4.13 development update discussion and feedback

[Treetop64]

Dang, BC. Thought you jumped ship.

Nice to see ya.

[Pursuivant]

Certainly it's not for 4.13, but it seems like it wouldn't be too hard to create the various radio navigation/blind bombing aids that were used during the "Battle of the Beams" over England and Germany during 1940-41, and afterwards.

Nothing would be needed in terms of graphics, but new "beam lines" would need to be added to the appropriate maps, and some programming and research would be needed. Possibly it would be necessary to set up new features in the FMB to allow mission builders to center blind bombing aids like Knickbein, X-Gerat or Gee over a particular map location.

While it might be too much work to figure out all the Gee charts for a particular map, it seems like it wouldn't be too much trouble to model Lorenz, Knickbein, X-Gerat, Y-Gerat, and so forth, since they were automated systems that just produced dots, dashes or steady tones depending on the plane's location.

Jamming systems against these blind bombing aids would take more work in terms of programming.

Ground controlled blind bombing or radio navigation systems would also take more work, since there would be some AI and voice-programming work required.

Adding these blind bombing aids would make it more fun to fly night bombing missions, because you could actually find your target.

Long range radio navigation systems could also be used to make large and otherwise featureless maps, like a hypothetical map of the North Atlantic or Western Approaches, interesting.

[KG26_Alpha]

As far as night bombing along a beam would be just a technical exercise to say "I did it".

The same thing can be emulated without all the extra work by using a map icon with a bomb drop on it.

I don't think it will be used that much probably as much as carrier navigation is used, the learning process usually out weighs the impatience of the user to shoot something down and go land back on deck.

http://www.fisthistory.org/Ships.htm

I just would like to think improvement and bug fixes are being implemented rather than a feature that's being done for the sake of it and not ever used (tipping V1's) as an example.















.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

As far as night bombing along a beam would be just a technical exercise to say "I did it".

It would be an extra layer of realism for those who want it, and modeling at least some of the blind bombing aids seems like a logical step for DT since they've already created other navigation aids, as well as AI and GCI radar.

Knickebein would be very easy to model - just use the existing waypoint modeling in the FMB, limit it to a straight line, and link it to a sound effect that fades from dots to pure tone to dashes as you deviate from the course.

X-Gerat would be almost as easy to model - straight-line waypoint like for Knickebein for the Weser signal, with three intersecting straight line waypoints linked to sound effects to simulate the Rhine, Elbe and Oder signals. Modeling the special X-gerat bombing clock would be a chore, though.

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

I just would like to think improvement and bug fixes are being implemented rather than a feature that's being done for the sake of it and not ever used (tipping V1's) as an example.

I agree. If I ran the show, I'd prioritize bug fixing first, upgrading current planes second, adding new planes third, and "other stuff" last.

But, it seems that with each new release DT gives us a mix of things - bug fixes, one or two new planes, a few new flyable and improved planes, a few new ground objects, and some other things. I was suggesting that some of the blind bombing aids might be relatively easy additions to "other stuff" for 4.14 or a later addition.

[wWwebBrowser]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...375wFH-Sg#t=40

Is this view option still a possibility? Or have I not found the option in the current 4.12.2m game.

[Pugo3]

I searched the thread re head on shooting, with no results, so having just recently [finally] updated to 4.11/4.12, I wanted to ask regarding AI head on shooting ability. I started with Il-2 1946 4.07, and the ace level AI were very lethal in head on shooting abilities, and the current patches also have extremely deadly abilities as well [I think even more so] I also encounter this flying ROF in the ace mode. In every case, the AI is almost without exception able to track the most aggressive evasive measures; skidding, jinxing, speed variance, anything.

I would respectfully ask the TD team to perhaps tone this down a bit by somehow factoring in a human error element, to soften the 'I'm flying against my xxxx processor' factor. I have read others comments regarding defeating this practice by countering with head on burst in response to these attacks, and the AI do in fact most times veer away - wonderful to not have continuous head on collisions as the only option! ...But if I veer away, I invariably get hit by "magic bullets", seemingly impossible levels of accuracy and dexterity to follow my every jinx/skid/drop away - I watch the tracers dance perfectly along with my every micro-second move and just can't defeat this.

...or can someone educate me as to the amount of kills recorded in combat accounts that would support the present levels of lethality found in the game to date? Perhaps the Russian aces were more in the habit of aggressive head on attacks as a matter of course and conveyed these accounts in Russian documents. I would appreciate any referrals to combat accounts that any would know of to educate me on this topic if I am mistaken and this was in fact a common method of Ace success.

I very much enjoy all the improvements thus far, and join with the others praising this accomplishment. I think it is best to have the high levels for Ace mode, it should be challenging and I accept that I will lose more than I win, but the head on shots are a stumbling block for me in that they seem overly computer generated and consistent even for experienced aces. Getting damaged at the very beginning of a dogfight at Ace level means your practically dead before you've even gotten going. Please consider reviewing this element in light of historical combat accounts, or as I said, please anyone provide me the historic accounts I previously requested so I can reconcile myself to the current flight sim head on shot capabilities.

Thank you,

p3

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Pugo3

I searched the thread re head on shooting, with no results, so having just recently [finally] updated to 4.11/4.12, I wanted to ask regarding AI head on shooting ability. I started with Il-2 1946 4.07, and the ace level AI were very lethal in head on shooting abilities, and the current patches also have extremely deadly abilities as well [I think even more so] I also encounter this flying ROF in the ace mode. In every case, the AI is almost without exception able to track the most aggressive evasive measures; skidding, jinxing, speed variance, anything.

I would respectfully ask the TD team to perhaps tone this down a bit by somehow factoring in a human error element, to soften the 'I'm flying against my xxxx processor' factor. I have read others comments regarding defeating this practice by countering with head on burst in response to these attacks, and the AI do in fact most times veer away - wonderful to not have continuous head on collisions as the only option! ...But if I veer away, I invariably get hit by "magic bullets", seemingly impossible levels of accuracy and dexterity to follow my every jinx/skid/drop away - I watch the tracers dance perfectly along with my every micro-second move and just can't defeat this.

...or can someone educate me as to the amount of kills recorded in combat accounts that would support the present levels of lethality found in the game to date? Perhaps the Russian aces were more in the habit of aggressive head on attacks as a matter of course and conveyed these accounts in Russian documents. I would appreciate any referrals to combat accounts that any would know of to educate me on this topic if I am mistaken and this was in fact a common method of Ace success.

I very much enjoy all the improvements thus far, and join with the others praising this accomplishment. I think it is best to have the high levels for Ace mode, it should be challenging and I accept that I will lose more than I win, but the head on shots are a stumbling block for me in that they seem overly computer generated and consistent even for experienced aces. Getting damaged at the very beginning of a dogfight at Ace level means your practically dead before you've even gotten going. Please consider reviewing this element in light of historical combat accounts, or as I said, please anyone provide me the historic accounts I previously requested so I can reconcile myself to the current flight sim head on shot capabilities.

Thank you,

p3

If you're playing against Ace AI then it's not as much of a surprise. Ace pilots tended to be confident, capable and aggressive. When TD implemented the AI changes they changed the whole system... in earlier patches the AI could see 360 degrees. Even through the cowling of their aircraft. Now the AI can only see what you can see through your cockpit. What they do now is make a guess as to where they saw you last with a degree of probability and fire. So even if they can't see you they can try and shoot you like a human.

I believe if you turn on the Arcade=1 mode in the config.ini file it will show you graphically what the AI is doing and what degree of error they have in firing at you from all angles. They are better at deflection shooting now but they are more limited in the opportunities they can employ it without some degree of guessing.

I think maybe adjusting expectations? The Ace should be a top tier opponent... something you run into rarely or never. Your Beurling, Hartmann, or Gabreski as examples. Someone who is really gifted at being a combat pilot. Folks like Beurling could fly into an enemy formation and shoot down a couple of planes at a time before the enemy could react - even Allied commanders didn't believe Beurling's kills because the film camera was setup to record ahead of him and he was shooting them down at 60-90 degree deflection angles with only a few bullets each.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Pugo3

I also encounter this flying ROF in the ace mode. In every case, the AI is almost without exception able to track the most aggressive evasive measures; skidding, jinxing, speed variance, anything.

My experience with head-on shots against Ace AI is that it's not that unrealistic in terms of gun accuracy, but the AI is too aggressive in refusing to avoid collisions, and it's downright "rookie-like" in failure to avoid fire and willingness to accept such shots in the first place.

If you take a straight-on head-on shot at an enemy ace within 300 meters/yards, expect crippling or lethal damage to your plane, especially if you're flying an inline engine plane and/or your foe is armed with cannons.

But, if you're a halfway decent shot and you're flying a well-armed plane yourself, you can also give as good as you get. Typically, that results in a lot of "double kill" results, both in player vs. AI and AI vs. AI duels.

Also, unless you are willing to break off the attack with at least 100 meters to spare, you're almost certainly going to collide because the AI never gives way. Again, player vs. AI and AI vs. AI results in a very high number of double kills due to collisions.

The last two factors are where I think that the "Ace" AI gets unrealistically stupid. If you're good enough and experienced enough to be an ace pilot, you won't willingly take a shot where you're likely to collide or otherwise suffer crippling or fatal damage.

Instead, you'll avoid that sort of shot and maneuver for a better position. At the very least, you've going to try to attack from above or below, or maneuver during your attack run to avoid making yourself an easy target. You'll also have an "exit strategy" planned so that you don't just collide with your opponent.

Ace AI also doesn't seem to take relative fragility and firepower of various aircraft into account. This means that fragile planes like the Ki-43, A6M2 or CW-21 will unhesitatingly accept head on duels against tough, well-armed planes like the P-47, F4U or IL2.

To my mind, that's another rookie mistake. An Ace pilot flying a fragile plane against a tough, heavily armed one would instantly realize that he's playing to his opponent's strengths and refuse to play along. It's even more glaring when a pure maneuver fighter like the A6M2 makes a shot from 12 o'clock level against a plane like the F2A-2 Buffalo, whose only ability to strike such planes is via head-on attacks.

As for game play, if you want to have any chance of surviving a head-on attack against a decent opponent, you have to be moving fast along all three axes relative to your foe. If you bore right in at 12 o'clock level expect to get shot up. If you can make a fast "slashing" diving and curving attack from 1 o'clock or 11 o'clock high, not only do you have a bigger target to shoot at, it's much harder for the enemy to bring his guns to bear, and you're in a better position to swing around onto your foe's tail if your initial attack doesn't take him out. It's a much tougher shot, but not beyond the skills of a reasonably competent shooter.