Genuine Question - Is career mode any good?

[76SQN-Minimayhemtemp]

As title.  Been away for a few months, awaiting FC2 full release.  Tempted to play but am concerned that career mode will be a dissapointment.  If it any good?

 

Hows the AI?

Hows the mission layout?

How do ground targets act?

Is there stuttering or performance issues that WW2 shows?

[gydaveb]

17 hours ago, 76SQN-Minimayhemtemp said:

As title.  Been away for a few months, awaiting FC2 full release.  Tempted to play but am concerned that career mode will be a dissapointment.  If it any good?

 

Hows the AI?

Hows the mission layout?

How do ground targets act?

Is there stuttering or performance issues that WW2 shows?

 

How's the AI? 

- Not bad, but also not perfect. There seems to be a range of opinions on this, but I'd call it good enough to get the job done. Of the questions you pose, this is the hardest one to answer because one person's "good AI" is another person's "terrible AI." I think it has improved over time... for example, it used to be that the AI in IL2 the AI would follow you all the way back to your base. It doesn't do this anymore. 

 

How's the mission layout?

- Pretty much like the career mode in any of the other IL2 WW2 games. You have a target, mission, or objective, you fly to it, accomplish the objective, and fly home.

 

How do ground targets act? 

- Just like they do in the other IL2 games.

 

Is there stuttering or performance issues that WW2 shows?

- Again, I'd say the performance is very similar to the WW2 versions.

 

In short, if you enjoy career mode in IL2 WW2, then you'll enjoy FC career mode. If you don't like it in the other versions, you might not in FC.

 

 

[Zooropa_Fly]

You'd be quicker flying the first mission yourself 

[=621=Samikatz]

The atmosphere is very cool and enormous swirling dogfights develop on the regular, but if you're a half-way decent pilot the AI are not going to threaten you

[TG-55Panthercules]

I'm not sure how it compares to the other IL-2 GB career modes, but the FC career mode is very reminiscent of the RoF career (and I liked the RoF career, so that's intended to be a positive).  I did note that in its current state the FC Career mode does not appear to incorporate many unit-marked, squadron default skins.  Fortunately, FC Career appears to be moddable in much the same way as the RoF one was, so it looks like that will be fairly easy to correct.  I have embarked upon a project to put squadron default skins into the FC Career mode, and while it's going to take me a bit of time it seems to coming together fairly well.  I've completed all the flyable French units, and successfully tested both a German unit and an American one, and will begin cranking through those flyable units over the next few days, as RL permits.  Eventually I plan to get to the AI squadrons and the British units, but I've got some travel coming up in a couple of weeks so I'm thinking I might go ahead and release a beta/WIP version with whatever I've got ready before that trip so people can be playing with it and see if it's working as well in the wild as it seems to be in my tests to date.  More to come ...

[76SQN-Minimayhemtemp]

Well I tried it.  I flew 2 missions and stopped.

 

On the first mission the lead plane was unable to take off and kept flying directly into some tree's at the end of the runway.

 

In the second mission we were supposed to escort bombers, except my flight sat on the airfield for a few minutes and took off once the bombers were half way across the mud.  They were bounced and decimated before I even got close to them.

 

Stupid.

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, 76SQN-Minimayhemtemp said:

Well I tried it.  I flew 2 missions and stopped.

 

On the first mission the lead plane was unable to take off and kept flying directly into some tree's at the end of the runway.

 

In the second mission we were supposed to escort bombers, except my flight sat on the airfield for a few minutes and took off once the bombers were half way across the mud.  They were bounced and decimated before I even got close to them.

 

And you didn't think to post the track/mission files here so the devs can see what is wrong with them and fix the problem? ? It takes but a few minutes to go to /data/missions, grab the mission file and post it here, with a brief description of what's the issue. 

[76SQN-Minimayhemtemp]

17 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

And you didn't think to post the track/mission files here so the devs can see what is wrong with them and fix the problem? ? It takes but a few minutes to go to /data/missions, grab the mission file and post it here, with a brief description of what's the issue. 

 

What's the point, AI and mission issues are known already and I doubt it will be recognised or resolved ?‍♂️

[LukeFF]

On 4/12/2023 at 9:51 AM, 76SQN-Minimayhemtemp said:

What's the point, AI and mission issues are known already and I doubt it will be recognised or resolved ?‍♂️

 

The point is that when these sorts of things are pointed out to the developers, they usually are addressed. Case in point: someone recently pointed out that the AI was having problems with taking off from Epiez. Mission and track files were posted, and the problem was solved in the next update. 

 

Just posting that something is "stupid" isn't really helpful in fixing problems. Posting a way to repeat the issue, meanwhile, is.

[No.23_Starling]

16 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

The point is that when these sorts of things are pointed out to the developers, they usually are addressed. Case in point: someone recently pointed out that the AI was having problems with taking off from Epiez. Mission and track files were posted, and the problem was solved in the next update. 

 

Just posting that something is "stupid" isn't really helpful in fixing problems. Posting a way to repeat the issue, meanwhile, is.

Hey, some play testing with a beta team for a few hours will show most of the issues players have today. Likewise, a bit of market research on competitor products will show you what works well - e.g. Wing Over Flanders Fields. Even the RoF AI would be worth going back to as it was far more aggressive and better at dogfighting.

 

The video below is a good illustration. AI don’t always react when attacked even with superior numbers. When they do react they struggle to stay on your six and often just turn away. They only bother me on a head-on or in an initial attack, then they most flop around harmlessly. In Rise of Flight you could expect the ace level AI to try to stay on your six and out-turn you if they could, shooting with decent accuracy. It would also prop hang when you were above, often with dangerous results.

 

Where WoFF improves on RoF is that AI that is losing a rate fight will split S so you can’t murder them easily and stay glued on their six. It will also spin down to escape then recover, and can also bounce players with deadly accuracy - that is a scary moment!! The AI will also climb away in a better performing plane if it is losing a fight.

 

99% of my FC AI fights follow this pattern:

1. Head-on where AI either kills me or hits me

2. AI aimlessly flops about

3. I kill AI with little effort as it doesn’t evade

 

It feels like the current AI has not been rigorously tested in beta by competitive players.

 

Is that more constructive? Have you played much vs the AI yourself and compared it to RoF or WoFF? You’d think 1C would be able to smash the small WoFF dev team out of the ballpark.

 

 

PS I think it comes down to one thing - the AI should be a challenge and dangerous to the player. Right now it’s not. Turkey shoots get boring pretty quickly and don’t reward the player for skill.

Edited April 14, 2023 by US103_Rummell

[No.23_Triggers]

Pretty much exactly what Rummell said.

There are one or two things I like about the Career mode, and one or two things that are slight annoyances, but the big, glaring issue is the AI. They feel incredibly gamey to fight - they're completely impotent in a scrap (see my video in rummell's post above, where an entire AI alb flight decided to give me some free target practice), but in the rare occasion they do get guns on target they're laser accurate. To sum it up I'd say the AI is 9/10ths "Artificial" and 1/10th "Intelligent". 

Compare that to the Wings over Flanders' Fields AI (again, like Rummy points out). In my honest opinion, out of RoF / FC / WoFF, the latter sets the gold standard for AI by a country mile. They present a genuine challenge, and you really get the sense you're fighting an intelligent opponent. Even more remarkable, you're able to immediately tell when one AI is more "Skilled" than another in a dogfight, and I've had moments where I've known right away that I'm fighting a 'rookie', or an 'ace', meaning that there's a lot of variation in how fights 'feel'. More than just the flying itself, the WoFF AI also has great decision making skills. They'll engage with the advantage and cut and run when the odds are against them. I've even been faked out a couple times by AI going into spins and playing dead. That also lends itself to making them feel more 'human'. 

...So yeah, current thoughts on FC career mode is that the AI modelling really needs to be the focus moving forwards. Currently it feels very lacklustre, which is unfortunate as the AI performance is (obviously) totally integral to the career mode experience.

 

[LukeFF]

6 hours ago, US103_Rummell said:

It feels like the current AI has not been rigorously tested in beta by competitive players.

 

Far from it. I'm not going to go into it more than that, other than to say we have a very competent, devoted group of beta testers who rigorously test things before they are pushed out of the public. I think by this point people should know that good, competent AI takes a lot of work to get right and even then, it's never going to be fully satisfactory. 

 

6 hours ago, US103_Rummell said:

Is that more constructive?

 

The internal beta testers are all well aware of those items.

 

6 hours ago, US103_Rummell said:

Have you played much vs the AI yourself and compared it to RoF or WoFF?

 

I have never played WoFF and RoF was removed from my computer a while ago, but yes, I do share the sentiment that the AI needs to be more aggressive. And the development team is well aware of that. See again my comments above. 

[Lederhosen]

Only thing ROF needs are the newer landscape / Maps. Everything else is there

[No.23_Starling]

18 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Far from it. I'm not going to go into it more than that, other than to say we have a very competent, devoted group of beta testers who rigorously test things before they are pushed out of the public. I think by this point people should know that good, competent AI takes a lot of work to get right and even then, it's never going to be fully satisfactory. 

 

 

The internal beta testers are all well aware of those items.

 

 

I have never played WoFF and RoF was removed from my computer a while ago, but yes, I do share the sentiment that the AI needs to be more aggressive. And the development team is well aware of that. See again my comments above. 

Thanks Luke, glad to hear that it’s been picked up and being addressed. If the WoFF two man outfit can produce an AI of quality I’ve no doubt 1C could make something much more compelling with their resources

[J99_Sizzlorr]

The problem that plagues AI in this title as opposed to titles like WOFF is that the AI uses the same FMs that the player uses. They obey the same laws so to speak. In other titles the AI can simply cheat and do stuff the player is not able to. But when this leads to AI that behaves like they do in FC right now I am not sure if that was a smart choice.

[ST_Catchov]

They made the weak wings stronger by tweaks and not by overthinking and applying complex aeronautical theorems and calculations and made gameplay much better. Thus also avoiding overtaxing pc's with unnecessary stuff.

 

Do the same with the AI. I don't care so long as the AI doesn't appear to be as thick as a brick.

[J99_Sizzlorr]

1 hour ago, ST_Catchov said:

They made the weak wings stronger by tweaks and not by overthinking and applying complex aeronautical theorems and calculations and made gameplay much better. Thus also avoiding overtaxing pc's with unnecessary stuff.

 

Do the same with the AI. I don't care so long as the AI doesn't appear to be as thick as a brick.

Yeah let the AI cheat on me to make it more challenging, I mean it is not my wife so I don't care ?

[JG4_Moltke1871]

Sometimes it’s a chain of adjustments… Before the Career mode release I played the Flying Circus planes with the PWCG. There I had to learn quickly that Gotha’s are not able to handle realistic weather conditions, crash while take off with lowest side winds. I was curious how they will manage it in career mode maybe improve the AI? The simple answer: There are no realistic weather conditions on the ground in career mode. So the AI don’t need to struggle with that. Long time ago the devs decided to reduce the AI tailgunner‘s skill badly. Without MOD they still shooting just holes in the sky. Tailgunners are essential for survival of a two seater. Maybe the bad AI fighter skill is necessary to don’t make two seater missions impossible because their gunners can’t hit. 
Just my theory… ?

[Trooper117]

13 hours ago, JSOflyer said:

something has to be done or people will lose interest very quickly

 

Already lost it... and I can't see me buying into FC3 and FC4 (if they come to fruition) if they don't do something about the PP AI.

Let's face it, why should people buy into this stuff if it's released in such a poor condition? (I'm talking about SP here).

I guess for the MP chaps things are better...

 

[Russkly]

I agree that the new career mode AI is lacking in challenge.

 

However, in PWCG with "Mission AI" pumped to max. (+4) in Advanced Config. the AI definitely presents a challenge.

 

Not to the current WW2 AI standards, but enough for me to enjoy.

 

Now, I appreciate that this thread is about the career mode, but just sayin', in case people want to try PWCG rather than walk away from the game altogether.