AI still go dumb after mission objective?

[No.54_Reddog]

As much as I genuinely applaud the honorable gentleman's efforts, polishing the turd that is the AI skills settings and behaviours while not being able to affect meaningful change to the inner workings of the AI is just rearranging the deckchairs on the titanic.

 

Without understanding what the settings are actually affecting under the hood, you are in fact likely to mask the true issues or cause others inadvertently. 

 

The AI is broken. It is, and has been since day 1. Until TF actually dedicate significant resource to understanding WHY and HOW, rather than trying to wall paper over the cracks and pretend there's nothing to see then it will continue to be so. Once again, a massive missed opportunity when a renowned AI routine maestro was interested and then ran headfirst into the obstacle that TF leadership present. But that is years ago. Maybe I'm just being far too cynical and that tweaking a line in a mission file will magically resolve everything eventually.

[paul_leonard]

Well one thing the new AI settings should do is prevent the waste of ammo by improving gunnery.  Maybe too much.

 

Did you get hits on the 109?  I wish you were able to use Tacview.  It provides that information.  No matter.

 

Paul

[Dagwoodyt]

2 hours ago, paul_leonard said:

Well one thing the new AI settings should do is prevent the waste of ammo by improving gunnery.  Maybe too much.

 

Did you get hits on the 109?  I wish you were able to use Tacview.  It provides that information.  No matter.

 

Paul

I had no way to get hits on the AI before it decided to leave Dodge. TBH my mission was to survive until the AI started "droning". Shooting down an AI that has already gone dormant isn't an accomplishment worth reporting.🙁It is also my understanding that the AI is immune from overheating unless damaged, so there's that. Again, I have Tacview, but Blitz apparently doesn't provide the required telemetry natively and the necessary mod isn't available to this forum. 

Edited August 18 by Dagwoodyt

[Dagwoodyt]

8 hours ago, paul_leonard said:

 

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

 

 

Perhaps certain questions should be posed to your backup. 

[BENKOE]

Just a brief look back at history...

 

[Dagwoodyt]

It might just be that some Team internal communications are of similar caliber.

[paul_leonard]

16 hours ago, Dagwoodyt said:

I had no way to get hits on the AI before it decided to leave Dodge. TBH my mission was to survive until the AI started "droning". Shooting down an AI that has already gone dormant isn't an accomplishment worth reporting.🙁It is also my understanding that the AI is immune from overheating unless damaged, so there's that. Again, I have Tacview, but Blitz apparently doesn't provide the required telemetry natively and the necessary mod isn't available to this forum. 

Understood.  I'll test same way this week.  I will also have benefit of Tacview.

Thanks

Paul

[Rei-sen]

Oh, I played around with those settings couple of years ago. Only when setting Advanced Flying and Tactics to one notch above zero, the AI was at least somewhat less UFO-like. Yet it was maneuvering faster than the player aircraft could at the same speed and knowing exactly when my gunsight was aligned for a hit. AI in this game needs a serious rework. With how it is right now, the Single Player aspect is completely unplayable, no matter how you fiddle with the settings.

[Dagwoodyt]

1 hour ago, Rei-sen said:

Oh, I played around with those settings couple of years ago. Only when setting Advanced Flying and Tactics to one notch above zero, the AI was at least somewhat less UFO-like. Yet it was maneuvering faster than the player aircraft could at the same speed and knowing exactly when my gunsight was aligned for a hit. AI in this game needs a serious rework. With how it is right now, the Single Player aspect is completely unplayable, no matter how you fiddle with the settings.

To my way of thinking this is an issue of credibility. Over the years I have seen repeated examples of forum members who questioned the CloD' AI being told that the problem is with the player's inability to select appropriate AI skill levels. In retrospect I am certain that some of those individuals providing such advice knew full well that they were directing players into a maze that would potentially occupy them for tens of hours to little or no benefit. Certainly those who would have had first hand knowledge of the AI coding deficiencies could have spoken up rather than being now forced to acknowledge the coding-imposed limitations. 

Edited August 23 by Dagwoodyt

[Mistralfred901]

It would be better if it were more accessible to players than having to make all these adjustments. In other words, the AI needs to be thoroughly revised!
That is, if TFS has the opportunity to do so, of course, and when they have the time...

[Dagwoodyt]

WRT ufo-like AI behavior it might be worthwhile to fly 1v1's in an aircraft you're familiar with against AI that has an identical aircraft and configuration.🤔

[paul_leonard]

All:

 

I committed to study this problem and have spent a fair amount of time over the past 10 days or so looking at several hundred replays of about two dozen or more missions I've built based on what Dagwoodyt provided here.  I've studied the Tacviews and have come to a conclusion.

 

Most of you have been wrong, the AI does not arbitrarily disengage at 6 minutes and head off in drone mode... my estimate is more like 8 minutes.  It does seem to happen a little faster if the waypoints are NOT set to Normal Fly, but here I see more like 7 minutes.  So you are still wrong ;>)  There are no AI Skill settings that I have found that can stop this from happening. So you are right.  That makes us even.

 

I've attached a zip file containing 3 missions and a representative Tacview file for each of those.  The basic setup is a head on pass by a Spitfire and a Me-109.  Both are set to Veteran Skill (close enough to my preferred custom skillset) but with the Gunnery turned down to 16-20%.  I turned down Gunnery because I wanted the participants to last as long as possible and to also see if running out of ammo has an impact.  Fuel is 100% for same reason.  Never did an AI aircraft run out of ammo or fuel before going off into la-la land.  

 

Mission #1

Is a 1v1 and then another Me-109 arrives 15 minutes or so after the first pass.  By that time the Spitfire and Me-109 are circling there respective final waypoints.  There is no Landing waypoint because I didn't want the aircraft to leave the vicinity of one another.  Put the mission on autopilot watch the dogfight unfold.  If an aircraft gets shot down, just restart the mission, they'll normally survive for the duration, but there are bullets in the air.  It also helps if you put the in-cockpit map on to get a top-down view and also to speed up time a bit. Around the 8 minute mark they will both drone out and disengage to circle their respective waypoints, only moving off the circle to avoid crashing into one another.  I added the late arriving Me-109 because I wanted to see what the AI Spitfire would do, presented with a new foe. When the new Me-109 arrives it will attack the circling Spitfire AND the Spitfire WILL take evasive action.  Rarely did it seem that the Spitfire went back on the offensive though.  That said I watched a very cool outcome in a different mission where the Me-109 had wheels halfway down on landing approach at an airfield and aborted the landing, brought the wheels back up and did indeed go after the offending Spitfires.  Interestingly I did see one mission where the Spitfire broke off into drone mode at the 2 minute mark when the Me-109 took pilot damage, although the aircraft was not destroyed.

 

Mission #2

Is a 3v3 without any late arriving Me-109's.  Here the same thing will happen around the 8 minute mark.  For whatever reason, sometimes the drone behaviour would hold off to say the 10 minute mark.  I have a suspicion that this may have something to do with the flight leader being killed and so it might reset the clock a bit for the other AI fighters.  But the outcome is the same, just with more aircraft circling about.

 

Mission #3

Is a 3v3 with late arriving Me-109's.  Here the Spitfires, after having gone into drone mode earlier, will react to the newly arriving Me-109's.  Again the response feels lackluster, but in this case the dogfight did seem to carry on for about 20 minutes.  

 

It appears that I have been having a different conversation with you all than you were having with me.  I have been building tightly scripted missions, many with 50 or more combatants in the immediate vicinity.  I study them like I did with this issue, and simply did not see this frustrating disengagement issue that many of you experience.  I have been talking about how to get the AI skill settings to provide you with a better combat experience, which I still think they can do, but now I see what you have all been on about.  Small engagements expose it clearly.  My apologies for not listening carefully.

 

It feels like a clock starts running at initial engagement and then at the appointed time, home for tea and biscuits.  This issue affects what I am doing too.  I will be raising awareness within Team Fusion about this issue. That's all I can do at this point.  

 

Paul

 

 

AI Disengagement Testing - Arena Fight.zip

[Mysticpuma]

And this is why, currently, you are one of the TFS members we actually greatly respect. Engage with the community, don't put your fingers in your ears and say "the community is wrong, you aren't playing it right" and actually break down what is happening, finally see what we are saying actually has some basis......and try and do something about it.

 

Ai has been an issue 'forever', the bain of the Single Player experience, but previous TFS inputs are all about the Servers and online play. "Just go online, it's more fun", "Multiplayer is where it's at", etc, etc. No, I don't want to, Single Player is there for a reason, and it isn't to be neglected. There are 4x more offline players than online, yet historically, TFS have just shut the door in the face of the SP experience.

 

Fortunately for us, you have actually shown an interest, broke all the feedback apart and finally, a TFS member is supporting 'us', what TFS/ATAG have always seen as the minority, and it is finally great to see our voices heard.

 

You do now have the issue of actually yourself being heard. My sad expectations are you will take this to the team and be told; "Not a priority", "You do realise if we focus on that it will delay the release by another year, so 'maybe' v7.0", "Don't engage with the naysayers, they only do it because they think we are wrong and if you prove they are right we'll never hear the end of it", "the coders don't have time for this", or more than likely, you'll hear nothing and get frustrated that all the effort you have put it in trying to find the issue, identifying it actually is an issue, posting your feedback and observations, will all be left in limbo, then Buzzsaw will say the Ai is fine and you are wrong too!

 

Thanks for your sterling efforts Paul, good to know someone listens to what's left of the community and really wants to engage and improve this game for everyone, if us, what are seen as the minority.

 

Cheers, Mystipuma

Edited Friday at 06:06 AM by Mysticpuma

[Josp]

6 hours ago, Mysticpuma said:

And this is why, currently, you are one of the TFS members we actually greatly respect.

 

Mysticpuma,

 

excuse me, but who are those "we" and "us" in your comment above?

 

Who are you speaking for?

 

Definitely not for me. I respect all TFS members. I respect each of them for all they have done. And I will still respect them even if they do nothing more.

 

I respect your different point of view, but I don't share it so please speak just for yourself.

 

Thank you.

 

Josef

[BladeMeister]

1 hour ago, Josp said:

 

Mysticpuma,

 

excuse me, but who are those "we" and "us" in your comment above?

 

Who are you speaking for?

 

Definitely not for me. I respect all TFS members. I respect each of them for all they have done. And I will still respect them even if they do nothing more.

 

I respect your different point of view, but I don't share it so please speak just for yourself.

 

Thank you.

 

Josef

I am one of the "us" or "we". I suspect that most of the "us" or "we" have given up even checking the forums about CLOD. The "us" and "we" have been here for a long time. I have been around since the TF 2.13 patch back on the ATAG Forums and have enjoyed CLOD for a work in progress for many many years. When TFS broke 5.0 with the AI updates, or maybe broke it worse from the pre existing AI problems, it just made CLOD unplayable for me as a SP because of the unrealistic behavior of the AI. The AI knowing when I am in range to shoot it and reacting all twitchy, the turbo role rate of AI and the go home timer are the major ones for me. Here is the thing, it is pretty simple from a logical sense of product development and customer support, fix the core issues you introduced or made worse in the product that you have already released and sold for money to your loyal and supportive customers. Make this the top priority until you get it right then release it and see the reaction from your customers. Stop developing for the VR/Visual update and 6.0 and fix the core issues. Both the VR/Visual update and 6.0 are years late already. Who cares if they are later now. I mean who really gives a F___ at this point? Fix the core bugs and make your SP customers happy. The SP customers are the majority of your paying customers anyway, not VR or online customers. So there you go, I am part of the "us" and the "we" that MP speaks of . The problem is that most of "us"and "we basically have given up on TFS management, Buzzsaw, actually giving a F____ about their customers anymore. Hopefully maybe some more of the "us" and the "we" will chime in, but I doubt many even look at the CLOD forums anymore. I know I rarely do.

 

S!Blade<><