4.13 development update discussion and feedback

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Laurwin

About being outnumbered in dogfight... Some pilots became aces by exactly speaking avoiding bad situations... avoiding such disadvantages, and gaining advantages.

Sadly, that sort of ace makes for a boring game.

I don't know how exactly TD has programmed the AI, and if they will choose to make any further changes to it, but I still think that the best mix between realism and fun is to have different levels of aggression compared against different levels of various traits/skills such as gunnery, vision, situational awareness, G tolerance, etc.

Select for cautious aggression, superior distance vision, air tactics, situational awareness/tracking ability, and gunnery skills and you get your "realistic" ace. Select for reckless aggression, superior flying, situational awareness, and gunnery skills to get your "fangs out, hair on fire" dogfighter ace who goes out in a blaze of glory. QMB would automatically have the latter sort of Ace AI. FMB or campaigns could have the realistic type.

Maybe that comes a bit too close to "role-playing" for some folks, but if you're going to realistically model the human element, you have to start modeling human traits, including the basics of human mental and emotional traits.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Sadly, that sort of ace makes for a boring game.

I don't know if this necessarily is the case. Wouldn't that be similar to fighting a cautious but good human opponent? If not ALL ace AI would behave the same, a very challenging opponent for occasional duels. And maybe he would even be easier to escape from, as his cautiousness would forbid him from following you at all costs, he would rather keep his superior position. And some cautiousness wouldn't hurt the AI all across the board - and at least the better AI could once in a while try to avoid a fight at bad terms. Or to just get away when they see the fight is not going their way.

And another thing AI usually is bad - using a speed advantage. Planes like Bf109 in AI hands are not employed well against nimble but slow opponents - and I think at least regular to ace AI should know a little about what their plane is good at - veteran and ace to some degree what the enemy planes are bad at. They should of course not be omniscient. Maybe too complicated, but say an ace AI has virtually brought down 10 P-40 in his Bf109, then he should at least know he can outclimb them, and maybe know he is usually faster - and has a little disadvantage turning and rolling.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

Rookie AI is below that level in many aspects - their aiming and shooting is beyond useless. And maneuvering is at best okay. What I think could and should be corrcted is their awareness, its quite a rare ocassion shooting down one of them pursuing a friendly - they seem to know or guess where you are pretty good - an ability even a regular and if in a bigger furball even a veteran should not have. Over the years I have become a better pilot - but I still lack the SA to track more than a few planes - and as a rookie I could track one plane barely - which more often than not got me shot down.

This where for me icons and sometimes (depending on the time of day.. my morning eyes are terrible..) external.padlock helps because sometimes I just cannot see a thing. The padlock I can turn off .. but I need the icons.. I just make them tight. I don't see anything beyond 1.0 for friendlies and .9 for enemies .. bu that little bit helps.

Originally Posted by Pugo3

I agree with and appreciate the various inputs and opinions re my inquiry, and want to state again, I think it is absolutely great that the AI are as deadly as they are in ACE mode. I would also re-emphasize that they do veer away if you stay steady and have them on dead center gun sight - I have fired a very brief burst on several occasions to deter them from continuing, a sort of warning shot if you will, and they most times veer away, again, a notable and welcome improvement from 4.10 and earlier. Of course, sometimes they take me out or we collide, no complaints here, my bad all the way!

The part I wrote about my plane veering down or away and the subsequent "magic bullets" is the aspect I mostly question. If you try this a few times in Invulnerable mode, and watch the tracers from the AI, you'll notice a pattern somewhat as if you spread your fingers of your hand as wide as possible, then altered the angle of various fingers upward and downward. Either those armament guys have performed some feat of field shop engineering, or that pilot has somehow acquired 'Jackie Chan' levels of mastery in dancing those tracers from each individual gun to cover an amazing spread up, down and sideways in a few seconds! It appears to me that the tracers are angled downward towards me while the AI aircraft is flying over me

Test this yourself and see if you find the same result; again, shells coming downward while the AI plane is in process of overflying me directly front above, and look for the 'W' spread of tracers, which of course should be parallel.

Not to worry, just thought to bring it to TD's attention, but I can live with it (adapt) either way.
p3

Isn't that a matter of convergence though..?

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Sadly, that sort of ace makes for a boring game.

I don't know how exactly TD has programmed the AI, and if they will choose to make any further changes to it, but I still think that the best mix between realism and fun is to have different levels of aggression compared against different levels of various traits/skills such as gunnery, vision, situational awareness, G tolerance, etc.

Select for cautious aggression, superior distance vision, air tactics, situational awareness/tracking ability, and gunnery skills and you get your "realistic" ace. Select for reckless aggression, superior flying, situational awareness, and gunnery skills to get your "fangs out, hair on fire" dogfighter ace who goes out in a blaze of glory. QMB would automatically have the latter sort of Ace AI. FMB or campaigns could have the realistic type.

Maybe that comes a bit too close to "role-playing" for some folks, but if you're going to realistically model the human element, you have to start modeling human traits, including the basics of human mental and emotional traits.

What I would like to see them do with the AI is make it possible to assign a specific pilot level to each individual AI... in the QMB as well .. Right now you can only do it in the FMB.. Even if they found a way to make QMs editable in the FMB .. but as it is now when you assign a skill level to a pilot it goes to the entire flight in the QMB... and truth be told.. there are a lot of folks who still just jump in the QMB.. or online more than anything else.. I never was one for campaigns...

I have found that when you mix up the AI on an individual basis you get a much more interesting fight on your hands..

Originally Posted by majorfailure

I don't know if this necessarily is the case. Wouldn't that be similar to fighting a cautious but good human opponent? If not ALL ace AI would behave the same, a very challenging opponent for occasional duels. And maybe he would even be easier to escape from, as his cautiousness would forbid him from following you at all costs, he would rather keep his superior position. And some cautiousness wouldn't hurt the AI all across the board - and at least the better AI could once in a while try to avoid a fight at bad terms. Or to just get away when they see the fight is not going their way.

And another thing AI usually is bad - using a speed advantage. Planes like Bf109 in AI hands are not employed well against nimble but slow opponents - and I think at least regular to ace AI should know a little about what their plane is good at - veteran and ace to some degree what the enemy planes are bad at. They should of course not be omniscient. Maybe too complicated, but say an ace AI has virtually brought down 10 P-40 in his Bf109, then he should at least know he can outclimb them, and maybe know he is usually faster - and has a little disadvantage turning and rolling.

Sometimes it seems to me that they knopw just all that!! But maybe that's because I am still so bad after all this time..LOL.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

This where for me icons and sometimes (depending on the time of day.. my morning eyes are terrible..) external.padlock helps because sometimes I just cannot see a thing.

I sometimes rely on these features as well, although the way that ground padlock works scares the hell out of me, since you continue to track the target after you've passed it, when your eyes really need to be forward and your horizon, bank and airspeed indicators.

I also wish that the "enemy pointer" icons were available in cockpit view, for the same reason.

Purists might bitch, but I think that icons, padlock, etc. are valid aids in a "full real" combat sim.

First, your "window" on the game world is limited to a 45-60 degree cone, when a real person's eyesight is more like a 120-140 degree cone. Basically, you're driving a plane through a "window" that's more like the driver's hatch or periscope on a tank!

Second, your window on the game world is a "Virtual Mark I Eyeball" - rather than being able to resolve the game world as a real person could, you're limited by pixels and graphics rendering.

Third, arguably combat flight simulation is a form of roleplaying game in that you are pretending to be a (typically) 18-25 year old man, selected for his intelligence, athleticism, reflexes, distance vision, tracking ability, coolness under stress and physical fitness. Most flight simmers definitely lack some or all of these traits!

[Derda508]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

you are pretending to be a (typically) 18-25 year old man, selected for his intelligence, athleticism, reflexes, distance vision, tracking ability, coolness under stress and physical fitness.

Don´t forget to mention that we are amazingly good looking as well!

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

I don't know if this necessarily is the case. Wouldn't that be similar to fighting a cautious but good human opponent? If not ALL ace AI would behave the same, a very challenging opponent for occasional duels. And maybe he would even be easier to escape from, as his cautiousness would forbid him from following you at all costs, he would rather keep his superior position. And some cautiousness wouldn't hurt the AI all across the board - and at least the better AI could once in a while try to avoid a fight at bad terms. Or to just get away when they see the fight is not going their way.

And another thing AI usually is bad - using a speed advantage. Planes like Bf109 in AI hands are not employed well against nimble but slow opponents - and I think at least regular to ace AI should know a little about what their plane is good at - veteran and ace to some degree what the enemy planes are bad at. They should of course not be omniscient. Maybe too complicated, but say an ace AI has virtually brought down 10 P-40 in his Bf109, then he should at least know he can outclimb them, and maybe know he is usually faster - and has a little disadvantage turning and rolling.

From what research I've done in the literature surrounding AI and AI programming, you're describing something that is still kind of a dream. We can program in specific behaviours and I'm sure an abstracted system might be developed to boil it down for the AI so they can make some artificially generated judgment calls - but to truly have the ability to size up their opponent and suss out a tactical plan based on that is still something only a human can do.

This is especially true if we try and factor in a fog of war scenario where you know your opponent's aircraft generally but maybe not all of his capabilities or weaknesses. Developing that knowledge organically is the stuff of neural network research and they have made great strides in that area but it's still just in its infancy I think.

A long time before we'll see a game AI with the abilities that we'd all like them to have. And by then... AI might be a little scary to behold. Just ask Elon Musk about what he thinks of that

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by IceFire

From what research I've done in the literature surrounding AI and AI programming, you're describing something that is still kind of a dream.

Currently "Artificial Intelligence" is still an oxymoron.

The good news is that air combat is a very limited sphere of activity, closely bound to the laws of physics, and further bound by historical doctrines and the limits of human physiology. With those limits in mind, AI can often be abstracted into decision trees and flow charts.

For example, currently damaged enemy bombers often behave "stupidly" when choosing whether the crew bails out or crash lands/ditches. A simple decision tree or flow chart could be used to make them behave in a much more realistic fashion. For example:

Can I hold altitude? N/Y > Am I over friendly territory? Y/N > Can I get to an airfield long enough to land the plane? Y/N > Is there open ground where I can crash land? Y/N > Can I reach any water within 300 m of land? Y/N? > Fly towards land > When within 300 m of land, turn parallel to the wind and ditch.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Currently "Artificial Intelligence" is still an oxymoron.

The good news is that air combat is a very limited sphere of activity, closely bound to the laws of physics, and further bound by historical doctrines and the limits of human physiology. With those limits in mind, AI can often be abstracted into decision trees and flow charts.

For example, currently damaged enemy bombers often behave "stupidly" when choosing whether the crew bails out or crash lands/ditches. A simple decision tree or flow chart could be used to make them behave in a much more realistic fashion. For example:

Can I hold altitude? N/Y > Am I over friendly territory? Y/N > Can I get to an airfield long enough to land the plane? Y/N > Is there open ground where I can crash land? Y/N > Can I reach any water within 300 m of land? Y/N? > Fly towards land > When within 300 m of land, turn parallel to the wind and ditch.

Completely agree. AI is still kind of an oxymoron. It's more of a decision tree that it follows and it's really only as good as the assumptions that the programmer has made.

More assumptions can be programmed like what you have up there. That's fairly "easy" to check for I would imagine... although I'm not really sure if the AI would know if it's in friendly or enemy territory or if that kind of thing is passed to the AI at all. Would be interesting!

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by IceFire

More assumptions can be programmed like what you have up there. That's fairly "easy" to check for I would imagine... although I'm not really sure if the AI would know if it's in friendly or enemy territory or if that kind of thing is passed to the AI at all. Would be interesting!

I don't know if front markers are passed to the AI. But, given as they're points marked on a map and the game engine already keeps track of aircraft position and vector, it doesn't seem like that big a problem to add them in.

For missions where no front lines are marked, just assume that all territory is friendly, or all territory that isn't within X meters of a hostile ground unit is friendly.

Even so, my original partial decision tree for bailout decisions shows the sort of work that is necessary to make aircraft behave in a "smart" fashion for just one small aspect of flight.

Humans have plenty of experience with "don't do this, it's probably dangerous," so we understand the ideas that friendly territory is better than enemy territory, landing is (usually) better than bailing, and it's (usually) better to crash land or bail out over land than water. We also have the ability to extrapolate from basic principles.

Computer AI is like programming a baby. The computer doesn't automatically "know" anything, and has to be "taught" that certain things or behaviors are bad. Even worse, it has no ability to extrapolate and it's typically really poor at certain types of visual pattern recognition that humans take for granted.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by IceFire

From what research I've done in the literature surrounding AI and AI programming, you're describing something that is still kind of a dream. We can program in specific behaviours and I'm sure an abstracted system might be developed to boil it down for the AI so they can make some artificially generated judgment calls - but to truly have the ability to size up their opponent and suss out a tactical plan based on that is still something only a human can do.

This is especially true if we try and factor in a fog of war scenario where you know your opponent's aircraft generally but maybe not all of his capabilities or weaknesses. Developing that knowledge organically is the stuff of neural network research and they have made great strides in that area but it's still just in its infancy I think.

A long time before we'll see a game AI with the abilities that we'd all like them to have. And by then... AI might be a little scary to behold. Just ask Elon Musk about what he thinks of that

Correct me if I'm wrong, but AI does not have to learn, it does just have to simulate learning. Ever played an RPG(pen 'n paper)? Then -did your virtual character ever learn anything? No, you just simulated that.

Now do the same for AI - and even a basic system would work IMHO. But that may be too complicated - I do not know if it is possible to program an AI with traits without having to write a new code for every small change in AI. Only then independent skill sets were possible.
As for the other thing, AI not beeing able to use speed advantage - either classify the planes as fast/slow - then a Bf109 will try to run from P-51 - which is okay for rookie/regular. Or give them a faster/equal/slower table, and let only ace know all, veteran and lower will get a table with more and randomly selected wrong entries. Make that table for turn and roll and climb too - and use the result to give the AI rules to follow.