done EA Status of AI "George" - Will he be able to ID targets (prior to pre purchasing for EA)

[Hawkeye_UK]

ED,

Please can you confirm whether George AI will be able to visually ID targets and differentiate between friendly and enermy units.

I note to date, AI Petrovich still cannot and thus with free fire will purely kill all units infront of him.  Extremely poor given MP servers and ground and newer players given if Petrovich can see it through his scope he can visually tell if hostile or not.  I assume you will be using part of that code for the apache.

Prior to pre purchasing the module there are potential customers that would like to know the importance that ED is placing on this and whether it wil be included on the build as a vital operater ability for the AI from day one EA.

Please confirm with the Dev's and respond back to the community so an informed decision can be made.

Thanks.

[ricktoberfest]

I’m gonna make an assumption here that the difference between Petrovich and George is the accent they speak with. (At least in the early stages)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sabre_Ewan]

9 hours ago, ricktoberfest said:

I’m gonna make an assumption here that the difference between Petrovich and George is the accent they speak with. (At least in the early stages)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You mean the accent they write text with? (At least in the early stages)

[ams999]

Maybe Petrovich is former artillery? I seem to remember the saying, "Artillery knows neither friend nor foe, only worthwhile targets."

[PlainSight]

You can wait for initial feedback from other players.

[LooseSeal]

4 minutes ago, PlainSight said:

You can wait for initial feedback from other players.

Then you'd miss the pre-order discount. I mean, I've already ordered it, but I think that's what he's getting at.

Personally, I think the AI being able to identify a T-55 from an Abrams is absolutely key. However... I'm not convinced if he should be able to 100% guarantee that the unit is friendly. For example, if we're doing a mission on the Caucuses map where both Georgia and Russia are using similar equipment... mistakes can be made. I think it should be up to the player to gather intel, etc, and determine which T-72 is which, otherwise it gets a bit easy. Friendly fire shouldn't be eliminated as a possibility.

It's a really tricky question, and I'm sure it's a tough one for ED to try to balance correctly.

[kgillers3]

30 minutes ago, LooseSeal said:

Then you'd miss the pre-order discount. I mean, I've already ordered it, but I think that's what he's getting at.

Personally, I think the AI being able to identify a T-55 from an Abrams is absolutely key. However... I'm not convinced if he should be able to 100% guarantee that the unit is friendly. For example, if we're doing a mission on the Caucuses map where both Georgia and Russia are using similar equipment... mistakes can be made. I think it should be up to the player to gather intel, etc, and determine which T-72 is which, otherwise it gets a bit easy. Friendly fire shouldn't be eliminated as a possibility.

It's a really tricky question, and I'm sure it's a tough one for ED to try to balance correctly.

There’s pros and cons right? Where a human could sit there and analyze the issue. But also under pressure a human can convince themselves something when it’s not and rush a shot. Plenty of unfortunate examples. 
 

I think there are a couple options for the ah. You can have a video page up on one of the mpds, when he locks he has the tads zoomed and you can verify which is similar to what happens in rl before telling him to shoot. 
 

give it rng with distance, so 1 k 100% 2k 95% etc and that 5% for you is where he could make a mistake. A lot of coding and easily broke in this one, idk. 
 

final is when he announces what he has, it actually says it. So rather than “tank” it’s a “t-55” up to a distance. There’s a point you can’t tell what it is. And maybe if it’s in trees he goes back to tank or whatever. Again getting into the weeds on coding idk what the best option is.

 

Edited October 30, 2021 by kgillers3

[Enduro14]

Yup absolutely love the Hind it works even with the State of Petro,  but Petro needs work and is number one reason not pre ordering Apache.  Apache is one module I’ll wait for completion and at that stage the Ai is good then cash will leave my pocket.  Could careless about discounts, I’ll give devs full money for a completed and fulfilled module no problem.

[Hawkeye_UK]

The point on all of this is that we need to ensure ED are clear on what they are selling.  At present there is no confirmation either way, which is not right.

As for being able to ID targets IRL, bare in mind in the 1000's of sorties undertaken, these are literally the exception.  In terms of the Apache, there was two instances in Afgan, both involving personnel, not vehicles.  One an American crew, the other a British, both in early stages of the conflict, both involving failures from both air and ground personnel.

The reality is if the gunner can visually see a vehicle it he should be able to ID, if not he's in the wrong job.  Lets not make excuses for ED not implementing what should have been a day one release, aka modelling the vital systems to release munitions prior to ones that sell modules. 

[Mad Dog 762]

43 minutes ago, Hawkeye_UK said:

The reality is if the gunner can visually see a vehicle it he should be able to ID, if not he's in the wrong job.  

Clearly you have never seen video of the incident in Iraq where a US crew shoots two US vehicles sitting right in the open.  And ED is working with AI, not an intelligent human who can reason and think.  And even if you let the AI "cheat", its still not realistic, you have eliminated the "fog of war" aspect.  

 

[Hawkeye_UK]

15 minutes ago, Mad Dog 762 said:

Clearly you have never seen video of the incident in Iraq where a US crew shoots two US vehicles sitting right in the open.  And ED is working with AI, not an intelligent human who can reason and think.  And even if you let the AI "cheat", its still not realistic, you have eliminated the "fog of war" aspect.  

Yep as i said its an isolated incident against 1000's of sorties, mistakes happen.  There is some irony in your comments, i understand all too well the reality of fog of war.  I was saying also about Afgan, your referring to an operation 15 years earlier.  Reality is ask anyone that's been out there they would never not want an Apache overhead.

Anyway back on point, this is away from the thread posted.  Reality is if a gunner can see he should 99.99% be able to ID.  At present its not even modelled.  Enough said.

Your also trying to compare FLIR to Optical, the two are very different.

Edited October 30, 2021 by Hawkeye_UK

[kgillers3]

14 minutes ago, Hawkeye_UK said:

Yep as i said its an isolated incident against 1000's of sorties, mistakes happen.  There is some irony in your comments, i understand all too well the reality of fog of war.  I was saying also about Afgan, your referring to an operation 15 years earlier.  Reality is ask anyone that's been out there they would never not want an Apache overhead.

Anyway back on point, this is away from the thread posted.  Reality is if a gunner can see he should 99.99% be able to ID.  At present its not even modelled.  Enough said.

Your also trying to compare FLIR to Optical, the two are very different.

 

I think this goes back to one of my options.  If a tank is in the open. And you're within a reasonable range. I agree it should pop up and be like "Target locked - T55".  However if the tank is in trees, partially blocked by smoke, a bldg IDK 1000 examples, and it can detect and recognize that there's a tank.  But not enough of the vehicle is visible to clearly make an identification.  Then it should go back to "Target locked Tank."  That's realistic. Because with that information, you should be able to derive from your own situational awareness that there are no friendly tanks where you're looking.  Or vice versa there might be and you're not going to let a missile fly until you build a little more situational awareness. 

Now how do you differ between two peeps say you're helping 1 dudes who have bmp-1s and the other dudes also, have bmp 1s.  That's a pickle right there.  

[Hawkeye_UK]

Guys lets not over complicate it - i'm just asking ED if they are even going to attempt to have some form of George ID ability, pretty vital for a helicopter gunship.

 

[Enduro14]

Yup Ai having a identify tgt ability is 100 percent key.  Right now in a simplistic Gunship like the hind not having it is a pain in A..  so I hop seats and do my own identifying currently.  I’m sure we will have a good idea of what Apache you are getting at initial release from upcoming Wags vids….

[Grievo]

18 hours ago, ams999 said:

Maybe Petrovich is former artillery? I seem to remember the saying, "Artillery knows neither friend nor foe, only worthwhile targets."

In Australia, whenever infantry called us drop shorts, we’d tell them “We kill grunts, we don’t care whose.” 

[Hawkeye_UK]

On 10/30/2021 at 10:34 PM, Enduro14 said:

Yup Ai having a identify tgt ability is 100 percent key.  Right now in a simplistic Gunship like the hind not having it is a pain in A..  so I hop seats and do my own identifying currently.  I’m sure we will have a good idea of what Apache you are getting at initial release from upcoming Wags vids….

Yep you cant do that in MP and alot of my posts are not for me personally, but born out of  consideration for MP and newer players coming who have issues telling what unit is what and causing meyhem.

Its frustrating that ED always put preference of things that look well or go bang and then worry about the systems that are required to operate it at a later date.

Not good.

[MRTX]

Does the AH-64D have a simmilar ground datalink feature as the A-10C to identify friendly units?

[NeedzWD40]

8 minutes ago, MRTX said:

Does the AH-64D have a simmilar ground datalink feature as the A-10C to identify friendly units?

Yes, Blue Force Tracker.

[KiwiOz]

On 10/31/2021 at 6:26 AM, Hawkeye_UK said:

Guys lets not over complicate it - i'm just asking ED if they are even going to attempt to have some form of George ID ability, pretty vital for a helicopter gunship.

 

Not sure if it exists but would modern tanks/ground units have some sort of ID cooks system taht the Apache can id as friendly????

Ahh question answered, blue force. tracker, will it be in the game?

[stormrider]

On 10/30/2021 at 9:26 PM, Hawkeye_UK said:

Guys lets not over complicate it - i'm just asking ED if they are even going to attempt to have some form of George ID ability, pretty vital for a helicopter gunship.

 

The problem that I can see here is that you want a simple solution for a complex problem. Identification in war has all being a difficult business, even for the trained human operator, with or without a bms. If you want easy and simple, then you're willing to accept a cheating AI.

If not, then complication is inevitable. Complication means coding ambiguity. Several so called simulators out there tried and failed.

[Lurker]

On 10/28/2021 at 7:10 PM, Hawkeye_UK said:

 

Please confirm with the Dev's and respond back to the community so an informed decision can be made.

 

This is a fair question. To which I can only add: Good luck with that. I doubt you will get an answer of the status of the AI on release, apart from "limited functionality or WIP at early access", but hopefully I'm proven wrong by Eagle Dynamics. I think it's always better to err on the side of caution when purchasing any Early Access product, but especially with DCS products. Don't expect anything beyond exactly what is promised at EA, and only purchase if that is satisfactory to you and won't lead to buyers remorse. (Or if you wan't to cash in on the discount and don't care about features at all)

I was all set to pull the trigger on the AH64D, but I've since stopped playing DCS World due to core performance issues, and I will only buy another module when or rather "if" these get ironed out at some point in the future. 

Edited November 2, 2021 by Lurker

[Remco]

BFT has so far not been listed as a feature and due to its sensitive nature I'd say there's a high chance we won't get it, there really is no (official) open source information on BFT. Another indicator is the fact that, though within timeframe, the BFT system is a later addon not part of the standard Block II package and the ingame models shows so far do not have the BFT antenna.

[Sinclair_76]

5 minutes ago, Remco said:

BFT has so far not been listed as a feature and due to its sensitive nature I'd say there's a high chance we won't get it, there really is no (official) open source information on BFT. Another indicator is the fact that, though within timeframe, the BFT system is a later addon not part of the standard Block II package and the ingame models shows so far do not have the BFT antenna.

Isn't that what EPLRS is meant to do in game? 

[Remco]

1 minute ago, Sinclair_76 said:

Isn't that what EPLRS is meant to do in game? 

As far as I'm aware EPLRS is specifically for SADL, the system in the A-10, not for BFT. That said I imagine it wouldn't be hard to use EPLRS as a stand-in for BFT subscribers, but that still leaves the sensitive part of modelling the Apache side of the BFT.

[DaemonPhobos]

Afaik, we are not getting the BFT, as it's not displayed in current ED pictures.

From what I can understand, AH-64s use the BFT to connect to the Tactical internet, the capabilities are the same since both use the same protocol.

It's unclear what system did they use before the BFT with the MT2011 transceiver.

According to the 2005 TM, Army aviation uses the BFT or EPRLS to connect to the TI, so I suppose there has to be some sort of gateway back in those days.

(Added BFT antenna picture)