AI still fundamentally ignores orders

[Quip]

So,

 

several years later and nothing new under the sun.

 

In the attached mission the following is set up (see image)

BLUE F/A-18's:

Have had CAP removed

Are asked to Search and Engage

Are restricted to attack bombers

 

There are 2 tests. One vs AI, south group, and one vs human (client), north group

Both have the same conditions where applicable. In essence:

All AC fly a race track

All have no mission other than flying

All are set to "Passive defense" reaction to threat only

 

Four AC in each test group

One Helicopter (KA50)

One Fighter (MiG21)

One Attack AC (A-10C)

One Bomber (Tu95)

 

Of these, only the Bomber is AI in both tests since there is no client bomber. And as you will see later, replacing this with a client would defeat the purpose of the test.

 

This tests proves two separate and serious bugs, that have been untouched for years.

 

EXPECTED BEHAVIOR

1. The FA-18 ignores the Helo and progresses towards the group of airplanes
   
2. Once within range, the FA-18 attacks the Bomber.
   
3. Following his orders, the FA-18 ignores the Fighter and the Attack aircraft.
   
4. Following their orders, all RED AC ignore the FA-18, since they are not under threat and are asked to only react passively
   

 

Bugs vs AI:

CURRENT BEHAVIOR SOUTH GROUP

• FA-18 ignores the Helo and progresses towards the group of airplanes.
  SUCCESS
  
• Once within range, the FA-18 attacks the Bomber. Following his orders, the FA-18 ignores the Fighter and the Attack aircraft.
  FAIL The FA-18 randomly attacks any aircraft in the Search Zone, not even giving priority to the Bomber
  
• Following their orders, all RED AC ignore the FA-18, since they are not under threat and are asked to only react passively.
  UNCLEAR The RED AC mostly defend passively, but sometimes the Tu95 fires back using the tail gunner. This is not a serious error.
  

 

Bugs vs Client:

CURRENT BEHAVIOR NORTH GROUP

• FA-18 ignores the Helo and progresses towards the group of airplanes.
  SUCCESS
  
• Once within range, the FA-18 attacks the Bomber. Following his orders, the FA-18 ignores the Fighter and the Attack aircraft.
  FAIL The FA-18 randomly attacks any aircraft in the Search Zone, not even giving priority to the Bomber
  
• Following their orders, all RED AC ignore the FA-18, since they are not under threat and are asked to only react passively.
  UNCLEAR The RED AC mostly defend passively, but sometimes the Tu95 fires back using the tail gunner. This is not a serious error.
  

 

NOTES:

Unless you actively remove the automated Advanced Waypoint Action "CAP" from the FA-18 flight, it will attack all AC, including Helos. So it is currently impossible to generate a CAP sortie that ignores/focuses on certain types of AC.

 

In my opinion, it's about time for the bugs above to get fixed, as they have been present, and reported, for several years.

AI behavior demo.miz

Edited October 16, 2016 by Quip

[Grimes]

All of the default attack oriented tasks like CAP, CAS, and SEAD are just "search and engage" tasking with a set of predetermined target attributes. Its saved that way in the mission file and its the reason there is no "CAP" task available to the scripting engine. Its certainly not a perfect system as it ignores a ton of the attributes that are available to determine a valid target. You may also find the "Fighter Sweep" archetype of tasking more suited to your needs as it excludes helicopters from the targets and only goes after airplanes.

 

Now onto your actual tests. For me the F-18C generally followed its orders to the letter, but there were some inconsistencies that warrant further investigation. First off I noticed the attacks against the fighter and attack aircraft are the result of an active missile changing guidance mid flight. The missile was initially fired at the Tu-95 but shortly after launch it changes targets. If you watch the F-18 it is always focused on the Tu-95 even though the missile isn't guiding toward it, that clued me off that it was likely the missile causing issues. Also you can test out target prioritization a little better by splitting up the targets so they aren't in the same overall area.

 

Interestingly the behavior was slightly different dependent on whether or not I had spawned into an aircraft. If it was just AI then the F-18C followed its orders 100% correctly. When I spawned into the A-10C the southern F-18C would occasionally decide to attack either of the other aircraft. It was weird though, like it decided in that moment to attack, so it fired an Aim-120 and then immediately went back to trying to kill the Tu-95. For the moment I only tested with the A-10C, and I'll try a fighter aircraft later.

 

Simply watching how the F-18C attacked the Tu-95 was the biggest "this has got to be a bug" behavior I saw when testing this out. Though there are probably other things in there that can be improved or fixed.

[Quip]

Well, several versions later, I have just come back here to say that the bug is ever present. Really really annoying.

To clarify: nothing has changed at all.

[Haukka81]

AI should be first thing tho fix in COMBAT simulator but nope, lets tune lightning :(

[NineLine]

AI should be first thing tho fix in COMBAT simulator but nope, lets tune lightning :(

 

Because of course the guy working on lighting and graphics can code AI logic... :helpsmilie:

[NineLine]

 

In my opinion, it's about time for the bugs above to get fixed, as they have been present, and reported, for several years.

 

Thanks for the thorough report, sounds like Grimes is on it and can report what he sees fit.

[Quip]

Honestly, its going to take time for a small developer group like ED its not EAGAMES also the complexity of the sim and knowledge of those working on stuff would vary.

 

Pre scriptum: this post is not aimed against Wraith. I just took what you said as a spring board.

 

The first time I reported this was i a separate post in April 2014.

I think 3 years is ample time.

I don't understand why it's so common to want to defend the dev team. Either they have what it takes, and we salute them (they seem to "have it" wrt graphics), or they don't and we rightfully criticize them.

 

Also this:

It seems to me we are constantly asked to prove the exact bug. I.e, we're to unconditionally and exactly explain when the bug happens, and exactly when it doesn't happen. Well, surprise: this is not the best approach in development (yeah, I have credentials). Ideally, we should be encouraged to find bugs. The exact "when what how" etc are often most easily found by the dev looking into the code. The way this community works, we are asked to black box the bug, before it eventually gets fixed. Really really strange position as far as I'm concerned.