The AI thread

[Juri_JS]

8 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I agree that more information would be helpful, but I can answer a few of those 🙂

For mission building more precise information would be useful. For example at which distance AI can spot enemy planes at night or where exactly the blindspots for different aircraft types are. I wish we could take a look at the AI code, but of course I understand that the devs can't make it public.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

4 hours ago, Juri_JS said:

For mission building more precise information would be useful. For example at which distance AI can spot enemy planes at night or where exactly the blindspots for different aircraft types are. I wish we could take a look at the AI code, but of course I understand that the devs can't make it public.

It all depends. In darkness, I've occasionally been spotted at ranges of up to 300m and occasionally only within a 100. I think it's partly the darkness (e.g. moon), partly the weather (e.g. haze), partly the AI skill setting and partly luck. If you fire your guns or accidentally left your lights on, you'll get spotted at daylight distances.

Blind spots, get into the cockpit and have a look around. Generally, planes can't spot below and behind them.

All these things depend on so many variables, that even if we did get the exact equations behind them (which we won't), you'd still need to test to know for certain if your logic works.

Edited August 20 by AEthelraedUnraed

[Viking1]

Has anyone done any one vs two tests? Id be very curious to know how often the Wingie of my target will try to get on my tail while no 1 is trying to shake me off. I know ive had it happen once  but ive been mostly ground pounding in my F-51 

[Viking1]

Flew one vs 2 in my F51 today, a pair of La-11s set on veteran. I thought they did pretty well. 

 

Rd 1 - Hd to head pass. The lead guy extended and I went after the wingie. Initially he used energy well but then it was a turn fight. Knocked him down by the time #1 was back in the game. But #1 did come back and gave me a lot of trouble until I winged him then it was just a matter of time

Rd 2. Hd to head pass. Lead guy extended again but I dont think as far as the first time. before I could get hits on the wingie I had the lead on my tail and it was a furball. Eventually nailed one of them but meantime took hits and had all kinds of damage and had to exit the fight. First time I have seen my perspex shattered on top AND holes in the side plates, locked up flaps etc managed to land anyway.

Rd 3. Hd to head pass. Nearly nailed the wingie a couple times but then lead was back in the game.

From just observation one might think the wingie made a mistake getting in a turn fight with me. BUT - its a big BUT - in two vs two doctrine it was a good play because #1 is on his way back and I'm preoccupied. SO actually #2 did the smart thing and a furball with two is quite a challenge. With more time in the F51 I can probably knock one of them down faster but this is veteran level AI. Now I'll try them on Ace.

Edited August 24 by Viking1

[Viking1]

One vs Two my F51 vs 2x La-11 set on ACE

Rd 1. Completely different engagement style, instead of being happy with my head on merge they both attempted to go offset. Lead did not extend they were both in the fight from the start. This is a whole nother level of challenge. I went high hoping I could buy some time (indecision means flexibility). Then I had to choose one and got on his tail  long enough to get hits. Hung on longer and it was twist and turn, finally had a nice setup but wasnt sure where No 2 was. Sure enough I got peppered and had to induce a spin to survive. Went down low over my airfield was curious to see how aggressive they would be. Sure enough someone came after me heh so nice. Got a track file on this one I'll edit in a new thread.

Edited August 24 by Viking1

[Xtremist]

Regarding the superhuman ai G-tolerance; i asked questions before here and i stated that the AI is obviously immune to the early stage of g-loc, some forum members agreed, others dismissed the whole question with something like this "a small percentage of players always find something about the ai they can attack as unfair"

And now this shows up in discord;

Q;

"Are there any plans to have the AI honour the physiology system and stop cheating?"

A; (from LukeFF)

"Right now it uses the same simplified physiology system that is available as a difficulty option. Whether that will change in the future, I can't say right now"

So we are fighting against AI with the "easy" physiology difficulty setting.

Thank you.

 

Edited Friday at 08:09 AM by Xtremist

[Panzerlang]

45 minutes ago, Xtremist said:

Regarding the superhuman ai G-tolerance; i asked questions before here and i stated that the AI is obviously immune to the early stage of g-loc, some forum members agreed, others dismissed the whole question with something like this "a small percentage of players always find something about the ai they can attack as unfair"

And now this shows up in discord;

Q;

"Are there any plans to have the AI honour the physiology system and stop cheating?"

A; (from LukeFF)

"Right now it uses the same simplified physiology system that is available as a difficulty option. Whether that will change in the future, I can't say right now"

So we are fighting against AI with the "easy" physiology difficulty setting.

Thank you.

 

Well that sucks and explains the F80 turns I can't even come close to matching in the Mig without blacking out. And that thing's a bit of a barge too (at least when I fly it).

[Husar]

Old psychology was less "realistic" but the game was more fun to play especially fighting against more than one enemy at time.

Edited Friday at 08:45 AM by Husar

[AndreiTomescu]

58 minutes ago, Panzerlang said:

can't even come close to matching in the Mig without blacking out.

While testing a mission from a future campaign, I had the skippable option to engage , with an undamaged Mustang with 4 MGs and a full rear tank (needed for RTB, ditching fuel not an option) , 2 x Il-10 without attached ordinance.

The pair worked together quite well, their aim was not very good, but what made the hole experience a bit unbelievable, imho, was the effortless way the Il-10 out turned the P-51 !!!

They definitely had no G load issues, and pls remember I was constrained by my rear tank.

Took me 100L of precious fuel and half the ammo of the 4 MGs to get them down.

The Mustang took some hits, but not enough to hamper my loooong nightly RTB.

So: the AI is much better fighter, clearly, but, for me, in my unprofessional experience, the G load stress from the human player does not apply to the AI planes.

[Leifr]

Well, that's incredibly disappointing, aggravating and frankly a little humorous too. That will readily explain why my pilot is constantly struggling against the enemy; they're flying literally to different rules. I hope it changes... 

[AndreiTomescu]

@Leifr: yep. Let's stick to the humorous aspect, because it's constructive!

I strongly recommend this future campaign, about the aerial secret ops in Korea, despite not being historical.

It's sooo out of the box, so unpredictable, so immersive and  ....so hard..... 

40 minutes ago, Leifr said:

they're flying literally to different rules. I hope it changes... 

Officially they are not. So if a welcomed change will come, it will be subtle. But none the less, much appreciated

[Jaegermeister]

3 hours ago, Leifr said:

That will readily explain why my pilot is constantly struggling against the enemy; they're flying literally to different rules. I hope it changes... 

Before you make that statement, you might want to test it and see if it is true.

You could place yourself as a wingman in a flight of MiGs and see if you can turn with the AI while attacking enemy planes without blacking out. That would be a quick and actually fun test. 

I would be extremely surprised if the AI did not have the same physical model as the player.  

[Xtremist]

39 minutes ago, Jaegermeister said:

Before you make that statement, you might want to test it and see if it is true.

You could place yourself as a wingman in a flight of MiGs and see if you can turn with the AI while attacking enemy planes without blacking out. That would be a quick and actually fun test. 

I would be extremely surprised if the AI did not have the same physical model as the player.  

I have tried many times, and yes, it is true. But, like, the community manager's statement isn't enough?

"Right now it uses the same SIMPLIFIED physiology system that is available as a difficulty option. Whether that will change in the future, I can't say right now"

So the default AI physiology = player "cheating option"

Edited Friday at 02:38 PM by Xtremist

[Dash,Polder]

Pilot physiology is too weak for the player, we shouldn't be banking fatigue at four G and below, with a suit five.  Yet it accumulates at lower G and the pilot just doesn't recover, that happens to somebody with heart disease, not an active qualified fit fighter pilot.  Recovery should be measured in seconds from these low G events, not banked and accumulated.  

And on the opposite end at high G, you go unconscious and black out, yet when you wake up your ready to instantly resume the fight, not what happens in the real world, if you G-lock you are finished for the day and lucky if you can recover at all.  When or if you wake your more than likely going to be completely disorientated for a bit unaware where you are and how you got there, lucky if you can recover the plane in time.  Most G-lock incidents never do recover, why they are so dangerous and to be avoided. 

The two roles need to be tuned.  Low to moderate continuous G is a normal operating environment all day for a fighter pilot, while G-lock from loads of rapid and sudden high G pulls accumulative and highly fatal if black out happens.  Letting go of the stick shouldn't be a guarantee one will shortly wake up either, most sleep incidents never do regain a wake state before impact.  An experienced pilot knows his own limits and can do a pretty good job of riding the edge in high G operations, the cues probably could be better, there isn't much between fully conscious and complete dark in game, be nice to see a better portrayal of the tunnel vision develop along with grey out, not much of that present in game.  You can't really ride the G very good in game.

One thing they could fix is there is a condition where the players in cockpit stick stops pulling input due to stick forces, but the player still continues pulling his physical stick to the aft limit without real feedback.  Than as the speed begins to bleeds off the in game stick starts suddenly pulling more without the player putting in any new input, sometimes happens very rapidly trying to auto match for the controllers current full pull.  That's exactly how your wings end up getting ripped off without your consent in a pull with sudden speed bleed off.  The G onset as a result of this can be insane, and you have no say or control over it, can catch you by surprise.  Only the force feedback guys don't suffer much over that one, cause their sticks physically match and give real feedback somewhat matching the correct current positions of game and players sticks.

It would help greatly if the stick position once exceeded in a non force feedback controller would need to be matched or even slightly pushed ahead in order for the game to resume the pull while under a sustained G load.  That would keep the wings from departing and help manage G loading better, or we all need to spend a grand on a quality force feedback stick to keep wings on and have the ability to ride the G.

[AndreiTomescu]

2 hours ago, Xtremist said:

"Right now it uses the same SIMPLIFIED physiology system that is available as a difficulty option. Whether that will change in the future, I can't say right now"

So the default AI physiology = player "cheating option"

so, for my easier understanding, the AI uses the "no G lock" option from the difficulty menu, right? 

then it's explainable why the AI can pull much harder turns.

Jagg's test, i did, and it was clear: I have to see a cardiologist ! 🙂 🙂 

[Xtremist]

33 minutes ago, AndreiTomescu said:

so, for my easier understanding, the AI uses the "no G lock" option from the difficulty menu, right? 

then it's explainable why the AI can pull much harder turns.

Jagg's test, i did, and it was clear: I have to see a cardiologist ! 🙂 🙂 

Yepp.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Well I guess the answer for now is to use the easy physiology model and even the playing field a bit. 

Edited Friday at 07:02 PM by BlitzPig_EL

[FuriousMeow]

That's weird they undid what the bots were using in Great Battles for Korea. In GB I saw bots go G-LOC and crash. Confirmed it was G-LOC as the pilot model was slumped over.  No damage, so it wasn't a severe wound thing. 

But even if they are using the simplified physio... I'm still knocking them out of the sky easily.

Edited Friday at 09:40 PM by FuriousMeow

[Leifr]

17 hours ago, Jaegermeister said:

I would be extremely surprised if the AI did not have the same physical model as the player.  

LukeFF said yesterday, on the official Discord, that the AI is locked in to using the simplified physiology model regardless of what the player chooses.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

On 10/9/2026 at 1:38 AM, Xtremist said:

Regarding the superhuman ai G-tolerance; i asked questions before here and i stated that the AI is obviously immune to the early stage of g-loc

I always find it interesting when people make claims like 'obviously'

And than go on to note, not everyone agreed with the 'obvious' conclusion.

That in and of itself proves it is NOT 'obvious'

To which the vast majority of those who made the original claim of 'obvious' will respond with something along the lines of:

'Well there must be something wrong with you if it is not obvious to you'

Instead of providing the 'data' and the 'analysis' methods applied to the data that supports the claim of 'obvious' for all to review to see if they come up with the same results (aka scientific method)

[ACE-OF-ACES]

8 hours ago, Leifr said:

LukeFF said yesterday, on the official Discord, that the AI is locked in to using the simplified physiology model regardless of what the player chooses.

So what are we 'ASSuming' here?

I think this statement can be misleading

It appears that some members believe enabling Simplified Physiology disables all G-LOC effects.

I don't know what enabling Simplified Physiology does..

I do know enabling Simplified Physiology does NOT disable G-LOC (blackouts)

Based on the description of the Simplified Physiology:

G-load tolerance won't decrease after prolonged maneuvering; the pilot won't lose consciousness and won't get sick when exposed to alternating positive and negative overload.

Depending on your perspective, this wording could be interpreted in different ways. My interpretation is that

Enabling Simplified Physiology does NOT prevent G-LOC is only disabled G-LOAD tolerance.

Where G-LOAD tolerance is the cumulative effects of back to back high g maneuvers that lower the pilots G-LOC threshold.

Edited Saturday at 03:36 PM by ACE-OF-ACES

[ACE-OF-ACES]

22 hours ago, AndreiTomescu said:

so, for my easier understanding, the AI uses the "no G lock" option from the difficulty menu, right? 

wrong.

There is still G-LOC

But what they call G-LOAD, the cumulative effects of back to back high g maneuvers that lower the pilots G-LOC threshold point, is disabled.

Or should I say not implemented for AI! Just real pilots!

Put another way..

The AI is NOT preforming high g maneuvers that the real pilot cannot match! i.e. cheating!

The AI is just NOT getting fatigued due to back to back high g maneuvers like the real pilot is.

Edited Saturday at 03:16 PM by ACE-OF-ACES

[Leifr]

1 hour ago, ACE-OF-ACES said:

So what are we 'ASSuming' here?

I think this statement can be misleading

It appears that some members believe enabling Simplified Physiology disables all G-LOC effects.

I don't know what enabling Simplified Physiology does..

I do know enabling Simplified Physiology does NOT disable G-LOC (blackouts)

Based on the description of the Simplified Physiology:

G-load tolerance won't decrease after prolonged maneuvering; the pilot won't lose consciousness and won't get sick when exposed to alternating positive and negative overload.

Depending on your perspective, this wording could be interpreted in different ways. My interpretation is that

Enabling Simplified Physiology does NOT prevent G-LOC is only disabled G-LOAD tolerance.

Where G-LOAD tolerance is the cumulative effects of back to back high g maneuvers that lower the pilots G-LOC threshold.

Enabling simplified physiology disables g-loc, players and pilots cannot lose consciousness. Try it, pull as hard as you want and as many sustained turns as you want, loss of consciousness just doesn't seem to happen. The pilot, as you say, also does not suffer from g-load tolerance becoming unbearable.

Folk have an issue with the AI currently being permanently locked in to this option; you cannot force the AI to use the same physiology model as the player, and so there is the perception that the AI is able to sustain more than the player pilot. This perception has now been confirmed to be true by LukeFF - the AI is playing to a completely different ruleset as the player regardless of difficulty setting, there is no assuming here.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

7 minutes ago, Leifr said:

Enabling simplified physiology disables g-loc, players and pilots cannot lose consciousness.

You and I must be playing different games..

In that I created a mission, turned on Simplified Physiology, pulled hard g, black out

[Valis]

6 minutes ago, ACE-OF-ACES said:

In that I created a mission, turned on Simplified Physiology, pulled hard g, black out

It goes black, but you won't lose consciousness.