by enemy aircraft. That bridge needs to be destroyed, no matter what it costs!

 

All this is possible with the current AI. As some people above have said, the AI itself is pretty good already in simple dogfighting scenarios (i.e. QMB). In more complex scenarios too, it's possible to make the AI do what you want. But that takes some mission building effort, as anyone who's ever created a somewhat complex mission knows. Add in all kinds of optimisations necessary to keep the game playable, and of course the mission logic itself. Hard enough for a mission designer to do ("Now, do I need to set the waypoint priority to Medium or High? And what if [...] happens, does that change things?"), harder for someone to program. Programming mission creation is not just programming, it's writing a program to do the programming for you.

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

2 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I can agree with that to some extent; it is an issue that needs to be fixed.

 

However, it does make a difference for the timeline that we should expect. I'm sure you're aware the Devs have pressing deadlines (with one even being described as that if they miss it, their "ability to make any further products will be jeopardized"), more than enough work to do, and a lack of qualified staff to do it all. I'm sure the Devs will fix this mission logic issue at some point, but if you expect this to happen sooner rather than later, you'll likely be disappointed. Best to expect this to happen months or even years from now, and in the meantime play with some of the things that do work properly (there's some nice single-player campaigns out there, both free and payware).

 

If its a MISSION RELATED issue Im optimistic because we've seen some significant improvement with dynamic careers in the last year. 

 

Of course all eyes are on BON but I'm hopeful about seeing other improvements to the quality of the campaigns before the end of the year.

 

We'll see. Tweaking the mission generator to improve the AI and its behaviour is paramount imo.