Can this be cleared up please...

[PatrickAWlson]

In best Obi Wan Kenobi voice : "this us not the update that you are looking for".

[TheSNAFU]

This is all rather boring. Get off the magical mystery tour and tell your customers what the heck is going to happen. Or if you don’t yet know say so. Not that hard…

[Lusekofte]

On 1/3/2023 at 2:50 AM, sevenless said:

 

Same here. There will be 2-3 years until the new project will reach gold-standard anyways. More than enough time to decide whether or not it will supplement my sim collection.

Yes, we are definitely talking years.  You might be optimistic. 
So I am going to nag and nag and nag to get current game up to my standard. Not much work. Just tweak this gunners up a bit. I might have grown up a bit. It has been several weeks since my last ban

Edited January 4, 2023 by Lusekofte

[sevenless]

6 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

Yes, we are definitely talking years.  You might be optimistic. 
So I am going to nag and nag and nag to get current game up to my standard. Not much work. Just tweak this gunners up a bit. I might have grown up a bit. It has been several weeks since my last ban

 

We will have to wait and see. We all know about the shortcommings of the current BoX series compared to Il2-1946, which was designed from the ground up as a WW2 sim. I only hope they build a relieable foundation with their next project for the future. If they leave out large bomber formations as are possible in CloD, Il2-1946 and DCS, then I guess I´ll pass. But as mentioned, there will be years to wait and see what the new engine or pimped up engine will be capable of. 

[dburne]

45 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

We will have to wait and see. We all know about the shortcommings of the current BoX series compared to Il2-1946, which was designed from the ground up as a WW2 sim. I only hope they build a relieable foundation with their next project for the future. If they leave out large bomber formations as are possible in CloD, Il2-1946 and DCS, then I guess I´ll pass. But as mentioned, there will be years to wait and see what the new engine or pimped up engine will be capable of. 

 

As long as the AI uses the same FM as human players, going to be tough for them to do.

[sevenless]

1 minute ago, dburne said:

 

As long as the AI uses the same FM as human players, going to be tough for them to do.

 

Yeah that is one of the many design flaws they have to remedie ASAP with whatever "new project" they plan to come up. 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

11 hours ago, dburne said:

 

As long as the AI uses the same FM as human players, going to be tough for them to do.

Yep, that was an absolutely idiotic decision. It literally limits "Great Battles" to being "Small Skirmishes."

[TheSNAFU]

Why would we not want the ai to use the same fm that we have? Isn’t that the best thing to help ensure that the ai has the same capabilities that human fliers have and no advantages over us? Or is the point that doing so requires too much processing power? Just try to understand this. 

Edited January 4, 2023 by TheSNAFU

[Dragon1-1]

It eats processing power, even for aircraft that are not going to do any real maneuvering. I suspect it's part of why we don't really have any aircraft besides fighters, bombers and one transport per side. A simplified FM for AI, particularly for things that aren't fighters (perhaps only for non-playable aircraft), would be nice.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

14 minutes ago, TheSNAFU said:

Why would we not want the ai to use the same fm that we have? Isn’t that the best thing to help ensure that the ai has the same capabilities that human fliers have and no advantages over us? Or is the point that doing so requires too much processing power? Just try to understand this. 

Because it requires far too much processing power and that is why this game cannot handle any scale, which leaves "IL-2 Great Battles" feeling like "IL-2 Small Skirmishes."

 

And it's not like the existing AI is even that good...

[TheSNAFU]

Ah ok thanks, I figured it must be performance related. We’ve certainly seen sims that handle large formations and bombers far better than this one. Rowan’s BOB is probably one of the best examples I can think of and that was 20+ years ago. 

Edited January 4, 2023 by TheSNAFU

[kendo]

1 hour ago, drewm3i-VR said:

Because it requires far too much processing power and that is why this game cannot handle any scale, which leaves "IL-2 Great Battles" feeling like "IL-2 Small Skirmishes."

 

And it's not like the existing AI is even that good...

 

There are advantages too though. For other sims (COD, DCS) I hear complaints about the AI aircraft pulling ridiculous maneuvers with crazy rates of roll, etc that the player controlled aircraft cannot match.

 

It was in no way a 'ridiculous' decision to choose the way they did - it is actually the better option for accuracy and realism. The downside is the CPU hit. 

 

Perhaps a compromise could be found for AI bomber formations where the maneuvering is not really an issue, but I believe it is the gunner calculations there too that cause issues.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

24 minutes ago, kendo said:

 

There are advantages too though. For other sims (COD, DCS) I hear complaints about the AI aircraft pulling ridiculous maneuvers with crazy rates of roll, etc that the player controlled aircraft cannot match.

 

It was in no way a 'ridiculous' decision to choose the way they did - it is actually the better option for accuracy and realism. The downside is the CPU hit. 

 

Perhaps a compromise could be found for AI bomber formations where the maneuvering is not really an issue, but I believe it is the gunner calculations there too that cause issues.

It is in fact a ridiculous, shortsighted, and arrogant decision that has single-handedly cripped this game both online and offline. Ridiculous because every other sim ever made has not tried it. Shortsighted because it has created sterile game play by disallowing large formations, heavy bombers, and capital ships. And arrogant because it is not in the least bit necessary for "realism."

 

1946 with mods has the best AI ever made in a sim, along with WoFF, and WotR. All of these 20 year old games can simulate hundreds of units, capital ships, and truly massive battles. The AI in these sims are challenging to fight against, but fair. The wingmen follow orders and are competent. 

 

Our "advanced" AI cannot even fly without crashing at times, chase the player back to base across the map, can't hit the broadside of a barn (or snipe the pilot in the first burst), can't follow orders, can't fly in formation, bomb targets all at once and crash into each other, crash due to blacking out while dogfighting, etc. the list goes on and on. GB devs in 2012 attempted to reinvent the wheel, instead of sticking to what worked and that was a colossal mistake.

Edited January 5, 2023 by drewm3i-VR

[BlitzPig_EL]

As an example of this I offer my recent experience with a WW1 mission I made.  Well, it's actually two missions made from the same overall template.

The basic mission has two airfields, one for Entente and one for Central Powers, all with the requisite tent hangars, barracks, anti aircraft guns and aircraft parked around them.  Then I have many AI flights consisting of 4 fighters each, prowling around, and a flight of 4 two seaters escorted by 4 fighters that spawn in immediately on mission start that attack each home aerodrome.  Then a half an hour into it each base is attacked by two Gotha or Handley Page bombers escorted by 4 single seaters each.  There are various ground targets that are there for either side to attack as well.  It fun for us to go up try all the different aircraft and generally slaughter AIs.

 

On a whim I removed all the AI except for the two large bomber flights to make it a more PvP experience and resaved it as a new mission. 

 

The results are, interesting.  When flying the full mission with all the AI I experience pretty bad time dilation because I am playing and hosting on the same computer.  We call it the "speed bug", because I am markedly slower than any of the other human players even when flying the same aircraft type.  However, as the numbers of AI slowly go down the dilation effect gradually gets less apparent.  Also when it gets down to just 4 AIs remaining they amazingly become much tougher opponents, still not as good as a human player, but much more "sporty".  Of course the "Multiplayer Overload" message has been spamming the entire time.

 

When two of us face off on the "PvP" version, all is great for the first half hour for me.  My aircraft is as fast as it should be and fighting each other is a great time, as I am not hindered by an artificially under performing kite.  Then, 30 minutes in, the Gotha and Handley Page flights spawn in, a total of 12 AI aircraft, 4 bombers and 8 scouts.  Immediately the "Multiplayer Overload" warning comes on and I start suffering the ill effects of the "speed bug".  I mentioned it on comms, so we both went on the same side and shot down all the AIs, and poof!  Back to normal, no overload warnings and no "speed bug".

 

Seems like pretty conclusive evidence of the AIs ability to ravenously eat computer cycles to me.

 

  

Edited January 5, 2023 by BlitzPig_EL

[BraveSirRobin]

8 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

It is in fact a ridiculous, shortsighted, and arrogant decision that has single-handedly cripped this game both online and offline. Ridiculous because every other sim ever made has not tried it. Shortsighted because it has created sterile game play by disallowing large formations, heavy bombers, and capital ships. And arrogant because it is not in the least bit necessary for "realism."

 

1946 with mods has the best AI ever made in a sim, along with WoFF, and WotR. All of these 20 year old games can simulate hundreds of units, capital ships, and truly massive battles. The AI in these sims are challenging to fight against, but fair. The wingmen follow orders and are competent. 

 

Our "advanced" AI cannot even fly without crashing at times, chase the player back to base across the map, can't hit the broadside of a barn (or snipe the pilot in the first burst), can't follow orders, can't fly in formation, bomb targets all at once and crash into each other, crash due to blacking out while dogfighting, etc. the list goes on and on. GB devs in 2012 attempted to reinvent the wheel, instead of sticking to what worked and that was a colossal mistake.

Sorry, but fighting against UFO AI aircraft sucks.  Period.  The decision to use the same FM for AI was correct, especially for fighters.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

12 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Sorry, but fighting against UFO AI aircraft sucks.  Period.  The decision to use the same FM for AI was correct, especially for fighters.

Enjoy your massive 10v10 battles in vr over Normandy, any more units and the time dilation/stuttering is unbearable on my top of the line, $3k PC.

Edited January 5, 2023 by drewm3i-VR

[BraveSirRobin]

1 minute ago, drewm3i-VR said:

Enjoy your massive 10v10 battles in vr over Normandy, any more units and the time dilation/stuttering is unbearable on my top of the line, $3k PC.

I do.  A lot.  I flew against large bomber formations in EAW and it got old pretty fast.

[DBFlyguy]

I agree it was a bad decision to go with "use the same FM as player" idea... it's only crippled this game performance wise plus the AI is still dumb, so I'd rather have the AI from 1946, CloD or DCS.  WWII had the largest aerial engagements in history and this game has never been able to even close to depicting that while it's predecessors (1946 and CloD) and current competition (DCS) all can. 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

13 minutes ago, DBFlyguy said:

I agree it was a bad decision to go with "use the same FM as player" idea... it's only crippled this game performance wise plus the AI is still dumb, so I'd rather have the AI from 1946, CloD or DCS.  WWII had the largest aerial engagements in history and this game has never been able to even close to depicting that while it's predecessors (1946 and CloD) and current competition (DCS) all can. 

This.

[Guest deleted@83466]

I think we are getting to the time where AI doesn’t need to be dumbed  down to 1946 algorithms and abbreivated flight models to run efficiently, but newly optimized engine running on 2 or 3 years from now computers, on faster processors will be able to handle full flight models in droves.

[PatrickAWlson]

17 hours ago, DBFlyguy said:

I agree it was a bad decision to go with "use the same FM as player" idea... it's only crippled this game performance wise plus the AI is still dumb, so I'd rather have the AI from 1946, CloD or DCS.  WWII had the largest aerial engagements in history and this game has never been able to even close to depicting that while it's predecessors (1946 and CloD) and current competition (DCS) all can. 

 

I disagree - somewhat.  The idea of fighting UFO AI is totally unappealing. 

 

However, there are a lot of places where a super simplified FM can be injected.  100% AI formations not in combat.  100% AI level bombers formations pretty much all the time.   Gunners with no targets in range should have their AI processing completely disabled.  Ground units should have very simplistic follow the path movement.  AI ground unit should have their gunnery AI turned off when no enemies are near.  AI on takeoff and landing.  Really, the only time I care about 100% realistic AI flight is when I am dogfighting them, but then I care a whole lot.

 

In order for a building to be registered as destroyed I have to add an "entity" to it.  This consumes CPU.  Why?  Obviously, something in the game prevents recording of destruction unless the entity is present, but that turns the building into an AI entity.  Maybe it takes a tiny bit of CPU, but multiplied by hundreds it adds up.

 

 

[sevenless]

If at some day in the future the "new project" will be capable to do what IL-1946 can simulate, all will be well.

 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2023 by sevenless

[PB0_Roll]

19 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Sorry, but fighting against UFO AI aircraft sucks.  Period.  The decision to use the same FM for AI was correct, especially for fighters.

UFO AI sucks indeed.

 

However, modded 46 AI is super fun to fly against, not UFO at all, and allows large fights without any stutter/time dilation.

 

AI FM has to be 100% BELIEVABLE, it doesn't need to be exactly the same.

 

[BraveSirRobin]

1 hour ago, PB0_Roll said:

UFO AI sucks indeed.

 

However, modded 46 AI is super fun to fly against, not UFO at all, and allows large fights without any stutter/time dilation.

 

AI FM has to be 100% BELIEVABLE, it doesn't need to be exactly the same.

 

There is no such thing as 100% believable AI.  There may be AI that people who don’t like MP have convinced themselves is believable.  But 100% believable AI is pure fantasy.

[PB0_Roll]

AI FM can and must be believable.

 

You really believe that GB AI flies the same FM as you do, don't you ?

 

And it still doesn't fly it the way you do, does it ?

[Rjel]

3 hours ago, sevenless said:

If at some day in the future the "new project" will be capable to do what IL-1946 can simulate, all will be well.

 

That would be a dream come true. Even if the B-17s were only AI, the numbers shown in the video looked very convincing as a bomber stream. I can see myself now, flying a GB series (or successor) Mustang deep over enemy territory with a large bomber formation below. Hope I can live that long.

[BraveSirRobin]

1 hour ago, PB0_Roll said:

AI FM can and must be believable.

 

You really believe that GB AI flies the same FM as you do, don't you ?

 

And it still doesn't fly it the way you do, does it ?

Not sure what your point is.  I know the AI uses the same FM as humans.  It doesn’t fly the same as I do because AI isn’t close to being capable of that.  If the AI is a challenge to kill, then it’s cheating.  And the problem with AI that cheats is that it quickly becomes obvious how it’s cheating and that pretty much kills the whole game.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

2 hours ago, Rjel said:

That would be a dream come true. Even if the B-17s were only AI, the numbers shown in the video looked very convincing as a bomber stream. I can see myself now, flying a GB series (or successor) Mustang deep over enemy territory with a large bomber formation below. Hope I can live that long.

1946 can have hundreds of b17s fly coordinated like that all at once. It's really insane. 

[PB0_Roll]

3 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Not sure what your point is.  I know the AI uses the same FM as humans.  It doesn’t fly the same as I do because AI isn’t close to being capable of that.  If the AI is a challenge to kill, then it’s cheating.  And the problem with AI that cheats is that it quickly becomes obvious how it’s cheating and that pretty much kills the whole game.

 

I mean the same as you, there's no problem with an AI simplified FM as long as it does not make it artificially hard to kill.

 

Examples:

 

1/46 AI does not overheat -----> limit its max horsepower to 90% (or 92, 95... whatever feels realistic in a combat) of player's FM------> player 

can catch AI if it's in range to do so with full power before player has to back down due overheating, AI does not feel UFO, and yet many AI "thinking" cpu cycles are saved.

 

2/AI never blacks out, while player does after 30 secs at 5+ G.   -------> limit AI  FM capability to 4.5G-------> player can overturn AI long enough to shoot, then has to back down to same amount of Gs as AI, AI does not feel UFO and yet many AI cpu cycles are saved.

 

What would be bad is giving AI more roll or pitch rate or less speed inertia than player, we perfectly agree on this at least, I think.

 

Ofc, if next game gives us hundreds four engined bombers at the same time AND AI flying the same FM as I do with good frame rate and no time dilation, I'm all for it, but since GB failed at it.... the more CPU cycles saved without downgrading player's experience the better.

[PatrickAWlson]

10 hours ago, PB0_Roll said:

AI does not feel UFO, and yet many AI "thinking" cpu cycles are saved.

 

This is the key.  Back in the day, Red Baron 3D had the AI flying the same FM in combat as the player.  However, when not in combat it used a simplified FM.  The other thing that is clearly noticeable about the AI is the insane speed with which it changes its mind.  The control surfaces flutter like mad and the engine goes 30% - 100% - 50% all within seconds.  There appears to be no throttle on the AI processing loop.

 

Mini semi rant but not really a rant ... 

 

Too often software companies spend their resources on the next feature and not enough on shoring up the core product.  The belief is that the new feature sells (and it does).  The oversight is that you are slapping lipstick on a pig and the customers are not stupid.  Once again, I can guarantee you that this is what is happening within 1C.  I have been doing this work for 35 years.  I have seen it in every organization that I have ever worked for.  Focus on the bling for years and then there is a frantic rush to do something when it is all on the verge of collapse.

 

What is needed is a dedicated effort that would probably take months.  The will to do it and maybe a bit of cleverness in monetizing it.  In no way am I trivializing the difficulty of the changes. I strongly suspect that is what the announcement of the "next product" really is.  They are not going to rewrite everything from scratch.  That would be foolish.  However, they need some breathing space to do the work and then they need to make money off of it.  It is too much expenditure to offer up as a freebee.  This is where a SAASS comp[any like mine has an advantage.  A recurring revenue stream gives you some leeway.  In 1C's case they are going to have to sell something, so GB 2.0 it is.  This is not unfair.  The company is not staying in business by spending millions (dollars, not rubles) on a major upgrade and then giving it away.

 

[nachinus]

Sadly, better cpu performance and improved AI aren't the kind of things you can sell in a DLC. 

 

Both are critically needed for the game and the things I'd be really looking forward to, but they both mean a lot of work and little financial gain. I'm not optimistic about this.

Edited January 6, 2023 by nachinus

[CountZero]

28 minutes ago, nachinus said:

Sadly, better cpu performance and improved AI aren't the kind of things you can sell in a DLC. 

 

Both are critically needed for the game and the things I'd be really looking forward to, but they both mean a lot of work and little financial gain. I'm not optimistic about this.

But thats why they are not making more DLCs, they are making new game not compatable with GB stuff, so if what Patrick says is their plan we should be able to get all things we wont in here from start in new game, more AI units, better AI, more control over AI, more airplanes in air, better use of modern CPUs to avoid slow downs, more then 100 slots in MP, realy lobby with chat in MP, better detail maps that look more realsitic... and so on... and not just Graphic +10%, FM+5% , and DM+20%... but less AI units or airplanes in air with new "old" airplanes again over same maps.

 

I for one highly doubt they will not focus on shalow stuff improvments only, and rest will stay same like here or wors, thats why for me this idea that they had to make new game insted improving this one is bad one.

 

Will new project have SP campaign and career from start or well have to wait for Patrick or someone els to make one...  Here after so many years WW1 dont have one, and Tanks even less SP stuff, but we gona get new game with all cool stuff from start, yes yes shurly,

i just have to look what was done here in so many years, and on what focus was, and i set my expectations acordingly for this fancy new project on same but upgraded game engine.

Edited January 6, 2023 by CountZero

[PB0_Roll]

Well it has to embedded within the next module you sell.

 

If they rethink their game and sell, for example, Philippines with CVs, Huge ships with strong AAA, heavy formations of planes attacking in a coordinated manner, all this with no time dilation nor slideshow, and comms and radionav, and a solid SP career system they'll be able to charge full price even with less flyable planes (1 fighter/dive bomber/torp bomber per side), and rebuild from there, marking clearly current limitations are done and dusted.

[CountZero]

2 minutes ago, PB0_Roll said:

Well it has to embedded within the next module you sell.

 

If they rethink their game and sell, for example, Philippines with CVs, Huge ships with strong AAA, heavy formations of planes attacking in a coordinated manner, all this with no time dilation nor slideshow, and comms and radionav, and a solid SP career system they'll be able to charge full price even with less flyable planes (1 fighter/dive bomber/torp bomber per side), and rebuild from there, marking clearly current limitations are done and dusted.

If this was anounced then yes, but if they say italy is to hard to make because map is to demanding, and they say no 4 engine bombers, and no CVs, and no urban areas... and this is all for next new project... then what are the improvments... only graphics fm/dm and DTs .

 

[sevenless]

2 minutes ago, CountZero said:

 then what are the improvments... only graphics fm/dm and DTs .

 

 

We´ll have to wait for them announcing the details of what this "new project" is all about. Then, and only then, everyone can make up his own mind where their ship is sailing to.

[PB0_Roll]

I am indeed referring to next/new project.

 

It will still probably have a legacy branding of sorts, with X flyables over Y territory and "battle of W" name.

[JG5_Schuck]

On 1/5/2023 at 1:11 AM, drewm3i-VR said:

It is in fact a ridiculous, shortsighted, and arrogant decision that has single-handedly cripped this game both online and offline. Ridiculous because every other sim ever made has not tried it. Shortsighted because it has created sterile game play by disallowing large formations, heavy bombers, and capital ships. And arrogant because it is not in the least bit necessary for "realism."

 

1946 with mods has the best AI ever made in a sim, along with WoFF, and WotR. All of these 20 year old games can simulate hundreds of units, capital ships, and truly massive battles. The AI in these sims are challenging to fight against, but fair. The wingmen follow orders and are competent. 

 

Our "advanced" AI cannot even fly without crashing at times, chase the player back to base across the map, can't hit the broadside of a barn (or snipe the pilot in the first burst), can't follow orders, can't fly in formation, bomb targets all at once and crash into each other, crash due to blacking out while dogfighting, etc. the list goes on and on. GB devs in 2012 attempted to reinvent the wheel, instead of sticking to what worked and that was a colossal mistake.

I assume the extra data that moves backwards and forwards just for the FM, let alone the DM for planes, tanks, ground targets etc must be huge compared to 20 years ago...
If that's what your trying to compare GB to.
I'm sure if the devs wanted to build the ultimate combat flight sim, they could, but most wouldn't have the equipment to play it on, or the connection to play it over...
So it will always be a compromise between what they can make, and what they can sell, it is after all a business, and without customers or profit there would be no GB at all...
Even now, 40v40 can and does cause issues, imagine 100v100 with AI as well, the game would be a slide show in its current form...
And the advanced AI that crashes, blacks out, struggles to fly in formation and can't hit a cows arse with a banjo one minute, but then shoots the nuts off a flea the next probably reflects real life a lot more than an AI that operates at a constant..... the devs are damned if they do, and damned if they don't....

[354thFG_Leifr]

I too recall reading about groups of 109s lawn-darting themselves in to Terra Firma on a regular basis.

[Bonnot]

13 hours ago, JG5_Schuck said:

hit a cows arse with a banjo one minute, but then shoots the nuts off a flea the next probably reflects real life a lot more than an AI that operates at a constant.....

I positively love this image

 

Quote

the devs are damned if they do, and damned if they don't....

The fate of the leading bunch !

Edited January 7, 2023 by Bonnot

[[CPT]Crunch]

Who cares about popularity contests on the internet, that's nothing but a hollow route to failure.  Pay attention to what your customers want, who cares what they think, to many nutters out here.   They're in the entertainment industry, not service, and must have a superior product to present or it's lights out.  Yesterdays entertainment will no longer cut it.  Few people will ever read the same book or pay to watch the same movie twice, but they will pay for a more in depth newer version of the same old story.

Edited January 7, 2023 by [CPT]Crunch