Regarding the AI issues - a request for help

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

2 hours ago, Hetzer-JG52 said:

Puh and lol. I had a blat yesterday, me and seven AI in Alb D2s vs four FE2s and four N11s, all on random ability. Considering I'm a fearless uber-ace I observed nothing untoward with an AI that's replicating cold, young and scared pilots flying death-traps. And the FE2 gunners got plenty of hits into me too.

My opinion...too much is being expected of AI being run by a single core on multiple planes. As a role-player I find the overall experience fully authentic. My personal evidential criteria...I've yet to match Eric Hartmann's achievement in Iron Man mode.

Random settings?   I think the objective here is for a more serious analysis, from players with a more dedicated concern.  

Edited December 22, 2023 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[the_dudeWG]

On 12/20/2023 at 2:54 PM, US103_Rummell said:

- Spin down to escape and recover then RTB

- RTB when they start to lose including climbing away

Yes! AI in IL-2 seems to have no regard to self-preservation. Every battle is a fight to the death. It's amazing to read some of the low casualty numbers of German Jastas for the entirety of the war, yet if you fly a couple weeks in a career, you'll end up losing more squad mates in that short span!

[=621=Samikatz]

I feel like the main difference between the WW2 AI and the WW1 AI is that the AI can maneuver something like a Bf-109 fairly close to its limits, not as hard as an experienced player for sure but it seems fairly well configured to the airframe. Conversely, if you give it something like a Fokker DR1 it won't come close to the turn times a player can squeeze out of it, and even in poor turning aircraft for the era you can defeat it with a basic turn

 

Are the AI manually configured for each aircraft or do they "figure it out" based on the flight model data?

[TimSell75]

1 hour ago, =621=Samikatz said:

I feel like the main difference between the WW2 AI and the WW1 AI is that the AI can maneuver something like a Bf-109 fairly close to its limits, not as hard as an experienced player for sure but it seems fairly well configured to the airframe. Conversely, if you give it something like a Fokker DR1 it won't come close to the turn times a player can squeeze out of it, and even in poor turning aircraft for the era you can defeat it with a basic turn

 

Are the AI manually configured for each aircraft or do they "figure it out" based on the flight model data?

Thats about the same I have experienced. I flew all WWI scripted campaigns and was never shot down once. I actually was not even hit once to my knowledge. While in WWII I get shot down by AI pretty regularly if I don´t take enough care

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

4 hours ago, the_dudeWG said:

Yes! AI in IL-2 seems to have no regard to self-preservation. Every battle is a fight to the death. It's amazing to read some of the low casualty numbers of German Jastas for the entirety of the war, yet if you fly a couple weeks in a career, you'll end up losing more squad mates in that short span!

I'm afraid  it's depends , in duels mode aka QM , they do run for life. Watch my video, 3 of them disengage and RTB. If they do not in campaign, that is up sides down, should be opposite.

1 hour ago, =621=Samikatz said:

I feel like the main difference between the WW2 AI and the WW1 AI is that the AI can maneuver something like a Bf-109 fairly close to its limits, not as hard as an experienced player for sure but it seems fairly well configured to the airframe. Conversely, if you give it something like a Fokker DR1 it won't come close to the turn times a player can squeeze out of it, and even in poor turning aircraft for the era you can defeat it with a basic turn

 

Are the AI manually configured for each aircraft or do they "figure it out" based on the flight model data?

Yes, WW2 is batter. In my opinion FC AI should be able to out turn player if they have more energy, they should pull more G and use that to advantage. But now they are so limited and  turn anemic plus they try to shake player making flight path change afront of player guns. I think good AI should be programed to use BFM and ACM principles and amount of mistakes and time from  decision to execution should depend what AI skills is.

[Zooropa_Fly]

One thing I'd like to see, is separation of flying skill level and shooting skill level.

Makes no sense that these are intrinsically tied, relative to real life.

Add to that a skill level for individual gunners, and you've got a much more dynamic game.

 

Separating flying from gunning, might make it easier to concentrate on fixing the flying element ?

As a general point I think they're just not aggressive enough in FC.

In RoF, when an ai locks on to you - you have to be paying attention.

The FC ai often seem to have a 'Sunday afternoon stroll' thing going on.

 

Anyway, good to see Han taking an interest, I'm sure a tweak here and there could make a big difference.

 

[Panzerlang]

I thought I'd give the old 'Voss' last fight' scenario a go. I put him on Ace and my four Se5 wingmen on Random. One of the Se5s went down in flames and Voss was doing a decent job but certainly nothing like his reported RL flying. I got a few bursts into him, ditto the others, until his wings came off in a diving turn.

Maybe in ten years, quantum computers and sentient AI we'll see better.

Next test, me in a Dr1 vs five veteran Se5s.

Edited December 22, 2023 by Hetzer-JG52

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

2 hours ago, Hetzer-JG52 said:

I thought I'd give the old 'Voss' last fight' scenario a go. I put him on Ace and my four Se5 wingmen on Random. One of the Se5s went down in flames and Voss was doing a decent job but certainly nothing like his reported RL flying. I got a few bursts into him, ditto the others, until his wings came off in a diving turn.

Maybe in ten years, quantum computers and sentient AI we'll see better.

Next test, me in a Dr1 vs five veteran Se5s.

Don't think the random settings is helpful.   You basically have no idea what skill level is being utilized.   For all we know, you could be flying against novice/rookie AI.   Just not helpful in a comprehensive analysis of the AI skill level focused on AI at the ACE level.   Actually just confuses things.

 

 

There are plenty of Arcade sims.  FC strives to be realistic.   That being the case, the AI should excel at combat manuvers,  and situational awareness at Ace level.  ( If Ace is too difficult,  you can of course use less skilled settings  (novice/veteran)).  It appears the devs are interested in providing that type of experience.   Bravo to them for the intent and effort to improve the AI.

Edited December 22, 2023 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[Sneaksie]

The hotfix we will release soon among the other things eases the limit of the AI WWI fighter pilots, in theory making them less conservative in their maneuvering so they could pull higher AoA and get much closer to the stall limit than before (they avoid pulling too hard). However, the fact they can do it now doesn't necessary mean they would, other AI checks and most likely changes are in order to make sure they utilize this ability, and this can't be done in a few hours - reviewing the AI parameters of dozens aircraft requires weeks because after each change you have to make sure you didn't broke something in another typical situation. So please observe their behaviour, but keep in mind that even if the changes are visible at this point, these AIs can become more dangerous both for you and for themselves - for instance, it is possible that in a tight situation they can now overpull and dive into the ground.

[Dusty926]

41 minutes ago, Sneaksie said:

The hotfix we will release soon among the other things eases the limit of the AI WWI fighter pilots, in theory making them less conservative in their maneuvering so they could pull higher AoA and get much closer to the stall limit than before (they avoid pulling too hard). However, the fact they can do it now doesn't necessary mean they would, other AI checks and most likely changes are in order to make sure they utilize this ability, and this can't be done in a few hours - reviewing the AI parameters of dozens aircraft requires weeks because after each change you have to make sure you didn't broke something in another typical situation. So please observe their behaviour, but keep in mind that even if the changes are visible at this point, these AIs can become more dangerous both for you and for themselves - for instance, it is possible that in a tight situation they can now overpull and dive into the ground.

This is definitely a step in the right direction! I understand that AI is a very complex thing and minor changes one place can cause big ramifications in another. You have my sympathies in even trying to wrangle such a system.

I hope that you and the team will continue to consider greater AI reviews like this, especially for the FC content - One thing that is extremely present that isn't strictly solved by AoA allowances is their ability, or lack there of, to get on and stay on someone's six. In many scenarios they will evade behind a straight moving target as if they are swerving to avoid physically hitting it - while being 600 meters or even more away.

I've yet to do super up to date testing (this is pre-today's hotfix as well, obviously) but one of my most vivid examples remains this video:
https://streamable.com/4qqhzf

 

It's a very strange behavior that doesn't seem to be present on the WW2 AI, yet is all over the WW1 content. I understand this is probably not as clear as you and the team would like so I will make the attempt to get back on the sim soon and record more examples.

[Panzerlang]

7 hours ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Don't think the random settings is helpful.   You basically have no idea what skill level is being utilized.   For all we know, you could be flying against novice/rookie AI.   Just not helpful in a comprehensive analysis of the AI skill level focused on AI at the ACE level.   Actually just confuses things.

 

 

There are plenty of Arcade sims.  FC strives to be realistic.   That being the case, the AI should excel at combat manuvers,  and situational awareness at Ace level.  ( If Ace is too difficult,  you can of course use less skilled settings  (novice/veteran)).  It appears the devs are interested in providing that type of experience.   Bravo to them for the intent and effort to improve the AI.

I dunno Mitch, how many pilots were able to excell?

I'll put the Se5s on Ace though.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

22 minutes ago, Hetzer-JG52 said:

I dunno Mitch, how many pilots were able to excell?

I'll put the Se5s on Ace though.

There's 2 variables.  How good is the AI, and how good is the human pilot.   Different human pilots, will obviously have different skill sets.  So in reality,  comparing ourselves to AI, is really dependent on how well we fly against the AI. Some will destroy the AI quickly on ACE settings, others might struggle or fail on ACE settings.  I think the objective the developers are after is that average human pilots fail against ACE AI.   Think of it like flying against Von Richtofen.  More fail than succeed.   I believe that is the "intention" of ACE settings .  Most should fail.   But I admit, this is speculation on my part. I'm not on the development team.

 

Fwiw, I usually have the AI set at Veteran.   I've noticed (not scientific) no real difference between ACE, and Veteran in AI combat manuvers,  or situational awareness between the 2, but ACE marksmanship is just plain deadly. Veteran seems more realistic imo, and i actually have a chance to win.

Edited December 22, 2023 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[Justicier]

3 hours ago, Hetzer-JG52 said:

I dunno Mitch, how many pilots were able to excell?

I'll put the Se5s on Ace though.

 

I wouldn't say the request with the AI is that they always excel regardless of the skill level chosen... but Ace AI should bloody well mean Ace. And even the lower difficulty levels I would argue that they should perhaps be MORE prone to aggressive, yet erratic/less intelligent maneuvering because they are fighting for their lives and don't necessarily have the skills to get the most out of their aircraft without pushing it too hard.

 

I would argue that:

Novice AI should be less adept at spotting enemy targets, less accurate with MG fire, and far more prone to over-stressing the aircraft and making mistakes. (The majority of WW1 pilots most likely.)

 

Veteran should be competent, they maneuver *mostly* within the limits of their airframe making few mistakes with good accuracy and good situational awareness. (I still wouldn't say that these guys necessarily "excel")

 

Ace should have excellent situational awareness, makes negligible mistakes in maneuvering, highly accurate. (Fighting these guys should feel like fighting Richtoven, Fonck, Bishop, Voss, etc. and should be a noticeable difference from the other skills)

 

Right now the AI can shoot accurately, very often in a boom and zoom they'll kill their target. They seem to spot targets well also. However, the skill in maneuvering has been the issue for a long time... in the recent past they have not pushed their aircraft remotely hard enough, and it is extremely irritating (at least for someone who likes a challenge) to always be on their six because they simply don't seem to have any urgency to get on yours to get shots on you. They don't act like they're in battle with survival on the line... with you trying to kill them, and them doing the same.

 

I'm very curious what these new changes will mean, the hotfix has certainly piqued my interest, will be testing it out in career mode soon.

Edited December 23, 2023 by Justicier

[Flying_Anchor]

It's got a bit better, but still, 1v4 is very easy, and even 1v8. I attached a boring replay with me on Fokker D.VIIF vs 4 Dr.I and more interesting with me on D.VIIF vs 8 D.VIIf. I shot down 6 of them, one got lost and one survived.

1v4: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X7sTVeCsvRxrPxd74yGifjFHQAbJ69bh/view?usp=sharing

1v8: https://drive.google.com/file/d/13oK_yMesdoXwN7hkFQrZxSlmgtRjq4qs/view?usp=sharing

And I repeat, im not a good pilot, i even dont fly online because of my full incompetence comparing to other players.

P.S. ofc, ACE difficulty.

Edited December 23, 2023 by Flying_Anchor

[Dusty926]

20 hours ago, Dusty926 said:

This is definitely a step in the right direction! I understand that AI is a very complex thing and minor changes one place can cause big ramifications in another. You have my sympathies in even trying to wrangle such a system.

I hope that you and the team will continue to consider greater AI reviews like this, especially for the FC content - One thing that is extremely present that isn't strictly solved by AoA allowances is their ability, or lack there of, to get on and stay on someone's six. In many scenarios they will evade behind a straight moving target as if they are swerving to avoid physically hitting it - while being 600 meters or even more away.

I've yet to do super up to date testing (this is pre-today's hotfix as well, obviously) but one of my most vivid examples remains this video:
https://streamable.com/4qqhzf

 

It's a very strange behavior that doesn't seem to be present on the WW2 AI, yet is all over the WW1 content. I understand this is probably not as clear as you and the team would like so I will make the attempt to get back on the sim soon and record more examples.

I don't yet have any tracks or missions yet to share but with some preliminary testing, I can rather confidently say that whilst the new hotfix has yielded improvements in specific scenarios (benefitting more from plane type & pilot skill), this behavior shown in the streamable video is still present. It's less noticeable in turn fights but is still present there too. The AI go evasive far too early, as if they're avoiding a head on. However the plane in front is flying away from them, so all they end up doing is throwing themselves off their own foe's six. 

Until I can sit down and proper record some stuff, just load up a QMB scenario, let things collect into a little furball around you just to make sure everyone's close, and then fly straight - Observe the AI and their massive swerving. You will not be shot down.

[Avimimus]

I'd like to propose that we're all missing the point! ? Hear me out!

 

There are three major issues I've noticed:

1) Sometimes the AI just seems to 'give up' (and cease to manoeuvre)

2) Sometimes, particularly at extremely low altitude, the AI ends up appearing to 'get stuck' in a shallow turn.

3) The AI is easily baited into losing altitude (and ending up below the player)

 

I'd argue that these are all issues with energy management.

 

Energy management is the origin of all of these problems. The AI can't manoeuvre (especially at low altitudes) if it is close to stalling.

 

The AI is easy to beat simply because the player is a bit gentler at manoeuvring, and conserving/recovering energy.

 

If this is the case, than making the AI pull sharper turns will actually make the situation worse. Yes, these changes mean they'll be more deadly in the first pass - but after that they'll end up below the player (or unable to take evasive action, because they've already spent their energy, and can't go any lower to recover it).

 

Suggestion: The AI needs to get a lot better at deciding when it is safe enough to spend five or fifteen second regaining energy through flying straight or climbing slightly. The AI could also do with favouring gentle energy retaining turns in some cases (e.g. high yo-yo or chandelles) - especially if it isn't under threat of attack. If the AI can't better manage its energy it will never really be a threat.

 

I've attached a couple of tracks to show the point. In both I fly a Sopwith Triplane against four 'Ace' Fokker D.VII:

- In one we start at 500m, I don't really even try to fight them (I don't even have my joystick properly set up), but it my gentle maneouvres are enough to outfly them. Eventually I'm the only airplane left.

- In the next we start at 1500m, they immediately shed their energy in the first pass and I climb lazily to 1900m - at which point the clouds begin to obscure my vision and I stop climbing, I cease to circle above them (which generally causes them to lose altitude), they spread out and one of them is able to catch me before I see it.

 

P.S. The third track is just four 'average' level Ablatros D.Va vs. an auto-levelled R.E.8... two of them get stuck doing a split-s for a while, they take a long time to catch the R.E.8, and only one of them is ever able to get into a firing position (its accuracy is fine though, for an average pilot). My R.E.8 ends up surviving and getting damaged by flak many minutes later. In this case there is a bug causing a couple of the Albatros fighters to lose energy, but overall the gunnery and flying is alright - although it seems to go against expectations that four Albatros D.Va couldn't shoot down an R.E.8 that refuses to evade (...and I think their difficulty catching the R.E.8 shows that we do need a Caudron G.IV or B.E.2c... especially as the Albatros D.II doesn't stand a chance of catching the R.E.8)

Tracks.zip

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

37 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

 

37 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

we do need a Caudron G.IV or B.E.2c..

Yes please:)

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

38 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

I'd like to propose that we're all missing the point! ? Hear me out!

 

There are three major issues I've noticed:

1) Sometimes the AI just seems to 'give up' (and cease to manoeuvre)

2) Sometimes, particularly at extremely low altitude, the AI ends up appearing to 'get stuck' in a shallow turn.

3) The AI is easily baited into losing altitude (and ending up below the player)

 

I'd argue that these are all issues with energy management.

 

Energy management is the origin of all of these problems. The AI can't manoeuvre (especially at low altitudes) if it is close to stalling.

 

The AI is easy to beat simply because the player is a bit gentler at manoeuvring, and conserving/recovering energy.

 

If this is the case, than making the AI pull sharper turns will actually make the situation worse. Yes, these changes mean they'll be more deadly in the first pass - but after that they'll end up below the player (or unable to take evasive action, because they've already spent their energy, and can't go any lower to recover it).

 

Suggestion: The AI needs to get a lot better at deciding when it is safe enough to spend five or fifteen second regaining energy through flying straight or climbing slightly. The AI could also do with favouring gentle energy retaining turns in some cases (e.g. high yo-yo or chandelles) - especially if it isn't under threat of attack. If the AI can't better manage its energy it will never really be a threat.

 

I've attached a couple of tracks to show the point. In both I fly a Sopwith Triplane against four 'Ace' Fokker D.VII:

- In one we start at 500m, I don't really even try to fight them (I don't even have my joystick properly set up), but it my gentle maneouvres are enough to outfly them. Eventually I'm the only airplane left.

- In the next we start at 1500m, they immediately shed their energy in the first pass and I climb lazily to 1900m - at which point the clouds begin to obscure my vision and I stop climbing, I cease to circle above them (which generally causes them to lose altitude), they spread out and one of them is able to catch me before I see it.

 

P.S. The third track is just four 'average' level Ablatros D.Va vs. an auto-levelled R.E.8... two of them get stuck doing a split-s for a while, they take a long time to catch the R.E.8, and only one of them is ever able to get into a firing position (its accuracy is fine though, for an average pilot). My R.E.8 ends up surviving and getting damaged by flak many minutes later. In this case there is a bug causing a couple of the Albatros fighters to lose energy, but overall the gunnery and flying is alright - although it seems to go against expectations that four Albatros D.Va couldn't shoot down an R.E.8 that refuses to evade (...and I think their difficulty catching the R.E.8 shows that we do need a Caudron G.IV or B.E.2c... especially as the Albatros D.II doesn't stand a chance of catching the R.E.8)

Tracks.zip 9.83 MB · 0 downloads

All true...

Edited December 23, 2023 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[Avimimus]

I've suspected for a long time that our understanding of air combat manoeuvring is incorrect for WWI, by the way. We now live over a century after this war, in an era with 20 ton jets that have tremendous thrust-to-weight ratios and sustained angles-of-attack. So, of course our intuitions might be a bit wrong.

 

In WWI the concept of a 'sustained turn rate' might even be misleading. If one looks at the way actual WWI pilots talk about aircraft, they are often emphasizing climb rates, acceleration (e.g. in a shallow dive), and the ability to avoid losing too much altitude when in a turn... in other words, they are almost always talking about energy management - but in somewhat different terms than we are used to... and with a different manoeuvring logic.

 

The question is - is it possible to teach the AI to recognise when it is a safe moment for it to build up energy (climbing, gentle turns/chandelles, doing a high yo-yo, or accelerating 'on the straight'), and when it is advantageous to spend energy (e.g. in a sharp turn)?

 

It needs to alternate more between these two types of maneouvres and it needs to find a better balance between building and losing energy. At least that is what I suspect.

 

In any case, I don't think fixing just one thing in isolation (e.g. one manoeuvre, increasing angle-of-attack, or increasing gun accuracy) will make the AI a threat to a player who has figured out how to fly WWI planes.

 

P.S. The Gotha G.V will stall if you use full aileron and rudder deflections for more than a few seconds... simply moving the control surfaces to high deflections is enough to increase the drag to an unsustainable level! Most aircraft aren't that bad, but they also aren't that much better off - they have a lot of drag compared to their thrust levels - which impacts both top speeds and energy retention (and they lose energy very quickly as a result).

[Dusty926]

I've seen the posts above and do agree in a general sense, as energy management is something even the WW2 AI isn't very good at right now, and it used to be better in both the WW2 and FC AI in previous versions.

However, none of that matters if the AI can't even line up a shot when given the clearest six in the world.
The issue I mentioned before of the AI, "waffling" behind an aircraft as if they're dodging a reverse head on is omnipresent and ruins the lethality of the AI in anything other than, ironically, high angle snapshots.

What I have here in this dropbox is a 7zip with two tracks and related folders. One where the AI lined up on me from a distance and took me out (most resembling the WW2 AI) and one with the omnipresent wobble problem. They are named relevantly. The DR.I is flown by me obviously, and the Sopwith Snipe I tested this against is Ace.
This behavior is consistent regardless of choice of aircraft.

If you were to ask me why I think one worked out and one didn't, I'd wager it's down to the Ace AI opening fire from a very long distance, presumably just long enough to avoid the evasive, "I need to get out of the way" behavior activating. In the much longer track, I made an effort to stay closer to the Snipe, and as you'll see, even a slightly closer distance causes the behavior to start and not stop until the recording ends.

Here is the link:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/k49f980zf2hbzg753e2va/Dusty-Track-Msbin-files.zip?rlkey=6im15z8pxvc07aqdha818dzkr&dl=0

Edited December 24, 2023 by Dusty926

[Russkly]

In case it's not been mentioned, I very much appreciate that the dev team is looking at this.

 

So, thanks for your efforts, and please keep them coming.

[Gunfreak]

12 hours ago, Russkly said:

In case it's not been mentioned, I very much appreciate that the dev team is looking at this.

 

So, thanks for your efforts, and please keep them coming.

I was very pleasantly surprised that after just a few days of discussion. The first attempt to remedy the problem was released in a hot fix patch.

[Panzerlang]

I did do the Dr1 vs five Se5s on Ace setting. It took me a couple of minutes to get the hang of the Dr1 and I took a few hits but all the Se5s went down eventually. The biggest issue as I saw it was their somewhat lassaiz faire behaviour while I was on their six. They couldn't stay on my six but that's to be expected given the ability of the respective planes I guess.

The track file, zipped, is 13mb, so I can't upload it.

[PB0_Roll]

1/name a "terminator AI", the way BDG did for modded rowan's BoB2. I don't know how they build it, but "terminator" was an appropriate name, and it's 10 years old, and the way it cheated wasn't obvious !!!!!!

2/give it a cheating FM that allows for 20% to 50% more lax AoA limits before it stalls, 20 to 50% more powerful engine, while keeping same max speed so cheating is less obvious.

3/have old hands test this terminator AI and see if it helps. If it doesn't, AI's brain is damaged beyond repair.

4/if it does, make sure this terminator AI doesn't come in career without explicit player consent.

 

Good luck ?

[=IRFC=kotori87]

Reminder that the Devs have clearly stated that the AI cannot cheat on the physics of flying. It cannot get extra engine power, changed stall characteristics, etc. It gets the same controls that we players do, with the exact same results. I don't think many people appreciate how much harder that makes it for the AI. Just getting an AI that can take off, fly a few circles, and land in IL2:GB is orders of magnitude more complex than in older flight sims. Trying to do combat maneuvers against an intelligent, evading airplane while avoiding collisions with other aircraft and terrain in the area is stupendously difficult. Just think of how many times you've been pushing a Camel into a tight turn, almost get your guns on target, then apply just a little more rudder so you can get that perfect engine/cockpit shot, and then the plane tumbles out of control because your airspeed dropped just enough for your current combination of rudder, aileron, and elevator to cause an accidental snap-roll.

 

Now I am not an AI developer by any means, but I have done mods on a few older games that dealt with their AIs. They generally had a main AI script, and then a set of easily-modifiable variables that would affect how the main script would execute. For example, in the old RTS Total Annihilation, there was a text file that set the probability of the AI choosing to build a specific unit or structure, and how much that unit or structure would be discounted for the AI. The main AI script was built into the game itself and could not be modded, but just by balancing the AI's preferred units and structures to the AI's resource-gathering ability, it became much more dangerous, enough to overwhelm un-modified AIs and even threaten human players.

 

What I'd like to know is what variables does the IL2:GB AI have that can easily be modified. Clearly there are some. Are these variables common to every single aircraft in the game, or can the AI be tuned to better handle specific aircraft? What about novice vs veteran vs ace level? Are these variables accessible so we players can try tuning them? I am also very curious what sorts of debugging tools are available. Being able to "see" what the AI is thinking in a given situation is fantastically useful, especially in some of the clearly-bugged scenarios such as the AIs that are taking evasive action instead of attacking when on a player's 6, or when doing that random death-dive that they sometimes do.

 

I just got my computer back from a much-needed overhaul, so I should be able to run some tests of my own in the next few days. Hopefully I can replicate some of the problems identified already, and document some of the ones that haven't been posted about yet.

[EnvoyEnd]

I think it was mentioned once in a previous post but I believe it to be another major issue with the FC AI that bears repeating, and that is their refusal to break and engage intercepting fighters when they are attacking a target (ie. a balloon or a bomber formation). 

I say refusal because, in every case when the enemy AI is attacking a target they will not break off their attack until they are dealt fairly significant damage. 

I don't have any track files immediately on hand at the moment, but this behavior is easily observable in any "Balloon Defense" mission in career mode.

[REAPER__40404]

Career mode Jasta 2 Velu 04.09.1916 Pilots Plane Halberstadt D.II 

Mission Escort Fighters 

Halberstadt CL. 2

 

mission starts and the CL.2 keep loosing altitude until crashing the wingmen in your flight crash into each other too. After checking the integrity of game files on steam I had 15 missing files after the check I played it again and this time the wingmen were good and their distancing improved but the CL.2 still slowly lost altitude until smashing into the earth.

[PB0_Roll]

6 hours ago, =IRFC=kotori87 said:

Reminder that the Devs have clearly stated that the AI cannot cheat on the physics of flying. It cannot get extra engine power, changed stall characteristics, etc. It gets the same controls that we players do, with the exact same results. I don't think many people appreciate how much harder that makes it for the AI.

And this is precisely how "better" ended worse than "good".

 

Hope it's the last time in the history of flight sims.

 

We need believable AI behavior, if they need to cheat then do it, just don't make it obvious.

 

If you forgot how believable cheating AI can fight, go have fun with BAT mod for 46. As a bonus, you can have a x256 time hack that actually works, with dozens of AI that can fly something else than "echelon right".

 

IL2 GB has been an improvement on about every aspect of  in-cockpit experience, but not for AI/player interaction (and radionav, but that's another topic).

[kendo]

Could not disagree more with your opinion on this.

[Gunfreak]

Where is the mission file located if you set up a quick mission?

[No_85_Gramps]

9 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

Where is the mission file located if you set up a quick mission?

In the data/Missions folder. The files all have the prefix:  _gen.

Edited December 27, 2023 by No_85_Gramps

[Gunfreak]

Here's a mission I flew

Me in Neuport 17 GB,

only flown in once before and never in combat before. 

I have no experience with ROF and I don't really do online. I flew against 4 Ace Fokker D. VII. 

1. the AI now seems to use more vertcial which is fun, and they did shoot a little at me.

2. One of the AI guys seemed to have broken his own engine? is that passible for AI?
3, I still as a n00b in the 1916 model  Nueport 17 manage to survive a fight against 4 AI in 1918s model aircraft, one plane shot down in the first 30 seconds. 1 AI broke it's own engine, 1 AI got shot up a bit, and never saw it again, and the 4th AI never seemed to get into the fight. the one with the broken engine landed, the 2 enemy still flying where nowhere to be seen after a few minutes
 

 

I hope I added the correct file

_gen.zip

[No_85_Gramps]

1 hour ago, Gunfreak said:

I hope I added the correct file

_gen.zip 1.83 MB · 0 downloads

Probably a better idea would be to load that mission into the editor and re-save it with a new name. 

[J99_Sizzlorr]

As @1PL-Husar-1Esk already mentioned, a good step would be to not have the AI to RTB in the QMB and to give the AI the ability to decide if it wants to return to base in the career mode. 

[WitchyWoman]

Gunfreak?

 

Was this flown in Career mode? The problem is the career mode is the area of the game that is most effected by broken AI. The QMB is not the issue really.

They both work like night and day in terms of AI ability.

 

My biggest beef  (in career mode) is they never try to get on your tail and most of the time they do not engage you or your flight in any aggressive fashion and it seems o me in your video that you were on the AI's tail in the offensive all of the time which is also something I encounter (way too easy). The AI never seems to maneuver for the advantage and they rarely ever shoot at you unless its a rear gunner shooting at you or they briefly fly by you head on and let off a short burst. The fighter cover for AI bombers also seem to just stagger around and fly way behind the flight they are supposed to be escorting and almost always ignore attackers which makes taking them out very easy. Another problem is friendly AI flights do not seem to engage as they should either so I am often the only one in my flight doing the attacking.The career AI, IMHO, is badly bugged.

 

I ask that everyone fly some careers and you will see the problem and drastic differences and if you do. Record a trk and send them to the Dev team so we can get this fixed.  I and stonehouse recorded some tracks and he sent them off which document these problems.

 

Really loved the video you captured though. Amazing cinema captures!?

 

 

Edited December 28, 2023 by WitchyWoman

[Dr1falcon500]

Han and Luke putting up a few quick mission videos doesn't prove much. Nothing to see here, AI is okay. I suggest they fly some career missions if they want to find out how AI really performs. I flew at least 100 career missions since it was introduced AI planes don't perform well, it's  rare for them to shoot down anything. They perform unneeded stunts like loops. They even manage to crash and die on transfer flights. Yes let's increase recklessness, maybe then there will be even more collisions. I started a Jasta 6 1916 career when the new maps came out. The only victories any of my planes got came from firing at enemies that then collided with other kites or balloon cables. Wonderful AI!

[LukeFF]

3 minutes ago, Dr1falcon500 said:

Han and Luke putting up a few quick mission videos doesn't prove much. Nothing to see here, AI is okay. I suggest they fly some career missions if they want to find out how AI really performs. I flew at least 100 career missions since it was introduced AI planes don't perform well, it's  rare for them to shoot down anything. They perform unneeded stunts like loops. They even manage to crash and die on transfer flights. Yes let's increase recklessness, maybe then there will be even more collisions. I started a Jasta 6 1916 career when the new maps came out. The only victories any of my planes got came from firing at enemies that then collided with other kites or balloon cables. Wonderful AI!

 

The point of my re-posting those videos from @Han was to show where the developers were coming from in all this and to say, "We are listening, but we need your assistance in tracking down the problem(s)." And, that's already been proven - look how quickly a hotfix containing some fixes was published. ?

 

But, that's the trick - posting track files showing the problem is the way this problem gets fixed. Just saying "It sucks, it's trash, please fix" isn't really helpful - not here or with any other gaming title, for that matter.

[Dr1falcon500]

15 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

The point of my re-posting those videos from @Han was to show where the developers were coming from in all this and to say, "We are listening, but we need your assistance in tracking down the problem(s)." And, that's already been proven - look how quickly a hotfix containing some fixes was published. ?

 

But, that's the trick - posting track files showing the problem is the way this problem gets fixed. Just saying "It sucks, it's trash, please fix" isn't really helpful - not here or with any other gaming title, for that matter.

The problems show more in career mode than a few quick missions where you can control the level of AI. Careers are flown over many missions. The best that can be said for AI in my flight is that they distract the enemy planes.

Edited December 29, 2023 by Dr1falcon500

[WitchyWoman]

 

What Dr1falcon said 100%

 

I dunno why QMB is used to prove fixes, Luke, fly some career missions a few times and you will see. Cant your team spend 10-30 minutes doing so as a test?

 

QMB AI fly completely different than the career, and again you should be trying it out yourself. You have the time, and you'll see all my complaints and others are very valid. The fact that you seem to only test things in QMB and won't even try career makes me wonder whats really going on here.

I have tested QMB and the AI are far more capable and have a better brain than the career which basically lacks every ounce of a brain.

It is bugged and/or broken, that's a fact. I can spend 10 minutes in the QMB and have 3 fighters dog fighting me with skill but in Careers that goes missing. Maybe there is something in career mode or mission generation that causes this but its there and has been there a long time in Flying Circus. Your better off looking through your code and trying to see what breaks the AI and makes them totally cowardly, unresponsive, and not aggressive.

 

We have sent tracks proving this. But you do not tell us if those tracks have been evaluated or give us any insight into what may be fixed after going over our tracks. It makes me think you actually hate the career mode which makes total sense as you seem to avoid the complaints and stick to the QMB, demand trks ,and seem to not want to even try flying career mode for yourself. Why are you so against this mode of play and totally ignore testing it. Why is it even in the game then?

 

I do not fly any other way. I have always enjoyed flight sim campaigns/stories and the RPG aspect of it. Its a top priority "feature"  in any sim I buy.  Its why I finally bought FC when it got put into the sim. But with it broken like it is as opposed to the WW2 side of the game which I love and is fine. FC bores me and makes me miserable. If it was fixed I would be happy, and I am sure others would be happy to.

 

Edited December 29, 2023 by WitchyWoman

[Panzerlang]

I've flown PW careers extensively and found the AI plenty dangerous, all presumably being Ace mode where they can snap-shoot off-angle with deadly accuracy and get on my tail too (at which point it's goodnight Irene if not spotted quickly enough). Even on the early eastern front, the RATAs are a handful.

I wonder if different CPU capability affects the AI? Just a thought.

Oh yeah, WW1 doesn't perform as well as WW2 AI. I'm going to be starting an in-game FC career soon (not PW), so I'll report back on that.

Edited December 29, 2023 by Hetzer-JG52