Dogfighting -does 4.11-4.12 patch address this?

[Laurwin]

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

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....)

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. 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. There wasn't top gun school back then, only the basic courses, and a few flights on gunnery training.

rookie should be nerfed further, to replicate that they would be lowest skill pilots. (greenhorns, newbies)

-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.

probably not unless you could visually ID the rest of the silhouette of the plane from a slight angle, before committing to headon attack. (special exception would be radial vs inline and such things... i.e. p3

-AI tracking skill (situational awareness) Rookie should be significantly worse than veteran, and ace.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by MaxGunz

Joust is two fighters making head on attacks. Those happened in history every so often, some planes seem almost made for it with a big radial block in front and devastating firepower to go with it. Even the P-38 got a reputation, whoa those guns!

But lessons got learned and aerial suicide avoided. Imagine if every P-51 pilot jousted with every FW pilot he met? The USAAF would have run out of P-51's and pilots pretty quick.

See this is what I thought but the AI does it so infrequently that I thought maybe he was using the word incorrectly and it was in reference to boom and zoom energy tactics which is also not dogfighting

The initial pass does tend to be head on when the QMB is set to default. I like to setup advantage/disadvantage scenarios as well. Mixes things up. But after that its an all bets are off... it does not tend to be a lot of tail chasers but it also doesn't tend to be a continual head on after head on. I almost never see that... Then again I usually go nose up immediately, gain about 500 or more meters, then level out build my speed and make an aggressive angled shot into the initial formation breaking it up and separating out the fighters so I can pick them off. Veteran, Ace, Regular... none of them think tactically. They just react

[Fenrir]

Originally Posted by Woke Up Dead

"Pander to your desire for dogfight entertainment," "whaaambulance," snarky critiques of piloting abilities, what's the matter with you guys?

You know what WUD, you are right. I reacted badly. However, I found my resentment piqued by Pugos attitude. There's ways and means. if he had come in asking for assistance as to why it is he's having so much difficulty with the AI and what he can do to minimise its apparent advantages, I'd have been much more civil.

Instead he waltzes in and has the temerity to demand that years of hard work trying to get the AI to the convincing level it is now are thrown away just so he can get more kills. It's the classic "you should do the hard work so i don't have to" attitude I see insidiously infecting the social mentality nowadays and it raises my hackles. Why not try asking oneself "what am I doing wrong, how can I improve?"

The QMB is obviously not a place for hyper-realism, it's for setting up "what if" scenarios. Like, what if I spawn in on my opponent's six, 1000m above him, and he has 100% fuel and no ammo and is a rookie and is alone, and I have 20% fuel and an ace wingman. Realistic?

Granted. However, the product is what it is, and strives towards as realistic an experience as the parameters of it's platform & programming limitations allow. Is it perfect? Of course not, but it's a bloody convincing and enjoyable effort. In that spirit, the what if's are also constrained by those parameters and those of the game. If you want a swirling multi-plane melee with everyone trying like hell to turn themselves inside out getting on each others tails - which I have done many times 1-v-1 in Il-2 against the AI (try a P-38J against a 109G-10) - then go buy War Thunder.

If you can already set all those variables, then why not also be able to set the aggressiveness and likeliness to dogfight of your opponent? Like a lot of online pilots in planes better suited for hit and run do, you know, for fun?

As cool as that would be I suspect it's asking too much of both FatCat99 and the Il-2 game engine. It was something that was supposed to be a variable in CloD but unless Team Fusion can work their magic with it I don't know how far we'll see it progress. And even then, having an Ace AI trying to dogfight a Spitfire in Bf109 in the classic interpretation of that term seems paradoxical. In the meantime I stand by my opinion of Il-2 AI air combat tactics - it's the best i have seen in ANY flightsim of recent years and has even fooled me into thinking it was one of my squadmates on occasion.

[K_Freddie]

P3:
While there are problems with the human interpretation of the AI (trust me DCS is a lot worse wrt AI).. TDs IL2 AI (v412) is.. repeat, IS the best I've seen for a long time. AI long term tactics, I'm sure are still a problem.. but QMB seems to suffice in this regard.

What a lot of people seems to forget, is that the 'relative performances' of the IL2 aircraft seem to reasonably accurate - and there are a lot of aircraft. An aircraft's specific RL performance might not be up-to-scratch.. but for online WW2 'jousting', it is the best so far - even for a 13 year old engine.

What it always comes down to.. is knowing your a/c, whether it's IL2/DCS or RL, and the limits you can push it too.

[X-Raptor]

wheter I won't dig on the attitude of pugo3, I agree with the "core" of his post: He state for a -average level player in off line game (we are not speaking of such a enthusiast-super ace player..like probably many of you here are answering to him..) that A.i. code is set wrong -(and IT IS-wrong). summarizing here for enemy 1-1 just to be quick and clear:

1) rookie A.I. -- SHOULD be passibile to be approached with few manouvers and grounded very easily with few salvo (and now it insn't) even flying a globally superior ac.
2) average A.I. -- SHOULD be approached with more elaborated manouvers and player have chance to aim and tease with his gunnery (catching him occasionally).
3) veteran A.I. -- SHOULD be approached using good manouvers, quite challege option here, involving the quality and charateristic of the AC that player/A.I. are flying that start to be relevant to determine the success of A.I. or of the player at the end of the fighting moments.
4) Ace A.I. -- SHOULD be a matter of experience and ability of the player, without forget that A.I. SHOULD NOT "see you" miles away before the human sight (and this is not true nowaday.. A.i. 1946 4.xxx see you much more before you..check this.)

all this without forget that nowaday is indiscuss that:
a) A.I. attitude of flying, engine management is ALWAYS mathematical perfect. (even in Rookie..)
b) A.I. don't have G-stress/blackout-redout effect.
c) A.I. under your attack receve IMMEDIATE help from his wingman.. always..and this is not replicate at the same by YOUR wingman (do you have noticed this ?.. I think so...

So gents, we all know you are all ACE pilots here.. ok.. but do you want to admit just for honesty that even if you are SO BRAVE to pass over those wrong cheats in A.I. code programming, that THOSE are inconfutable bugs into the code still present since the insane introduction of the OLEG silly idea "A.I. will perform depending by player action" released very long patches (and ages..) in the past. And now do you realize that your mirable and revered TD team have just emphatized over and over this buggy feature in every new pach they have edited.. .sadly. I will prefer not to have rolling planes on the airport like we have now in 4.12.. But to have a decent A.I. like the one in BOB II for istance.. Miles over the buggy-cheatty A.I. and now worse than ever we have thanks to TD.

Stop to suck up TD feet gents! .be man and put constructive but strong criticism to TD about their lack on A.I. code of 1946: yes, they work for free..but this not an excuse to give us bad results.

[MaxGunz]

Your logic is as bad as your spelling and your expectations are far worse.

I look forward to your award winning breakthrough combat flight sim with BoB AI or better. Now get cracking, Christmas is coming and I want it before then.

Where did you get "inconfutable"? Sarah Palin? Or from the same place she gets her ignorantisms? And yes, I made that word up just for you and Sarah.

[Janosch]

While Il-2 is still a worthwhile investment for the offline player, perhaps the best on the market, it could be indeed better. Shortcomings of campaign/career modes aside, the AI imbalance issues are something of a problem to the online player too, at least if you want to play coops; often you just can't get enough human players to man all slots, so AI has to fill the gaps, or act as the entire opposition in human vs ai - missions.

But now, to more important things:

Originally Posted by MaxGunz

Sarah Palin?

Sarah Palin is awesome! I didn't think she was awesome in any way, until I saw the movie. I kind of felt sympathy towards her. Or towards the fictional character based on Sarah Palin. It doesn't matter. Anyway, I understand that you made a jest, but please, people, say nothing negative about her! It's people like her who could put some pressure on companies like Northtrop-Grumman!

[MaxGunz]

The Batman character was awesome in that last movie too. Too bad it's scripted fiction and what we saw was no way real. Find Sarah without a script like in the Couric interview. I wouldn't let her be president of a bake sale.

[gaunt1]

AI in 4.12 is absolutely the best ever in the history of the sim.
However, these points are sadly true, and need fixing:

a) A.I. attitude of flying, engine management is ALWAYS mathematical perfect. (even in Rookie..)
b) A.I. don't have G-stress/blackout-redout effect.

Further problems are:
-AI opens fire at ridiculous distances, (up to 6-700m) with great accuracy
-Sometimes, exclusively under the player's command, it is really stupid. For example, they spot the enemy, you order them to attack, and they just fly huge circles aimlessly.

[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.