AI vs AI Kill ratio

[dimlee]

Originally Posted by Daniël

I've done some tests with the Me-163 and I have to say that I'm actually impressed with the feel of Il-2 1946. I haven't flown this simulator for months, but I think I might fly it a bit more now

I have done some testing with two sensitivity profiles. The first one all sensitivity bars to 100. With that setting I felt that the sensitivity was too "jumpy" in the centre. The second sensitivity setting was 0 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 80 100 and it felt about right. The joystick that I use is an old Saitek Cyborg 3D Rumble Force and I have Saitek Combat Rudder Pedals.

The stall in a Me-163 feels really similar to what I have experienced in gliders. The buffeting seems realistic and it increases when the speed drops and you keep pulling on the stick.

I felt that the spin characteristics of the Me-163 in Il-2 1946 are very forgiving, but it's possible to force a spin by pulling the stick back and to one side and with the pedals in the same direction. The spin recovery felt natural. I don't think that I can comment on the spin characteristics of the Me-163 in particular bacause I haven't flown the real thing , but it might be a bit too forgiving because the stall should start at the tip because of the backward swept wing. I've tried to find data on the airfoil of the Me-163 to find out if the wings were twisted to prevent the tip from stalling first, but I couldn't find data about that.

I still think that CloD for instance has a better feeling of flight, but it's quite close.

Thank you. I love Me 163 and it's good to know that her gliding in IL-2 is "approved" by real pilot.

Airfoil - this one?
http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/deta...foil=goe765-il

[Daniël]

I've done some testing with the Bf-109 F-4 and G-2, the Yak-1 and the LaGG-3 in BoS to compare the stall and spin characteristics and I was surprised that the Russian planes spinned more naturally (in my humble opinion). But for both sides I think that the low speed characteristics are too forgiving. When you fly the landing approach way too slow it won't hurt you while from my experience in gliders you have to watch your speed carefully because you will fall hard when you try to flare when your speed is too low.

Dimlee, I found that page, but I'm not an aeronautical engineer so I couldn't find out if the wings are twisted or not. Some terms I do understand but others I have never heard of.

[major.kudo]

I think the game is similar to movie.
One of important thing of the movies is good actors.
Good-looking, number of people enough, and good at acting.
I think these can be applied to computer game.

IL-2 1946 is very old game in today.
So "good-looking" is inferior than the latest games graphic.
This is all right.
And "numbers of actors" is very rich.
There are some actors who would like to request, too.
However, This is also all right.

But "good at acting" is just insufficient.
I think this is a big problem.
Cool planes, abundant variations of weapons, map of the elaborate structure.
Actors at poor acting makes all other good parts bad.

I want movement of develop to pay attention to "AIs good acting" more than appearance of new face.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by major.kudo

I think the game is similar to movie.

Interesting comparison.

If you want to compare IL2 to a movie, I'd compare it to an old "epic" movie like "Battle of Britain" or "The Longest Day" - dated special effects, but a "cast of thousands," excellent performances from a number of actors, and a real attempt to get the history right.

Single-plane simulations are more like "character study" or "biographical" movies. One person's life - or actions during a particular period in life - studied in detail, with everyone else as a supporting actor.

Plane-themed video games like World of Warplanes or Warthunder are like those noisy summer movies which feature CGI, guns, and explosions as the lead actors, with humans in a supporting role. Great to look at, but bad writing, painfully bad performances by all the actors, and no historical accuracy.

[dimlee]

Major.Kudo and Pursuivant,
This is interesting comparison indeed and thought provoking one.
I like Pursuivant's words about WT. This is what I used to feel about Gajin's creations but could not name it right. Exactly ! - as to watch some heavily advertised blockbuster in IMAX... and to forget about its content on the next day.

[taly001]

I think the problem with AI in ALL computer games is that they can track the player once spotted with 3D X-ray vision. In real life when sight is lost the player needs to re-find the enemy each time, and then to re-analyse the maneouver the enemy is making. The AI doesn't seem to need this and can track and follow your moves all the time.

This may partly be why AI vs AI is such a kill-fest. They never loose track of each other so will fight to the death. Forcing AI to reacquire the target after loosing sight would require CPU cycles, drawing predicted target flight path from time sight lost and have AI look there first, then scan around to find before been allowed to manoeuver to attack.

[Storebror]

I think your idea bears some useful points to start thinking on.
Already now, IL-2 has the ability the check whether actually AI can see an enemy plane at all, taking own plane obstacles into account as well as buildings, mountains etc.
But you're right that AI will instantly reacquire the target once it comes in it's sight again.
The latter could be changed closer to reality by taking a few parameters into account, e.g.:

• The larger the relative movement between own aircraft and target (when it moves out of sight), the longer you need to scan (because it will become hard to predict where the enemy will be).
• The smaller the relative movement between own aircraft and target (when it comes back in sight), the longer you need to scan (because it's harder to spot non-moving targets).
• The more G's are pulled by enemy aircraft, the longer it takes to scan (the future position will become hard to predict under heavy maneouvering).
• The more G's AI pulls themselves, the longer it takes to scan.
• The further the enemy distance is, the longer it takes to scan (dots becoming smaller).
• If the target is below the horizon when it comes back in sight, add a scan penalty.

With these factors a scan time could be calculated where AI would not immediately track a target when it comes back in sight, but just after this scan time has elapsed.

Best regards - Mike

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by taly001

I think the problem with AI in ALL computer games is that they can track the player once spotted with 3D X-ray vision. In real life when sight is lost the player needs to re-find the enemy each time, and then to re-analyse the maneouver the enemy is making. The AI doesn't seem to need this and can track and follow your moves all the time.

For Ace or Veteran AI it's not unreasonable to have them be able to keep track of several opposing aircraft even if they briefly lose sight of them. That's call "situational awareness" or "spatial memory" and it's a vital skill for good combat pilots.

But, for Average and Rookie AI, ability to maintain a "lock" on a target is perhaps too generous.

One thing that I've never seen for AI for any airplane sim is the possibility of "sensory overload," where if you try to track multiple targets simultaneously you lose track of almost all of them, allowing one or more to get onto your 6.

Originally Posted by taly001

Forcing AI to reacquire the target after loosing sight would require CPU cycles, drawing predicted target flight path from time sight lost and have AI look there first, then scan around to find before been allowed to manoeuver to attack.

I'm not sure that it would require that many CPU cycles to determine if AI maintains SA with respect to a particular opponent. I think that the real demand on CPU cycles would be constantly drawing lines of sight between various crew stations and other planes to determine if a particular crewman has LoS.

A simplifying factor, which is realistic, is to treat distant formations of aircraft as a single group, and have AI check for line of sight to that group at less frequent intervals, or not at all.

Another way to reduce CPU cycles is to limit the maximum number of aircraft a given crewman can track by skill level (For example, 1 for Rookie, 2 for Average, 4 for Veteran, 16 for Ace). AI will focus on attacking enemy aircraft first, wingman second, other nearby enemy aircraft third, other flights (treated as a single unit) fourth, distant enemy aircraft fifth, and distant friendly aircraft sixth. If there's a risk of collision with the ground, barrage balloons, or similar, attacking enemy comes first, terrain comes second, then wingman, etc.

Finally, you could make the chance of losing a "lock" on an airplane you can't see a function of time that aircraft has spent outside of line of sight - assuming it isn't flying straight and level. Check more frequently for loss of line of sight for less skilled pilots.