Not a "real" damage model for AI aircraft BUT maybe a "visual" damage models

[vicx]

I understand why the AI have very tough planes that are either fully functional or crashing. The AI in DCS isn't smart enough to handle the damaged dynamics and if it was added it would probably use up all the processor time. I get that part.

 

But I'm wondering if we just accept that as a fact maybe we could turn on some of the fancy visual damage for the AI planes, even if it sometimes looks a bit funny. Sure sometimes the AI might still be flying a plane that flies as if it has no damage even though DCS is showing a bit of wing missing. I'm willing to accept that if I can see that I'm actually dong some damage and that eventually I'll use all his hit points up and he'll drop out of the sky.

 

The reason I noticed this is that I was making a plane damage torture test in LUA using Ian's Witchcraft Lua console. I was choosing parts of the AI plane and triggering little explosions to knock off bits but the AI would take all the damage I could dish without showing anything but bullet holes ... and then drop out of the sky.

 

In this case I was only using the AI as my crash test dummy so I could make a mission with a scripted sequence that does the same thing to the players plane BUT I still think I'd like to see all the fancy aircraft falling to pieces work even against AI. This is especially true for modules I have bought.

Edited August 12, 2015 by vicx

[King_Hrothgar]

I'd rather they simply update the damage model to at least the standard 10 years ago. I don't think it would eat up too much CPU power since it was done just fine 10+ years ago on the single core CPU's of the time. That desired damage model update applies to both AI and player aircraft.

[vicx]

KH just curious what you mean by the damage model of 10 years ago? I don't think it is possible to return to this way of doing things because 10 years ago there was only SFM aircraft.

 

DCS level planes have an AFM/EFM, a SFM and maybe a specific AI SFM.

 

But detailed damage is only shown for the AFM/EFM and only human controlled aircraft have this.

 

I have no problem with the damage model at all. Simply I wish for the visual damage to be enabled for AFM,SFM and AI-SFM.

[King_Hrothgar]

I was referring to the original IL2 from 2002 but honestly it goes back further than that. DCS's damage modeling is a legacy from the 1990's Flanker games. I don't think it's ever been updated tbh. So yeah, it was dated even in LOMAC but it didn't matter since all the planes had gatling guns and missiles. Now that we have more lightly armed aircraft with many more coming, the details matter.

 

To that end, I'd like to see AI aircraft suffer engine damage, fuel leaks, control failures and pilot wounding (added to player aircraft too). None of these are terribly CPU intensive. AI engine damage can be as simple as putting a multiplier on their overall thrust. For liquid cooled engines, a coolant leak could be added. Under the hood this wouldn't be anything more than a timer for an engine failure. Fuel leaks don't do anything but alter fuel usage, so that's no big deal either. It's just a constant added to the end of the fuel usage equation.

 

Control damage is straight forwards, the left aileron either works or it doesn't. If AI aircraft aren't modeled that detailed, then a multiplier to the roll/pitch/yaw rate can be used instead. Pilot wounding can also be approached easily. Once again, a simple multiplier will do the trick. The current standard is for wounded pilots to have reduced control authority and a reddened screen (similar to blackout effect). For AI aircraft, the screen reddening is replaced with a reduced visibility ring multiplier.

 

These relatively simple additions to DCS's damage model would not bring it fully up to modern standards (structural damage, cascading failures and so on), but it's a good place to start. It would be an enormous improvement over what we have even if stopped at the few suggestions I made.

[kingfish]

I don't think the issue has ever been CPU power, its a matter of programming the AI to behave realistically with damage, which is probably pretty difficult (aside from sort of "approximate" methods, like King_Hrothgar suggested). Definitely something that would add some interest to flying against AI. Its always frustrating to launch a slammer at a MiG-23, watch it splash and manuever to engage a new target, only to find out the MiG just sorta ate the missile and ignored the damage. At the very least, AI should try to RTB after they take a missile hit, even if their performance doesn't degrade.

[vicx]

It is good that estimate correctly the difficulties in coding AI. For all the time ED could spend, it would be thankless task and noone would be satisfied anyway.

 

This is why I DO NOT suggest changing the AI. If I want to fly against something smart I will fly against other players.

 

What I do suggest is that AI aircraft could use all the visual damage artwork that has been developed for the AFM aircraft.

[Solty]

I'd rather they simply update the damage model to at least the standard 10 years ago. I don't think it would eat up too much CPU power since it was done just fine 10+ years ago on the single core CPU's of the time. That desired damage model update applies to both AI and player aircraft.

+1

[Rangi]

+1

[NineLine]

As its been stated already (repeatedly), the damage model issues are well known by ED, and they know they need love. But they have a lot on their plate right now, we cant have everything at once, and I dont recall anyone saying they are the way they are because of any system limitations. The types of aircraft, especially WWII and Korea have really shown that it needs some love.

[Rangi]

As its been stated already (repeatedly), the damage model issues are well known by ED, and they know they need love. But they have a lot on their plate right now, we cant have everything at once, and I dont recall anyone saying they are the way they are because of any system limitations. The types of aircraft, especially WWII and Korea have really shown that it needs some love.

 

Thanks Sithspawn, for the confirmation it's known and to be addressed.