Outperformed by AI every single time

[PotNoodles]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Septic

I have found that adjusting the AI with a little file called AITweak by a clever programmer (found it on here I believe) has helped me alot with this. I don't know about top-speeds but it does reduce the barrel-rolling behavior and makes off-line flying much more fun for me.

Septic.

Where is the link to that tool because I want to play offline first and if it's that good why don't they introduce it to the game.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by PotNoodles

Where is the link to that tool because I want to play offline first and if it's that good why don't they introduce it to the game.

because its already in the game in essence, this just changes existing missions by editing the .mis file, but you could do it yourself in the FMB.

anyway, here it is.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=31573

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by FFCW_Urizen

AoA, the problem is not that AI always flies their planes flawless, the problem is not that they get the best out of their engines, the problem is, that due to a simplified fm/dm, they can achieve and hold their best settings indefinetely without ever(!) overheating or damaging their engine. Just fire up a quick mission in a spit or hurri, engage autopilot and watch the boost/rpm gauges closely and watch your temps never exceeding 80° Oil/105° Water at revs around 2800 to 3000 with rads fully closed!!!

And that is what most are talking about when they say the AI cheat..

In essance the AI can run the engine longer at peek settings than the real user.. I take that to mean that at the time of IL-2 (10 years ago) dev, they didnt think they had the resorses or smart enough AI to manage all those things.

On that note, prior to reaching the point where the real user's plane overheats, I don't recal 1C ever stating that the AI was able to obtain more performance than the real user.

With that said

That was all true of IL-2, I have yet to see 1C come out and say that is still the case with CoD

[FFCW_Urizen]

It feels like they obtain more performance, but then again, AI always flies flawless and that alone accounts for a few mph here and there.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by PotNoodles

So the question that needs answering is why do they want it this way? Is it something that cannot be fixed, or something they want to keep in the game?

The short answer is that CEM is very complicated and takes away a lot of resources.

Going into more detail, i have had the sim since the EU release and early tests back then showed that enabling CEM would cost about 10 FPS. And that's just for the player aircraft.

So, the player aircraft flies on CEM, but the AI fly on simplified rules.

For example, while in your plane there is a complex set of rules in the code that governs engine behaviour ("if paramater X rises to value Y then Z is affected, which in turn changes parameter A to value B and so on), the AI planes fly with a simplified rule set (to the effect of "don't exceed this value for that parameter"). This AI rule set is then affected by certain modifiers, depending on the AI skill levels.

Online it's not a problem because the parameters for each player controlled aircraft are calculated on their own PCs and (probably) only positional and speed (vector) data are exchanged with the server along with certain event flags.

Eg, if i blow my engine the server doesn't need to know the whole story behind how it happened. It only needs to know that the rest of the players need to see me streaking black smoke and how my speed and position are changing over time, which is probably exactly what is transmitted over the network.

Offline however, or online against AI, to have full CEM would place too much of a burden on our PCs or the servers hosting missions with AI.

In short, the compromise is very reasonable and necessary. What needs tweaking is the rule set under which the AI fly.

I think this is doable, since it's working under simplified rules to begin with. All the AI needs is to tone down some of their parameters (like their roll performance), place a timer on certain capabilities (so that they follow engine limits), place an upper limit that can't be exceeded by skill modifiers (so that AI skill doesn't exceed aircraft capabilities) and upgrade some others (so that even if surprised and being inactive at low skill levels, which i like, they should eventually start taking evasive action and not sit still indefinitely).

The real delay in such a process wouldn't come so much from the actual task of changing parameters in the code, but mostly from identifying what to change and how, as well as testing the results.

[jspec01]

In short, the compromise is very reasonable and necessary. What needs tweaking is the rule set under which the AI fly.

I think this is doable, since it's working under simplified rules to begin with. All the AI needs is to tone down some of their parameters (like their roll performance), place a timer on certain capabilities (so that they follow engine limits), place an upper limit that can't be exceeded by skill modifiers (so that AI skill doesn't exceed aircraft capabilities) and upgrade some others (so that even if surprised and being inactive at low skill levels, which i like, they should eventually start taking evasive action and not sit still indefinitely).

The real delay in such a process wouldn't come so much from the actual task of changing parameters in the code, but mostly from identifying what to change and how, as well as testing the results.

But can/will this be done? Was it planned, and there was just no time to implement, or is it not even on anyone's radar to do this?

As an offliner, even after tweaking the sliders and such in the fmb it's still too frustrating for me to play for any length of time.

[palker4]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

The short answer is that CEM is very complicated and takes away a lot of resources.

In short, the compromise is very reasonable and necessary. What needs tweaking is the rule set under which the AI fly.

I think this is doable, since it's working under simplified rules to begin with. All the AI needs is to tone down some of their parameters (like their roll performance), place a timer on certain capabilities (so that they follow engine limits), place an upper limit that can't be exceeded by skill modifiers (so that AI skill doesn't exceed aircraft capabilities) and upgrade some others (so that even if surprised and being inactive at low skill levels, which i like, they should eventually start taking evasive action and not sit still indefinitely).

The real delay in such a process wouldn't come so much from the actual task of changing parameters in the code, but mostly from identifying what to change and how, as well as testing the results.

Well why don't they do it then. Sounds simple, I mean

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by palker4

Well why don't they do it then. Sounds simple, I mean

Well there is an easy way to find out..

How about you go make a flight sim, and than get back to us and tell us how simple that ONE of a THOUSANDS of things being done in a flight sim was

[palker4]

The fact that i cannot build a flight sim does not mean that i have no right to complain about a product that i bought with money and that i expected to work properly a YEAR ago when i bought it.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by palker4

The fact that i cannot build a flight sim does not mean that i have no right to complain about a product that i bought with money and that i expected to work properly a YEAR ago when i bought it.

Where you complaing?

Sorry I didn't notice your complaing..

All I noticed was you asking 'how hard can it be' followed by you answering your own question by saying 'sounds simple'.

At which point I just assumed your had a software background in AI development..

But now based on your most resent post, I see that your statment of 'sounds simple' did not stem from someone with a software background and is thus meaningless