As far as I can see the only thing that this shows is the stupidity of the guy pulling the trigger! Destroying a perfectly good gun barrel for his own pleasure and that of a few of his idiotic companions. No aircraft of the period could carry the amount of ammo to produce this result.

YouTube is full of videos of gun nuts doing stoopid and unsafe things with firearms. Lucky us that we have a stoopid gun nut video to prove my points about machine guns jamming and ammo "cooking off" due to overheating.

Exactly.

Can we get the Yer-2 series in the 4.14 update? I really like it on War Thunder, and I think it would be a good addition to this game.

we not have comprehensive information to made flyable Ep-2 ... only scheme for external model ...

Extensive information, including a schematic drawing of cockpit instrument panel and coverage angles of gun turrets can be found here:

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bww2/er2.html

No photos of cockpit though :(.

that info could be enough only for external model ...

to me that info it's not enough



too bad that Vert couldn't finish what he want to do

http://forum.aviaskins.com/attachmen...3&d=1307730962

http://forum.aviaskins.com/showpost....&postcount=345

As far as night bombing along a beam would be just a technical exercise to say "I did it".

The same thing can be emulated without all the extra work by using a map icon with a bomb drop on it.

I don't think it will be used that much probably as much as carrier navigation is used, the learning process usually out weighs the impatience of the user to shoot something down and go land back on deck.

http://www.fisthistory.org/Ships.htm

I just would like to think improvement and bug fixes are being implemented rather than a feature that's being done for the sake of it and not ever used (tipping V1's) as an example.















.

Will we see it someday?

That would be good enough to get the plane into the game as an AI-only. I'd be happy to see that.

who know ...

for now no one not working on it
if somebody will do it from third party in all technical require it will be added in il2... i dream about it ...

It would be an extra layer of realism for those who want it, and modeling at least some of the blind bombing aids seems like a logical step for DT since they've already created other navigation aids, as well as AI and GCI radar.

Knickebein would be very easy to model - just use the existing waypoint modeling in the FMB, limit it to a straight line, and link it to a sound effect that fades from dots to pure tone to dashes as you deviate from the course.

X-Gerat would be almost as easy to model - straight-line waypoint like for Knickebein for the Weser signal, with three intersecting straight line waypoints linked to sound effects to simulate the Rhine, Elbe and Oder signals. Modeling the special X-gerat bombing clock would be a chore, though.

I agree. If I ran the show, I'd prioritize bug fixing first, upgrading current planes second, adding new planes third, and "other stuff" last.

But, it seems that with each new release DT gives us a mix of things - bug fixes, one or two new planes, a few new flyable and improved planes, a few new ground objects, and some other things. I was suggesting that some of the blind bombing aids might be relatively easy additions to "other stuff" for 4.14 or a later addition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...375wFH-Sg#t=40

Is this view option still a possibility? Or have I not found the option in the current 4.12.2m game.

TD team re Ace AI Head on shot historicity
 

I searched the thread re head on shooting, with no results, so having just recently [finally] updated to 4.11/4.12, I wanted to ask regarding AI head on shooting ability. I started with Il-2 1946 4.07, and the ace level AI were very lethal in head on shooting abilities, and the current patches also have extremely deadly abilities as well [I think even more so] I also encounter this flying ROF in the ace mode. In every case, the AI is almost without exception able to track the most aggressive evasive measures; skidding, jinxing, speed variance, anything.

I would respectfully ask the TD team to perhaps tone this down a bit by somehow factoring in a human error element, to soften the 'I'm flying against my xxxx processor' factor. I have read others comments regarding defeating this practice by countering with head on burst in response to these attacks, and the AI do in fact most times veer away - wonderful to not have continuous head on collisions as the only option! ...But if I veer away, I invariably get hit by "magic bullets", seemingly impossible levels of accuracy and dexterity to follow my every jinx/skid/drop away - I watch the tracers dance perfectly along with my every micro-second move and just can't defeat this.

...or can someone educate me as to the amount of kills recorded in combat accounts that would support the present levels of lethality found in the game to date? Perhaps the Russian aces were more in the habit of aggressive head on attacks as a matter of course and conveyed these accounts in Russian documents. I would appreciate any referrals to combat accounts that any would know of to educate me on this topic if I am mistaken and this was in fact a common method of Ace success.

I very much enjoy all the improvements thus far, and join with the others praising this accomplishment. I think it is best to have the high levels for Ace mode, it should be challenging and I accept that I will lose more than I win, but the head on shots are a stumbling block for me in that they seem overly computer generated and consistent even for experienced aces. Getting damaged at the very beginning of a dogfight at Ace level means your practically dead before you've even gotten going. Please consider reviewing this element in light of historical combat accounts, or as I said, please anyone provide me the historic accounts I previously requested so I can reconcile myself to the current flight sim head on shot capabilities.

Thank you,

p3

If you're playing against Ace AI then it's not as much of a surprise. Ace pilots tended to be confident, capable and aggressive. When TD implemented the AI changes they changed the whole system... in earlier patches the AI could see 360 degrees. Even through the cowling of their aircraft. Now the AI can only see what you can see through your cockpit. What they do now is make a guess as to where they saw you last with a degree of probability and fire. So even if they can't see you they can try and shoot you like a human.

I believe if you turn on the Arcade=1 mode in the config.ini file it will show you graphically what the AI is doing and what degree of error they have in firing at you from all angles. They are better at deflection shooting now but they are more limited in the opportunities they can employ it without some degree of guessing.

I think maybe adjusting expectations? The Ace should be a top tier opponent... something you run into rarely or never. Your Beurling, Hartmann, or Gabreski as examples. Someone who is really gifted at being a combat pilot. Folks like Beurling could fly into an enemy formation and shoot down a couple of planes at a time before the enemy could react - even Allied commanders didn't believe Beurling's kills because the film camera was setup to record ahead of him and he was shooting them down at 60-90 degree deflection angles with only a few bullets each.

I agree with what IceFire talks about.

Frankly, what is needed is more of a personal adjustment to the perception of what "Ace" actually means within the current AI routines. Ace AI pilots aren't merely the pilots with five (or ten) or more kills. Ace AI pilots are the rare gifted ones that an individual player may only rarely or never run into. The ones who can get in, get kills, and get out almost at will. Correspondingly, Ace AI pilots should be every bit as difficult to fight against as Pugo describes.

A lot of the problem arises when players use old campaigns with the AI skill set according to how the AI behaved in older versions of the game, prior to the re-write. Now, with the new AI routines, it is perhaps necessary to reset AI skills to lower levels in the legacy campaigns and ensure they set accordingly in newer ones.

more control over the ai
 

In my humble opinion, the AI are good enough and most of the time offer a good level of challenge. One thing I do want is more control over ur squad when u r leading. It seens that regardless of what I do the ais will always break off from the formation and engage the enemy. Maybe, they could implement something that would prevent the ai from breaking formation unless being told to by the cover me command or when being shot at. This would give a much better control of the fight when u r leading. Another problem is the break and rejoin.... Maybe we could have a rejoin that would actually make the ai literally abandon whatever it is doing to get back to u and a break formation that would make it fend for himself. The unresponsive ai is the only thing that bothers me when playing offline ...

Regards
Riksen

Even though they automatically form up on you after taking off, simply order the AI to rejoin after you take off anyway, and re-issue the order every ten or fifteen minutes or so (the persistence of the player-issued command "times out" after a while). Also, particularly if you're flying bombers, issue the order again before crossing any waypoints approaching the target objective. They'll stay with you unless directly attacked or damaged, or ordered to do otherwise.

Very handy when flying bombing missions and you want your flight to stay in formation and drop their payload on command simultaneously.

My experience with head-on shots against Ace AI is that it's not that unrealistic in terms of gun accuracy, but the AI is too aggressive in refusing to avoid collisions, and it's downright "rookie-like" in failure to avoid fire and willingness to accept such shots in the first place.

If you take a straight-on head-on shot at an enemy ace within 300 meters/yards, expect crippling or lethal damage to your plane, especially if you're flying an inline engine plane and/or your foe is armed with cannons.

But, if you're a halfway decent shot and you're flying a well-armed plane yourself, you can also give as good as you get. Typically, that results in a lot of "double kill" results, both in player vs. AI and AI vs. AI duels.

Also, unless you are willing to break off the attack with at least 100 meters to spare, you're almost certainly going to collide because the AI never gives way. Again, player vs. AI and AI vs. AI results in a very high number of double kills due to collisions.

The last two factors are where I think that the "Ace" AI gets unrealistically stupid. If you're good enough and experienced enough to be an ace pilot, you won't willingly take a shot where you're likely to collide or otherwise suffer crippling or fatal damage.

Instead, you'll avoid that sort of shot and maneuver for a better position. At the very least, you've going to try to attack from above or below, or maneuver during your attack run to avoid making yourself an easy target. You'll also have an "exit strategy" planned so that you don't just collide with your opponent.

Ace AI also doesn't seem to take relative fragility and firepower of various aircraft into account. This means that fragile planes like the Ki-43, A6M2 or CW-21 will unhesitatingly accept head on duels against tough, well-armed planes like the P-47, F4U or IL2.

To my mind, that's another rookie mistake. An Ace pilot flying a fragile plane against a tough, heavily armed one would instantly realize that he's playing to his opponent's strengths and refuse to play along. It's even more glaring when a pure maneuver fighter like the A6M2 makes a shot from 12 o'clock level against a plane like the F2A-2 Buffalo, whose only ability to strike such planes is via head-on attacks.

As for game play, if you want to have any chance of surviving a head-on attack against a decent opponent, you have to be moving fast along all three axes relative to your foe. If you bore right in at 12 o'clock level expect to get shot up. If you can make a fast "slashing" diving and curving attack from 1 o'clock or 11 o'clock high, not only do you have a bigger target to shoot at, it's much harder for the enemy to bring his guns to bear, and you're in a better position to swing around onto your foe's tail if your initial attack doesn't take him out. It's a much tougher shot, but not beyond the skills of a reasonably competent shooter.

Not exactly. Arcade mode just shows you where the enemy's bullets are hitting, and approximately what angle they were fired from. It doesn't give you info about hit percentages. If there's a game feature which allows you to see what the enemy's hit percentages are after each shot, I'd love to see it!

AI - or at least certain types of AI - will also sometimes hesitate a moment before firing, which simulates "target acquisition" and aiming time.

One of the long-standing problems with AI in the game is that the capabilities of the various AI levels are never spelled out and many different elements of combat flying are combined into one generic rating. A new problem is that, as AI programming has been improved, older missions and campaigns have to be reworked.

Currently, Ace AI represents exactly what Icefire is talking about, a hypothetical pilot with top 1% eyesight, aggression, situational awareness, reaction times, object tracking, air combat maneuvering, gunnery, bombing, rocketry, navigation and G-tolerance. (Realistically, no WW2-era ace, even the top aces, possessed all those traits.)

Before the 4.12 patch, however, Ace AI represented "tough but beatable by a good player."

These days, lesser aces (i.e., 5-10 kills) are better represented by Veteran or even Average AI.

In some ways, Rookie AI now best represents "average" pilots of most air forces who lacked the aggressiveness and skills to even shoot down one enemy aircraft (approximately 90% of U.S. fighter pilots, even in combat zones. Probably similar for other air forces).

Certainly, Rookie AI is necessary for bomber intercept missions because gunners are still too good at ranging target distance and speed, too good at acquiring and tracking targets, and aren't hindered by plane vibration, turbulence or slipstream effects.

IL2 also doesn't model AI inferior to Rookie AI, at the "cannon fodder/ student/ unqualified" level, despite the fact that depending on the year and the air force, novice combat pilots might have had as little as 40 hours of total flight instruction, VFR only instrument rating, no gunnery practice, no meteorology or ground school training, limited target recognition skills and no flight time at all "in type".

Ok I checked, it's not enabled in the release version of 4.12. It was on in the 4.12 alpha and beta. It's not a percentage but rather it shows the sight line in a graphical display and shows the angle that they are estimating for the deflection shooting - basically the AI are now facing the same constraints a human pilot would. Maybe more can be showing in Arcade for 4.13.

I'd appreciate it if a lot of test features remained enabled in 4.13, since it would allow users to better troubleshoot bugs.

Since AI now has to estimate deflection (and presumably speed and range), that gives me confidence that DT will be able to easily fix the remaining issues with AI gunnery.

Currently, even Ace AI planes aren't very good at correcting their aiming point, or holding their fire if they can't correct their aiming point to hit. For example, if you're being shot at while both you and your pursuer are in a tight turn, your opponent should realize that he's missing if he doesn't see hits on your plane after a couple of seconds and should try to pull more lead. But, if he can't pull more lead, then he should stop firing to conserve ammo.

For flexible gunnery, Ace AI should know to hold their fire until bogies get within 300-500 yards/meters. At any level of AI gunners should also have much more trouble with range and speed estimation, particularly when using hand-turned guns and/or iron sights.

Concerning my own hit percentage statistics, I'd love to see the QMB feature extended to FMB missions too, perhaps in the form of an (optional) AAR report. QMB and FMB missions are basically the same, so technically it shouldn't be a major problem.

Rookie AI is below that level in many aspects - their aiming and shooting is beyond useless. And maneuvering is at best okay. What I think could and should be corrcted is their awareness, its quite a rare ocassion shooting down one of them pursuing a friendly - they seem to know or guess where you are pretty good - an ability even a regular and if in a bigger furball even a veteran should not have. Over the years I have become a better pilot - but I still lack the SA to track more than a few planes - and as a rookie I could track one plane barely - which more often than not got me shot down.

I agree with and appreciate the various inputs and opinions re my inquiry, and want to state again, I think it is absolutely great that the AI are as deadly as they are in ACE mode. I would also re-emphasize that they do veer away if you stay steady and have them on dead center gun sight - I have fired a very brief burst on several occasions to deter them from continuing, a sort of warning shot if you will, and they most times veer away, again, a notable and welcome improvement from 4.10 and earlier. Of course, sometimes they take me out or we collide, no complaints here, my bad all the way!

The part I wrote about my plane veering down or away and the subsequent "magic bullets" is the aspect I mostly question. If you try this a few times in Invulnerable mode, and watch the tracers from the AI, you'll notice a pattern somewhat as if you spread your fingers of your hand as wide as possible, then altered the angle of various fingers upward and downward. Either those armament guys have performed some feat of field shop engineering, or that pilot has somehow acquired 'Jackie Chan' levels of mastery in dancing those tracers from each individual gun to cover an amazing spread up, down and sideways in a few seconds! It appears to me that the tracers are angled downward towards me while the AI aircraft is flying over me :confused:

Test this yourself and see if you find the same result; again, shells coming downward while the AI plane is in process of overflying me directly front above, and look for the 'W' spread of tracers, which of course should be parallel.

Not to worry, just thought to bring it to TD's attention, but I can live with it (adapt) either way.

p3

Would it be possible to see some shots of the Tobruk map that is coming? I'd really appreciate it!

Tobruk map just a rename of the Lybia map (with small modifications) made by JV69_Bada, which kindly gave his permission to include his map in 4.13.... so I guess anyone using mods already had a glance at it.

cheers

Would this be explained by the AI shooting at a distance way beyond convergence(say 600-800m)? So their bullets would drop quite a bit below their planes direction of travel, and thus come downwards to you -while AI passes overhead - and when fired from wing guns, bullet paths would cross in front of you and then angle outwards while passing you?

In general avoid head on attacks - with two exceptions:
-Bombers - you can hit the vulnerables (engines,crew) while spending very little time in the zone where defensive fire can easily hurt you. Against the better armed bombers this may be the easiest way to get good results, and one of the safest if you don't get target fixated and miss the pull out.
-Faster plane, not maneuverable, not good in the climb - against AI you may be out of other options, e.g. Bf110 vs AI Hurricane - and while it is still a bit of a crapshot game, you can get quite good at it - and its only a game so you can afford to get hit once in a while.

Realistic Rearming and Refueling
 

Peter Townsend (RAF squadron leader and ace in the Battle of Britain) writes in "Duel of Eagles" that it was possible for experienced aircraft fitters to completely refuel and rearm his Hurricane in about 5 minutes. Additionally, in this time, they could check the oil, replace the oxygen tanks and clean the windshield!

With that in mind, it doesn't seem unreasonable for IL2 to allow rearming and refueling, limited to just replenishing fuel and ammunition, only for single-engined aircraft, only in specially designated areas of certain airfields, only after at least 5 minutes of waiting with the engine off, and only if the airfield isn't damaged or under attack.

Repair, beyond doing things like fixing jammed guns, should still be impossible. Likewise, it shouldn't be possible to replenish external stores in such a brief period of time.

As for rates of replenishment, I'd conservatively suggest that fuel can be replaced at a rate of approximately 10 gallons per minute, and ammunition can be replenished at a rate of approximately 500 rounds per minute.

This is based 5 minutes "turnaround time" for rearming and refueling, 97 gallons of fuel and 2,640 bullets in a Hurricane Mk I, and the assumption that planes landed with approximately half-full fuel tanks but completely empty guns.

Unrealistically fast rearming, refueling and repair (RRR) could be added as a option for dogfight maps, using realistic RRR as a departure point.

"IL2 also doesn't model AI inferior to Rookie AI, at the "cannon fodder/ student/ unqualified" level, despite the fact that depending on the year and the air force, novice combat pilots might have had as little as 40 hours of total flight instruction, VFR only instrument rating, no gunnery practice, no meteorology or ground school training, limited target recognition skills and no flight time at all "in type". "

No need for TD to model that pilot, that's me.

While we might be arguing about different aspects of the game and different interpretations of what counts as "rookie" AI, I think that you're incorrect about shooting accuracy.

If you doubt me, queue up a 4 v. 4 QMB mission between any type of fighter and with rookie AI on both sides. Put your plane on "autopilot" and watch the action.

You will notice that "rookie" pilots consistently close with their targets, try to maneuver onto their opponent's tail, hold fire until proper firing ranges, correctly compute simple deflection shots, and fire in 2-3 second bursts. All those traits are consistent with a very well-trained, highly aggressive pilot.

This means that a 4 vs. 4 rookie encounter usually results in complete destruction of one side, with at least one "rookie" pilot achieving multiple kills.

While that makes for a satisfying game experience, realistically that level of aggression and shooting skill is VERY rare, and is consistent with what one would expect from an Ace (or future ace) pilot. Historically, most pilots (i.e., anyone other than Veteran or Ace pilots) were absolutely terrible at ranging and deflection shooting, especially when shooting at distant targets or at high deflection angles.

Here I agree. The current AI is pretty good about making rookie AI maneuvering a bit clumsy, prone to losing energy, and a bit vulnerable to stalls and spins. I think it's about right for a well-trained "rookie" pilot, but perhaps too generous for a "cannon fodder" pilot.


I also agree here. "Situational Awareness" is the hardest factor to master, and has been proposed as the "Ace Factor" which separates ace pilots from the others. AI in IL2 is still far too good in allowing pilots to track and respond to multiple threats, especially for aircraft they can't see.

One of the common things that combat pilots recall about their first mission is their almost total lack of SA. They are entirely focused on following their leader or staying in formation, and fail to see other aircraft, even at close range. In combat, they also describe aircraft as popping up and vanishing from sight, which implies total lack of tracking ability.

The stress of combat also commonly causes tunnel vision. For this reason, many rookie pilots fail to realize that they're under attack until their plane is hit.

Finally, rookies, especially "cannon fodder" pilots below the level that rookie currently models should panic under stress. For example, when suddenly attacked, they might break so hard that they send their plane into a stall. Or, if their plane is damaged, they might bail out rather than trying to nurse the plane home.

For those reasons, I think that rookies, even well-trained rookies, should have the following traits:

1) No spotting ability beyond what they can see through their windscreen at 500 meters or less.

2) Limited peripheral vision. It should take them a few seconds to notice even close targets outside the 10 o'clock to 2 o'clock level area. It should also take them a few seconds to realize that they're being shot at.

3) Very limited spotting ability for targets beyond 500 meters.

4) Very poor aircraft recognition in combat. Unless they can clearly see national markings (i.e., from the side, above or below at about 100 meters or less) rookies should regularly mistake friend for foe and vice-versa.

5) No Situational Awareness - if a rookie pilot can't see it, they can't respond to it. While they can still maneuver to try to keep a target in their sight, they automatically lose track of any target they can't see.

6) Chance of panicking when damaged or under close attack. Panicking while damaged typically means bailing out. Panicking while under attack might mean a hard turn that results in a stall or excessive energy loss, or a straight-line dive that sets the rookie up for an easy shot and makes them lose position. For badly disadvantaged rookies over friendly territory, they might just bail out! (This was a not uncommon tactic for German pilots during 44-45)

7) Even worse gunnery skills. A high chance of opening fire at extreme ranges. Very poor deflection shooting, even for relatively low deflection shots. Tendency to fire long bursts that waste ammo.

Average or Veteran pilots should have better ability to spot and identify incoming threats, very good ability to identify friendly or enemy aircraft, and far less tendency to panic, but very limited SA. That is, they should have very little ability to guess where even a single hidden but previously "acquired" enemy is relative to their own plane as it maneuvers, and very limited ability to guess at a maneuvering plane's energy state or likely next move. Average pilots should be able to follow one hidden target, veterans 2-3. Aces should have the ability to track 4 or more different targets.

I think that what you're seeing here is bullet dispersal. That's normal and it's a welcome bit of realism.

All weapons have an "inherent accuracy" which represents their ability to consistently put shots into the same location. Less than perfect accuracy means that bullets get randomly scattered around the aiming point. The smaller the amount of scatter, the better the weapon's inherent accuracy.

Realistically, due to imperfections in the gun barrel, recoil, differences between individual cartridges, wind, and other factors, even a perfectly "zeroed" gun in a bench rest is going to have less than perfect inherent accuracy. Weapons fired from a vibrating, bouncing vehicle traveling at high speed are going to have much lower inherent accuracy, so a larger scattering pattern.

Effects of errors in inherent accuracy become more obvious at increasing ranges, giving that scattering effect you're seeing. As an example, fly a QMB mission against an Ace Wellington III and try attacking it from the rear. It will start shooting at about 500-600 meters, but rather than seeing a perfect rectangle pattern of tracers from the tail turret guns, you'll see an irregular pattern.

Additionally, in a dogfight, an enemy attacking while simultaneously moving in all three axes (i.e., shooting while making a diving, banking turn) will also be scattering tracers across the sky, since each individual bullet is actually going to be aimed in a different direction. That will also give the scattering effect you're seeing.

Usually that is not what I see, the agressiveness and the will to get into any fight is there (and maybe too much so), but the accuracy is often not. At least when firing at nearly static targets, e. g. bombers and or ground targets. I've seen it quite often that rookies approach bombers from dead six (okay as rookie doesn't/shouldn't know this is bad), and start firing at 800m out (maybe okay -rookies tend to underestimate distance to big targets), and usually shoot below, but instead of readjusting their aim they fire away till around 300m distance , and most of the times do not hit at all(not okay - at least not for most rokies IMHO). And non moving ground targets with guns - usually not doable for rookie - and lets not get started about rockets and bombs - but give them torpedoes and the enemy can expect to lose a ship.

Could be that you two (majorfailure and Pursuivant) have experiences with different AI planes. I found that Ace AI pilots in mid-war 109s seem to be a lot smarter and use their planes' strengths much better than mid-war Spit AI Aces, for example.

any info on the updated Russian bombs/loadouts?
 

Keenly interested in New bombs rockets and flares. Flare usage in fmb can be quite tricky, current swordfish does bizarre acrobatics and won't drop flares over ships without trying to attack by itself. Any info out there on the ordnance cam?

Any upgrades to the hurricane field mod,rockets both wing and rear firing for pe 2/3?

That's possible. I'd bet that even an AI that can't hit the broadside of a barn will destroy a few bombers with a Fw190 or Bf110 given they are not shot down -with that armament and ammo supply. But I've often seen flights of I-153M/I-16early/I15 etc that could not shoot down more than one German bomber with all their combined efforts - and sometimes even not one. Worst I've seen is 4 I-15 vs. 1 Fw189, net result 2 dead I-15 -and seemingly all ammo gone.

I think you're right. I was only speaking about Rookie gunnery in fighter vs. fighter engagements.

But, AI sucks at all levels against bombers. Even Ace AI attacking from the front will pass up easy head on attacks. Then, they pull up, take their sweet time turning around, and rather than gaining speed and position to make an overhead beam attack or have another try at a head on attack, they go straight for the 6 o'clock level attack that gets them shot to pieces.

I think that bombing and rocket accuracy (or lack thereof) is about right for rookies. Certainly, they should be pathetic at high altitude level bombing.

Torpedo accuracy is a problem, though - rookies are still too good at it. :)

Right now, I'm seeing "Ace" level tactics and gunnery skills for Rookies in fighter vs. fighter engagements, "Rookie" level tactics and gunnery skills for all levels of AI in fighter vs. bomber engagements, Ace level torpedo bombing skills for Rookies, and appropriately lousy skills for bombing, rocket and ground attacks.

Maybe I'm being a bit too hard on Rookie AI here, but historically combat pilots were pretty useless for their first few missions, even if they had pretty good training and prior peacetime flying experience. And, poorly trained "cannon fodder" pilots, like those fielded by the RAF in Autumn of 1940, the VVS from 1941-42, Germany in 1944 or Japan in 1944-45, should be even worse.

For what it's worth, one analysis of pilot performance (for fairly well-trained pilots - JG26 in WW2, Lafayette Escadrille and Jasta 1 in WW1) - showed that a novice pilot had a 50% chance of getting shot down in his first decisive combat engagement, with his chances of getting shot down decreasing 20-fold (about 5%) after his 5th combat mission, and dropping about 50-fold (about a 2% chance) per mission after 10 missions. Stats for gunnery accuracy assumed about 2% hits in training for novices, 3% for successful gunnery school graduates, and 5% for experienced aircrew.

Rookie high level bomber crews could expect to get about 5% of their bombs within 1,000 feet of the target, up to about 50% for very experienced crews (which is why the "lead bomber" and "pathfinder" concepts were introduced.)

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find data for what level of performance was expected from rookies (i.e., training school graduates) for ground attack with rockets or bombs, or attacks against ships with torpedoes. I doubt that even the best trained rookies had much practice, though.

DT already stated previously that even within each of the separate AI skill ratings (Novice, Rookie, etc.) there are randomly selected AI sub-routines. One Veteran AI pilot might have different behavioral characteristics to another Veteran AI pilot flying the same aircraft type, though they both have the same general skill level.

You could simply be noticing the result of this, coupled to better performance usually associated with late-war machinery, though it is possible that the AI is written to be "smarter" as the war progresses. Don't know if the latter is in fact the case, however.

Again, I think, we have to seperate between historically correct and reasonable for a gameplay. Current fighter AI (below ace level) is much to agressive. Lots of real pilots will have prayed for a mission were they dit not have an engagement with enemy fighters. Also, from what I read, it was extremely rare for a (German) fighter pilot to try more than one attack run on bombers. The stress to face all these dozens of machine guns was just not managable, only a few aces were ablöe to do that. The typical thing was: trying to get on higher altitude (if there is enough time), rushing down on the bombers (if you find them), while hoping that the covering fighters look elsewhere, pouring all ammo onto one target (if it was possible to get close to one) and then dive to get the hell out of there. AI in contrast attacks again and again until each one of them is killed. A behaviour that fat Göring would have loved, but did not happen usually. I remember from an interview with Günter Rall that from 44 on only every fifth rookie survived his tenth mission. The most frequent cause of death was not being shot down, but accidents during landing and take off ...

This article, written by a noted wargame designer and air war historian gives some data on hit percentages for torpedoes and dive bombing against ships.

DT might find it helpful in establishing baselines for dive bombing and torpedo bombing accuracy, since it involves pilots of known skill aiming against targets of a known size from known altitudes.

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/arti...en_it_counted/

Takeaway

Japanese at Pearl Harbor (i.e., excellent torpedoes, Veteran or better crew who had trained extensively for the mission, and who were attacking static, battleship-sized targets) achieved 37% overall accuracy - which was exceptional.

Level bomber accuracy for all other skills and nationalities was 1-3% in 1941, but Japanese pilots preparing for Pearl Harbor were getting hits 14% of the time, from 8,500 feet. At Pearl Harbor, they hit 43% of the time with level bombing attacks.

Up until 1941, German Stukas (all skill levels) achieved 25% accuracy in dive bombing attacks. Japanese dive bombers were hitting practice targets 30% to 34% of the time; at Pearl Harbor, under fire, their accuracy rate was at least 26%. So, 25% dive bombing accuracy while under fire is probably appropriate for Veteran pilots.

By late 1944 the US Navy was pleased to achieve a 40% accuracy rate for practice torpedo bombing (i.e., presumably Rookie level pilots). In training the Japanese torpedoes were hitting 70% to 80% of daylight targets and 50% to 75% at night; at Pearl Harbor their accuracy rate was 51%.

According to the US Navy 20 torpedoes hit American ships. Only the 40 Mitsubishi 'Kate' torpedo bombers of the first wave carried torpedoes. The USS Nevada shot down one 'Kate' before it could release its load, so only thirty-nine torpedoes were dropped. Twenty found their mark = 51% hits.

So, 50% or so can be taken as the maximum accuracy level for a Veteran or Ace torpedo bomber aiming against a static battleship while under light and inaccurate AA fire. Assuming that combat effectiveness of torpedo attacks is reduced by 30% compared to training runs, perhaps 10% hits for Rookies making daylight attacks, and 1-3% for night attacks would be realistic

In the first wave 21 of the 49 800kg high altitude bombs scored direct hits on the battleships USS Arizona, California, Maryland, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and West Virginia; three more damaged the USS Oklahoma with near misses. The Japanese pilots targeting battleships had a 43% accuracy rate, 49% including near misses. In either case, the Nakjima B5N 'Kate's' level bombing was far better than predicted and much better than the 13%-14% achieved before intensive training.

In the second wave, of 80 bombs, 21 were effective, a 26-27% accuracy rate which is still less than the 30%-34% scored in practice. The difference is accounted for by the fact that the pilots were diving into smoke and evading flak.

So, medium-altitude level bombing by light bombers piloted by Veteran aircrew should have about 43-49% accuracy in combat, reduced to 26-27% if the target is obscured by smoke and/or planes have to deal with flak. Average to Rookie level level bombing in 1939-41 should have dismal results with just 1-3% accuracy, especially if dropping bombs from higher levels or in combat conditions.

Confirmed. I noticed several times that Ace AI builds up an altitude advantage over enemy bomber formations just to gain speed for a level attack from 6. Once above (or nearly above) the bomber, Ace AI doesn't directly dive on the bomber to aim for a deflection shot, but dives behind the bomber for a fast level attack. Possibly the built up altitude/energy advantage (generally 5-600 m) is not sufficient for a proper dive attack. Or the AI is coded in a way that it cannot tolerate for long the loss of visual contact to the target.
The situation is somewhat similar when the AI decides not to level out at the altitude of the bombers, but to dive below it. Instead of closing up to the bomber at that lower altitude and attacking it from a steep climb, the AI soon begins a shallow climb and makes a level attack after all.

Yes. There is a point where "realistic" isn't "fun" and IL2 is a game as much as a simulation.

Right now, I think that DT has gotten the "fun" aspect of rookie fighter vs. fighter AI right. They're clumsy but aggressive, making it easy for an experienced human player to shoot down a lot of them. Other aspects of Rookie AI are very frustrating, however, and should be fixed. Note that "fixing" could be as simple as telling players, "Yes, they really were this bad."

I've always maintained that the solution to different interpretations of "rookie" is to have a level of AI below rookie, called "cannon fodder." They would behave like old, pre-DT rookies in combat, but with no SA or deflection shooting skills at all, and very limited sighting skills.

That way, Rookie AI is reserved for your average "nugget" straight from a well-run training school. Clueless, and needing lots of polishing to turn him into a decent air warrior, but with the basic skills he needs to succeed.

If possible, it would also be nice to be able to set pilot aggression levels in the FMB or campaign setting, from "reckless > aggressive > cautious > cowardly".

Most pilots would fall into the "cautious" range, attacking only when they have several clear advantages like height and position, and they clearly outclass their foes. Ace AI plus "cautious" gives your classic high-scoring "sniper" ace like Manfred Von Richthofen, Eric Hartmann or George Beurling.

Cowardly pilots will avoid contact, will fail to carry through attacks and might well panic when fired on. Combine that with Rookie AI and you get your classic "turkey" pilot. Combine it with Ace AI and you get a "burnout" who's on the ragged edge of Combat Fatigue/PTSD, or who believes that the war is lost and his main job is to keep himself alive (typical of many French pilots in 1940 after the Blitzkreig really started to bite).

Reckless pilots will charge right in regardless of the odds and are otherwise utterly fearless - basically dead heroes waiting to happen. With Ace AI that gives you classic posthumous medal winners like Frank Luke or Werner Voss in WW1 or Greg Boyington in WW2 (I know - not posthumous Medal of Honor, but the Marines thought he was dead when they gave it to him). With Rookie AI, you get kamikazes.

This is the effect of morale, which isn't well modeled in IL2. Had the Germans known just how inaccurate all those guns were, they would have charged right in. But, seeing all those tracers, all "aimed at you" freaked out all but the bravest. For this reason, German bomber gun loadout included some practice explosive rounds specifically to make attackers think that they were under a greater intensity of fire than they actually were.

Of course, having Rookie AI refuse to engage bombers would be "not fun." That's where "bravery levels" can be used to balance between realism and fun. Rookie but Reckless = current Rookie vs. Bomber AI, Rookie but Cautious/Cowardly = realistic German rookie bomber intercept behavior.

Rall's interview squares with the data I've posted previously (taken from Spick's "The Ace Factor," but repeated in Bungay's book on the BoB).

The high number of accidents on landing and takeoff might be due to evil habits of the late model Bf-109 - lots of engine torque and a narrow landing gear - plus landing on improvised or bomb damaged fields. But, again, losing 10-20% of your pilots due to landing and takeoff accidents on every mission is "not fun."

X-4, Fritz, Mistel...etc control
 

May have mentioned this before, for 4.13 or 4.14
be nice to have analog controls for the X-4, Fritz, and for the Mistel bomber (along with any other guided munitions).
As is, the X-4 and Fritz are a digital control, and the Mistel has none.

And speaking of the Mistel, it would be cool to have an Mistel FW-190/Ju-88 combo static object, and the ability to use this weapons system in Dogfight mode.

Just one of a million request.. :rolleyes:
Thanks Daidalos Team!!

Best way to deal with tough manouvering AIs is to understand the following tips from real American F-16 pilot Pete Bonanni.

-BFM manouver is always flown "in the future" as it were. In order for a high yoyo to become effective, the bandit must fly according to your prediction of future.

Time happens on a different basis compared to BFM drawing on a piece of paper. Time happens in definite way, the present moment becomes the past, and this continues on and on. The definite version of future is always some kind of abstract assumption of future events. Future in the abstract becomes the present, and present becomes the past. etc...:mrgreen:

When you deal with simple and short-term assumption of future event, this is always easier to define compared to long-term future event. When you look at a fast flying bandit, it follows that the bandit's turn circle is larger, therefore, the bandit will not be able to turn so easily... Fast flying bandit = more difficult for bandit to turn aircraft... G force limit of bandit pilot and bandit aircraft form a limitation to turning circles... This assumption derives itself from physics of inertia. But you still cannot exactly predict bandit's future course, you can only assume within certain parameters.

The F-16 modern gunsight operates on this similar kind of principles. EEGS Gunsight. Radar-gunsights should be theoretically better, because radar beams are light-speed, so it doesn't take very long time to find the target in the sky with the radar. But computer still must calculate the lead for the gunshot, at the end of the day, I think...

With WW2 gunsights it's the pilot himself who calculates the lead.

The only consistently possible way to dogfight, is to employ following measures.

1. observe bandit

2. predict bandit's future position

3. fly your aicraft based on this prediction of future.

4. if something changes, react to changes.

Those four lines form the so-called OODA loop by the way.

I do agree that Rookie AI is too competent. For instance, there is virtually no chance ever of downing Rookie AI fighters from behind without them suddenly becoming "aware" of you before you open fire, even if you initially got the jump on them without them spotting you. Also, Rookie AI are a bit too good keeping up with and downing Veteran and Ace AI, while Veteran and Ace fighter pilots are often too aggressive in turn-fights in aircraft that are definitely not suited to the job, getting themselves shot down in the process. If there is one thing that the old AI got right, it's that AI in BnZ machines stuck to BnZ, and AI in TnB machines stuck to TnB. Yet another issue is, as you stated, a formation will continue a fight against long odds (well-defended bomber formations, attacking well-defended airfields, etc.) until every aircraft in that formation is destroyed.

Another thing that has actually become quite an annoyance is how often the no.4 in the flight goes inverted and performs other gyrations checking his six and what's underneath him, even when the flight is almost at treetop level. It's just too much, and occurs way too damned bloody often. Never cared for it. That needs to be either significantly toned down or, better yet, turned off altogether. Even entire bomber formations was doing this in a previous update of the game when the community made enough noise and said it was ridiculous, before that got removed.

On the whole the new AI is an improvement, but there are some areas that really need addressing.

The late 109´s certainly were rookie killers. But it happened to FW 190 pilots as well. In ´44 many rookies were trained on old, obsolete Italian fighters. In these machines you lowered throttle by pushing the lever in. As soon as they sat in much more powerful "modern" combat planes, it was just the other way round. Not much imagination needed about the effects ...
In his novel "Der verratene Himmel" (Skies Betrayed) Rudolf Braunburg gave some vivid accounts of this, based on his own experience as a rookie 190 pilot in ´45.

(By the way: he dedicated this book to all fighter pilots who never scored a kill, but just were shot down ... like himself)

This is very good advice in any dogfight, and clarifies comments by WW1 and WW2 aces about the necessity of instantly anticipating your opponent's intentions, position and energy state.

As G-forces go up and airspeed and altitude goes down, the number of maneuver options your opponent has goes down as well. That allows you to predict what they're going to do within certain parameters.

AI is often quite predictable in this regard, doing things like disengaging out to 2 Km and gaining 500 meters of altitude prior to coming in for another BnZ attack, or pulling up sharply when pursued, bleeding off energy and giving you a lovely close range, low deflection shot.

The French planes were also built this way - push the throttle to slow, pull it towards you to accelerate. Since the Luftwaffe also used a number of Dewoitine D.250 as fighter trainers, I could see those planes causing problems as well.

It's surprising that the Luftwaffe didn't think to fix this problem. I also have to wonder how many Free French or Italian Allied pilots flying British, Soviet or American types died because in a moment of panic they pushed the throttle the wrong way.

This is part of the morale issue that IL2 AI either neglects or can't model. Historically, the sight of all sorts of tracers and/or flak shooting past the formation would have had a demoralizing effect, making all but the most determined attackers break off the attack prematurely, or make one fast attack on the target before bugging out.

There are historical examples of planes bravely slogging through fighters and flak to certain doom (e.g., Fairey Battles at the Albert Canal or the Sedan Bridge, the kamikazes), but I think they're notably rare.

Suicidal morale aside, it's also worth pointing out that all levels AI is still stupid about not using "nap of the earth" flying and other tricks to minimize flak effectiveness.

AI should also selectively take out the first vehicle in a convoy, or the locomotive, when making ground attacks against vehicles or trains. If possible, Veteran or Ace AI should also try to line up strafing attacks so that they can shoot down the length of a train or convoy, or across a line of parked aircraft.

I think that this problem has mostly been fixed. But, the rolling behavior seems a bit odd; it's my impression that the "Tail End Charlie" mostly checked his 6 by making rudder turns and banks.

Finger four formations would often have planes in each section weave across each other's paths to check mutual blind spots.

Fighters in close escort with bombers didn't need to "check 6" since they could rely on all the eyes in the bomber formation to keep a look out for them.

In any case, "check 6" behavior should happen a lot less frequently. Some doctrine said to not fly more than 10 seconds in a straight line in the combat zone, other doctrine suggested no more than 30 seconds. I'd split the difference - Ace maneuvers or otherwise checks 6 about every 10 seconds, Veteran about every 30 seconds, Average about every 30 seconds, but often forgets, and Rookie either doesn't check or doesn't check much beyond every 1 minute.

Agreed. AI programming is an art, and DT has mostly got it right. Certainly, it's a joy to fly offline dogfights now. Ace or Veteran AI is quite challenging, and if you can win in a 1:2 or 1:4 fight against an equally matched Ace or Veteran plane, it's a real achievement.

I'd like to see better AI-ground attack capability for sure. It's annoying when they can barely hit targets on the ground with bombs rockets or cannon. Yet they have the mechanical precision deflection shooting sometimes LOL. 'This is annyoing when you play ground attack campaign with fighter-bomber, and your teammates suck. Well, more glory towards me I suppose.

About being outnumbered in dogfight... Some pilots became aces by exactly speaking avoiding bad situations... avoiding such disadvantages, and gaining advantages.

Erich Hartman said that it's ok to bag one or two kills per day, but survive back to home base. War continues in the next day.

Better to become ace by stacking all the advantages in your own favour, especially when in war deployment.:twisted:

That being said, there exists offensive flying, and defensive flying. Defensive flying is important for surviving, but... being defensive is not usually good, but certainly it's better to be defensive than DEAD. But even so, defensive fighting is to be avoided, it's an indicator of bad things to come.

Pete Bonanni said this in "Art of the Kill" video. Pete who was an F-16 pilot, said that he wished there was some magical manouver which would tip the scales against bandit, like in the movie top gun "slamming the breaks". He said that sadly no such manouver exists which is guaranteed success in defensive flying.

Think about the so-called UFC fighting/mixed martial arts. It's always better to be the one who is giving strikes and submissions against the opponent, rather than receiving and suffering and defending. :P


There is also so-called neutral situation dogfight, where neither side is especially advantageous over the other.

traditionally these are some advantages that can exist in dogfight.

-detection advantage, allows you to manouver for time period against immobile bandit (he's immobile or sluggish relative to your own movements)

-positional advantage, you start behind bandit's tail (behind 3-9 line, measured from bandit's clock positions)

-energy advantage, you start with more energy than bandit

-numbers advantage, over bandits

-sun behind your own back, and the bandit in front of you. This simply causes shadow formed from your aircraft and makes it difficult for bandit to locate you against backdrop of the burning bright sun!

Posted at 242 Squadron by "Tanker"

When going out at 4:13 version? said they will come out two weeks ago ..

Sadly, that sort of ace makes for a boring game.

I don't know how exactly TD has programmed the AI, and if they will choose to make any further changes to it, but I still think that the best mix between realism and fun is to have different levels of aggression compared against different levels of various traits/skills such as gunnery, vision, situational awareness, G tolerance, etc.

Select for cautious aggression, superior distance vision, air tactics, situational awareness/tracking ability, and gunnery skills and you get your "realistic" ace. Select for reckless aggression, superior flying, situational awareness, and gunnery skills to get your "fangs out, hair on fire" dogfighter ace who goes out in a blaze of glory. QMB would automatically have the latter sort of Ace AI. FMB or campaigns could have the realistic type.

Maybe that comes a bit too close to "role-playing" for some folks, but if you're going to realistically model the human element, you have to start modeling human traits, including the basics of human mental and emotional traits.

I don't know if this necessarily is the case. Wouldn't that be similar to fighting a cautious but good human opponent? If not ALL ace AI would behave the same, a very challenging opponent for occasional duels. And maybe he would even be easier to escape from, as his cautiousness would forbid him from following you at all costs, he would rather keep his superior position. And some cautiousness wouldn't hurt the AI all across the board - and at least the better AI could once in a while try to avoid a fight at bad terms. Or to just get away when they see the fight is not going their way.

And another thing AI usually is bad - using a speed advantage. Planes like Bf109 in AI hands are not employed well against nimble but slow opponents - and I think at least regular to ace AI should know a little about what their plane is good at - veteran and ace to some degree what the enemy planes are bad at. They should of course not be omniscient. Maybe too complicated, but say an ace AI has virtually brought down 10 P-40 in his Bf109, then he should at least know he can outclimb them, and maybe know he is usually faster - and has a little disadvantage turning and rolling.

This where for me icons and sometimes (depending on the time of day.. my morning eyes are terrible..) external.padlock helps because sometimes I just cannot see a thing. The padlock I can turn off .. but I need the icons.. I just make them tight. I don't see anything beyond 1.0 for friendlies and .9 for enemies .. bu that little bit helps.

Isn't that a matter of convergence though..?

What I would like to see them do with the AI is make it possible to assign a specific pilot level to each individual AI... in the QMB as well .. Right now you can only do it in the FMB.. Even if they found a way to make QMs editable in the FMB .. but as it is now when you assign a skill level to a pilot it goes to the entire flight in the QMB... and truth be told.. there are a lot of folks who still just jump in the QMB.. or online more than anything else.. I never was one for campaigns...

I have found that when you mix up the AI on an individual basis you get a much more interesting fight on your hands..

Sometimes it seems to me that they knopw just all that!! But maybe that's because I am still so bad after all this time..LOL.

From what research I've done in the literature surrounding AI and AI programming, you're describing something that is still kind of a dream. We can program in specific behaviours and I'm sure an abstracted system might be developed to boil it down for the AI so they can make some artificially generated judgment calls - but to truly have the ability to size up their opponent and suss out a tactical plan based on that is still something only a human can do.

This is especially true if we try and factor in a fog of war scenario where you know your opponent's aircraft generally but maybe not all of his capabilities or weaknesses. Developing that knowledge organically is the stuff of neural network research and they have made great strides in that area but it's still just in its infancy I think.

A long time before we'll see a game AI with the abilities that we'd all like them to have. And by then... AI might be a little scary to behold. Just ask Elon Musk about what he thinks of that :)

Anyone who said "two weeks" is telling a very old community joke. It's going to take some time before it's out but it has a ton of great additions and it'll be worth it when it's done.

you do know its almost one year? right

One year since when?

TD doesn't give out release dates for a very good reason :)

The beta is looking good. Some good stuff made it into the latest and I'm pretty pleased. Still working furiously hard on getting QMB content together.

Different strokes for different folks. The sort of cautious ace who stalks his prey, disengages if all the odds aren't in his favor, bounces the enemy from above and behind and then runs away, is boring at best, frustrating at worst in a QMB setting. In a campaign, especially if that Ace is on your side, it's not boring.

Ideally, AI aggression should be player selectable as a QMB or FMB option, and it should be possible for FMB or campaign builders to specify different skill levels within the broader bands of Cannon Fodder to Ace AI.

Agreed. And, here I think that the AI fix might be simple, if DT hasn't already done this.

The AI should know the maximum speed, stall speed, best cornering speed, acceleration, climb and dive rates, and 360 degree roll and turn times for every plane in the game (if they don't already). They should also know their own energy, fuel and ammo state.

Aces = exact numbers for their own aircraft and enemy aircraft. Exact knowledge of energy, fuel and ammo state. -0 to 1% of maximum performance for plane handling.

Veteran = exact numbers for their own aircraft, +/-5% for enemy. Exact knowledge of energy, fuel and ammo state. -2 to 5% of maximum performance for plane handling.

Average = +/-2% for own aircraft, +/-15% for enemy. +/-10% knowledge for energy, fuel and ammo state. -6 to 10% of maximum performance for plane handling.

Rookie = +/-5% for own aircraft, +/-25% for enemy. +/-20% knowledge of energy, fuel and ammo state, -11 to 20% of maximum performance for plane handling.

Cannon Fodder = +/-20% for own aircraft, +/-50% for enemy. +/-20% knowledge of fuel state, +/-35% knowledge of energy and ammo state, -21 to 35% of maximum performance for plane handling.

+/- means that there is a chance of making mistakes in over or underestimating performance, which can lead to stall, overspeed, etc. when making combat maneuvers, and can result in incorrect tactics when engaging the enemy.

- means understating maximum efficiency.

As a very simple and partial decision tree:

IF Turning speed or Turn Time is less than believed enemy cornering speed or turn time AND Top Speed is less than believed enemy top speed = Maneuver Fight

If Turning speed or turn time is greater than believed enemy cornering speed or turn time AND top speed is greater than believed enemy top speed = Energy Fight.

If Turning speed or turn time is less than believed enemy cornering speed or turn time AND top speed is greater than believed enemy top speed = If friendly => enemy Maneuver Fight, ELSE Energy Fight. (Maneuver Fighting results in a quicker kill than BnZ because you can get closer and usually get better deflection angles.)

If Turning speed or turn time greater than believed enemy cornering speed or turn time AND top speed is less than believed enemy top speed = Disengage or Pure Defense.

Disengage = Avoid/Break Contact > Duck into clouds > Increase separation, by diving if possible and necessary.

Pure Defensive = Get airspeed up > Defensive rolls, skids and jinks, diving turns if possible when under attack.

AI also needs to be programmed with an OODA Loop if it isn't already:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop


Again, no offense intended to the DT guys if they've already based AI on these lines.

I sometimes rely on these features as well, although the way that ground padlock works scares the hell out of me, since you continue to track the target after you've passed it, when your eyes really need to be forward and your horizon, bank and airspeed indicators.

I also wish that the "enemy pointer" icons were available in cockpit view, for the same reason.

Purists might bitch, but I think that icons, padlock, etc. are valid aids in a "full real" combat sim.

First, your "window" on the game world is limited to a 45-60 degree cone, when a real person's eyesight is more like a 120-140 degree cone. Basically, you're driving a plane through a "window" that's more like the driver's hatch or periscope on a tank!

Second, your window on the game world is a "Virtual Mark I Eyeball" - rather than being able to resolve the game world as a real person could, you're limited by pixels and graphics rendering.

Third, arguably combat flight simulation is a form of roleplaying game in that you are pretending to be a (typically) 18-25 year old man, selected for his intelligence, athleticism, reflexes, distance vision, tracking ability, coolness under stress and physical fitness. Most flight simmers definitely lack some or all of these traits!

Currently "Artificial Intelligence" is still an oxymoron.

The good news is that air combat is a very limited sphere of activity, closely bound to the laws of physics, and further bound by historical doctrines and the limits of human physiology. With those limits in mind, AI can often be abstracted into decision trees and flow charts.

For example, currently damaged enemy bombers often behave "stupidly" when choosing whether the crew bails out or crash lands/ditches. A simple decision tree or flow chart could be used to make them behave in a much more realistic fashion. For example:

Can I hold altitude? N/Y > Am I over friendly territory? Y/N > Can I get to an airfield long enough to land the plane? Y/N > Is there open ground where I can crash land? Y/N > Can I reach any water within 300 m of land? Y/N? > Fly towards land > When within 300 m of land, turn parallel to the wind and ditch.

Don´t forget to mention that we are amazingly good looking as well!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but AI does not have to learn, it does just have to simulate learning. Ever played an RPG(pen 'n paper)? Then -did your virtual character ever learn anything? No, you just simulated that.

Now do the same for AI - and even a basic system would work IMHO. But that may be too complicated - I do not know if it is possible to program an AI with traits without having to write a new code for every small change in AI. Only then independent skill sets were possible.
As for the other thing, AI not beeing able to use speed advantage - either classify the planes as fast/slow - then a Bf109 will try to run from P-51 - which is okay for rookie/regular. Or give them a faster/equal/slower table, and let only ace know all, veteran and lower will get a table with more and randomly selected wrong entries. Make that table for turn and roll and climb too - and use the result to give the AI rules to follow.

BTW, does anyone know how radio communication is simulated in case of AI flights? I mean, do they inform and warn each other (>added up situational awarenes), and do they issue and obey orders (>combat cooperation)? Do they effectively use the same range of radio orders as we do?

I don't think that radio communication is modeled at all. In any case, it wouldn't make much difference, since AI doesn't seem to cooperate beyond the leader/wingman.

If the AI is fighting his war alone, then the AI is very much handicapped... ;)

Perhaps the easiest way to improve AI performance would be to teach them to communicate.

Historically, radio made a huge a difference in RL. It would be great to have this difference in game.

Yep.

To be fair to IL2 and DT, I don't think that there's a combat flight sim out there where AI uses intelligent section, flight or squadron tactics.

There's absolutely nothing like one flight going high to cover another flight going low to attack a foe, or two sections in a flight splitting up to "box" a single opponent.


Easier said than done. Without radio, signals can only be transmitted if you can see and understand gestures. That might be 50 meters, and only if you're at 2-4 o'clock or 8-10 o'clock level with respect to the signaling plane, and only if you're in clear visibility and are both traveling basically straight and level.

AI programming is a black box for me, but I guess there are basic tactic roles assigned to individual planes: lone wolf (fighting alone for his life), wingman (copying the wing leader and making opportunity attacks), wing leader (copying the flight leader, but acting independently when attacked), flight leader (responsible for flight attack tactics). But no matter how many flights are there, all flight leaders are on the same tactics. In other words, there are no distinctive tactics for 2 flights together, or 3 flights together. Or at least it seems so.


Sure, and I have more questions than answers. :confused:

AI used to have mystic vision; now it cannot see through clouds and obstacles. It has been made more 'realistic'. Dunno whether this has been done to communication as well.
For AI does communicate. I hear him cry 'help me' and the like. I can mute him by unchecking the 'radio' checkbox in the FMB. Does it mute him only for me, or does it completely stop communication? If I switch off the radio for a whole squad, does it affect its combat performance? Or do they still rely on some mystic thought transmission?

Umm, guys, the AI are part of the game's operating system (game engine).

They are part of the code. You need to stop anthropomorphizing them.

When you fight AI, you are fighting the game engine itself. It' does not have to send out radio calls, it already has all the info about everything going on in the game. It "knows" the position of every object, it's speed, altitude, if it is in it's or your gun convergence range, and if you have it in your sight picture. Ever wondered why the AI begin to maneuver just when you are about to pull the trigger? Think about it.

They key is how much info the developers take away from the AI programing to make it more "human", and how much they can take away before the AI becomes impossibly easy to deal with.

This is also why the AI always can out climb and out run you. You are fighting a computer controlled, fly by wire, WW2 aircraft that is always operated at it's best performance level and can adjust it's performance inputs at the speed of, well, a computer.

Thanks, ELAurens, it was exactly the info what I needed. And although I was anthropomorphizing it, with 'mystic thought transmission' I meant exactly that the computer AI seems to 'know' what it shouldn't know realistically. (E.g. the AI's backward vision is hindered by the fuselage, still it breaks the moment before I pull the trigger while attacking from lower dead six.)
But back to my question: suppressing radio communication for the AI, does it affect squad's performance?

You were just answered, and responded to that answer. No, there is no radio, the computer tells the AI what is happening, because the AI is the computer. Does your left hand know what your right hand is doing? that's the AI/computer's view of the situation.

This is a very good point. But some tasks are easier to program than others. Calculating bombing, firing and navigation solutions is very easy. Programming lines of sight is fairly easy. Programming basic flight maneuvers is relatively easy. Getting even a single plane to behave "intelligently" when flying defensively or offensively is much trickier. Getting multiple planes to coordinate offensively or defensively is very tricky.

"Nerfing" optimum performance can also be tricky, since you basically have to "teach" the computer how to behave like a less than fully competent human if you want realism.

Mimicking human performance limits is also a bit tricky, except when you're dealing with physiological limits which can be quantified, like g forces or limits of vision.

But, the extent to which we anthropomorphize AI behavior is a measure of the AI programmer's success. If we can temporarily forget that we're playing against a machine, then for a moment that programming passes the Turing Test!

I expected simply 'yes' or 'no'. I suppose it's a 'no'. Thanks. English is not my mother tongue. Sorry.

Completely agree. AI is still kind of an oxymoron. It's more of a decision tree that it follows and it's really only as good as the assumptions that the programmer has made.

More assumptions can be programmed like what you have up there. That's fairly "easy" to check for I would imagine... although I'm not really sure if the AI would know if it's in friendly or enemy territory or if that kind of thing is passed to the AI at all. Would be interesting!

Sorry if I seemed harsh.

Programming is a difficult thing. What people don't seem to understand is that supposing that to do one thing is x amount of difficulty, then to do two is something like four (two squared) xs worth of difficulty, and to five is about 3,125 (five to the power five) xs worth of difficulty, and when someone says "just one more thing" when there are already a number being done, can be to push the difficulty from 3,125 xs worth of difficulty up to 46,656 (six to the power six) xs worth of difficulty.

No problem, mate. The funny thing is that I have some programming experience, and I frequently work together with programmers, so the difficulty algorithm you mentioned is well known to me. Unfortunately, when I use a software, I involuntarily try to guess 'what's behind the curtain' / 'what's in the black box', and my badly formulated questions can be easily misunderstood as overpretentiousness... :roll:

I don't know if front markers are passed to the AI. But, given as they're points marked on a map and the game engine already keeps track of aircraft position and vector, it doesn't seem like that big a problem to add them in.

For missions where no front lines are marked, just assume that all territory is friendly, or all territory that isn't within X meters of a hostile ground unit is friendly.

Even so, my original partial decision tree for bailout decisions shows the sort of work that is necessary to make aircraft behave in a "smart" fashion for just one small aspect of flight.

Humans have plenty of experience with "don't do this, it's probably dangerous," so we understand the ideas that friendly territory is better than enemy territory, landing is (usually) better than bailing, and it's (usually) better to crash land or bail out over land than water. We also have the ability to extrapolate from basic principles.

Computer AI is like programming a baby. The computer doesn't automatically "know" anything, and has to be "taught" that certain things or behaviors are bad. Even worse, it has no ability to extrapolate and it's typically really poor at certain types of visual pattern recognition that humans take for granted.

And then there are programming tasks that non-programmers think should be incredibly easy but which are actually incredibly hard:

http://xkcd.com/1425/

Stand corrected, thanks to all respondents.
 

Swept away again by high work load, but have noted the responses to my questions and agree. Upon further review, watching playbacks of test combats I record, the AI Ace is not performing miracle, magic bullet shots, but as several pointed out, convergence, spread, various factors effecting bullet trajectory, etc., and I have see the obvious factor I overlooked - these guys take the shot, they're dead serious skilled fliers, so the number of shells in the air is notably higher than the previous AI, which is as it should be. When flying in invulnerable mode, hits on ones' aircraft are accompanied by a high pitched sound indicating the hit. The number of hits is significantly less than shots fired, which is keeping with the difficulty of hitting a heavily maneuvering opponent with a relatively decent level of skill doing so [in this case, me] Apologies to TD, thanks to all who provided the correctives and explanations.

It is lost on most that absolutely every single little thing the AI ever does in it's environment, potentially or otherwise, has to be specifically written down without error in the code. This is most literally the case.

Absolutely every little step in every single action.

Absolutely every single thing that the AI "anticipates" has to be specifically defined and written.

The AI simply will not perform an action if there aren't detailed, specific instructions telling it to do so, no matter how basic it may seem to you and I.

AI, like computers, are comprehensively stupid. Right or wrong, they do only exactly what it is told to do, and nothing more. That means the person writing this stuff much preemptively anticipate every possible contingency that the AI might ever encounter, write how the AI recognizes any given encounter, write how it responds, etc, etc...

It's nothing like "just make the AI know what to do". Programming AI doesn't work that way. It only knows what to do if the coder wrote in specific and detailed instructions telling it to do so.

You can imagine how tedious this can become. Almost excruciating.

Trust me. I've tried my hand at programming. It wasn't what I thought it would be. The guys that do this for a living deserve every cent they earn in their profession. The guys doing this for free, well... What can you say?

Completely understand this, after writhing something as simple as HOTAS map files in scripting language. Time consuming (like hours and hours) and frustrating at times to say the least, and for less than 500 lines of code!!
Couldn't even imagine doing the code for the simplest of bot's...wow
I really, really appreciate what DT has done..
Hopefully, maybe someday I'll have the skills to contribute, with actual hard (java) coding myself....

It would be nice to add a simple editor fw-190f8 (mistel)... Boom!:grin:

And it would be nice if we could have this patch for XMas! :roll:
Two weeks BTW...:mrgreen:

It could be nice to have better communication like "today we are fixing bugs and we will release the patch in one month if you are lucky".

What do you think?

Team don't have community manager ...

talking or working ... not sure what to choose better)

about patch ....

now we have Beta02 version ... Beta test in progress ... for now found some about 20-25 issue... few of it critical ...
(in Beta01 was some about 100-120 different bugs )

it means that even if today we will have RC ... another round of test must take some time ... and i'm afraid that till HNY we can't made it ...

you must understand that all of it is a lot of work ... for example tuning of B24 with four engines is really not simple work ...

Thanks for the update Sita. Any progress is good progress :)

Finished up some single player missions and some new QMB mission templates (they take forever to do all of the variations). Its riveting :D :cool:

Thanks Sita

So will we soon see a final readme or another videos to show what's coming in the 4.13 patch?

Server owners want to make increased protection against cheats

You'll never ever achieve a cheat or exploit free environment.

What do you mean by "Cheating?"

Exploiting?

The current system does a check like an MD5 Hash check on the game files in use.

Are you running mods?

If so, that's kinda on you.

If you're running stock, then the checkfiles option in Conf.ini is pretty good.

Maybe he's just upset from being shot down frequently by opponents.

Lol jk, jk...

Plea to DEV's
 

Can we please have the PBO-1 (A-28, Hudson) back? It's pretty integral to the Solomons campaign as well as New Guinea. I can do without planes like the T6 Texan or Stinson. Also in the plane list the is a '1941 Jeep' in the list. Maybe replace that with the PBO-1.

:confused::grin:

I do not know English
I just wrote here that want the owners (and users) servers.


2Treetop64

http://s7.pikabu.ru/images/big_size_...2095792272.jpg

I found something cool : http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.ph...c,42519.0.html

I think we could make something like that, but much better. What I mean is that each grass are closer and it could make that realistic. Instead of having grass only on the side of runway, it could be everywhere inside a circle of 10 meters around our aircraft. Don't know if it can be done...

I'm on something similar...

thank you :)

Great

i think this guy is doing a great job
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikmOQWyKcs4