Damn, almost thought this was fixed in 5.002...

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, Sybreed said:

 

And like you said, the current mission editor is too much scripted. 

 

It’s not the fault of the editor FYI.

 

The career itself that is generated via editor logic is limited yes - but the editor itself is very powerful.

 

 

 

 

 

[Adger]

3 hours ago, Deicide said:

 

Not even the slightest bit demanding, trust me. I feel the same as you. I've been labeled a complainer and someone who argues, you know why? Because of what has been said in threads just like this. I've been multi-day bans and all that because of standing my ground against others and not backing down when it comes to things like this. You're not to demanding at all. Not by any means. Most of the people honestly just dick ride, you know who they are when you see their comments. Keep up the good fight, you've got me and others here who completely agree with all you've said so far.

 

 

Absolutely agree, it’s not demanding it’s asking for improvements to hopefully be made to the sim, there’s some on here who’d purchase a flying turd if the devs released it ? 

 

But...it’s their money so it’s entirely upto them they’ve got a choice to what they want to purchase and so have ourselves, my choice @Deicide is to not put anymore of my hard earned cash into the coffers until bug fixes, SP and AI “issues” are implemented and improved on. I personally find it quite bizarre (ludicrous even) that the team are working/looking at announcing another theatre IF that’s the case before actually “fixing” the current issues with the entire series. I don’t own FC or TC but reading between the lines those 2 modules need some serious tlc.

[Sybreed]

and just so you guys know... I started bugging the devs with this in early 2020. So, I don't want to sound grim, but my hopes to see anything done are getting pretty low.

3 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

It’s not the fault of the editor FYI.

 

The career itself that is generated via editor logic is limited yes - but the editor itself is very powerful.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fair enough. I'm sure you understood what I meant still.

[Trooper117]

I've been stating what's wrong with the single player element for years, and on a regular basis, plus what is wrong with FC from the start... yes, it's frustrating and I go months at a time not playing the game because I get fed up with the same old problems.

Have to say as well, I've never been given a ban for doing so.

[Sybreed]

7 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

I've been stating what's wrong with the single player element for years, and on a regular basis, plus what is wrong with FC from the start... yes, it's frustrating and I go months at a time not playing the game because I get fed up with the same old problems.

Have to say as well, I've never been given a ban for doing so.

 

I think it's important to remain constructive and not simply "criticize". Every time I find something wrong with the sim, I also post a solution as to how it could be fixed.

 

[Sybreed]

On 10/26/2022 at 1:59 PM, Gambit21 said:

 

It’s not the fault of the editor FYI.

 

The career itself that is generated via editor logic is limited yes - but the editor itself is very powerful.

 

 

 

 

 

 

hey, just had an idea.

 

If the mission was scripted so that the "target waypoint" was set to high and the other waypoints to medium, would that change target priorisation from the squad at the objective so they don't overfocus AA?

[Gambit21]

Once the hard-coded attack logic kicks in, (for “Attack Area” MCU) there’s nothing you can do unless you go to specific attack unit/ assign a specific truck or something as the target.

[Han]

I have an idea. 

[Adger]

1 hour ago, Han said:

I have an idea. 

 

And it’s...? ?‍♂️ ?

[AndyJWest]

1 hour ago, Han said:

I have an idea. 

 

I had one of those once. I've still got the scar...

[Juri_JS]

On 11/3/2022 at 4:59 PM, Gambit21 said:

Once the hard-coded attack logic kicks in, (for “Attack Area” MCU) there’s nothing you can do unless you go to specific attack unit/ assign a specific truck or something as the target.

If you don't want the AI to attack AA first, then set the guns to non-engageable in advanced properties. If you want the AI to attack AA after a certain time or once the primary targets have been destroyed, you can make the AA engageable again by using Command:Behaviour.

 

This methode works very well if you want to fine-tune AI attack behaviour when using Command:AttackArea and allows you to make the AI concentrate on specific targets.

[Sybreed]

20 hours ago, Han said:

I have an idea. 

Go on.

[McDuff]

21 hours ago, Han said:

I have an idea. 

We're all ears...

[Trooper117]

On 11/5/2022 at 8:42 PM, Han said:

I have an idea. 

 

[Sybreed]

I think we'll have to wait and see folks. Fingers crossed. 

[Sybreed]

11. The target distribution in AI aircraft groups has been adjusted. Priority targets like anti-aircraft guns are engaged by one to four planes in the group depending on the leader's AI level, other wingmen will choose other targets;

 

 

This is probably Han's idea, though I'm not sure what it really does. I can't do tests tonight but will try later this week.

[LukeFF]

2 minutes ago, Sybreed said:

I'm not sure what it really does

 

It does what it says. ? Certain pilots will go after the AA guns, while others will go after other targets. It really works well. 

[migmadmarine]

Yea, It was great to see in testing, I was actually holding off playing career in the live build until this patch came out since it was hard to go back. But yea, a couple pilots in your flight will supress AA while everyone else attacks whatever targets are available. 

[Stonehouse]

That's great news. Fingers crossed one day they will add a +/- 10 or 15% of plotted course altitude variance maneuvering around plotted altitude as a flak avoidance type thing when AI encounter flak enroute.

 

Edited November 23, 2022 by Stonehouse

[Sybreed]

That's great news. Can't wait to try it out.

[Skrimps]

Great news about this AI update. Since I mostly play single player, any AI improvement is excellent news to me.

[Sybreed]

Aright, just did my round of testing.

 

It works! Just look at the screenshots below, we completely destroyed the troops on the ground ! I got shredded to bits by the air cover but still, it was so nice to see all these trucks and tanks get blown up!

 

I do have one question though @Han. Is it possible the AI is now programmed to not respond to enemy planes (waypoint priority set to high?)? After dropping our bombs, I noticed my flight kept flying away even though there were 10 yaks around us and I got shot down. If this is what it takes to make our flights attack actual ground targets, then leave it at that, I don't want to go back to what it was before!

 

Otherwise, thank you, it's a great improvement. Can't wait to try other planes now.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2022 by Sybreed

[Sybreed]

So for those who tested: If your flight consists of BF-109, Yaks or FWs, will your squadmates attempt to defend themselves if they're attacked? Haven't had the opportunity to test this yet.

[migmadmarine]

11 hours ago, Sybreed said:

So for those who tested: If your flight consists of BF-109, Yaks or FWs, will your squadmates attempt to defend themselves if they're attacked? Haven't had the opportunity to test this yet.

I flew a train station attack yesterday, and after dropping our bombs my flight engaged a pair of 109s that turned up along side our escorting P-51s.

[Sybreed]

1 hour ago, migmadmarine said:

I flew a train station attack yesterday, and after dropping our bombs my flight engaged a pair of 109s that turned up along side our escorting P-51s.

Thx.  Somehow in my FW career they're not reacting but maybe I need to start a new one. 

[migmadmarine]

Wonder if it might be target dependant? The train station bombing was technically a bombing mission rather than attack, so there were no follow up strafing runs. Maybe the issue you described happens on attack missions where the fighters stay on station to strafe a bit?

[Sybreed]

4 hours ago, migmadmarine said:

Wonder if it might be target dependant? The train station bombing was technically a bombing mission rather than attack, so there were no follow up strafing runs. Maybe the issue you described happens on attack missions where the fighters stay on station to strafe a bit?

 

Not even! It was a bomb troops mission, so we dropped our bombs and left. We had yaks busy with our escorts while we were on the target. 

[Sybreed]

Edit: after what migmadmarine said, the system in place is probably the best so most of my post can be disregarded

 

Okay, so probably what happened is that waypoints priority are set to high for the entire flight. Ideally, they would be set to medium after the target has been attacked (don't know if can be done, never worked with the editor).

What's interesting is that my autopilot will engage enemy aircrafts that are close while my flight won't. I don't know if our own autopilot is set differently. I thought it would follow the same rules honestly.

 

Still, this is much better than before and I'd rather not change anything than revert back to what it was. This is tricky because in a HS-129, you wouldn't want to engage fighters after you attacked ground units, while in a FW or BF-109 you would want to. This would require a waypoint setup that would be different per aircraft which is a lot of time spent on something that isn't the end of the world. Like I said, I like this new AI much better now. So, again, thx devs and testers for fixing something that I've been talking about for almost 3 years.

Okay, so probably what happened is that waypoints priority are set to high for the entire flight. Ideally, they would be set to medium after the target has been attacked (don't know if can be done, never worked with the editor).

What's interesting is that my autopilot will engage enemy aircrafts that are close while my flight won't. I don't know if our own autopilot is set differently. I thought it would follow the same rules honestly.

 

Still, this is much better than before and I'd rather not change anything than revert back to what it was. This is tricky because in a HS-129, you wouldn't want to engage fighters after you attacked ground units, while in a FW or BF-109 you would want to. This would require a waypoint setup that would be different per aircraft which is a lot of time spent on something that isn't the end of the world. Like I said, I like this new AI much better now. So, again, thx devs and testers for fixing something that I've been talking about for almost 3 years.

 

edit: oh and as a thank you, I'll buy the P-47 campaign. I waited for that exact fix before buying it.

Edited November 28, 2022 by Sybreed

[migmadmarine]

I had a flight the day before yesterday where after attacking our railway station target (same Normandy P-47 squadron), and we got attacked on the way out of the area. My flight didn't respond till just before the lead 109 on our tails (I was offset to the left trying to get into position behind the 109s while working out which were 109s and which were our escorting Spitfires) opened fire. They did defend themselves, but not soon enough to avoid casualties. All told it was something of a convicting bounce, aside from the 109s coming in dead six rather than six high, and our flight not getting a warning from the escorts. 

[Sybreed]

52 minutes ago, migmadmarine said:

I had a flight the day before yesterday where after attacking our railway station target (same Normandy P-47 squadron), and we got attacked on the way out of the area. My flight didn't respond till just before the lead 109 on our tails (I was offset to the left trying to get into position behind the 109s while working out which were 109s and which were our escorting Spitfires) opened fire. They did defend themselves, but not soon enough to avoid casualties. All told it was something of a convicting bounce, aside from the 109s coming in dead six rather than six high, and our flight not getting a warning from the escorts. 

 

So the squad defends itself if directly attacked. That's good.