Dogfighting -does 4.11-4.12 patch address this?

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Laurwin

I suppose the rookie level AI is a little bit too good in this game.

I've thought this myself. "Pitiable," "Turkey Shoot" or "Straight from the Farm" level AI would certainly be suitable for most kamikazes, or possibly the worst of the Chinese pilots.

Originally Posted by Laurwin

I mean, we are talking about the lowest level skill pilot we can have in game. One could argue they're quite a bit better than the new pilots Germany had in 1945 for example (re-assigned bomber pilot into fighters, practically no advanced fighter training etc....)

This isn't quite fair. Reassigned bomber pilots might have thousands of hours flying heavier combat aircraft types, meaning that they'd have Veteran to Ace level skills in navigation and target identification, and Average to Veteran level routine piloting skills and situational awareness, but Rookie level gunnery, combat maneuvering and combat situational awareness.

This means that they'd be quite good at doing things like taking off, landing, holding formation and following fighter intercept to the target, then identifying targets and setting up attacks, but not so good at hitting the target, and potentially quite poor in a dogfight.

Sadly, IL2 doesn't give mission builders the ability to set different skill levels for different tasks.

Originally Posted by Laurwin

Rookies were the guys who confused their flight leaders for enemies (like Erich hartmann once did ) and tried to dogfight them. Or then they would just get lost in the skies.

IL2 doesn't model the risk of deliberate attack by friendly planes due to failure of target identification. This was a real problem for Allied planes like the P-51 or Typhoon (or Soviet fighters encountering Western Allied fighters). I don't think it would be that hard to implement as an AI feature, but for now such encounters have to be set up as specific missions with the "friendly" planes being assigned to the opposing side.

Originally Posted by Laurwin

I mean these people were given limited training before sent to the front (for example, even American flight training was quite limited in scope, before pilots were sent from flight school to the front). And compared with most countries fighter training, it (American) was the most comprehensive one.

I think that U.S. training was actually pretty good, at least by 1944. Pre-war training was good, but there was a dip in quality in 1942-43. It wouldn't be unreasonable to call "rookie" 1944 U.S. pilots "Average" in terms of IL2 pilot quality.

If it was possible to do so, I'd give your typical newly-minted USAAF/USMC 1944 2nd Lieutenant/USN Ensign fighter pilot:

Navigation: Average.
Target Recognition: Average
Routine Piloting (e.g., aircraft system maintenance, formation flying, landing and take-off): Average
Combat Situational Awareness: Rookie
Air Combat Maneuvers/Aerobatics: Rookie
Gunnery: Rookie
Bombing: Rookie
Rockets: Rookie

By contrast, a 1940 British Pilot Officer or 1942 Soviet junior Lieutenant straight from training might be "rookie" across the board, while a 1945 kamikaze would be "turkey shoot" quality in all but target recognition which would be "average."

Originally Posted by Laurwin

-aircraft identification (esp headons). So they don't always know to blast away, would such a thing happen in real war? Before you can know if he's friend or foe? Merge happens for example, because of IDing bogey. In WW2 it meant silhouette ID or the insignia, if you wanted to be certain of friend-or-foe.

In some cases, it's possible to identify an aircraft from head-on by things like size, wing angle and fuselage cross section. Additionally, even with a big HD monitor, the human eye gives more detail than a computer screen can, which might be enough to pick up things like color and distinctive reflections.
Finally, IL2 doesn't include the option for radar vectoring or mission briefings, which give useful information like altitude and heading for bogies, or "any twin-engined planes in the sky today will be hostile."

Even so, target recognition was a problem, especially with sun glare, clouds and darkness, and IL2 doesn't reflect that.

I'd simplify target recognition down to a percentage change of mistaking a target from each "o'clock" angle, with chances slightly increased for rookies and reduced for veteran or better pilots, and possibly with increases for planes of a rarely-encountered nationality. And, with exceptions for distinctive planes like the P-38 or Me323.

[Derda508]

I an official report about Galland stated in April 1944 (my translation): "The numerical relation for fights during daylight is now about 1:7. The quality of training of Americans is extraordinarily high. The (German) fighter force has lost much more than 1000 pilots during the last four months, amongst them the best of our squadron commanders and wing leaders. These gaps cannot be filled. We loose with every intrusion (of American bombers) about 50 fighters."
A little later Jochen Prien wrote in the chronicle of JG 53 about the time of the invasion (my translation): ...we never achieved a better relation in the air than approx. 1 : 25; notably it was never achieved to concentrate the intended number of 800 fighters for the defence against the invasion in France - on 10th of June 1944 all in all 475 Bf 109 and Fw 150 were available in France, only 290 of which were clear to be used."
At this time the fighter pilot training had gone down to about 110-120 hours of flight training (approx. 2 hours in a glider, 50 hours basic training in piston engine Trainers, 40 hours in a fighter pilot school and 20 hours in an "Ergänzungsgruppe"). The "Windhund" (Greyhound) - programme tried to turn bomber-pilots into fighter-pilots with 20 hours of training.
During late ´44 and ´45 the fighter training became constantly worse, Erich Hartman complained that pilots were sent to him with less than 60 hours of flight training. As far as I know more rookies where killed while trying to land than because of combat. The majority of pilots trained in 1944 did not survive their first ten missions. The "aces" of the Luftwaffe were those who were trained before the war or during its first years and were experienced and lucky enough to survive for some time. Many of them had to fly more than 1000 or even 1500 missions.
All these things are facts, as hard a the performance data of any given aircraft and they certainly played a similarly important role in the outcome of the war. And NO I am not romanticizing anything, because I don´t see any romance in sending helpless boys of any nation to certain death, and I am not revisionist, because I am damned glad that the Nazis lost the war, so I could grow up in freedom.
But all this was reality. Il-2 is a game. It tries, in my opinion very successfully to recreate some aspects of aerial fighting in WWII. But there are very obviously some extremely important things that cannot be simulated. We do not scream in panic and we do not **** ourselves in terror as real life fighter pilots did, because we run no risk. We feel no pain when a message appears "player heavily bleeding" and when the screen turns black, we just repeat the mission. Strange as it is, we do it for fun. Now how much fun would it be for a virtual P-51 pilot to fly hours and hours escort duty and never see an enemy, because they are all grounded due to lack of fuel? How much fun would it be to finally find some rookie and shoot him down, while he is desperately trying to land his crate? All this would be realistic, but it would make a very poor game. Online it is even less realistic, because there are guys on both sides with experience and practise in "flying" and shooting, any ace of WWII could only dream of. But that IS the fun: the challenge. And even for a bad pilot as me, rookie AI is no challenge.
A game like IL-2 will never be realistic, but I think the original developers did a great job in getting as close to realism as was possible at the time. And Team Daidalos is since then improving the game in an astonishing way. With every new patch the whining starts that this or that plane, whether red r blue got "nerved" and naturally this is because the developers or the TD guys have some dislikes or prejudices of even a secret agenda ...
Just learn to fly and you will be able to shoot down "superior" planes (of any side), because you are the better pilot. And this IS realistic.

[MaxGunz]

Every developer of every combat flight sim has been accused to taking sides and porking or neutering planes, usually on all sides.

The odds vary when you count fighters vs fighters or all planes vs fighters and local ratios vs total sortied.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Derda508

I an official report about Galland stated in April 1944

Good info. Thanks for posting.

Originally Posted by Derda508

Strange as it is, we do it for fun. Now how much fun would it be for a virtual P-51 pilot to fly hours and hours escort duty and never see an enemy, because they are all grounded due to lack of fuel? How much fun would it be to finally find some rookie and shoot him down, while he is desperately trying to land his crate? All this would be realistic, but it would make a very poor game.

"Fun" depends on your expectations. Yes, a long escort mission followed by nothing to shoot out of the air sucks if you were hoping for dogfighting. Likewise, a "turkey shoot" is no fun if you were looking for a challenge.

On the other hand, if you want to emulate some of the experiences of a 1944-era P-51 pilot, you expect those sorts of missions as part of the campaign, try to take away something new from an otherwise boring mission, or just set your plane on autopilot and accelerate the time to get through them. Maybe not as fun as constant turn-and-burn dogfighting, but still "fun" for some folks.

And, if you're not having fun, it also speaks to a lack of imagination, not just by mission builders, but also by the player. If there are no planes in the air, go down and strafe. If there's nothing to strafe, practice your acrobatics, combat maneuvers or formation flying. And, if none of that appeals, there's always the option to exit the mission as soon as the campaign allows and try something new.

IMO, "fun" is a game that models reality as closely as possible while giving as many options as possible, then steps out of the way to allow mission and campaign builders to create scenarios which appeal to all sorts of different people. Intense constant dogfighting is a very popular way to have fun, but it's not the only one.

[MaxGunz]

"Fun" is flying 109F-2's against I-16's and LaGG-3's then crying later on when the situation favors the other side by a lesser amount. But I think that in 1944 to the end there was such consternation in the home of the master race that what they saw was unmistakably not what was supposed to be.

[TexasJG]

This tread actually has some very good instructional information in it.
I've picked up that aircraft management and energy management were ace makers,....and lot of studying.

[Jumoschwanz]

I just shot two Ace p-51d Mustangs down with a 1944 Bf109 using the latest official patch of the sim. I also shot down two Ace 1944 Corsairs with a biplane.

All good fun.

I would hope that if Ace AI were in an aircraft that were faster than mine then the "ace" would use that feature of their aircraft to beat my ass to a pulp. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. IL2 tries to give the AI Aces different tactics depending on what aircraft are involved but they don't always make the right choices.

My practice scenario I have been playing with lately is strapping myself into a 1944 109 vs. an Ace Tempest, Ace La-7, Ace 25lb Spit, Ace F4uC, and a team of Ace P51-Ds over flat terrain, no obstacles to use or hide behind. I often shoot all six of them down, so I guess they are not running away from me too badly.


The only fault I notice is many times AI still can not handle elevation changes and crash into the ground.