AI (decision to buy this sim)

[EvilBivol-1]

But what about to provide enough tools to let the community to develop a D.C?

 

For example, output state files after a mission would be great, to know where units are and what's their state (damage, destroyed, healthy...). Some kind of algorythm to let lots of AI items to combat with few fps loss (something like 2D Falcon's bubble world) should be desirable. D.C logic and automatic mission planner could be developed by the community.

I'm very much looking forward to a mission/campaign generator for DCS from the community. I think it's already possible with the tools in Black Shark today, but perhaps a third-party mission/campaign tool will be easier to develop and more robust in the future as ED further expands the exportability of mission data. In any case, some of the possibilities today have already been discussed. For example, here:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?...0&postcount=66

And the thing I notice most often is that AI, in my opinion the key to good gameplay, today lags behind a lot in the total game package (be it in sims, tactical-shooters or most other games). AI was not really better back then, but it fit better into the overall development-level of games and my expectations.

Agreed. IMHO, most other games, including previous flight sims, are designed around a particular vision of the player's experience. This vision determines the feature set for the product. Really, the entire virtual world, including the AI, the scripts, the objects, the audio effects, is designed around the particular gameplay plan for that product.

For ED, I think the general goal is larger than the gameplay experience of any individual product. The goal is the development of their simulation technology, ultimately leading up to an electronic battlefield of realistically modeled combat systems, both AI and player-controlled. As demonstrated in The Parable of Jane's A-10 thread, developing a one-off, all inclusive combat flight sim as an individual product with the realism standards and features we now expect is a practical impossibility. Instead, ED will evolve their technology through a product series - Digital Combat Simulator. Black Shark is only the opening act in the series.

Originally Posted by F4manual

not just to simulate the aircraft but the entire fighter pilot experience.

The problem is that Falcon 4 failed as a product. Honestly, I carry a ton of respect for F4 as an air combat simulation, but no matter how much we look at it as a benchmark for flight sims, it’s the perfect example of what not to do for a flight sim developer. Instead, ED will focus on evolutionary development, moving from one feature to the next, from one level of complexity to the next.

after reading this it now makes much more sense why ED is not interesting in making a dynamic campaign...

In fact, ED have said numerous times that they are open to a dynamic campaign, but only when it makes sense from a development standpoint. We're not there yet.

Edited February 26, 2009 by EvilBivol-1

[uhoh7]

 

Here is an example of some work which might be done on AI

 

A small force of BMPs has encountered and destroyed another small force on a road. Waypoints are set to road. THe BMPs are all intact but yet they stop after the fight and will not proceed on their way. This is kind of a show stopper in this mission since they have triggers to set ahead which keep everything going and activate new groups. I am encountering this issue quite a bit.

 

As a backup, I can destroy them myself and a replacement column will spawn down the road aways, and set off the desired triggers. Not the best solution since of course that is fratracide and you get the scolding at the briefing.

 

I see two solutions 1) ED takes the time to work on the AI so they will get going. 2) or cheaper and a decent interim solution, 2) give us comm triiggers. This would just be an addtional option on the current comm menu with say four triggers. In the mission briefing then I could tell the player, hey, If your BMPs get stuck, call for reinforcements with comm trigger one. Player hits that in flight, and I use normal ME options to activate a group and give him a message.

 

This really should be seriously considered regardlees of AI improvement, since it would be very usefull allowing players to call for help or get things moving in many ways.

[EvilBivol-1]

uhoh7, the issue above is probably a simple "driving logic" problem resulting from terrain slope limitations for vehicles. In the patch, the slope limits for all vehicles have been expanded, which will help minimize these kinds of situations.

[uhoh7]

that's great to hear, EB, TY sir. I've been tweaking my foothold mission for days, and finally tonite I saw all the pieces working in sequence and it was quite a sight! I'm putting version 6 up tonite, give it a try and let me know how you like it--that goes for everyone. It gives quite a panoplay of AI behavior, hehe.

 

And TY for Trigger tip!

Edited February 26, 2009 by uhoh7

[jctrnacty]

Well, I think it´s time to stop whining.

 

As evil bivol said , dcs is now in stage of evolution and I can clearly see the progress in all of their games.

 

Lo:mac - engine

 

Lo:FC - engine + AFM Su -25 T

 

DCS:BS - optimized engine + AFM Ka-50 + 6DOF clickable + improved ME!!!!!

 

I expect:

 

A-10: 64 bit support + A-10 AFM-M + 6dof clickable + new terrain + better Ground AI

 

It´s good to see any kind of improvement , not just another version in better graphics like other genres.(FPS)

 

I don´t know how about you but I´m patient enough to wait for other modules because I can see all the improvements coming in every upcoming product from ED.

Edited February 26, 2009 by jctrnacty

[spyda]

I really think there is way too much BS bashing going on!! its a great game sure has a few rough edges that will be improved down the track its OK to point these facts out but no need to go to the extreme about it all.

 

Show ED some support so they can continue making us these great Sim's i think the guys must be sick of hearing the negativity over and over maybe try telling them what you do like about BS for once.

and the answer to the original post is yes buy the game you will have a ball learning to fly.

[MBot]

I really think there is way too much BS bashing going on!! its a great game sure has a few rough edges that will be improved down the track its OK to point these facts out but no need to go to the extreme about it all.

 

Show ED some support so they can continue making us these great Sim's i think the guys must be sick of hearing the negativity over and over maybe try telling them what you do like about BS for once.

and the answer to the original post is yes buy the game you will have a ball learning to fly.

 

I don't see any BS bashing in that topic. What we did is identifying the weak points of a great sim.

[CE_Mikemonster]

Spyda, nobody's going to the extreme, and we've all bought the product - and hence shown 'support'.

We've already told them what we like about BS earlier in the thread (it is a great sim), and this is pretty much the only criticism (apart from speed trees) that ED have to listen to.

 

I'm glad you're showing so much empathy but possibly that post has not really helped anyone at all..

[spyda]

Spyda, nobody's going to the extreme, and we've all bought the product - and hence shown 'support'.

We've already told them what we like about BS earlier in the thread (it is a great sim), and this is pretty much the only criticism (apart from speed trees) that ED have to listen to.

 

I'm glad you're showing so much empathy but possibly that post has not really helped anyone at all..

your right, my mistake

[MBot]

ORIGINAL POST MOVED BY MODERATOR AS OT.

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

 

Yep, as usual these kind of discussions are very interesting and informative. I think we all agree that we would like the various sim developes to stay in business and continue doing sims. The comparison with the downfall of sims in the late 90s might be a bit problematic, as the structures and goals of the grand parent companies might have had a bigger impact than how good the individual studios did themself.

 

To get the bend back to AI, I think many of us understand why Black Shark currently does not have better AI or a dynamic campaign. Also because of the good insights into the developers point of view that is often provided on that forum. Still I think as user doing a objective review of the product, these shortcommings have to be noted. Similar situation with the fly-through trees, it has been well explained why solid trees were not a option for Black Shark and people accepted that. Yet the fact that Black Shark does not feature solid trees is justified criticism that Black Shark has to endure, simply because that is the way it is. And I mean Black Shark as the product that it is currently.

 

I think there is quite a healthy balance on this forum between the customers point of view and the developers point of view.

Edited February 27, 2009 by EvilBivol-1

[Feuerfalke]

Yep, as usual these kind of discussions are very interesting and informative. I think we all agree that we would like the various sim developes to stay in business and continue doing sims. The comparison with the downfall of sims in the late 90s might be a bit problematic, as the structures and goals of the grand parent companies might have had a bigger impact than how good the individual studios did themself.

 

To get the bend back to AI, I think many of us understand why Black Shark currently does not have better AI or a dynamic campaign. Also because of the good insights into the developers point of view that is often provided on that forum. Still I think as user doing a objective review of the product, these shortcommings have to be noted. Similar situation with the fly-through trees, it has been well explained why solid trees were not a option for Black Shark and people accepted that. Yet the fact that Black Shark does not feature solid trees is justified criticism that Black Shark has to endure, simply because that is the way it is. And I mean Black Shark as the product that it is currently.

 

I think there is quite a healthy balance on this forum between the customers point of view and the developers point of view.

 

 

True.

 

Infact I think it is especially understandable that the community points out these flaws of the game and this is not bashing the product or the producers.

You simply raise the standards in some aspects of the games so utterly skyhigh and beyond, it becomes more obvious, that other factors are less developed, that are also important for gameplay and the overall impression.

[CE_Mikemonster]

Is there a possibility of asking what plans there are for the AI development?

 

I know nothing's set in stone, just wondered what the consensus was in the ED camp about priorities etc.

 

Some great posting here as ever :)

[EtherealN]

it has been well explained why solid trees were not a option for Black Shark and people accepted that.

 

Curious about what that reason was, since I haven't seen it. Not that I mind terribly much anyhow - I always avoid the trees anyay just because. Lots more fun to fly an NOE ingress if you pretend to be scared of the trees even if the simulation doesn't force you to. :P

 

On the wider topic of flight sim developer survivability, it is a bit difficult to make a point by looking at Falcon4 still being successful while noting that there's almost no competition on this market. I mean, we have this dearth of products on the market for a reason, and that is that it is very difficult for a developer to do serious work here and still stay liquid - partly because they have to greatly rely on taking all the risks themselves, just like ED has to through self-publishing.

 

Most independent developers will very much like to have the added financial security that comes from good deals with publishers, it's their insurance should an individual product fail. Which might not at alla be due to bad product, just bad market timing, but it is something that can bring the studio with it if the studio doesn't have the support of a big publisher to share the risk.

 

Big studios don't want to do serious study sims nowadays, too much risk and too little potential reward for them. Thereby it is independents that have to go it alone on them, and we as afficionados have to be understanding of the fact that they will have to do some real careful priority work in their development.

 

I do however remain hopeful that ED's business model with the DCS series will proove to work very well, and we will see a gradual development of all the little rough edges that exist as the series expands.

[159th_Viper]

Lots more fun to fly an NOE ingress if you pretend to be scared of the trees even if the simulation doesn't force you to. :P

 

'Twas just doing that the other day when the Metal-Air Index skyrocketed courtesy of an 'invisible' Warrior's 30mm which tagged me through the trees :music_whistling:

 

Irritating..............

[EtherealN]

Yeah, that is irritating when it happens.

[CE_Mikemonster]

C'mon fellas.. This is about the AI, don't force ED into yet another defensive posture!

Edited February 26, 2009 by CE_Mikemonster
crap way of putting the original lol

[EtherealN]

Hahah, fair enough Mike. :)

 

To be honest though, the best review I can give ED is that the game may have troubles in AI, ground unit damage modelling, terrain modelling and some other small things - but it is still the best game released since Mass Effect, all categories.

 

If only counting flight sims, then I guess it's the best since Falcon 3...

 

Any reader who reads these little gripes while thinking about whether to purchase the game should realize that we gripe about this because the simulator is in such a league of it's own that we can't help wanting to polish it.

 

Oh, and one has to be specific about the damage modelling being for ground. I had an orgasm when a Triple-A battery managed to shoot out my HUD electronics. Everything else still worked as far as I could see (after running like a baby to cover to assess the damage). A quick look outside verified that there was indeed some nice cables hanging outside the chopper. (Yeah, I know I know, I do use F2 occassionally, it's so damn beautiful!)

 

I then returned to have revenge on the battery with my cannon before heading home to the FARP. (The TrackIR really came to it's own there. :D )

 

EDIT: Oh, and by best since, I mean of games I have played. I played Falcon 4 when it was new but never got around to playing the community derivatives and so on. But I do play a disgusting amount of games. >.<

Edited February 26, 2009 by EtherealN

[MBot]

The big question I have regarding AI is, will ED go the bubble route? If the complexity of the AI of individual units will increase greatly, and I think that is needed, I see some serious problems regarding processing power if every unit on the map gets calculated 100% all the time. I am thinking here of a complex sensor model for each unit (multiple crewmembers/sensors, field of views, scanrates, target background etc.). This alone would be a big hit for current mission sizes, now multiply this to the scale of a eventual dynamic campaign. How would this work without a bubble/AI LOD model? It has been said a couple of times by ED that they are proud that they calculate the whole world outside the players scope without simplification. Is this still the official stance and how would that approach influence future developments?

[CE_Mikemonster]

Given that the A-10 at 12,000 ft will need a lot more units to make a mission convincing also..

[amalahama]

The big question I have regarding AI is, will ED go the bubble route? If the complexity of the AI of individual units will increase greatly, and I think that is needed, I see some serious problems regarding processing power if every unit on the map gets calculated 100% all the time. I am thinking here of a complex sensor model for each unit (multiple crewmembers/sensors, field of views, scanrates, target background etc.). This alone would be a big hit for current mission sizes, now multiply this to the scale of a eventual dynamic campaign. How would this work without a bubble/AI LOD model? It has been said a couple of times by ED that they are proud that they calculate the whole world outside the players scope without simplification. Is this still the official stance and how would that approach influence future developments?

 

It's a good point. IMHO, multicore is the path to follow. Spliting AI from main thread, it could be moved easily to other core. Maybe Falcon bubble was the only way to perform a fully dynamic campaign in 1998, but now we are in 2009 and new techonologies have come since then. ED shall work in this kind of things to smooth the way to a D.C, from themselves or from comunity.

 

Regards!!

[Feuerfalke]

Maybe multiple-core-optimization and 64bit support will enhance the possibilities for the AI, but I hope it will be sort of a bubble-system, to be able to place units in the empty areas, that make it a more lifelike scenario, without having to be scripted for appearing or disappearing or having an impact on the workload.

 

Oleg plans a system similar of that to Falcon4 for his StormOfWar, with units further away having a group or much simplified AI, while they are gradually more detailed, the more effect they can have on the player up to the point of including psychological traits like aggressiveness, fatigue and morale.

 

Of course that much detail is not neccessary for every single soldier, but for important features like wingmen, this would be an important step towards immersion.

I know this is not an easy task, but I still think it is important if you concentrate on SP-gaming-experience.

[CE_Mikemonster]

Can you shed any light on the future AI in DCS Tharos?

[EvilBivol-1]

Well, let's be clear, everything I've said here is strictly my opinion and in no way officially sanctioned by ED. Heck, I don't even work for ED. However, my opinion is formed in part by the things I have learned while helping ED and getting to know their products better and some of the developers on a personal level.

 

In regard to AI and the bubble system. AFAIK, ED feels that a bubble system is not an option for them, mainly given the needs of military contracts to track, view, and analyze any unit in the world at any point. I don't know if this might change in the future for the DCS line, but it doesn't appear to be a plan at this point. As Wags mentioned in one of the interviews, ED will be moving to a 64-bit engine, which should help in this regard, but obviously I don't know to what extent. Further down the road, multi-threading may also be developed.

 

I believe ED's goals are similar but their strategy is different, in fact i'm not sure exactly what ED mission statement is regarding DCS.

I think I said earlier, that in general and very long-term, ED's goal has been and continues to be the development of an electronic battlefield with realistically modeled AI and player-controlled units. They just aren't going to sit there for a decade trying to create it all in one product release.

 

To give you an idea about AI specifically, ED would like to develop "live" commandable AI, where the player can issue route and targeting orders to AI through some kind of a commander view in both single and multiplayer.

Evil-bol its unfortunate that ED frowns on F4 so much and looks at it as "how not to do things" when in fact the philosophy and merit behind it is exactly how to do it. Faclon 4.0 more than anything was released too early due to the "corporate" world trying to get something out the door to succeed when in fact the people behind F4 where in it to make a really great sim. I believe ED's goals are similar but their strategy is different, in fact i'm not sure exactly what ED mission statement is regarding DCS.

I think I already addressed this as well before. Basically, my point is that the strategy of F4 was the problem. Specifically, to try and create a "living fighter pilot world" within one product is just too much to do. It's financial suicide and in the long term, it doesn't serve flight simmers any more than it serves the developers, because it stops future flight sims from being developed by running the developers (even through their relationship with a publisher) out of business. Edited February 26, 2009 by EvilBivol-1

[GGTharos]

It'll get better? ;)

 

Seriously, it's a hard question to answer. See EB's post above.

 

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.

 

While ED is constrained by having to prioritize features and development, they do listen and do want to make the experience more enjoyable for you.

 

Having said that, if wishes were fishes, no one would go hungry. Reality likes to interfere and despite ED's wishes and efforts you might not get what you specifically wanted.

 

Just remember this: You have in your hands DCS 1.0. It will be improved. We have the technology. :D Already there's a patch coming. No, don't ask me what's in the patch or when it'll be out. ;)

 

Can you shed any light on the future AI in DCS Tharos?

[CE_Mikemonster]

A simple 'no' would have done mate, lol

 

Cheers Bivol, I don't mean to press you too hard as obviously it's anyones guess atm, but would this mean automated AI that can simulate ground units being given commands?

Edited February 26, 2009 by CE_Mikemonster