AI vs AI Kill ratio

[sniperton]

Then you perhaps can tell me whether the Hotas 4 also has a center deadzone on the Throttle. Because, most absurdly, the X has. Yes, in the center of the throttle!

[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.

[sniperton]

Originally Posted by Daniël

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

I agree, but this may have something to do with the visually and acoustically richer environment. At the same time I feel CLOD is the most forgiving as to how you fly, I rarely need to practice my spin recovery skills there, while in BoS it happens to me quite frequently (the LaGG is really nasty in this respect). IL2 is somewhere in between.
I'm relatively new to CLOD and BoS, and what struck me was that a perfect three-point landing is much easier than I experienced in IL2. Although in BoS I can overshoot the runway, in CLOD I don't even have to watch my speed. Planes decelerate very well in CLOD, perhaps too well, I don't know.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by sniperton

If my memory serves, Il2 has the following basic classes:

That's more classes than I recall, but is a good selection. The only really necessary class additions are torpedo bomber, anti-shipping, parachute/agent.

Possibly there could be another flag as to whether an airplane is fully aerobatic, to keep planes like the A-20 from looping and rolling like a fighter.

Originally Posted by sniperton

I would disregard 'relative quality' (think of the pathetic attacks of the Polish and the Finns),

This is a really good point, but could be compensated for by relative pilot quality (both Finns and Poles were good pilots, despite their planes) and "desperation factor" (defending the motherland from invasion). Aggressiveness could also be pumped up for Japanese, and reduced for "less motivated" nationalities like the Chinese.

There should also be player and/or mission builder defined aggressiveness for a particular mission - for both friendly and hostile planes of various squadrons. Every nation had their bad days and their moments of tremendous heroism.

Originally Posted by sniperton

- remaining ammo
- remaining fuel (distance to base)
- territory (friendly/hostile) and, yes,
- self-confidence (aka skill).

More good points.

Additionally, a big factor was risk of capture/death in case of a bailout. For example, American pilots attacking Japan in 1945 could be a bit more aggressive since they knew that there were rescue submarines just off shore. But, for early war missions, both Japanese and Americans had to be a bit careful since a water landing was very likely to be a death sentence.

Originally Posted by sniperton

Once you calculated the success/risk ratio (which shall be higher for an ace pilot), you can define a kamikaze to attack even with zero chance, a braveheart with 50% chance, and a cautious pilot only with 75% (or higher) chance.

Exactly what I was thinking. You could even customize values for various pilots, making pilots in a campaign more or less courageous, ranging from foolhardy to cowardly.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Verdun1916

My biggest issue with the AI at the moment is the AI's reluctance to strafe groundtargets unless they have dropped bombs or fired rockets first.

+1!

There should be an command to "attack ground targets with guns" and by preference well-armed fighters and ground attack planes should attack "soft" vehicles with guns or rockets rather than bombs - save the bombs for better targets like AFV, bridges, or trains.

There should also be some sort of option to "strafe along this axis" so that you can make your wingmen strafe down the length of a convoy, the deck of a ship, or along a line of parked aircraft.

Originally Posted by Verdun1916

My second biggest issue is as so many others the far to accurate gunners on multicrew aircraft. They are freaking snipers at extreme distances!!!

I think that this has gotten a bit better with each new release. In particular, the U-2 (which used to be a flying flak tower) has been fixed in the last release.

Even so, long range flexible gun accuracy is still too good for some planes and some gun positions. I think that slipstream buffeting of guns, vibration, and turbulence aren't factored into gun accuracy algorithms.

Additionally, AI gunners can instantly detect and react to an airplane flying into their view, which makes fire from gun positions with a narrow field of view too effective (like the dorsal guns on the Ju-88, or some ventral gun positions). Realistically, it should take a gunner some fraction of a second to identify and track a hostile plane before opening fire once it comes into view.

[sniperton]

Transport
Scout
Seaplane
Ground Attack ('Stormovik')
Level Bomber
Dive Bomber
Fighter
TNB Fighter
BNZ Fighter

These are the basic IL2 aircraft classes, period. As taken from in-game class files. Later on some others were added, e.g. for planes carrying anti-ship missiles or having only a two-stage prop. But these are the base classes which are defined internally and on which the AI may rely. No more, no less. That's what the AI has.

[dimlee]

Originally Posted by taly001

I bought a T.Flight Hotas X but I gave up on it after a week due to the ~9% deadzone, I sold it and bought a T.Flight Hotas 4, on the recommendations of a hardware tester on the internet, Why Thrustmaster does not advertise the VAST superiority of the Hotas 4 over the Hotas X for flight sims is beyond me.

The T.Flight Hotas 4 has a tiny deadzone and I'm perfectly happy with it. The Hotas 4 even has a dedicated port to directly connect the T.Flight Rudder Pedals, and updateable firmware!

Thanks for mentioning Hotas 4. I used Thrustmaster Hotas sticks/throttles for many years but stopped to follow their products and was not aware about this new model. Probably it's time to upgrade from Hotas X.

[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.