The AI thread

[BraveSirRobin]

42 minutes ago, Panzerlang said:

BoBII (Wings of Victory) and yes, 1946 too, regardless of it 'cheating'.

You are missing the point.  I don’t care that the AI isn’t good.  Neither do you, apparently.  The complaining is coming from people who care that the AI isn’t good.  And in some cases, think it would be easy to make it better.

[KC23]

I'm sure the AI could be better for the very good pilots, but for me, it's been okay.

[Panzerlang]

13 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

You are missing the point.  I don’t care that the AI isn’t good.  Neither do you, apparently.  The complaining is coming from people who care that the AI isn’t good.  And in some cases, think it would be easy to make it better.

If I'm missing the point, why did you ask a question that would elicit an answer that misses the point?

A more pertinent point is me wondering why the devs haven't taken the AI from a game like Wings, or even 1946, used AI to configure it for Korea and implemented it. 1946 is their property too, so no copyright implications I presume. It does seem to me, from all I've read from players thus far, is that all they've essentially done is copy/paste the AI from BoS.
Personally it doesn't particularly bother me, more so as the VR performance has stopped me trying to test/play it at all actually.

[BraveSirRobin]

43 minutes ago, Panzerlang said:

A more pertinent point is me wondering why the devs haven't taken the AI from a game like Wings, or even 1946, 

The 46 AI uses a different flight model from the human player.  That’s why.  The 46 AI is terrible. They just disguise that fact by cheating.

50 minutes ago, Panzerlang said:

If I'm missing the point, why did you ask a question that would elicit an answer that misses the point?
 

The post you originally responded to was not a guestion.  
 

[Panzerlang]

37 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

The 46 AI uses a different flight model from the human player.  That’s why.  The 46 AI is terrible. They just disguise that fact by cheating.

The post you originally responded to was not a guestion.  
 

The one you asked that I directly answered was.

"Are you talking about the IL2 GB AI that everyone is currently complaining about or the IL2 1946 AI that blatantly cheated?"

"The 46 AI is terrible. They just disguise that fact by cheating."

Objectively or subjectively? I'm sure a lot of players enjoy it, regardless of it cheating and them knowing so. It simulates.

Edited June 29 by Panzerlang

[Panzerlang]

But how about that Wings AI? Widely considered to be the best ever made, to the point a lot of players couldn't tell if it was AI or human.

[Dash,Polder]

More than one way to skin this cat too, what kind of AI performer are you trying to build, one that works in a war team and tasking setting or just looking for a single fight that challenges you one on one. 

It's possible to have one very good and one bad both at the same time, in some cases one may have to be sacrificed to accomplish the other, who knows.  If it's a choice I do know which I'd prefer, the working functional war.  

[Retrofly]

Can the AI actually attack ground targets. I was doing the ground attack exam and order the flight to engage in ground targets, they lined up in a long line and all released bombs at the same time while flying level spreading bombs in a straight line over several kilometres. They then just flew in circles and did nothing??? Is there a special instruction to get them to ground attack properly?
 

Edited June 29 by Retrofly

[AndreiTomescu]

not yet, i think. in the early access the AI functions seems to be limited. They stated that are working on it. i belive them. IMHO, once the full release and the career mode will launch, the AI will be fully operational. Yes, the old AI, i guess, but improved. just as the blogs stated.

so far getting accustomed with the new flight and damage stuff fills the gap until the release, at least for me.

i decided to do the exams, but for the last mission from each, as to wait for the wingmen to be active

in the Shooting star exams, the dogfight with the YAK9 was a clear indicator as to the level of the AI in the dogfights. it used its turning advantage and performed several vertical maneuvers. Also, the "sniper" head-on bug that was in previous GB was no more. that i find encuraging. 

[Retrofly]

My expectation was that it wouldn't be missing such fundamental functionality present in previous games. This isn't early access, feels more like Alpha/beta testing. My worry is the elements that they struggled with in the GB seem to be the main issues with the new game. This does not give hope for the future as it seems like they have gone backwards. Yes, you could say its a new game/engine etc but to me most things look the same on the surface. This could have been a DLC for GB and wouldn't have known it was a new game. 

[AndreiTomescu]

Fly a bit. It's a different feeling compared to GB. (I have about 3k hrs in SP of GB) 

The FM (flight model) for the "old" planes like Mustang, Yak, La are quite different. So, at least for me, it really feels quite new-ish. 

Obviously you are right: what brought struggle in the old engine is the challenge for the new (or improved, upgraded, as you wish) one.

Yep, on the surface.....the planes are still planes, and the trees are still turning... 🙂 but i've got a different feeling. What it's good, imho, is that i've got a CLoD feeling, meaning that i've felt such a change as from 1946 to CLoD. 

A DLC for GB would have been technically impossible: different engine, different DirectX, programming stuff, you know.....

Now, if you wanna say the Early Access is quite barren in terms of content, yeah, it is, but hey! they've put in what they felt sure of. Nobody can ask for the promised content until actual game release.

Finally , IMHO, the Rockstar approach of releasing the good stuff only when it's really good is the best, but each company has its own approach. Maybe they didn't have the zillion dollars budget to go like that.

I would enjoy what it's on the plate now, and wait for the promised land after the 4th of aug. And especially,at least for me, once the campaign creators fire their editor rocket engines. The best value of GB i think were those hand crafted missions. Juri already fired a demo of an campaign with the N Korean Yaks.

Let's hope for the best. It took GB many years to became a (still flawed!) gemstone, i doubt Korea will hit that status overnight.

[Echo-2]

AI got really better. Not as grandmaster of the skies, but itAI got really better. Not as grandmaster of the skies, but it doesnt stuck in same patterns, listens to your command, doesnt leave battlefield too early, still shoots nice. AI teammates behavior is a huge jump ahead, they lived their own lives in GB. Didnt check how good AI in dropping down from 6 o'clock tho.
Great job team, I really enjoy the game. doesnt stuck in same patterns, listens to your command, doesnt leave battlefield too early, still shoots nice. AI teammates behavior is a huge jump ahead, they lived their own lives in GB. Didnt check how good AI in dropping down from 6 o'clock tho.

 

[AndreiTomescu]

From the latest blog, i took the liberty to underline AI related stuff. For me, at least, it's obivious that the ferocious AI problem is taken into account seriously. Or they're just attempting to blow dust into buyer's eyes and thus loose a heap of players and money in the future . Which I doubt. 

"Our priority right now is the main game mode in Korea—Career mode. Of course, this mode is already largely complete. All that remains is to complete the required number of mission types in Career and, most importantly, to refine the aircraft’s AI. After all, the behavior of computer-controlled aircraft is fundamental to this mode.

Of course, it would be naive to assume that the most complex module in the game world, which has undergone a huge number of changes and innovations compared to Great Battles, with a huge number of cross-connections and complex dependencies, will work perfectly right away. Yes, we did everything we could to debug it during beta testing, but it wasn’t enough. Now, in combat mode, with extensive feedback from the player community, we can intensify our efforts to fine-tune the AI.

In Early Access, you may notice that AI-controlled aircraft don’t behave very fluidly. This is because most of our efforts are currently focused on fine-tuning the more complex gameplay mechanics implemented in Career mode: the player-commander's command system for their wingmen, and operations against ground targets. The logic for missions like "Attack on Our Airfield" still needs to be finalized. These missions will arise unexpectedly for the player, and only the duty flight, designated by the commander (the player) in advance, will be able to scramble to intercept the enemy. Once these missing building blocks are complete, we can fully focus on fine-tuning the gameplay: the AI’s reactions to events and the logic for maneuvering in aerial combat.

In other words, we need first to complete the foundation required for the main game mode’s full functionality, and only then address the individual elements of each component. The fact that AI-controlled aircraft, after such extensive refinements and the addition of new mechanics, now perform no worse than in Great Battles is already a positive sign. After all, full-scale debugging hasn’t even taken place yet, but the system is already running stably. However, since our goal is not merely to ensure stability or replicate the status quo, but rather to improve and expand capabilities, we will continue to refine this behavior. Fortunately, the challenge is no longer getting a complex new system up and running, but rather fine-tuning it.

Some of the improvements will be available soon, even before its full release, while others will only appear with the release. We plan to continue this work at least through the end of the year, based on our own testing and your feedback."

Edited June 30 by AndreiTomescu

[AndreiTomescu]

I have a request for virtual pilots who are proficient with the current AI. Please do the exam "air combat for F-84" and record the dogfight, a for me to understand the propper approach in this fight.

Took me 5 attempts to pass the exam, and that only by managing to damage the La-11 head on on the first pass.

That AI plane maneuvers like crazy, avoids my boom&zoom attempts and i'm safe only by "Mig-ing" him : like extend in a steep and fast climb.

Any attempts to get on his 6 ended in a blackout. 

Although this was/is a common in GB: the enemy Fw-190 turns like mad, as I blackout in my Spitfire.

But still, how is it proper to dogfighting this? Give me a 190, or a Mustang, even a Macchi, and I know (not necessarily successful) how to do it.

But in this case, it's very difficult. That La-11 AI is too good for me.

Pls help.

 

[migmadmarine]

9 minutes ago, AndreiTomescu said:

I have a request for virtual pilots who are proficient with the current AI. Please do the exam "air combat for F-84" and record the dogfight, a for me to understand the propper approach in this fight.

Took me 5 attempts to pass the exam, and that only by managing to damage the La-11 head on on the first pass.

That AI plane maneuvers like crazy, avoids my boom&zoom attempts and i'm safe only by "Mig-ing" him : like extend in a steep and fast climb.

Any attempts to get on his 6 ended in a blackout. 

Although this was/is a common in GB: the enemy Fw-190 turns like mad, as I blackout in my Spitfire.

But still, how is it proper to dogfighting this? Give me a 190, or a Mustang, even a Macchi, and I know (not necessarily successful) how to do it.

But in this case, it's very difficult. That La-11 AI is too good for me.

Pls help.

 

I beat him in the first go in the F-84, but it was a 30 minute fight, during which I only connected hit in 3 firing passes, generally at quite high deflection. I had to do this with a lot of boom and zoom, and he did attempt to chase me quite often making it hard to get shots on him as by the time I was turned in he would be facing me and force a head on or near head on closure. My second set of hits on him took of one of his horizontal stabilizers which did help reduce his controllability and I saw him stall and tumble a few times trying to get up to me after this. With a series of zoom climbs and trying to stay high enough above him, I was able to get him into a couple of cases where he was slow and facing away long enough for me to get dives with me in his rear hemisphere to score those hits, but I was pretty much never "on his six". I didn't see the collapse into a steady left turn issue crop up, but I think this is likely a result of the speed difference between our aircraft meaning that there more situations that could break him out of whatever set of defensive routines that funnel into this behavior, as I was often above or ahead of him extending in a way that didn't put him directly on the defensive. I suspect running this same fight in the F-51 would be more likely to see the AI fall into the routines that people complain about. 

Having said all of that, I've never thought that QMB or one on one duals has ever been the best situation for judging the AI in this series, as it seems like in more expanded missions some of the combination of additional aircraft, waypoints, bases etc seems to add enough framework and additional input factors to improve their behavior somewhat. 

Also, having been flying a WoFF career for some months now, and seeing the AI behaviors in that does highlight some of the shortcomings in this series I've seen others discuss. Having the AI decide a fight isn't going their way and try to break contact in WoFF, but still fight if pressed is great, and something I'd love to see more reliably carried over to this. In the fight with the Ace La-11, as I said, that fight lasted 30 minutes, and he attempted to stay on the offensive the whole time, even after damage. It did seem that fatigue from Gs made some of his turns less tight the longer the fight went on, but seeing the AI understand it wouldn't be able catch me and eventually try to break contact to head home, or at least for friendly territory would make for a much more interesting and believable fight, at least from a narrative perspective. Especially with my poor ability to spot aircraft, there would be pretty good odds of his getting away to fight another day. While the attempts to always keep his nose on me could be read as desperation and trying to stay as offensive as possible when cornered, it does seem more like the behavior of a rabid animal given the lack of the AI being able to decide to attempt to escape and preserve itself.  Of course, this mission could be set up in such a way that it doesn't have a base assigned for him to return to or what have you, which is part of what I mean about duals/QMB not necessarily being the best venue for judgement. It will 

[AndreiTomescu]

@migmadmarine: truth to be told, i'm trying to improve myself. your detailed explanation is hugely appreciated, thank you!

still, a couple of questions:

- was the giro range finder/radar any good? for me, nope. I found only the fixed reticle to do

- I was able to snapshot as coming from high above against him racing underneath, and i usually missed because the deflection angle supposed for him was waaay out of my sights, am i correct? 

- should i reduce power as to reduce Gs while turning? i am afraid of lowering speed, as i thought this would mean to lose my only real advantage, speed. Right?

14 minutes ago, migmadmarine said:

flying a WoFF career

is that AI as good as i've read? and ever more, as good as to overlook the poor graphics?

indeed, before blackout/stalling/crashing, the fights took a very long time, dunno how much, but i was watching my fuel, and spent about all of the right side gauge plus half of the left side one

i've decided that before i'm gonna be performant at this exam, i won't allow myself the prize: going to do the Mig-15 exams

Edited July 1 by AndreiTomescu

[migmadmarine]

I had good results with the radar sight, so I was using it, but yes as you say at high deflection it was often way out side the sight's glass. It is a shame that the site on the 84 seemingly doesn't have a both fixed and computing mode, as I would have liked to used that, since taking shots at high deflection is more difficult if the lead amount is enough to cause the sight to exit the glass. 

Seeing you note about the fuel consumption, I was flying this fight with tip tanks fitted.

As for WoFF, I'd say yes, it is. While the flight dynamics and graphics are dated, the way that the AI and career system organically tells a story is very appealing. I've not had many fights in it with other scouts as of yet, as I've been flying a 1915 French career and have yet to encounter an Eindecker. But even just hunting two seaters it manages to be more interesting in behavior than I believe the equivalent career in Il-2 would be. I've had a decent variety of encounters even with the limited opponent types, and seeing the enemy react to your approach in a variety of ways is more interesting; I've had encounters where they try to press on and conduct their mission as long as possible, others where they turn and run as soon as they see me. I've had encounters where one of a pair will turn and run straight away while the other presses on, and others where they both turn back but stick together and make the attack harder as they have not split their defensive fire. The couple of duals and fights in later war aircraft or against forward-gun equipped opponents I've flown in quick skirmishes so far, the AI still displays these self-preservation behaviors and are consistent with the AI in career in a way that doesn't often seem to be the case in the IL-2 series. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

I flew "quick" mission against the La11 with the F84 last night.  Same story.  I could disengage at will and run away from him, but could not hit him, closure rates were too high, and my turn radius was too large because of my speed.  After almost exhausting all of my fuel, I gave up, switched to the F51 and promptly shot down 4 La11s.

[Panzerlang]

I instantly saw a challenge here. Lul. F84 vs La11. It took me around 10 minutes to kill him on my first and only go. Most of that was discovering what a barge the F84 is. I was able to reliably get on his tail by climbing up out of his circle and diving back down onto it. I got hits on him three times, the final run finished him off. His mistake was constantly pulling his nose up to me from way below, firing and then stalling back. He left himself no energy to play with and was reduced to constant slow circles (which were tighter than mine none the less).

[migmadmarine]

That sounds pretty consistent with my observations during the fight, just much better executed on. 

[AndreiTomescu]

3 hours ago, Panzerlang said:

is. I was able to reliably get on his tail by climbing up out of his circle and diving back down onto it.

 Right....i  tried this too, like in GB with the 109...but how did you manage that without blacking out? This is found to be a huge problem. The speed being so much higher , bang! 

 

[Panzerlang]

35 minutes ago, AndreiTomescu said:

 Right....i  tried this too, like in GB with the 109...but how did you manage that without blacking out? This is found to be a huge problem. The speed being so much higher , bang! 

 

I never got beyond 400mph. It wasn't deliberate, the thing was flying like a gut-shot pig. 

I think VR gave me a significant edge however.

I ran the mission a second time and got him within two minutes. 

[Husar]

I wish AI would know and apply BFM and was hard to shake from 6, only with proper overshot 

[Xtremist]

Is it possible to complete the combat mission exams in an other way than destroying 25 targets myself? Or is there a specific command that AI follows?  They are absolutely no help right now, circling above the targets, sightseeing. 

Edited July 2 by Xtremist

[AndreiTomescu]

22 minutes ago, Xtremist said:

They are absolutely no help right now,

I have decided to pospone the last exam for each plane for this very reason. Upon the game release i'm sure the AI flyers will have completed their training ! 🙂