AI (decision to buy this sim)

[EtherealN]

Depends on skill setting, range, and of course the fact that a gun pod is not a sniper rifle. There will be dispersion. (You see the same with the 30mm on the Ka-50 at longer range - most rounds land around the target.)

[th3flyboy]

Gun pods are not sniper weapons, and will NEVER be pinpoint accurate, as there are too many factors to put in before you can determine the accuracy, everything around the bullet affects it, and as such, the ballistics will NEVER be pinpoint.

[jurajs84]

But when fires plane, every bullets impact 50 meters before target. When fires gunship, target is destroyed. Try out it in DCS.

[nomdeplume]

My suggestion would be for ED to deliberately offload some of the AI work to the community and/or third-party developers. The game already has some capability of exporting events; hook this up to a socket and a separate program can read events, and send back commands in response. This also helps work around the limitations of a single-threaded game engine by moving the high-level AI to a separate process (or even a separate computer!).

 

Such an interface could be used to power a UI which allows a human to alter waypoints etc. for AI-units. It could also be used for single-player missions to allow the AI units to respond dynamically. A lot of this plumbing already seems to in place; presumably waypoints could be updated in real-time? There's even very advanced things like proper modeling of radio communications, so the controller application could be limited to issuing orders via radio resulting in a realistic chain-of-command which depends on line-of-sight radio reception, allowing the player to utilise tactics like taking out a group of scouts before they're able to report the sighting, etc.

 

For example:

 

An event is fired indicating AI ground unit has detected an enemy air unit. The controller checks its local state information and determines it's the first sighting of this air unit. It orders the ground unit to broadcast a radio message reporting the sighting. The sim determines who "hears" that message, and sends events indicating the reception of that radio message to all units as appropriate. The controller can then have them react appropriately, e.g. by moving mobile air defences to cover the area. If a command vehicle hears the radio message, it can formulate a higher-level response, sending commands to other units not in the area to react in various ways.

 

It would be up to the developer of the AI Controller to ensure it didn't "cheat" by commanding units that shouldn't know about the situation to react - or alternatively, it could cheat as much as it wants. The player decides what controller to use, so the ones which deliver the best play experience will win.

 

Another idea would be to have the option of having a controller embedded in the mission itself. That way you can keep it pretty simple and tailor responses to that particular mission, rather than trying to create an all-encompassing AI that can react realistically and appropriately to every conceivable situation.

 

Like I said, I think a lot of this already exists - but I don't think there's any way for an external program to alter the mission world while a mission is being flown. Being able to change a unit's waypoints and spawn/destroy units in the game in reaction to various game events would create a lot of possibilities.

 

IMHO, the "problem" with DCS: BS is that ED decided to put the focus on scripted missions rather than trying to create an AI that could respond dynamically to the situation; but hasn't given the mission designer enough control to fully exploit the capabilities of the game.

 

In addition, ED like to take their time with releases - much respect to them for doing so. BS 1.0 is definitely one of the most stable and bug-free games I've played in recent years, and I suspect the patch will maintain that tradition. The downside is that updates are few and far between, which tends to make the game start feeling pretty "samey" after a while. If the overarching AI is decoupled from the game itself, then it can be improved at whatever pace the community can manage, while ED continue to keep the core game stable.

 

Just my 2c.

[LoBiSoMeM]

As said, I believe multiplayer is the path...

 

Work in netcode and more control over ground units scripted behavior in mission editor, or "on the fly" human control over it.

 

I personally don't need a lot of "AI", I'll like to "unload" the CPU and use more "Human Intelligence"! :thumbup:

 

I dream with strong netcode for a lot of human controlled aircraft and one "commander" controling the behavior of ground units in MP games... I glad to know this is one of the goals for ED!

 

AI only for detection, accuracy, quick responses, etc.

 

Offline "gamming" always tend to be a "poor intelligence and replayability" experience, FPS included... Maybe one future "M1A1" DCS module? :music_whistling:

 

As usual, excuse my bad english... I'm enjoying BS even with the actual limitations in ground AI, trying to use a lot of triggers in ME!

[EtherealN]

LoBiSoMeM, there's nothing to excuse about your english. I've met so-called "native" speakers of the language that are waaaay worse. Wouldn't even have thought there might have been a problem if you didn't excuse yourself for it. :P

[LoBiSoMeM]

LoBiSoMeM, there's nothing to excuse about your english. I've met so-called "native" speakers of the language that are waaaay worse. Wouldn't even have thought there might have been a problem if you didn't excuse yourself for it. :P

 

Now excuse my "off-topic", but my girlfriend is an english teacher and sometimes looks over my shoulder when I'm writing here... I feel a need to spend more time in "Tell Me More" and less in BS... :pilotfly:

[leroy1964]

yep I agree

 

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

 

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

 

This is one Sim worth buying, it has hours of depth and game play well worth the money.:thumbup:

[Logan9773]

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).

 

Exactly. While the flight models on the Ka-50 are pretty realistic, other parts leave much to be desired. For instance, the Shkval seems to just padlock objects, no realism at all there. I don't even know why they put in the moving target button on the WCS. It doesn't seem to matter whether it is on at all. I seem to be able to hit moving targets with the Shkval with or without it on. It seems to be just eyecandy.

 

As for the AI, I'll repeat what I said in another thread. With guns and cannons, they don't seem to be able to hit the side of a barn, even on excellent. They are pretty good with missles, but seem to have visual impairment when it comes to guns. I can be caught flying low and having a hard time with a turn, bringing my speed down to nothing, and they can't seem to hit me to save their lives. I'm near standing still, and I have vulcans shooting 20 degrees off of me. They can't hit me standing near still? With a gattling gun that shoots 1000 RPM and an optical lead calculating sight? And when they do hit me, it seems they only hit with one or two rounds, hardly doing any damage at all. Rarely do I get systems or engines knocked out. If there were humans controlling these vehicles, you would be dead instantly. I'm used to playing against other humans in games like Crysis. Its utter slaughter. Heli's in Crysis last about 2 minutes if your good. Against Shilka's, you have just enough time to kiss your ass goodbye before the hundreds of 23mm rounds shred you and the copter into little bitty peices.

 

I agree with the poster above, the flight model is excellent, but everything else needs a lot more work.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Logan9773

[159th_Viper]

 

As for the AI, I'll repeat what I said in another thread. With guns and cannons, they don't seem to be able to hit the side of a barn, even on excellent. They are pretty good with missles, but seem to have visual impairment when it comes to guns. I can be caught flying low and having a hard time with a turn, bringing my speed down to nothing, and they can't seem to hit me to save their lives. I'm near standing still, and I have vulcans shooting 20 degrees off of me. They can't hit me standing near still? With a gattling gun that shoots 1000 RPM and an optical lead calculating sight? And when they do hit me, it seems they only hit with one or two rounds, hardly doing any damage at all. Rarely do I get systems or engines knocked out. If there were humans controlling these vehicles, you would be dead instantly. I'm used to playing against other humans in games like Crysis. Its utter slaughter. Heli's in Crysis last about 2 minutes if your good. Against Shilka's, you have just enough time to kiss your ass goodbye before the hundreds of 23mm rounds shred you and the copter into little bitty peices.

 

Right.........Care to substantiate your allegation as above and provide a track?

 

You've gotta forgive me, but in the absence of visual confirmation, I'm having a difficult time taking your word for it ;)

[EtherealN]

I'm sort of wondering if he has mixed up manual ZSU emplacements and Vulcans... But yeah, I'd love to see a track of that as well. It does not mix with my own experience at all.

[slug88]

I'm used to playing against other humans in games like Crysis. Its utter slaughter. Heli's in Crysis last about 2 minutes if your good. Against Shilka's, you have just enough time to kiss your ass goodbye before the hundreds of 23mm rounds shred you and the copter into little bitty peices.

 

Would you care to inform of us the typical engagement ranges in Crysis? From what I can recall, aimed rifle fire ceases to be effective at under 200m in that game. I also seem to remember that the enemy helicopter in that game like to engage from under about 500m.

 

In case you weren't aware, engagements ranges for AAA in this game is about 10x that.

[ghost dog]

There are things I really enjoy about this sim. I like scripted missions and an dynamic warfield. The frontline changes acording to your actions, you see your troops advancing or being decimated. Also, to me, this is the best flying sim I've played. "War" comes as an extra. Enemy AI might be low but I think SAM's are extremely effective, unlike other games were I would just hit "Flare" or "chaft" and get away with it. Also, the heli damage model is perfect.

 

The wingman AI could be improved... I've come to the point were I only let my wingman have some fun after AA's have all been taken down and to designated targets. Sure, he is dumb, but the game would probably be too easy if we just said "engage air defenses" and he would go "copy" and take them out for you :)

[Cyclic]

IMHO, the "problem" with DCS: BS is that ED decided to put the focus on scripted missions rather than trying to create an AI that could respond dynamically to the situation; but hasn't given the mission designer enough control to fully exploit the capabilities of the game.QUOTE]

 

Correct ED has not provided enough tools for the mission builder to work with. I have suggested several very important triggers that should be implimented to ease the burden of building well scripted missions but not even one comment back from someone who works on the team. BS is definately more of an Online game than a single player as the AI is very weak but its potential in the Online role is huge only if we can keep producing interesting missions. I am alreday seeing so much more online PVP flying because people are bored with the same old same old ground unit attack sorties because the average quality of COOP ground attack missions is just plain crap and will probably become even worse as mission builders get fed up with working long hours to build a simple mission that should take 20 minutes to create with the proper selection of triggers in place.

 

ED should hand the Mission builder off to the public for open source development as this is where the longivity of fun online play lies.

 

Anyway Its a good job i like talking to myself.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Cyclic