Someone

Jay, It seems that you are saying to my questions, in order: 1) No 2) No 3) No Am I misunderstanding anything? You discuss open sourcing in strange terms. People open source code that was time consuming to write all the time! That’s the whole point! It’s also worth pointing out that, if what you say is true, the valuable asset you have is the data collected from thousands of hours of simulation, not the code. I’m not asking for the data. So again, I don’t see the concern. But anyway, just to be clear, are you saying that if I identify myself by my full name and perhaps a link to my LinkedIn profile, along with some code I wrote but have not previously published, that you will do the same?

So, this is generally not responsive my the points I made above, although it actually does a pretty good job a distracting from the actual argument at hand. Lets go through it point by point. 1. Hamiltonians: What you wrote is 100% not relevant to this discussion. This discussion is not about whether you know more about physics than I do. It's about whether you are misrepresenting yourself here. 2/3. Numbers of hours necessary to train a model / "Who says you have to iterate in the same environment": I'm combining these two because they are related, and do a better job than I ever could demonstrating your lack of experience in this field. But, good news, we have a way to resolve this: Share the code! Just post it publicly on github, or wherever you'd like. 4. The book. This one is interesting. You write that I am making an attack on you, and that its very reasonable to give thanks to experts consulted in the course of writing a book. And that's right! It is normal! It's also not what I was pointing out in my comment, though. What I pointed out was the conspicuous use of university logos, and the very existence of a "thank you" page for a book that, as you point out, is not yet finished. The fact that the experts are not named makes it all the more conspicuous. Are you saying that you expect these people to come to your website to receive your gratitude? I dunno...feels weird to me. Regarding the end of this section where you discuss St Judes,moustaches, catapults, and kids toys: I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here. 5. I am angry at you because your AI shot down my plane in DCS. Hahahahah oh my goodness what are you talking about? Up until this point, I thought you were actually doing a good job of skillfully deflecting my argument while casting me as an angry person making personal attacks on the internet (I am/was not). But here, we just go completely off the rails. The thing, though, is that I have actually never wondered if the enemy who killed me as an AI bot. Do you know why this is the case? Because it is always an AI bot that shoots my down! Literally, every time I get killed in DCS, I am killed by an AI bot. The reason I know this is because I play on GAW/PGAW, and that environment is PvE. So yea, I am for sure not angry at your AI bot for killing me. But even after you suggest that I have this weird ax to grind with you and your imaginary AI bot, you go on, about... humans and dogfighting and the singularity? I mean, sure, I 100% agree with you... Automation is coming for most things, thats true, including fighter jet pilots. That's what makes the field so exciting right now. It's what I work on every day, although unfortunately not fighter jet AI...that would be neat. So, to wrap up, instead of writing more paragraphs in the forums of a Russian made fighter jet simulation, lets just resolve it amicably. All I need are three things: 1) The code you wrote to train your model 2) The name of the university where you are a faculty member. Given that academics are very social, you have no doubt published, your website solicits business, and has a photo of your face, I assume this wont be a problem. 3) A private 1v1 session against the AI bot, so that it can slaughter me and I can gain appreciation for my coming robot overlords. Looking forward to your response!

@Aurelius: What in gods name are you talking about? Two points: 1. "Hamiltonian operators" have absolutely nothing to do with the AI application described above. This is word-salad, designed to impress. I am not fooled. You've written elsewhere that you teach electrical engineering. How is it that you now claim to teach "neural networks" to undergraduates? You write that you have "engineered several networks". This is not remotely the way that people working in this field describe their work. Before posting this comment, and in an effort to give you the benefit of the doubt, I reviewed the machine learning section of your website where you describe "improving networks designed by others." This simply makes no sense. A person who actually does this work would never discuss improving a neural network, as if it were a physical object. 2. As an actual machine learning engineer, I find it utterly implausible that you have deployed trained neural works to Il2 or DCS multiplayer. Even more unlikely is your claim that the trained models exceeded or even approached human level performance. And there's a simple reason why I know this: neither game supports the extremely high level of time compression needed to simulate the millions of flight hours necessary to train such a mode without, ya know, waiting for millions of actual hours. Whats amusing about this is that the original poster recognized this exact problem. And what was his solution: to train the model in Unity, which does have APIs for such things! But before you suggest that you did the same, I'll point out that while Unity might provide a physics environment robust enough to train a flight model, it does not provide any such equivalent for the complex reality of DCS combat. In short, what you are describing is impossible, although I doubt you knew it when you authored your comment. Beyond the above, lest anyone think that I'm being unneccssarily mean spirited and failing to give the benefit of the doubt, I'd direct you, the reader, to the absurd "technical assistance" page on @Aurelius's website: http://jaytheskepticalengineer.com/books/the-song-of-kiri/song-of-kiri-technical-assistance/. This is just a bridge too far. I mean, seriously, what kind of person devotes an entire page of a personal website to anonymous, but mostly self congratulatory, statements of gratitude while plastering said webpage with images from an assortment of institutions designed to impress? All of this in the context of a book that appears not to actually exist? I don't know who you are, and I don't much care, but people lying on the internet is grating. Do us all a favor and keep it off these forums.

So I guess what you’re trying to say is that you don’t know the answer to my question?

On the F/A-18 SA page, airborne contacts current render under the rings displaying surface to air threats. As a result, in an environment with many SAM threats, it can be very difficult to see the enemy air threats as they are covered by the rings displaying ground based threats. It would seem that rendering the airborne threat markers on top of the ground based/sam threats would make the display easier to read. I often find myself enabling DCLTR just to see enemy air contacts. Is this the correct behavior?

I'm curious; could you explain the reasoning for the removal of cockpit/systems?

@Nineline All of this makes sense and is surely the best approach for the longer term. At the same time the infamous ”kegeteys vr” mod reliably delivers 50% improvements with minimal graphic quality compromises. Any chance you could officially support a similar approach so that such a mod would be usable in multiplayer?

Superjoe, How did you mount the buttkicker to the joystick and throttle? Could you share a picture? I've mounted my throttle with a Monstertech table mount, and am somewhat unsure of how I'd attach it.

Can someone explain to me what the effect of these modification are? I understand that, in theory, you wouldn't want unnecessary re-scaling going on in the render pipeline, but I haven't seen anyone describe the outcome. Are people getting better frame-rates after making these changes? Better clarity at the same FPS? Thanks to anyone who can clarify this for me.

For @ram0506 and others getting the fatal error message: as strange as this sounds, that is expected. You will have to dismiss the various error messages a number of times (>10) over perhaps 2-5 minutes. It's extremely strange, but if you keep dismissing the errors, DCS will eventually load. If you open task manager in you will be able to see that DCS.exe is running, despite the application window not being visible.

Firecat, if you could add me to the list as well, I'd be grateful. Thanks