AI gunnery mod

[Stonehouse]

57 minutes ago, WitchyWoman said:

Heres the Trk

Thanks

 

The links both seem to point at the folder? typo for the trk file?

[kraut1]

7 hours ago, Stonehouse said:

 

I'll try some EMG created missions next.

 

 

 

5 hours ago, WitchyWoman said:

I can now confirm that in a QMB mission the enemy Ai fights as they are supposed to. Engaging, maneuvering out of fire, actually shooting back and rather accurately. So this confirms that career mode is not using these tactics at all. I knocked out one camel but then a wingman came head on at me and one burst hit me in the head.

 

 

 

Hi sorry, I don't want to disturb your discussion,

 

I just tried out this with Easy Mission Generator by Vander, only because it's interesting for me too.

From my point of view WW1 with Easy Mission Generator seems to work well.

In the video the attached mission is shown, 100% AI flown, video recorded directly during flight.

WW1-TEST1.Mission.zip

 

[WitchyWoman]

1 hour ago, Stonehouse said:

Thanks

 

The links both seem to point at the folder? typo for the trk file?

You said upload the folder and the trk,

 

Here lets try again

FOLDER

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sD4JNBGjKLd6NhyUchljYXei93a4qTN5/view?usp=sharing

TRK

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-XFMrePzYltb5p0l3xWfsFUOG2mOZrkJ/view?usp=sharing

 

This proves the career mode AI is totally a soup sandwich.

 

 

Edited December 15, 2023 by WitchyWoman

[WitchyWoman]

Stone , did you download these successfully and did they open?

 

I'm going to go back to playing WW2 modules unless you need me to do further recording/testing until we can figure out how to get this fixed.

[Stonehouse]

1 hour ago, WitchyWoman said:

Stone , did you download these successfully and did they open?

 

I'm going to go back to playing WW2 modules unless you need me to do further recording/testing until we can figure out how to get this fixed.

Yes, they did so you should be able to delete the files from drop box on Sunday. I'm away for the rest of today but should have a chance to watch the track and organise a bug report sometime in the next couple of days. Thank you!

[Stonehouse]

New aircraft so obviously this needs to be updated. Also noticed that the turretcontrollerai.txt file changed slightly between the versions, increases in search range skill based modifier and decrease (improvement) in Ace skill modifier.

 

Hoping to also add the nav/2nd pilot position functionality to allow players to enter these positions.

 

FYI with Christmas activities it may take a little to get a new version ready.

[Stonehouse]

FYI this may take a bit longer than planned for AI Gunnery. Skill based errors have changed in stock so I may have to recheck the balance all over again.

[JG4_Moltke1871]

Especially the FE2b gunnery is much improved tested in QMB without your MOD

Possible it effects also other WW1 gunners but not sure about that. 

[Stonehouse]

9 hours ago, JG4_Moltke1871 said:

Especially the FE2b gunnery is much improved tested in QMB without your MOD

Possible it effects also other WW1 gunners but not sure about that. 

Not surprised. They have reduced the skill based error from 1 to 0.7 for Ace and the changelog for 5.201 mentions ensuring gunners on human flown aircraft will have ace skill. People may now find attacking ace skill AI aircraft much more difficult, but you can't have it both ways and I guess from the dev viewpoint you really only encounter ace AI bombers quite rarely in the stock missions. I'm going to have to retest all the balancing and probably do a beta release to get feedback.

[Stonehouse]

New version of AI Gunnery despawn delay mod available in first post. Addition of new aircraft.

[Stonehouse]

I can see that a hotfix has been released and that it impacts AI in the WW1 space. So not complaining but it means rework for me, and this is going to delay me getting a beta version of AIGunnery to you. Apologies particularly to the people waiting for the 2nd pilot positions being available to players. I'll try to get something together for the week between Christmas and NYE but can't promise I'll have time.

 

 

[Hook_Echo]

That prospect of increasing the AI's willingness to pull closer to max AOA mentioned in the patch notes is interesting. You make all the mods dude. Take your time.

[Stonehouse]

Bit of an update - think I have the WW2 side of AI Gunnery rebalanced although I believe it needs feedback. WW1 is being a real PITA and is very much a WIP....... 

[Stonehouse]

Happy New Year.

 

Beta version of updated AI Gunnery mod below seeking feedback from users. I'm not entirely happy with WW2 balance between fighters and bombers but I could just be seeing too many trees in the forest after hundreds of QMB tests mixed with Christmas and NYE cheer ;).

 

Anyway, see what you think. Please try out a mix of situations both WW1 and WW2 and different skill match ups and report back. Try it in careers too but please remember that this mod will not override waypoint priorities set by the mission generation nor change an AI state controlled by a trigger (i.e. AI can be activated or deactivated by a trigger condition. If the condition is not satisfied, then the AI state will not change. AI Gunnery will not do anything to change this). So, if the mission priority instructs the AI to be passive or the mission trigger condition is not met leaving the AI inactive and passively circling this mod will not change that.

 

Note that this version does include the 2nd pilot position and credit for the initial concept and work on the A20 navigator position and Mosquito navigator position should go to Murleen. Murleen intended these positions to be able to fire flares and use binoculars, but I haven't been able to get this aspect completely sorted out. Some positions (eg Mossi) are a bit quirky, and you may find that the pilot 3d shape is not always visible. This seems to be due to the 3d shape of the 2nd pilot/nav clipping the pilot 3d shape. I have tried a few of these positions in MP using a friend as a guinea pig and they seem to work ok although again some have quirks. Aircraft covered are Ju52, C47, A20, Mosquito, Ju88c6. 

 

Final points: 

• The Fe2b is categorised as a light bomber in stock. I've adjusted this so it is classed as a fighter. Please be on the lookout for issues this may cause. So far, I have not seen any.
• The Bf110E2 in stock does not have any restrictions on the gunners aim to represent the tail assembly blocking the field of fire. The Bf110G2 does. Believing that this is an oversight in the E2's case I have copied the G2s restrictions to the E2 as I feel the two versions of the aircraft are very close in terms of the turret layout and weapon mount position and the tail plane construction.

 

Thanks.

 

AI gunnery beta v20240101.zip

Edited January 1, 2024 by Stonehouse

[RedeyeStorm]

I have been flying a couple Il2 missions in career and have noticed no issues with gunnery.

[Stonehouse]

Any issues with the beta to report anyone? Particularly WW1 flyers or bomber flyers - are things working satisfactorily?

 

Aiming to release this version tomorrow if there are no issues.

 

Thanks

[RedeyeStorm]

I have had limited time @Stonehouse so I have only flown ground attack planes and fighters. In the latter I had some escort missions and the results in lost aircraft were fine. 

[Stonehouse]

Ok promoted the beta version to release. No additional tweaks as there were no issues raised during the beta period.

 

Some of the things I did for WW1 gunners may be able to be applied to WW2 gunners at some point. This may get around the whole "firing at 3x normal range" concept that is in the stock game to give bombers a chance against fighters of the same period. So, when I've time I'll do some experiments to see if it is feasible or not. Unfortunately, it will increase the effort of keeping the mod up to date.

[Stonehouse]

A brief series of demos of the new 2nd pilot/nav positions (plus a bit of AAAmod and heavy flak effects in the first one) - should be available in 1440p

 

 

 

(This one was an AQMB mission, no idea why the other C47s did not drop - can only assume they had no cargo loaded. Will have to try with a stock install and see if it is a bug)

 

 

 

Edited January 13, 2024 by Stonehouse

[Stonehouse]

On 1/13/2024 at 11:34 AM, Stonehouse said:

This may get around the whole "firing at 3x normal range"

More tests needed but I think it could work out. 

[Stonehouse]

On 1/15/2024 at 9:30 PM, Stonehouse said:

More tests needed but I think it could work out. 

Nope - End of match score devs 1 and me nil. Couldn't get the AI gunners to go past their default range. Not sure where the range for gunners is held but none of the places I've found so far impact it. Possibly it isn't range but simply the AI doesn't "see" targets past their assigned range. So, for example, novice gunners will not fire past 400m without the 3x normal range fudge. Will keep tinkering but just an FYI that there hasn't been any type of break through after all.

[Stonehouse]

Seems I was overly pessimistic yesterday evening. Probably too many test QMB missions without results and too late at night. Anyway, I had an idea early this morning while getting some stuff from the shops.

 

Turns out the idea seems to have worked and I now have a B26 engaging targets reliably out to 850-900m regardless of the crew's skill and without the stock games "3xnormal range" feature. I have to rethink all the values now for each skill level and recheck everything is working as I expect but it does now look like I have a good chance of improving over the current version of the mod and pretty much make the bomber guns keep to their real effective range without compromising their defenses. I needed the bombers to be able to fire out to around 800-900m due to the novice fighter pilots opening fire at 800m. Novices are not good shots, but they spray a lot of ammo around and even a few lucky 20 or 30mm shells can ruin a bomber. In the stock game it's aces that fire at 800m, and I suspect this is the reason behind the idea of allowing bombers to fire initially at 3xnormal range if there is enough ammo at the gun position. I need the bombers to be able to hit the fighters at range to make them get "scared" about getting hit and break off meaning that the bombers get to continue a bit more until the next attack. It also means that turrets with low ammo will still be a threat at longer range whereas in stock they stop firing. That now seems to happen correctly in my WIP version of the mod.

Edited January 19, 2024 by Stonehouse

[Stonehouse]

Ok new beta for people to try and give feedback on. I believe you will find bombers harder targets especially if you don't have cannons. Bomber players should find that it is more survivable (I hope) - remember that player bombers are ace skill and that ace AI bombers are fairly rare in careers. I don't suggest that copying the novice AI and crawling up a bomber's 6 is a good tactic. Teaming up on a bomber formation and giving the gunners more than one target is definitely a better approach. I've watched a lot of lone wolf AI fighters get smacked. Max engagement range for a gunner is about 900-1000m or the range of their weapon whichever is the shorter distance. Changes are only in the WW2 area of the mod. 

 

Anyway, still testing and tweaking at my end of things but need to know if I am on the right track in people's opinions.

 

AI gunnery - no 3xrange beta 20240120.zip

Edited January 20, 2024 by Stonehouse

[Stonehouse]

I've been running some larger QMBs today. 8 He111 H16s v's 7 (since I take up 1 slot and just want to observe) Spitfire IXe. All veteran skill. Seems possible I have made bombers too good. Results seem to average 2-3 bombers down and while fighter losses are low at least 5 or 6 take enough damage for them to RTB which pretty much means the majority of the bomber formation continues to target. Part of the issue is the entirely not helpful way the game insists on skill-based firing ranges for fighters instead of just using the weapon range and have accuracy adjusted by skill along with SA level and flying ability. Due to this aspect, it is entirely possible to have say 109G6 novices score better than aces against bombers because the mod novices fire at 800m and distance feeds into gunner accuracy. ie close is better accuracy. Novices spray so many rounds that it is likely that a few 20 or 30 mm rounds hit a target and cause the bomber to drop out of formation, kill a gunner or catch fire etc. Ace fighter pilots hold their fire until close so often get damaged on the way in and decide to RTB before they shoot. Makes it very difficult to get a decent balance where bombers are not just targets for fighters to kill but still allows the fighter to achieve reasonable levels of victories.

 

So definitely looking for feedback from both fighter and bomber people to help adjust things and get a generally workable balance.

[Stonehouse]

Repeat with 8 B25s and 7 FW190A6s. Not as bad. Av 5 of the 8 B25s dispatched but about av 50% fighter losses and the others breaking off damaged. I possibly will have to back off the accuracy on novice, normal and veteran bombers and leave Ace as is so human players flying bombers get enough protection to let them progress through campaigns etc. 

[RedeyeStorm]

I had the change of one run. 8 Spit 14’s against, 8 He111-H16 but me as a participant. Got the same feeling as you did. Will do some more tests today and report.

[Stonehouse]

8 minutes ago, RedeyeStorm said:

I had the change of one run. 8 Spit 14’s against, 8 He111-H16 but me as a participant. Got the same feeling as you did. Will do some more tests today and report.

Thanks, hopefully some habitual bomber flyers will try it out and report back too. Moltke flies a lot of bomber missions I know but doesn't have much time right now.

[RedeyeStorm]

Did some tests in QMB. Ran a 8 Pe2s35 against 8 Bf109F4’s. Started with Ace all and went down to novice. I was watching from the lead bomber. It is diffucult to say. With the fighters on average they were the most dangerous. On Ace the fighters did not get any bombers shot down but did not loose fighters either. On Novice the results are more varied. With the fighters on novice my own gunners got a couple kills.

 

Also ran one QMB with He111H6 against Yak1s127’s. Again 8 vs 8, six Bombers shot down against two fighters which seems realistic.

 

The most problematic issue is not something you can do opsomething about. That’s the AI’s preference to attack the flight lead. That’ makes them com straight up the center and the fighters get shot up. But from a players perspective it is also problematic if you fly as lead.

 

So on the fence a bit. I do like the fact that the defense fire the bombers put out are lot more intens. As a fighter pilot you are advised to goin with your AI wingman and make oblique attacks.

I will also run a couple of career missions to see how it plays out with fighter escorts.

Edited January 21, 2024 by RedeyeStorm
Bad sentence

[Stonehouse]

13 hours ago, RedeyeStorm said:

novice my own gunners got a couple kills

Just a reminder that any bomber human piloted automatically gets an ace crew. So not that surprising that your gunners got a couple.

[RedeyeStorm]

15 hours ago, Stonehouse said:

Just a reminder that any bomber human piloted automatically gets an ace crew. So not that surprising that your gunners got a couple.

Yes I mend it to say more about the attacking fighters. Novice pilots do not break on time and get hurt.

[RedeyeStorm]

Oké I have been flying a Pe2s35 campaign missions with Parity and max units. The escorts usually chase away the intercepters but when they don't the gunner is effective in chasing away the fighters. So thumbs up for this.

 

I wil now try a fighter career missions in the Bf109F4. That should give me intercept missions. I will see if your modification also work for fighters.

[Stonehouse]

More tests with large formations 8 B26 v 8 109G6 late. More tweaking = new beta. Ace skill left approx where it was, Veteran, Normal and Low skill reduced accuracy. 

Original beta was just too vicious to fighters......sorry bomber players but on veteran I was seeing quite repeatably that all fighers were killed or driven off with damage with few or no losses to bombers. Once Veteran skill was reduced in accuracy, Normal and low had to reduce as well to keep the skill bands unique. Ace remains very high accuracy as this is where human players sit and Ace AI crews are rare.

AI gunnery - no 3xrange beta 20240125.zip

Edited January 25, 2024 by Stonehouse

[JG4_Moltke1871]

just over read that the co pilot seat is meanwhile avaiable---??

would it be possible to add the co pilot seat in waco glider and Li2 also?

[JG4_Moltke1871]

@Stonehouse,  I have a question about nightfighters: how does effect your mod that topic. Are nightfighters also improved by your mod? In all of my last night missions while I used your mod I was shot down with the first burst ?

[Stonehouse]

42 minutes ago, JG4_Moltke1871 said:

@Stonehouse,  I have a question about nightfighters: how does effect your mod that topic. Are nightfighters also improved by your mod? In all of my last night missions while I used your mod I was shot down with the first burst ?

Good question - I haven't touched that side of things. In one of the AI files (think it is caeroplane.txt) there is a night vision rating by skill. So, Aces see further than Novice pilots - about 10 x as much if I remember rightly. Not sure if this impacts gunners or not. Likely not would be my guess.

 

5 hours ago, JG4_Moltke1871 said:

just over read that the co pilot seat is meanwhile avaiable---??

would it be possible to add the co pilot seat in waco glider and Li2 also?

I don't own either one but will see what I can do.

Edited January 27, 2024 by Stonehouse

[Stonehouse]

Just an fyi - I've been struggling to balance things without the 3x normal range feature due to the fighters max firing range being skill based. My honest opinion is this is very rigid and like an off/on switch and while perhaps fine for fighter dogfights probably led to other fudges when it came to bombers to make things work. However, the 3xnormal range thing leads to very unrealistic situations which are glaringly obvious to players. IE the bomber hitting them at 1.5km, the gunner firing wildly in seemingly the wrong direction (distance to target is a factor in error).

 

Anyway - this problem leads to the next comment.

 

Novice fighters open fire at 800m in the mod currently and bombers reliably open fire now at 800-1000m. However, for gunners the distance from gunner to target acts as an error multiplier. It doesn't seem like that for fighters (the gunnery error calc for fighters is not visible to us) and a novice fighter will begin to fire at 800m and spray lots of rounds at the target and continue to fire while closing. At that range the bomber gunner error is still large and often the number of guns firing are low. So, if the fighter is armed with 20 or 30mm cannon they will very likely get 3-5 hits on the bomber causing major damage while the bomber gunner has only pinged the fighter a bit. IE you get cannon armed novice fighters decimating Ace bomber formations and vice versa as the ace fighters hold fire until 400m where the bomber accuracy is much better. Not sure if this is realistic but it certainly would discourage people from flying bombers (human flown aircraft get ace crews). Probably this is why Ace fighters in stock fire at 800m and novices at 400m. This leads to bombers getting killed by aces without much loss and novices getting killed by bombers without lots of bomber losses. Unfortunately, it also means in fighter v fighter that an ace will bullseye your head at 800m in a totally unrealistic fashion.

 

There also does seem to be a sweet spot in bomber formation size and formation type. 4 bombers in a height staggered line astern often fare badly as the rear aircraft's defensive fire is not supplemented by the other bombers until too late. 8 bombers in 2 similar formations side by side fare much better and I often see the bombers beat off the attack with little loss. QMB currently seems to allocate formation none and loose in the formation MCU giving the line astern formations you see. I believe that quite often career does the same.

 

I would like to have the default bomber formation in all cases to be Vic and safe density or loose density (might need to be loose due to collisions). I've made the suggestion but don't know if it will be taken up.

 

At present the only approach I think I have is to bring in the attack ranges of the fighters, so novice goes from 800-600m, normal 600-550m, high unchanged at 500. Ace unchanged at 400.  I will then have to go through the balancing exercise again and see if that helps in the fighter v's bomber situation and not break the fighter v's fighter case. This should mean that AI fighters of lower skill must come closer to bombers to fire giving the skill match ups a better chance of working in a reasonable fashion - hopefully anyway.

 

It will obviously change the fighter v's fighter side of the equation however so I felt I should find out how people felt about this.

Edited January 28, 2024 by Stonehouse

[RedeyeStorm]

I see the dilemma. How those the novice gunnery error work out? If they still pray and spray at 600-550 meters it might be acceptable because you may still have time to evade the worst of the incoming fire. 
 

In career the bombers always fly in a vee-formation and attacking fighters have a strong tendency to go for the bomber flight lead. That would make them fly inside the vee-information and get engaged by all bombers.

[Stonehouse]

2 hours ago, RedeyeStorm said:

How those the novice gunnery error work out?

Still having to test for fighter v's fighter. Seems like it may work better for fighter v's bomber. Have to see how it works out. Will post a new beta once I get things to a point it seems worthwhile doing so.

Edited January 28, 2024 by Stonehouse

[Stonehouse]

FYI in case you want to test in a similar fashion. When testing 4 plane formations of bombers now I have changed to using 2 formations of 2 aircraft. This results in a very loose box for bombers in QMB.

[Stonehouse]

Progress report. I believe I have novice gunners balanced as well as I can with the limitations imposed by the games approach to fighter v's bomber combat. Moving onto average now. Unfortunately, it's a lengthy process to test things (multiple QMBs for each change to get a very basic set of results, then tweak to address what I see in the results and repeat and so on) and done around real-life stuff so progress is slow. I know another patch is in the works as well so not sure if I will manage to produce a beta version for feedback before the patch arrives. I'm hoping I can as it will make post patch updating easier.