AI is on top of my list

[smink1701]

Now that the look and sounds of Cliffs are just about there the next fix on the top of my list is AI. I'm a SP guy and was chasing a Hurricane last night and it was shaking, flopping around and it just takes you right out of the game. With IL2 1946 the AI might have been dumbed down and unrealistic in many ways but at least the AI flying was fluid and looked real like someone coud be flying the plane. This just looks silly. Hope AI is near the top of the developers list as well.

PS Love the game:grin:

[JG1_Wanderfalke]

1+

[Madfish]

I read somewhere that AI definately is on top of their list too. Not sure where though. :-P

I've tried finding it by screening through some of the recent dev stickies and didn't find it. But: could a mod please clean up the sticky mess? It's seriously 2km long. A ton of posts can be de-stickied I believe. Only the most important stuff should be a sticky. Like the bug reporting thread for the beta patch.

[Rattlehead]

It is something that I hope for too...I play offline myself and the AI needs work.
But, I'm sure their AI man has not being twiddling his thumbs whilst the sound and graphics have been reworked.

[Bloblast]

Not top but 2nd.

My current wishlist is:
1-communication
2-AI
3-dynamic campaign

[JG52Krupi]

-1 online is where its at :P ;)

Only joking, offline flying is useful training but on the top of my list is realistic FM's :cool:.

[senseispcc]

Not top but 2nd.

My current wishlist is:
1-communication
2-AI
3-dynamic campaign

The right priorities...:cool:

[Bakelit]

Now that the look and sounds of Cliffs are just about there the next fix on the top of my list is AI. I'm a SP guy and was chasing a Hurricane last night and it was shaking, flopping around and it just takes you right out of the game. With IL2 1946 the AI might have been dumbed down and unrealistic in many ways but at least the AI flying was fluid and looked real like someone coud be flying the plane. This just looks silly. Hope AI is near the top of the developers list as well.

PS Love the game:grin:


+1

Give the sim an AI of a 2011 level. Hire Buddye from A2A BoBII team for success if you could not develop proper AI in all these years.

[David198502]

would really love to see improved ai, plus what krupi mentioned.......realistic flight models!!!

[smink1701]

Honestly, FMs seem fine to me. Also, unless we have some pilots on board who have flown WW2 fighters, how would anyone begin to have a feel for accuracy. In terms of AI behavior, anyone can see it's WAY, WAY off.

[JG52Krupi]

Honestly, FMs seem fine to me. Also, unless we have some pilots on board who have flown WW2 fighters, how would anyone begin to have a feel for accuracy. In terms of AI behavior, anyone can see it's WAY, WAY off.

LMAO okay I kind of agree but we know the aircraft speeds and they are off by more than a few mph and the spitfire mk2 has an anti-stall system that would impress the engineers of 8000 AD.

[skouras]

i would love to see the AI that Wings of Victory II has :-P

[David198502]

LMAO okay I kind of agree but we know the aircraft speeds and they are off by more than a few mph and the spitfire mk2 has an anti-stall system that would impress the engineers of 8000 AD.

+1
i want as accurate models as possible....even to my disadvantage.
btw,...didnt know about the spit2 and the anti stall system;)
is there a difference between the mkII and the mkI when its about flight characteristics, except performance?

[JG52Krupi]

Mk II (Type 329)


Spitfire Mk IIa P7666 of 41 Squadron. P7666 "Observer Corps" was flown by Squadron Leader Donald Finlay; Finlay shot down two Bf 109s in P7666 in November 1940.
In the summer of 1939 an early Mk I K9788 was fitted with a new version of the Merlin, the XII. With the success of the trial it was decided to use this version of the Merlin in the Mk II which, it was decided, would be the first version to be produced exclusively by the huge new Lord Nuffield shadow factory at Castle Bromwich.[69]
Chief among the changes was the upgraded 1,175 horsepower (876 kW) Merlin XII engine. This engine included a Coffman engine starter, instead of the electric system of earlier and some later versions of the Merlin, and it required a small "teardrop" blister on the forward starboard cowling..[69] The Merlin XII was cooled by a 70% to 30% water glycol mix, rather than pure glycol used for earlier Merlin versions.[70]
In early 1940 Spitfire Is of 54 and 66 Squadrons were fitted with Rotol manufactured wide-bladed propellers of 10 ft 9 in (3.27 m) diameter, which were recognisable by a bigger, more rounded spinner: the decision was made that the new propeller would also be used exclusively by the Mk II. This engine/propeller combination increased top speed over the late Mk I by about 6-7 mph below 17,000 feet (5,200 m), and improved climb rate.[71] Due to all of the weight increases maximum speed performance was still lower than that of early Mk Is, but combat capability was far better.[33] The Mk II was produced in IIA eight-gun and IIB cannon armed versions. Deliveries were very rapid, and they quickly replaced all remaining Mk Is in service, which were then sent to Operational Training Units. The RAF had re-equipped with the new version by April 1941.[33] The Rotol propeller units were later supplemented by de Havilland constant-speed units similar to those fitted to Mk Is.
A small number of Mk IIs were converted to "Long Range" Spitfires in early 1941. These could be recognised by the fixed 40 gal (182 l) fuel tank which was fitted under the port wing. With a full tank manoeuvrability was reduced, maximum speed was 26 mph (42 km/h) lower and the climb rate and service ceiling were also reduced. Several squadrons used this version to provide long-range bomber escort.[72] Once the Mk II was taken out of front line service, 50 of them were converted for air-sea rescue work, at first under the designation Mk IIC (type 375) but later referred to as the A.S.R Mk II. The Merlin XII was replaced by the Mark XX, a "rescue pack" was fitted in the flare chute and smoke marker bombs were carried under the port wing. [73]
A total of 921 Mk IIs were built, all by Castle Bromwich.[68] A small number of Mk IIs were converted to Mk Vs.[nb 7

Stolen from wiki ;)

[naz]

Not top but 2nd.

My current wishlist is:
1-communication
2-AI
3-dynamic campaign

Yeah, these are my three wishlist toppers too mate. :)

[Topo]

AI is top priority for me also, as a single player pilot...

[nearmiss]

AI is one of, if not the most important part of Offline play.

All your combat and flight members are AI. The AI affects everything.

Sadly, AI has been ignored by Oleg for years. The Online game with humans against humans makes development much simpler. Programming for AI takes alot of work, lots of behavioral probabilities stuff has to be programmed. It can be done, because people most often do predictable things, especially when they have been trained a certain way as combat pilots are. You don't try to gain altitude when the guy on your six has alot of E, you don't turn against a better turning opponent,etc.

The AI in Battle of Britain II WOV is the most exceptional AI performance I've ever experienced. The game hasn't been very popular, because it is strictly OFFLINE game. The BOB II WOV campaign has been done well, in fact, the game is very top notch. Yet, it becomes boring just doing air combat, with not much else.

COD will become passe' soon enough unless other maps, aircraft aren't applied soon.

[mazex]

Well, I agree that it would be nice with better AI but how about a few secs of love by someone briefly acquainted with usability design on the MP GUI would not hurt either ;)

[Les]

Anyone else remember the improved AI that were introduced with one of the patches for the original Il-2 series, and that were then taken away again in the next patch soon after that? Oleg himself stated when the patch came out that the new AI were a glimpse of the ones being developed for the new upcoming game (that would eventually become Cliffs Of Dover).

As I remember it, those temproary AI were a vast improvement over the ones we had at the time, but were quickly replaced with something not quite as good in order to keep them as a feature of the new upcoming game. From memory, they were better in some ways than what we finally did end up with, not prone to the unbelievable routines we had back then or that we have now. Might just be rose-coloured glasses I'm remembering them through, but they were realistic to the point where it was hard to tell sometimes if they were AI or human pilots.

[nearmiss]

I recall making a very thorough research of AI nonsense and such several years ago.

The AI is ignored, not just with Il2 or COD. It is very standard practice, because it is much easier to build another aircraft, map or object. People will be happy with the new stuff.

It is hard to care about the Offline player when that isn't your interest. So the developers just make the graphics stuff rather than work with through the very difficult process of programming probabilistic functions and algorithms for a competent AI performance.

The benchmark for AI performance is Battle of Britain II Wings of Victory. The improvements have been coming steady to their users for several years. All the COD development team needs to do is get a copy of the BOB WOV and study the AI, also the BOB WOV AI config files are openly shared.

We will see what comes of the AI, but I think it will probably require some of that passion associated with the term..."Keep their feet in the fire, they'll get the message". LOL

[Rattlehead]

-1 online is where its at :P ;)

Only joking, offline flying is useful training

I'm sure online is a barrel of fun, but offliners shouldn't be ignored. I like playing offline because I can play at my own pace and do my own thing without having to worry about someone letting me down or me letting someone down.

[Rattlehead]

The AI is ignored, not just with Il2 or COD. It is very standard practice, because it is much easier to build another aircraft, map or object. People will be happy with the new stuff.

It is hard to care about the Offline player when that isn't your interest. So the developers just make the graphics stuff rather than work with through the very difficult process of programming probabilistic functions and algorithms for a competent AI performance.



All very true and what you say echoes my thoughts exactly.

Hey, all I want really is AI that doesn't do what it's doing now...really immersion-killing stuff like ignoring enemy planes even when in full view, not reacting at all to being shot at, and the crazy rates of rolls these boys are pulling off.
In short, give me old Il-2 AI, but maybe a little bit more advanced. I'm sure a talented team like MG can pull that off, surely?

I'm content to wait and see what happens...there is still a lot of things that need their attention still and I'm confident that in time we'll see AI that is improved. (I'll just bang the drum from time to time to remind them. :))

[Tavingon]

I wish there was a way to set passive/aggressiveness of enemies in custom missions, I want enemy bombers to fight back!

[buddye]

I agree with nearmiss but ....

Why is it so difficult to make AI planes that follow the same rules of physics and gunnery that human-controlled planes do in flight sims?

I also am very interested in AI. As a volunteer BDG (BOB Development Group) member, I have worked on the BOBII AI over 6 years trying to improve it and make it more human like.

In BOBII the AI and the player use the same FM and code so they are equal with only two exceptions (1) the AI do not black out or white out and (2) the AI can see through clouds (the AI do have blind spots as they can not see through the solid A/C parts [wings, rear, nose, etc] or see into the sun). Customers do sometimes complain that the AI can pull more G's and does not black out but in my opinion the advantage is small against a human pilot.

In BobII the AI can stall, spin, crash, and do stupid things. The AI ability to fly effectively is controlled with "skill level" which the player can select in Instant Action Missions and skill level is assign or user controlled in the Dyamic Campaign. The higher skill level AI are more effective in Air Combat as they have the ability to fly more maneuvers and they fly each maneuver more effectively and efficiently.

Why are the AI not more human like?

In one word the answer is "cost". The AI can not just be designed and implemented. It must be tested, re-worked, and re-tested over and over. The quality of the testers giving feedback must be exceptional and the amount of time and manpower is very large and it can never end as you are never done. The AI is not just designing to a spec. The AI is more of an art. It is cheaper to put you game money into things that can be designed, scheduled, and implemented (Multi-Player, Landscape, cockpits, and more eye candy). Also eye candy sells well but customers seem to always complain about the AI.

[smink1701]

Been reading all the interesting comments and thought I would jump back in.

I don't know if I'm in the minority or majority. I get a little window of time to play and fire up Cliffs for about 15 minutes and then I hear my wife or kids call and I'm gone. Don't think I've got the time to really get in to MP. Maybe I'm wrong. Also seem to rememeber seeing a poll that showed the vast majority of players are SP, not MP. Maybe I'm wrong about that too. I would rathther go back to IL2-1946 than the current Cliffs in terms of AI. Maybe that would be easier for the developers to implement than fixing current AI. I'm for whatever is the quickest / easist fix but would like a fix of some sort. Right now planes just sit there like on auto pilot or go nuts like stunt pilot monkeys on crack.

[jimbop]

Been reading all the interesting comments and thought I would jump back in.

I don't know if I'm in the minority or majority. I get a little window of time to play and fire up Cliffs for about 15 minutes and then I hear my wife or kids call and I'm gone. Don't think I've got the time to really get in to MP. Maybe I'm wrong. Also seem to rememeber seeing a poll that showed the vast majority of players are SP, not MP. Maybe I'm wrong about that too. I would rathther go back to IL2-1946 than the current Cliffs in terms of AI. Maybe that would be easier for the developers to implement than fixing current AI. I'm for whatever is the quickest / easist fix but would like a fix of some sort. Right now planes just sit there like on auto pilot or go nuts like stunt pilot monkeys on crack.

+1

[adonys]

you guys seem to forget a simple truth: the IL2 series numbers are based on singleplayer, not multiplayer.

the game sold tens of thousands of units, yet a very small fraction of those could be meet online playing the MP part. a thousand? maybe 2? for sure under 10% of game's buyers.

stop the nonsense that IL2 strength is in MP. The longevity yes, it is based and rests on MP, but not the game's sales number, which is the thing that makes MG tick..

And the thing is, even now, half a year later, the SP part of IL2 CoD is completly broken. One can't play anything else excepting simple dogfight missions because of this.

The game's stability, and then its performance, were the logical first needed fixes, as you can hardly play a game which is a crash fest, or crawls at 5 FPS on 2011 supercomputers. As those were fixed, the next pririty ones should be, in exactly this order:

1) Radio Comm - affecting both game modes, it completly porks SP and gravely affects with AI MP (until much more MP players will join, with the actual online numbers you can't really play anything else except dogfights if you're not adding complementary AI)
2) AI - same as above, out-of-this-world AI maneuvers, performances and behavior are really killing both game modes
3) dynamic weather
4) dynamic campaign

[smink1701]

Right on.

[ChocsAway]

I agree with nearmiss but ....

Why is it so difficult to make AI planes that follow the same rules of physics and gunnery that human-controlled planes do in flight sims?

I also am very interested in AI. As a volunteer BDG (BOB Development Group) member, I have worked on the BOBII AI over 6 years trying to improve it and make it more human like.

In BOBII the AI and the player use the same FM and code so they are equal with only two exceptions (1) the AI do not black out or white out and (2) the AI can see through clouds (the AI do have blind spots as they can not see through the solid A/C parts [wings, rear, nose, etc] or see into the sun). Customers do sometimes complain that the AI can pull more G's and does not black out but in my opinion the advantage is small against a human pilot.

In BobII the AI can stall, spin, crash, and do stupid things. The AI ability to fly effectively is controlled with "skill level" which the player can select in Instant Action Missions and skill level is assign or user controlled in the Dyamic Campaign. The higher skill level AI are more effective in Air Combat as they have the ability to fly more maneuvers and they fly each maneuver more effectively and efficiently.

Why are the AI not more human like?

In one word the answer is "cost". The AI can not just be designed and implemented. It must be tested, re-worked, and re-tested over and over. The quality of the testers giving feedback must be exceptional and the amount of time and manpower is very large and it can never end as you are never done. The AI is not just designing to a spec. The AI is more of an art. It is cheaper to put you game money into things that can be designed, scheduled, and implemented (Multi-Player, Landscape, cockpits, and more eye candy). Also eye candy sells well but customers seem to always complain about the AI.

You did a great job with the BoB2 WOV AI Buddye. They could do with some of your expertise on CloD.

As many in this thread have said, the AI is a mess. I haven't fired up CloD much in the last month or so because the awful AI has always been the biggest immersion killer for me since release. The eye candy is all very nice but IMO it's worthless without some pretty serious tweaking under the hood on the AI and AI flight models as many of them are laughable at the moment.

Here's hoping that getting it fixed is also near the top of the devs list.

[Codex]

Didn't Illya say in one of his updates that he had recently hired someone or was going to hire someone with sole purpose of reworking the AI in CoD?

[nearmiss]

Buddye has done a fabulous job with the BOB II WOV. I mean fabulous AI performance after hundreds and hundreds of hours working with the AI. Then going back and forth with the community of users for feedback.

Alas, the problem with most gamer type developers their ego gets in the way. Then we get stuff like MSFT CFS3 from Hatfield that just ruined a great sim with his so-called improvements. I knew it would be junk when I started it the first time, the pilots were hanging around the garbage cans.

It would great if Luthier consulted with Buddye, he couldn't do better. I say that because NO ONE has a better AI performance package for WW2 air combat sims. I think I own every WW2 air combat sim produced for the past 12 years, so I haven't missed much.

Glad you dropped in Buddye, I'm glad to toot a horn for you.

[jimbop]

you guys seem to forget a simple truth: the IL2 series numbers are based on singleplayer, not multiplayer.

the game sold tens of thousands of units, yet a very small fraction of those could be meet online playing the MP part. a thousand? maybe 2? for sure under 10% of game's buyers.

stop the nonsense that IL2 strength is in MP. The longevity yes, it is based and rests on MP, but not the game's sales number, which is the thing that makes MG tick..

And the thing is, even now, half a year later, the SP part of IL2 CoD is completly broken. One can't play anything else excepting simple dogfight missions because of this.

The game's stability, and then its performance, were the logical first needed fixes, as you can hardly play a game which is a crash fest, or crawls at 5 FPS on 2011 supercomputers. As those were fixed, the next pririty ones should be, in exactly this order:

1) Radio Comm - affecting both game modes, it completly porks SP and gravely affects with AI MP (until much more MP players will join, with the actual online numbers you can't really play anything else except dogfights if you're not adding complementary AI)
2) AI - same as above, out-of-this-world AI maneuvers, performances and behavior are really killing both game modes
3) dynamic weather
4) dynamic campaign

Yes, adonys is making sense here. MP is essential but should be built on a strong SP platform. Anyway, AI is required for MP as well.

[NedLynch]

Not top but 2nd.

My current wishlist is:
1-communication
2-AI
3-dynamic campaign

+1

[Madfish]

Some very fine posts have been made in this thread, thanks for that. I recommend anyone who's new skimming through - it'll be worth it.

That said I want to point one other thing out:
It is hard to care about the Offline player when that isn't your interest.
The thing is that AI also affect all online combat if it's not pure dogfighting. A lot of the dynamic campaign efforts and co-op missions depend on it. So I would say it not only affects offline players but almost certainly the majority of all online players as well.

[Blackdog_kt]

Didn't Illya say in one of his updates that he had recently hired someone or was going to hire someone with sole purpose of reworking the AI in CoD?

True. It's the same guy that will redo the radio commands menu. According to that post by Luthier, he will do the radio commands first and then move on to the AI.

By the way there are some new placeholder commands in the latest beta patch (they don't work yet, they are just there in the menus) that are giving me much hope for what will come.

I saw commands to specific crew members in bombers, for example asking your co-pilot to report speed or altitude, have him operate flaps or landing gear, order the gunners to hold fire, etc.

Good stuff is coming and yes, it will be useful both for SP and MP ;)

[nearmiss]

I remember several years back building missions. I was stopped dead in my tracks so often by poor AI, and lack of comms ability to have any power of your player flights...except go home.

Pokryshkin developed tactics to beat the Germans in G2s and 190s, by using his flight groups at tiered altitude levels. The p40s were at lower altitudes to take on the german bombers. The P39s would drop in from tiered altitude levels when the german fighters went for the p40s. Pokryshkin kept the E advantage with flights at several levels higher and as the battle advanced they would drop down incrementally. The p39s with those big cannons in the nose made short work of the german fighters.

I could not keep the Russian fighters at the tiered levels. The moment the germans attacked the p40s all the p39s from all levels, except player would drop into the fur ball. The P39s were no match for the G2s or 190s without E advantage.

So, yes communications with power for managing flight groups is very necessary. I'm just thinking in terms of this one example.

You can tactically fly Online with comms, but Offline you are subject to whatever a stupid (ultra-stupid) AI aircraft will do.

I realize good ai performance makes a difference online, but there was never much flak from online players about AI performance as I recall.

[Madfish]

Actually what I meant was that with this new completely open design AI planes could be used much more constantly than in the old IL2.

Actually there could be a constant presence of certain flights on almost all servers. Basically what I want to say is that the new multiplayer could involve a lot more AI than it did in the past. Huge dynamic campaigns or constant scenarios that have a realistic amount of AI planes, ships and ground vehicles present at any time.

Good example regarding AI though. :) I wonder if somethink alike would / could be implemented.

[nearmiss]

As I understand it. WHen COD is working at finished levels 128x128 should be realistic number of aircraft in air combat at one time = 256 planes.

That would be a whopping big order to put together that many human players at one time.

AI is the only possibility for large groups of planes in the air at one time.

So... I would naturally think the devs have good understanding that competent AI performance would be required.

[Iku_es]

My current wishlist is:
1-communication
2-AI
3-dynamic campaign


+1

Once they have the game optimized, revamping the AI is necessary.
I play a lot offline, because I don't have enough free time to look for a populated server and pair up with wingies. Just 10 minutes to start the game, and try to shoot some bad guys. Fighting against either planes flying bee lines or crazy rolling AI planes is not very funny and also it teach you a lot of bad habbits ;).

256 online players mixed with AI ... it would be an amazing experience but, today, it seem unlikely to me. That will put our system above their capabilities. If I try to join a sever with 256 players and Ai planes buzzing arround, my PC will laught at me.
My system is not a "Top specs" one, but when I play online, everytime an AI flight is spawned or a player joins the server, i have heavy stutters.
My guess is that this situation will improve with the following patches.

Maybe in 2013, we can experience massive online raids over London, who knows. (Fingers crossed)

[Rattlehead]

I also am very interested in AI. As a volunteer BDG (BOB Development Group) member, I have worked on the BOBII AI over 6 years trying to improve it and make it more human like.

The AI is not just designing to a spec. The AI is more of an art.

Well, I know I'm certainly not alone in appreciating the efforts of development teams and testers in trying to make AI more advanced and believeable. As you say, it is something of an art form and sadly something that seems to be a dying art form at that.
However, to me and I'm sure many others, great AI is every bit as important as other aspects of a game, and it's something that should never be ignored or skimmed over by developers.

[SNAFU]

In the new system you cannot strictly draw a line between SP and MP and the AI, because the AI is getting more a part of MP, compared to 1946 (without mods).

Therefore I would love to see better AI, but what is better AI worth, if the netcode cannot support more than 15 AI planes in a coop mission, otherwise the planes warp, lag or are not drawn at all (see ghost/phantom planes)? Seeing improvement of the AI as long term project, I would first focus on the obvious problems and bugs:

FM (performance of the existing planes before introducing new ones f.e. service ceiling :rolleyes: ) -> SP&MP
Network (get rid of the ghost dots and warp-fest of AI) -> MP
LOD (dots visibilty) -> SP&MP
AI -> SP&MP

[CrazySchmidt]

I have been reading this thread over the last couple of days at work, along with some other threads about the new beta patch and thinking to myself, it seems like it might be time to have another crack at this (after having shelved it for a couple months).

Tonight I got to have a crack at the new beta patch for the first time and while I can agree there is considerable improvement in over all graphics and sound I still couldn't find the hook I was hoping for (maybe too much forum hype, who knows). 109 sounds although, pretty much hit the bull's-eye! Nice work fellas!

smink1701's original post sums it up for me almost perfectly as I see it. The AI with CoD has always seemed absolutely mad to me and one of the great put offs, I mean absolutely spastic manoeuvres that make a chase an absolute joke. 109's with a roll rate that would shame the best 190 pilot, not only in passive flight, but also in steep dives to the point that I thought they were going in without hope only to find them pull up at the last minute and return to the fight LMFAO!!

I also read that some forum members believe that development focus does/should favour online play, well, from what I have read over the years to date, statistically off line play makes up the greater number of paying punters. I'm a 100% offline player as is everyone else I know that plays PC games. AI performance is not a trivial issue with gaming development, just ask the developers how important it is.

This is certainly a very significant patch for CoD, but after all it was either that or shut the doors and call in the cleaners right?

Well, for me it's off the shelf and now sitting on the desktop waiting for the next patch.

I have faith now at least it will get there eventually.

Cheers, CrazySchmidt. :)

[SG1_Lud]

In the new system you cannot strictly draw a line between SP and MP and the AI, because the AI is getting more a part of MP, compared to 1946 (without mods).

Therefore I would love to see better AI, but what is better AI worth, if the netcode cannot support more than 15 AI planes in a coop mission, otherwise the planes warp, lag or are not drawn at all (see ghost/phantom planes)? Seeing improvement of the AI as long term project, I would first focus on the obvious problems and bugs:

FM (performance of the existing planes before introducing new ones f.e. service ceiling :rolleyes: ) -> SP&MP
Network (get rid of the ghost dots and warp-fest of AI) -> MP
LOD (dots visibilty) -> SP&MP
AI -> SP&MP

+1


...and if world were perfect, to hire the talented guy who made -BOB II WOV- AI, no need to reinvent the wheel.

[Mysticpuma]

Said it before and I'll say it again, the AI in BoBII WoV is the only AI I have competed against that made me actually think I was against a real player.

At the point I ended up in a Rolling Scissors against a 109 I was really hooked!

If you want to experience true Flight Simulation AI, load up BoBII WoV and then compare it with the AI in Clod.

BoBII is like playing chess against a Grandmaster while Clod is like playing against your mate who thinks he can use the Pawn's to jump over pieces and remove them from the board!

Sign up Buddeye and pay him a salary...he'll be worth every penny!

BTW, I fly mainly offline at the moment as CloD doesn't really interest me that much online as I don't have the time to go through learning CEM, so offline is fine for now.

Eventually I will learn CEM but for now I just want to have a little fun and compete against quality AI, and at the moment....we don't have any!

Cheers, MP

[buddye]

The problem with realistic and Human like AI is that it is so very costly.

The developing of realistic Flight Sim AI can “not” really be coded to a spec (like graphics, landscape, textures, hardware interfaces, multi player, canned missions, etc.) where the cost can be accurately estimated and bounded. Developing AI is a process (develop, test, refine, test, refine, etc). You are trying to simulate a human whose options and thinking are almost endless.

AI Robots can be built today if their functions are limited (repeatable task like the auto robots) but the building of human robots would require the refinement and testing process with endless delays and the cost gets too high or out of control. It is almost impossible to "bound" human thinking (say a good pilot, as individuals solve problems and invent solutions in an almost infinite manner).

Combat Flight Sim AI has the same problem. The development cost to make the AI more human and thinking is just too high. The game developers are force to get the AI working and call a stop to the refinement process. They can not continue the process too long because of cost.

In BOBII, we work for free. We get endless ideas from our players and testers which we can use for the BOBII AI refinement process.. The implementation and testing is still very difficult requiring much refinement and some really good testers who can offer refinements. We have been refining the AI in BOBII using this refinement process for 5 years. We could go on forever with the only limit being “new” ideas and experienced manpower.

The answer IMHO is simple, the Flight Sim game industry, the developer, can not afford the money for an effective and complete human like AI system (a commercial game developer really can not afford a BOBII like refinement process). Only the military or NASA can afford to develop smart, effective, thinking, and human like AI and even they have had limited success, as yet..

[addman]

The problem with realistic and Human like AI is that it is so very costly.

The developing of realistic Flight Sim AI can “not” really be coded to a spec (like graphics, landscape, textures, hardware interfaces, multi player, canned missions, etc.) where the cost can be accurately estimated and bounded. Developing AI is a process (develop, test, refine, test, refine, etc). You are trying to simulate a human whose options and thinking are almost endless.

AI Robots can be built today if their functions are limited (repeatable task like the auto robots) but the building of human robots would require the refinement and testing process with endless delays and the cost gets too high or out of control. It is almost impossible to "bound" human thinking (say a good pilot, as individuals solve problems and invent solutions in an almost infinite manner).

Combat Flight Sim AI has the same problem. The development cost to make the AI more human and thinking is just too high. The game developers are force to get the AI working and call a stop to the refinement process. They can not continue the process too long because of cost.

In BOBII, we work for free. We get endless ideas from our players and testers which we can use for the BOBII AI refinement process.. The implementation and testing is still very difficult requiring much refinement and some really good testers who can offer refinements. We have been refining the AI in BOBII using this refinement process for 5 years. We could go on forever with the only limit being “new” ideas and experienced manpower.

The answer IMHO is simple, the Flight Sim game industry, the developer, can not afford the money for an effective and complete human like AI system (a commercial game developer really can not afford a BOBII like refinement process). Only the military or NASA can afford to develop smart, effective, thinking, and human like AI and even they have had limited success, as yet..

BINGO! I remember over ten years ago, playing European Air War and thinking "The A.I is ok in this sim but in ten years it's gonna be like freaking Skynet type of A.I!". Here we are, multiple CPU cores later and the A.I is dumber than ever. Why? As the poster above mentioned, money! A.I programming is so costly that even the biggest of the biggest game studios has to cut corners to get their software out the doors. You see games like Call of Duty where the A.I has the IQ of a golf ball but it doesn't matter since 90% of all the action is scripted. When I think more about it, I'm amazed MG managed to get the A.I they have now out the door considering their -probably- scarce resources. IMO, let the community experts get their hands on the code give it a gosh because they are willing and willing to do it for FREE!

Below is a horrible example of how scripting is almost replacing A.I:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RULv6HbgEjY

[nearmiss]

buddye

It seems to me from what you say, if a developer like COD wanted a competent AI performance then the best course of action would be to open the source in such fashion as to allow coding for the AI.

AI performance improvements would come from competent programming and a community involvement over time.

There could be benefits to developer, because it would take the "hot potato" of AI developement from the developer and hand it off to the community.

Naturally a reasonable AI performance package would have to be coded as a starter package. The AI would thereafter be done over time with 3rd party community developers and feedback from the community.

I could live with that, and actually I'd be thrilled with the prospects that we could eventually have an outstanding AI performance package.

[adonys]

That's exactly what we should ask for: MG to open AI over-coding in an additional dll.

Maybe then the buddye and his mates from WoV BoB 2 could help with it, or anyone else with spare time and interest.

[Les]

Maybe the community should compile a list of AI attributes or features that the developers or modders could use as a sort of checklist.

Something separated into two general categories of Friendly and Enemy AI. Then further separated into three categories of, Essential, Desired, and Ideal AI qualities or abilities.

In the Essential category you could have not just positive pre-requisites, but negative ones too, things along the lines of what the Friendly or Enemy AI must never do or fail at.

In the Desired category you could have more advanced features that should be possible given the current technology, but which aren't game-breakers like in the Essential category.

In the Ideal category you could have wishful thinking, 'it would be good if we could one day have such and such a feature' type ideas.

Just putting it out there. Might be more constructive and proactive than just waiting to see what the developers or modders do then reacting to that after it happens. Create some guidelines so the developers know what the community considers to be fundamentally necessary or essential, what they consider to be worth trying to achieve beyond that, and what they don't really expect to be done but would hold as the highest achievement or aim.

[buddye]

I am not sure if a commercial game developer would feel comfortable releasing his product (his source code). His source is his future with respect to new products which he plans to use as a baseline for future products. A flight sim developer must sell a string of products base on his engine to make any real money these days (you do not develop a new engine for only one product).

The COD manager might be willing to assign a programmer to work with a committed team of AI testers who would test, offer suggestions, analysis, and refinements. All parties would need to understand that the project would be long term (multi-year) with updates maybe every 6 months. A new priviate forum could be used to coordinate the work (the BOBII approach).

I do not want to bore you guys with BOBII but for those interested in AI (and I understand that some players are only into MP), I will offer a document. I offer the document to show an overview of BOBII AI's the scope and complexity. Please skip it if not interested and am sorry for boring anyone.

Overview of the BOBII AI Performance and Design

The redesign of the AI Maneuver Selection

The redesign of the AI maneuver Selection Criteria was driven by the need to become more deterministic and less random in selecting AI maneuvers. I felt the need to move in this direction to improve the AI offence and defense so the AI selection software had more control. Of course there is a big danger in this strategy. We do not want BOBII to become repeatable. This will become a fine line to follow in the future and I will need both our testers and customers help and feedback.

Here is a summary of the new selection criteria design:

1. Altitude (how much altitude and rate of change)
2. Speed (how much speed, and rate of change)
3. Position of A/C to each other (none to tail, tail to tail, nose to beam, tail to beam or left, right, front, back)

To implement the new selection criteria I built a 3 X 6 matrix (a truth table) and many new programs. For each A/C (the unfriendly and the AI or the player), I designed programs to look at Altitude, Speed, and position and to first try and select the best maneuver option (aggressive or defense) based on AI skill level.

Altitude and speed can also be thought of as “energy” as altitude can be turned into speed.

The new design uses the A/C’s current position but I am thinking about implementing the A/C’s “lead” position (his future position which would be a small delta in the future).

Anyway, this new design is a long term work BOBII AI strategy (work in progress) that I can work on as I have new ideas for the AI from our testers and customers. It should position the BOBII AI design for future improvements by using more deterministic rather than random selection criteria. The goal is very simple "to improve the AI performance" and keep BOBII the best off line AI.

My gut feel based on my experience and testing is that the AI is now stronger at selecting the best/correct maneuver, avoiding bad positions (like low altitude), better at avoiding low energy, and in general a bit stronger fighter and defender. Of course, the Player will always “win” with experience/practice but if we give the player a better fight (scrap), I personally consider that real progress.

BTW, I also gave the Terminator AI a bit of boost in performance and tune-up so you might want to try it out. With the boost in Terminator performance, he was getting “cocky” so I implemented a spinout feature. The Terminator flies so close to the edge now that he has a tendency to “spinout”. This is when you can get him.

I also implemented a new AI feature called “Flying Factor (FF)”. This is the knowledge of the AI pilot to fly a given maneuver (experience) and how well the AI pilot will actually fly the given maneuver (skill). The FF is based on the Skill Level (customer selected in Instant Action Missions and software assigned in the Campaign). The Terminator AI is assigned a Skill Level of Hero2 (the highest in the game) so that is where he gets his boost in performance (edge).

AI Maneuver Selection is KEY

First, the BOBII AI has a special case for selection called “Evasive maneuver selection”. The Evasive maneuver is required when an AI is shot at (either a hit or near miss). The AI will select a defensive maneuver based on the criteria/data for both Player and enemy AI (speed, altitude, and the position of the targeting AI and the AI being targeted with respect to each other).

The first key decision to be made is to select either an aggressive or defensive maneuver. This is a complex decision based on the available information on both the Player and the Enemy AI or the friendly AI and the enemy AI. The data considered for both Player and enemy is speed, altitude, and the position of the targeting AI and the AI being targeted with respect to each other.

After selecting either an aggressive or defensive, then a random approach is used to select a category (choose good, choose bad, or choose “neither” good nor bad maneuver).

Maneuvers are then divided into three parts Climb, Horizontal, and dive for each of our categories (choose good, choose bad, and choose neither good nor bad maneuver).

The individual maneuver selection is then based on speed, altitude, and position of both the player and the enemy AI.

In BOBII we have over 80 complex maneuvers for selection (both the aggressive and defensive maneuvers) for the fighters (Spit,Hurri,109.110) and over 50 simple maneuvers for selection for the JU87 and Defiant. The following are BOBII’s complex maneuvers (each maneuver is a significant program for completing the assigned maneuver):

MANOEUVRE_SELECT
MANOEUVRE_LOOKROUND
MANOEUVRE_WELDEDWINGMAN
MANOEUVRE_BAILOUT
MANOEUVRE_TOPCOVER
MANOEUVRE_FORCETOPCOVER
MANOEUVRE_LINEABREAST
MANOEUVRE_PINCER
MANOEUVRE_MULTIWAVE
MANOEUVRE_DIVEANDZOOM
MANOEUVRE_INSIDELOOP
MANOEUVRE_LAGPURSUIT
MANOEUVRE_SPLITMANOEUVRE
MANOEUVRE_HEADON
MANOEUVRE_LINEASTERN
MANOEUVRE_VICATTACK
MANOEUVRE_BARRELROLLATTACK
MANOEUVRE_SCISSORS
MANOEUVRE_MILDSCISSORS
MANOEUVRE_TURNINGFIGHT
MANOEUVRE_SPLITS
MANOEUVRE_ZOOMANDDROP
MANOEUVRE_STRAIGHTANDLEVEL
MANOEUVRE_SPINOUT
MANOEUVRE_DIVEFORHOME
MANOEUVRE_GOHOME
MANOEUVRE_MAKEFORFRIENDLY
MANOEUVRE_MOVEAWAY
MANOEUVRE_QUICKROLL
MANOEUVRE_IMMELMANNTURN
MANOEUVRE_IMMELMANN
MANOEUVRE_STAYWITHPREY
MANOEUVRE_CLIMBFORHOME
MANOEUVRE_STRAIGHTDIVE
MANOEUVRE_OUTSIDELOOP
MANOEUVRE_SHOOTTOFRIGHTEN
MANOEUVRE_SHOOTTOOEARLY
MANOEUVRE_GAINHEIGHT
MANOEUVRE_LAGROLL
MANOEUVRE_EXTENSION
MANOEUVRE_DIVINGROLL
MANOEUVRE_REVERSETURN
MANOEUVRE_SELFASBAIT
MANOEUVRE_JINK
MANOEUVRE_BREAKTURN
MANOEUVRE_LAZYTURN
MANOEUVRE_BREAKLOW
MANOEUVRE_BREAKHIGH
MANOEUVRE_BREAK90
MANOEUVRE_BREAK180
MANOEUVRE_HIGBARRELROLL
MANOEUVRE_PANICTURN
MANOEUVRE_TURNANDRUN
MANOEUVRE_LOWALT
MANOEUVRE_ZOOM
MANOEUVRE_INTERCEPTHIGH
MANOEUVRE_INTERCEPTLOW
MANOEUVRE_GAINSPEED
MANOEUVRE_HEADONATTACK
MANOEUVRE_LUFBERRY
MANOEUVRE_STEEPDIVE
MANOEUVRE_UPANDUNDER
MANOEUVRE_STALLTURN
MANOEUVRE_SLASHINGATTACK
MANOEUVRE_CLIMBTURN
MANOEUVRE_ROLL360
MANOEUVRE_STRAFFE
MANOEUVRE_TRANSITION
MANOEUVRE_PEELOFF
MANOEUVRE_SNAPSHOT
MANOEUVRE_STAYONTAIL
MANOEUVRE_FLYTHROUGHCLOUD
MANOEUVRE_REGROUP
MANOEUVRE_DISENGAGED
MANOEUVRE_SPINRECOVERY
MANOEUVRE_COLLIDE
MANOEUVRE_LAST
MANOEUVRE_ALIGNMENT
MANOEUVRE_DROPANDZOOM
MANOEUVRE_COLLISIONAVOIDANCE
MANOEUVRE_TURNTOHDGANDPITCH
MANOEUVRE_SCREWYOUGUYSIMGOINGHOME

The AI Performance Criteria/Dependencies

Skill Level

The AI performance is dependent on AI Skill Level (which is customer selected in Instant Action and SW assigned in the campaign). BOBII AI do make mistakes (spin, crash, dumb maneuvers, bad judgment, shoot late , shoot bad, etc) which is after all very human.

The skill level of the AI is key in making decisions on about everything with respect to AI performance like (1) how well the AI fly, shoot, shoot fast, slow, accuracy, or not shoot, (2) how well the AI fly, what maneuvers are selected, and how well the AI will fly the chosen maneuver.

Random Numbers (Luck of the draw)

The BOBII AI A/C is also dependent on luck (specifically on random numbers). Random number decisions are coded through out the AI code. BOBII’s random approach keeps BOBII from doing the same thing each time. Even something as simple as the direction to start a maneuver (left or right), I will use a random number to decide (why hard code something when you can use a random number).


For example, most BOBII vertical maneuvers use a random number to assign a length of time to for a specific vertical maneuver (Like Zoom). The AI pilot will sometimes cut off early, or late, or somewhere in the middle. If early the maneuver may carry too much speed and if late the AI may slow down so much that control is lost (very human).

The bottom line is that the customer will always see a somewhat different maneuver (very good, good, not so good, and loss of control) both because of the random implementation and the different physic’s parameters (speed, roll, heading, pitch, and overall energy) going into each maneuver.

The very real downside of random numbers is it is very hard to test (not repeatable) and the processing power used.

Conditions

The conditions for each maneuver are always different (energy, speed, altitude, skill, damage, and enemy position). This also changes how the maneuver is performed. A damaged AI will not fly as well as an undamaged AI.

[adonys]

I wasn't saying about them giving the code away, but just provide an AI SDK or a script mechanism similar with the one for missions in order to overwrite AI functions.

[nearmiss]

I'm going to sticky this thread for a few days. Give it some time for response from other members that are very interested in this topic.

[Les]

Interesting insights Buddye, thanks for that.

It looks to me, as someone who has no idea of how these things really work, that you have a set of potential manouvres that are triggered by where the planes are in relation to each other and what their individual state is (damage, speed, skill level etc.) With variations in how well the manouvres are carried out also based on the planes individual state, but with some randomness thrown in as well.

In laymans terms, that would mean the more of those manouvre routines you have, and the more often the game re-calculates which routine is required under the changing circumstances, the better.

What a nightmare lol :grin:

And by that I mean, where do you set the point at which the game still remains playable and all your computing power doesn't get chewed up by calculating what the AI should do?

It's always got to be a compromise.

But even so, it's hard to accept that some of the behaviour we see in Cliffs Of Dover is the unavoidable result of making compromises to work within those fundamental computational limits.

It could be done better, right? There are ways to make the AI conform to at least a basic set of player expectations aren't there? And if those expectations were conveyed to the developers they wouldn't be too difficult to meet, would they? Just asking for your opinion based on your understanding of what's involved and what you've seen of Cliffs Of Dover in it's current state. I know you've already said the AI could be worked on endlessly and that the developers couldn't afford to do that, just wondering how far you think they might be able to get.

[Jabo2009]

Now that the look and sounds of Cliffs are just about there the next fix on the top of my list is AI. I'm a SP guy and was chasing a Hurricane last night and it was shaking, flopping around and it just takes you right out of the game. With IL2 1946 the AI might have been dumbed down and unrealistic in many ways but at least the AI flying was fluid and looked real like someone coud be flying the plane. This just looks silly. Hope AI is near the top of the developers list as well.

PS Love the game:grin:

+1

[Mattius]

Not top but 2nd.

My current wishlist is:
1-communication
2-AI
3-dynamic campaign

Definately my top 3 as well. Better FPS would be #4! ;)

[Space Communist]

In the new system you cannot strictly draw a line between SP and MP and the AI, because the AI is getting more a part of MP, compared to 1946 (without mods).

Therefore I would love to see better AI, but what is better AI worth, if the netcode cannot support more than 15 AI planes in a coop mission, otherwise the planes warp, lag or are not drawn at all (see ghost/phantom planes)? Seeing improvement of the AI as long term project, I would first focus on the obvious problems and bugs:

FM (performance of the existing planes before introducing new ones f.e. service ceiling :rolleyes: ) -> SP&MP
Network (get rid of the ghost dots and warp-fest of AI) -> MP
LOD (dots visibilty) -> SP&MP
AI -> SP&MP

Exactly. MP is never going to be great without good AI in the mix. particularly for me, since I only like co-op with friends.

[baronWastelan]

I'm going to sticky this thread for a few days. Give it some time for response from other members that a very interested in this topic.

GREAT idea :cool: thanks!

[buddye]

It looks to me, as someone who has no idea of how these things really work, that you have a set of potential manouvres that are triggered by where the planes are in relation to each other and what their individual state is (damage, speed, skill level etc.) With variations in how well the manouvres are carried out also based on the planes individual state, but with some randomness thrown in as well.


I think you understand the Overview of BOBII AI performance and design.


In laymans terms, that would mean the more of those manouvre routines you have, and the more often the game re-calculates which routine is required under the changing circumstances, the better.

What a nightmare lol :grin:


Actually, the processor requirements for the AI are very low as compaired to GFX, weather , water, and landscape which run every 40 MS or faster. Remember, it takes seconds to complete a maneuver (range of 3 to 15 seconds on average but some maneuvers take longer (some of the aggressive maneuvers). As an example, a break low maneuver takes 7 seconds. Seconds are easy for a modern PC.



It could be done better, right? There are ways to make the AI conform to at least a basic set of player expectations aren't there? And if those expectations were conveyed to the developers they wouldn't be too difficult to meet, would they? Just asking for your opinion based on your understanding of what's involved and what you've seen of Cliffs Of Dover in it's current state. I know you've already said the AI could be worked on endlessly and that the developers couldn't afford to do that, just wondering how far you think they might be able to get.


The COD developers are good. They can fix anything they want. Yes, they can make significant improvements to the COD AI. Right now I think it is a question of priority as they have a very long work list with higher priorities. My hope and I think some of you agree is that the Developers will agree and give higher priority to the AI performance.

[jimbop]

How difficult might it be to remove the flaws which make it obvious that the plane is flown by AI? E.g. the dithering you see when they can't decide which way to break.

It seems to me that there are two levels of AI improvement for CoD: the first would be to remove these aspects which really break immersion because you instantly realise that the plane is AI-flown. The second would be to turn an AI plane into a tactically strong opponent.

I hope we get some dev involvement in this thread in particular. I think CoD is heading in the right direction, especially after the last patch, but there seems to be a lot of community expertise that could be tapped. Thanks for sharing the document, buddye.

[dflion]

I have been reading this thread over the last couple of days at work, along with some other threads about the new beta patch and thinking to myself, it seems like it might be time to have another crack at this (after having shelved it for a couple months).

Tonight I got to have a crack at the new beta patch for the first time and while I can agree there is considerable improvement in over all graphics and sound I still couldn't find the hook I was hoping for (maybe too much forum hype, who knows). 109 sounds although, pretty much hit the bull's-eye! Nice work fellas!

smink1701's original post sums it up for me almost perfectly as I see it. The AI with CoD has always seemed absolutely mad to me and one of the great put offs, I mean absolutely spastic manoeuvres that make a chase an absolute joke. 109's with a roll rate that would shame the best 190 pilot, not only in passive flight, but also in steep dives to the point that I thought they were going in without hope only to find them pull up at the last minute and return to the fight LMFAO!!

I also read that some forum members believe that development focus does/should favour online play, well, from what I have read over the years to date, statistically off line play makes up the greater number of paying punters. I'm a 100% offline player as is everyone else I know that plays PC games. AI performance is not a trivial issue with gaming development, just ask the developers how important it is.

This is certainly a very significant patch for CoD, but after all it was either that or shut the doors and call in the cleaners right?

Well, for me it's off the shelf and now sitting on the desktop waiting for the next patch.

I have faith now at least it will get there eventually.

Cheers, CrazySchmidt. :)

Thanks 'CrazyScmidt' I could not have said it better myself. I am just puting the finishing touches to a Ju88 'offline' campaign for the 'bomber boys' ( which will be posted shortly).
I have spent hours and hours historically researching this campaign and thats what 'offline' campaigns are all about - fully historical or semi-historical campaigns that really put you in the 'drivers seat' re-creating what our forefathers (on both sides) actually did! For me personally, the immersion is far better than an 'Online Campaign', although I do enjoy battling with my sons on 'Online campaigns' occasionally.

This flight sim has put the air war during WWII firmly on the map (around the world). Ilya and his team will eventually fix the AI situation (I really can't understand why they haven't followed the programming in IL-2 Sturmovik 1946 which got it fairly right! Hello Ilya?)

This is what Oleg really created in IL-2 Sturmovik, an awareness about what really happened in the air war during WWII. He will always be remembered for this (I hope you are still out there Oleg?)

Finally, the more and more I immerse myself in creating my 'Offline' campaigns in COD, the more and more I really like what the team has tryed to create - eventually (with the help of lots of very intelligent members input) this flight sim will be the leading flight sim. Ilya will then develop a 'Korean War' flight sim then onto 'Vietnam', my personal era.

DFLion
P.S. I was very sad to hear about the crash of the Yak42 with a Russian Ice Hockey team aboard. I was very glad to hear that the Russian President will be looking very closely at Russian Aviation following this crash. The 'Ruski's' have some of the best aircraft designers in the world, they just have to get their act together with Civil Aviation in Russia!

DFLion

[ChicoMick]

+1 Great thread.

I think improved AI would well increase the playability, appeal and longevity of the game (and sales!)

I'm sure there is a hell of a lot of purely SP action going on that doesn't ever make the headlines in forums.

[jimbop]

Does someone have a recent vid of the fast roll rate? I used to see this a lot in the quick missions but have lately been playing custom SP missions, mostly against veteran 109s and 110s, and the roll rate is fine.

[Mysticpuma]

For those who haven't seen this video I did, here is an example of BoBII in action.

Now the initial attack from behind on the bombers I'd never get away with in IL2, but if you watch the rest you will get an idea of how good the AI is when under attack.

Also if you watch the titles, you'll see Gun camera footage I made from the game and in it I am chasing a damaged 109 low on the deck. Just as it goes out of view I get into position and when I get onto him he is stalling and goes into the ground.

Now that is impressive AI to make it try a move and then stall...brilliant.

Here's the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lPmkkBFT8M

Cheers, MP

[Phazon]

I agree that the AI should be held at one of the highest priorities now. Its importance for single-player goes without saying, however I feel that it would benefit multiplayer as well.

Not sure if eveyone is aware, but you can actually spawn with AI wingmen in multiplayer. This is a key feature in regards to helping recreate the sheer number of aircraft that featured in the Battle of Britain - it is impractical to expect to get the same amount of humans to join the one server. ;)

At the moment its not worth taking AI wingmen because they just can't fly properly, on the ground or in the air. Coupled with the fact you just don't have any real control over them and it just turns into a frustrating experience. For the amount of work they put into enabling AI to dynamically spawn with players regardless of the missiontype, it just seems wasted when they just didn't come through with the code for the actual AI itself.

I don't know what the full story is. Maybe they lost the team member who was working on the AI and someone else had to fill in his place. I would hope that now however that they have enough team members working on it to actually get it working within a reasonable timeframe. A significant chunk of enjoyment that someone can get out of this game is lost because of the broken AI.

[Rowddy]

Not top but 2nd.

My current wishlist is:
1-communication
2-AI
3-dynamic campaign


I so do agree with these points above.. i only play offline and because of that COD is unplayable an just collecting dust atm. for me. I travel a lot and have mostly bad internet so online is out anyways. sometimes i used to let the AI fly for me and i just give orders to pass the time (which entertained me for many hours in 1946) ,when i'm in a hotel but even that is not possible in COD :(

Hope they get it done right because i long for some flightaction again (now i can play only SH5 when not at home :wink:)

ooh and throw in some medals that you can earn :)

[JokkerFX]

For those who haven't seen this video I did, here is an example of BoBII in action.

Now the initial attack from behind on the bombers I'd never get away with in IL2, but if you watch the rest you will get an idea of how good the AI is when under attack.

Also if you watch the titles, you'll see Gun camera footage I made from the game and in it I am chasing a damaged 109 low on the deck. Just as it goes out of view I get into position and when I get onto him he is stalling and goes into the ground.

Now that is impressive AI to make it try a move and then stall...brilliant.

Here's the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lPmkkBFT8M

Cheers, MP

This my comment is not directly related to the topic, but BoB II: Wings of Victory seems to be even more unique WW2 flying combat simulator where is the opportunity to be at the same time hundreds of AI planes without the game's FPS dramatically fall, visual displays, even now, sometimes pretty good, although quite an old sim is already the case.

- Excellent video.

[nearmiss]

The Battle of Britain II WOV AI performance should be the benchmark for any recently released WW2 air combat simulation. That is, if it is still true that as improvements are made as they are continuously improved thereon.

Like Microprocessors, hard disk drives, computer graphics... don't think I need to say more.

Buddye and the BOB WOV community, set a benchmark that is achieveable with AI performance. You can virtually fly the BOB II WOV, and experience the AI. It's not pie in the sky and the community made that happen. There should be no going back to old AI standards or non-standards. The kind of AI performance in the BOB II WOV should be the starting point for current developers at minimum.

Buddye and the BOB WOV community will be glad to share what they know and how to achieve the kind of AI performance they have achieved. You can't ask for more.

[SEE]

would really love to see improved ai, plus what krupi mentioned.......realistic flight models!!!


Same here now that MP is getting decent numbers!

[Apollo11]

Hi all,



I do not want to bore you guys with BOBII but for those interested in AI (and I understand that some players are only into MP), I will offer a document. I offer the document to show an overview of BOBII AI's the scope and complexity.

Many thanks for this! :)

BTW, I remember how we tweaked the AI for F4 RPG 10+ years ago using similar techniques...


Leo "Apollo11"

[buddye]

"What method do testers and players use when testing and refining the BOBII AI maneuvers"? (we have over 80 complex maneuvers for selection [both the aggressive and defensive maneuvers]) for the fighters (Spit,Hurri,109.110) and over 50 simple maneuvers for selection for the JU87 and Defiant).


Sorry, I have just one more boring technical post to try and communicate how the BOBII players and testers worked with a single programmer on the AI for the last 6 years (version 2.03- 2.11). Each and every maneuver was reviewed, tested, evaluated, and refined. This was a committed team approach involving a large amount of work. Is the COD community ready to commit to a large long term task?

We use Move Code Labels in real time as a tool to show which maneuver has been selected.

The best way to learn more about the BOBII AI is to turn on Move Code Labels and watch the AI. A good way to watch the BOBII AI is to use Auto Pilot (control+A) so you can just sit back and watch the move codes change.

BOBII’s label options are the following:

1. Move Code Labels - Used to test BOBII AI maneuvers
2. Short Labels - Short text
3. Full Labels - Full text
4. Single Character Labels - Player selected single character
5. No Labels - For realistic game play

Here is a Pic example and text description for Movecode labels:

1. Move Code --Examples like AUTO_FOLLOWWP (following WP like bombers), AUTO_COMBAT (fighting move code but depends on individual maneuver code), AUTO_LANDING, etc.
2. Maneuver code -- Examples like MANEUVER_DISENGAGE (stop fighting, reasons are many), MANEUVER_TURNINGFIGHT (aggressive maneuver), MANEUVER_BREAKHIGH (defensive maneuver), etc.
3. Range to player (meters)
4.Skill level (Novice, Veteran, Ace, Hero and each subdivided, example Ace1, Ace2, Ace3)
5. Alt (feet)
6. Speed (MPH)

http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/bob_dev/movecodes.jpg

[nearmiss]

Getting community involved in an improved AI wouldn't be difficult. Look at all the community that jumped into improvements for the IL2 Sturmovik. This would not be difficult at all. There are a myriad of enthusiasts of the IL2 series that would be very interested to help develop the AI performance.

At the least I would think the people that are doing IL2 mods would be interested to pursue such a project. The IL2 still has good possibilities from all we have experienced in the past year. The AI would be more difficult, because there are just sooooo many flight models represented in IL2. Possibly, if some type of performance spreadsheet was created for each of the various aircraft it might not be as difficult as I perceive. The data from the spreadsheet could be plugged into the Ai performance coding possibly without too much work.

I remember the 1% flight model spreadsheets made by 3rd party developers for the MSFT CFS2. All to get players on consistence basis of performance, yet the AI never were improved by MSFT to take it to the next level.

The COD devs may not have the option for opening the code for quite awhile, unless they can provide a window for coding as per an SDK or something.

[Les]

Thanks for the extra information Buddye.

It's yet to be seen how many members of the Cliffs Of Dover community would be interested and committed enough to put in the work required to get the AI up to the highest level. Even amongst the large amount of work done by the modders and hackers of the old IL-2 series, advancing the AI wasn't something that figured prominently IIRC, though maybe that was because the old series already had better AI than what we seem to have now in Cliffs Of Dover.

From what I can gather though, there's no way it's going to happen anyway without the co-operation of the game's developers.

It seems to me there are only two (legal) ways the AI in Cliffs Of Dover will reach the highest level of refinement possible.

One is if the developers hire some hard-working and talented individual who has access to a large crew of play-testers, and get them to work full-time for years on nothing but the Cliffs Of Dover AI.

The other is if they separate the AI source-code out and allow it to be modified at it's most base level by the modding community.

And looking at it that way, I think I know, in the long run, which way would have a greater chance of success.

I'd put my money on the group that can work on it whenever they want, however they want, just because it interests them. The group that can determine for itself, as actual end-users of the game, what exactly needs to be worked on. The group that may even have amongst it's members people as talented and capable as anyone the developers may be able to hire.

Of course, opening up a part of their game like that would be a slightly unconventional approach for a developer to take. But surely the question should at least be examined, is following convention in this instance doing what we have to do to give our sim the best chance of reaching it's fullest potential?

Ideally, what I'd like to see is the AI-modding community working in conjunction with the individual in charge of the AI development at Maddox Games. To have the modders and the developers working on the same page, with a common aim of improving the AI to an unprecedented level. What could be better for the game than to have the enthusiasts doing what only they can do, in line with the efforts of the official developers themselves?

[klem]

Now that the look and sounds of Cliffs are just about there the next fix on the top of my list is AI. I'm a SP guy and was chasing a Hurricane last night and it was shaking, flopping around and it just takes you right out of the game. With IL2 1946 the AI might have been dumbed down and unrealistic in many ways but at least the AI flying was fluid and looked real like someone coud be flying the plane. This just looks silly. Hope AI is near the top of the developers list as well.

PS Love the game:grin:

Definitely not top of my list.

Before we worry about the AI we need to be able to fly properly ourselves and we can't with the current FMs.

1. FMs
2. AI Comms
3. Dynamic Campaigns

[nearmiss]

And for some there is this...

Definitely not top of my list.
Before we worry about the AI we need to be able to fly properly ourselves and we can't with the current FMs.


Doesn't matter how far you go with anything, you will always come up short... for someone.

Actually Klem, the AI is an extended labor that could take years. The FM could be fixed within a few days or weeks a most.

What you finally get for FM, may not satisfy you either. Afterall, there are still complainers about IL2 flight models, whose complaints have echoed on forums like this one for years.

[klem]

And for some there is this...



Doesn't matter how far you go with anything, you will always come up short... for someone.

Actually Klem, the AI is an extended labor that could take years. The FM could be fixed within a few days or weeks a most.

What you finally get for FM, may not satisfy you either. Afterall, there are still complainers about IL2 flight models, whose complaints have echoed on forums like this one for years.

I'll take Rotol Prop Spits that perform close to their RL performance versus 109s that do the same. :)

If it gets so close that it comes down to hair-splitting I'll live with it.

[nearmiss]

I'll take Rotol Prop Spits that perform close to their RL performance versus 109s that do the same. :)

If it gets so close that it comes down to hair-splitting I'll live with it.

Maybe you will get what you want, hopefully not at the expense of an improved AI performance.

[klem]

Maybe you will get what you want, hopefully not at the expense of an improved AI performance.

Well I understand its a 50/50 call.

I fly exclusively on-line so I'm more interested in human players and our FMs.

For the off-line players the AI is a big issue.

[buddye]

Actually, good FM is a must for the AI, if the AI is subject to the same laws of physics as the player (which is a "must" in MHO).

It would be almost pointless to have well designed, tested and refined AI maneuvers/performance and have poor FM controlling the AI trying to fly the maneuvers.

[machoo]

The Ai as it is is just downright cheating. Tonight I was just messing around and shot the end of a Hurricanes wing off. Instead of losing maneuverability he did a few barrel rolls as quick as a Red Bull air race and lost me before I even had a chance to react.

[Ze-Jamz]

Actually, good FM is a must for the AI, if the AI is subject to the same laws of physics as the player (which is a "must" in MHO).

It would be almost pointless to have well designed, tested and refined AI maneuvers/performance and have poor FM controlling the AI trying to fly the maneuvers.

Thats what i thought. don't they go hand in hand? You cant tell AI to behave a certain way in a FM that's incorrect or doesn't have the correct parameters?

[nearmiss]

The interesting ingredient missing in discussions of FM. So many people have their own ideas of what is a competent FM. Oleg had his idea and he was rebuffed many times by the community. Responding to a community of people, many of whom are pilots can have it's problems.

I mentioned the 1% flight models created by third parties for the MSFT CFS2. The spreadsheets that were created were a very good tool to plug the numbers and stats, then come up with what was called a 1% flight model. The spreadsheets were developed using actual flight model specifications from the aircraft manufacturer, which seemed adequate. Yet, the missing ingredient to all performance specs... Air combat required a new set of rules. Test pilots didn't take the aircraft to untried and unproven thresholds for failure. These failure points were determined by experience, not by test pilots pushing out to reasonable expectations of failure. So... there is that.

Those spreadsheets are still floating around, and probably attainable in many places.

I won't think to argue about their validity. I'll just say they put everyone on the same playing field.

[buddye]

I agree with nearmiss, the fist and most important issue in FM is to find and agree on the best A/C specs and then stick to the agreed to A/C specs unless a better more accurate spec is found and agreed to use.

Then the FM software uses the the A/C spec data. If you find a FM issue you can not assume it is the A/C spec data. The objective is to fly accurate FM (based mostly on pilot reports, test reports, and old problem reports) using many A/C specs with one integrated FM software package.

This is a very tough debugging and analysis problem and often results in player A/C flight opinions that almost all player have with certain A/C (roll rate, speed at specifixc altitudes, dive speed, climb speed, etc. etc.).

The hard working FM engineer must stick by his baseline A/C spec data and try and understand why the A/C is not performing based on old pilot reports and other old A/C testing/problem reports as many "expert Players" complain and give other spec referrences. The job of a FM engineer is never ending with alot of negitive feedback.

The AI is clearly dependent on the A/C FM with respect to AI quality and performance.

[oho]

AI is top issue now I agree.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Afterall, there are still complainers about IL2 flight models, whose complaints have echoed on forums like this one for years.
Some for good reason.. most are not.. my sig says it all

[planespotter]

I have been reading and tonight just reloaded BOB WoVII to my PC and updated to latest patch. I already have Cliffs of Dover but not beta patch, just latest Steam patched version. I don't think that makes a difference to AI?

I played a 4 vs 4 dogfight with both sims in quick mission builder/instant action, where I was in Spitfires vs 109s. Here is my notes I wrote while pausing and playing, just the AI I was considering:

Cliffs of Dover: Merge is good, both sides trying to swing around ea. other / no one opened fire during merge? / wtf 2 109s go away from fight / one 109 shot down by RAF AI / I have not been targeted yet after two minutes / help shoot second 109 down / look at map, 2 other 109s running away, so chase / catch up and fire, they do not react, shoot one down, no reaction from last 109 / boring so leave him to fly away. no one shot at me in whole dogfight.

Battle of Britain II Wings of Victory: Merge, 109s open fire with MGs at long range, one Spitfire damaged / I have two 109s on my tail / call for help on radio / Spitfire comes to help, 109s break off my tail / I get onto tail of 109 but he dives away / he extends and turns back at me! / I get hit with cannon / I spin and recover at sea level / I climb back up to fight (rudder damage I think) / I fire at passing 109 and he breaks off / I follow and fire and he makes evading turn / I cannot maneouvre good and break off, so does he.

This was only one fight but it is as I remember. You cannot compare these two games for single player AI. BOBII rocks, CoD sux. Very sad for such a beautiful sim.

[nearmiss]

It's good you did a recall of a personal combat event. No one really connects with competent AI performance until they really experience it.

Keep it up and you'll get very absorbed in the air combat experience. Actually, it is a very excellent training tool as well for Online air combat

You will be a pro at it, if you stay with it. When you go online you'll not get your head handed to you near as often.

I haven't run the BOB II for awhile myself. I, like many others was waiting for a multi-player. It's not that offline play is that bad, it just gets old flying aircombat hour after hour with no human interaction. Guess it's OK for reclusive personalities, but I'm not one of those types. LOL

Anyway, my interest has been tweaked so I may reload and run it as well. Last time I fired that puppy up I was using XP and Vista. Now I'm on Win 7 64bit. Guess there may be some startup issues, but like always I'll know to stay with it until I get it. LOL

[nearmiss]

I recall there was a more competent AI performace created by "Certificate" when the IL2 mods were a hot commodity. He made a few changes, and made a world of difference in ai. Actually as I best recall the AI were more aggressive for friendly flights. the enemy ai were about the same

[He111]

AI yes! Defiants aren't suppose to do continual barrel-rolls .. the gunner would be sick all over his turret! :grin:

Pity we don't have scripts that could be changed. eg Tactics of a defiant is going to be a million miles different to any single-seater fighter!

He111.

[buddye]

The strategy of the BOBII AI has been a major topic of player discussion. Do the AI fight, how long, when do they break off and then what?

In BOBII we have evolved to a different strategy for our Instant Action Missions and our two Campaigns (Single Player and Commander Campaign).

In Instant Action (IA), we have assumed that the player is interested in a good scrap (a longer dog fight where he can practice his combat pilot skills). In the Campaign, the AI Squad will break off sooner to prevent unrealistic Squad losses. In both the Campaign and Instant Action Missions, the AI will break off when the Squad losses reach a certain level or the Squad is outnumbered by a certain number.

A individual AI will disengage when he is out of ammo, at bingo fuel, or has damage that prevents effective fighting. When disengaged, the AI will head for home after diving away but the AI will take evasive action if shot at (either a bullet hit or a bullet near miss).

[Les]

The strategy of the BOBII AI has been a major topic of player discussion. Do the AI fight, how long, when do they break off and then what?

In BOBII we have evolved to a different strategy for our Instant Action Missions and our two Campaigns (Single Player and Commander Campaign).

In Instant Action (IA), we have assumed that the player is interested in a good scrap (a longer dog fight where he can practice his combat pilot skills). In the Campaign, the AI Squad will break off sooner to prevent unrealistic Squad losses. In both the Campaign and Instant Action Missions, the AI will break off when the Squad losses reach a certain level or the Squad is outnumbered by a certain number.

A individual AI will disengage when he is out of ammo, at bingo fuel, or has damage that prevents effective fighting. When disengaged, the AI will head for home after diving away but the AI will take evasive action if shot at (either a bullet hit or a bullet near miss).

Interesting points Buddye, a good reminder that developing the AI is about more than deciding how the individual planes dogfight each other. Anyone who's ever tried in vain to get through an IL-2 series campaign with minimal squad losses will understand how crucial the development of the strategic aspect of the AI is.

On a related note, I'm guessing that similar to how the individual AI are dependent upon the flight models of their planes, the strategic or tactical aspect of the AI as a group would be dependent on the game having an effective way for the player to command their AI team-mates.

Is working on the command system a part of developing the AI, or is that as separate as the flight modelling is? Seems to me there might be a bit of a grey area or overlap there in terms of what the AI are coded to do, as opposed to what the player can tell them to do. I imagine there must be some kind of heirarchy or order of importance that would have to be determined. For example, did refining the BOBII AI require fixing things like the tendency we see in the IL-2 series for several AI to form a conga-line behind a single enemy AI, often following it to the exclusion of all other considerations? Would be good if stuff like that could be written out of the picture once and for all.

[buddye]

BOBII uses Radio Commands to permit the Player to get information from the AI and command the AI. Some Radio Cammands are indpendent and some must work with the AI. The problem with many AI attacking a single enemy was solved with a option permitting the player to select the max number of AI that are permitted to engage the same enemy.

Here is a list of the BOBII Radio Cammands taken from the User manual:

Radio Keys Fighters Fighter Bombers

Group Info
R-1-1 Report in Report in
R-1-2 Report position Report position
R-1-3 Fuel check Fuel check
R-1-4 Report status Report status
R-1-5 Tight left turn now Tight left turn now
R-1-6 Tight right turn now Tight right turn now

Pre-Combat
R-2-1 Test guns Test guns
R-2-2 Patrol position Patrol position
R-2-3 E/A vector E/A vector
R-2-4 Airborne Airborne
R-2-5 Give freedom Give freedom
R-2-6 Take command Take command

Combat
R-3-1 Bandits! Bandits!
R-3-2 Sighting request Sighting request
R-3-3 Break! Break!
R-3-4 Covering? Covering?
R-3-5 Attack my target (Help!) Attack my target (Help!)

Post-Combat
R-4-1 Regroup Regroup
R-4-2 Send all home Send all home

Tower
R-5-1 Mayday! Mayday!
R-5-2 Home tower Home tower
R-5-3 Nearest tower Nearest tower
R-5-4 Surface wind Surface wind
R-5-5 Wind at altitude Wind at altitude
R-5-6 Land at home Land at home
R-5-7 Land at nearest Land at nearest

Ground Attack
R-6-1 N/A Begin your Bomb run
R-6-2 N/A Strafe the target
R-6-3 N/A Leave area

[KOM.Nausicaa]

Content deleted.

[planespotter]

Some good AI example for Cliffs of Dover, so it is not all bad. I am trying the campaign mission where in Spitfire you have to intercept incoming raid flying from Manston. Here there is also a Hurricane squadron, already on their way, as your Spitfire squadron takes off. In BOB for real, the Hurricanes generally concentrated on the bombers while the Spits took on the fighters.

In this mission that is exactly what happens, even though the Spits are close to the bombers as they are climbing up, they leave the bombers for the Hurricanes to attack, and they go after the 109s escort. The Hurricanes do manage to bring down some Heinkels and the Spits do OK against the 109s but not great I will say.

Anyway, some good things to say about this element of the AI!

[David198502]

Some good AI example for Cliffs of Dover, so it is not all bad. I am trying the campaign mission where in Spitfire you have to intercept incoming raid flying from Manston. Here there is also a Hurricane squadron, already on their way, as your Spitfire squadron takes off. In BOB for real, the Hurricanes generally concentrated on the bombers while the Spits took on the fighters.

In this mission that is exactly what happens, even though the Spits are close to the bombers as they are climbing up, they leave the bombers for the Hurricanes to attack, and they go after the 109s escort. The Hurricanes do manage to bring down some Heinkels and the Spits do OK against the 109s but not great I will say.

Anyway, some good things to say about this element of the AI!

i think that behaviour is not much about the AI itself, but more about how the mission was created in the FMB.if they selected the bfs as a target for the spits, then its no wonder that they will ignore the bombers.
that is more a strength of the FMB instead of the AI itself i think.
but what i recognized in a similar mission today, created by myself, was that a group of bf's, who escorted He's over the channel to dover, flew s lines 500 meters above the He's, to stay in contact with them, although they flew faster.i set both groups at the same altitude, but as soon the bf's spotted the bombers, they climbed up to 1k and began to bank right and left all the time, to keep the high six flying 400kph, while the He's flew at 500m with 300kph.i flew as the wingman of the leader, and was pretty surprised by this behaviour.

[He111]

Actually in FMB ,you can add scripts for aircraft groups .. does anyone know how that works? :confused:

.

[nearmiss]

I suspect the script box in FMB is just what is needed, except the FMB box is placed within the code for working with the mission in progress.

I would say it pokes the code in a specific place. There might be some possibility to code some AI in this box, but I doubt it would allow for much.

Luthier did mention SDKs are coming, this might be the best way for coding AI. We will have one for maps, aircraft and AI SDK would be great. The AI performance coding will take a long time and require alot of beta testers among users to get things to make sense.

WOW the prospects of a great AI are just exciting to think about.

[Bakelit]

WOW the prospects of a great AI are just exciting to think about.

Agreed wholeheartedly.


And yet I wonder what exactly happened in the AI development division of Maddox games between say 2006 and 2011 on a typical work day ...


I mean, they had an extremely rich resource of what sim players want and what they like/ don't like about all aspects of the product. More feedback and community interaction than most other flightsims. Themselves worked on AI for IL2 1.0 and later refined it so the development team had long time experience. It was not their first flight sim.

And then look at what we got in the spring of 2011!?

[buddye]

Has anyone created one-0n-one dog fight Missions, so that the enemy AI can be tested at different skill levels and the AI at the different skill levels can be compared in a simple example?

Sorry , I do not use the FMB, I can not change the skill level in the quick missions, and I do not even know the AI's coded skill levels.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Has anyone created one-0n-one dog fight Missions, so that the enemy AI can be tested at different skill levels and the AI at the different skill levels can be compared in a simple example?

Sorry , I do not use the FMB, I can not change the skill level in the quick missions, and I do not even know the AI's coded skill levels.

What did you have in mind? I could fix those up pretty quick...

AI if I remember is same as old IL2, Rookie, Average, Veteran and Ace...

PM if you want them making up and tell me your email address. Let me know which aircraft you want to fly and which enemy AI aircraft you want to fly against. Merge or dead 6? Altitude etc...

[Les]

What did you have in mind? I could fix those up pretty quick...

AI if I remember is same as old IL2, Rookie, Average, Veteran and Ace...

PM if you want them making up and tell me your email address. Let me know which aircraft you want to fly and which enemy AI aircraft you want to fly against. Merge or dead 6? Altitude etc...

Farber, if you do make some test missions up, you could put them in a zip file and attach them to a post on the forums here, in case others want to use them as well. Zip files can be as big as 14MB per post.

[buddye]

Yes, I am sure that the more testers the better. I just want to look at the different AI performance per skill level.

I like the SpitII VS the 109 (E , I think).

Head-on would do but most any one-on-one mission would do. I guess we would need one mission per AI skill level to try and keep the testing simple.

Thanks for your very kind offer.

[IvanK]

What did you have in mind? I could fix those up pretty quick...

AI if I remember is same as old IL2, Rookie, Average, Veteran and Ace...

PM if you want them making up and tell me your email address. Let me know which aircraft you want to fly and which enemy AI aircraft you want to fly against. Merge or dead 6? Altitude etc...

Farber since you seem to be able to make these things how do you actually get the AI to engage offensively say on a head on merge ? Every time I make a simple setup the ACE AI just flies right on bye. He will only start some defensive stuff if you wizz a few rounds past him. Even flying directly in front of him has no affect.

[adonys]

you can safely bet that the people who worked on IL2 AI's went away, and were not in there anymore to work on IL2CoD's AI.

you can also bet that the new people haven't worked on IL2 CoD more than half-a-year - a year (and most probably there was only one assigned to this).

that's what my almost 10 years game-developing experience tells me when I am looking at the launch/current state of IL2 CoD's AI.

[buddye]

you can safely bet that the people who worked on IL2 AI's went away, and were not in there anymore to work on IL2CoD's AI.

you can also bet that the new people haven't worked on IL2 CoD more than half-a-year - a year (and most probably there was only one assigned to this).

that's what my almost 10 years game-developing experience tells me when I am looking at the launch/current state of IL2 CoD's AI.

Yes, I agree with your opinion based on my experience. The manpower, skill, and focus were not spent on the AI.

[smink1701]

Love the new patch and really appreciate the effort but the AI is still porked.

[_79_dev]

Farber since you seem to be able to make these things how do you actually get the AI to engage offensively say on a head on merge ? Every time I make a simple setup the ACE AI just flies right on bye. He will only start some defensive stuff if you wizz a few rounds past him. Even flying directly in front of him has no affect.

~S~

You have to set up type of waypoint properly. Lets say You are trying to merge flight of 2*109`s against 2*Huricanes at 3kfeet, paths are meeting head on. You have a few waypoints before merge, create two close waypoints to this merge and set theme for "free hunt" and make sure that its done couple of minnutes before merge.

[skouras]

i know what we need
we need the guy from Wings of Victory II
This sim had the most excellent AI that i.ve seen with true offensive and defensive manouvers based on RL back in 40's
actually i'm thinking to reinstall it again...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNYm8kBmecQ

[jamesdietz]

The last beta seems to have made a small improvement ...but it may be my imagination...When I go back to Il-2 it still looks quite a bit better...
I do remember Wing of Victory II- I must have been one of the first to buy it & it was terrible for quite a while esp the AI...bomber formations that turned as if cables were attached to their wings & fighters that did maneuvers that StarWar fighters would have been green with envy. Slowly it got sorted out,if I remember properly it had alot to do with third party volunteers...?
The initial version of CloD really reminded me of WoVII,in so many ways...but I've been along for the ride & ( even with low 14-25.FPS) I really love it - the eye candy of the cockpits & shadows is just too much & I find going back to Il-2 mildly difficult , inspite of its much higher, better performance.It still has alot of issues to work on before it grows to a bigger sim ,but Il-2 took a while too...
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d116/jamesdietz/shot_20111010_211319.jpg

[nearmiss]

The 3rd party devs are doing a work on the AI for IL2 1946 with UP as I understand.

In fact, constant improvements in AI are being mentioned.

If that is true, the fruit may not be falling too far from the tree.

Skouras...

Buddye is main stay on the AI performance package for BOB II WOV. He has posted several times in this thread, and might be persuaded at some point to help improve the COD AI performance.

You can't get better help than the man that made the BOB II WOV the best AI of any WW2 air combat simulator in my experience.

Also, your video is for 2.08 version. There have been an additional 3 patch releases since then.

The AI performance was a prominent feature of those releases.

http://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=21865

I recently reinstalled the BOB II WOV. I was always put off by the lack of a competent mission builder and no multiplayer online game.

I think some enthusiasm for the BOB WOV died off a bit with the release of BOB COD, because everyone's expectations are high for the COD.

Luthier is staying with it hot and heavy, so those expectations may not be misplaced.

[nearmiss]

The last beta seems to have made a small improvement ...but it may be my imagination...When I go back to Il-2 it still looks quite a bit better...
I do remember Wing of Victory II- I must have been one of the first to buy it & it was terrible for quite a while esp the AI...bomber formations that turned as if cables were attached to their wings & fighters that did maneuvers that StarWar fighters would have been green with envy. Slowly it got sorted out,if I remember properly it had alot to do with third party volunteers...?
The initial version of CloD really reminded me of WoVII,in so many ways...but I've been along for the ride & ( even with low 14-25.FPS) I really love it - the eye candy of the cockpits & shadows is just too much & I find going back to Il-2 mildly difficult , inspite of its much higher, better performance.It still has alot of issues to work on before it grows to a bigger sim ,but Il-2 took a while too...
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d116/jamesdietz/shot_20111010_211319.jpg

This whole scene is very excellent graphics. The problem is.. the distortions are just not acceptable (to me).

[Chivas]

I think most of the destortion is caused by the point of view or FOV being to far back in the cockpit.

[nearmiss]

The distortion, how can anyone put up with it?

I enjoy the cockpits and graphics for the depth of my involvement in the simulation. I realize enlarged POV may help see more, but it doesn't mate up with the way I like to enjoy air combat simulation.

So, yeah... I just go with the most realistic visuals all the time, and workaround the lack of peripheral vision and such.

[JG52Krupi]

The distortion, how can anyone put up with it?

I enjoy the cockpits and graphics for the depth of my involvement in the simulation. I realize enlarged POV may help see more, but it doesn't mate up with the way I like to enjoy air combat simulation.

So, yeah... I just go with the most realistic visuals all the time, and workaround the lack of peripheral vision and such.

What do you mean by distortion, what would need to be changed to get it looking like you want dude?

[fruitbat]

aa and correct fm's all the way to service ceiling.

everything else can wait imo.

[proton45]

This is a very long thread and I have not read it all...so I hope I'm not repeating an idea.

But, I would LOVE any, and all, of the effort that the team will put into the "AI". And "off line" play...

I could make a long list of behavior that I would love to see the "AI" exhibit, but the bottom line is...I would love to be surprised by the "AI". I would love to have the "AI" behave in unpredictable (sometimes), and yet understandable ways. People have already commented on improving the mechanics of "AI" flight...some feel that the "Sturmovik 1946" "AI" is smoother.

I'm intrigued by the idea of, "AI" that can "learn" from its opponent. Imagine flying against "AI" pilots that remember you...and (maybe) remember your favorite tactics.

[smink1701]

1++

After making the game look and sound great, the real flight simulation and immersion comes from the way the combat is simulated. The dev team really needs to fine tune this aspect you feel like you are flying against a person rather than a robot on acid and red bull.:grin:

[reflected]

I agree with the above.

Would it be too much to ask for an AI that abides by the laws of physics? Now the game might as well be called "Spitfires vs Aliens", or "Messerschmitts vs Aliens".

That would be the first step towards an enjoyable single player mode.

2) make radio commands work.

3) add some content. a dynamic campaign and/ or a more complex mission builder.

[David198502]

The distortion, how can anyone put up with it?

I enjoy the cockpits and graphics for the depth of my involvement in the simulation. I realize enlarged POV may help see more, but it doesn't mate up with the way I like to enjoy air combat simulation.

So, yeah... I just go with the most realistic visuals all the time, and workaround the lack of peripheral vision and such.

what is the most realistic FOV in your view?

[reflected]

Oh, another thing about the AI. When they don't start to roll liek an Xwing, they fly straight and hit their imaginary airbrakes. They accelerate and deccelerate like UFOs. Bwah..

[nearmiss]

All of us who have been around for awhile and flown online realize that people do have patterns of behavior that occurs in air combat regularly.

There are just things you learn from your experience that can be programmed into AI performance. Probability hasn't been discussed much, but human behavior can be predicted in many air combat situations with high probability.

An example might be you are low and see a fast moving enemy dropping on you from above onto your 90. You know when he starts to pull up out of this dive your best course of action may be to nose down pulling towards him, but definitely not to pull up going away. These kinds of behavior can be programmed, but a probability of what the low pilot will actually do should be considered. Panic or pressure of the engagement may actually convert to the absolute worst thing to do or the smart thing to do.

I realize most AI performance is based on pilot experience, but still the best most experienced pilots made mistakes. Probability calculations should be part of the AI performance.

Programming AI is difficult. It cannot be ignored... just like in baseball, the probability statistics do mean something. Psychologists have studied proability as it relates to human behavior for years, and it is an ongoing study. No, the extremes and radicalized parts of behavior may not be determined by probability... but for most of us grunts in the world the statistics are pretty well on target.

I'm not trying to throw something new into the mix. The AI performance for a COD will take time and testing to arrive at a passable performance, that most of us can accept.

As it is now... the arcade is open

[He111]

Programming AI is difficult ?? yes .. but what were pilots taught to do during a dog-fight? if they were novice .. stick to leader like glue! .. never fly straight for more than <x> seconds in the battle zone .. avoid battle etc

Average Pilots

Spit & Hurricane pilots Attacked 6 oclock - strong bank left or right
109 pilots attacked 6 oclock - nose over, DIVE!
110 pilots attacked 6 oclock - nose over, dive ?? defensive circle?
Defiant pilots attacked 6 oclock low - bank left or right, give gunner view below
Bombers attacked 6 oclock - steady course, slight climb / falls (this is already being done), yaw tail to allow gunners full view (?)

Veteran / ace pilots

Would have their own specialisd tactics that they found work ,as you stated.

The above would make the game realistic.
.

[buddye]

I have been asked the following question many times, Can you just pull out the BOBII AI and use it in another Flight Sim?

The BOBII AI could “not” be easily be made into a separate program and used in another Flight Sim as it is tightly integrated with the BOBII design and data. Of course, the BOBII AI design and approach could be implemented in another Flight Sim but the cost would be high in development and testing.

The Game Industry has so many issues trying to make a profit that I some times worry that most all people who do this type of work do it out of love and not profit (I am a retired Executive Business Manager for 25 years in the software business so I understand and always focused on profit/loss). Just consider for a moment how risky the business of investing in games actually is. Geoffrey Zatkin of Electronic Entertainment Design and Research is quoted in this article as saying:

"Only 20% of games that begin production will ever finish. Of those 20% that are finished and released to the market, only 20% of them will ever realize a significant profit... that equals 4% of games that start production return a significant profit."

Talk about long odds and I bet the odds for Flight Sims are even lower.

BTW, the BOBII approach to AI performance has players who do not agree. The following is a statement by a good BOBII player:

"The AI having acrobatic style evasive maneuver are great for testing your skills in quick combat flights, but in real combat there were relatively few extended dogfights. Most fights usually ended very quickly with the first burst, and the loser seldom seeing his counterpart."

I am sure that everyone has read these words many times. This may be the real way air combat was fought but I am not sure it was the case all the time. This approach for the AI would be very "boring" for a player, IMHO, but it would be easy to implement (fire, run and hide, then repeat). IMHO, a combat Flight Sim developer must always factor in the Player's "Fun Factor" so the air combat dog fights are enjoyable and fun.

[nearmiss]

LOL

The sim world is not the real world. You don't die in the game, and players want to enjoy all the air combat.

Even online you play different than you do offline. When you fly against good flyers in the air online you can get your head handed to you very quickly.

I would say online is closer to actual combat, but the element of gambling your life on a possible bad move doesn't mean anything. The most capable online players are careful not to waste their E and expose themselves anymore than possible. They want to get kills, and staying in the game is important.

Real world pilots flew and fought to stay alive, and reckless abandonment of caution wouldn't keep them alive for very long.

The AI performance makes the most difference to Offline players, and can make it or break it for a good air combat experience. So you want as competent AI as possible offline, especially since your wingman is a package of binary coding.

A competent AI is important with the COD, because there is no way to put large numbers of aircraft into the air in combat with human players. You could sit for hours waiting for enough players to join the server. AI performance is going to be very important to Online and Offline players in the COD, no way around it.

It's nothing like the IL2 with a small number of Online players pitted against each other. AI performance was ignored in the IL2, because there just was no capacity to put a large number of players into the fray at one time. Many of the players in those air combat situations will have to be AI players. AI performance cannot be ignored, it will have to be competently dealt with or all enthusiasm for the COD will be dead very shortly.

[He111]

Well my fun factor as a SIMER, not a gamer, is for my sims to act real life .. the reason why I bought COD and not many other flight sim games. I love the detailed models, and especially the destruction models etc

If I'm closing in on a enemy’s 6, and he see me all the time ?? hmmm (when did single-seater fighters get an observer? defiant excluded) and starts barrel rolling continuous .. as if that doesn't affect the pilot then that's a detraction from the gam .. SIM! I expect to see my enemy spit / hurri do nothing (novice), banking hard left or right (average / veteran) or something new and surprising (ace)

As to games making money, there's nothing more certain to lose money than if you don't give gam ..simers what they want. The most successful games/sims are the ones that r bug free, easy to understand to operate, and have rich addictive tactical / strategic game play .. with the emphasis on addictive, players want to come back again and again .. for me, addictive means, quality - real-life sims - empire building (growth) - wargaming etc. Others would be different

[Trooper117]

You are still playing a 'flight sim game'.. don't kid yourself.
There will never be any game that can be called 'full real', it's a catch phrase grown up men give to the genre to convince themselves they are not gaming, but are now 'simming'.. :)
Get over it mate,
Being 'immersed' in your game is another matter, as for some, me included, you can suspend belief for a brief moment and get lost in it. (highly enjoyable)..
Lots of faults still to be put right, but as a grown up I can except what the devs are trying to do to rectify them, until then its a matter of playing the game as it stands, which is still pretty enjoyable regardless of the problems.

[He111]

You are still playing a 'flight sim game'.. don't kid yourself.
There will never be any game that can be called 'full real', it's a catch phrase grown up men give to the genre to convince themselves they are not gaming, but are now 'simming'.. :)
Get over it mate,
Being 'immersed' in your game is another matter, as for some, me included, you can suspend belief for a brief moment and get lost in it. (highly enjoyable)..
Lots of faults still to be put right, but as a grown up I can except what the devs are trying to do to rectify them, until then its a matter of playing the game as it stands, which is still pretty enjoyable regardless of the problems.

Alot of people are gripping that Merlins don't sound like Merlins .. and Daimlers don't sound like Daimlers etc .. people want reality.

On a unrelated issue, here's a determined guy trying to takeoff! so determined .. and he nearly made it! :)


.

[Trooper117]

Good pic!.. That is one aircraft many will want to see flyable.. hopefully in the future eh?
As to the sounds, well, don't think they will please everyone, but what we have is a vast improvement over the original ones.
Plus, as stated by the devs, the sound is still a work in progress and has a ways to go yet.
Don't get me wrong mate, there is a shed load of stuff to improve for sure. :)

[smink1701]

Played a few SM's last night and I am so glad that FMs/AI is on the dev To Do list. At the present time it really makes the game unplayable in SP. Great to look at, fly around, take in the fly-by sounds, but engaging enemy planes and watching them flounder around like the pilot just had a seizure is a JOKE.

[He111]

few more AI bugs ;

(1) When a plane is being attacked while landing, will try to barrel roll .. not advisable with flaps & gear down .. BOOM!

(2) Planes don't lower flaps when taking off, meaning they fly through trees etc to gain height.


Plus, why is the lights all on in this town (see picture) ?

.

[buddye]

few more AI bugs ;

(1) When a plane is being attacked while landing, will try to barrel roll .. not advisable with flaps & gear down .. BOOM!

(2) Planes don't lower flaps when taking off, meaning they fly through trees etc to gain height.


Plus, why is the lights all on in this town (see picture) ?

.

The problems with the AI, like doing a maneuver while takingoff or landing and the correct takeoff settings (flaps, throttle, etc.) should be rather easy to fix and test, IMHO.

The issues with selecting and performing the best combat maneuvers (both aggressive and defensive, vertical, dive, level) are the hardest if making human like maneuvers based on skill level is a top priority.

[reflected]

Buddye,

Are you the Buddye who created the most realistic AI ever, that is, the noe in BoB2? If so, why hasn't Luthier hired you yet? This game could really use your talents!

[David198502]

Oh, another thing about the AI. When they don't start to roll liek an Xwing, they fly straight and hit their imaginary airbrakes. They accelerate and deccelerate like UFOs. Bwah..

+1 in my opinion that is the most annoying AI bug.i crashed a lot of times into them, because i was not able to break away fast enough.now since i became aware of that problem i tend to realize this "manouver" more quicky, so i escape the crash more often, but its still really distracting.

btw, i think this thread could be really important for the future of clod's AI...since the last update by luthier, im pretty confident that the devs look into it, and maybe we will have an improved ai to our likings soon.or at least acceptable.

[buddye]

Buddye,

Are you the Buddye who created the most realistic AI ever, that is, the noe in BoB2? If so, why hasn't Luthier hired you yet? This game could really use your talents!

Yes, I am the Buddye who has worked on the BOBII AI and other BOBII applications over the last 6 years. This is a long thread but I have posted some of my experiences and the BOBII approach and conceptual design if interested.

I love COD's graphics and damage model but the AI and game play has a long road ahead to achieve excellence IMHO.

[smink1701]

Yes, I am the Buddye who has worked on the BOBII AI and other BOBII applications over the last 6 years. This is a long thread but I have posted some of my experiences and the BOBII approach and conceptual design if interested.

I love COD's graphics and damage model but the AI and game play has a long road ahead to achieve excellence IMHO.


You would think that one of the most important aspects of creating any flight sim...combat or otherwise...would be the modeling of flight simulation...yours and the AI's. HOW could the CLoD team work so hard on getting the cockpit shadows and gauge reflections so amazingly right and the FMs and AI so unbelievably wrong. And why has it taken them so long to address the problem. Don't they play the game???

[robtek]

I don't think they have time to play the game, they are working on it!
And don't exagerate, the faults are relatively minuscule regarding the whole packet!

[He111]

Yes, I am the Buddye who has worked on the BOBII AI and other BOBII applications over the last 6 years. This is a long thread but I have posted some of my experiences and the BOBII approach and conceptual design if interested.

I love COD's graphics and damage model but the AI and game play has a long road ahead to achieve excellence IMHO.

I remember BOB 1 .. it's AI was so great, experienced Stuka pilots were almost impossible to hit, they'd turn into you, use their slow speed to frustrate and confuse! .. i loved it! :grin:

But I also remember defiants rolling like barrels downhill, surely that's not historic! .. gunner would be sick all over their turrets! LOL!

Hopefully COD will allow each user to create their own scripted AI ? .. hopefully ..

.

[reflected]

That was BoB1. BoB2 is different. Buddye created an AI that flies like a human, one that is challenging even for experienced pilots, still they are subject to the same laws of physics. One that has restricted vision, and can be surprised (depending on the level), one that tries to fly home when they feel they're losing the battle (damaged, too many wingmen lost, etc...), but still puts up a fight if you don't let them do that. All this is jsut the tip of the iceberg. If it could be done in BoB2, why on Earth can't it be done in what's supposed to be the best sim of the future?

[smink1701]

I don't think they have time to play the game, they are working on it!
And don't exagerate, the faults are relatively minuscule regarding the whole packet!

OK...I probably should have said "Test" the game. Five minutes of playing in SP mode and anyone can see with the AI jumping, juking, waggling, doing multiple rolls at ground level, etc, etc, etc...the combat simulation is not very well simulated. You get behind a bogey and see some of this nonsense and say "Why bother." It's better to just fly around alone in the sky and take in the scenery.

[buddye]

That's a gameplay aspect, and I agree is important, but less so than getting the engine underneath working correctly first. The dev's focus has been on that, with the occasional candy being thrown our way (i.e. 109E-4). AI is certainly less important than sounds, or stuttering, or unplayable framerates which have been improved.

I agree that a focused priority approach must be used by the COD developers so progress is maintained with their skills and manpower but if the AI is not addressed the game will only be excellent for the on-line players vs player dog fights. IMHO, COD will never reach its full potiental if player vs AI dog fighting is poor.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

I agree that AI should be improved and particularly the FM available to the AI (instant full rudder or ailerons should be eliminated and the max roll speed and other performance parameters should be the same as for the player plane including overheating etc.)

It also needs to get smarter in terms of when to break a fight or a pursuit and when to continue. While in old IL2 they stuck to one's tail forever this is fortunately no longer the case and they break off smarter than in the previous game. However, they lack bite considerably. After a few minutes they just form up and fly home and you can just shoot them down without reaction from them.

Also we need to have the command "cover this flight" (including the task in fmb) better implemented as usually the fighter cover attacks the fighters and drops with them to the deck while actually they should just deter the enemy from attacking the bombers.

But otherwise I think there are also some already good features implemented in the AI. I just had a rolling scissor fight with an AI and it did it quite smartly. So there is hope :)

[jamesdietz]

"It also needs to get smarter in terms of when to break a fight or a pursuit and when to continue. While in old IL2 they stuck to one's tail forever this is fortunately no longer the case and they break off smarter than in the previous game. However, they lack bite considerably. After a few minutes they just form up and fly home and you can just shoot them down without reaction from them."

This is way too true..its much like the AI in BoBII when it first came out: you just wait til they turn for home for sausage & mash ( or frites) and pick them off one by one. They only seem mildly annoyed when one of their fellows falls away into the Channel & then resume their happy droning home,This is the time to hit them instead of the dogfight when both them & their aircraft are able to do crazy StarWars manuevers that I cannot possibly follow at 14-24 FPS!!!
It does create bad habits tho ,when going back to Il-2 where the AI are way more intelligent while their aircraft are limited to the rule of physics in the real world.

[oho]

One thing that's very annoying is the eyes in the back. I want to surprise a fighter from behind and not that he's always evaiding as soon as I'm less than 300 yards away.

[Fall_Pink?]

Now that the look and sounds of Cliffs are just about there the next fix on the top of my list is AI. I'm a SP guy and was chasing a Hurricane last night and it was shaking, flopping around and it just takes you right out of the game. With IL2 1946 the AI might have been dumbed down and unrealistic in many ways but at least the AI flying was fluid and looked real like someone coud be flying the plane. This just looks silly. Hope AI is near the top of the developers list as well.

PS Love the game:grin:

I Agree, but to some degree some improvements have already been made. I mean, they now know when to disengage and fly home. They report when they're empty (which is good) and I like the waiting pattern they fly when the last plane of a flight takes off. These are good improvements I think. Also good is the behavior when they need to fly cover and manouvres they fly (slow spirals and zig zags) when they need to accompany the bombers.

Less favourable are the sudden and very rapid directional changes when it comes to air combat and formation changes. They're too sudden and too much ufo-like, bombers included. When wingmen joining their leader it seems like they're trying to commit suicide. They fly straight at you and at the very last moment do a loop-di-loop and join you at your wing ;-) This should be improved a bit I guess.

I do enjoy playing the game however, but really wish to see some AI and AI commands improvements in the next patch. Some ground vectoring would be nice as well.

Rgs,
FP

[nuNce]

One thing that's very annoying is the eyes in the back. I want to surprise a fighter from behind and not that he's always evaiding as soon as I'm less than 300 yards away.

Actually I have the feeling that it always breaks as soon as I am about to get a good shot at it, sometimes it even breaks in the instant I push the trigger. It's one of the things that's killing the offline gaming part for me (toghether with performances).

[reflected]

I noticed that too. They break as soon as I press the trigger. :(

Also, yesterday I was flying a 109 E4 against Defiants, and I was seriously outpaced by them. There's not much CEM to do in the 109 with its automatic pp, so I don't know why full throttle wasn't enough...
It seems that the AI doesn't even use the FM of the actual plane. They always climb away, or run away, never lose E, etc...if you still get behind them tehy start rolling and rolling and rolling, in a screaming dive of 400 mph, your plane barely moves and the metal squeaks, but the AI still rolls like an F16.

So:
1) give the AI the same FM a human would use, and don't let them manage their plane perfectly either.

2) restrict their visibility and reflexes. (like in BoB2 WoV)

3) make them act human, i.e. more variety of maneuvers, trying to use their plane's strenghts, not only barrel rolls and occasional scissors. (like in BoB2 WoV)

[smink1701]

I noticed that too. They break as soon as I press the trigger. :(

Also, yesterday I was flying a 109 E4 against Defiants, and I was seriously outpaced by them. There's not much CEM to do in the 109 with its automatic pp, so I don't know why full throttle wasn't enough...
It seems that the AI doesn't even use the FM of the actual plane. They always climb away, or run away, never lose E, etc...if you still get behind them tehy start rolling and rolling and rolling, in a screaming dive of 400 mph, your plane barely moves and the metal squeaks, but the AI still rolls like an F16.

So:
1) give the AI the same FM a human would use, and don't let them manage their plane perfectly either.

2) restrict their visibility and reflexes. (like in BoB2 WoV)

3) make them act human, i.e. more variety of maneuvers, trying to use their plane's strenghts, not only barrel rolls and occasional scissors. (like in BoB2 WoV)

1+, 1+, 1+. That's what I'm talkin' about.

[nuNce]

(like in BoB2 WoV)

Little OT. How is that game, is it still worth it? How does it compare to Il-2 1946?

[buddye]

In BOBII the AI and the player use the same FM and code so they are equal with only two exceptions (1) the AI do not black out or white out and (2) the AI can see through clouds (the AI do have blind spots as they can not see through the solid A/C parts [wings, rear, nose, etc] or see into the sun). Customers do sometimes complain that the AI can pull more G's and does not black out but in my opinion the advantage is small against a human pilot.

In BobII the AI can stall, spin, crash, and do stupid things. The AI ability to fly effectively is controlled with "skill level" which the player can select in Instant Action Missions and skill level is assign or user controlled in the Dynamic Campaign (both commander and Single Pilot). The higher skill level AI are more effective in Air Combat as they have the ability to fly more maneuvers and they fly each maneuver more effectively and efficiently.

In BOBII we have over 80 complex maneuvers for selection (both the aggressive and defensive maneuvers) for the fighters (Spit,Hurri,109.110) and over 50 simple maneuvers for selection for the JU87 and Defiant

[Fall_Pink?]

you can safely bet that the people who worked on IL2 AI's went away, and were not in there anymore to work on IL2CoD's AI.

you can also bet that the new people haven't worked on IL2 CoD more than half-a-year - a year (and most probably there was only one assigned to this).

that's what my almost 10 years game-developing experience tells me when I am looking at the launch/current state of IL2 CoD's AI.

I'm not so sure about that. To me it seems more likely they focused on certain area's (ground details, FM, DM, cockpits, AI and so on), but when they all tried to glue it together in their game engine they hit a wall. It stopped any further progress and they were pressed to release it anyway (lack of money, whatever).

Today, even after many patches, even with just 1 plane in the air and a few ground objects, the terrain still does not load smoothly on a very high end system. Adding more ram and more cpu power hardly makes a difference because the game is unable to use it.

To me it seems the real root cause is the game engine itself. Only when they've managed to fix this they will have time to look into the AI.

We can only hope - and Luthier mentioned a ~ 50% improvement - they'll find what the real trouble with the current CoD game engine is. Right now, it's still not running smoothly, especially when compared to IL2 10 years ago.

Rgs,
FP

[Fall_Pink?]

I have been asked the following question many times, Can you just pull out the BOBII AI and use it in another Flight Sim?

The BOBII AI could “not” be easily be made into a separate program and used in another Flight Sim as it is tightly integrated with the BOBII design and data. Of course, the BOBII AI design and approach could be implemented in another Flight Sim but the cost would be high in development and testing.

The Game Industry has so many issues trying to make a profit that I some times worry that most all people who do this type of work do it out of love and not profit (I am a retired Executive Business Manager for 25 years in the software business so I understand and always focused on profit/loss). Just consider for a moment how risky the business of investing in games actually is. Geoffrey Zatkin of Electronic Entertainment Design and Research is quoted in this article as saying:

"Only 20% of games that begin production will ever finish. Of those 20% that are finished and released to the market, only 20% of them will ever realize a significant profit... that equals 4% of games that start production return a significant profit."

Talk about long odds and I bet the odds for Flight Sims are even lower.

BTW, the BOBII approach to AI performance has players who do not agree. The following is a statement by a good BOBII player:

"The AI having acrobatic style evasive maneuver are great for testing your skills in quick combat flights, but in real combat there were relatively few extended dogfights. Most fights usually ended very quickly with the first burst, and the loser seldom seeing his counterpart."

I am sure that everyone has read these words many times. This may be the real way air combat was fought but I am not sure it was the case all the time. This approach for the AI would be very "boring" for a player, IMHO, but it would be easy to implement (fire, run and hide, then repeat). IMHO, a combat Flight Sim developer must always factor in the Player's "Fun Factor" so the air combat dog fights are enjoyable and fun.

buddye,

Just out of curiosity, but what if you 'commercialize' this knowledge you have on flight sim AI? How hard would it be and how much time would be needed?

Now every game has it's own AI (mostly flawed and buggy at first) and each developer seems to make the same mistakes over and over again. First person shooter AI is different from flight sim AI, I understand that, but BoB2 and Cod are essentially the same: ww2 flight sims. They have the same number of planes in the air, same type of fighters and bombers.

Even more modern flight sims would be able to make use of the AI tables/matrices and set of maneuvers you made for bob2, right? AI pilots remain AI pilots, whatever the time period, so mimicking human behavior is the constant here. It's just the capabilities and tactics that change when new weapons platforms emerge.

It would be really nice to see some real progress in this field, that's all ;-)

Rgs,
FP

[buddye]

Little OT. How is that game, is it still worth it? How does it compare to Il-2 1946?

Just my opinion,

BOBII best at, AI and dynamic campaign

IL2 best at , MP, and Mission Build Tool

Everything else really depends on the players personal view so really not very consistent.

Bottom line for me is both games are good and are fun to play.

[buddye]

buddye,

Just out of curiosity, but what if you 'commercialize' this knowledge you have on flight sim AI? How hard would it be and how much time would be needed?

Now every game has it's own AI (mostly flawed and buggy at first) and each developer seems to make the same mistakes over and over again. First person shooter AI is different from flight sim AI, I understand that, but BoB2 and Cod are essentially the same: ww2 flight sims. They have the same number of planes in the air, same type of fighters and bombers.

Even more modern flight sims would be able to make use of the AI tables/matrices and set of maneuvers you made for bob2, right? AI pilots remain AI pilots, whatever the time period, so mimicking human behavior is the constant here. It's just the capabilities and tactics that change when new weapons platforms emerge.

It would be really nice to see some real progress in this field, that's all ;-)

Rgs,
FP

The AI maneuvers are flown in BOBII using commands (AI do not use a joystick to fly). I would expect that the commands are tailored for BOBII (of course I have no knowledge of the COD AI design and data base). The data base for the AI is also BOBII specific as well as all the many support programs.

The basic design and approach to AI could be transferred/reused but the new code, integration, and testing would be very significant, IMHO. It would take one person years to complete (if they understood the BOBII AI) and it also assumes a good Player test team to test the AI maneuvers so the project could be coded and tested in small increments.

[Fall_Pink?]

The AI maneuvers are flown in BOBII using commands (AI do not use a joystick to fly). I would expect that the commands are tailored for BOBII (of course I have no knowledge of the COD AI design and data base). The data base for the AI is also BOBII specific as well as all the many support programs.

The basic design and approach to AI could be transferred/reused but the new code, integration, and testing would be very significant, IMHO. It would take one person years to complete (if they understood the BOBII AI) and it also assumes a good Player test team to test the AI maneuvers so the project could be coded and tested in small increments.

Buddye,

Maybe naive thinking here, but I'd expected a more exchangable and compatible AI, for example a set of dll's and a SDK ;-) I wasn't really thinking of adding it all quickly in CoD; that's not going to happen.

A package that could be marketed and sold to flight sim makers and expanded into other AI areas as well. Unsure if there's a market for it, but given the state much of the AI is in today, I'd say "yes".

Rgs,
FP

[nearmiss]

Just my opinion,

BOBII best at, AI and dynamic campaign

IL2 best at , MP, and Mission Build Tool

Everything else really depends on the players personal view so really not very consistent.

Bottom line for me is both games are good and are fun to play.

The dynamic campaign works well enough for BOB II. Most of the battle was air combat and the campaign manages that well enough. I'm not sure with the one map a mission builder tool would have made that much difference. There was a time I worked very closely with one of the A2A contract programmers to build a mission builder tool. The project was cancelled, after one minor beta release.

The IL2 Online MP was the salvation of the game. The FMB is a tedious tool to work with and made the process of building missions very time consuming. I could spend hours explaining things that need fixing in the FMB. LOL

It is nice you are spending some time on the forums. Hopefully, you will be a catalyst for a constantly improving AI performance in COD.

I recently reinstalled the BOB II and renewed knowledge of what a competent AI Performance really means.

Do you know if there will be continued work on the BOB II? The latest update is 2010 as I read from the A2A forums.

[buddye]

The dynamic campaign works well enough for BOB II. Most of the battle was air combat and the campaign manages that well enough. I'm not sure with the one map a mission builder tool would have made that much difference. There was a time I worked very closely with one of the A2A contract programmers to build a mission builder tool. The project was cancelled, after one minor beta release.

The IL2 Online MP was the salvation of the game. The FMB is a tedious tool to work with and made the process of building missions very time consuming. I could spend hours explaining things that need fixing in the FMB. LOL

It is nice you are spending some time on the forums. Hopefully, you will be a catalyst for a constantly improving AI performance in COD.

I recently reinstalled the BOB II and renewed knowledge of what a competent AI Performance really means.

Do you know if there will be continued work on the BOB II? The latest update is 2010 as I read from the A2A forums.

The BOBII 2.11 Code , Landscape, and MultiSkin Update is the Latest.

The landscape and object guys have been working on improving the BOBII landscape with new objects, trees, trains, and ships.The MultiSkin has been improved to include German Bombers and the fighters have also been improved to include the German Ju87 and BF110.

We have a new programmer working on the BOBII Campaign issues and problems. This will be a long term project to enhance the Dynamic campaign.

BOBII progress is painfully slow as the BDG is a small part time all volunteer workforce and one of key members has been unaviable due to very serious family issues.

[buddye]

Buddye,

Maybe naive thinking here, but I'd expected a more exchangable and compatible AI, for example a set of dll's and a SDK ;-) I wasn't really thinking of adding it all quickly in CoD; that's not going to happen.

A package that could be marketed and sold to flight sim makers and expanded into other AI areas as well. Unsure if there's a market for it, but given the state much of the AI is in today, I'd say "yes".

Rgs,
FP

The list of data interfaces (flight and FM data) required from the Simulator is so large and time critical that unless the simulator is written like FSX (which is not the case for todays Combat Flight Sims) where the flight and FM data is made available to a external application then an external AI application can not be implemented (at least that is where my current analysis of the possibility of implememting an external AI maneuver stands).

I need to look at the possibility of implementing smaller functions of the AI to see if it is cost-effective.

[salmo]

The dev's are now asking for specific examples to improve the Ai. See HERE (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28747)

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

Why pc pilots would prefer artificial intelegence over a real dynamic human is beyond me:confused::confused::confused: they will never get better, I take that back, they will get better then the AI (which will probably suck durring our lifetimes)....unless they cant get internet maybe.

[csThor]

Why pc pilots would prefer artificial intelegence over a real dynamic human is beyond me:confused::confused::confused: they will never get better, I take that back, they will get better then the AI (which will probably suck durring our lifetimes)....unless they cant get internet maybe.

Because AI doesn't have what soured any kind of enjoyment I could derive from online gameplay? That little negligable thing called a human ego (which continuously had to be stroked)? I've seen enough kindergarten behavior to cure me for good from going online ever again. Simply put I prefer a style of gameplay focused on history as opposed to the everlasting gangbang that the great majority of the players favor. The human factor is grossly overrated ... in fact a human is more likely to be even more predictable than any AI: Shoot one down and he'll whine on some message board about unrealistic FMs, DMs, weapons or anything else that lets him mask his own inaptitude by pointing fingers at other somewhat "esotheric" factors. :roll:

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

Because AI doesn't have what soured any kind of enjoyment I could derive from online gameplay? That little negligable thing called a human ego (which continuously had to be stroked)? I've seen enough kindergarten behavior to cure me for good from going online ever again. Simply put I prefer a style of gameplay focused on history as opposed to the everlasting gangbang that the great majority of the players favor. The human factor is grossly overrated ... in fact a human is more likely to be even more predictable than any AI: Shoot one down and he'll whine on some message board about unrealistic FMs, DMs, weapons or anything else that lets him mask his own inaptitude by pointing fingers at other somewhat "esotheric" factors. :roll:


Man those are some sour grapes;) csThor, you should give the ATAG coms just one chance, Im sure you will see ten times the teamwork, comaradery and fun in general, the group of guys on there are passionate and always trying to help each other improve. Whining? rather rare realy as most of the whiners post on the forums much more then fly. As far as the human factor being over rated, I disagree whole heartedly as this sim is realy geared towards online play. Any way, Im sure if you show up the pilots will be very happy to have you as a wing"man".

[CWMV]

Geared toward online play...
If you mean that everything necessary for a good offline campaign is broken, well then I suppose it is.

[JG52Krupi]

Man those are some sour grapes;) csThor, you should give the ATAG coms just one chance, Im sure you will see ten times the teamwork, comaradery and fun in general, the group of guys on there are passionate and always trying to help each other improve. Whining? rather rare realy as most of the whiners post on the forums much more then fly. As far as the human factor being over rated, I disagree whole heartedly as this sim is realy geared towards online play. Any way, Im sure if you show up the pilots will be very happy to have you as a wing"man".

+1 lone wolfing is not good in ATAG it's a quick death, u always hear ppl warning each other on ts3 you don't get that so much in offline.

[csThor]

Man those are some sour grapes;) csThor, you should give the ATAG coms just one chance, Im sure you will see ten times the teamwork, comaradery and fun in general, the group of guys on there are passionate and always trying to help each other improve. Whining? rather rare realy as most of the whiners post on the forums much more then fly. As far as the human factor being over rated, I disagree whole heartedly as this sim is realy geared towards online play. Any way, Im sure if you show up the pilots will be very happy to have you as a wing"man".

Not sour grapes as you put it, just the result of several years worth of either playing online (going back over ten years and old Warbirds 2.01) and even more years reading various message boards of various servers. And all this time has finally convinced me that my own high standards of simulating air war cannot be achieved online simply for the face that too many people want a sportive contest (aka gangbang) instead of a serious simulation.
With AI support realistic missions would be possible, but let's face it - ATM CloD doesn't offer more than pointless fighter combat with a few scarce other types thrown in. Nothing that even remotely resembles historical plane rates and mission profiles. And even if the darn engine worked as it should I know people would whine about AI involvement simply because of their own little superiority complex - as if engaging other players over the Internet was any grand achievement that sets them apart. :roll:

I have no probs with people liking online, tastes are different after all, but I am extremely allergic to that patronizing tone of "Why pc pilots would prefer artificial intelegence over a real dynamic human is beyond me". I don't meekly accept when people belittle me and my views simply from their own POV.

[JG52Krupi]

Not sour grapes as you put it, just the result of several years worth of either playing online (going back over ten years and old Warbirds 2.01) and even more years reading various message boards of various servers. And all this time has finally convinced me that my own high standards of simulating air war cannot be achieved online simply for the face that too many people want a sportive contest (aka gangbang) instead of a serious simulation.
With AI support realistic missions would be possible, but let's face it - ATM CloD doesn't offer more than pointless fighter combat with a few scarce other types thrown in. Nothing that even remotely resembles historical plane rates and mission profiles. And even if the darn engine worked as it should I know people would whine about AI involvement simply because of their own little superiority complex - as if engaging other players over the Internet was any grand achievement that sets them apart. :roll:

I have no probs with people liking online, tastes are different after all, but I am extremely allergic to that patronizing tone of "Why pc pilots would prefer artificial intelegence over a real dynamic human is beyond me". I don't meekly accept when people belittle me and my views simply from their own POV.

There are many many things that have made me move on to mainly online flying one of these is the added immersion that teamspeak/vent etc give you me and SEE where busy covering the last red target the other night and we spent 30 mins covering the target shooting down (or trying to shoot down) 109s and 110s coming to pound the target, which is far in land by the way, if I am not doing that then I am Borris AKA Ju88 hunting ;)

Nothing beats finding a few ATAG guys bunched up and probably having a good chin wag on the way to bomb a target in a BR20 only to be jumped 2 mins away from the target by me in a spit :D, man I wish I was on blue comms so I could hear there bleating as they tired to get there sights on me :lol:.

But I know what you mean about the problems with multiplayer but so far ATAG is ticking all the right boxes, if only they could get skins to work well :evil:

[=FI=Scott]

I don't see any reason why a modern sim can't do both. In IL2, FB, PT etc I enjoyed great offline campaigns and online play.

Why does it have to one or the other with Clod ? personally I always thought Hyperlobby elevated IL2's MP to the stage that it reached with hundreds of players online. If Clod is developed with its SP element in mind but its on HL as well it should satisfy both preferences.

[von Pilsner]

I have no probs with people liking online, tastes are different after all, but I am extremely allergic to that patronizing tone of "Why pc pilots would prefer artificial intelegence over a real dynamic human is beyond me". I don't meekly accept when people belittle me and my views simply from their own POV.

Well said, single player can be quite fun (well, once the obvious stuff is fixed).

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

Not sour grapes as you put it, just the result of several years worth of either playing online (going back over ten years and old Warbirds 2.01) and even more years reading various message boards of various servers. And all this time has finally convinced me that my own high standards of simulating air war cannot be achieved online simply for the face that too many people want a sportive contest (aka gangbang) instead of a serious simulation.
With AI support realistic missions would be possible, but let's face it - ATM CloD doesn't offer more than pointless fighter combat with a few scarce other types thrown in. Nothing that even remotely resembles historical plane rates and mission profiles. And even if the darn engine worked as it should I know people would whine about AI involvement simply because of their own little superiority complex - as if engaging other players over the Internet was any grand achievement that sets them apart. :roll:

I have no probs with people liking online, tastes are different after all, but I am extremely allergic to that patronizing tone of "Why pc pilots would prefer artificial intelegence over a real dynamic human is beyond me". I don't meekly accept when people belittle me and my views simply from their own POV.

Sorry csThor, not my intention to belittle you or your views Its just that the guys I fly with are half the fun so its hard for me to think of flying against or with only my pc. I just hoped I might be able to show you our version of online play with coms as it stands today(sure to improve!)

Oh by the way, thanks for your early interest in the gtx580 3gb, I ended up getting one and last night I saw 2.47gb of usage as the gunner for ATAG_DOC in a 110:eek: <<<<<<<<EDIT* Wrong it was T}{or oops....

[JimmyBlonde]

Because AI doesn't have what soured any kind of enjoyment I could derive from online gameplay? That little negligable thing called a human ego (which continuously had to be stroked)? I've seen enough kindergarten behavior to cure me for good from going online ever again. Simply put I prefer a style of gameplay focused on history as opposed to the everlasting gangbang that the great majority of the players favor. The human factor is grossly overrated ... in fact a human is more likely to be even more predictable than any AI: Shoot one down and he'll whine on some message board about unrealistic FMs, DMs, weapons or anything else that lets him mask his own inaptitude by pointing fingers at other somewhat "esotheric" factors. :roll:

Are you me?

I get this sudden feeling reading your post that either you are me or that I'm having some kind of Tyler Durdenesque psychotic break here.

Everyone pimps their server as being the exception but it's a clique thing, you're in the clique or your not.

The big difference is not the people themselves, they're only human. It's the environment that favours balance over realism. People go on about how they are team players and whatever but few really are, they think that being in the server with the same letters in front of their name makes them a team. In the real deal you don't get a choice, you have to work as a team in order to survive and, until this idiotic notion of things having to be balanced gets knocked out of people, this culture will endure. People mistakenly believe that flight simulations exist to be gratifying, fair or fun, they do not, they exist to simulate flying which is inherently gratifying, often unfair but always fun.

[tintifaxl]

In flightsims and Arma I'm interested in online play, but not versus humans but coops against the AI. For that a working enemy and friendly AI is paramount as it is for single player.

And so CloD sleeps on the harddrive until this is fixed alongside the radio comms.

[GraveyardJimmy]

Realistic AI will be necessary if we ever want to recreate things like Eagle Day, which could work as a nice coop mission.

[mcdaniels]

Isn't there a possibility to ask the guys and ladies?, which developed WOV for AI assistance?

[katdogfizzow]

Why pc pilots would prefer artificial intelegence over a real dynamic human is beyond me:confused::confused::confused: they will never get better, I take that back, they will get better then the AI (which will probably suck durring our lifetimes)....unless they cant get internet maybe.

Easily misunderstood if you haven't experienced the correctly set up AI in FMB. Although human players can be much more satisfying in dog fights (x 10), The AI pilots and gunners in il2:1946 can be simply incredible and realistic.

The AI will smoke you if you set up your mission correctly in FMB. My group has made over 100 and flown over 300 coop missions vs. only AI. Its a great experience. I'd love to see you in a wildcat against some AI ace zeros, or in a p40 in the desert against some AI 109s in an "end of an era" mission. You'll be going down. AI very realistic and can be almost as good as human in the right scenarios. This awesome AI was here 5 years ago!

Some simmers want to fly historical missions with 50 or more planes in formations. the only way to do that is with AI. So yes if I want to fly a historic mission, I prefer the AI in Il21946. I haven't attempted any AI missions in CloD as the ATAG human and AI server, as you say, is very satisfying. The combination of human and AI is as sweet as it gets...and it will only get better with time

[=FI=Scott]

The new ai in the latest 4.11 patch is a big improvement in classic IL2. Objectively I still don't think it is as unpredictable or engaging as BoB WoV's ai but it is still good and to me far superior to what we currently have in CloD. As these are both Maddox games 1C products (and if they haven't done so already) couldn't the dev's speak to the TD people who did the new 46 ai ?

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

Easily misunderstood if you haven't experienced the correctly set up AI in FMB. Although human players can be much more satisfying in dog fights (x 10), The AI pilots and gunners in il2:1946 can be simply incredible and realistic.

The AI will smoke you if you set up your mission correctly in FMB. My group has made over 100 and flown over 300 coop missions vs. only AI. Its a great experience. I'd love to see you in a wildcat against some AI ace zeros, or in a p40 in the desert against some AI 109s in an "end of an era" mission. You'll be going down. AI very realistic and can be almost as good as human in the right scenarios. This awesome AI was here 5 years ago!

Some simmers want to fly historical missions with 50 or more planes in formations. the only way to do that is with AI. So yes if I want to fly a historic mission, I prefer the AI in Il21946. I haven't attempted any AI missions in CloD as the ATAG human and AI server, as you say, is very satisfying. The combination of human and AI is as sweet as it gets...and it will only get better with time

Yes I agree, the hope is to have realistic formations of bombers in the server as soon as the engine is optimised or the hardware allows. I cant wait till we have a ton of bombers all together heading to some critical target escorted by fighters going against determined and organized allies....heck ya

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

I found this site for BoB missions etc, dont know if you all have seen it allready but if not enjoy!

http://bobgamehub.blogspot.com/

[Octocat]

Not top but 2nd.

My current wishlist is:
1-communication
2-AI
3-dynamic campaign


Regarding P.3 of your wishes, here Skatech - Air Warfare (unofficial addin) (http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=73973&p=1775230).
This is still pre-alpha test, the discussion in Russian, but the Addin in English.

[buddye]

The new ai in the latest 4.11 patch is a big improvement in classic IL2. Objectively I still don't think it is as unpredictable or engaging as BoB WoV's ai but it is still good and to me far superior to what we currently have in CloD. As these are both Maddox games 1C products (and if they haven't done so already) couldn't the dev's speak to the TD people who did the new 46 ai ?


I agree that the IL2 4.11 patch and radio messages would be a improvement for COD but maybe the interfaces or databases have changed.

[Ctrl E]

Luthier - I understand if you cannot post a patch immediately fixing the graphics engine, but surely you can make a patch fixing the terrible AI of this game.

[smink1701]

I haven't fired up CloD for months and have been spending all my stick time with ROF. I thought I'd see what I've been missing and tried a QM with Advantage Axis. Got on the six of a Hurricane and gave him a quick burst and he just continued on like he was sight seeing. Gave him another short burst and the same reaction...which means no reaction. One more burst and down he went. What a waste of beautiful graphics. Whoever made the decision to release this non-simullator in its current state should get out of the busienss. Back on the shelf this dust collector goes...:(

[FC99]

The new ai in the latest 4.11 patch is a big improvement in classic IL2. Objectively I still don't think it is as unpredictable or engaging as BoB WoV's ai but it is still good and to me far superior to what we currently have in CloD. As these are both Maddox games 1C products (and if they haven't done so already) couldn't the dev's speak to the TD people who did the new 46 ai ?
I don't have COD code(don't even have the game either :grin:) so I don't know what issues they have with AI but it is virtually impossible that Il2 AI could be directly transfered to COD. OTOH no matter the current AI structure in COD lot of features from Il2 could be adjusted for COD relatively easy (or for any other combat flight sim). Whole decision making is sim independent and all you really need is bunch of variables which can be easily acquired from any game engine.


Luthier - I understand if you cannot post a patch immediately fixing the graphics engine, but surely you can make a patch fixing the terrible AI of this game.
If AI is that easy, everybody would get it right in the first try.:grin: Main reason why AI sucks in most games is because developers underestimate its complexity and time required for AI development.

[SlipBall]

I may be the only one here that enjoys the AI...I think the team did a great job on them.:)

[CrazySchmidt]

I haven't fired up CloD for months and have been spending all my stick time with ROF. I thought I'd see what I've been missing and tried a QM with Advantage Axis. Got on the six of a Hurricane and gave him a quick burst and he just continued on like he was sight seeing. Gave him another short burst and the same reaction...which means no reaction. One more burst and down he went. What a waste of beautiful graphics. Whoever made the decision to release this non-simullator in its current state should get out of the busienss. Back on the shelf this dust collector goes...:(

That particular mission is a great example of just how bad the AI is at the moment I agree!!

That scenario reproduces exactly how I feel every time I decide to give this another crack after a couple months away, instant disappointment, then back on the shelf through frustration.

CS. :)

[He111]

I may be the only one here that enjoys the AI...I think the team did a great job on them.:)

When I see Defiants banking left or right, allowing the gunner full view of the attacker @ 6 o'clock low, then I'll know reality has returned.

.

[Ailantd]

I may be the only one here that enjoys the AI...I think the team did a great job on them.:)

Do you enjoy your mates crashing in the airfield because they like so much fly close to you even when you are landing? And that it´s only an example.

[He111]

You enjoy your mates crashing in the airfield because they like so much fly close to you even when you are landing? And that it´s only an example.

Have you tried radioing to your squadron - "head for home .. tea & biccies" ? otherwise they think your doing low level arcobatics ?

R

[Dano]

Have you tried radioing to your squadron - "head for home .. tea & biccies" ? otherwise they think your doing low level arcobatics ?

R

Artificial idiocy, it's the only explanation as to why somebody would willingly crash because you are landing regardless of having been told to go home and make sure the kippers are smoked properly.

[Ailantd]

Have you tried radioing to your squadron - "head for home .. tea & biccies" ? otherwise they think your doing low level arcobatics ?

R

So... the IA is not that good, if they "think" that way and crash their planes because them want to make underground aerobatics with me, right?.

[smink1701]

I may be the only one here that enjoys the AI...I think the team did a great job on them.:)

No, Luthier likes it too.;)

[SlipBall]

I'm not saying that they don't need some tweeking, but they are no longer crack shots.:)

[furbs]

Dogfighting bombers, crashing wingmen and suicidal enemy sqds that dont want to fight back.
The AI still needs alot of work, though the "community help with AI" thread, the new AI guy plus 4 months work should mean we progress with this patch.

[robtek]

There really are not that many things wrong with the ai, but the few errors are really prominent.
The dogfighting bombers should be traced back to the mission builder, afaik.

That the ai doesn't defend itself could be only a missing trigger.

Same with separating from the leader when he lands, the ai just doesnt get the information and stays in formation.

Annoying, but really nothing to open a cask for.

[buddye]

I guess everyone has opinion about good AI but for me the true test is how the AI perform maneuvers during a dog fight trying to both kill the enemy and being defensive and not getting killed. I have never been killed and only been shot by friendly fire in my COD dog fights.

I find the current COD AI to be a weak dog fighter. Developing good AI dog fighting maneuvers will be a significent effort, IMHO. The other problems (Dogfighting bombers, using up the ammo too fast and not hitting anything, crashing wingmen, and AI that will not engage) should be easier to fix

[smink1701]

I guess everyone has opinion about good AI but for me the true test is how the AI perform maneuvers during a dog fight trying to both kill the enemy and being defensive and not getting killed. I have never been killed and only been shot by friendly fire in my COD dog fights.

I find the current COD AI to be a weak dog fighter. Developing good AI dog fighting maneuvers will be a significent effort, IMHO. The other problems (Dogfighting bombers, using up the ammo too fast and not hitting anything, crashing wingmen, and AI that will not engage) should be easier to fix

I agree. The only thing COD (Collector of Dust) is good for in its present tune is just flying around and doing a bit of sight seeing. After game crashes and other issues that make the game unplayable...ai is on the top of my list;)

[furbs]

There really are not that many things wrong with the ai, but the few errors are really prominent.
The dogfighting bombers should be traced back to the mission builder, afaik.

That the ai doesn't defend itself could be only a missing trigger.

Same with separating from the leader when he lands, the ai just doesnt get the information and stays in formation.

Annoying, but really nothing to open a cask for.

Robtek, for me its EVERY offline mission.

[SlipBall]

I agree. The only thing COD (Collector of Dust) is good for in its present tune is just flying around and doing a bit of sight seeing. After game crashes and other issues that make the game unplayable...ai is on the top of my list;)


Your system seems stronger than mine but yet I do not ever have crashes...really makes me wonder the why:)

Robtek, for me its EVERY offline mission.


I find that interesting too, one on one I rate AI at a 9 or so. I have him set at normal flight in the action page...it all just makes me wonder how so many others have problems. They do get hits on me, but nothing like the old Il-2 marksmen:)

[von Brühl]

If you circle the base, let the ground operator give you permission to land. You'll notice they invariably call out the planes that should join the circuit, and start from last position in the flight to the lead being last. If you jump the gun, and land before you are cleared, with the rest of your flight still following you, no wonder they are crashing into the ground.

As the ground control calls for each plane, you'll see them leave your formation, and begin their final approach. After they have been given their final clearance, they will land, and the controller will call out the next aircraft to join the pattern. If they are members of your flight, then you will be the #1, and you should be landing last. Following these procedures, the landing rate of the AI is nearly 100% if they aren't badly damaged.

[SlipBall]

If you circle the base, let the ground operator give you permission to land. You'll notice they invariably call out the planes that should join the circuit, and start from last position in the flight to the lead being last. If you jump the gun, and land before you are cleared, with the rest of your flight still following you, no wonder they are crashing into the ground.

As the ground control calls for each plane, you'll see them leave your formation, and begin their final approach. After they have been given their final clearance, they will land, and the controller will call out the next aircraft to join the pattern. If they are members of your flight, then you will be the #1, and you should be landing last. Following these procedures, the landing rate of the AI is nearly 100% if they aren't badly damaged.


Yes this is true!...user error:-P

[III/JG53_Don]

It isn't just a problem of weak mission building imho.
I built a mission myself in which I comand the AI 109 to escort Do17 to their targets. I repeat the escort command for every following waypoint, but as soon as some Hurricanes attacking the bombers, the 109 are engaging..... fighting for some poor minutes and then heading home, leaving the whole bomber group alone on the whole upcoming flight and ignored the next waypoints totally.
One time the whole bomber group on the other side began to dive randomly after being attacked by the Hurris and made a huge right turn, allthough only 1-3 bombers were damaged a little.

It shows that there are some general (and I won't say minor) problems with the AI behaviour.

[furbs]

Ive never lost a 1 on 1 dogfight with the AI, and i dont expect any body else has.

[banned]

Yes this is true!...user error:-P
Ummmm that's great if you're not damaged and need to land immediately, not neccessarily at an airport.

[nearmiss]

Ive never lost a 1 on 1 dogfight with the AI, and i dont expect any body else has.

LOL

If you did lose, you could join the only club with 1 member.

Fly the BOB II WOV, and you'll be amazed what AI can do.

[smink1701]

[QUOTE=SlipBall;388975]Your system seems stronger than mine but yet I do not ever have crashes...really makes me wonder the why:)


Just to be clear I have never had issues with game crashes. I just stated that for all those that do. They don't care about ai when they can't even run the game. COD runs great for me but still has vibrating tree shadows, micro-stutters, etc. I could put up with those but cannot deal with ridiculous, robotic, ai. When I play ROF (which is far from perfect) when dogfighting it feels like there is an actual pilot in the plane I'm chasing. Never get that feeling in CLoD.

[Bakelit]

There really are not that many things wrong with the ai, but the few errors are really prominent.
The dogfighting bombers should be traced back to the mission builder, afaik.

That the ai doesn't defend itself could be only a missing trigger.

Same with separating from the leader when he lands, the ai just doesnt get the information and stays in formation.

Annoying, but really nothing to open a cask for.


*shakes head in disbelief*
*schüttelt ungläubig den Kopf*

Have a weeks worth of BoB:Wov AI experience and then compare to your "not that many things wrong" CoD placeholder AI...

[robtek]

I have to admit that i never managed to get BoB:WoV running on any of my Machines, and i tried it quite a few times.
But then again, any ai is a placeholder for me, as i prefer human opponents.

[furbs]

True ...no AI comes close to dogfighting a human.

[buddye]

I agree a human pilot is the best dog fighting experience but the quality of the experience is based on the knowledge and experience of the human pilot.

To simulate all the historic missions in the BOB with 200+ A/C in the air (both bombers and fighters), to simulate every day of the BOB in a dynamic campaign, and to povide good and challenging AI dog fighting a good AI maneuver capability is a requirement.

If a weak AI maneuver capability is provided with weak one-on-one dog fighting then a multi player capability capability is all that is needed.

[SG1_Lud]

Guys, a new topic is open in the IL2 Bugtracker for the AI here (http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/280#change-888)

Please vote and give your feedback directly to the developers.

Lud.