[MOD] AI Mod V.17 *UPDATE* - Printable Version

+- All-Aircraft-Simulations (https://allaircraftsimulations.com)
+-- Forum: IL2 Work In Progress MODS Download & Discussion (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=268)
+--- Forum: WIP-BETA-MODS DOWNLOAD (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=309)
+--- Thread: [MOD] AI Mod V.17 *UPDATE* (/showthread.php?tid=58844)

---

- certificate - 23.01.2009

[quote="Novotny"]Hi Certificate

Thank you so much for your work on this - the combat is fantastic, much more realistic and unpredictable.

Forgive me for being difficult, but I suspect the changed max power available to the AI is affecting single player campaigns when one allows the AI to fly the first few waypoints. for example, I tend to take off myself, then let the ai fly the first say 30% of waypoints, then take over as we approach likely combat area.

I think the changed values might have scuppered the timing in offline missions, probably due to the AI flying your plane as uberly as possible, and the enemy AI being a mixed affair in terms of ability.

I don't know anything about IL2 code, but would it be possible to only effect your AI changes during combat - some sort of IF enemy planes

---

Re: Not impressed yet... - certificate - 23.01.2009

zebulon64 Wrote:Did Quick mission FW-190 A6 vs LA5-FN:

Result: LA speeds up to Km/h 500+ and does what usally a FW190 does - you have to chase the LA with at least 500+ meters distance up to 5000 meters. LA always is faster than you - than he tries to catch you - pulling up sharply - b&z on you - dives at steep angles down and up again repeatedly.

What I always read is that with increased hight (3500+ meters) a FW190 - or especially a BF 109 will have a performance advantage.

So for Axis plane player the Ueber AI's is even more dangerous.

Of course that's just one simple mission test. For other this mod have worked wonders already though.

Kind regards,
Zebulon

Strange, I haven't done anything that would make the LA or any other plane faster.

---

- pursuivant - 23.01.2009

certificate Wrote:Lol. I have it so they turn on for emergency landings. I guess the game has a different definition of emergency landing than you or I. The cons outweigh the pros, I think. I'll change it.

Why bother? Just assume that the Nav lights turning on when the airplane is going down in flames represents some sort of malfunction or some ingrained emergency landing procedure on the pilot's part. The light from the nav lights in trivial compared to the light from a burning engine!

BTW, I haven't said it before, but thanks so much for this mod! It's one of the most cool, and important, mods to the game since people discovered how to make new slot aircraft!

---

- Bearcat - 23.01.2009

I have had time to play around with this.... it is a really good mod... Tonight I flew a QM that I have... 16vs16... the F AI is more agressive... they will still steal your kills .. but at least now they are quicker to clear your 6.. A very good mod so far....

---

- pursuivant - 24.01.2009

MrOblongo Wrote:I think the problem with AI gunners is that they seems to be in that they aim to the pilot head...so when they hit, is always a critical part of the plane like engine or pilot. Maybe making the AI gunners to aim to the whole plane...will get the same amount of hits (which i dont think are innacurate) but with less critical parts of the plane being hit.

This isn't a problem for me. Shooting at the engine and cockpit of a fighter is a legitimate tactic and was a basic lesson in gunnery school. Not only are you shooting at "center of mass" of your target, you're also aiming at two of the most vital areas of the plane.

My problem with "sniper" gunners is their accuracy at long ranges, especially if the plane they're riding in is maneuvering. It always annoys me when, say, I get shot up by a Bf110 or IL2 gunner using a pair of hand-held guns at 300+ meters range when I'm attacking from a dive from 5 or 7 o'clock high and my target is turning into me. I believe, that in real life, the gunner would be straining to keep the guns trained on me since he's angling them into the plane's slipstream (where the wind would buffet them) and since he's having to work about the G forces from the turn which would tend to pull him, and his guns, in the opposite direction.

For that matter, when I've tried shooting using various gunner positions, G forces and slipstream effect don't seem to come into play. Also, your guns never jam and you never have to stop to reload. I'd imagine it would be pretty damned tough to manhandle or reload a 20mm cannon in a Betty or a .50 caliber Browning HMG if you're trying to keep your footing at the plane is roling and diving and you've got G forces pushing your gun around. Admittedly, gimbal mounts gave gunners a lot of mechanical advantage and aided accuracy (byt reducing vibrations from the aircraft to the gun), but there are limits.

That said, I'm basically running my mouth. If someone can produce good data from the period showing that gunners were regularly getting hits and kills at 300+ meters, I'll shut up. As it is, it seems to me that bomber gunners sprayed a lot of ammo across the sky for precious few hits.

---

- pursuivant - 24.01.2009

Tigershark Wrote:I find, way too often, planes just shoot a hail of constant of fire, and they are maybe an inch from rudder... They do not correct their fire, they just robotically shoot a straight line of bullets and its almost laughable how they always miss...

I don't think that this is a problem. It's a common mistake for attackers to not give their target enough deflection, meaning that they shoot just behind their target, especially at longer ranges where it's hard to tell if your bullets are hitting. Hell, I do it all the time and I'm a crap shot.

---

- pursuivant - 24.01.2009

Bearcat Wrote:I have had time to play around with this.... it is a really good mod... Tonight I flew a QM that I have... 16vs16... the F AI is more agressive... they will still steal your kills .. but at least now they are quicker to clear your 6.. A very good mod so far....

It's beyond the scope of this mod, but four things I'd love to see in the game:

1) A command which allows you to tell the AI to back off your target - if you've enough rank to boss them around. (Sort of possible right now, if you use the rejoin command, or tell them to attack another target).

2) A system which allows you to split credit for kills (assuming you fly for an organization which allows such things). That way when you and your AI squaddies all gang up on some hapless victim, you get shared credit.

3) A system which allows you to claim (and the Campaign engine to recognize) different categories of damage to aircraft (i.e., Minor damage/Damaged, Serious Damage/Possible Kill, Write-off but salvageble for parts/Probable Kill, and Complete Loss/Confirmed Kill).

4) A system which lets you claim aircraft you force down or which crash while dogfighting against you, even if you don't crash into them. One of my favorite stories from WW2 is an Oxford trainer aircraft which scored a "kill" against a Bf109 during the Battle of Britain when the 109 crashed while maneuvering to attack. Ideally, of course, the game would have AI intelligence officers who could deny your claim, and the ability for you to (easily) take "gun camera" pictures to document your kills.

Oh, and I'd like the moon with a fence around it.

---

- THARN - 24.01.2009

version .14
a group of us guys flew a few co-ops and it seemed that the ai fighters became real passive in all missions.
we were in p-38s and spits vs mc 202's and 109's - the 109s were to take out A-20s.

both the 109's and mc 202's flew in wide circles and did not engage or break when attacked/
I dont think they were all set at rookie as we set it for random but the challenge was not there like it was in v.11/..12 and .13

I hope the tweak for the ai to attack bombers differently didnt effect them for dogfighting.

---

- lowfighter - 24.01.2009

I agree with Tigershark more, it's true that real life pilots or virtual pilots also made sometimes mistakes with deflection but the problem is that our AI make this mistake ALL THE TIME at least at average skill. This allows player to cheat easily by just turning gently and let the stupid AI spend all ammunition :mrgreen: No human would do that mistake, even if you're not a deflection sniper pilot...

pursuivant Wrote:

Tigershark Wrote:I find, way too often, planes just shoot a hail of constant of fire, and they are maybe an inch from rudder... They do not correct their fire, they just robotically shoot a straight line of bullets and its almost laughable how they always miss...

I don't think that this is a problem. It's a common mistake for attackers to not give their target enough deflection, meaning that they shoot just behind their target, especially at longer ranges where it's hard to tell if your bullets are hitting. Hell, I do it all the time and I'm a crap shot.

---

- WWSandMan - 24.01.2009

Hosted a few co-ops tonight with .14 AI mod ... results in general seemed a step backwards, at least as far as fighter combat was concerned. I need to check the AI level, but they all seemed to fly like rookies. Often my squad mates would saddle up on an enemy AI intent on attacking bombers (which they seemed to do quite well) and totally disregard the human pilot 100m off the attacker's six. The AI seemed to have lost their ability to check their own six. In a way I suppose this is okay (AI target fixation?), but it resulted in what seemed to be some rather boring combat scenes.

On the other hand, as host I seemed to attract the AI like magnet. That perception (whether real or imagined) has been part of the IL-2 series since day one.

---

- Yeager - 24.01.2009

Flying in some coops tonight and it was my first chance to get a feel of this MOD. I had not flown any version until .14. The AI was a little better, but I was able to park on a few MC202's tails and have at it with my P-38. The biggest thing though, was after bagging three enemy planes, I was on long final when my incredibly stupid AI wingman rammed me and killed both of us. If that could be fixed, I'd be pretty pleased.

---

- pursuivant - 24.01.2009

lowfighter Wrote:I agree with Tigershark more, it's true that real life pilots or virtual pilots also made sometimes mistakes with deflection but the problem is that our AI make this mistake ALL THE TIME at least at average skill. This allows player to cheat easily by just turning gently and let the stupid AI spend all ammunition :mrgreen: No human would do that mistake, even if you're not a deflection sniper pilot...

In such cases, I agree with you. After a couple of seconds of fire where the AI shoots and misses because it can't get sufficient deflection, it should hold fire until its firing position improves. I don't know if it's possible to get the AI to do, that, however.

---

- pursuivant - 24.01.2009

Since I've been lighting up this thread talking about sniper bomber gunners, I decided to do some quick research.

Summary:

1) Bomber gunners tended to discourage or damage their targets and get them to break off much more than they actually shot down their attackers. This means that AI fighters might need to be more timid about attacking "boxes" of enemy bombers and more prone to break of an attack if they get hit by defensive fire.

2) Bomber defensive fire depends heavily on keeping a tight formation, which is related to pilot skill. This means that distance between planes, and ability to keep formation when attacked, is dependent on AI skill.

3) Turret gunners claim more kills than hand-held gunners, but this is probably due to arc of fire, additional guns, etc. rather than any inherent superiority of turrets over hand-held guns.

4) Bomber gunners (at least for the USAAF) overclaimed kills and damaged A/C by an order of magnitude.

5) Determining "ace" gunners is difficult due to multiple gunners firing at the same target, and the fact that records for kills by gunners weren't a carefully kept as those for fighter pilots. It's a bitch getting kill claims for dive bombers and attack aircraft. It's much easier to get data for the USAAF heavy and medium bombers, so my data is biased that way.

Data Points (to be taken with several pounds of salt).

Losses for RAF fighters between the dates 10 July-11 Aug, 1940

Destroyed
by cause;
BF 109, 87
Bf 110, 6
Bomber, 13
Collision, 4
Flak, 1
Friendly, 1
Unknown, 3
Accidents, 47

Grand Total, 162

This means 8% destroyed due to bombers, plus an unknown number that crashed on landing (accidents) as a result of damage from bombers.

Damaged
by cause;
Bf 109, 52
Bf 110, 10
Bomber, 38
Collision, 1
Flak, 1
Unknown, 1
Accidents, 68

Grand Total 106

This means 35% damaged due to bombers, plus an unknown number damaged due to a combination of bomber gunnery and accident. (Sadly, the data I got doesn't state degree of damage, so "damage" could mean anything from Category I - easily repaired, to Category IV - write-off.)

Top scoring US gunner in the ETO claimed 12 kills, 2nd highest had 7. Compare this to 34.5 for the top scoring fighter ace (Francis Gabrelski) in roughly the same number of missions.

8th AF gunners overclaimed by a factor of 10, fighter pilots by a factor of 2-3.

A list of known claims by individual gunners during WW2 and the Korean war (undifferentiated by Medium or Heavy bomber or by type):

74 upper turret 29% 30%
53 ball 21% 22%
46 waist 18% 19%
62 tail 24% 25%
12 cfc 5% n/a
13 nose 5% 5%
5 radio 2% 2%

256 total claims
244 total claims eliminating CFC position (only found on the B29, and reflecting some Korean war kills). The first list of percentages reflects all kills, the second column reflects kills after removing CFC claims. The total number of tail gunner kills should probably be reduced by 1% or so to reflect claims from the Korean war.

Waist gun claims are combined for L and R Waist positions, so total percentages should be halved to relfect each gun station. That is, 9% L Waist, 9% right waist.

The data showed that the nose and belly turrets slightly were more effective against Japanese fighters than German. This is because Japanese tended to atack more from the front and below (due to lack of radar vectoring, speed and high altitude performance).

My gut instinct is that if you factor in the number of guns, fields of fire, and available ammunition, is that, on a per-gun basis and figuring in firing arcs, each gun has about the same chance to hit.

Nothing to prove or disprove my contention that firing while the plane is rolling, pitching or yawing, or shooting to the aircraft's side (i.e., parallel to the slipstream) degrades accuracy. Given the fact that Oleg and Company generally did their homework when evaluating aircraft performance, I'd be inclined to not mess with the gunner AI that much. Certainly if you attack from 6 o'clock level you deserve everything you get.

---

- TH0R - 24.01.2009

pursuivant Wrote:2) Bomber defensive fire depends heavily on keeping a tight formation, which is related to pilot skill. This means that distance between planes, and ability to keep formation when attacked, is dependent on AI skill.

When you add the fact that AI gunners will shoot at the nearest bomber if it finds itself in his line of fire... This is where IL2 fails misserably.

Gunners in IL2 simply aren't that effective. Its ther stupidity that needs to be worked on. At one point they shoot in the totaly oposite direction of the attacker and waste their ammo, at another point they have a perfect delfection shoot at you. And at all times they know where you are = easy to set up and prepare for a perfect solution. We're missing a big middle 'skill' here. Not just

---

- Hawkman - 24.01.2009

My God! you're turning out constant revisions faster than I can download and test 'em! :o

I can't keep up! :lol:

But seriously, this is truly wonderful, groundbreaking work Offliners have been praying for this kind of thing since day 1, and you're answering our prayers almost on a daily basis

Something I would like to see: is it possible to mody AI flight behavior at low-level (I'm thinking Torpedo bombers & low-level intruders), so that AI aircraft don't start 'porpoising' at the first sign of a bump in the ground?

You're doing a Man's job, Sir!

Many Thanks

Hawkers

---