Bionic AI

[Notorious M.i.G.]

What exactly has changed for the worse, in your eyes? Simply saying "it's worse now pls fix" isn't particularly helpful for TD.

AI has definitely come a long way from the original. I think the Rookies and Averages are still maybe a bit too good on the gunnery side, and the AI being able to instantly snap out of a flat spin (even in the P-39 ) may still need some work if possible. It's still a far cry from them accelerating away and spiral climbing to space, however.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by JG26_EZ

Sorry IceFire.. I was looking for an answer from a member of the team. Not an opinion, thanks.

I'm not the only one that has noticed them change for the worse. I would just like to know if they are looking at the behaviour changes they made with the v4.12 patch and wondering whether they are planning to make any adjustements or not.

Aviar wrote it very well.

Posting that something is "broken" without anything else is pretty much useless to the team. That's not an opinion...

[Treetop64]

Concur.

DT - in fact anyone in the community - would be happy to answer a valid question, but simply saying in effect "The AI is bad, are they gonna fix it?" in such a vague manner without pointing out any specifics isn't going to get any real answers for you.

[jameson]

But in his opinion it needs fixing!

[ImpalerNL]

He is right that the AI needs a fix. There have been more people that have noticed this.

for example

The AI keeps flying burning aircraft.

The AI can make maneuvers at 20G's without blacking out.

The AI wingman breaks formation with leader when he sees enemies, doesnt stay near the leader during dogfights and provides poor cover.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by ImpalerNL

The AI keeps flying burning aircraft.

I used to think that this was unrealistic, but I've sort of changed my mind. While a huge fuel fire in a wing tank can quickly melt a wing spar to the point where it collapses, smaller fires, such as engine fires, shouldn't "kill" a plane that quickly.

Two extreme examples:

1) A British bomber crewman won the Victoria Cross for climbing out onto the wing of a burning bomber with a fire extinguisher in an attempt to put out an engine fire. While he failed in his attempt, the fact that the plane held together long enough for him to put on his parachute, lash up a safety rope, grab a fire extinguisher and crawl out a hatch and along the wing is testament to just how tough the plane was!

2) A B-17 crewman won the Medal of Honor for alternately putting out fires in the fuselage of his aircraft and shooting at attacking German planes. Again, this shows that fires in a large plane take a while to reach the point where the plane fails structurally.

So, while crew should bail out in a hurry if the fire has the potential to burn them or make the plane blow up or fall apart, they should try to stick with the plane if the fire is in the engine or fuselage and is relatively small, especially if by doing so they can get to safety (i.e., friendly territory/dry land).

Originally Posted by ImpalerNL

The AI can make maneuvers at 20G's without blacking out.

Unproven. I think that TD has done a pretty good job of making AI pilots more vulnerable to G forces. Where they might have work to do is making rookie AI pilots vulnerable to pulling too many Gs and blacking out, and making pilots who pull high-G maneuvers more vulnerable to losing Situational Awareness due to Gray-out/Blackout.

Originally Posted by ImpalerNL

The AI wingman breaks formation with leader when he sees enemies, doesn't stay near the leader during dogfights and provides poor cover.

Agreed. Better quality AI pilots are better at obeying orders and providing cover, but they're still not as good as a human wingman.

A simple change that would be very welcome would be for Veteran or better wingmen to tell you to break right or left (like tailgunners currently do) when an enemy is on your tail, to set up a "drag and bag" when the enemy follows you.

Another way in which AI could be improved is to give the player the ability to alert the formation to the presence of bandits and have the formation react appropriately. Often times I'll detect enemies before the other planes in my formation do. Unless I'm formation leader, I get chewed out for breaking formation!

[ImpalerNL]

''I used to think that this was unrealistic, but I've sort of changed my mind. While a huge fuel fire in a wing tank can quickly melt a wing spar to the point where it collapses, smaller fires, such as engine fires, shouldn't "kill" a plane that quickly.''

A bomber has some time to manage the flames by cutting off fuel flow to one fuel tank for example.

But i mean a fighter sized aircraft.
When a fighter aircraft is on fire any sane pilot would bail.

Ive seen AI zeros and ki61s that had the cockpit covered in flames and didnt bail but kept making defensive maneuvers.

[JG26_EZ]

I'm not looking for discussion with you IceFire, sorry but I just wanted a simple answer from someone on the team.

Yes.. Sorry for not being more detailed earlier.. but it's just that it's so obvious how "bionic" the AI are now, that I didn't think I needed to go into detail. I quite simply asked "the team" if they plan on adjusting the behaviour of the AI in the next patch.

I expected one of two kinds of answers (from someone that actually knows).

"No, we're happy with the behaviour of the AI".
-or-
"Yes, we're still looking into making the AI behave better".

If it's the first answer, then I'll start to elaborate and maybe moan a little. If it's the second answer, I'll patiently wait for the next patch.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by JG26_EZ

I'm not looking for discussion with you IceFire, sorry but I just wanted a simple answer from someone on the team.

Yes.. Sorry for not being more detailed earlier.. but it's just that it's so obvious how "bionic" the AI are now, that I didn't think I needed to go into detail. I quite simply asked "the team" if they plan on adjusting the behaviour of the AI in the next patch.

I expected one of two kinds of answers (from someone that actually knows).

"No, we're happy with the behaviour of the AI".
-or-
"Yes, we're still looking into making the AI behave better".

If it's the first answer, then I'll start to elaborate and maybe moan a little. If it's the second answer, I'll patiently wait for the next patch.

Why not mail them directly then? It's a public forum... thus discussions can and do happen.

If you're willing to entertain at least one more opinion.. the "Yes, we're still looking into making the AI behave better" is far and away the likely answer. I'm a third party contributor to TD... and I know from experience that they are always looking for help, for comments, and for feedback. But I stress that "obvious" problems are not obvious to all and it's far better to document exactly what the issue is in explicit detail.

That way... things get done and we all benefit.