AI (decision to buy this sim)

[hawk66]

I'm new to this forum :), so hello everybody^^.

 

I've read the positive IGN review and considering to buy DCS Black Shark.

I hesitate due to some negative comments on the AI...in the review and in some forum threads.

 

I've to say that a good AI is quite important for me.

 

To make it a little more comparable: How would you compare the AI of Falcon 4 Allied Force/Longbow Apache 2 to this sim ? I can live with a weak ground AI but not with stupid wingmans and enemies.

 

Thanks for any feedback guys^^.

[CAT_101st]

I try not to fly in singel player mode. Compaired to the AI in LB2 the ground AI are close to same but pilots are worse. We are hoping some of this to be fixed in the up comming patch. But will realy be worked on in the new game engin to come out with the A10.

 

P.S. welcome to the forums

[Feuerfalke]

The AI in BS relies on heavy scritping. If you play the campaigns that come with the game, it's pretty fine. But here the fun ends.

 

As the scripting has it's limits, replayability is only worth the notice in terms of different missions you may encounter when replaying the campaing with different outcomes.

 

 

There is no automatic behaviour other than units firing masses of shells and missiles at you, even if it is a single soldier with a stinger. There is no autonomous reaction to your attacks by single units, their groups or other forces. The same way, there's no prescripted interaction with your own troops.

So it no way compares to AI in LB2, not daring to mention F4. :noexpression:

 

 

It was posted some more complex behaviour will be implemented, but so far it's unclear wether that will come in the patch or in the next module.

 

 

These are the weaknesses of an otherwise nice game, though. If you like LB2, I bet you will have fun with the simulation.

Edited February 24, 2009 by Feuerfalke

[159th_Viper]

I've to say that a good AI is quite important for me. I can live with a weak ground AI but not with stupid wingmans and enemies.

 

 

If that is your only requisite, then you're in for a dissappointment.

 

That said - AI aside, the purchase is definitely worth it. :thumbup:

[WynnTTr]

It's not as bad as some people make out to be. The AI does it job.

However if you've played F4AF/LB2, then you need to play this game for what it was made for: flying the BS. Nothing comes close to the fidelity of the flight model, avionics and recreation of the dynamics, characteristics of an aircraft.

I'm a F4 player (AF, then OF, FF - bring on FF5!!!) and I can safely say that ED have set the bar very high when it comes to this department.

 

If you check out the 'Rate BS thread' you'll see most give the AI about a 7.

[rapid]

It's not as bad as some people make out to be. The AI does it job.

However if you've played F4AF/LB2, then you need to play this game for what it was made for: flying the BS. Nothing comes close to the fidelity of the flight model, avionics and recreation of the dynamics, characteristics of an aircraft.

I'm a F4 player (AF, then OF, FF - bring on FF5!!!) and I can safely say that ED have set the bar very high when it comes to this department.

 

If you check out the 'Rate BS thread' you'll see most give the AI about a 7.

 

 

Agreed.^^^^^^^:thumbup:

[EvilBivol-1]

The example of LB2 has me curious. While I have LB2 and did play it back in the day, I don't seem to remember anything particularly impressive about its ground AI compared to Black Shark. It's quite possible I just didn't register what I needed to or maybe wasn't experienced enough at the time.

 

Can we provide specific ground AI features from LB2 (or another flight sim) that is currently lacking in DCS?

[Feuerfalke]

Curious.

 

- The groundunits actively move to close gaps in defenses: If you try to get in and out the same route, you usually run into a SAMsite on egress

- groundunits call in fighters, if they locate you (IIRC they even called in arty, if you remained in the area)

- SAM range/effectivity and Calling support is massively disrupted by taking out their EWRs, C3 and detection radarsites

- wingmen AI uses cover and pop-up-attacks

- wingmen AI attack threats with priority

- primary and secondary targets may change during missions - dynamically, not scripted

- wingmen AI based upon RPG-style experience-values

- ground AI makes troops enter and leave helos (infact they even run towards you, if you aren't able to touch down at the predefined area - at least if they can see and reach you)

 

oh, and LB2 has a working and credible AI for the second seat. :smilewink:

[GGTharos]

Actually LB2 had a very heavily scripted campaign with multiple path choices to choose from. It wasn't really dynamic - and it wasn't much of an AI function either. ;)

 

The main point here also is that the question relates to ground AI, not heli AI ;)

[Feuerfalke]

Actually LB2 had a very heavily scripted campaign with multiple path choices to choose from. It wasn't really dynamic - and it wasn't much of an AI function either. ;)

 

The main point here also is that the question relates to ground AI, not heli AI ;)

 

 

Actually, it's quite the opposite:

 

I can live with a weak ground AI but not with stupid wingmans and enemies.

 

LB2 had a dynamic campaign. The missiongoals were limited to a few goals, granted, but you NEVER had the same goal nor the same unit in the same position. Dynamic enough for me.

The only thing it lacked was carrying over mission results from one to the next. AFAIK if you hit them hard, the only thing degraded was the chance of AirSupport being called in.

[spyda]

The AI really isn't that bad i think people just complain about any thing some times the stuff people post at times it makes me wonder if they have played BS for more than 10 minutes any way my 2 cents

 

So i mean sure it could be better but compared to F4, Flanker, EECH etc it blows them out the water.

 

they will send every thing they have at u to take u down none of the vehicles appear like they want to die in a battle. ships shoot down missiles and attack ground targets with missiles and guns tanks will fire there guns and missiles at each other and at choppers. AAA will try and take out bombs and missiles launched at them. man pads hiding in towns and trees. air support can drop flairs at night so u can target in the dark. shall i go on?

 

the only complaint is they don't react when u attack them eg run for cover, try and maneuver out of trouble etc etc ED stated there will be improvements down the track at some point

 

just buy the game mate you will love it :thumbup:

[192nd_Erdem]

It's not as bad as some people make out to be. The AI does it job.

However if you've played F4AF/LB2, then you need to play this game for what it was made for: flying the BS. Nothing comes close to the fidelity of the flight model, avionics and recreation of the dynamics, characteristics of an aircraft.

I'm a F4 player (AF, then OF, FF - bring on FF5!!!) and I can safely say that ED have set the bar very high when it comes to this department.

 

If you check out the 'Rate BS thread' you'll see most give the AI about a 7.

 

I think this is what hinders the game for me; when you master the heli and have your fair share of having fun flying it(which is awesome), there's pretty much nothing else to do. The world outside Ka-50 is pretty premature and "sterile". Every mission plays out the same, everything works as expected(scripted). There are pretty much no tactical challanges to overcome imposed by AI, and not much diversity imposed by game mechanics(vehicle damage models, behaviour etc).

 

ED said they are working on some basic convoy behaviours(like scattering under fire), but one also has to bear in mind this is the first module and ED will probably listen to feedback like this for future modules.

[GGTharos]

Actually, it's quite the opposite:

 

My bad. I found the AI do their job in any case.

 

 

LB2 had a dynamic campaign. The missiongoals were limited to a few goals, granted, but you NEVER had the same goal nor the same unit in the same position. Dynamic enough for me.

The only thing it lacked was carrying over mission results from one to the next. AFAIK if you hit them hard, the only thing degraded was the chance of AirSupport being called in.

 

Actually it wasn't dynamic at all: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=38451

 

That is it 'dynamic enough for you' is great, but that doesn't actually make it dynamic. It's just a well-made random mission generator.

 

Granted, DCS doesn't have that. For now.

It still has superior ground AI which will only get better ... as will the rest ;)

[GGTharos]

Missions are as sterile or as populated as the mission builder wishes to make them. It is precisely the same case with 'tactical challenges': Triggers, be they random or otherwise, can be used to create a good number of scenarios within the same mission.

 

I think this is what hinders the game for me; when you master the heli and have your fair share of having fun flying it(which is awesome), there's pretty much nothing else to do. The world outside Ka-50 is pretty premature and "sterile". Every mission plays out the same, everything works as expected(scripted). There are pretty much no tactical challanges to overcome imposed by AI, and not much diversity imposed by game mechanics(vehicle damage models, behaviour etc)..

[EvilBivol-1]

- The groundunits actively move to close gaps in defenses: If you try to get in and out the same route, you usually run into a SAMsite on egress

- groundunits call in fighters, if they locate you (IIRC they even called in arty, if you remained in the area)

- SAM range/effectivity and Calling support is massively disrupted by taking out their EWRs, C3 and detection radarsites

Okay, those are good. Once again, I just don't remember well enough and don't feel like going through the entire installation and update process right now (although I'm starting to consider it), but were these actual AI routines or mission scripts? In case of the latter, we can do all of them in Black Shark through triggers just the same, but that is not the same thing as AI. Edited February 24, 2009 by EvilBivol-1

[Frederf]

That's all fine in practice but in reality missions aren't made with the 100s of triggers complex non-sterile reactionary mission. Theoretically possible is of little consolation to people stuck with the reality of it.

 

ED did a great job making a virtual Ka-50 no doubt but a world to use it in? Not even. The pre-flight environment is non-existent, the wingmen laughable, and the enemy AI both collectively and individually are mere range targets in terms of interaction.

[GGTharos]

You don't need hundreds of triggers. Yes, it's a chore - but it's doable. Someone did it for LB2 so you didn't have to.

 

You might find a mission builder for DCS who'll do the same for you.

Have you actually tried?

[Feuerfalke]

Okay, those are good. Once again, I just don't remember well enough and don't feel like going through the entire installation and update process right now (although I'm starting to consider it), but were these actual AI routines or mission scripts? In case of the latter, we can do all of them in Black Shark through triggers just the same, but that is not the same thing as AI.

 

As you posted, the missions were random. So I doubt this could be a scripted behaviour, at least to my understanding of scripting.

 

Whatever you call it, random or dynamic, it confronted you with a very different szenario each time you took off and there was no way of sneaking through the undefended back door.

Compared to that, when playing missions in BS, I rather feel like there is only the front of the building and the rest isn't even there. :smilewink:

 

Sure you can say it's depending on the mission editor, but this randomization feature was so many times wished for by the community even for an air2air game, that I find it still hard to see it's not implemented in this air2ground sim! :cry:

 

And the AI and interaction with the player? Well, if you find the AI do their job in any case, I hope you're not responsible to implement improvements. :P

[GGTharos]

I challenge you to attempt making this randomization feature yourself.

 

Not because I'm trying to be condescending, I honestly would like you to try it and tell me how easy/hard it is.

 

Lastly, I didn't say there's no room for improvement. Just that they do their job ;)

[Feuerfalke]

You don't need hundreds of triggers. Yes, it's a chore - but it's doable. Someone did it for LB2 so you didn't have to.

 

You might find a mission builder for DCS who'll do the same for you.

Have you actually tried?

 

No need to boil up.

 

But an odd statement, still. :huh:

[GGTharos]

Not boiling up. Seriously, have you tried? :P

 

In any case, I'll add that ED isn't exactly sitting on their hands either. We all know players want more automation. I'm not sure where that is on the priority list and when something will be done about it however.

[jctrnacty]

I finished first 13 missions in first campaign and i must say that wingman is behaving quite well, everything i asked him for, he completed.

 

Yes, the world and missions are a little bit sterile but i must say I ´m pretty impressed with the final product (ka-50) and the quality of this sim when i compare it to release of Lockon.

 

I think we will get more and more and ka-50 proves that. It ´s all about learning.

 

The best would be to merge a FM of ka-50 and dynamic campaign of falcon 4 but I think there ´s not a computer to be able to run it at decent framerates. Maybe 4 years later. We should remember that it took 10 years to bring F4 and its DC to what it is now. Playable and amusing sim.

 

The history shows that a community and tallented people are able to fix what microprose didn´t. Maybe someday ED will release source code and we will have falcon-50.

 

(Joking, I know this will never happen)

Edited February 25, 2009 by jctrnacty

[Feuerfalke]

Not boiling up. Seriously, have you tried? :P

 

 

 

I have no doubt this will come, as well as the collideable trees (hopefully), but that was stated by us before. But, sorry, I still cannot make any sense of your reaction.

 

There already is a randomization-mod IIRC for LoMAC and it was requested several times to be implemented into the new game as this was found to be a primary goal for the offline-community, the very same that you aimed your game for.

Well, it's not in, it's a pitty, but why are you getting jumpy because this is mentioned by the community again, as it is still a vital part mission for most of the community?

 

But if I say to my customers: "Hey, you wanted windows in your new built house? Seriously, I challenge you to build them in yourself!", they'd give me a very definite answer through their lawyers, not a wishlist-request in a forum.

[CAT_101st]

The example of LB2 has me curious. While I have LB2 and did play it back in the day, I don't seem to remember anything particularly impressive about its ground AI compared to Black Shark. It's quite possible I just didn't register what I needed to or maybe wasn't experienced enough at the time.

 

Can we provide specific ground AI features from LB2 (or another flight sim) that is currently lacking in DCS?

 

I was mostly refering to the fact that they sit and wait to get shot/killed. But BS is by far way out of the LB2 leuge.

[GGTharos]

Then perhaps I can give you some insight.

 

LOMAC's mission file format is entirely different from what is used in Black Shark.

 

Further, I feel that people don't appreciate the tools they've been given so far. DCS included way sot make things more dynamic from launch; it is well understood that these tools are time-consuming to use, and not perfect. They are not, however, anathema either. They are fairly effective at making things happen, and they continue to be enhanced.

 

A randomization program isn't easy or quick to make. It is no more and no less difficult than some other features, but those other features were deemed to be more important. I just want you to get an idea of the amount of work that has to go into making one, because it seems to me like people think it's easy-peasy.

 

Until then, you have the mission editor together with its tools. It works. Really, it does - please use it, that's what it was made for.

 

I have no doubt this will come, as well as the collideable trees (hopefully), but that was stated by us before. But, sorry, I still cannot make any sense of your reaction.

 

There already is a randomization-mod IIRC for LoMAC and it was requested several times to be implemented into the new game as this was found to be a primary goal for the offline-community, the very same that you aimed your game for.

Well, it's not in, it's a pitty, but why are you getting jumpy because this is mentioned by the community again, as it is still a vital part mission for most of the community?

 

But if I say to my customers: "Hey, you wanted windows in your new built house? Seriously, I challenge you to build them in yourself!", they'd give me a very definite answer through their lawyers, not a wishlist-request in a forum.