AI still go dumb after mission objective?

[Uriah]

Last I tried to play this game in single player mode with me flying a spit vs a 109, the 109 would head home after a while and refuse to engage me.   Is that AI behavior still true?

[Feldgrun]

Yes, although I think this cut & run is more authentic than the pinwheel spins that AI does during combat. 

[Mysticpuma]

14 hours ago, Uriah said:

Last I tried to play this game in single player mode with me flying a spit vs a 109, the 109 would head home after a while and refuse to engage me.   Is that AI behavior still true?

From personal knowledge, every mission currently available has been revisited by TFS and updated. The Ai sliders have been set correctly, the aircraft very rarely barrel roll in defence, and certain conditions have to be met for them to RTB (and not defend themselves).  Personally, from testing some of the missions, it's amazing what correct use of the Ai sliders can do. Hopefully, players will be impressed once they get released with a future update. 

[Dagwoodyt]

This reversion to "target drone" behavior by AI might not be fixable. A big clue has been the refusal, until just the past montn or so, to even acknowledge that the behavior exists. In both GB and DCS it is easy to set up 1v1 dogfight scenarios that can last as long as fuel, engines and ammo hold out. 🤔

[chris455]

These two issues- the urealistic AI behavior and the cartwheels- were what made me uninstall. I periodically check to see if these have been addressed but like DagwoodyT says, this behavior may be in the very DNA of the sim. It's sad because in all other ways CLOD/Blitz could be so beautiful............

Edited August 11 by chris455

[paul_leonard]

It's in CLoD but not entirely in the DNA.  I would draw your attention to the following two recent posts:

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/91024-ai-skill-settings/#comment-1347583

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/91279-tutorial-how-to-build-a-better-quick-mission-in-the-full-mission-builder-in-eight-easy-steps/#comment-1350713

 

 

It would be ideal if you could have a rad and try to build a mission and see if it shows improvement to you.  Instead of quitting, we need more people to try fixing.

[Dagwoodyt]

8 hours ago, paul_leonard said:

It's in CLoD but not entirely in the DNA.  I would draw your attention to the following two recent posts:

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/91024-ai-skill-settings/#comment-1347583

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/91279-tutorial-how-to-build-a-better-quick-mission-in-the-full-mission-builder-in-eight-easy-steps/#comment-1350713

 

 

It would be ideal if you could have a rad and try to build a mission and see if it shows improvement to you.  Instead of quitting, we need more people to try fixing.

No feedback on how those suggestions worked out?

[Avimimus]

On 3/2/2025 at 1:30 PM, Uriah said:

Last I tried to play this game in single player mode with me flying a spit vs a 109, the 109 would head home after a while and refuse to engage me.   Is that AI behavior still true?

 

Have you checked the scenario? IRL the Bf-109E had less than 15 minutes. If it took 12 minutes for you to engage the Bf-109E (after it reached England), than three minutes into combat it might have to disengage in order to avoid running out of fuel before landing.

[Dagwoodyt]

4 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

Have you checked the scenario? IRL the Bf-109E had less than 15 minutes. If it took 12 minutes for you to engage the Bf-109E (after it reached England), than three minutes into combat it might have to disengage in order to avoid running out of fuel before landing.

If we are being referred to the FMB then the mission maker sets parameters and can start the fight with an enemy AI near its' base and having plenty of fuel.🤔

[paul_leonard]

6 hours ago, Dagwoodyt said:

No feedback on how those suggestions worked out?

Crickets. Except for Mysticpuma who tested a bunch of them for me for a period of time, and did confirm that the behaviour was significantly improved (see post above from April 3).  But he was the only one.  If there are better settings I'm all for it.  But can't get there without some feedback.  I have run literally thousands of missions over the past couple of years.  I watch them real-time and I track most every one from beginning to end using TacView looking for unusual behaviours.  Rest assured I get lots of them doing weird stuff, but it usually comes down to something I inadvertently designed in, and can then design out.

6 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

Have you checked the scenario? IRL the Bf-109E had less than 15 minutes. If it took 12 minutes for you to engage the Bf-109E (after it reached England), than three minutes into combat it might have to disengage in order to avoid running out of fuel before landing.

Generally speaking this happens because the Bravery and Discipline settings are too low and not a fuel problem.  This is pretty much true of any default skill settings below Veteran.  But then Veteran's default Gunnery setting is too low and the AI just hoses everything and wastes rounds and so then has to leave because he ran out of ammo too quickly.  So that leaves Veteran, but his Advanced Flying skill is too high so he does all of those crazy snap rolls that everyone legitimately complains about.  In other words, any of the default settings aren't ideal.  See my post above re AI skill settings from yesterday.

Edited August 12 by paul_leonard

[Dagwoodyt]

2 hours ago, paul_leonard said:

But can't get there without some feedback.

Maybe it might help to post a mission to this forum that you've modded to get rid of the odd AI behaviors. A simple 1v1 where the AI has enough fuel to make an extended fight would be something to work with. As to Tacview, CloD requires a mod that seems only available thru the ATAG forum and not available here. I applaud the work you are doing, but I don't think there will ever be a full solution if the drone behavior is deep in the CloD code. Many end users expect that simple 1v1 dogfight setups should not require moving files to various folders and back again. Also, it seems that TFS management is still focused on salvaging their multiplayer participation as there is little mention of SP feature advances. Though they blame their lack of VR capability for their situation, that's a condition that's up to TFS to remedy. I would be a little more interested in experimenting with AI settings if there were VR support, but I hate having to fire up TrackIR again in order to use CloD. That CloD disability must hurt sales at least as much as it hurts MP participation, but TFS doesn't seem to address that aspect in the Enigma video. These are not end users problems to solve. I don't see how TFS can expect to sell Blitz/DWT for an unknowable number of years to come without TFS being able to provide feature advances except by periodically decreasing the asking price.🤔

 

Edited August 12 by Dagwoodyt

[paul_leonard]

You had me until Also.... ;>)

 

But your earlier points are well taken.  I will build and post a 1v1 and say a 3v3 couple of missions for you all to chew on.  I'm quite serious in wanting the feedback, good, bad or indifferent if it improves the player experience. I am a full-time VR single-player so I hear you on TrackIR.  But if nothing else you can just put everything on autopilot and perhaps just watch.  I do that a lot.  

[paul_leonard]

So I've created a set of AI differentiated 1v1 missions in my other AI settings thread.  Hoping to encourage some positive criticism about AI settings there.  There are 5 1v1's and the 3v3 that would be crated if you followed the Quick FMB tutorial. It's here:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/91024-ai-skill-settings/#comment-1347583

 

Oops.  The above requires Tobruk.  Here is a BoB only compatible version.

MyFirstFMB - 1v1 - BoB Only Compatible.zip

[Mistralfred901]

Thanks for all the advice.  I also notice that the AI's engine management is very different from the player's.  
For example: 
When I fly a Hurricane against a 109, the latter catches up with me or flees at a higher speed, which is normal.  However, when I fly a 109 against a Hurricane,  the difference in speed is small or even non-existent!
This must be due to the game's programming.

[paul_leonard]

Quite possible.  I don't have any insight on programming.  What I would suggest though is jump into an AI aircraft and watch what it does.  I've learned a few things I was doing wrong that way.

[Dagwoodyt]

A link to these files on Discord might also help with feedback. I will definitely give them a go when I can. Does it matter if I change my aircraft to a Spitfire variant?

[paul_leonard]

I think you are telling me to post also on Discord.  Yes, good idea.
 

if you know how to make the aircraft change, then it should make no difference.  In general it should make no difference to change either red or blue, or both, so long as you stick with a fighter.  There are different settings I recommend for bombers.

 

The only time I’ve seen editing the aircraft type actually make a difference is if the speed/altitude setting are outside the performance envelope of the changed aircraft.  You can imagine swapping out a Spitfire for a Gladiator at 30,000 feet and 250mph may result in unintended consequences,  read oddball behaviour.  This is not really the case in these test missions.  Change away!  See what happens.  No real pilots will be harmed.

 

 

[Dagwoodyt]

1 minute ago, paul_leonard said:

if you know how to make the aircraft change, then it should make no difference.

1v1 defaults to the Spitfire 1a 100 oct.😊Left on autopilot my Spitfire made short work of the 109 at ace v ace, so I guess I'd have to setup my controllers on my new pc to really test. TrackIR has annoying stutter to be addressed also. Thanks again for your efforts!

[BENKOE]

This would be worth a try:

 

Viewing Performance Data

 

9 hours ago, paul_leonard said:

Quite possible.  I don't have any insight on programming.  What I would suggest though is jump into an AI aircraft and watch what it does.  I've learned a few things I was doing wrong that way.

 

[paul_leonard]

7 hours ago, Dagwoodyt said:

1v1 defaults to the Spitfire 1a 100 oct.😊Left on autopilot my Spitfire made short work of the 109 at ace v ace, so I guess I'd have to setup my controllers on my new pc to really test. TrackIR has annoying stutter to be addressed also. Thanks again for your efforts!

The Spitfire on auto uses my/Rostic custom AI settings.  Now try the custom Spitfire against the custom Me-109.  Not quite so easy for either party perhaps.  Now the fun begins, jump in and see if it improves your experience. Drone mode also gone.  But the real eye opener is how different each setting behaves.   I have missions where the fighters chase retreating fighters right across the Channel. And if the retreating fighters get caught, they turn and fight. Just what you want to have happen.
 

You are very welcome.

 

What is new rig?
 

 

Edited August 14 by paul_leonard

[Dagwoodyt]

9 hours ago, paul_leonard said:

The Spitfire on auto uses my/Rostic custom AI settings.  Now try the custom Spitfire against the custom Me-109.  Not quite so easy for either party perhaps.  Now the fun begins, jump in and see if it improves your experience. Drone mode also gone.  But the real eye opener is how different each setting behaves.   I have missions where the fighters chase retreating fighters right across the Channel. And if the retreating fighters get caught, they turn and fight. Just what you want to have happen.
 

You are very welcome.

 

What is new rig?
 

 

New rig is a Win11 pc with updated case/MB/9800X3D. Same controllers as before including FFB. 

Veteran variant "drones" out as before, but gyrations much subdued, me flying Spitfire, not autopilot.

I cannot get your "custom" mission variant to appear in any SP menu even after renaming it. All others appear. How is the "custom" variant different in that respect? I have DWT so I don't understand why it doesn't show up as its the variant I most want to try.

Edited August 14 by Dagwoodyt

[Dagwoodyt]

[PARTS]
  core.100
  bob.100
  tobruk.100
[MAIN]
  MAP Land$English_Channel_1940
  DespawnAfterLandingTimeout -1
  BattleArea 8500 8500 350000 300000 10000
  TIME 10.0000002421439
  WeatherIndex 0
  CloudsHeight 9000
  BreezeActivity 10
  ThermalActivity 10
  player BoB_RAF_F_FatCat_Early.000
[GlobalWind_0]
  Power 3.087 0.000 0.000
  BottomBound 0.00
  TopBound 1500.00
  GustPower 1
  GustAngle 44
[splines]
[AirGroups]
  BoB_RAF_F_FatCat_Early.01
  BoB_LW_LG2_I.01
[BoB_RAF_F_FatCat_Early.01]
  Flight0  1
  Class Aircraft.SpitfireMkIa_100oct
  Formation VIC3
  CallSign 26
  Fuel 100
  Weapons 1
  Skill 1 0.65 1 1 0.80 1 1 0.65
  Aging 0
[BoB_RAF_F_FatCat_Early.01_Way]
  NORMFLY 215383.72 239087.49 2500.00 400.00
  NORMFLY 246491.45 237002.69 2500.00 400.00
  LANDING 235317.50 232644.40 2500.00 400.00
[BoB_LW_LG2_I.01]
  Flight0  1
  Class Aircraft.Bf-109E-4
  Formation FINGERFOUR
  CallSign 26
  Fuel 100
  Weapons 1 1
  Skill 1 0.65 1 1 0.80 1 1 0.65
  Aging 0
[BoB_LW_LG2_I.01_Way]
  NORMFLY 250311.31 237652.76 2300.00 400.00
  NORMFLY 214945.88 235481.10 2300.00 400.00
  LANDING 291243.06 216218.20 500.00 300.00
[CustomChiefs]
[Stationary]
[Buildings]
[BuildingsLinks]

 

I copied Skill settings for "custom" mis. into "veteran" mission per above. Are those the correct settings? AI is very aggressive, I think AI finally starting "droning" as there wasn't any evasive action when I finally lined up to fire. 

[paul_leonard]

I've got to believe you own Tobruk DLC, so what I see in the mission file you posted should have been seen.  But you are correct, the key is the line:

Skill 1 0.65 1 1 0.80 1 1 0.65

 

Was it too aggressive?  Go search on my post Reality versus Lethality.  

 

Looking at the file I could reduce "droning" somewhat by modifying the line:

LANDING 291243.06 216218.20 500.00 300.00

 

That tells the AI that when it is time the head home to go at 500m at 300kph.  If I increase the 300.00 to say 400.00, or 450.00 or even 500.00, then it will still bug out, but bug out, not drone out.  That is what I mean when I have been saying that the mission builder has some culpability in how the mission plays out.  The issue I have is I am still experimenting with the landing protocols.  If the wind is from the wrong direction, or the airfield runway is too short, the higher speed will result in negative consequences for the AI landing.  This is a problem not only for AI as it just sucks if you invest the time to fly home and all your buddies just crash on landing.  It's a work in progress... but I really need and want the feedback.  Yah yah Discord.  Working on it.

 

But was the AI now too aggressive?

 

PS - but here is the rub, one of the few things the original manual stated is that landings should be best set for 500m and 300kph.  So what do you think every mission builder set as the landing waypoint settings?

 

 

[Dagwoodyt]

13 hours ago, paul_leonard said:

Was it too aggressive?  Go search on my post Reality versus Lethality.  

 

Looking at the file I could reduce "droning" somewhat by modifying the line:

LANDING 291243.06 216218.20 500.00 300.00

I don't begrudge the AI for being too aggressive. What I have experienced so far is that there is a considerable number of minutes expended in finding the AI in the mission I have posted above, even with labels on. That appears to count against the AI "drone timer". Sometimes the "timer" is exceeded and the AI just goes home and we never get into a fight. I will try the landing line you've suggested sometime today.  I will try your landing line mod(s) ASA available. 

 

13 hours ago, paul_leonard said:

LANDING 291243.06 216218.20 500.00 300.00

 

A problem I am facing is that I would probably need to devote as much time to figuring out how to make TrackIR stable on my setup as spent in flying the missions as it is constantly stuttering. That makes searching for the AI extremely burdensome. Hopefully that is not a problem for you as you have access to the VR mod. As it looks like there is little hope of the mod ever going public we are limited in comparing notes. TBH it looks as if the "drone timer" remains the root immersion killer here as I either find and destroy the AI in a set time period or the AI just motors away to home base. What generally happens is that if I can just keep from being shot down for ~12 minutes I can relax and then leisurely shoot down the AI who is flying straight and level toward its' base. 

Edited August 15 by Dagwoodyt

[Dagwoodyt]

8 hours ago, paul_leonard said:

I've got to believe you own Tobruk DLC, so what I see in the mission file you posted should have been seen.

Yes, since its' first release. I have placed the modded files in every Quick/Single folder and they aren't being seen. Will hopefully figure out why, eventually. As workaround I just modify the necessary lines in the files that are being seen.

[jdu]

11 hours ago, Dagwoodyt said:

A problem I am facing is that I would probably need to devote as much time to figuring out how to make TrackIR stable on my setup as spent in flying the missions as it is constantly stuttering.

Too short dead zone or Parkinson's effect?

[paul_leonard]

I’ll create a new mission set that puts the aircraft closer together on the merge.

[Dagwoodyt]

I modded an old mission and included your skill settings:

 

[PARTS]
  core.100
  bob.100
  tobruk.100
[MAIN]
  MAP Land$English_Channel_1940
  DespawnAfterLandingTimeout 600
  BattleArea 25000 10000 300000 300000 50000
  TIME 9.00000021792948
  WeatherIndex 2
  CloudsHeight 700
  BreezeActivity 10
  ThermalActivity 10
  player BoB_RAF_F_602Sqn_Early.000
[GlobalWind_0]
  Power 3.000 0.000 0.000
  BottomBound 0.00
  TopBound 1500.00
  GustPower 0
  GustAngle 45
[splines]
[AirGroups]
  BoB_RAF_F_602Sqn_Early.01
  BoB_LW_ZG26_Stab.01
[BoB_RAF_F_602Sqn_Early.01]
  Flight0  1
  Class Aircraft.SpitfireMkIa
  Formation VIC3
  CallSign 17
  Fuel 70
  Weapons 1
  Belt _Gun03 Gun.Browning303MkII MainBelt 9
  Belt _Gun06 Gun.Browning303MkII MainBelt 9 9 9 9 11 9 9
  Belt _Gun00 Gun.Browning303MkII MainBelt 11 9 9
  Belt _Gun01 Gun.Browning303MkII MainBelt 9 9 11 9 9 9 9
  Belt _Gun07 Gun.Browning303MkII MainBelt 11 9 9 11 11 11
  Belt _Gun02 Gun.Browning303MkII MainBelt 9 11 11 11 11 11 11
  Belt _Gun05 Gun.Browning303MkII MainBelt 9 9 11 11
  Belt _Gun04 Gun.Browning303MkII MainBelt 12 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
  Skill 1 0.65 1 1 0.80 1 1 0.65
  Aging 37
  Briefing 2
  Serial0 L1372
[BoB_RAF_F_602Sqn_Early.01_Way]
  AATTACK_FIGHTERS 178235.37 162448.58 50.00 400.00
  AATTACK_FIGHTERS 208512.81 182880.00 50.00 400.00
  LANDING 224947.79 229018.35 500.00 300.00
[BoB_LW_ZG26_Stab.01]
  Flight0  1
  Class Aircraft.Bf-109E-4
  Formation FINGERFOUR
  CallSign 18
  Fuel 100
  Weapons 1 1
  Skill 1 0.65 1 1 0.80 1 1 0.65
  Aging 14
  Briefing 2
  Serial0 8978
[BoB_LW_ZG26_Stab.01_Way]
  AATTACK_FIGHTERS 182136.29 165033.20 50.00 400.00
  AATTACK_FIGHTERS 159195.48 149417.31 50.00 400.00
  AATTACK_FIGHTERS 157259.76 57425.05 500.00 300.00
[CustomChiefs]
[Stationary]
  Static0 Stationary.Radar.EnglishRadar1 gb 78603.79 181122.39 40.00 
[Buildings]
[BuildingsLinks]

 

 

That gets the AI close enough so that no time is lost. It does require prompt evasive action at mission start however. When I have survived for a length of time the AI eventually reverts to "droning".

 

[paul_leonard]

Whoa baby! This gunfight is right on the deck!  If the AI could survive 15 minutes with you at this altitude then we really are making progress.  I find the low altitude fighting really is the toughest thing for the AI to do.  However, I had a hard time testing with this mission because half the time the fight commenced with either a head on collision or a fatal head on kill shot of one or both very quickly.  I spent some time inside the Me-109 cockpit looking at the fuel gauge and the ammo counter but couldn't burn enough fuel and the fights were over before ammo ran out.  So I will keep testing.  Can I ask you to amend your mission file as follows:

 

Change the last line in your 109 waypoint list from:

AATTACK_FIGHTERS 157259.76 57425.05 500.00 300.00

 

to:

AATTACK_FIGHTERS 157259.76 57425.05 500.00 450.00

 

This should turn drone home to more like bug out home.

 

(Note - your mission doesn't actually have a landing waypoint for the 109, it will just circle Le Havre.  But managing AI this way may have its advantages.  You got me thinking.)

 

If you see the 109 go into drone mode please do the following:

Pause the game in action

Jump over to an external view of the 109 by activating "External View-Cycle Enemy Aircraft"  (see keyboard option under Controls - View Category

Take control of the Me-109 by activating "Take Control of Selected AI Aircraft" (see keyboard option under Controls - View Category)

Then move to inside view by activating "Inside View" (see keyboard option under Controls - View Category)

You may need to activate mouse mode to move the camera around in the cockpit (F10?).  

I would like you to look at three things.  The Fuel Guage bottom centre of panel, the ammo indicator to its left and the airspeed and altitude indicators.  I expect the Altitude Indicator to be 500-700m and the airspeed to be at 450kph.  What the other two are is the question.

 

If you can't take over the 109 then you should check that yourr Realism Settings allow Switch Planes under the Aircraft Switching box.

 

Just as an aside, I'm ready Dilip Sakar's book Battle of Britain Daylight Defeat.  There is a quote from a report by Flying Officer Tony Lovell on September 30, 1940.  " I followed him down over the Channel to 5,000 feet where I spotted a Me 109 solo, going home below me.  I tucked in behind and fired my remaining ammunition - when he reached about 1,000 feet he rolled onto his back and dived towards the sea".

 

Thanks

Paul

 

[paul_leonard]

On 8/15/2025 at 8:16 AM, Dagwoodyt said:

Yes, since its' first release. I have placed the modded files in every Quick/Single folder and they aren't being seen. Will hopefully figure out why, eventually. As workaround I just modify the necessary lines in the files that are being seen.

If you are putting them there then you won’t see them.  They need to go into the “missions” folder under Documents/1C SoftClub.  Under there you can create all kinds of sub-folders to organize your custom missions and navigate using the Single Missions menu.

Paul 

[Dagwoodyt]

2 hours ago, paul_leonard said:

Whoa baby! This gunfight is right on the deck!  If the AI could survive 15 minutes with you at this altitude then we really are making progress.  I find the low altitude fighting really is the toughest thing for the AI to do.  However, I had a hard time testing with this mission because half the time the fight commenced with either a head on collision or a fatal head on kill shot of one or both very quickly.  I spent some time inside the Me-109 cockpit looking at the fuel gauge and the ammo counter but couldn't burn enough fuel and the fights were over before ammo ran out. 

To be clear: I am not using autopilot for any of my testing. I am comfortable with the starting positions because I've flown the mission countless times using a G.50 as AI opponent. The AI opponents typically attempt a few aggressive turning passes, but if unsuccessful will climb away until the "drone timer" asserts itself. The only real challenge then is to make sure I don't cook my engine. Yes the AI may lawn dart at mission start, but otherwise it will gain altitude ASAP. I will make the changes you suggest, make observations requested and see what happens. Thanks for your efforts!

[Dagwoodyt]

8 hours ago, paul_leonard said:

Change the last line in your 109 waypoint list from:

AATTACK_FIGHTERS 157259.76 57425.05 500.00 300.00

 

to:

AATTACK_FIGHTERS 157259.76 57425.05 500.00 450.00

 

I made the suggested change. After several flights it does not seem that the change makes any readily identifiable change in AI behavior. As to the mission I used, opponents at low altitude and in close proximity, it seems to me that the mission forces the AI to reveal its' game plan quickly. In other scenarios the player might assume that the AI has some master plan that the player cannot fathom. I do not believe that is the reality. It looks to me as though the AI' programming is extremely limited. I do not trust results of missions that use AI vs AI. The mission I used as example is readily survivable by a human player during initial head on pass after a few attempts. The idea that a mission can be volunteered to function as an objective reference does look to be significant for this forum. After all, anyone can present modification parameters to alter AI behavior if that is possible. Without someone from TFS having taken the initiative to look at SP AI behavior we couldn't have gotten anywhere with this discussion beyond what had gone before.

[paul_leonard]

It's lucky for you (maybe me) that I had a couple of beers before reading this.  Otherwise I still would not have understood what this paragraph said!  Then again, I didn't;>)  I think you said the AI is shite.  To which ChatGPT or CoPilot would take offence.  Me, not so much.  Please let me take the night to process and I'll get back to you in the morning. 

Paul

But did you have any luck figuring out why the AI opponent droned out?  I remain actually really interested in sorting this out.

Paul

[paul_leonard]

The last line edit does not affect the AI behaviour per se.  It should affect the behaviour of the AI aircraft once it enters its RTB phase only.  The line instructs the AI to retreat faster.

 

I don't know what realism settings you use, but I believe you need limited fuel and limited ammo checked when you fly.  If unlimited I think it replenishes the fuel/ammo the second you jump into the AI aircraft.  So your observation would then be distorted.

Edited August 17 by paul_leonard

[paul_leonard]

Having thought about what you wrote above overnight.  I still stand that your view is that the "AI" routines (we all know AI is a marketing term) are too simple and transparent to you and this is especially revealed when in a one on one confrontation.  In other words... shite.  For you, there is little use in discussing further until TF coders dig in and look at or modify the code.  You're not wrong.

 

However, my view is from another angle.  I'm not a coder, I'm an accountant building historical-based missions.  My goal is to optimize the single player experience as much as possible with the code there is.  Worse, there is no manual for the AI, and only bits and pieces here and there even on the workings of the FMB (I am trying to find time to add to that knowledge base).  Optimize is getting the most of what the existing AI is capable of (whatever that is).  Optimize is also curbing the worst tendencies of the AI routines, like snap rolls and the inability to decrease altitude without all kinds of fancy aerobatics, and in the case of this thread, the drone behaviour and the early disengagement behaviour leading to a drone home mode.  Some of the the early disengagement is clearly caused by low Bravery and Discipline settings.  Some of the low altitude low speed drone home behaviour is very clearly the AI switching to the Landing Waypoint settings which the original manual warned should be set to 500m and 300kph, so that is what every mission builder did.  All I think I can do with this is create the illusion of something else by finding the highest speeds/altitudes I can set for the Landing Waypoint.  I'm getting close and it is about 2000m/450kph for fighters but also depends on windspeed/direction and length of runway. 

 

What I'm asking you and other readers here is help me figure out in this thread's case, what is really triggering the AI decision to go home.  I we can sort some of this out and I can then figure out how better to keep the AI engaged, and by extension the single player.  Any new settings will help my mission building, but also I am in a position to ultimately rebuild the original canned missions and fix what is already in the game.  It is very clear to me that whatever you think of the AI, most existing mission are far from optimized for what is there.

 

 

[BENKOE]

@Dagwoodyt, I agree with your assessment – with one small, but sadly very unpopular, caveat…

 

Team Fusion have, shall we say, re-designed the game’s aerodynamics entirely to suit the tastes of multiplayer pilots. For a game that’s perfectly fine – after all, every online pilot flies under the same conditions, whatever those conditions may be.

Not so the drones. In fact, the AI aircraft flat-out refuse to follow the TF logic and instead behave rather as an Unmanned Aircraft System actually should. Like drones, they were trained by 1C-Maddox on the back of a hundred years of aerodynamics – and so they simply will not accept TFS’s brand of aerodynamics.

 

And yes, to see this in action it’s worth watching when the AI, as Pilot in Command, brings a Bf 109E-4 down on a runway with a 20 km/h headwind. You’ll notice that despite the ASI showing an error of +20 km/h, the drone still executes a clean landing. TAS:CAS:IAS = 140:140:160 km/h at 4m AMSL. And yes, thanks to 1C-Maddox, that can also be verified mathematically with a mission script in-game.

 

A little fun fact for mission builders: the waypoint speeds have always been calibrated airspeeds, derived from the compressible pressure qc(h0,TAS). They are not equivalent or indicated speeds, which are derived from the incompressible pressure q(h0,TAS). What does that tell us? Quite right – true airspeed is the measure of all things, not IAS. Perhaps TFS ought to give their own aerodynamic calculations another look. Who knows – it might even help with VR and TrueSky one day…

 

14 hours ago, Dagwoodyt said:

 

I made the suggested change. After several flights it does not seem that the change makes any readily identifiable change in AI behavior. As to the mission I used, opponents at low altitude and in close proximity, it seems to me that the mission forces the AI to reveal its' game plan quickly. In other scenarios the player might assume that the AI has some master plan that the player cannot fathom. I do not believe that is the reality. It looks to me as though the AI' programming is extremely limited. I do not trust results of missions that use AI vs AI. The mission I used as example is readily survivable by a human player during initial head on pass after a few attempts. The idea that a mission can be volunteered to function as an objective reference does look to be significant for this forum. After all, anyone can present modification parameters to alter AI behavior if that is possible. Without someone from TFS having taken the initiative to look at SP AI behavior we couldn't have gotten anywhere with this discussion beyond what had gone before.

 

Edited August 17 by BENKOE

[Dagwoodyt]

It will take me a while to digest all that's been written here. I would in the meanwhile want to provide images as requested:

 

 

 

 

 

All images were taken after AI went into "drone" mode.

 

Hope this helps!

Edited August 17 by Dagwoodyt

[paul_leonard]

Just raises more questions... which is the point really.  Just double-checking, but you were flying with Limited Ammo and Limited Fuel checked in the Realism settings.  The reason I ask is that the cannon rounds show 60/60 in that panel below P15 at the bottom of the instrument panel.  That implies that the cannon were never used. There is a ton of fuel so it didn't head home because of a fuel shortage.  The only other thing I can think of is checking how much damage the Me-109 had but your end mission screen is telling me you fought for 9 minutes and you didn't hit him?  Were you just messing with him until he bugged out?  Subjectively, when he did RTB, was he a little harder to catch?

Thanks

Paul

[paul_leonard]

1 hour ago, BENKOE said:

@Dagwoodyt, I agree with your assessment – with one small, but sadly very unpopular, caveat…

 

Team Fusion have, shall we say, re-designed the game’s aerodynamics entirely to suit the tastes of multiplayer pilots. For a game that’s perfectly fine – after all, every online pilot flies under the same conditions, whatever those conditions may be.

Not so the drones. In fact, the AI aircraft flat-out refuse to follow the TF logic and instead behave rather as an Unmanned Aircraft System actually should. Like drones, they were trained by 1C-Maddox on the back of a hundred years of aerodynamics – and so they simply will not accept TFS’s brand of aerodynamics.

 

And yes, to see this in action it’s worth watching when the AI, as Pilot in Command, brings a Bf 109E-4 down on a runway with a 20 km/h headwind. You’ll notice that despite the ASI showing an error of +20 km/h, the drone still executes a clean landing. TAS:CAS:IAS = 140:140:160 km/h at 4m AMSL. And yes, thanks to 1C-Maddox, that can also be verified mathematically with a mission script in-game.

 

A little fun fact for mission builders: the waypoint speeds have always been calibrated airspeeds, derived from the compressible pressure qc(h0,TAS). They are not equivalent or indicated speeds, which are derived from the incompressible pressure q(h0,TAS). What does that tell us? Quite right – true airspeed is the measure of all things, not IAS. Perhaps TFS ought to give their own aerodynamic calculations another look. Who knows – it might even help with VR and TrueSky one day…

 

 

 

Keep in mind I'm an accountant.  I can add and subtract, multiply and divide (with the help of a spreadsheet or calculator), but qc(h0,TAS) just makes me suffer vertigo.  What is different between True Air Speed and Calibrated Air Speed? And how does it make a difference to me as a mission builder?  Everything I have read has been that waypoint airspeeds must be set using Indicated Air Speed.  I actually have built a spreadsheet that converts between TAS and IAS so that I could have different flights at different altitudes basically fly in formation and not get ahead or behind one another (I have found this a much more reliable way of having fighters escort bombers because the escort settings have their own issues.  When I make these conversions I do get what I want.

 

Based on what you wrote, am I supposed to be doing something different?

Thanks

Paul

 

 

[Dagwoodyt]

4 hours ago, paul_leonard said:

The last line edit does not affect the AI behaviour per se.  It should affect the behaviour of the AI aircraft once it enters its RTB phase only.  The line instructs the AI to retreat faster.

 

I don't know what realism settings you use, but I believe you need limited fuel and limited ammo checked when you fly.  If unlimited I think it replenishes the fuel/ammo the second you jump into the AI aircraft.  So your observation would then be distorted.

 

46 minutes ago, paul_leonard said:

Just raises more questions... which is the point really.  Just double-checking, but you were flying with Limited Ammo and Limited Fuel checked in the Realism settings.  The reason I ask is that the cannon rounds show 60/60 in that panel below P15 at the bottom of the instrument panel.  That implies that the cannon were never used. There is a ton of fuel so it didn't head home because of a fuel shortage.  The only other thing I can think of is checking how much damage the Me-109 had but your end mission screen is telling me you fought for 9 minutes and you didn't hit him?  Were you just messing with him until he bugged out?  Subjectively, when he did RTB, was he a little harder to catch?

Thanks

Paul

 

 

A few settings were altered to accommodate getting the images you requested. I've never flown with unlimited fuel or ammo. The AI was apparently never able to achieve a firing solution. AI made three or four attempts to get on my six without success, then left. Yes, the AI exited at high speed. I had to decrease throttle/prop settings as my water temp had risen to 103. 

 

 

2 hours ago, BENKOE said:

Not so the drones. In fact, the AI aircraft flat-out refuse to follow the TF logic and instead behave rather as an Unmanned Aircraft System actually should. Like drones, they were trained by 1C-Maddox on the back of a hundred years of aerodynamics – and so they simply will not accept TFS’s brand of aerodynamics.

 

My observations are much in line with what @BENKOE is suggesting as to source of AI decision to disengage. Skill settings may well influence AI behavior to some extent, but so far I have not seen any of them ever overriding the AI decision as to when to disengage from a 1v1 fight.