![]() |
|
IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Fly formation 200m behind an He 111 or Betty (both of whose gunners are traditionally more accurate than those noobs in the Ju-88A) in that same P-47 and I bet your engine loss ratio goes up significantly, along your PKs, loss of gunsight, ailerons, fuel leaks(and how could any rounds possibly get past the engine and firewall to reach the fuel tanks?), rudder and Prop Pitch. Of course, that's just my feeling, but it's based on several hours of experience. AI vs AI contests may ultimately obtain 'realistic' results, but in those cases, the AI fighter knows that he's been fired at and exactly where it will hit if his vector remains constant at the moment it is fired and he makes the slight move that either results in a clean miss or a meaningless hit, but the ai gunner routine knows that he knows and quickly fires a burst at the corrected vector, but the fighter ai routine knows that he will, so they decide not to do that and move on to the next move/countermove several thousand times per second. Think of the Dread Pirate Roberts' confrontation with the Sicilian 'with death on the line' in The Princess Bride. cheers horseback |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Test AI gunners
1. Offline QMB 2. Offline Campaign 3. Online Dogfight server 4. Online Coop I know the difference, I wonder if you will notice it too. ![]() |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
I understand that the QMB ai are a bit tougher than the 'campaign' ai, but not by orders of magnitude; a breast fed baby's diaper doesn't stink as badly as one that is fed formula, but it still stinks. As for online, not my area of interest. cheers horseback |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Its of no interest to you online, but is for many of us that do fly that way the AI gunners are totally different.
All you need to do is change the AI bomber flights to rookie and see how you get on off line or change your attack method with normal settings. If your complaint is for a selective part of the game to be changed you need to understand whats going on in the rest of it before requesting changes and making generalized statements. As I already said the game has different ways to fly it, offline you can do what you like on your own, online you work differently, I just hosted a CooP mission on Hyperlobby attacking 32 Betty's with Corsairs The only Ai gunner kills were pilots getting greedy and getting 100m off the six of the bombers, all Ai Betty's were shot down easily. The loss of pilots was mainly due to debris coming off the bombers (wings rudders ailerons) hitting the pilots Corsairs because they were too close on the attack. 3 pilots were de-winged at the same range from the 20mm tail gunner again much to close sitting on the bombers six. On TS we were all saying the same thing "this guys gonna die" because of the wrong attack method. As this thread is now off topic, please see fit to start a new one relating to this particular discussion. ![]() Last edited by KG26_Alpha; 08-01-2013 at 12:42 AM. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
You are very wrong about human gunners too, they are way better than AI, obviously you don't fly online much. Quote:
Quote:
![]()
__________________
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Is there any way to better model that catastrophic damage so that very tough planes don't lose parts in unrealistic ways? Quote:
Use the hit percentage by your very best and most experienced humans as your "Ace" quality gunner standard and adjust AI skill from there. Whether or not it's historically realistic, synching AI gunner skill to top human skill has the following benefits: a) It means that nobody can bitch about the AI being "better than human", b) means that offline AI gunners will be good training for people who are practicing before they go online. By definition, if you can beat Ace AI, you can do pretty well against human gunners online. Likewise, if TD feels like revisiting fighter gunnery accuracy (which went from "lasers o' death" prior to 4.11, to just about right in 4.11, to "nerfed" in 4.12) you could base Ace gunnery standards on hit percentages for the very best human players. Last edited by Pursuivant; 08-09-2013 at 07:53 PM. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
I still like the gunners the way they are now. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The laser sighted, 40mm, power assisted, zero-g, cannon operator in the back of the IL-2 appears to have strangely missed any "improvement". A de-winged IL-2 tumbling and spiralling towards the deck still has the "terminator" firing his weapon as he hits the water/ground. Any human would have been, lol, over the side somewhat earlier I feel. Perhaps this could be addressed?
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]() |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Two entirely different things. Both criminally bogus of course, but two different things. The in-game player's mouse gunner model is vastly simpler and less complicated than the operation and aiming of machine guns from a constantly bobbing and rolling gun platform like an actual moving aircraft of that era. You are on a rail smooth, predictable platform and you can easily control your guns; no engine vibration, no jammed or sticky rings or turrets, no gunshake or recoil making that three-to-six round burst scatter across a two or three degree range, and only an occasional (and buttery smooth) change in direction or angle of your platform to potentially spoil your aim. This differs very little from the all-ai aircraft gunners offline model, except that they enjoy absolutely perfect awareness of their human target's range, speed and direction; they know precisely how fast they are going, they know how fast you are going and to the millimeter how far away you are and where you will be when they fire their guns at ranges well beyond the average player's convergence ranges. They can perfectly compensate for their 'aircraft' turning, banking and diving. And they consistently manage to hit critical components of target (Player) aircraft moving at high speeds from ridiculous angles in microsecond wide firing windows, and they still seem to victimize some aircraft types more consistently than others. None of that compares remotely with the actual capabilities of the real-life gunners on WWII era aircraft. For the offline fighter campaigner the difference is critical. The 8th Air Force awarded the title of 'ace' to over 300 bomber crew gunners; I would be amazed if any two of them actually destroyed a combined total of five enemy aircraft in flight, and the late war US bomber defenses were the heaviest and most sophisticated of the war. Their gunners were arguably the most extensively trained of the war. If their efforts were so futile, what does that say about the gunners on the lightly armed, less stable types that everyone else fielded? cheers horseback |
![]() |
|
|