Another question for TD..

[Bearcat]

TD can you tell me why it is .. that I can be chasing a bandit .. in a dive.. and he is pulling away from me which obviously means he is going faster than I am .. and he can jink and juke.. and not only that he can pull up out of his dive and do very high.. very tight yo yo and come down and nail me with a short burst ... because I pulled up even shallower than he did and yet I STILL blacked out.... and he obviously didn't pulling an even tighter climb while pulling away from me..? How is this possible. Mind you .. I took a shallower climb because I started greying out following his every move and I knew that if I continued I would black out so I backed off... yet he just pops up .. rolls over.. BANG!! I'm dead..

One would think that at the very least his aim would be off a bit because he was partly blacked out if not outright blacked out and not be able to shoot me... right? That's what happens when I am on the fleeing end ... I black out .. come oo.. Where is he.. it takes me a few seconds to reacquire.. and some times that comes from the tracers over my shoulder or across my nose..

This is more a question than an outright gripe .. because I am trying to understand what is happening and what I can do to prevent it.. I see some of the improvements in the AI.. They do panic and stall they do fly into the ground .. apparently from blacking out.. but it just seems that the two thresholds for blacking out are not in synch.. I would think that if I was starting to black out then the bandit I am chasing who is pulling away going faster and turning tighter should be doing the same thing... maybe even sooner.. Why is that not the case?

[gaunt1]

+1

Also experienced this, last time I chased a 190 in a Yak-9, with same results as you described. Also happened with A6M vs Wildcat.

[Treetop64]

+1

Also experienced this, last time I chased a 190 in a Yak-9, with same results as you described. Also happened with A6M vs Wildcat.

Arguably, in most cases the FW190 will win in a dive vs. just about anything else, especially against Russian planes, particularly the Yak. Same for a diving F4F vs. A6M.

But I have to agree with BC, as I've sometimes witnessed the same things in early Eastern Front campaigns, and though the Bf109F2 far outdives everything else in the early missions, the I-16 or I-153 I'm chasing can often pull very sharply out of the dive, whereas I have to just keep going on my way in the 109 because I either quickly black out or break the airplane if I try to stay behind the other guy.

[Aviar]

Agreed. The AI does not have the same threshold for blackouts when compared to humans. This is very obvious if you play IL-2 for any reasonable amount of time.

I'm still hoping that one day TD can resolve this issue.

Aviar

[The_WOZ]

No, this happens also online Aviar.
I witness this specially against US planes.
You're both diving, the plane in front pulls a tight turn, you try to follow, drop throttle and follow a less tighter turn, but still blackout. By the time you're out of it the enemy is in your six and you have lost so much energy you're dead.
But when roles reverse this can be used against them, jerking the stick a little will make them try to follow without reducing speed, and if they're on a spit or p-51 they'll loose a wing.

[IceFire]

I think there are two things at play:

1) The AI may not have the same blackout hindrance as a human pilot. I'm not sure if they do or not... but it does seem like they can do so much more than a human at high speed ... SOMETIMES. Other times they aren't any more effective. But it does tend to be a problem... sometimes they can do some pretty amazing things.

2) Peoples perceptions are often wrong. Dead wrong. They think they pulled the same turn angle as the aircraft they are in pursuit of but most people get a little anxious and try and end up pulling tighter to try and get a possible lead shot on the target. I've done it, I've seen lots of people do it, it happens more often than you think. If you record a track and watch extremely closely from both perspectives it starts to show.

Number 1 is more of an issue offline. Number 2 is more of an issue online but still remains in play for offline as well.

[Lagarto]

There is no such thing as blackout hindrance for AI in this sim. Most regrettably.

[horseback]

My first thought is that the AI cheat. Shamelessly.

My second thought is that they are always perfectly and instantaneously trimmed in a way that no human player can possibly duplicate. They do not appear to be subject to rough air and turbulence the way that the player is, and as we all know, they still retain a degree of what I like to call the anal eyeball (because they can all see out their @sses). If they retained lawyers, we'd all be subject to sexual harassment suits because they can feel it the moment your gunsight's crosshairs come close to their tail sections despite having their backs turned to us.

My third is that dive acceleration doesn't seem to be affected by factors like weight/kinetic energy and drag, that the only factor appears to be terminal speed, where at some point the 'slower diving' aircraft simply cannot go any faster without breaking up, and if you have sufficient altitude, your 'faster diving' aircraft will start to catch up, but you will have to be very careful not to exceed your 'breakup point' AND you will have to be trimmed just so AND you will still see the little bastage pull out just as you come within firing range anyway.

You're better off telling your wingman to go get him; that way, once he's on the wingman's tail, you'll have a better shot at him.

cheers

horseback

[iLOVEwindmills]

I don't think he's talking about AI.

Everybody experiences this online, and it's hard to pin down. Don't know if it's a bug or just something weird with the fatigue system but yeah.

It would be nice if somebody could take a look at the relevant code.

[Furio]

My feeling is: if you follow visually a bandit, keeping it in the same point of your windscreen, you’re not following exactly the same path, but a tighter one.

Probably the right thing to do is to let it slide up, reversing the ratio of a deflection shooting. Easier said than done, but it’s worth trying.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

There is no such thing as blackout hindrance for AI in this sim. Most regrettably.

There is.

Everybody experiences this online, and it's hard to pin down. Don't know if it's a bug or just something weird with the fatigue system but yeah.

There is no fatique system.

My feeling is: if you follow visually a bandit, keeping it in the same point of your windscreen, you’re not following exactly the same path, but a tighter one.
Probably the right thing to do is to let it slide up, reversing the ratio of a deflection shooting. Easier said than done, but it’s worth trying.

You have a point.

[iLOVEwindmills]

There is.



There is no fatique system.



You have a point.


I thought it was easier to black out after you've already blacked out a little earlier?

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Uhm... no. Nothing like that exists.

[Woke Up Dead]

I thought it was easier to black out after you've already blacked out a little earlier?

I have that impression too.

[Bearcat]

My first thought is that the AI cheat. Shamelessly.

You're better off telling your wingman to go get him; that way, once he's on the wingman's tail, you'll have a better shot at him.
horseback


Yeah but sometimes it seems my AI wingmen are looking at porn or something other than flying my wing.. and other times it amazes me how spot on they are.. It's weird.. and then there is the AI gang bang.. 12vs12 fight.. You have an entire flight.. sometimes a flight and a half or even two all shooting at you at the same time.. Something is wrong there.. One thing I have noticed about the AI .. sometimes it seems like if you try to look out for the AI as if they were live pilots they seem to respond better.. I don't know if that is actually true or not .. but often it seems like when I drop a potential kill to clear an AI's 6 I live longer... LOL maybe that's because the other AI are all trying to steal my kill so he doesn't have the chance to turn on me when there are numbers... :)

[Treetop64]

It's funneh when you've got something like twelve thousand AI bandits all over your backside, and when you order your flight - and the second flight if they're there - to do something about it, they all go after one guy!

http://www.mission4today.com/images/smiles/075.gif

[Lagarto]

Indeed target selection by AI is kind of unrealistic. For example, when attacking a stream of bombers (I'm talking about DGen campaign, not a FMB mission), they pick up a bomber somewhere at the front of the stream, and desperately try to get to it, oblivious to all others they pass by. Of course they never get that far because they are shot to pieces by gunners from all other bombers they try to ignore. It's most evident with B-17s which have so much defensive firepower.
It would also be great to 'teach' AI head-on attacks on heavy bombers.

[majorfailure]

Indeed target selection by AI is kind of unrealistic. For example, when attacking a stream of bombers (I'm talking about DGen campaign, not a FMB mission), they pick up a bomber somewhere at the front of the stream, and desperately try to get to it, oblivious to all others they pass by. Of course they never get that far because they are shot to pieces by gunners from all other bombers they try to ignore. It's most evident with B-17s which have so much defensive firepower.
It would also be great to 'teach' AI head-on attacks on heavy bombers.
And IF they accidentally do get to it, then one shoots his entire ammoload at it and sets it on fire, the second one ignores this and shoots at the bomber too, which by then burns from more than tank and so on.
Target priority algorhytms of the AI currently are bad. And while the enemy AI does work as a team, your own flight does not. And contrary to real life you can't even communicate with them...

[IceFire]

And IF they accidentally do get to it, then one shoots his entire ammoload at it and sets it on fire, the second one ignores this and shoots at the bomber too, which by then burns from more than tank and so on.
Target priority algorhytms of the AI currently are bad. And while the enemy AI does work as a team, your own flight does not. And contrary to real life you can't even communicate with them...

I definitely understand this and how it doesn't make any sense at all to shoot at a burning bomber. I curse the AI while I'm offline... and then I take a step online and what do I see? Three guys all jockeying for position shooting at a burning bomber.

I do think the AI targeting could be more teamwork oriented... but I'd argue against it being too logical or absolute. Humans aren't all that logical :)

[shelby]

Can i ask something else?
What is the difference between the pe-8 and the tb-7 or db-3f and il-4?

[JtD]

The Pe-8 and TB-7 are basically two designations for the same aircraft, as are DB-3 and Il-4. Essentially TB-7 and DB-3 are early designations, Pe-8 and Il-4 late ones.

However, there were subversions that differed from one another. In game we have a Pe-8 with AM-35 engines, and a TB-7 with M-40F diesel engines, which is the key difference here. The main differences between the Il-4 and the DB-3F are the fourth crew member and the upper turret, mounting a 12.7mm gun instead of the 7.62mm gun.

[majorfailure]

I definitely understand this and how it doesn't make any sense at all to shoot at a burning bomber. I curse the AI while I'm offline... and then I take a step online and what do I see? Three guys all jockeying for position shooting at a burning bomber.

I do think the AI targeting could be more teamwork oriented... but I'd argue against it being too logical or absolute. Humans aren't all that logical :)
Yeah but that's point-whoring - and because some human ONLINE pilots do it does not excuse the AI. I'd bet that in real life a pilot shooting at a burning plane while there were still plenty of undamaged targets would have had to explain his behaviour to his commander. AI targeting could be at least improved for veteran and ace level. They should know better. There is some more odd behaviour with AI targeting. A nearly undamaged plane with only a dead pilot flying straight and level will not be engaged by anyone -not even FlaK. The AI shouldn't be able to "see" a dead pilot until very close - and maybe even shoot at the plane.

[ElAurens]

All this is why I almost never fly offline.

The AI cheat, cheat all the time, and do nothing but cheat.

I'd rather be shot down by a human that had to actually work for it that by my own computer, which is what the AI are.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

AI does not cheat. I'd rather say, AI is naive and pragmatic. :D

[shelby]

I definitely understand this and how it doesn't make any sense at all to shoot at a burning bomber. I curse the AI while I'm offline... and then I take a step online and what do I see? Three guys all jockeying for position shooting at a burning bomber.Yes but here is a reason. the number of kills

[Bearcat]

ai does not cheat. I'd rather say, ai is naive and pragmatic. :d
lol!!

[Pursuivant]

I definitely understand this and how it doesn't make any sense at all to shoot at a burning bomber. I curse the AI while I'm offline... and then I take a step online and what do I see? Three guys all jockeying for position shooting at a burning bomber.

Offline, I think that this problem has more to do with how the game recognizes kills than AI. For example, sometimes the game doesn't credit you with a kill even when you've set a plane on fire and seen the crew bail out.

Online, it has more to do with "vulching" and the natural tendency to fixate on a single target. That, plus the fact that the game doesn't credit your team with a kill until the plane blows up or crashes.

But, even so, target fixation is a rookie/average pilot mistake. Veteran and ace pilots shouldn't just chase a single plane while ignoring every other bandit in sight. Instead, they should choose their targets more carefully.

A very simple algorithm which would aid AI team behavior immensely would be "lead pair takes nearest appropriate target, next pair takes next closest appropriate target, etc."

And, even if they are trying to take out a single plane, veteran or ace AI should use section, flight or squadron tactics. I have yet to see even Ace AI use a simple "drag and bag" technique where the lead plane in a section breaks to give his wingman a shot at an enemy plane on the leader's tail.

In a 4-1 fight one section should try to "box" the enemy plane to "herd" it into the other section's guns. In a 6-1 or 8-1 fight, veteran or ace AI should "envelope" the plane attacking from multiple angles at once.

Against heavy bombers, Average or better AI should always try high-side or head-on attacks if possible (using some algorithm which measures relative time required to get into position for the shot). Failing that, they should try level or low beam attacks - from the front quarter if possible, otherwise from the side and then from the rear if nothing else is possible. If only stern chase attacks are possible, they should target the tail gunner first.

When a flight of average or better AI planes attacks a formation of heavies (or a single heavy bomber), they should all attack at once with different sections attacking from different angles in order to split the defensive firepower.

OTOH, Rookie AI will do stupid things like attack one at a time vs. a formation of heavies. Yes, that really happened. A friend of mine's father was a B-24 pilot and told a story about how his flight was bounced by Zeroes. The Americans thought they were dead for sure, but the Japanese peeled off and attacked one at a time.

[Lagarto]

For example, sometimes the game doesn't credit you with a kill even when you've set a plane on fire and seen the crew bail out.

By the way, I always found it strange that this game - a Russian game! - doesn't credit you with a ramming kill (intentional or not), unless the victim of your 'taran' crashed first. I remember my disappointment years ago when I tried reenacting those famous ramming attacks by VVS pilots, and wasn't getting victory credits for them.

[majorfailure]

And, even if they are trying to take out a single plane, veteran or ace AI should use section, flight or squadron tactics. I have yet to see even Ace AI use a simple "drag and bag" technique where the lead plane in a section breaks to give his wingman a shot at an enemy plane on the leader's tail.

They do sort of do that. At least rookie AI does. They almost always exclusivley do guns defence turns in a direction that leads you towards their wingman.
Offline, I think that this problem has more to do with how the game recognizes kills than AI. For example, sometimes the game doesn't credit you with a kill even when you've set a plane on fire and seen the crew bail out.
I think AI can not acknowledge the difference between a perfectly good plane and a severly damaged one that is still afloat - but will highly likely not make it far.
As for personal score, I loathed the AI for killstealing, and I tended to finish off my kills so they were unstealable. Nowadays I think of it as a team sport, as long as my team scores, I don't care who shot the goal. In the end I do think I even get more personal kills by that...

[IceFire]

Yeah but that's point-whoring - and because some human ONLINE pilots do it does not excuse the AI. I'd bet that in real life a pilot shooting at a burning plane while there were still plenty of undamaged targets would have had to explain his behaviour to his commander. AI targeting could be at least improved for veteran and ace level. They should know better. There is some more odd behaviour with AI targeting. A nearly undamaged plane with only a dead pilot flying straight and level will not be engaged by anyone -not even FlaK. The AI shouldn't be able to "see" a dead pilot until very close - and maybe even shoot at the plane.

My hypothesis is that humans are humans regardless of the situation be it real life or simulation. When presented with the same basic parameters they will do the same basic things on aggregate. In the heat of combat, target fixation becomes a concern and two guys shooting at the same burning plane can (and did) happen. There's even a gun camera shot that I saw where one Hellcat's gun camera captures another Hellcat fly in front of him while what appears to be a Zero is getting shot at by both. So, while it's less likely that point whoring would go on in real life (at least not like we see it)... target fixation looks fairly similar. At least some of the notorious kill stealing and shoulder shooting is caused by total target fixation. You can watch it happen. They are oblivious to all around them.

The problem with the AI right now is that they have a switch. If the target has bailed out or lost a wing then the aircraft is considered dead. If the plane is burning but still flying then it's considered a viable target. What needs to be programmed is a a greater range of recognition.

For example, the AI should keep firing if it's a plane that they lit on fire because just because it's flaming doesn't mean that it's going down. Maybe it should only do this 75% of the time (roll the dice) and sometimes leave a flaming aircraft alone. The AI should check and see if they lit it on fire... if not then leave it. Perhaps that happens 75% of the time. Or variable ranges depending on Rookie or Ace level.

The biggest problem I have with AI and AI programming, and I know exactly why it happens (CPU resources), is that it's too mechanical. Humans make all kinds of snap micro decisions and they aren't all logical or predictable. The AI, with a basic level of programming, is entirely logical and predictable and obviously that's less desirable.

[JtD]

Well Ice, I agree with your hypothesis, but the basic parameters are too different between real life and a computer game to have people do the same basics things.
But AI is AI, make them like human players and no air battle will appear like a WW2 air battle, make them like WW2 pilots and offline the game will a very odd experience.

[Pursuivant]

I think AI can not acknowledge the difference between a perfectly good plane and a severly damaged one that is still afloat - but will highly likely not make it far.

I think that you're right. And, I think that this is a limitation to both scoring, campaign realism and AI behavior. If the game instantly registered "minor damage," "severe damage," "crippled" and "dead" then it would offer a lot more potential in all those areas.

Scoring: You get credit for damaged (minor damage), possible kills (severe damage), probable kills (crippled) and kills.

Campaign realism: Planes which take minor damage are out of the campaign for a day or so. Planes that take severe damage are out of the campaign for a couple of days or a couple of weeks (depending on plane type and supply situation). Planes that are crippled are write-offs but can be used for parts. Killed planes are useless.

AI behavior: A human player can easily tell if a bandit is badly damaged or still fully functional, AI can't. As such, even an average human player can make decisions like, "His engine is throwing black smoke. Since the only advantage he had over me was speed, now that his engine is gone I can fight on my own terms." Letting the AI know, "primary opponent has suffered severe engine damage" allows it to adjust its parameters.

And, best of all, the minor/major/crippled status for planes already exists in the game in the form of existing damage models. Damage sufficient to trigger minor damage skin change is "minor damage/damaged". Damage sufficient to trigger a major damage skin change is "major damage/possible kill." Damage sufficient to count as a "critical hit" which causes smoke, fire, destroys the engine, or which removes entire parts of the plane counts as "crippled/probable/write-off".

The only thing that needs to change is that the game needs to recognize that flame on a plane that doesn't have a fire extinguisher, crew bailing out, wing or fuselage breaking, explosion or crash landing counts as a "kill" and should be instantly counted as such. The one exception would be that for campaigns, if a plane crashes behind friendly lines, if it's just a wheels up landing that bends the prop and damages the underbelly, or a ground loop, the plane counts as "severely damaged" rather than crippled/write-off. A crash landing that tears off parts is a write-off. And, any plane that lands behind enemy lines or in water is a "kill" regardless of its actual damage state.

[majorfailure]

My hypothesis is that humans are humans regardless of the situation be it real life or simulation. When presented with the same basic parameters they will do the same basic things on aggregate. In the heat of combat, target fixation becomes a concern and two guys shooting at the same burning plane can (and did) happen. There's even a gun camera shot that I saw where one Hellcat's gun camera captures another Hellcat fly in front of him while what appears to be a Zero is getting shot at by both. So, while it's less likely that point whoring would go on in real life (at least not like we see it)... target fixation looks fairly similar. At least some of the notorious kill stealing and shoulder shooting is caused by total target fixation. You can watch it happen. They are oblivious to all around them.
If both pilots were in or not much short of shooting distance, and one lights up the plane, the other then shoots it, too, that would be okay, and that is explainable as target fixation.
But AI gets target fixated from miles out, one shoots up a bomber, lights it up - and the other AI is still x km out, passes a few other bombers on its way -only to shoot on the already burning bomber.

The problem with the AI right now is that they have a switch. If the target has bailed out or lost a wing then the aircraft is considered dead. If the plane is burning but still flying then it's considered a viable target. What needs to be programmed is a a greater range of recognition.

That. And no more 1/0 switch. Humans don't always react the same way in similar situations -and AI should not, too. Have the 1/0 switch be the trigger, the result not granted, but randomised.
Say "enemy plane burning" triggers: check distance to border AND check other enemys near AND check own ammo:
-distance to border greater than 30 km AND enemys near AND own ammo <50%: stop shooting 90%
...10 other cases...
-over enemy country AND no enemy near AND own ammo plenty: continue shooting 80%

Net result: AI behaves less predictable - same AI in same situation may even do things different

[IceFire]

If both pilots were in or not much short of shooting distance, and one lights up the plane, the other then shoots it, too, that would be okay, and that is explainable as target fixation.
But AI gets target fixated from miles out, one shoots up a bomber, lights it up - and the other AI is still x km out, passes a few other bombers on its way -only to shoot on the already burning bomber.

That. And no more 1/0 switch. Humans don't always react the same way in similar situations -and AI should not, too. Have the 1/0 switch be the trigger, the result not granted, but randomised.
Say "enemy plane burning" triggers: check distance to border AND check other enemys near AND check own ammo:
-distance to border greater than 30 km AND enemys near AND own ammo <50%: stop shooting 90%
...10 other cases...
-over enemy country AND no enemy near AND own ammo plenty: continue shooting 80%

Net result: AI behaves less predictable - same AI in same situation may even do things different

Agreed completely on both accounts. Would be nice to have for sure!

[IceFire]

Well Ice, I agree with your hypothesis, but the basic parameters are too different between real life and a computer game to have people do the same basics things.
But AI is AI, make them like human players and no air battle will appear like a WW2 air battle, make them like WW2 pilots and offline the game will a very odd experience.

But there would be some big similarities I think too.

The bigger problem is still likely making the AI not be so... AI like :) Nearly impossible...even at the research computing level.

[shelby]

What is the difference between p39 and p400

[ElAurens]

The P 400 is basically the export version of the P 39 that was sold to the RAF.

After the RAF cancelled the remainder of the order, they were taken over by the USAAF. They differed primarily by having a 20mm cannon in the nose instead of the 37mm gun, and, their real issue for USAAF use in the Pacific, they had RAF oxygen systems. These British systems were different than USAAf units and limited the P 400 to low levels only, not that they had much utility above 15000 feet anyway, but it kept them pretty much below 10,000ft.

[Bearcat]

AI does not cheat. I'd rather say, AI is naive and pragmatic. :D

Not the friendly AI.. although they seem to be better in 4.12

Can i ask something else?
What is the difference between the pe-8 and the tb-7 or db-3f and il-4?

Personally I'd prefer that you open your own thread.. because that has nothing to do with this one...