Fundamental Waypoint Change Proposed..

[Zooropa_Fly]

This is just to guage opinion primarily from mission makers, but anyone else is of course welcome to chip in !

 

Ai gunners have been in the news a bit lately, and we all have opinions on how things should be.

This however I see as more fundamental.

 

The proposition is that 'High' priority waypoints don't deactivate the gunners on a multi-seater.

 

I believe in both wars, multi-seaters would generally fly straight to target, and straight home again - with the pilot reliant on his gunners to protect him.

So it's completely unrealistic for a multi-seater to be under attack with gunners doing nothing.

It's similarly unrealistic for multi-seat pilots to get into turn fights, to the death, at every opportunity.

 

It effectively deprives us of realistic multi-seater attacking options.

 

Although in reality I've no idea - I suspect this shouldn't be too difficult to code in.

And the improvement would be significant for the game in my opinion, bringing a sense of realism that wasn't there before.

 

S!

ZF.

 

 

 

 

[Thad]

Salutations,

 

Or, mission creators could avoid assigning a high priority to waypoints for multi-seat flights.

[Gambit21]

6 minutes ago, Thad said:

Salutations,

 

Or, mission creators could avoid assigning a high priority to waypoints for multi-seat flights.

Yes but it’s necessary sometimes.

What if I need a flight of 110’s to bug out for instance.

[SYN_Vander]

Yes, this should have been the default setting from the start. Or introduce a new priority setting value like "bomb run" with gunners on.

[Zooropa_Fly]

29 minutes ago, Thad said:

Salutations,

 

Or, mission creators could avoid assigning a high priority to waypoints for multi-seat flights.

 

It’s to get them to exit the action and land. 

In a recent example I have 10 waves of x4 planes, activating / deactivating - bombing targets, hopefully engaging for a minute or so, then I need to get them out of the way !

 

So actually a second change would be required, that on high priority the pilot flies directly to it. 

 

S! 

[Thad]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

Yes but it’s necessary sometimes.

What if I need a flight of 110’s to bug out for instance.

 

Other variables could be assigned to trigger a bug out sequence.... destroyed craft or out of ammo etc.

[Zooropa_Fly]

49 minutes ago, Thad said:

 

Other variables could be assigned to trigger a bug out sequence.... destroyed craft or out of ammo etc.

 

I have them set to 'force complete' 1 min after attack command, triggered by 'on bingo bombs'. Then a short timer triggers a high priority land command.

I've added 'on bingo turrets' to try and force the land command at that point, but it, like all else, only works when the plane is not dogfighting. 

 

So other than disabling the gunners.. what's the difference between a medium waypoint and a high one ? 

 

S! 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, Thad said:

Other variables could be assigned to trigger a bug out sequence.... destroyed craft or out of ammo etc.

I don't think you quite understand - currently, high-priority waypoints are the only way to ensure aircraft don't engage enemies. Under some circumstances, even bombers (especially WW1 light bombers) go into dogfights with enemy fighters if anything else than high priority is used.

 

Yes, the rear gunner should basically fire at every waypoint priority and at every target, regardless and independent of what the pilot is doing.

[Zooropa_Fly]

I think I got slightly confused also. 

 

Yes, thinking about it planes do of course go straight to a high priority waypoint . 

So the next question is, does a high priority 'land' command behave differently ?

Because it doesn't seem to be pulling them out of an engagement. 

 

I'll need to test tomorrow, perhaps a high waypoint doesn't either, in which case the problem is the pilot not disengaging upon receiving the high priority command. 

 

Thanks for the input thus far. 

[Thad]

2 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

 

So other than disabling the gunners.. what's the difference between a medium waypoint and a high one ?

S! 

 

High - AI will not engage targets at any range.

Medium - AI may or may not engage targets in range. Probably a percentage chance (unknown percentage).

Low - AI will engage any and all enemy targets in range.

 

This may not apply to a 'player' controlled craft in a flight. Go to Auto and the waypoint priority will take over.

[Zooropa_Fly]

14 minutes ago, Thad said:

 

High - AI will not engage targets at any range.

 

In said mission, Bristols and DH4's which have long been triggered by the high priority land command, often get chased across the mud by enemy ai as they scarper for base. 

 

As soon as the fighters get in range, the 2 seaters turn and engage, to death (eventually)... Unless one finds itself out of range and gets back to the business of landing. 

 

It might be worth mentioning at this point - that on the bombing run, under high priority, if engaged payloads are jettisoned and the fur ball begins.

Naturally targets aren't hit, and you've probably just bombed your own front lines !

 

So both ways, I seem to be experiencing engagement under a high priority command. 

 

I'll try and get some more tesing tmrw on a blank map with a simple set up.. 

 

S! 

[Zooropa_Fly]

 

 

With the above logic - the Bristol does what's expected if left alone.

 

If a bandit approaches - bombs are panic dropped as the bandit closes to around 1.2k, and dogfight commences.

(It's well past the wp and under High Priority by this time).

It's of course a fight the Bristol can't win, since it won't fire back.

 

1:02 after 'On Bingo Bombs' the land command is triggered. However - it's High Priority status isn't pulling the Bristol out of the fight.

 

I'm just wondering if spawn / delete is the same..

 

Anyway, I'm not one of the geniuses with this thing (Cynic where the hell are you ?!), and there are usually many ways to skin cats with the ME.

So perhaps there's a better solution ?

 

S!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

16 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

With the above logic - the Bristol does what's expected if left alone.

 

If a bandit approaches - bombs are panic dropped as the bandit closes to around 1.2k, and dogfight commences.

(It's well past the wp and under High Priority by this time).

It's of course a fight the Bristol can't win, since it won't fire back.

 

1:02 after 'On Bingo Bombs' the land command is triggered. However - it's High Priority status isn't pulling the Bristol out of the fight.

It's not quite clear to me what you're trying to achieve. You want the Bristol to stop the landing sequence if it's attacked, and go into dogfighting mode along with its gunner? Just add a Proximity Trigger set to 500m or so that detects aircraft from the Central Powers, and link it to a Force Complete set to Low. Then another Proximity Trigger, let's say 1500m, that fires when the Central Powers aircraft gets further, and link that to the landing sequence again.

 

16 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

I'm just wondering if spawn / delete is the same..

Depends on what you want to do. I like to use Spawners instead of Activate MCUs since the OnSpawned message provides a nice and clean way to link the first waypoint; and since its "Spawn at me" functionality provides an easy way to spawn the aircraft at different locations for some nice randomisation. However, it doesn't work properly with multiple-aircraft formations, so if you've got 2 or more aircraft, you're forced to use Activate MCUs.

 

Delete and Deactivate can in general be used interchangeably, however use Deactivate if you plan to ever use the asset again (e.g. a Flak battery that the player flies over on both its outbound and inbound journey) and either Delete or Deactivate if you never plan to use the aircraft again. If you're unsure, it's better to use Deactivate.

 

Oh, one small tip: if you go to the Mission Properties and click the Countries button, you can set the WW1 countries to Axis/Allied instead of Entente/Central Powers. That way their icons will show up coloured instead of black and white

Edited May 2, 2022 by AEthelraedUnraed

[Jaegermeister]

1 hour ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

It's not quite clear to me what you're trying to achieve. You want the Bristol to stop the landing sequence if it's attacked, and go into dogfighting mode along with its gunner? Just add a Proximity Trigger set to 500m or so that detects aircraft from the Central Powers, and link it to a Force Complete set to Low. Then another Proximity Trigger, let's say 1500m, that fires when the Central Powers aircraft gets further, and link that to the landing sequence again.

 

 

One of the recent updates stated the AI logic has been changed and planes will now break out of the landing sequence and defend themselves when attacked. They should raise gear, turn off lights and fire back. That would explain the behavior noted above.

[Zooropa_Fly]

Thanks for the info Gents,.

 

I'm actually fairly happy with behaviour regards the map in question.

10 groups of 4 bombers activate 9 mins apart, possibly encounter 4 bandits around the target, 1 minute or so after dropping bombs they get the land command.

As it is, some get away clean, some get sucked into fights.

Any that get sucked into fights drag the bandits down - which clears the way for the next group to go about their business unhindered.

So it's quite dynamic - and the same things never happen twice. I like that.

 

Ideally I want them to go straight to landing when called on High Priority, whilst the gunners are defending - which goes back to the original point.

We need active gunners - whatever the command priority.

 

There's long standing issues with landing sequences, certainly for ww1 planes.

The routine takes way too long, and with bombers getting held up in fights there's usually big queues forming at the AF.

With so many bots, it's better to be able to get them out of the game fairly quickly.

I've used a second AF to land every other set, which helps.

I might post about landing routines soon - in my experience some AF's can land a plane, other miss by up to 1km, or often fall short.

 

Re. the AI logic change - I assume that applies to all prioroty commands then, in which case isn't a 'High' pretty much the same as 'Medium' ?

(I'll look back at the updates and check what it says).

 

Cheers !

[Zooropa_Fly]

 

 

To add..

I've just tried spawn / delete, looks like the same behaviour.

 

Re. defending themselves when under attack - whenever this one gets a chance to escape it doesn't want to take it.

The DVIIf was over 1km away, heading away - the Bristol turns and chases it, when it's under a High priority land command (in the opposite direction).

And of course under High Priority - it can't do much to defend itself anyway.

[Jaegermeister]

6 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

Re. the AI logic change - I assume that applies to all prioroty commands then, in which case isn't a 'High' pretty much the same as 'Medium' ?

 

No. The landing routine is a completely different thing than other High priority MCUs. Once a flight was in the landing pattern, it used to ignore all other outside threats. Now the landing routine is interrupted and they defend themselves, whatever that involves. When the threat is gone, they resume the landing routine.

[IckyATLAS]

As I posted many times on this topic (but saw no change), thanks to Zooropa_Fly to make a reminder to the Devs.

I will reinforce the fundamental message:

 

The simples modification:

(1) Gunners and Pilots in multiple crew planes should be considered separately or decoupled.

Waypoints Priority should be considered only for AI Pilots and the way they fly:

- High priority means fly straight to the next Waypoint whatever happens around (except when hit and damaged)

- Medium priority means deviate from the flightpath if attacked to avoid being damaged, and resume flying when the plane is not attacked any more.

- Low priority means deviate from the path as soon as there is a target to be attacked. Or said the other way, targets of opportunity are higher priority than flying to the next waypoint. Resume flying to the next waypoint when there is nothing else to do.

 

(2) AI Gunners should be always active according to a logic related to the choice of targets around with priority to defend the plane when attacked and if no danger then to select enemy targets according to distance, the nearer first. Stop firing when targets are out of range.

 

A more sophisticated and ideal modification:

We would have two Priority settings in the waypoint, one for AI Pilots and one for AI Crew.

The priority setting for AI Pilots is as point (1) above.

The priority setting for AI Crew would be:

-High priority is always active and equivalent to what is said in point (2) above.

-Medium priority means attack only targets that attack the plane, or only as defense of the plane.

-Low priority means gunnners are inactive. It is also useful to have them not firing in certain circumstances.

 

Who knows maybe for Normandy we will finally be heard. If not then it will be impossible to make realistic bomber formations flying straight with gunners shooting cross fire against the fighters that plunge in the formations. And that would be really a show killer for the upcoming Normandy battle.

 

Edited May 3, 2022 by IckyATLAS

[Zooropa_Fly]

11 hours ago, Jaegermeister said:

 

No. The landing routine is a completely different thing than other High priority MCUs. Once a flight was in the landing pattern, it used to ignore all other outside threats. Now the landing routine is interrupted and they defend themselves, whatever that involves. When the threat is gone, they resume the landing routine.

 

Thanks Jaeger,

Yes, you can just about see when the landing routine kicks in, and the behaviour above is fine by me (except that the plane won't fire back).

But I'm seeing the same behaviour under 'High Land' before the landing routine starts.. and under High WP's.

 

Having said that - I made an me262 practice mission a while back with B25's - they fly straight to a High WP without deviating under attack, no return fire of course.

Perhaps the flying straight to command problem is with certain planes.. ww1 crates maybe ?

 

 

 

1 hour ago, IckyATLAS said:

(1) Gunners and Pilots in multiple crew planes should be considered separately or decoupled.

 

Thanks Icky, I think that's what's required.

I would like to see gunners have their own skill level too, if I may be a little greedy !

 

S!

 

[Jaegermeister]

2 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

But I'm seeing the same behaviour under 'High Land' before the landing routine starts.. and under High WP's.

 

Perhaps the flying straight to command problem is with certain planes.. ww1 crates maybe ?

 

As soon as the Land MCU trigger is activated, the landing behavior begins.

 

The WWi planes have the same AI behavior. One for bombers, one for fighters.

 

The gunners are as you mention are still subject to the AI behavior for the pilot, so your original point is still valid. They don't fire unless the bomber is defending. I have not tested whether this happens on the way to a high priority waypoint, but if it is changed like the Land MCU, they would evade the attackers and abort their bomb runs. That would be a bigger problem than not firing back at attackers.   

[Zooropa_Fly]

If you do get a chance to test this - make sure and let us know how it goes !

 

S!

[AEthelraedUnraed]

38 minutes ago, Jaegermeister said:

The WWi planes have the same AI behavior. One for bombers, one for fighters.

If this is the case, the AI of the DH4 (and possibly the other WW1 light bombers) needs to be changed from fighter to bomber. Right now, the behaviour of DH4s (Medium priority) when encountering enemies is to go into full dogfighting mode. I'm not saying the DH4 couldn't dogfight - there's plenty of historical evidence that it could and sometimes did - but it shouldn't be the default behaviour.

 

Currently, the DH4 is basically useless as a bomber interception target. Whether this is fixed by adjusting their AI or by enabling gunners on High priority, I don't care, but it needs to be fixed regardless to make the DH4 behave as it historically usually did.

[SYN_Vander]

3 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

If this is the case, the AI of the DH4 (and possibly the other WW1 light bombers) needs to be changed from fighter to bomber. Right now, the behaviour of DH4s (Medium priority) when encountering enemies is to go into full dogfighting mode. I'm not saying the DH4 couldn't dogfight - there's plenty of historical evidence that it could and sometimes did - but it shouldn't be the default behaviour.

 

Currently, the DH4 is basically useless as a bomber interception target. Whether this is fixed by adjusting their AI or by enabling gunners on High priority, I don't care, but it needs to be fixed regardless to make the DH4 behave as it historically usually did.

 

Have created a bug report for this. The Breguet behaves as expected, the DH4 starts to dogfight....

[Zooropa_Fly]

5 hours ago, SYN_Vander said:

 

Have created a bug report for this. The Breguet behaves as expected, the DH4 starts to dogfight....

 

Thanks for this.

The Bristol is the same I think.

[SYN_Vander]

16 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

 

Thanks for this.

The Bristol is the same I think.

 

The Bristol IS a fighter, so that is correct.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 minute ago, SYN_Vander said:

The Bristol IS a fighter, so that is correct.

Correct, maybe, but it still leads to the above mentioned problem.

 

For instance, if the Bristol is a lone recon plane. IMO its priority should be to bring home the recon data it has collected, rather than singlehandedly engage your flight of four DVIIs. Right now, your options as a mission builder are:

- Give it a Medium waypoint. It will go into dogfighting mode rather than do what you as a mission builder want.

- High priority. It'll fly straight back to base alright, but if you're fast enough to intercept it, its rear gunner won't ever fire.

 

Neither is a good option.

[352ndOscar]

Besides “fighter” and “bomber”, maybe add two more definitions to the mix: “recon” (photo and/or visual) and “spotter”; with appropriate priorities, at the same time they are fixing the existing Hi, Med, and Low priorities mentioned above.

[IckyATLAS]

The problem with all that is that we are a very small number of mission builders. This game genre is a niche compared to titles like World of Warcraft, Grand Theft Auto etc.

And we mission developers are a niche in the niche. Our issues are on the bottom of the bottom of the pile of things to do by the Devs.

Their priority to exist (economically) is to sell a new BOX with some campaigns plus some missions. Maybe our issues are not the same for them, after all they have the editor source code so they can tweak it so that this type of issues do not happen in the missions they create. Anyway I think that the chances that some changes are made on waypoints is very slim. I hope I am wrong ? 

[SYN_Vander]

9 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Correct, maybe, but it still leads to the above mentioned problem.

 

For instance, if the Bristol is a lone recon plane. IMO its priority should be to bring home the recon data it has collected, rather than singlehandedly engage your flight of four DVIIs. Right now, your options as a mission builder are:

- Give it a Medium waypoint. It will go into dogfighting mode rather than do what you as a mission builder want.

- High priority. It'll fly straight back to base alright, but if you're fast enough to intercept it, its rear gunner won't ever fire.

 

Neither is a good option.

 

I totally agree, but if the Bristol is considered a fighter than for now it's not a bug in the existing implementation and we'll have to choose another plane for reconnaissance. That's why we need the suggested change as well.

 

For the devs, we need to make a clear distinction between unexpected behavior (bug) and expected but unwanted behavior (change request). In this case the bug will be easy to fix, the change request probably not.

Edited May 4, 2022 by SYN_Vander

[AEthelraedUnraed]

53 minutes ago, IckyATLAS said:

The problem with all that is that we are a very small number of mission builders. This game genre is a niche compared to titles like World of Warcraft, Grand Theft Auto etc.

And we mission developers are a niche in the niche. Our issues are on the bottom of the bottom of the pile of things to do by the Devs.

Their priority to exist (economically) is to sell a new BOX with some campaigns plus some missions. Maybe our issues are not the same for them, after all they have the editor source code so they can tweak it so that this type of issues do not happen in the missions they create. Anyway I think that the chances that some changes are made on waypoints is very slim. I hope I am wrong ? 

But we are, however small, a group that adds value to the product . A large amount of quality missions and campaigns, both MP and SP, both free and paid, helps as a selling point. Besides, their own mission builders (e.g. BlackSix) use the same Mission Editor as to my knowledge, and hence have the same problems. I therefore like to think our issues are not quite at the very bottom of the pile of things to do

 

(It is a very large pile however, and it's not quite at the top either...)

[Zooropa_Fly]

Re. the Bristol,

 

I always considered it a fighter-bomber (knowing it's called a Bristol Fighter).

It just happens to be the best multi-seater 'fighter' in game - by a fair bit.

Words aside, I see no reason why it shouldn't be capable of the same behaviour as the rest of them.

 

I expect things not to be easy at HQ right now, so if we get the DH4 behaviour sorted in the next patch or two I'd certainly be grateful for that.

But hopefully the Bristol gets a mention at least - if they go and do the DH4, how much longer would it take to apply the same to it ?

 

S!

 

[IckyATLAS]

6 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

I expect things not to be easy at HQ right now

I agree, just continuing to deliver according to plan is probably already a challenge as it is in every business but here there may be some additional "difficulties".

They have all our gratitude for whatever they can deliver according to plan or not ? 

At the moment the industry is in great difficulties to deliver simple basic vehicles like cars due to shortage in chips and various other components. Can you imagine then delivering planes. We have a big advantage here, our planes and vehicles have no electronic chips on board.

As long as we have metal, tissue and wood that should make it. ?

[Zooropa_Fly]