CERT AI MOD V.30 (03/27/09) - 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: CERT AI MOD V.30 (03/27/09) (/showthread.php?tid=60286)
+- 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: CERT AI MOD V.30 (03/27/09) (/showthread.php?tid=60286)
- ojcar - 31.03.2009
Very good mod! But I find the "never ending spiral climb" much more disturbing that the "never ending barrel roll". It can be realistic tactic, but is boring as hell to pursuit a P-51 in a Zero forever. At a point the climbing plane must to turn and fight. Please fix it if you can. This is a game and climbing forever is very frustrating....
Also I think the turn'n'burn maneouvers can be improved in some planes (Japanese, Italian, Soviet and biplanes) to make the pilots turning tighter.
I also like more the jabos delivering ordnance and fighting instead of being sitting ducks.
I don't know if all of this can be made, but you have a hell of a mod now!
- genbrien - 31.03.2009
certificate Wrote:not an incompatibility, but if both mod are there, plane will crash on carrier. Is it on your or his plan to "merge" those files as you said???? Would be cool, but I understand if you wont :wink:genbrien Wrote:certificate >Do u know of the problem with Fireball's Carrier mod can be corrected with your mod or it's an incompatiblility with his ???? Thx :wink:
PS: great job on yours
As far as I know there is no incompatibility per se, they just both share some files and have to be merged.
- rossmum - 31.03.2009
ojcar Wrote:Very good mod! But I find the "never ending spiral climb" much more disturbing that the "never ending barrel roll". It can be realistic tactic, but is boring as hell to pursuit a P-51 in a Zero forever. At a point the climbing plane must to turn and fight. Please fix it if you can. This is a game and climbing forever is very frustrating....Oh, they turn and fight alright. They wait until you get bored and head for home, then come screaming down on your sorry posterior from a blind spot.
Also I think the turn'n'burn maneouvers can be improved in some planes (Japanese, Italian, Soviet and biplanes) to make the pilots turning tighter.
I also like more the jabos delivering ordnance and fighting instead of being sitting ducks.
I don't know if all of this can be made, but you have a hell of a mod now!
I got completely hosed by a 190A-5 I'd been chasing in my Mk.IX for about half an hour in that exact manner.
:|
- ojcar - 31.03.2009
Maybe they turn, but after 30 min of chasing them, I'll sleeping over my keyboard, be sure. In a submarine sim, a 30 min chase is acceptable, but in an air combat sim, it's boooooring (I'm not saying not realistic, but boring)
- rossmum - 31.03.2009
Oh, no need to tell me twice. Mind you, the fact I had to keep my engine from overheating while still not losing him made for a few exciting moments where the needle nearly hit the stop... :roll:
- Stratodog - 31.03.2009
ojcar Wrote:Very good mod! But I find the "never ending spiral climb" much more disturbing that the "never ending barrel roll". It can be realistic tactic, but is boring as hell to pursuit a P-51 in a Zero forever. At a point the climbing plane must to turn and fight. Please fix it if you can. This is a game and climbing forever is very frustrating....
Also I think the turn'n'burn maneouvers can be improved in some planes (Japanese, Italian, Soviet and biplanes) to make the pilots turning tighter.
I also like more the jabos delivering ordnance and fighting instead of being sitting ducks.
I don't know if all of this can be made, but you have a hell of a mod now!
A couple of comments on this:
I agree that it is boring to chase a faster airplane for a long time, hoping that he will turn into me and dogfight. Last night I was chasing a Mustang III while flying a 109G-6, it was frustrating. On the flip side; if that Mustang was one of my AI squadron mates, I would not want him dogfighting with Zeros, that would also be frustrating. Being able to outrun/outclimb/outdive your opponent is simply the best possible guns defense. BTW, I found that by turning away from the Mustang and ending the chase he dove on me for a firing pass and I was able to counter it with another head-on encounter.
I agree with the contention that the aircraft generally recognized as
- ojcar - 31.03.2009
Well, I'm not asking for "energy fighters" to do "turn and burn". The planes climb now until their operative ceiling. It's too much for me. Energy fighting means to mantain an altitude advantage to trade potential energy for kinetical energy.
If you are hunting Mustangs in a Zero or Oscar, the Mustang gains plenty of energy advantage very early and could counter attack earlier (making an Immelman WWI style and doing a head on, for example, and then climbing again), but in the game, if you are pointing your nose at its tail, it keeps climbing until it can't climbing more, or you are turning to base. I'm saying that the energy advantage for diving and fight is too high in the game.
- Stratodog - 31.03.2009
ojcar Wrote:Well, I'm not asking for "energy fighters" to do "turn and burn". The planes climb now until their operative ceiling. It's too much for me. Energy fighting means to mantain an altitude advantage to trade potential energy for kinetical energy.
If you are hunting Mustangs in a Zero or Oscar, the Mustang gains plenty of energy advantage very early and could counter attack earlier (making an Immelman WWI style and doing a head on, for example, and then climbing again), but in the game, if you are pointing your nose at its tail, it keeps climbing until it can't climbing more, or you are turning to base. I'm saying that the energy advantage for diving and fight is too high in the game.
I see your point. I agree that sometimes the energy fighters are too conservative. Sometimes I find myself following below a high climbing AI fighter thinking "come on down and take a shot at me you coward!!"
Probably the energy fighters should be more aggressive too (with their own style of tactics), as well as the angles fighters.
- pavlo789 - 31.03.2009
The tactics are very realistic for the eastern front. In real life rarely pilots BF109-190 Fw, let such tactics.
Soviets pilots, for example, use group tactics to be successful in these battles.
Never met a Bf-109, dive, and if this withdrawal is not enough.
However it is possible shot down an bf109, (ace), with an I-16. But only battle group, 8 or more fighters. And taking a lot of patience.
In a meeting between 9 I16 (escorting DB3) vs 8 109s: 6 109 shot down! But only a 6 DB and one I16 landed at the base. All i16 and 109s, ace and veteran.
http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/index.htm
- ojcar - 31.03.2009
Sorry to disagree. Nearly all air combat in Eastern Front was at low altitude. Even when in combat reports Soviets were talking about high altitude, this "high" altitude is much lower comparing combat over all other theaters. So, climbing until 10000m is not well suited for Eastern Front.
Same story in Pacific, most of the combat were at low and medium altitude (higher than Eastern Front), with few high altitude missions, including B-29 raids.
High altitude missions are for Western Front 8 and 15 Air Force missions and some Battle of Britain
- MrOblongo - 31.03.2009
Agree with you Ojcar on the Eastern Front thing...but in the Pacific Front the combat was sometimes at high altitude. For example, the Bettys attacking Port Moresby came at altitudes of like 6000m, same for the bombings of Rangoon and Guadalcanal "Tojo Time". Thats why the P-39 was so hated, it couldnt climb enough to combat the bomber formations. Now, dont know about the height of the Carrier Based planes flew, but the Ground based often flew high, in defence or in attack.
- ojcar - 31.03.2009
The carrier planes flyed lower than those 6000m. And you are right about the land based planes while performing strategic attacks (and defending). Generally speaking, the altitudes were lower that the ones of the Western Front, and were comparatively much more tactical actions (in islands the only strategical targets were airbases and ports). But i Think We are going off topic now. I think the mod is very good and way better than the stock AI
- rossmum - 31.03.2009
Problem - the dive bombers jettison their bombs, break formation, and try to play with the big boys when you bounce them. My AI wingman in a Spit VIII was nearly shot down by Vals... strikes me as a pretty serious issue, hopefully one which can be remedied in the next update...
- Stratodog - 01.04.2009
rossmum Wrote:Problem - the dive bombers jettison their bombs, break formation, and try to play with the big boys when you bounce them. My AI wingman in a Spit VIII was nearly shot down by Vals... strikes me as a pretty serious issue, hopefully one which can be remedied in the next update...
Personally, I feel a bit torn about this. On the one hand, there are plenty of historical instances where Vals were quite aggressive in dogfighting with fighters. On the other hand this was always after they had completed their bombing mission and were on their way home. This was a lot more common during 1942 when most of the Val crews were more experienced and well trained.
- ojcar - 01.04.2009
Both Vals and Dauntless were used as "emergency fighters" in some naval battles. Same for Su-2. Not correct for Stukas (well, Rudel had a victory against a Sturmovik in a Ju-87G, but that's other story...)