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!