|
|
#911
10-28-2014, 10:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. 
|
|
#912
10-29-2014, 12:47 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
|
#913
10-31-2014, 05:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
TD team re Ace AI Head on shot historicity
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
|
|
#914
10-31-2014, 09:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Find my missions and much more at Mission4Today.com
|
|
#915
11-02-2014, 12:40 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I agree with what IceFire talks about.
Frankly, what is needed is more of a personal adjustment to the perception of what "Ace" actually means within the current AI routines. Ace AI pilots aren't merely the pilots with five (or ten) or more kills. Ace AI pilots are the rare gifted ones that an individual player may only rarely or never run into. The ones who can get in, get kills, and get out almost at will. Correspondingly, Ace AI pilots should be every bit as difficult to fight against as Pugo describes. A lot of the problem arises when players use old campaigns with the AI skill set according to how the AI behaved in older versions of the game, prior to the re-write. Now, with the new AI routines, it is perhaps necessary to reset AI skills to lower levels in the legacy campaigns and ensure they set accordingly in newer ones.
|
|
#916
11-02-2014, 02:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
more control over the ai
In my humble opinion, the AI are good enough and most of the time offer a good level of challenge. One thing I do want is more control over ur squad when u r leading. It seens that regardless of what I do the ais will always break off from the formation and engage the enemy. Maybe, they could implement something that would prevent the ai from breaking formation unless being told to by the cover me command or when being shot at. This would give a much better control of the fight when u r leading. Another problem is the break and rejoin.... Maybe we could have a rejoin that would actually make the ai literally abandon whatever it is doing to get back to u and a break formation that would make it fend for himself. The unresponsive ai is the only thing that bothers me when playing offline ...
Regards Riksen
|
|
#917
11-02-2014, 07:07 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Very handy when flying bombing missions and you want your flight to stay in formation and drop their payload on command simultaneously.
|
|
#918
11-02-2014, 01:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by Pursuivant; 11-02-2014 at 02:12 PM.
|
|
#919
11-02-2014, 01:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Currently, Ace AI represents exactly what Icefire is talking about, a hypothetical pilot with top 1% eyesight, aggression, situational awareness, reaction times, object tracking, air combat maneuvering, gunnery, bombing, rocketry, navigation and G-tolerance. (Realistically, no WW2-era ace, even the top aces, possessed all those traits.) Before the 4.12 patch, however, Ace AI represented "tough but beatable by a good player." These days, lesser aces (i.e., 5-10 kills) are better represented by Veteran or even Average AI. In some ways, Rookie AI now best represents "average" pilots of most air forces who lacked the aggressiveness and skills to even shoot down one enemy aircraft (approximately 90% of U.S. fighter pilots, even in combat zones. Probably similar for other air forces). Certainly, Rookie AI is necessary for bomber intercept missions because gunners are still too good at ranging target distance and speed, too good at acquiring and tracking targets, and aren't hindered by plane vibration, turbulence or slipstream effects. IL2 also doesn't model AI inferior to Rookie AI, at the "cannon fodder/ student/ unqualified" level, despite the fact that depending on the year and the air force, novice combat pilots might have had as little as 40 hours of total flight instruction, VFR only instrument rating, no gunnery practice, no meteorology or ground school training, limited target recognition skills and no flight time at all "in type". Last edited by Pursuivant; 11-02-2014 at 02:16 PM.
|
|
#920
11-02-2014, 02:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Find my missions and much more at Mission4Today.com
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
