AI (decision to buy this sim)

[hawk66]

It'll get better? ;)

 

 

Speaking in broad general terms, AI is one of the parts of DCS that will continue evolving. It might not always be an evolution that's important to you (ie. ED might focus on an area of AI improvement that you didn't care for for one module, then on another area of AI) etc etc.

 

Did you already consider to expose an API in future products?

The API of Civilization 4 is a big success and a community-driven AI enhancement was even the basis for a commercial AddOn.

[GGTharos]

Read what EB wrote.

 

That's the best info you're going to get right now.

[BT23]

Is the DCS AI better than Flaming Cliffs ?

[MBot]

Is the DCS AI better than Flaming Cliffs ?

 

The AI of aircraft and helicopters is better, yes. They feature some very advanced detection logics. They also have better self-preservation. And because of a more advanced flight model, they will fly in a much more realistic fashion. Compared to Lock On it is certainly a big step.

 

The AI of ground units is basically the same as far as I can tell.

[192nd_Erdem]

Can we get back on the topic please? I'd like to hear ideas/suggestions about AI rather than endless discussions about Microprose and F4(5 page is enough IMO).

[wombat778]

PM sent.

[CE_Mikemonster]

I know it's a big deal to discuss, but by doing so the attention of the thread is being diverted from finding out about the AI.

 

It's a very valid discussion, but please can everyone discussing it move it to the Other Sims part of the forums?

[EvilBivol-1]

Falcon OT posts moved:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=38771

 

Note, some of the remaining posts still contain OT content, but let's try not to respond to it here and instead do so in the dedicated thread in the Other Sims section.

Edited February 27, 2009 by EvilBivol-1

[815TooCooL]

Falcon OT posts moved:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=38771

 

Note, some of the remaining posts still contain OT content, but let's try not to respond to it here and instead do so in the dedicated thread in the Other Sims section.

 

Bravo. :thumbup:

[Feuerfalke]

Falcon OT posts moved:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=38771

 

Note, some of the remaining posts still contain OT content, but let's try not to respond to it here and instead do so in the dedicated thread in the Other Sims section.

 

 

Thanks!

 

Now in terms of AI, what do you think would be the most important features to have? Is it entirely AI or is it interaction?

 

IMHO AI is one thing, in terms of getting the impression that you are not shooting towed targets, that at least take defensive measures, attacking targets automatically, even if they were not assigned specifically in the ME, etc.

 

But to get yourself inside the battlefield, I'd like to see AI in terms of interaction. For example: There was a research going on prior to the release to implement templates for SAM-sites. Apart from the fact that I didn't find that template ingame as yet, wouldn't it be most important to also model some sort of networking between the elements of such a template?

[BT23]

Thanks for the info MBot

[GGTharos]

Here's a clue regarding AI - at least, it was a big clue for me:

 

Military training courses still use a human to control the 'enemy AI'.

[FADM Stern GNSF]

WOW That almost sounds like playing against another human ? Now there's a novel concept :-)

While I do like killing AI as I am sure everyone else does, Play with other humans is a whole different ball game. No matter who good they make AI, it can never pull off the unpredictable stuff another player can. I think all players should experience both worlds.

[EvilBivol-1]

Things like intergrated SAM systems modeling, tactical "smarts" like radar-flashing, modeling of passive detection and guidance channels along with radar, etc. are all on ED's own wishlist, but wanting it and coding it are two different things. :)

 

Progress is made on all fronts, but in some areas faster than in others. I think ED will accomplish quite a lot with Warthog and much more after it, but right now nobody, not even ED, will step out and say exactly what will make it in and when.

Edited February 27, 2009 by EvilBivol-1

[Feuerfalke]

Here's a clue regarding AI - at least, it was a big clue for me:

 

Military training courses still use a human to control the 'enemy AI'.

 

 

This is one of the most important arguments ever posted about AI and simulating a creditable battlefield! :thumbup:

 

 

Infact, it is exactly the very reason, why I almost exclusively play multiplayer titles and it is one of my most important wishes for the future of DCS: Make multiplayer-features a primary goal for DCS!

 

Just think what could be done, if the existing ATC for LockOn would be extended to command AI forces! :clap:

 

 

Especially considering the fact that we will get one plane at a time, mostly mudmovers to be released sooner and competative aircraft being still way down the pipe! (e.g. like F-16 and Mig-29)

[Feuerfalke]

Things like intergrated SAM systems modeling, tactical "smarts" like radar-flashing, modeling of passive detection and guidance channels along with radar, etc. are all on ED's own wishlist, but wanting it and coding it are two different things. :)

 

Progress is made on all fronts, but in some areas faster than in others. I think ED will accomplish quite a lot with Warthog and much more after it, but right now nobody, not even ED, will step out and say exactly what will make it in and when.

 

Nobody doubts that. Well, at least I don't. But I still must confess, that I'd like to see at least a bit more intelligence rather sooner than later. :smilewink:

 

But I agree even more, that ED should not step forward and make promises where they are not knowing for sure themselves. But I must confess that even such a short list as posted above, without dates and promises, would calm down a lot of people, as even with out concrete facts you can see that this is very important for ED, too.

[GGTharos]

Every time lists were posted it backfired, as featured ended up having to be cut.

[EvilBivol-1]

Infact, it is exactly the very reason, why I almost exclusively play multiplayer titles and it is one of my most important wishes for the future of DCS: Make multiplayer-features a primary goal for DCS!

I can also say that enhancing the multiplayer experience is a big part of the development effort going into future DCS modules in general and Warthog in particular. Detail later as they are coded. ;)

Edited February 27, 2009 by EvilBivol-1

[FADM Stern GNSF]

While having a list showing what and when would be nice, I am sure most know that this is very unrealistic. Software creation is an art, and takes time. I would rather see something take twice as long as originally expected, but come out 100%, than have something rushed to meet a deadline.

 

How about putting up a list like this;

 

New Game stuff - When its done

More new stuff - When its done

 

Anyway, take solice in knowing, that when it IS done, we will be told :-)

[GGTharos]

The problem isn't that you know this. The problem is that others don't, and you inevitably end up with a 100 page 'but you promised ...' thread ;)

[159th_Viper]

I can also say that enhancing the multiplayer experience is a big part of the development effort going into future DCS modules in general and Warthog in particular. Detail later as they are coded. ;)

 

As an exclusive Multiplayer myself that is indeed great news :thumbup:

[FADM Stern GNSF]

That is true indeed, but then again if its not 100 pages of you promised, its 100 pages of "you should have...".

While every person would love 10,000 new things and features (more = better as far as most humans are concerned), I am just extreamly satisfied that ED put so much into make BS (and future modules) as real as possible. Anything else that comes along is just a huge bonus, and in the mean time I will just have fun playing it.

[Feuerfalke]

True. One of it is a sticky and called "wish list". :D

 

But then, why not pick up that idea and present us an ED wishlist?

 

You know, like posting things that ED would like to implement. Not things that are being worked on, planned or set in stone. There will be plenty of room for that in dev-updates for the Hog. Just things like posted here. Features of the AI, that the multiplayer-part will be largely extended and stuff like that. What features you, ED or even the members would personally like to be implemented or in relation to the game, what you'd like to include into the MP-lobby, into AI and physics and stuff. Would you like to implement Teamspeak3 or other adaptations of the comm-menu for MP and stuff like that.

 

;)

[H-street]

Thanks!

 

Now in terms of AI, what do you think would be the most important features to have? Is it entirely AI or is it interaction?

 

For me it seems simple in requesting but probably difficult in executing.

 

the key for Combat AI is to be able to react to the players actions as a military body, and not just individual or small group AI. Individual Group AI is very important (Situational awareness). but for immersiion and the feeling of a living world you need the enemy AI to react as a whole

 

something as simple as

 

Ground unit hears Helicopter, it takes cover, Call in Air Support, Radio location to Airdefence sites etc.. etc.. it generates a web of AI reactions within the entire military presence within the region you are flying in that you can tangibly feel.

 

this includes having enemy units having their own missions (instead of just sitting around waiting for you to hit a trigger) and being able to divert from those missions/actions or be interupted as chance happenings.

 

 

This would also add a little more replayability to missions as the Ai may react to you different as a whole instead of as single units only depending on your own personal tactics.

[jurajs84]

Why AI aircraft (e.g. Su-25T only with gun pods) cannot exactly hit The ground vehicle with gun pods? Every time fires only around the target.:doh: