Singleplayer improvements - When will we get them?

[=RS=Stix_09]

 

On 8/18/2022 at 1:38 PM, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Your initial argument, that most revenue flows through module sales is fine. However, the idea that other changes are dead money - I can't agree with that at all.  1C has done any number of changes not directly related to new modules, including AI changes.  Stating that these have no impact on revenue is not at all correct.  Constant improvement of a product is needed for both existing customer retention and new customer expansion.  Ignoring core aspects of your product and just churning out more stuff is not a good business model for any company that wants to stay in business.

 

 

 

I agree 100% with this statement. And I've seen this from this developer thoughtout my history with il-2 GB.

Would I like to see more improvements to core gameplay, inc SP content, absolutely, and I'm sure we will get more as we have been getting in the past with this game.

 

Anyone who has been around since the first release of the game , knows its a very dif game to what it started as.

Ppl should read the early and later dev notes and patches if they don't see this.

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/12826-game-updates/

 

From a business point of view it totally makes sense to continue to improve SP and other aspects of the game as well as new content.

And I do agree with what the OP says too.

(the recently added  Custom Input Profiles was long awaited nice addition for example)

[BraveSirRobin]

On 8/18/2022 at 2:30 PM, Corralandy120000 said:

If it turns out to be so, I hope the devs will publish some modding tools and/or source code so the community can do the work.

 

There is no chance of that.

[=RS=Stix_09]

8 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

There is no chance of that.

 

ya fat chance of getting source code

Edited August 21, 2022 by =RS=Stix_09
typo

[ST_Catchov]

Ok so the sales model is to release shiny new stuff because dudes will buy anything shiny and new regardless. That's what dudes do and the business model understands that. Fair enough. Business model 101. But other dudes (let's just call them persons who can't or won't do MP for various reasons and like a good pilot career) get a bit weary of the same old same old AI issues with every shiny new content. So they stop buying new content and/or collectibles. And they may even say to their flight sim SP friends who don't have GB, don't bother getting into the GB series dude cuz the AI is ****. I'm told there are a lot more SP dudes out there than MP [citation required] so it matters.

 

So it seems to me the devs are missing out on a lotta potential sales as time progresses and the AI problems persist. As others have said I'm hoping after Normandy they will focus more on the nuts and bolts. The recently announced DM revision is a good start. Hopefully the AI is next.

Edited August 22, 2022 by MisterSmith
Profanity

[BraveSirRobin]

47 minutes ago, ST_Catchov said:

Ok so the sales model is to release shiny new stuff because dudes will buy anything shiny and new regardless. That's what dudes do and the business model understands that. Fair enough. Business model 101. But other dudes (let's just call them persons who can't or won't do MP for various reasons and like a good pilot career) get a bit weary of the same old same old AI issues with every shiny new content. So they stop buying new content and/or collectibles. And they may even say to their flight sim SP friends who don't have GB, don't bother getting into the GB series dude cuz the AI is ****. I'm told there are a lot more SP dudes out there than MP [citation required] so it matters.

 

So it seems to me the devs are missing out on a lotta potential sales as time progresses and the AI problems persist. As others have said I'm hoping after Normandy they will focus more on the nuts and bolts. The recently announced DM revision is a good start. Hopefully the AI is next.

lol.  No, they’ll continue to work on the AI, and SP players will continue to complain about the AI because they’re under the delusion that AI on a $2000 PC will actually act human at some point.

[LukeFF]

I sometimes wonder about those who complain about the AI, when they last played against the AI. It's a far, far sight better than it was when this series was first launched. 

 

Put another way, load up a Moscow career with the Hurricane in the Autumn of 1941, fly on maximum difficulty, and see how long you last before you're killed or captured. 

[Eisenfaustus]

26 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

I sometimes wonder about those who complain about the AI, when they last played against the AI. It's a far, far sight better than it was when this series was first launched. 

 

Put another way, load up a Moscow career with the Hurricane in the Autumn of 1941, fly on maximum difficulty, and see how long you last before you're killed or captured. 

I‘m actually quite happy with the AI flying individual in most cases. It‘s group tactics, fear and lack of Situational awareness on lower AI skills I‘d like to have modelled. And it‘s comms I‘d like to have reworked. 

[LukeFF]

7 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

I‘m actually quite happy with the AI flying individual in most cases. It‘s group tactics, fear and lack of Situational awareness on lower AI skills I‘d like to have modelled. And it‘s comms I‘d like to have reworked. 

 

Fully agree. ??

[357th_KW]

22 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

I‘m actually quite happy with the AI flying individual in most cases. It‘s group tactics, fear and lack of Situational awareness on lower AI skills I‘d like to have modelled. And it‘s comms I‘d like to have reworked. 

 It’s worth noting, that if one is willing to dig into the mission editor (which I admit is very complicated, and takes a lot of time to learn the basics) you can make scripted missions where the AI behaves in a very human-like fashion.  A plane takes some damage, and the pilot starts running for home, a few teammates get shot down and the rest run for it etc.  You can end up with fights where you have a short, sharp engagement and suddenly the sky is empty.  Likewise, you can set a patrolling unit to fly to a “high” priority waypoint in order to force them to ignore you (and thus enable the possibility of a surprise attack), and then give them an on-damage function that drives them into an attack area (or run for home, or whatever).  Thus you can setup a scenario where you get to bounce the bad guys, and as you hit the first one they start reacting.

 

The tools are there, and I’m sure it would be possible to integrate some of these more complex behaviors into the campaigns and even quick missions.

[tattywelshie]

9 hours ago, nachinus said:

They are about to finish a huge developement project aimed at new content that surely took a lot of work from the whole team. I hope than once Normandy is released, some manpower can be dedicated to quality and gameplay experience stuff rather than new and shiny content.

I totally agree with this, Normandy has been a massive project which I’m sure has

meant they haven’t had the manpower to dedicate to all the improvements we’d like to see. They still have droptanks to sort out which hopefully will be sorted once Normandy is released. The damage model is getting a bit of a refresh as well, I just hope AI gets a bit of an overhaul as well.

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

I sometimes wonder about those who complain about the AI, when they last played against the AI. It's a far, far sight better than it was when this series was first launched. 

 

Put another way, load up a Moscow career with the Hurricane in the Autumn of 1941, fly on maximum difficulty, and see how long you last before you're killed or captured. 

This is true, as in real life there is a massive variation to pilot skill. I reckon it’s probably more the AI of flight mates more to do with comms that could do with a bit of a refresh.

[nachinus]

It's true that the AI is much better today than a few years ago, they did a good work improving it since release and as a result it's much funnier to play SP now. Actually, I dropped the game for a long time because SP dogfighting was terribly lame back then. Some credit is due for the guys who worked to improve this area. Devs don't forget about SP players, they just don't have enough manpower to do everything they (and we) wanted. Their focus change in different developement cycles and I really hope that they focus in SP and inmersion stuff next.

 

Besides AI improvements I'd really love to see squadron and tactical markings, btw.

Edited August 22, 2022 by nachinus

[Corralandy120000]

On 8/22/2022 at 4:26 AM, LukeFF said:

 

Fully agree. ??

That's what I was trying to say. I'm pretty happy with the individual AI (except of being shot down on occations by my wingman trying to shoot the target through me etc). But I'd really like to see some group tactics and commands overhaul. I hope it will not remain only in the realm of dreams.

23 hours ago, nachinus said:

Besides AI improvements I'd really love to see squadron and tactical markings, btw.

Me too mate. It is partialy in game already, so I hope they will incorporate it into the career mode soon. I think it's one of the easiest way to improve the SP immersion and experience.

Edited August 23, 2022 by Corralandy120000

[JG27_Steini]

On 8/22/2022 at 1:12 PM, nachinus said:

It's true that the AI is much better today than a few years ago, they did a good work improving it since release and as a result it's much funnier to play SP now. Actually, I dropped the game for a long time because SP dogfighting was terribly lame back then. Some credit is due for the guys who worked to improve this area. Devs don't forget about SP players, they just don't have enough manpower to do everything they (and we) wanted. Their focus change in different developement cycles and I really hope that they focus in SP and inmersion stuff next.

 

Besides AI improvements I'd really love to see squadron and tactical markings, btw.

 

I dont think they dont have manpower. Last DM change was last year, currently they do it again, we had several DM changes over the past years. We had FM changes, we had several graphic updates past years. We have work on MP functios like AI marshal. We have fancy new 3D models/functions for the new map. We had many other new function/revisions. Unfortunately the SP part was not part of that. Like many other player i play exclusivly SP but stopped playing since SP part wont get any love. Starting a new campaig over france with the same old bug and AI flaws doesnt make any sence for me.

Edited August 23, 2022 by JG27_Steini

[AEthelraedUnraed]

58 minutes ago, JG27_Steini said:

I dont think they dont have manpower. Last DM change was last year, currently they do it again, we had several DM changes over the past years. We had FM changes, we had several graphic updates past years. We have work on MP functios like AI marshal. We have fancy new 3D models/functions for the new map. We had many other new function/revisions. Unfortunately the SP part was not part of that. Like many other player i play exclusivly SP but stopped playing since SP part wont get any love. Starting a new campaig over france with the same old bug and AI flaws doesnt make any sence for me.

Someone creating 3d models or map functions is not qualified to make changes to the AI To a lay person it can often seem that all ICT/programming work is similar and that someone who's qualified to do one thing is also able to do something else, but in fact things like these are often highly specialised. While it's possible to (re)train people or, under some circumstances and to a limited extent, do some work outside of one's specialisation, this will take more time and money and usually lead to less optimal solutions.

 

In other words, creating fancy new 3D models doesn't have any implications on the timeframe for AI adjustments, and having enough manpower for one task doesn't mean there's also enough manpower for another.

 

2 hours ago, Corralandy120000 said:

That's what I was trying to say. I'm pretty happy with the individual AI (except of being shot down on occations by my wingman trying to shoot the target through me etc). But I'd really like to see some group tactics and commands overhaul. I hope it will not remain only in the realm of dreams.

Agreed. Group tactics and radio comms could be improved, and would really make this game come to life.

 

However, at least some people still seem to have problems with the individual AI. I do wonder if those people have realistic expectations. One shouldn't forget that most of us have an amount of experience flying air combat that only the very best of fighter aces had - and often much more. The AI could be improved to such an extent that it would still pose a challenge to the best of us (in fact, since AI doesn't make any "mistakes" it's theoretically possible to make it the best "pilot" in history, and be near-invincible). But how realistic would that be, and would that still fit a simulator that purports to recreate WW2 air combat? Personally, I think we just have to accept that as we gain experience, the AI gets comparatively weaker.

Edited August 23, 2022 by AEthelraedUnraed

[Corralandy120000]

1 hour ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

However, at least some people still seem to have problems with the individual AI. I do wonder if those people have realistic expectations. One shouldn't forget that most of us have an amount of experience flying air combat that only the very best of fighter aces had - and often much more. The AI could be improved to such an extent that it would still pose a challenge to the best of us (in fact, since AI doesn't make any "mistakes" it's theoretically possible to make it the best "pilot" in history, and be near-invincible). But how realistic would that be, and would that still fit a simulator that purports to recreate WW2 air combat? Personally, I think we just have to accept that as we gain experience, the AI gets comparatively weaker.

I totally agree. I'm pretty happy with individual AI (experions mentioned in my earlier posts). And you're right. AI was a challenge when I started flying but as I gained experinece it seemed weaker and weaker. But that's how it's supposed to be

[JG27_Steini]

2 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Someone creating 3d models or map functions is not qualified to make changes to the AI To a lay person it can often seem that all ICT/programming work is similar and that someone who's qualified to do one thing is also able to do something else, but in fact things like these are often highly specialised. While it's possible to (re)train people or, under some circumstances and to a limited extent, do some work outside of one's specialisation, this will take more time and money and usually lead to less optimal solutions.

 

In other words, creating fancy new 3D models doesn't have any implications on the timeframe for AI adjustments, and having enough manpower for one task doesn't mean there's also enough manpower for another.

 

Agreed. Group tactics and radio comms could be improved, and would really make this game come to life.

 

However, at least some people still seem to have problems with the individual AI. I do wonder if those people have realistic expectations. One shouldn't forget that most of us have an amount of experience flying air combat that only the very best of fighter aces had - and often much more. The AI could be improved to such an extent that it would still pose a challenge to the best of us (in fact, since AI doesn't make any "mistakes" it's theoretically possible to make it the best "pilot" in history, and be near-invincible). But how realistic would that be, and would that still fit a simulator that purports to recreate WW2 air combat? Personally, I think we just have to accept that as we gain experience, the AI gets comparatively weaker.

 

It is not about how good AI performs, it is about how it behave in several circumstances. I played a mission last night. Coming out of  clouds attacking bomber, i was shout down by AI right after leaving the cloud. It must have been follow me for at least one minute in a thick cloud. This is only one small example of many problems with AI. There are dozen of threads reagarding this. 

[nachinus]

That is true. Immersion and gameplay value may not come from just making the AI better, but more human.

 

But the particular case mentioned above I don't have many hopes of being adressed. I don't think I ever played a flight sim in which clouds affect AI pilots.

Edited August 23, 2022 by nachinus

[AEthelraedUnraed]

18 hours ago, JG27_Steini said:

It is not about how good AI performs, it is about how it behave in several circumstances. I played a mission last night. Coming out of  clouds attacking bomber, i was shout down by AI right after leaving the cloud. It must have been follow me for at least one minute in a thick cloud. This is only one small example of many problems with AI. There are dozen of threads reagarding this. 

 

17 hours ago, nachinus said:

That is true. Immersion and gameplay value may not come from just making the AI better, but more human.

 

But the particular case mentioned above I don't have many hopes of being adressed. I don't think I ever played a flight sim in which clouds affect AI pilots.

The clouds do affect the AI. The devs have confirmed this, and I've also noticed I'm sometimes able to shake pursuers off in clouds.

 

However, I've also noticed AI following me right through a cloud layer, like you say. My preliminary theory is that it depends on the used attack command, with AttackArea MCU or a Low priority waypoint working as intended, while an Attack MCU makes the AI able to follow the target through cloud layers. It does need some testing however to confirm.

 

From a mission writer's perspective this would be desirable behaviour IMHO as it gives additional options if one takes care to add a few additional checks to avoid impossible situations. It would also make it a mission scripting rather than AI issue, if confirmed, like so many other purported "AI issues". EDIT: on second thought, it has many disadvantages as well so perhaps not so desirable behaviour.

Edited August 24, 2022 by AEthelraedUnraed

[JG27_Steini]

7 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

 

The clouds do affect the AI. The devs have confirmed this, and I've also noticed I'm sometimes able to shake pursuers off in clouds.

 

However, I've also noticed AI following me right through a cloud layer, like you say. My preliminary theory is that it depends on the used attack command, with AttackArea MCU or a Low priority waypoint working as intended, while an Attack MCU makes the AI able to follow the target through cloud layers. It does need some testing however to confirm.

 

From a mission writer's perspective this would be desirable behaviour IMHO as it gives additional options if one takes care to add a few additional checks to avoid impossible situations. It would also make it a mission scripting rather than AI issue, if confirmed, like so many other purported "AI issues".

 

The problems are complex as you stated. Not everyone has experience with mission building like you. So let us agree there are problems around NON player vehicles. I named it AI. I apoligize 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

16 minutes ago, JG27_Steini said:

The problems are complex as you stated. Not everyone has experience with mission building like you. So let us agree there are problems around NON player vehicles. I named it AI. I apoligize 

There are issues around the mission scripting generated by the career and (A)QMB. I can agree with that.

Edited August 24, 2022 by AEthelraedUnraed

[ST_Catchov]

On 8/23/2022 at 10:24 PM, JG27_Steini said:

Like many other player i play exclusivly SP but stopped playing since SP part wont get any love. Starting a new campaig over france with the same old bug and AI flaws doesnt make any sence for me.

 

Yes it's a brilliant business model. Pure genius. 

[Sybreed]

On 8/21/2022 at 9:49 PM, LukeFF said:

I sometimes wonder about those who complain about the AI, when they last played against the AI. It's a far, far sight better than it was when this series was first launched. 

 

Put another way, load up a Moscow career with the Hurricane in the Autumn of 1941, fly on maximum difficulty, and see how long you last before you're killed or captured. 

That's not the source of complaints in most cases. It usually is about wingmen AI being incompetent in bombing/fighting.

 

Slippy Toad from Star Fox flies better than our wingmen.

[Sitaro]

I can say, I completely agree with the OP. I would, I think, really enjoy the SP aspect of the game if the AI was not so bad. If you could coordinate them. And if they stopped doing absolutely everything wrong including shooting thru you to get the enemy. 

 

I personally never play SP because of this. No campaign. No career mode. Rarely a QM to practice something in a plane. I find I would rather deal with the pros and cons of multiplayer over single player any day. Yeah, some blind noob in going to shoot you because he can't tell a spit from a 109. But at least if you are flying with a group in multiplayer, they will probably be better than the AI wingmen of single player. 

[Corralandy120000]

I really hope this thread won't die so the devs will notice it. Right now I'm flying pwcg because AI and mission possibilities seems better, but I'm missing some aspects of native career mode. So I tried it again and ended up frustrated once again... We really need radio comms overhaul ?

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, Corralandy120000 said:

I really hope this thread won't die so the devs will notice it. Right now I'm flying pwcg because AI and mission possibilities seems better, but I'm missing some aspects of native career mode. So I tried it again and ended up frustrated once again... We really need radio comms overhaul ?

I'm pretty sure the Devs did already notice it, and even if not, are well aware that the group AI and radio system could be improved. However, if you want a Dev to respond to this thread in person, you're very likely going to be disappointed.

 

The Devs generally don't respond to threads. Besides taking time that they could better spend on actually creating or fixing things, the few times when they do respond often only lead to more discontent:

- People don't agree with the proposed way the Devs say they're going to do something. Even more arguments with people who all think they know something about it and who all disagree what the best way is to fix something.

- People expect it to happen soon, while in reality such processes often takes months. This causes additional complaints of why it's taking so long and that it *still* isn't fixed and why did you abandon it?

- People complain that a certain thing they don't care much about is being worked on, while something they personally find more important isn't. "Why are you fixing the radio system while the Fw-190 XYZ-99 still doesn't have this very specific field modification that about 5 pilots used for all of about 8 days in October 1944?"

- It might turn out that the desired changes aren't possible or feasible in the current game engine or with the current budget. This will lead to yet more complaints if something the devs "promised" is cancelled.

 

That's why, whenever the Devs do respond, it's usually with "we'll see what we can do and when we can do it". Which is really the only frank answer the Devs can give. Like the Damage Model changes that have recently been announced for the upcoming Normandy update, the Devs will likely fix the radio and group AI at some point, and only announce it when they're pretty certain the new changes are ready for release.

[CountZero]

Make complex and long to implement improvments to AI and Human coms, or add modification used only 1-2 time 20xmm gunpod for reacon jet so players cand do fast boom-boom-bang and it can look cool in video. Hard choice to make ?

 

[Eisenfaustus]

9 minutes ago, CountZero said:

Make complex and long to implement improvments to AI and Human coms, or add modification used only 1-2 time 20xmm gunpod for reacon jet so players cand do fast boom-boom-bang and it can look cool in video. Hard choice to make ?

 

Yeah - because the AI guy is modelling guns to planes

 

or at least

 

FM/DM/graphic guys are also proficient in AI and sound design

[CountZero]

2 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

Yeah - because the AI guy is modelling guns to planes

 

or at least

 

FM/DM/graphic guys are also proficient in AI and sound design

no ai guy when fantasy guns make more bang, insted ai guy we get more 3d modeling guy

 

PS:

oh yes FM guy was doing AI here not so long ago, who knows maybe still, so its not so suprising that one guy do mullti things, this is not WT or AAA game.

 

Edited September 3, 2022 by CountZero

[Corralandy120000]

So, BoN is out. I really hope the devs will finaly take a look at simgleplayer aspects and problems.

[spreckair]

On 8/18/2022 at 10:06 AM, PaladinX said:

In theory, yes. If a game is a good game, it will be sold long term to people.

But what brings direct income? Not the patch with some improved AI (you can not even promote that - no customer will buy the game because the developer now states "heyyyy....we have improved AI".

I disagree.  I think if the AI was significantly improved, it could increase the immersion factor of the simulation, which would then attract more interest and sales.  I think most single players want an experience that is as close to history as possible, with flights working as teams and flight leads controlling the situation.  Meaningful radio callouts would really up the immersion factor.  Also, make the AI's actions appropriate to the particular time period.  These would all make the simulation extremely attractive.  I fly in VR, and immersion is everything to improving the overall experience.