Why does no one care about the AI??????

[Lusekofte]

2 hours ago, FTC_DerSheriff said:

Sry when did we have the honor?

 

I am so arrogant that I made hours and hours of videos for these players. Just to sit on my high horse I guess.

It is envy, but I too feel outrageous about your impolite outmanoeuvring in your 110. Can you please stop that?

[FTC_Zero]

Still afraid of getting shot down by own team mates and them crashing into me or other team mates, when giving an order. I miss the radio communication of il2 1946 and the orders you could give. It works in ROF where there is no radio. AI communicate, fight and react like being in a WW1 plane, what coinsidence. The only thing I love about GB is that AI follow the same physics laws as the player. But is pointless, because AI can only do endless turns, occational split S and crashing into the ground. BnZ planes are heavily crippled by AI and makes it so dull to fight with and against them.

[Noisemaker]

3 hours ago, FTC_DerSheriff said:

Sry when did we have the honor?

 

I am so arrogant that I made hours and hours of videos for these players. Just to sit on my high horse I guess.

I actually wanted to address that comment (but unfortunately forgot about it), to say that in my interactions with you that you are an approachable and friendly person, and that as an English speaking Canadian living in Switzerland on the border with Germany, and having known and worked with many Germans, that there is very often, at first contact, a bit of a cultural difference that has to be overcome when someone from an English speaking culture interacts with someone from a German speaking culture, especially in "Fachspezifische" fields.  Let's just use a precise German word to describe it, as "nicht reibungslos", which roughly translates to "not without friction".

 

I, for one, really appreciate the videos you've provided, and can say that some of your videos were a direct inspiration to get back into flight sims after many years, and into this one in particular.

For those that have been rubbed the wrong way by Der Sheriff, you should ask yourself if it's because of the cultural and linguistic difference.  It plays a big role, because he speaks and reacts to things as pretty much every German I know, which even after close to 20 years here, still sets my teeth on edge, time to time.

 

At the very least, they're not as bad as the Swedes. 

[PatrickAWlson]

39 minutes ago, FTC_Zero said:

Still afraid of getting shot down by own team mates and them crashing into me or other team mates, when giving an order. I miss the radio communication of il2 1946 and the orders you could give. It works in ROF where there is no radio. AI communicate, fight and react like being in a WW1 plane, what coinsidence. The only thing I love about GB is that AI follow the same physics laws as the player. But is pointless, because AI can only do endless turns, occational split S and crashing into the ground. BnZ planes are heavily crippled by AI and makes it so dull to fight with and against them.

 

I don't agree with  everything you said, but your last sentence is key.  I have seen 109s do B&Z very effectively sometimes, so it can happen.  However, any heavier type that relies on speed and energy is hopeless.  That includes the P-47 and FW-190.  Rugged, heavily armed planes (once again, P-47 and FW-190) that excel when using teamwork and mutual cover are hopeless , because the AI has no concept of cooperation.  I can do quite well in a 190 by killing the target fixated enemies trying to kill my mates, but the AI has a tough time in these planes.

 

[FTC_Zero]

1 minute ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

I don't agree with  everything you said, but your last sentence is key.  I have seen 109s do B&Z very effectively sometimes, so it can happen.  However, any heavier type that relies on speed and energy is hopeless.  That includes the P-47 and FW-190.  Rugged, heavily armed planes (once again, P-47 and FW-190) that excel when using teamwork and mutual cover are hopeless , because the AI has no concept of cooperation.  I can do quite well in a 190 by killing the target fixated enemies trying to kill my mates, but the AI has a tough time in these planes.

 

I think i made a thread about specificly about the AI with the FW190 AI with some tacview analysis. Cant find that thread because it is so old or got deleted. I dunno.

[DragonDaddy]

5 hours ago, PaladinX said:

Test the AI in "Over Flanders Fields" - you will not find any better flightsim AI. Thats how it should work.

Was this AI developed by Microsoft for CFS3?

[FTC_DerSheriff]

1 hour ago, Noisemaker said:

you should ask yourself if it's because of the cultural and linguistic difference.

 

Maybe he doesn't like the banter in the videos and that is fine. Its just not arrogance he sees.

Besides the general feeling that you can beat the enemy and are positive and hyped about the fight helps to perform. Confidence and trust in your abilities is half the fight. So if you want to see that as arrogance, then yes a little bit of arrogance helps.

 

This is btw never really a thing which is important in singleplayer to get back to the topic. Even if the AI would be super good and believable, its a long way to feel like it that it has the gravitas to beat an actual human player.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2023 by FTC_DerSheriff

[AEthelraedUnraed]

4 hours ago, KevPBur said:

I think @AEthelraedUnraed point is that although plenty of issues exist, the AI is far from "broken" and that perfect AI would be just as boring as none of us would keep our virtual lives for very long.

That is a large part of my point, yes. The other part of my point is that aside from being boring, good AI is not necessarily realistic AI, or vice versa. Stalling and lawndarting are just about what I'd expect from a late-war Luftwaffe pilot with just a couple of flying hours and no combat experience.

 

Naturally, not every pilot was a 1945 Luftwaffe teenager, and an Ace-level AI shouldn't make (m)any obvious mistakes. But expecting the same flying level from an AI as from a multiplayer pilot with 1000s of hours, is quite unrealistic. First, even a mediocre sim pilot has a multitude of the amount of combat experience the average WW2 pilot had, except only the very highest scoring aces. Second, real WW2 pilots experienced the stress of deadly air combat, as well as being tired from hours of flying and experiencing all kinds of g-forces. Mistakes happened.

 

So to re-state my point; yes - there are things wrong with the current AI, some of which were mentioned above, some of which weren't, as well as several issues with the auto-generated mission scripting. However, a WW2 simulator AI *should* make a certain amount of mistakes if it is to be realistic. Calling the AI brain-dead just because it's done a lawndart, or calling it crazy because it spins, is just plain wrong. Both are things that happened in real life.

 

If people want to help improve this game by telling the Devs what issues exist, they need to come up with factual evidence instead of anecdotes. That means either actual measured data of under what circumstances a perceived issue happens, or a proper statistical analysis.

 

If people just want to bash the game and play crybaby about any deviating opinion that the AI is not entirely bad, then I find that very childish.

 

4 hours ago, Livai said:

The Immersion is ruined if

 

1. The AI always sees you coming even from a blind spot or at night.
2. As a result of 1. you can't use lack of visibility to bounce or evade your opponent.
3. The AI always fly perfectly coordinated flight even at rookie setting.
4. The AI have the ability to use 100% power and WEP indefinately
5. As a result of 4. the AI are always faster than you in the same aircraft
6. The AI never make mistakes such as a snap stall or a spin (in an undamged AC)
7. The clouds do not exist for AI rendering them as nothing but eye candy.
8. The AI does not have a sense of self preservation.
9. AI follows you half way across the map with a damaged AC
10. The AI can always use full control deflection at impossible speeds.
11. The AI makes us think WTF! that is not possible.
12. Enemy bombers do barrel rolls to evade you.
13. Enemy gunners have sniper like accuracy when their aircraft is taking violent evasive manouvers or at extreme ranges and angles.

It is forgivable if the AI breaks one, two or even three of these rules. It is completely unforgivable when the AI breaks every single one of them (and more). Technically is "IL-2 Great Battles" a good simulation but IMHO the implementation of the AI could be better.

This is a fine example of why people need to come up with properly tested statements rather than just complain for the sake of complaining. There's several of these points that you're wrong on:

1. The AI cannot see you from a blind spot or at night; the only issue is that they check their 6 way too often. On a cloudless night, you can literally park a fighter ~200m behind a bomber and not be spotted at all. Try it.

4. Not true, although they do know exactly when to throttle back in order not to break their engine.

5. See 4.

6. Erhm, not true, only 2 posts above yours we're discussing exactly snap stalls in an undamaged aircraft...

7. Not true (although clouds do seem to function slightly differently, e.g. the visibility for AI seems to be impacted only a bit further into the clouds.

8. With proper mission scripting, they disengage and RTB if damaged.

9. Not true, with proper mission scripting.

10. Not true.

11. Speak for yourself.

12. Only very rarely, and with improper mission scripting.

 

To be frank though, I do agree with 3 and 13, and a couple of the others have at least some truth to it.

 

I expect this post will gather me a certain amount of confused or laughing smileys, as posts "defending" the game usually do (even though I fully admit the AI has issues that should be fixed). To those people who apparently feel so confused or happy about my post, I'd like to ask what exactly the reasons are they disagree with my statements that actual tests are needed rather than just bashing the game, and that an AI that aims to realistically model an average WW2 pilot should not be a perfect, faultless AI.

[Noisemaker]

23 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

improper mission scripting.

This right here is the bugbear of this sim in single player, and has been the focus of almost all of my bug reports.  I'm not sure how missions are generated, whether fully automated, or human made, or something in between, it is the mission scripting that leads to the most obvious issues we face in a single player campaign.

[DragonDaddy]

21 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

 

I expect this post will gather me a certain amount of confused or laughing smileys, as posts "defending" the game usually do (even though I fully admit the AI has issues that should be fixed). 

You may be correct. Tensions appear to be high, most probably due to the uncertainty in the game’s direction. This forum has definitely increased its dosage of salt, but not unexpectedly. People don’t like to be kept in the dark when personal interests are at stake. And some appear to take this game very personally. 
 

This is a great game with a lot of flaws. Some may never be fixed. And it will head in a new direction, with or without us. What comes next will determine who will stay and who will go. 
 

 

 

[oc2209]

5 hours ago, FTC_Zero said:

 I miss the radio communication of il2 1946 and the orders you could give.

 

Radio commands (or the AI's inability to follow them well/at all) are a huge reason people have a low opinion of BoX AI. If that one feature was fully fleshed out, the inherent flaws in the AI could be concealed/compensated for to a far greater degree than is currently possible.

 

I was thinking about another game I play with weak AI: MechWarrior 5. A lot of people, mainly newcomers, complain about how stupid the AI is. And if left to its own devices, yes, it will get itself killed pretty quickly. But as a commander of 3 mechs (4 including yourself, so equivalent to a standard WWII flight of four), you can give basic commands that the otherwise braindead AI will follow precisely. Those commands are: move to a specific point (and stay there); hold fire; fire on my target; and follow me.

 

Using these simple orders will dramatically increase the efficacy of your group. For example, order your AI to wait at the bottom of a hill, then you peek over the hill to draw enemy aggro, and when an enemy crests the hill, your entire group annihilates it in seconds.

 

Point being: even stupid AI can become effective so long as it can be given orders it will follow to the letter.

 

The most important order in BoX would be 'break!' or 'we're under attack!' to shake the AI out of its general stupor and into a 'combat ready' or 'alert' mode. Other critical orders: return to formation; disengage immediately; cover me; attack fighters; attack bombers.

 

Most of these orders, if they're in the sim at all, don't seem to work with current AI. Or work very well, anyway.

 

I also wish there was a 'fly evasively!', or similar, command. Something a little more specific than 'break!', mainly to give your AI some breathing room, extra time, for you to clear their tail. In other words, a command that tells the AI to temporarily stop trying to attack enemies, and just focus on staying alive.

 

Hell, just having the AI enter a Lufbery on command would be almost as good. Though, if under attack by strong turning fighters (Spit, etc), it wouldn't work for very long.

[Gambit21]

5 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

That is a large part of my point, yes. The other part of my point is that aside from being boring, good AI is not necessarily realistic AI, or vice versa. Stalling and lawndarting are just about what I'd expect from a late-war Luftwaffe pilot with just a couple of flying hours and no combat experience.

 

Naturally, not every pilot was a 1945 Luftwaffe teenager, and an Ace-level AI shouldn't make (m)any obvious mistakes. But expecting the same flying level from an AI as from a multiplayer pilot with 1000s of hours, is quite unrealistic. First, even a mediocre sim pilot has a multitude of the amount of combat experience the average WW2 pilot had, except only the very highest scoring aces. Second, real WW2 pilots experienced the stress of deadly air combat, as well as being tired from hours of flying and experiencing all kinds of g-forces. Mistakes happened.

 

So to re-state my point; yes - there are things wrong with the current AI, some of which were mentioned above, some of which weren't, as well as several issues with the auto-generated mission scripting. However, a WW2 simulator AI *should* make a certain amount of mistakes if it is to be realistic. Calling the AI brain-dead just because it's done a lawndart, or calling it crazy because it spins, is just plain wrong. Both are things that happened in real life.

 

If people want to help improve this game by telling the Devs what issues exist, they need to come up with factual evidence instead of anecdotes. That means either actual measured data of under what circumstances a perceived issue happens, or a proper statistical analysis.

 

If people just want to bash the game and play crybaby about any deviating opinion that the AI is not entirely bad, then I find that very childish.

 

This is a fine example of why people need to come up with properly tested statements rather than just complain for the sake of complaining. There's several of these points that you're wrong on:

1. The AI cannot see you from a blind spot or at night; the only issue is that they check their 6 way too often. On a cloudless night, you can literally park a fighter ~200m behind a bomber and not be spotted at all. Try it.

4. Not true, although they do know exactly when to throttle back in order not to break their engine.

5. See 4.

6. Erhm, not true, only 2 posts above yours we're discussing exactly snap stalls in an undamaged aircraft...

7. Not true (although clouds do seem to function slightly differently, e.g. the visibility for AI seems to be impacted only a bit further into the clouds.

8. With proper mission scripting, they disengage and RTB if damaged.

9. Not true, with proper mission scripting.

10. Not true.

11. Speak for yourself.

12. Only very rarely, and with improper mission scripting.

 

To be frank though, I do agree with 3 and 13, and a couple of the others have at least some truth to it.

 

I expect this post will gather me a certain amount of confused or laughing smileys, as posts "defending" the game usually do (even though I fully admit the AI has issues that should be fixed). To those people who apparently feel so confused or happy about my post, I'd like to ask what exactly the reasons are they disagree with my statements that actual tests are needed rather than just bashing the game, and that an AI that aims to realistically model an average WW2 pilot should not be a perfect, faultless AI.

 

Excellent post.

It's worth repeating that many of things guys seem to think of as "AI", is really just mission scripting...or bad/lazy mission scripting.

 

 

[ICDP]

I do have to laugh at the idea the 1L2 1946 had anything but poor AI.  You had more commands but that is just like having more things that don't work very well.

 

I frequently had a conga line of enemy fighters chasing me home in IL2 1946 and prequels.  I remember quiting a Ki43 campaign in disgust when no less than 12 P39s chased me all the way to my home base and my home base had zero AAA cover.

 

I remember the countless discussions on how the AI had a "simplified flight model and could do impossible things".

How bombers had sniper gunners

 

IL2 BoX is not great for AI but they do well enough with decent scripting and the career mode is always being refined.

[ST_Catchov]

So to sum up, whether it be poor mission scripting or poor AI, it needs work right?

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, ST_Catchov said:

So to sum up, whether it be poor mission scripting or poor AI, it needs work right?

OR we can just buy new collector airplane...you ever hear the tragedy of Darth 109G6 the wise ? 

1 hour ago, ICDP said:

I do have to laugh at the idea the 1L2 1946 had anything but poor AI.  You had more commands but that is just like having more things that don't work very well.

 

I frequently had a conga line of enemy fighters chasing me home in IL2 1946 and prequels.  I remember quiting a Ki43 campaign in disgust when no less than 12 P39s chased me all the way to my home base and my home base had zero AAA cover.

 

I remember the countless discussions on how the AI had a "simplified flight model and could do impossible things".

How bombers had sniper gunners

 

IL2 BoX is not great for AI but they do well enough with decent scripting and the career mode is always being refined.

AI behavir in Il-2 1946 was better then what we have here

[JG27_Steini]

12 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Excellent post.

It's worth repeating that many of things guys seem to think of as "AI", is really just mission scripting...or bad/lazy mission scripting.

 

 

 

And what now? Do we have to build our own career builder to get it right? Is everything ok right now, because the problem is not the AI but the combination of both? What do you want to tell us?

17 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

That is a large part of my point, yes. The other part of my point is that aside from being boring, good AI is not necessarily realistic AI, or vice versa. Stalling and lawndarting are just about what I'd expect from a late-war Luftwaffe pilot with just a couple of flying hours and no combat experience.

 

Naturally, not every pilot was a 1945 Luftwaffe teenager, and an Ace-level AI shouldn't make (m)any obvious mistakes. But expecting the same flying level from an AI as from a multiplayer pilot with 1000s of hours, is quite unrealistic. First, even a mediocre sim pilot has a multitude of the amount of combat experience the average WW2 pilot had, except only the very highest scoring aces. Second, real WW2 pilots experienced the stress of deadly air combat, as well as being tired from hours of flying and experiencing all kinds of g-forces. Mistakes happened.

 

So to re-state my point; yes - there are things wrong with the current AI, some of which were mentioned above, some of which weren't, as well as several issues with the auto-generated mission scripting. However, a WW2 simulator AI *should* make a certain amount of mistakes if it is to be realistic. Calling the AI brain-dead just because it's done a lawndart, or calling it crazy because it spins, is just plain wrong. Both are things that happened in real life.

 

If people want to help improve this game by telling the Devs what issues exist, they need to come up with factual evidence instead of anecdotes. That means either actual measured data of under what circumstances a perceived issue happens, or a proper statistical analysis.

 

If people just want to bash the game and play crybaby about any deviating opinion that the AI is not entirely bad, then I find that very childish.

 

This is a fine example of why people need to come up with properly tested statements rather than just complain for the sake of complaining. There's several of these points that you're wrong on:

1. The AI cannot see you from a blind spot or at night; the only issue is that they check their 6 way too often. On a cloudless night, you can literally park a fighter ~200m behind a bomber and not be spotted at all. Try it.

4. Not true, although they do know exactly when to throttle back in order not to break their engine.

5. See 4.

6. Erhm, not true, only 2 posts above yours we're discussing exactly snap stalls in an undamaged aircraft...

7. Not true (although clouds do seem to function slightly differently, e.g. the visibility for AI seems to be impacted only a bit further into the clouds.

8. With proper mission scripting, they disengage and RTB if damaged.

9. Not true, with proper mission scripting.

10. Not true.

11. Speak for yourself.

12. Only very rarely, and with improper mission scripting.

 

To be frank though, I do agree with 3 and 13, and a couple of the others have at least some truth to it.

 

I expect this post will gather me a certain amount of confused or laughing smileys, as posts "defending" the game usually do (even though I fully admit the AI has issues that should be fixed). To those people who apparently feel so confused or happy about my post, I'd like to ask what exactly the reasons are they disagree with my statements that actual tests are needed rather than just bashing the game, and that an AI that aims to realistically model an average WW2 pilot should not be a perfect, faultless AI.

 

I find it very arrogant to write that. This guy has immersion problem with AI and you tell him he is wrong? He is right in every aspect and you are just an *** only because you might now a difference showing every single one that is not an AI problem. Fine, so why then we all report problems? If there are no immersion killer, why we just dont love the SP parts of the game. You better show a little respect to player who just want to have fun.

Edited January 25, 2023 by JG27_Steini

[AEthelraedUnraed]

19 minutes ago, JG27_Steini said:

I find it very arrogant to write that. This guy has immersion problem with AI and you tell him he is wrong? He is right in every aspect and you are just an ... only because you might now a difference.

What exactly did you find so arrogant about my post? That I think some actual tests or analyses are needed rather than anectodes? That I think whining for the sake of whining is childish? That I expose some falsehoods, of which for many it can be easily checked that they're indeed untrue? That I write that a realistic AI makes some mistakes?

 

Do you think that we should take each and every perceived problem at face value without double-checking? Do you think that whenever someone perceives some problem with the game, we should immediately blame the game without also looking at the user?

 

Please, answer the questions above and explain why you think I'm being arrogant.

Edited January 25, 2023 by AEthelraedUnraed

[JG27_Steini]

5 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

What exactly did you find so arrogant about my post? That I think some actual tests or analyses are needed rather than anectodes? That I think whining for the sake of whining is childish? That I expose some falsehoods, of which for many it can be easily checked that they're indeed untrue?

 

Do you think that we should take each and every perceived problem at face value without double-checking? Do you think that whenever someone perceives some problem with the game, we should immediately blame the game without also looking at the user?

 

Please, answer the questions above and explain why you think I'm being arrogant.

 

Look at your comments from 1...10. He ist right, you know that. He only doest know the difference. BUT at the end those problems are in the game, you just give them another name. You might build up a perfect carrer mode where all those "mission" problem not occur, but that there are normal guys who bought a game which has problems.

Edited January 25, 2023 by JG27_Steini

[AEthelraedUnraed]

13 minutes ago, JG27_Steini said:

Look at your comments from 1...10. He ist right, you that. He only doest know the difference. BUT at the end those problems are in the game, you just give them another name.

No he isn't right. Please show me a Minimal Working Example where, with proper mission scripting, the supposed problems show up. I'll gladly retract my statements that they're untrue.

 

Honestly, I'm working on a Nachtjäger campaign. While testing, I've done literally hours and hours of night-time interception missions. Unless it's an extraordinarily bright night or you've left your lights on, there is literally no way a bomber spots you.

 

But I guess I'm arrogant for pointing that out.

 

kestrel444x500 is complaining exactly about the AI snap stalling, which directly contradicts Livai's statement that "the AI never make mistakes such as a snap stall or a spin".

 

But I guess kestrel is arrogant for doing so.

Edited January 25, 2023 by AEthelraedUnraed
spelling

[JG27_Steini]

7 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

No he isn't right. Please show me a Minimal Working Example where, with proper mission scripting, the supposed problems show up. I'll gladly retract my statements that their untrue.

 

Honestly, I'm working on a Nachtjäger campaign. While testing, I've done literally hours and hours of night-time interception missions. Unless it's an extraordinarily bright night or you've left your lights on, there is literally no way a bomber spots you.

 

But I guess I'm arrogant for pointing that out.

 

kestrel444x500 is complaining exactly about the AI snap stalling, which directly contradicts Livai's statement that "the AI never make mistakes such as a snap stall or a spin".

 

But I guess kestrel is arrogant for doing so.

 

I am done with you. You are a fanboy that doesnt understand that there problems we have we carrer mode or missions. We can not fly the career mode because auf immersion killing problems and you keep telling is the we are wrong. Glad that you have no problems. We do have. It is useless to talk to you. Only the developer can solve problem, whether it is AI or scripting problems. We wanna love that game, but we can not and you just keep telling, "Hi guys, all is fine, those are only scripting problems, keep flying". Sorry to say, but this is dump.

Edited January 25, 2023 by JG27_Steini

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 minute ago, JG27_Steini said:

I am done with you. You are a fanboy that doesnt understand that there problems we have we carrer mode or missions. We can not fly the career mode because auf immersion killing problems and you keep telling is the we are wrong. Glad that you have no problems. We do have. It is useless to talk to you. Only the developer can solve problem, whether it is AI or scripting problems. We wanna love that game, but we can not and you just keep telling, "Hi guys, all is fine, those are only scripting problems, keep flying". Sorry to say, but this is dump.

It's funny you say that since I keep repeating that there are indeed issues with the AI and especially mission scripting. Did you even read my posts? Here's a direct quote from the post you felt so offended by: "yes - there are things wrong with the current AI, some of which were mentioned above, some of which weren't, as well as several issues with the auto-generated mission scripting."

 

I have absolutely never said there is nothing wrong with the game. You're putting words in my mouth by selectively choosing which parts of my posts to read.

 

*However*

 

Even though there are things wrong with the game, not everything that people perceive as wrong is in fact an issue. Let me ask you again: Do you think that we should take each and every perceived problem at face value without double-checking? Do you think that whenever someone perceives some problem with the game, we should immediately blame the game without also looking at the user?

[kendo]

27 minutes ago, JG27_Steini said:

 

Look at your comments from 1...10. He ist right, you know that. He only doest know the difference. BUT at the end those problems are in the game, you just give them another name. You might build up a perfect carrer mode where all those "mission" problem not occur, but that there are normal guys who bought a game which has problems.

 

He's not right.

 

#1 I've several personal experiences of surprising AI from dead 6 o'clock. And not at night either.

 

#6 again - this was being discussed as happening too often just a few posts previously.

 

AEthelraedUnraed's tone was perfectly respecful and he factually dealt with the points raised. 

 

 

Edited January 25, 2023 by kendo

[[CPT]Crunch]

AI?  What are those?  I spawn alone, yeah, with nobody else, cause when I fly alone..

 

To me they're gunnery targets, not AI, true solo play.  Else it's multiply all the way, if I had to do AI and single play this would all go dodo and wiped off the drive.

[DragonDaddy]

1 hour ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

AI?  What are those?  I spawn alone, yeah, with nobody else, cause when I fly alone..

You know when I fly alone, I prefer to be by myself. 

[RyanR]

20 hours ago, Noisemaker said:

This right here is the bugbear of this sim in single player, and has been the focus of almost all of my bug reports.  I'm not sure how missions are generated, whether fully automated, or human made, or something in between, it is the mission scripting that leads to the most obvious issues we face in a single player campaign.

 

Agree completely. Something got broken with IL-2's career mission generator in the last year. If I had to guess, I'd say it was around the release of the AQMB. Absolutely insane things started happening, and there was no way to dial out the insanity. Bombers wouldn't fly formation. Odds against you were suddenly 4 or 5 to 1. Too many units operating too close together.

 

You alleviate a lot of the complaints if you do all you can to take control of "the chaos". Always "be in command of your squadron". PWCG really lets you tailor the SP experience to what you want to see. I've dialed out the "extraneous" flights. Those are most of the the guys that your wingmen may not engage if you run into them. Now the radio commands are likely to "work". Still nowhere as good as the ol' 1946 system, but it's now tolerable. The PWCG missions also seem to put a lot more AAA around airfields. This helps solve some of the problems if 5 bandits follow you home.

 

Still lots to be frustrated about with how the AI flies the aircraft, especially the heavier planes (P-47/FW-190/etc) that aren't bank-n-crank.

 

-Ryan

 

[oc2209]

2 hours ago, RyanR said:

You alleviate a lot of the complaints if you do all you can to take control of "the chaos". Always "be in command of your squadron".

 

Oddly enough, I gave up controlling anything (in the regular career, no mods/PWCG), and I find it works better than when I did try to give orders. Admittedly, I haven't tried giving orders much lately. I do know that 'cover me' is still pretty useless.

 

Anyway, I always start a career in command, so I can control what missions I fly, loadout, flight paths, etc. But then I put the highest ranking AI in my unit, in charge of each flight. I place myself in the tail-end charlie position.

 

This arrangement works just fine for bomber/attack plane intercepts, free hunts, and troop/river crossing cover missions. I don't fly many other types with any regularity. But during an intercept, for example, I can depend on the AI to attack bombers on its own, thus fulfilling the basic mission requirements when one gets shot down, while I always go after fighters.

 

During cover missions, being able to separate myself from the group--without having anyone follow me--is advantageous. I can fly a few thousand feet higher than the main group. When the enemy flight comes into range, I hang back and let my group 'take aggro' first. Only then do I come in to attack.

 

I do wish there was a radio command for telling AI to provide top cover. Would be more effective than me flying top cover solo. Ideally, it could be used to set up 'ambushes', or at least give a portion of your flight some advantage. The command itself could be as simple as having the ordered group fly a constant distance--3,000 feet, say--above whatever altitude you're currently flying.

[oc2209]

Just did an experiment in career. Bomber intercept. Unlike my usual arrangement, as described above, I put myself in the flight leader position. I gave a few formation orders which were followed, but then when we spotted the enemy bomber formation, everybody broke away from me to attack (evidently), without my giving any order.

 

Just to throw a wrench into the works (I knew it'd end badly), I gave the 'cover me' order before we engaged the enemy flight (~8 P-40s, 6 Pe-2s). I believe that my position at the head of the flight resulted in my drawing a lot of enemy aggro--I was immediately attacked by at least 4 P-40s. My wingmen shot (lightly damaged) one P-40 in the merge, but otherwise did nothing to attack the P-40s that were chasing me. My wingmen also completely ignored the bombers. I damaged one P-40 before my fuel/coolant leaks became catastrophic (I got hosed on two occasions by P-40s that were diving on me and firing while I was in an incredibly stupid stall-turn) and I broke away to friendly territory. My flight of 6 109s lost 3 planes*, 2 dead pilots. For no kills.

 

I am 100% certain that had I not been in charge, or given any orders, my flight would've attacked the bombers, drawn aggro, and I wouldn't have been ganged up on by the P-40s. I'm that certain, because that's how every other bomber intercept goes when I'm not leading the flight.

 

*Edit: I landed back at base as my engine died--so the 3 losses were above and beyond my plane getting shot up.

Edited January 25, 2023 by oc2209

[PatrickAWlson]

9 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

I am 100% certain that had I not been in charge, or given any orders, my flight would've attacked the bombers, drawn aggro, and I wouldn't have been ganged up on by the P-40s. I'm that certain, because that's how every other bomber intercept goes when I'm not leading the flight.

 

 Lead or not I always let my AI flight mates engage first.  That is my solution to "everybody is attacking me".  People have stated with firm belief that the AI is programmed to attack the player.  I can guarantee this is not the case.  They are programmed to attack nearby threats and, once they engage, they tend to be pretty target fixated.  If you dive into the fray first then, yes, they will fixate on you.

 

[RyanR]

28 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

 Lead or not I always let my AI flight mates engage first.  That is my solution to "everybody is attacking me".  People have stated with firm belief that the AI is programmed to attack the player.  I can guarantee this is not the case.  They are programmed to attack nearby threats and, once they engage, they tend to be pretty target fixated.  If you dive into the fray first then, yes, they will fixate on you.

 

 

This definitely echoes my observations. If the bandits "lock on" to you first, you're their target. If you let your AI friendlies attack first, you get to save the day by plucking the bad guys off of everyone else's tails.

 

I'll often test the waters: tell my squad to "attack nearest bandits", if they break formation and go do it, I know it's going to be a workable situation. If my formation does nothing, I know that it's going to be me vs. everyone. So I just keep on trucking.

 

-Ryan

 

 

 

 

[Noisemaker]

1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

 Lead or not I always let my AI flight mates engage first.  That is my solution to "everybody is attacking me".  People have stated with firm belief that the AI is programmed to attack the player.  I can guarantee this is not the case.  They are programmed to attack nearby threats and, once they engage, they tend to be pretty target fixated.  If you dive into the fray first then, yes, they will fixate on you.

 

Not quite true.  If the mission parameters have you as a player defined as a waypoint, the enemy flight will follow you no matter where you go.  Your flight will go on to complete (or not) the mission, and the enemy flights will follow you around the map.  As a test I separated myself from the bombers I was escorting (and my  escorting flight) by 10KM, and the enemy flight bypassed the bombers (and my flight) and went for me.

I'm pretty sure this was in one of my bug reports a few years back, and it got better for a while, but pops up now and again since.

[KevPBur]

When I asked the question in the issues forum the advice from Luke and the Devs was to reduce Density and Difficulty as dense and hard is designed to give overwhelming odds and many flights against you and aways one over the target. If you are experiencing this reducing these levels in Career to find the right balance has worked for me, particularly flying the early La5 over Stallingrad. Also, below hard the ai are less inclined to follow you all the way home.

 

I've also been experimenting with the commands.

Cover me appears to be pretty useless.

Copy me can be good if you to try to get the flight to manoeuvre for position but they won't attack anything.

Attack nearest ground/air target is just that. If they are all together when you issue it they tend to all go after the same nearest target. Get them to split up a bit first then can work ok.

Rejoin formation does get them to disengage if they can but you have to be within 5 km of your flight. Running for the hills and calling them after you as an afterthought won't work.

 

As commander I am finding increasing cruise speed and sometimes altitude to greatly help career mission success, especially when intercepted midflight. However,  most improvement has come from reducing fuel levels in the all planes in the flight as appropriate really helps the ai fight. Especially in the P51 which by default is fuelled to fly all the way to Berlin and back!

 

If you have a high turn over in you unit then the rest of your flight will all be rookies and easy prey for perhaps higher skill level so you face. You can tweak this in the career dB to level the field and give your guys a better chance and make the flights home less lonely.

 

[RyanR]

16 minutes ago, KevPBur said:

When I asked the question in the issues forum the advice from Luke and the Devs was to reduce Density and Difficulty as dense and hard is designed to give overwhelming odds and many flights against you and aways one over the target. If you are experiencing this reducing these levels in Career to find the right balance has worked for me, particularly flying the early La5 over Stallingrad. Also, below hard the ai are less inclined to follow you all the way home.

 

For reasons I can't explain, this isn't working for me anymore. I was flying hard and dense for ages and it was great. Then the odds spiraled out of control. Too many bandits wound up in too small a place, and they don't miss when they shoot. I kept dialing back the difficult settings, and nothing was changing. It was so strange that I actually uninstalled IL-2 completely and reinstalled. No joy. 

 

Tweaking the career DB sounds like a great idea. If you fly P-47's or FW-190A's, you'll wind up with a squad of rookies pretty quick. Cranking the replacement skill level sounds like a good idea.

 

I gave up with the native career missions about a month ago. It just got comical. Without fail, another flight of bandits would fly into the area. Rinse and repeat until 15-20 planes were in the area.

 

-Ryan

[RossMarBow]

Like I have said a few times already

The solution is pure and simple

Fortunate son mode
All allies obey your commands and fly in a bubble around you
All enemies ignore you

 

Also sounds like players want a hero/movie damage mode
you only take cosmetic damage so it looks heroic when you return to base
at the same time double the damage output of the players guns 

Edited January 26, 2023 by RossMarBow

[JG27_Steini]

15 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

It's funny you say that since I keep repeating that there are indeed issues with the AI and especially mission scripting. Did you even read my posts? Here's a direct quote from the post you felt so offended by: "yes - there are things wrong with the current AI, some of which were mentioned above, some of which weren't, as well as several issues with the auto-generated mission scripting."

 

I have absolutely never said there is nothing wrong with the game. You're putting words in my mouth by selectively choosing which parts of my posts to read.

 

*However*

 

Even though there are things wrong with the game, not everything that people perceive as wrong is in fact an issue. Let me ask you again: Do you think that we should take each and every perceived problem at face value without double-checking? Do you think that whenever someone perceives some problem with the game, we should immediately blame the game without also looking at the user?

 

The only way we can make thinks better is to get as a whole community reach the developer and make things clear that this is not the way for the future. We can do this only together and not telling every single person that he is wrong. We DO NOT have the possibility to solve those problems, so dont insists to tell everyone he is wrong. We are the customer, we dont have to know how the game is running. This is not your job. Many of us payed a high price for SP part of the game and this is mostly career mode. The heart of the SP is immersion killing. Immersion is the key for simulation fans like us, keep that in mind. You might understand then why people get angry about GB SP modes.

Edited January 26, 2023 by JG27_Steini

[=LD=Nephrill]

Putting you complaint in a review on Steam will also help.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

On 1/25/2023 at 3:21 AM, ICDP said:

I do have to laugh at the idea the 1L2 1946 had anything but poor AI.  You had more commands but that is just like having more things that don't work very well.

 

I frequently had a conga line of enemy fighters chasing me home in IL2 1946 and prequels.  I remember quiting a Ki43 campaign in disgust when no less than 12 P39s chased me all the way to my home base and my home base had zero AAA cover.

 

I remember the countless discussions on how the AI had a "simplified flight model and could do impossible things".

How bombers had sniper gunners

 

IL2 BoX is not great for AI but they do well enough with decent scripting and the career mode is always being refined.

Modders have 100% fixed IL-2 1946 AI...and did so more more than 10 years ago. When we praise the AI, we are NOT praising the base game, but one of the many modpacks like DBW, UP, HSFX, BAT, Y-Pack, VP Modpack, IES, etc.

Edited January 26, 2023 by drewm3i-VR

[FTC_Zero]

22 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

Modders have 100% fixed IL-2 1946 AI...and did so more more than 10 years ago. When we praise the AI, we are NOT praising the base game, but one of the many modpacks like DBW, UP, HSFX, BAT, Y-Pack, VP Modpack, IES, etc.

I just dont like that 1946 AI uses UFO FM. Not saying that GB AI is good...

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, FTC_Zero said:

I just dont like that 1946 AI uses UFO FM. Not saying that GB AI is good...

Im sorry but why does it mather if AI uses spaceship yamato or rhinoceros beetles FM if AI airplane behaves like you would expect them to behave and on top it does things like you would expect them to do, and on top of all tops you can have numbers of them that depict ww2 air battles not just skirmishes of few flights pretending they are in big battle that you have to imagine in your head for 100 of dollars... Ai with same FM like human does same stupid stuff of unreal moves and unhuman reactions but with defect of harder to code them to behave like they should or have more of them in air or ground... i do not see the benefits of same FM as human on AI for game user we have here , they are only for devs as they dont have to maintain 2 FM types per airplane, for user they cost game to mutch with its complexity, as its clear game cant handle the numbers it need with it.

 

I would rather have B-17 AI that can just fly strait and maintain his position in formation untill damaged , and no need to take off land or manover, with AI gunners all have same brain but pretend they dont... and i can have 100+ of them then and i can have them in game so i can shoot at them with my 262 or K4 or 190s... then have AI uses same FM as human and AI gunners all use separate brain BUT not be able to have it in game as its to expencive to model and you would not be able to have 100+ of them in game with any decent FPS or no time slowdown...

 

 

 

 

there is reason why decedes old game kick but of this game when it comes to videos of air battles, and this game is suposed to be advanced... 

 

To me this AI FM like human demand Is same unneccesary stuff like its for DT system we were suposed to get but we cant have, i would rather have simple DT system IL-2 1946 had that pretended like its real, with demand that if you equip DT you automaticly are lock at 100% fuel only, then complex one that was planed to be made but cant be made to work as it would take to long to implement and would probably tax the game preformance more.  

Edited January 26, 2023 by CountZero

[AEthelraedUnraed]

5 hours ago, JG27_Steini said:

The only way we can make thinks better is to get as a whole community reach the developer and make things clear that this is not the way for the future.

I agree with this statement.

 

*However*

 

Complaining about things that can easily be checked to be false ("the AI can spot you at night") or spreading contradictory claims (kestrel444x500: "the AI spins too often" VS Livai: "the AI never spins") will only work counter-productive. It is not "tell[ing] [someone] he is wrong" which I do that hampers the process of improving this game, it's blindly and mindlessly accepting every complaint as true while not accounting for other explanations, player errors, observer bias, etc. If we as a community cannot come up with good examples of what actually goes wrong, then how can we expect the Devs to fix those things? Therefore, already at the complaint stage we should adhere to the Scientific Method as much as possible:

 

Don't:

❌ Base complaints on single anecdotes: "The AI stalls too much, just look at this picture where the AI stalls" VS "In the Camel, the AI spinned approximately twice every dogfight in about 20 dogfights I've done with them."

❌ Post complaints without double-checking their validity: "The AI spots me at night" VS "I thought the AI spotted me at night, but I forgot to switch off my nav lights"

❌ Complain about AI without looking at its mission scripting, or if you don't feel qualified to do so, posting the mission as an attachment so that others can do so: "The AI never attacks me! The AI sucks!" VS "The AI never attacks me. Here's the mission file for analysis."

❌ Leave out possibly important details: "The AI doesn't RTB when damaged" VS "With 3 bullet holes in its left wingtip, the AI doesn't RTB"

❌ Claim statistical properties without mentioning the statistics, even when guesstimated: "The AI spins too often" VS "The AI spins ca. twice every dogfight, which is too often compared to historical sources."

❌ Blindly accept any such complaints as true without any scrutiny.

 

Do:

✔️ Post mission files as attachments.

✔️ State the conditions under which the perceived problem occurred: "The AI spotted me flying at 1200m at this location, even though I was within the clouds" VS "The AI spotted me even though I was inside the clouds."

✔️ Give statistics, if applicable: "This issue occurred on about 25% of my Bodenplatte Career interception missions" VS "I've seen this issue a lot."

✔️ If applicable and possible, refer to real-life historical, scientific or statistical sources: "The AI immediately attacks, while standard practice was to hold formation, per this source" VS "The AI immediately attacks, which is wrong."

✔️ If applicable and possible, re-play the mission and see if it occurs again.

✔️ Demand the same high quality of bug/error reporting from other people and scrutinise such reports too keep their quality high.

 

If a complaint doesn't adhere to these (or similar) rules, than we cannot expect the Devs to act on them. Vague claims such as "it happens too often" only bring more questions ("how much does it happen?", "How much should it happen?"). Leaving out important details results in a needle-in-a-haystack-search ("We *think* this particular thing may be going on. Now only if we knew where that bullet hit the plane..."). Complaining about things that can easily checked to be wrong, only reduces the Devs willingness to investigate similar claims ("Another 20 minutes wasted double-checking if the AI can see me at night... I'm not doing that again!"). And finally, complaining specifically about the AI without at least leaving open the possibility that it's a mission logic error, muddies the waters ("We've tested your claim that the AI never attacks the player, but in our tests [with proper mission scripting] the AI does attack the player. Couldn't reproduce, case closed.").

 

If anyone is honestly willing to help improve this game, they should adhere to rules like these. People who don't are either unaware of them, in which case they should be educated, or find voicing their complaints more important than actually improving this game. Or, worst of all, they want to pressure the Devs into solving their particular pet peeves by making inflated claims far beyond the actual importance they attach to it, like writing 1-star Steam reviews, which I find both dishonourable and despicable.

[FTC_Zero]

5 hours ago, CountZero said:

Im sorry but why does it mather if AI uses spaceship yamato or rhinoceros beetles FM if AI airplane behaves like you would expect them to behave and on top it does things like you would expect them to do, and on top of all tops you can have numbers of them that depict ww2 air battles not just skirmishes of few flights pretending they are in big battle that you have to imagine in your head for 100 of dollars... Ai with same FM like human does same stupid stuff of unreal moves and unhuman reactions but with defect of harder to code them to behave like they should or have more of them in air or ground... i do not see the benefits of same FM as human on AI for game user we have here , they are only for devs as they dont have to maintain 2 FM types per airplane, for user they cost game to mutch with its complexity, as its clear game cant handle the numbers it need with it.

 

I would rather have B-17 AI that can just fly strait and maintain his position in formation untill damaged , and no need to take off land or manover, with AI gunners all have same brain but pretend they dont... and i can have 100+ of them then and i can have them in game so i can shoot at them with my 262 or K4 or 190s... then have AI uses same FM as human and AI gunners all use separate brain BUT not be able to have it in game as its to expencive to model and you would not be able to have 100+ of them in game with any decent FPS or no time slowdown...

 

 

 

 

there is reason why decedes old game kick but of this game when it comes to videos of air battles, and this game is suposed to be advanced... 

 

To me this AI FM like human demand Is same unneccesary stuff like its for DT system we were suposed to get but we cant have, i would rather have simple DT system IL-2 1946 had that pretended like its real, with demand that if you equip DT you automaticly are lock at 100% fuel only, then complex one that was planed to be made but cant be made to work as it would take to long to implement and would probably tax the game preformance more.  

I am always quite annoyed that i cant keep up with firendly AI, because my engines overheat (and theirs not) and some crazy turnrate of theirs is sometime too off. But i am not defending GB here, not at all, just wanted to point that out.

GB having issues about big scaled battles is quite,.."big"?! But that is another story and is probably also quite the letdown for many people.

Then devs should start to offer aa guns with simplified physics. FTC map designer must use aa always extremly sparingly, because it cost so much computing power.

Edited January 26, 2023 by FTC_Zero