TFS - Year in review 2024

[343KKT_Kintaro]

You got me wrong, Boo, and it's my fault. Now please replace "the simple programme of fixing" with "the sole plan of fixing".

 

Clearer to you now?

[paul_leonard]

19 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

Thanks for the answer! That makes sense.

 

Is there a reason the Do-17 is being used instead of Do215B-1?

 

The two massed daylight raids were by Do-217 - but may have had a few other bombers mixed in (am I remembering this correctly)? When I researched it last it seemed like the Ju-88 and He-111 bombers were mainly active attacking the shipping (particularly in the evening/night). They were also joined by Fw-190A4/U8 fighter bombers in attacking shipping (at least after nightfall).

 

If I recall correctly the B-17's hit the airfields (and acted as a diversion), the Blenheims laid the smokescreens, and the Bostons hit the important targets (as well as did the Hurribombers?) The Bostons should be quite a bit faster and more heavily armed then the Blenheims - but I recognise resources are quite limited. The Defiants were also flying airsea rescue where they would identify downed pilots and vector in / escort the Walruses.

 

Really a marvellously chaotic battle, with horrific costs (particularly remembered by us Canadians). It will be great to see it in a flight simulator.

Two reasons to not use the Do-215 B-1.  First is it has one bomb bay removed in-game.  So less bomb load and so by extension, fewer pyrotechnics when those fewer bombs hit the ground, or water or ships.  I like pyrotechnics.  The second reason is that my limited research points to the Do-215 as being the export version of the Do-17.  While a very few were actually retained and used by the Luftwaffe, most went to Sweden.

 

I am waiting for the Fw-190 to be completed and incorporated into the game.  The Jabos were in action all day, in fact a couple (there were three but one crashed on takeoff) from JG2 were one of the first on scene.  The Jabos of both JG2 and JG26 are well represented.

 

24 B-17's from the 97th Bomb Group did attack Abbeville-Drucat airfield at 1030am in an attempt to suppress Luftwaffe air defenses.  Their first B-17 raid of the war was on August 17th when they attacked the Rouen/Sotteville railyards with the intention of isolating traffic between Rouen and Dieppe.  The lead aircraft on this first raid was piloted by one Major Paul Tibbets.  Need I say more? The Abbeville-Drucat mission is designed awaiting the B-17.  Bomber Command elected to not provide any daylight heavy bomber support for both political reasons (the risk of killing French civilians en masse) and military, the risk of losing precious bombers during daylight.

 

You will get Blenheim's.  Resources are indeed limited.  Hurricane IIb's and IIc's were/are very active over Dieppe.

 

Defiant's did not fly ASR missions during Operation Jubilee.  Walruses did, but as this is not flyable I saw no immediate value into incorporating into missions except that they might result in random encounters with player aircraft.  I saw the odds as slim.

 

I'm a Canadian as well.  This day is like Gallipoli is to Australians and New Zealanders.  The shock and grief brought our country closer together, and echoes to this day.  Having learned about it in grade school, I never really appreciated how it might have been like.  Not the human carnage, I did not wish to model that, but the place and time.

 

 

 

 

[Dagwoodyt]

19 hours ago, major_setback said:

 

It is not a small correction (to the announcement). It's good you pointed out the inaccuracy. It should state that more than 300 new missions have been tailor made for depicting the Dieppe Raid.

(It mistakenly stated 30+).

I doubt that 3,000 new missions would make TF 6.0 any more popular long term unless the underlying gameplay fundamentals of AI and UI are addressed first. Unfortunately I suspect there is a fixed commitment at TFS that TFS can ride the B-17 to commercial success. If getting the B-17 into the skies takes another three years what happens in the meantime?
🤔

[Hiuuz]

4 hours ago, Dagwoodyt said:

I am speaking about my experience in using the CloD FMB.

 

So, in a 1v1 mission I have designed in order to test the AI, I should make a few quick passes then run away? Thankfully Il-2 GB and DCS haven't made their AI adopt the CloD behavior. It is simply ludicrous to have AI make a few passes then jink away forever thereafter. It seems even more bizarre when using ffb joystick base and watching the seemingly effortless AI rolls whenever my sight ring edges toward him.

 

In 1946 when I turn fight an AI and after about 2 circle, when he can't turn on me, than he going to a shallow straight dive to build up distance. I go after him. When the distance is enough large, he turn on me and the dance start again. More or less similar behaviour but it's a huge difference. You feel AI doing things for a reason.

[paul_leonard]

6 hours ago, Mysticpuma said:

Won't these all have to be redone when the Ai changes? I presume they are based on the current state of play, and with the comments that Ai is still to be updated, won't that mean the mission programming will all have to be redone to work with the new routines?

 

It might, and we are prepared to do so.  A lot of effort has gone into tweaking the AI settings in mission to get the desired behaviours.  If the changes to the AI will ultimately remove bad behaviours then not much to do.  I remain less convinced than many of you that the AI is fundamentally flawed.  It suffers more from poor documentation (full understanding of design inputs and outputs) and errors in mission design.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

About Dornier 217s and 215s, I think Buzzsaw said somehting like them, Do 217s and Do 215s, being too difficult to model as player-flyable... but I'd need to find back his real statements on the subject.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

If getting the B-17 into the skies takes another three years what happens in the meantime?

 

 

Maybe nothing, and maybe that would be fair enough if so. Three glorious and quiet years in the forums... if only...

 

 

 

[Avimimus]

36 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

About Dornier 217s and 215s, I think Buzzsaw said somehting like them, Do 217s and Do 215s, being too difficult to model as player-flyable... but I'd need to find back his real statements on the subject.

 

I received a reply around the time of announcement that seemed to indicate modelling resources (i.e. all 3d modellers were allocated), rather than reference limitations. I know there are some surviving photos, but I could easily see it being a significant challenge considering they were all scrapped. It'd still be nice to have as AI though. I'm a bit torn between being really happy Dieppe is getting represented and a bit of wistfulness about the possibility of getting it more perfectly represented.. 😄 natural feelings to have I suppose.

 

P.S. While my wish was mainly for an AI representation - it would be interesting as a flyable with its large bomb load, high wing loading, and fixed forward firing cannon (the E-4 could have one fixed and one flexible forward firing cannon). I'm still a bit more of a fan of the Ju-188 though! But those weren't at Dieppe.

[paul_leonard]

6 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

I wonder if this is actually more realistic?

 

Actual pilots should try to disengage, panic, have poor situational awareness at times... even skilled pilots should often make only one or two passes at a target and then disengage (if one reads after-action reports that was pretty normal - with rare exceptions being extended dogfights).

 

My bigger issue is the random barrel rolls.

I've read a lot of ORB's and other personal reports.  Discretion was the better part of valour.  Most of the time pilots on either side would not engage unless they were in a tactically superior position.  Which would mean fewer dogfights in-game than more.  Boo.  Also the Luftwaffe did consistently practice "knife attacks" where they would dive from above, fire, and continue diving away to fight another day.  Again, for me.  Boo.  Very few dogfights were really 1v1, they were XvX which might turn into a 1v1 until you stopped looking for the guy behind you. 

 

Many non-dogfight random barrel rolls are predictable and can be designed out.  If those are the ones you are referring to.  The mission builder sets waypoints and speeds for AI aircraft to follow.  The speed setting is like the modern adaptive cruise control in cars, it sets the maximum speed, not the minimum speed. So if the car breaks in front of you, and you aren't paying attention, your car will unexpectedly slam on the brakes as well.  Perhaps you should have changed lanes instead, but the car is not that smart... yet.  Me I hate adaptive cruise control because it basically makes me drive like the guy in front of me.   Maximum speed is also governed by the performance envelope of the aircraft.  

 

Situation 1

You have been assigned to lead a flight and travel from one waypoint to another at say 300kph (our map does not have good waypoint management/disclosure tools for the player).  Everything is hunky dory while you, the lead, travel at 300kph.  But then your mind wanders and you slow down to say 275kph.  Your wingmen will start doing barrel rolls to maintain their fixed 300kph airspeed but effectively bleed groundspeed by rolling to stay behind you.  Player solution, maintain designed airspeed.  Designer solution, don't allow the player to be flight lead, so hopefully the player will follow the leader at the correct speed.

 

Situation 2

You are heading back to base and have to descend from say 4000m.  The mission designer has set waypoint speed at 300kph and landing speed at 300kph.  How does the AI pilot wingman reconcile maintaining the same speed at beginning of descent and end of descent?  By barrel rolling all the way down, bleeding ground speed, in order to maintain that 300kph fixed air speed (I won't even get into the math between TAS and IAS as altitude changes)!  This can be designed out by setting a high altitude waypoint where you have the waypoint/AI throttle back to say 200kph, and then using the interpolating tool to set say 10 waypoints between 4000m and 500m and the tool will automatically set increasing speeds between the waypoints allowing the AI to safely and logically descend.  Also requires mission builder to test every mission right through to the end.  I use Sleep_Fly's TacView add-on the watch missions play out over and over in order to cull out those unwanted behaviours.

 

Situation 3

The AI is 1000m above the enemy and intends to attack.  Very often they will take several rolls as they descend as they manage the maximum speed of the aircraft.  Sometimes annoying but I suspend disbelief and accept that especially when flying Hurricanes and Spitfires, they had to roll inverted anyway before diving.  

 

The player problem:

I am no doubt that all of you on this forum, and other forums, are hardcore players with extensive sim experience.  In other words, you are all experten.  Yet the game AI can't adapt to you.  It's fixed in mission design.  So that 1v1 mission using the mission builder sets the AI at basically Average being 50% of the maximum settings.  You people are not average.  I would be curious whether if the missions were recast to make the AI opponents all Aces, whether you might find that some of your complaints would be addressed?  

 

For those interested, there is an interesting recent article on game balancing:

https://moldstud.com/articles/p-exploring-game-balancing-in-video-game-design-ensuring-fair-and-engaging-gameplay

 

Oh ya, the one thing that I have not seen discussed... when the AI runs, has he run out of ammo?  Do you play with unlimited fuel and ammo?  I do.  Also, I don't have a virtual Bravery setting like the AI pilot does.

 

 

Edited January 1 by paul_leonard

[BOO]

21 minutes ago, paul_leonard said:

I've read a lot of ORB's and other personal reports.  Discretion was the better part of valour.  Most of the time pilots on either side would not engage unless they were in a tactically superior position.  Which would mean fewer dogfights in-game than more.  Boo.  Also the Luftwaffe did consistently practice "knife attacks" where they would dive from above, fire, and continue diving away to fight another day.  Again, for me.  Boo.  Very few dogfights were really 1v1, they were XvX which might turn into a 1v1 until you stopped looking for the guy behind you. 

 

Many non-dogfight random barrel rolls are predictable and can be designed out.  If those are the ones you are referring to.  The mission builder sets waypoints and speeds for AI aircraft to follow.  The speed setting is like the modern adaptive cruise control in cars, it sets the maximum speed, not the minimum speed. So if the car breaks in front of you, and you aren't paying attention, your car will unexpectedly slam on the brakes as well.  Perhaps you should have changed lanes instead, but the car is not that smart... yet.  Me I hate adaptive cruise control because it basically makes me drive like the guy in front of me.   Maximum speed is also governed by the performance envelope of the aircraft.  

 

Situation 1

You have been assigned to lead a flight and travel from one waypoint to another at say 300kph (our map does not have good waypoint management/disclosure tools for the player).  Everything is hunky dory while you, the lead, travel at 300kph.  But then your mind wanders and you slow down to say 275kph.  Your wingmen will start doing barrel rolls to maintain their fixed 300kph airspeed but effectively bleed groundspeed by rolling to stay behind you.  Player solution, maintain designed airspeed.  Designer solution, don't allow the player to be flight lead, so hopefully the player will follow the leader at the correct speed.

 

Situation 2

You are heading back to base and have to descend from say 4000m.  The mission designer has set waypoint speed at 300kph and landing speed at 300kph.  How does the AI pilot wingman reconcile maintaining the same speed at beginning of descent and end of descent?  By barrel rolling all the way down, bleeding ground speed, in order to maintain that 300kph fixed air speed (I won't even get into the math between TAS and IAS as altitude changes)!  This can be designed out by setting a high altitude waypoint where you have the waypoint/AI throttle back to say 200kph, and then using the interpolating tool to set say 10 waypoints between 4000m and 500m and the tool will automatically set increasing speeds between the waypoints allowing the AI to safely and logically descend.  Also requires mission builder to test every mission right through to the end.  I use Sleep_Fly's TacView add-on the watch missions play out over and over in order to cull out those unwanted behaviours.

 

Situation 3

The AI is 1000m above the enemy and intends to attack.  Very often they will take several rolls as they descend as they manage the maximum speed of the aircraft.  Sometimes annoying but I suspend disbelief and accept that especially when flying Hurricanes and Spitfires, they had to roll inverted anyway before diving.  

 

The player problem:

I am no doubt that all of you on this forum, and other forums, are hardcore players with extensive sim experience.  In other words, you are all experten.  Yet the game AI can't adapt to you.  It's fixed in mission design.  So that 1v1 mission using the mission builder sets the AI at basically Average being 50% of the maximum settings.  You people are not average.  I would be curious whether if the missions were recast to make the AI opponents all Aces, whether you might find that some of your complaints would be addressed?  

 

For those interested, there is an interesting recent article on game balancing:

https://moldstud.com/articles/p-exploring-game-balancing-in-video-game-design-ensuring-fair-and-engaging-gameplay

 

Oh ya, the one thing that I have not seen discussed... when the AI runs, has he run out of ammo?  Do you play with unlimited fuel and ammo?  I do.  Also, I don't have a virtual Bravery setting like the AI pilot does.

 

 

 

PLease tell me you are designing missions for TFS. Please....

[paul_leonard]

Yes.

 

I would also add that as Soto noted, we've gone back and made adjustments to ALL of the old Team Fusion missions and campaigns to align them with the new upcoming mapwork (static objects no longer in the middle of newly positioned runways, or just off in fields...), added eye candy, fixed/removed broken scripts, and fixed those most glaring of AI behaviours everywhere we found them.  This will be part of upcoming release as well.

Edited January 1 by paul_leonard

[Mysticpuma]

2 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

About Dornier 217s and 215s, I think Buzzsaw said somehting like them, Do 217s and Do 215s, being too difficult to model as player-flyable... but I'd need to find back his real statements on the subject.

On June 30th 2024 Buzzsaw said they would be looking at making then flyable:

 

"Eventually, as mentioned, after we add the enlarged Western Europe map, we would like to create a blitzkrieg 1940 DLC... which the Morane would be a part of.

 

Some other aircraft we are considering for such a project, some of which might appear in earlier DLC's as additions.

 

Martin Model 167 Maryland

LeO 451  (AI)

Potez 630 (AI)

Curtiss Hawk-75/P-36

Fairey Battle

Hurricane Mk I (fixed pitch prop 87 octane Belgian model)

Fokker D.XXI

Fokker G.I (AI)

Fokker T.V (AI)

Junkers Ju-52 (AI)

Bf-109D

Dornier-17z and/or Dornier 215b (existing AI aircraft made flyable)"

[Hiuuz]

10 minutes ago, paul_leonard said:

Yes.

 

I would also add that as Soto noted, we've gone back and made adjustments to ALL of the old Team Fusion missions and campaigns to align them with the new upcoming mapwork (static objects no longer in the middle of newly positioned runways, or just off in fields...), added eye candy, fixed/removed broken scripts, and fixed those most glaring of AI behaviours everywhere we found them.  This will be part of upcoming release as well.

Please make something with the last mission of the RAF/Cliffs of Dover campaign. I crashed on landing my beloved Spit because of I barely see anything from the chick in that pitch black 🤣

[BOO]

2 minutes ago, Hiuuz said:

Please make something with the last mission of the RAF/Cliffs of Dover campaign. I crashed on landing my beloved Spit because of I barely see anything from the chick in that pitch black 🤣

 

Probably for the best. As I remember he ends up a firightened and confused old dude in a nursing home or something. Utterly depressing. 

[No.54_Reddog]

2 hours ago, paul_leonard said:

It might, and we are prepared to do so.  A lot of effort has gone into tweaking the AI settings in mission to get the desired behaviours.  If the changes to the AI will ultimately remove bad behaviours then not much to do.  I remain less convinced than many of you that the AI is fundamentally flawed.  It suffers more from poor documentation (full understanding of design inputs and outputs) and errors in mission design.

Might I suggest then, as seemingly the only person who can manage to make the AI do what they want, that you could do a massive service for the community and the game itself, by documenting what you have found, and sharing this knowledge directly, rather than just saying "it's fine for me, you're all muppets" which is kinda what it sounds like at the minute.

 

Sadly the scenarios you went on to discuss are not what people are talking about.

 

There are 3 very marked issues with the AI.

 

1) all AI will concentrate on the very first enemy they see. They will ignore everyone else. this is eminently gameable and in fact was a significant issue in SoW exploited by a couple of squadrons.

2) at some point the AI will go into "stupid" mode. They will disengage and fly home, ignoring the fact you are behind them and picking them off.

3) the AI knows precisely when the player is in a position to fire, and will react decisively. The only way to remove this ESP (IIRC, it is QUITE a while since I pratted about in the FMB) is to tone down advanced flying but in my experience that reduced other desirable abilities.

 

I appreciate that the mission designer needs to generate flightplans which are flyable at the required speeds etc, but that is not relevant to what people are complaining about.

[paul_leonard]

5 minutes ago, No.54_Reddog said:

Might I suggest then, as seemingly the only person who can manage to make the AI do what they want, that you could do a massive service for the community and the game itself, by documenting what you have found, and sharing this knowledge directly, rather than just saying "it's fine for me, you're all muppets" which is kinda what it sounds like at the minute.

 

Sadly the scenarios you went on to discuss are not what people are talking about.

 

There are 3 very marked issues with the AI.

 

1) all AI will concentrate on the very first enemy they see. They will ignore everyone else. this is eminently gameable and in fact was a significant issue in SoW exploited by a couple of squadrons.

2) at some point the AI will go into "stupid" mode. They will disengage and fly home, ignoring the fact you are behind them and picking them off.

3) the AI knows precisely when the player is in a position to fire, and will react decisively. The only way to remove this ESP (IIRC, it is QUITE a while since I pratted about in the FMB) is to tone down advanced flying but in my experience that reduced other desirable abilities.

 

I appreciate that the mission designer needs to generate flightplans which are flyable at the required speeds etc, but that is not relevant to what people are complaining about.

Ummmm.  That was a little unkind.  I was sharing some knowledge and attempting to present my own observations on what is clearly a contentious subject.  What you read into it I suppose is entirely up to you.  Henceforth, I will stick to flight planning.

[Avimimus]

27 minutes ago, Mysticpuma said:

On June 30th 2024 Buzzsaw said they would be looking at making then flyable:

 

"Eventually, as mentioned, after we add the enlarged Western Europe map, we would like to create a blitzkrieg 1940 DLC... which the Morane would be a part of.

 

Some other aircraft we are considering for such a project, some of which might appear in earlier DLC's as additions.

 

Martin Model 167 Maryland

LeO 451  (AI)

Potez 630 (AI)

Curtiss Hawk-75/P-36

Fairey Battle

Hurricane Mk I (fixed pitch prop 87 octane Belgian model)

Fokker D.XXI

Fokker G.I (AI)

Fokker T.V (AI)

Junkers Ju-52 (AI)

Bf-109D

Dornier-17z and/or Dornier 215b (existing AI aircraft made flyable)"

 

That would be excellent - a few years off obviously... and I must stridently object to the Potez 63.11 (yes the recon version of the 630) not being flyable! The 63.11 was the most numerous variant by far and one of the most common aircraft in the Battle of France.

 

It'd also make sense to consider including a more primitive French bomber (e.g. Amiot 451 - otherwise the impression would be that the French airforce was entirely modern). The Dewoitine D.510 would also make a very interesting enemy for the Bf-109D! Although the the Bloch MB.152 would probably be more useful overall (as the second most produced French fighter). The Bréguet 691 would also be entertaining, but is historically of less relevance...

 

...ah, one can dream eh?

  

Spoiler

1 hour ago, paul_leonard said:

I've read a lot of ORB's and other personal reports.  Discretion was the better part of valour.  Most of the time pilots on either side would not engage unless they were in a tactically superior position.  Which would mean fewer dogfights in-game than more.  Boo.  Also the Luftwaffe did consistently practice "knife attacks" where they would dive from above, fire, and continue diving away to fight another day.  Again, for me.  Boo.  Very few dogfights were really 1v1, they were XvX which might turn into a 1v1 until you stopped looking for the guy behind you. 

 

Many non-dogfight random barrel rolls are predictable and can be designed out.  If those are the ones you are referring to.  The mission builder sets waypoints and speeds for AI aircraft to follow.  The speed setting is like the modern adaptive cruise control in cars, it sets the maximum speed, not the minimum speed. So if the car breaks in front of you, and you aren't paying attention, your car will unexpectedly slam on the brakes as well.  Perhaps you should have changed lanes instead, but the car is not that smart... yet.  Me I hate adaptive cruise control because it basically makes me drive like the guy in front of me.   Maximum speed is also governed by the performance envelope of the aircraft.  

 

Situation 1

You have been assigned to lead a flight and travel from one waypoint to another at say 300kph (our map does not have good waypoint management/disclosure tools for the player).  Everything is hunky dory while you, the lead, travel at 300kph.  But then your mind wanders and you slow down to say 275kph.  Your wingmen will start doing barrel rolls to maintain their fixed 300kph airspeed but effectively bleed groundspeed by rolling to stay behind you.  Player solution, maintain designed airspeed.  Designer solution, don't allow the player to be flight lead, so hopefully the player will follow the leader at the correct speed.

 

Situation 2

You are heading back to base and have to descend from say 4000m.  The mission designer has set waypoint speed at 300kph and landing speed at 300kph.  How does the AI pilot wingman reconcile maintaining the same speed at beginning of descent and end of descent?  By barrel rolling all the way down, bleeding ground speed, in order to maintain that 300kph fixed air speed (I won't even get into the math between TAS and IAS as altitude changes)!  This can be designed out by setting a high altitude waypoint where you have the waypoint/AI throttle back to say 200kph, and then using the interpolating tool to set say 10 waypoints between 4000m and 500m and the tool will automatically set increasing speeds between the waypoints allowing the AI to safely and logically descend.  Also requires mission builder to test every mission right through to the end.  I use Sleep_Fly's TacView add-on the watch missions play out over and over in order to cull out those unwanted behaviours.

 

Situation 3

The AI is 1000m above the enemy and intends to attack.  Very often they will take several rolls as they descend as they manage the maximum speed of the aircraft.  Sometimes annoying but I suspend disbelief and accept that especially when flying Hurricanes and Spitfires, they had to roll inverted anyway before diving.  

 

The player problem:

I am no doubt that all of you on this forum, and other forums, are hardcore players with extensive sim experience.  In other words, you are all experten.  Yet the game AI can't adapt to you.  It's fixed in mission design.  So that 1v1 mission using the mission builder sets the AI at basically Average being 50% of the maximum settings.  You people are not average.  I would be curious whether if the missions were recast to make the AI opponents all Aces, whether you might find that some of your complaints would be addressed?  

 

For those interested, there is an interesting recent article on game balancing:

https://moldstud.com/articles/p-exploring-game-balancing-in-video-game-design-ensuring-fair-and-engaging-gameplay

 

Oh ya, the one thing that I have not seen discussed... when the AI runs, has he run out of ammo?  Do you play with unlimited fuel and ammo?  I do.  Also, I don't have a virtual Bravery setting like the AI pilot does.

 

Thanks!

 

I actually found that I could begin to figure out how to adjust the behaviour a lot in the mission editor - although it took work to figure out and I never became proficient.

 

It was quite interesting - I was able to correctly re-create the pre-war tactics that the Defiant had been planned for: I created a large formation of Defiants, escorted by Hurricanes, and had the Defiants manoeuvre under the Luftwaffe bomber formation without breaking formation themselves... the result was devastating - about half of the He-111's downed in a couple of minutes prior to the Defiants formation being broken up by escort fighters.

 

It validated the pre-war thinking for me - basically meet a bomber formation with massed firepower, using turrets so your fighters can have a prolonged period of firing without worrying about friendly collisions while keeping in a tight formation to maximise firepower (and with the pilots can worry about avoiding collisions and the gunners worrying about aiming). Fascinating to be able to simulate - and impossible to simulate without those AI sliders.

 

As for the barrel rolls I was discussing - I am under the impression that they were one of the default coded evasive maneouvres... so something that could come up in almost any engagement.

[No.54_Reddog]

23 minutes ago, paul_leonard said:

Ummmm.  That was a little unkind.  I was sharing some knowledge and attempting to present my own observations on what is clearly a contentious subject.  What you read into it I suppose is entirely up to you.  Henceforth, I will stick to flight planning.

Mate, you shared nothing of value or substance IMO that was actionable in any way. I am sorry if you found my post to be unkind, as you say what you read into it is entirely up to you.

 

If you want to take your bat and ball home that's fine, it won't be the first time in this community someone chooses to keep their knowledge to themselves and I doubt it'll be the last. Just don't blame me when people are still complaining about the AI.

[Mysticpuma]

25 minutes ago, paul_leonard said:

Ummmm.  That was a little unkind.  I was sharing some knowledge and attempting to present my own observations on what is clearly a contentious subject.  What you read into it I suppose is entirely up to you.  Henceforth, I will stick to flight planning.

Paul, as you have got your head around the Mission Building, would you be able to provide just two improved missions in the next VR Beta patch for players to see what can or has been achieved?

One Axis, one Allied.

 

It would be great (but alternatively not great), to know after all these years everyone has been wrong about the Ai.

 

I have to agree with @No.54_Reddog and the following observation:

There are 3 very marked issues with the AI.

 

1) all AI will concentrate on the very first enemy they see. They will ignore everyone else. this is eminently gameable and in fact was a significant issue in SoW exploited by a couple of squadrons.

2) at some point the AI will go into "stupid" mode. They will disengage and fly home, ignoring the fact you are behind them and picking them off.

3) the AI knows precisely when the player is in a position to fire, and will react decisively. The only way to remove this ESP (IIRC, it is QUITE a while since I pratted about in the FMB) is to tone down advanced flying but in my experience that reduced other desirable abilities.

 

and @Avimimus that the Ai just barrel rolls away into oblivion (to the point of boredom or death), so maybe you have cracked the code and found the desired solution to stop it happening.

 

It would be great to beta test.

[major_setback]

31 minutes ago, Mysticpuma said:

Paul, as you have got your head around the Mission Building, would you be able to provide just two improved missions in the next VR Beta patch for players to see what can or has been achieved?

One Axis, one Allied.

 

It would be great (but alternatively not great), to know after all these years everyone has been wrong about the Ai.

 

I have to agree with @No.54_Reddog and the following observation:

There are 3 very marked issues with the AI.

 

1) all AI will concentrate on the very first enemy they see. They will ignore everyone else. this is eminently gameable and in fact was a significant issue in SoW exploited by a couple of squadrons.

2) at some point the AI will go into "stupid" mode. They will disengage and fly home, ignoring the fact you are behind them and picking them off.

3) the AI knows precisely when the player is in a position to fire, and will react decisively. The only way to remove this ESP (IIRC, it is QUITE a while since I pratted about in the FMB) is to tone down advanced flying but in my experience that reduced other desirable abilities.

 

and @Avimimus that the Ai just barrel rolls away into oblivion (to the point of boredom or death), so maybe you have cracked the code and found the desired solution to stop it happening.

 

It would be great to beta test.

Including a couple of missions intended for the Dieppe release will probably not work. They are designed for the 1942 map, which has significant alterations to airfields etc.  Planes would be hitting objects or buildings on take-off. Targets might have been moved too. ( As has been mentioned, some existing missions have been updated to the new standards; to avoid such issues).

Edited January 1 by major_setback

[paul_leonard]

5 minutes ago, Mysticpuma said:

Paul, as you have got your head around the Mission Building, would you be able to provide just two improved missions in the next VR Beta patch for players to see what can or has been achieved?

One Axis, one Allied.

 

It would be great (but alternatively not great), to know after all these years everyone has been wrong about the Ai.

 

I have to agree with @No.54_Reddog and the following observation:

There are 3 very marked issues with the AI.

 

1) all AI will concentrate on the very first enemy they see. They will ignore everyone else. this is eminently gameable and in fact was a significant issue in SoW exploited by a couple of squadrons.

2) at some point the AI will go into "stupid" mode. They will disengage and fly home, ignoring the fact you are behind them and picking them off.

3) the AI knows precisely when the player is in a position to fire, and will react decisively. The only way to remove this ESP (IIRC, it is QUITE a while since I pratted about in the FMB) is to tone down advanced flying but in my experience that reduced other desirable abilities.

 

and @Avimimus that the Ai just barrel rolls away into oblivion (to the point of boredom or death), so maybe you have cracked the code and found the desired solution to stop it happening.

 

It would be great to beta test.

No.54_Reddog won't scare me off that easily. 

 

Yes I can create some sample missions and post them in the Vrbeta forum for testing.  I have mostly been building very high volume missions for Operation Jubilee and spent zero time on 1v1 quick mission type scenarios.  The general behaviours are very different.  The average dogfight before aircraft begin to bug out is 12-15 minutes, earlier if they are damaged, which I can see under the Tacview microscope. I created an even 1v1 earlier today under higher AI pilot settings and the fight lasted about 5 minutes until the Me-109 got the Spitfire.  So that zero sum scenario isn't going to help observe what you see.  

 

If you can give me a couple of scenarios, fighters only, mix of bombers and fighters, I can create something and post for testing.  Maybe one of the existing in-game scenarios where you see the behaviour regularly?  You can DM me over at ATAG.  I'll get right on it.

 

I might also ask Sleepy_Fly if he can obtain telemetry on ammo status that can then be looked at to see if it is causing withdrawal and running.  This would all deal with issue #2 above. 

 

For #1, I've seen that too, especially with ground based AAA.  The only way I've addressed that is to slow down the re-load rate which seems to give the AI time to re-think who to target.  Anecdotal results only though. 

 

For #3 it is why I posted the link to that article.  It is the easiest way for developers to create an 'AI' by saving code and having it query player data rather than use its own algorithms to try and figure out where the player is.  But I have also noted what No.54_Reddog has noticed, that higher AI settings do seem to settle this down. Fixing code and creating an entirely new code are different things.  Especially code written 20+ years ago.  I think TF can fix broken things but incorporating new sections of AI code... well there is clearly demand, but resources... I don't know.  I'm just a flight planner ;>)

[Dagwoodyt]

28 minutes ago, paul_leonard said:

Yes I can create some sample missions and post them in the Vrbeta forum for testing. 

WRT the FMB, what is a "default" ammo load for the AI? Shouldn't the FMB default to a max ammo load for AI unless the builder decides otherwise?

[Mysticpuma]

41 minutes ago, major_setback said:

Including a couple of missions intended for the Dieppe release will probably not work. They are designed for the 1942 map, which has significant alterations to airfields etc.  Planes would be hitting objects or buildings on take-off. Targets might have been moved too. ( As has been mentioned, some existing missions have been updated to the new standards; to avoid such issues).

I was thinking more along the lines that he said all the missions (including previous missions) have ALL been recoded, so those work on existing maps, with no requirement for Dieppe.

 

So including two of those, one Axis, one Allied to show how it should be done, how it should work, would be beneficial to understand where everyone has been going wrong?

@paul_leonard

I will boot the game up tomorrow and send you a message. Two immediately spring to mind.

Edited January 1 by Mysticpuma
Typo

[paul_leonard]

I have access to the development version, the VRbeta and the production version.  The differences are currently in the maps, and WRT the VRbeta, the TrueSky clouds and SpeedTree.  Ignore what is happening on the ground or clouds.  We don't need that for testing... except if the airfield you want to land at has a windmill near a runway... a whole different thread... Oh there I go again, hinting at stuff I know that you don't know... hoping you don't need to know:>)  Don't even start me on wheel brakes.

 

Send me the missions you want and I can create for any version.  That way people can test what works in their current version.  Do this at ATAG though.  That way I can best manage.

Lenny

[paul_leonard]

6 hours ago, Dagwoodyt said:

WRT the FMB, what is a "default" ammo load for the AI? Shouldn't the FMB default to a max ammo load for AI unless the builder decides otherwise?

Depends on aircraft but I would say max load is the default for each aircraft.  But the difference may be about fusing.  So a Ju-88 may get a default loadout of bombs and fuses for a level bombing mission, but the mission builder may opt for a dive bomb and if doesn't check, if the bombs and fuses are incompatible then nothing will happen after bomb drop, because fusing should have been delayed for low altitude drop.  Clear as the mud... but it covered the ground.

[AWC]

7 hours ago, paul_leonard said:

No.54_Reddog won't scare me off that easily. 

 

Yes I can create some sample missions and post them in the Vrbeta forum for testing.  I have mostly been building very high volume missions for Operation Jubilee and spent zero time on 1v1 quick mission type scenarios.  The general behaviours are very different.  The average dogfight before aircraft begin to bug out is 12-15 minutes, earlier if they are damaged, which I can see under the Tacview microscope. I created an even 1v1 earlier today under higher AI pilot settings and the fight lasted about 5 minutes until the Me-109 got the Spitfire.  So that zero sum scenario isn't going to help observe what you see.  

 

If you can give me a couple of scenarios, fighters only, mix of bombers and fighters, I can create something and post for testing.  Maybe one of the existing in-game scenarios where you see the behaviour regularly?  You can DM me over at ATAG.  I'll get right on it.

 

I might also ask Sleepy_Fly if he can obtain telemetry on ammo status that can then be looked at to see if it is causing withdrawal and running.  This would all deal with issue #2 above. 

 

For #1, I've seen that too, especially with ground based AAA.  The only way I've addressed that is to slow down the re-load rate which seems to give the AI time to re-think who to target.  Anecdotal results only though. 

 

For #3 it is why I posted the link to that article.  It is the easiest way for developers to create an 'AI' by saving code and having it query player data rather than use its own algorithms to try and figure out where the player is.  But I have also noted what No.54_Reddog has noticed, that higher AI settings do seem to settle this down. Fixing code and creating an entirely new code are different things.  Especially code written 20+ years ago.  I think TF can fix broken things but incorporating new sections of AI code... well there is clearly demand, but resources... I don't know.  I'm just a flight planner ;>)

 

Thanks for the detailed response Lenny.

[FTC_Rostic]

Well, here is a link to old topic about AI behavior. I used it for AI in FTC event we had month or two ago. "Barrel rolls" is pretty much solvable issue by just alternating AI skills settings.

 

https://simhq.net/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3543201/Dummies_guide_to_skill_setting.html#Post3543201

 

Those two are still exist in stable released game version. Though 2nd one is not always happening.

12 hours ago, No.54_Reddog said:

1) all AI will concentrate on the very first enemy they see. They will ignore everyone else. this is eminently gameable and in fact was a significant issue in SoW exploited by a couple of squadrons.

2) at some point the AI will go into "stupid" mode. They will disengage and fly home, ignoring the fact you are behind them and picking them off.

 

@paul_leonard can you please please create an article like that with actual knowledge you have? Addition about way points placing and setting is very much appreciated. Probably adding all the new and missing knowledge to that TFS document will be the best solution for community:

https://artist.onlyoffice.eu/Products/Files/DocEditor.aspx?fileid=6542994&doc=MUdyTi9ZV2dnOVV1dXpYbllkZm1heDdFTHJGNEdCYmNaWDR0WWFXdVNPOD0_IjY1NDI5OTQi0

I it is published in "Team Fusion Simulations - Resources" page:https://www.team-fusion-simulations.de/tfsresources/?&path=

Edited January 2 by FTC_Rostic

[Mysticpuma]

I think the most disappointing part about the FaF announcement 18-months ago was that we had an 18 months wait for the release of all this amazing content.

Now 18 months later we are at a point where not only have we lost those 18 months, we now have what we had before which was no expected timeline for release.....so if we add another 18 months, we're likely looking at a December 2027 release ....sigh...

[BladeMeister]

53 minutes ago, Mysticpuma said:

I think the most disappointing part about the FaF announcement 18-months ago was that we had an 18 months wait for the release of all this amazing content.

Now 18 months later we are at a point where not only have we lost those 18 months, we now have what we had before which was no expected timeline for release.....so if we add another 18 months, we're likely looking at a December 2027 release ....sigh...

Yes well, that is a lot of good simming time in all the other CBFSs I own. I will have Combat Pilot and IL2 Korea also to entertain me soon enough so I won't be hurting for flight sims. I will be disappointed that nothing will have been released for CLOD most likely in that time frame but, "c'est la vie!"

 

S!Blade<><

[Hiuuz]

1 hour ago, Mysticpuma said:

I think the most disappointing part about the FaF announcement 18-months ago was that we had an 18 months wait for the release of all this amazing content.

I think the most disappointing part about the FaF announcement 18-months ago was the two words included in the announcement: late 2024.
I don't want to see the next two pages filled with this so, better to forget that and start looking forward. I like what I see in the latest video, and will wait. From my part the VU update is what is the most exciting.

[Dagwoodyt]

9 hours ago, paul_leonard said:

Depends on aircraft but I would say max load is the default for each aircraft.

For the G50 this looks like the "Default" ammo loadout in FMB:

 

vs:

a possible "Custom" loadout:

Whichever loadout is chosen it seems that at some point the AI will ignore an immediate threat and head back to base. It is easily possible to fly formation with the AI once the AI decides it has a more important appointment at its' assigned waypoint.

Seems like threat assessment is an issue.

Edited January 2 by Dagwoodyt

[FTC_Rostic]

15 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

Seems like threat assessment is an issue.

Can you show us your AI skill settings? Screenshot show "Custom". I have a guess about that behavior.

Basically my guess is AI is ignorant to threat if "Discipline" set to MAX. Which is good for bombers. But for fighters you better let him think freely and set 50% or 0%. Try both

Here is what I used in FTC event mission.

 

Fighters:

 

Bombers:

Edited January 2 by FTC_Rostic

[FTC_Rostic]

About situation when whole squadron attack same target...
I never tried, but when I'll have time, I want to test if that AI behavior can be changed by setting different skills individually for each aircraft in group.

For example for 8 Bf109 fighters it can be like this:

 

1-1 - Discipline 70-80%. Flight lead most likely will do what planned, but he still can think and make decisions.

1-2 -  Discipline 80-95%. Wingman is better stick to his leader.

1-3 - Discipline 60-70%. Second pair lead can feel him self more free to detach from flight lead.

1-4 -  Discipline 75-85%. Wingman is better stick to his leader but lets make him less discipline.

 

2-1 - Discipline 50-60%. Second section lead can feel him self even more free to detach from lead section.

2-2 -  Discipline 80-95%. Wingman is better stick to his leader.

2-3 - Discipline 0-40%. Second pair lead of 2nd section will be b-b-b-bad to the bone

2-4 -  Discipline 50-65%. Wingman is better be a bit more disciplined then his dare devil leader.

[Dagwoodyt]

23 minutes ago, FTC_Rostic said:

Can you show us your AI skill settings? Screenshot show "Custom". I have a guess about that behavior.

Basically my guess is AI is ignorant to threat if "Discipline" set to MAX. Which is good for bombers. But for fighters you better let him think freely and set 50% or 0%.

[FTC_Rostic]

Fuel is set to 50%. What is a BINGO fuel for AI?? What if here is trying to preserve fuel no matter what.. Stupid behavior anyway... but try 100% and set landing way point not too far from action area.

[Dagwoodyt]

27 minutes ago, FTC_Rostic said:

Fuel is set to 50%. What is a BINGO fuel for AI?? What if here is trying to preserve fuel no matter what.. Stupid behavior anyway... but try 100% and set landing way point not too far from action area.

Yes I've since increased to 100% as I expected the comment. Also previous years' suggestions have included making many intermediate waypoints. Ultimately though the AI typically will ignore those intermediate waypoints and head to the landing airfield.

[FTC_Rostic]

1 hour ago, Dagwoodyt said:

Yes I've since increased to 100% as I expected the comment. Also previous years' suggestions have included making many intermediate waypoints. Ultimately though the AI typically will ignore those intermediate waypoints and head to the landing airfield.

About multiple way points - yes. I ran our mission about ten times. Quite often after engagement whole AI group ignored flight plan and RBT even when it got a total victory and most aircrafts were intact. Though, there were a lot of situations when AI group after engagement successfully continued their flight plan. Bf110 mostly were the one who continued flight plan, and Bf109 are those who RTB after dogfight is over. But it was always a random.

[Dagwoodyt]

Interaction with the FMB should not be required to set up a simple 1v1 dogfight. Whether such encounters were "rare" in RL is irrelevant. This is the basic encounter a new player is likely to want to create. In a QMB a default loadout should be full ammo/100% fuel unless the player choses otherwise. TFS seems to operate on the premise that it can find enough CloD-friendly customers to survive instead of creating a new-user-friendly UI. I use the word "survive" rather than "be commercially successful" since that seems the path TFS has chosen. The 1v1 dogfight is easily set up in Il-2 GB just as it was in RoF and in DCS. Why is this still an issue with CloD? If they have had a QMB in the works for several years now, why will they not describe how it is going to make the game more accessible for new users?

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, Dagwoodyt said:

Interaction with the FMB should not be required to set up a simple 1v1 dogfight. Whether such encounters were "rare" in RL is irrelevant. This is the basic encounter a new player is likely to want to create. In a QMB a default loadout should be full ammo/100% fuel unless the player choses otherwise. TFS seems to operate on the premise that it can find enough CloD-friendly customers to survive instead of creating a new-user-friendly UI. I use the word "survive" rather than "be commercially successful" since that seems the path TFS has chosen. The 1v1 dogfight is easily set up in Il-2 GB just as it was in RoF and in DCS. Why is this still an issue with CloD? If they have had a QMB in the works for several years now, why will they not describe how it is going to make the game more accessible for new users?

 

I personally disagree with this. I'd think all AI and human aircraft in the QMB should default to fuel levels which represent what they would be when air combat is commenced (e.g. 2/3rds fuel) and should also have historically realistic ammunition loads (which isn't always the same as the maximum fuel load).

[Dagwoodyt]

33 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

I personally disagree with this. I'd think all AI and human aircraft in the QMB should default to fuel levels which represent what they would be when air combat is commenced (e.g. 2/3rds fuel) and should also have historically realistic ammunition loads (which isn't always the same as the maximum fuel load).

If you are the player you set whatever fuel and ammo loads meet your needs. The whole thrust of my post is that the player should be the "decider".

[FTC_Oakwoodson]

Can someone expand upon what the B17 campaign will be about? Is it the early endeavors of the VIII into Europe? The current map is somewhat limiting in what B17s can target.