Could we have non-cheating AI please? AI fidelity needs to catch up with Module fidelity

[Kobymaru]

Does ED consider the AI simulation to be in a good spot?

The modules are becoming more and more realistic and that often results in limited capabilities (flight dynamics, radar detection limits). Which is a good thing because it's realistic, but meanwhile AI aircraft and ground units are enjoying such a simplistic model that ignore a huge number of real life limitations and act like aliens from the 24th century.

- They can see through clouds (Good luck fighting AI warbirds on a cloudy day)

- They can spot you instantly anywhere from any angle (behind them, in front of them, above them, below them) within a certain range. Example: I was below and behind them they instantly saw me. Meanwhile I'm sitting in my metal tube and can see like a quarter of the sky.

- They react immediately: Instant reaction and dodging of incoming missiles.

- They have a perfect radar. Example 1: My AI F-14 wingman saw all and engaged targets at 100nm further out as separate contacts, whereas I had to wait to get to 60 nm and then a 2-ships showed up as one contact. Example 2: My Mig-21 radar has a range of around 20km on a good day and theoretical maximum of 40km. My AI wingman in Mig-21 called out contacts for me at range 100nm = 160km???

They don't have to contend with ground clutter, merging of contacts, have fixed and easy range limits, have scan a huge chunk of the sky instantly.

 - They have a perfect RWR

 - They don't seem be too affected by flight physics, a lot of them flying like UFOs.
Example 1: I was in F14 accelerating to maximum speed, full burner. Told my F-14 wingman to engage the enemy. He just puts in ... full-erer burner (???) and overtakes me??
Another Example2 : Me Mig-21 vs AI Mig-21 dogfight. He still has 3 tanks on, is faster, can accelerate faster, can turn harder and loses less speed on turns. What?

 - Infinite flares: when engaged in a dogfight, all AI aircraft will pop flares continuously and never stop. Good luck hitting something with older IR missiles.

 - Ground units always see you. Perfect situational awareness, they can look into all directions at once and instantly react.

 - Ground units have perfect aim.  Me flying Hind at 200 kmh doing maneuvers at 3 km away, guy in an AK47 lands perfect hits. If that's realistic, I would love to see a video of ED programmers with an AK trying to hit a maneuvering target at that distance lol

BTR's are more dangerous than ZSU-23. They always know where you are, they always know where you will be when their bullet hits. You can not surprise them, you can not evade them. Fly within 3 km of them and you are dead.

I understand that (supposedly) I as a human have an intelligence advantage over AI, but surely, all of this unrealistic behaviour is not supposed to compensate their otherwise dumb decision making process?

Is this game made exclusively for Multiplayer, or why is the AI so simplistic and unrealistic?

Like, this isn't just me whining about the wrong number of rivets on a plane. These issues make the game NOT FUN with certain modules in certain situations. For example, only being able to engage BTR from a distance deletes a huge chunk of the Mi-24 gameplay of going in with rockets. Having perfect radar and visibility kills the gameplay of most older fighters. Being able to see through clouds makes all WW2 missions with clouds pointless.

What's the point of adding more and more modules and single player campaigns that you can't enjoy because AI is both perfect and idiotic at the same time?

 

Edited July 10, 2023 by Kobymaru

[ilikepie]

this. it would be great to see the devs finally sink some time and resources is to this and get some results. the community lost some good Warbird servers due to this and it's a constant/consistent gripe that is ignored. ED has a fantastic software package with DCS and when it's good it's amazing.

AI defo needs attention, sooner than later imo

m2c

[shagrat]

I get the frustration, but there are so many wrong statements here, you try to convey as "facts", I don't know where to start...

- Maybe the AK-47 that can't shoot at you if you are 3km away, neither if you maneuver or hover, as it has a max range of 500m.

- ground units can't spot you immediately, unless you go in guns blazing. They will eventually spot you from any angle, but it takes time! The longest if you approach from the rear. This simulates the crew of a vehicle scanning the surrounding area with a priority to the front. If the group has units facing in every direction, a unit seeing you will use "radios" to inform the other units in its group, this is something mission creators need to be aware of.

A lot is factored into the time to spot an enemy, from distance, weather (humidity/haze), time of day (lighting), flying against the sky or a mountain as background, size and number of aircraft/units in close vicinity to one another (a bunch of aircraft is easier to spot than a single  jet), if another aircraft of your flight has been spotted already, the skill level, sensors available (modern tanks have FLIR, other vehicles at least scopes, a ZSU-23-4 Shilka has radar), your exterior lights setting (christmas tree vs. stealth)... and a modern MBT/IFV had Laser Warning Receivers that will alert it, if you use a laser rangefinder or targeting laser.

- spotting instantly, depends on the airframe. AI Pilots should by now mostly have sophisticated angles defined where they can spot enemy aircraft. It is a while since I did a dogfight against AI in a warbird, but all aircraft have that blind spot low and aft... but they have radio and the wingmen do their job and do the scan pattern, unlike most human players.

- the BTR-80 is not that hard to dodge in a helicopter, the BTR-82A or the godd...n BMPs is another story. Every vehicle with a laser rangefinder seems indeed to have a better fire control computer to calculate lead, than any AAA... and they can hit moving helicopters with ATGM at 4000m using a hand operated joystick as "guidance system" which is ridiculous at such ranges.

- clouds are still work in progress and definitely a problem, if it comes to AI and spotting.

- IIRC there was a comment in one of the newsletters about work on improvement  to the AI flight model, but I guess this is a longer process.

- I never noticed, or heard the AI had unlimited flares. I am aware they do pre-emptive flaring (to prevent Heat Seekers to lock in the first place) and flare if shot at with IR-missiles, but that's what humans should do, as well. If you're dead, you don't need all those saved up countermeasures.

A last advise on flying helicopters against vehicles with DSHK heavy MG and AAA armed with 20-30mm autocannons: never fly longer in a straight line when shot at! Watch the shots fired, as soon as you see the tracers, immediately maneuver in at least 2 dimensions (up/down, left/right, accelerate/slow down). The shots are aimed at where you will be, if you fly the same course and speed... and rockets are an area effects weapon against infantry and vehicles, if you're lucky, even against light armor, like APCs. Use stand off capabilities against armor and anti-air, wherever possible. A frontal rocket run against a couple BTR-82A or BMPs is asking for trouble...

 

 

Edited August 7, 2023 by shagrat

[Mr_sukebe]

Whilst the example of an Ak hitting a target 3km may be a little overzealous, the core point that the OP is making is correct.

Right now, AI and in particular ground AI don’t function like their real life counterparts and are much too effective.  That has massive impact upon combat operations in choppers and warbirds.

For example, I’ve previously reported and provided tracks of big AA eg Flak38s engaging targets within a couple of miles of range and at just above treetop height.

The reality of a Flak battery is that they’d have:

- a spotter potentially with a radar/radioman to identify inbound bomber formations

- the spotter relays details to person calculating speeds, altitudes and where to anticipate the donation will be in 60-90 seconds

- those details are used by one person to set the timer for the range at which the shell will explode (the Luftwaffe didn’t have proximity fuses).  As I understand it, the fuses typically didn’t allow for usage under nearly 3000m

- the calculations are then used for the trajectory and angle to fire the battery at

 

As you can see, bears little resemblance to how a big Flak gun will happily and accurately engage a lone fighter that’s just above treetop height

Edited August 7, 2023 by Mr_sukebe

[SkateZilla]

The new AI Flight model is in the works.

[Temetre]

Visibility and accuracy of ground units is a massive issue. BMP-2s are among the most powerful anti air guns in the game, its insane.

CAS is hardly even a thing in DCS with how accurate any gun that shoots in the air is.

I also got my doubts about the ability of MANPADs to easily spot, track and take out supersonic jets.

Edited August 7, 2023 by Temetre

[Kobymaru]

19 hours ago, shagrat said:

- Maybe the AK-47 that can't shoot at you if you are 3km away, neither if you maneuver or hover, as it has a max range of 500m.

I admit that this was hyperbole. But even AK-47 can hit me in a decent range with really high accuracy.

The main point is, apparently all Ground AI have the magic "aim here to hit" reticle as the vehicles in Combined Arms. If you fly straight for 1 second, they will hit you. And not once or twice, but a continuous stream of bullets, despite maneuvering.

I know it's theoretically possible to hit with an AK or a BTR turrent, but think about this for one second compared to real life: are you going to land a perfect stream of AK shots onto a helicopter? Can you judge the range, calculate the exact lead, bullet drop in your head, and perfectly keep the gun aimed at your calculated position? I would love to see a video of that, but while I doubt the average infantrist can do that, the AI in DCS definitely can.

As I said, it's an extreme case of an issue with all ground vehicles. Aiming an MG on top of a tank, or a BTR/BMP gun is not possible this accurately without targeting computer. AA guns maybe, but even manual AA guns shouldn't be as accurate as they are.

Quote

- ground units can't spot you immediately, unless you go in guns blazing. They will eventually spot you from any angle, but it takes time! The longest if you approach from the rear. This simulates the crew of a vehicle scanning the surrounding area with a priority to the front.

Sounds great in theory, but from practice I can only say that it feels like they just always know where you are.

 

20 hours ago, shagrat said:

- I never noticed, or heard the AI had unlimited flares. I am aware they do pre-emptive flaring (to prevent Heat Seekers to lock in the first place) and flare if shot at with IR-missiles, but that's what humans should do, as well. If you're dead, you don't need all those saved up countermeasures.

In the last few patches I have never seen an AI jet run out of flares. I didn't count because I was busy flying, but they were flaring through the entire fight.

 

20 hours ago, shagrat said:

- spotting instantly, depends on the airframe. AI Pilots should by now mostly have sophisticated angles defined where they can spot enemy aircraft. It is a while since I did a dogfight against AI in a warbird, but all aircraft have that blind spot low and aft... but they have radio and the wingmen do their job and do the scan pattern, unlike most human players.

That's interesting to know. So they just "radio" your exact position instantly to every other unit on the map? Get spotted once, be visible forever? Would be curious about the blindspots, because I thought i got spotted from really weird angles.

 

 

[shagrat]

vor 12 Stunden schrieb Kobymaru:

Sounds great in theory, but from practice I can only say that it feels like they just always know where you are

That's because a lot of mission builders arrange groups in a way that have them face at least partially to the rear, as well.

A unit with a radar in the group is a thing.

And ultimately if you fly close enough to be in range of DSHK, AK-47 and RPG in a helicopter the distance factor is basically negated. If they have LOS and you show against the sky, they immediately spot you.

The real issue is the insane AI lead calculation. That one is a long standing issue where BMPs, APC and IFV calculate lead as well or better than the AAA designed to shoot down aircraft.

 As for the WWII dogfight, I didn't fly warbirds in a long time, but I remember that was discussed in a newsletter quite some while ago. How the cockpit layout and "blind spots" are taken into account, but also how AI wingmen will use scan patterns to monitor there flights respective blind spots... They definitely are not ominiscient.

I am not saying the AI is perfect, it is far from it. The point is, we need to be precise and showcase actual bugs, or realistic improvements, instead of generic "the AI sees everything and it sucks", to change it.

This is my take on the BTR/BMP/IFV issue, as it isn't how ground forces do anti air:

 

 

 

[shagrat]

vor 15 Stunden schrieb SkateZilla:

The new AI Flight model is in the works.

Yepp, since 10+ years. But we need a fix to the ground AI that is not a ZSU-23-4 Shilka, Gepard or 2S6 Tunguska that could be as simple as "if target == air then aimpoint randomize position by x%" to simulate a human trying to inaccurately lead an aircraft and "do not engage if faster than 400 KTS"... While leaving aiming against ground targets the same.

[Mr_sukebe]

2 minutes ago, shagrat said:

Yepp, since 10+ years. But we need a fix to the ground AI that is not a ZSU-23-4 Shilka, Gepard or 2S6 Tunguska that could be as simple as "if target == air then aimpoint randomize position by x%" to simulate a human trying to inaccurately lead an aircraft and "do not engage if faster than 400 KTS"... While leaving aiming against ground targets the same.

Agreed.

linked to that, I’d like to have min/max altitudes that are always respected for AA weapons.

Right now, we can add a min engagement altitude for AA, eg 2000m.  However, it’s ignored when you’re close to the unit in question, making it nearly pointless 

[Flappie]

On 8/8/2023 at 11:05 AM, Mr_sukebe said:

Right now, we can add a min engagement altitude for AA, eg 2000m.  However, it’s ignored when you’re close to the unit in question, making it nearly pointless 

Can you please make a separate bug report for this one, with a short DCS track demonstrating the issue?

[Mr_sukebe]

4 hours ago, Flappie said:

Can you please make a separate bug report for this one, with a short DCS track demonstrating the issue?

 

Better than that, I can provide some feedback.

OK, just been out testing.  Open flat ground, bunch of Flak36s with one of their visual spotting things.

They now respect minimum altitude settings, as set within the mission editor.  I'm sure that they didn't previously.  That minimum altitude for engagement appears to be above ground level, NOT sea level.  It would be good to include that in the ME somewhere.  I checked it out by testing on NTTR.

For example I set a min altitude of 100'.   Flew in with a Mossie and at any sensible altitude I was being shot at.

On the deck, I could cruise right over them at 150knots whilst taking NO evasive action and was not being shot at.

As mentioned, I was sure that I'd checked this out a little while ago.  It was the reason why I'd avoided many of the campaigns, though if they don't have those min altitudes in place, that would be nearly as bad.

 

Either way, my apologies to the dev team.  Either I failed miserably on my previous testing, or something has changed in their logic in the recent past and hasn't made it into the change notes.

Whatever, it's a great result, just remember to GO GET THOSE SETTINGS into your Mission Editor.   Based upon my reading, my suggestion is a min altitude of 8,000-10,000' for the big Flak guns.

Flappie> My thanks for encouraging me to re-test.

 

Edited August 10, 2023 by Mr_sukebe

[Flappie]

And thank you for your detailed feedback.

Back to the main subject: I know the problem of ludicrous precision of AI ground units against air targets very well, for I used to make a lot of MP missions back in the days, and I was often asked not to use BMPs... I need to setup a test mission with different ground vehicles, shooting at AI aircraft flying at different speeds and altitudes, then I'll report my findings here.

I won't be able to do so before September.

Edited August 10, 2023 by Flappie

[shagrat]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Flappie:

And thank you for your detailed feedback.

Back to the main subject: I know the problem of ludicrous precision of AI ground units against air targets very well, for I used to make a lot of MP missions back in the days, and I was often asked not to use BMPs... I need to setup a test mission with different ground vehicles, shooting at AI aircraft flying at different speeds and altitudes, then I'll report my findings here.

I won't be able to do so before September.

 

The real issue is, most ground forces shouldn't even shoot at fast moving, low flying jets. Their engagement time for a jet at 400 KTS and below 500m is measured in a couple seconds. It's not enough time to swivel and aim a gun, find the target, through a sight and in case of the dreaded BMPs lase the target for ranging, while keeping it in the sight with manual controls... In real life that's Impossible, so the infantry man's air defense bible says "spray and pray" or safe precious ammunition.

If(!) a jet is slow enough or a helicopter high enough to spot it early enough, it's still no easy task to hit it (I know, because I did that myself during training). We were all very confident ("how hard can it be" - "Just walk the tracers on target"), but learned quickly how difficult it is to do corrections. The target flew in a straight line, towed by a prop plane and we couldn't really hit it.

There's a reason why military developed dedicated Self-Propelled-Anti-Air-Artillery with radar and sophisticated targeting computers for lead calculations to be embedded with ground forces, instead of just putting larger autocannons on IFVs.

I explained it more detailed in this post:

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/329932-sniper-btr8082s/?do=findComment&comment=5271762

Edited August 10, 2023 by shagrat

[Mr_sukebe]

Sorry, that’s my fault for partly dragging the thread off to one of my own pet peeves.

On a positive note, at least we now appear to have a solution for the big AA units.

With regards to BMPs and similar, I wonder if we could use similar logic to discourage them?  Maybe we can do something with the ME settings.

 

[shagrat]

vor 7 Stunden schrieb Mr_sukebe:

Sorry, that’s my fault for partly dragging the thread off to one of my own pet peeves.

On a positive note, at least we now appear to have a solution for the big AA units.

With regards to BMPs and similar, I wonder if we could use similar logic to discourage them?  Maybe we can do something with the ME settings.

 

Unfortunately the relevant options don't apply for them. "Engagement range" and "Target Aircraft" y/n would be helpful.

Though I would prefer a generic change in the targeting of AI so air targets get handled differently and based on height/speed will be ignored, and if they try shooting air targets, add a calculation error to the lead simulating the difficulty in tracking and judging lead in 2-3 seconds.

Edited August 11, 2023 by shagrat
That option was indeed introduced.

[shagrat]

I stand corrected! It IS now possible to "limit target type" to "ground" (to prevent shooting at airborne stuff) or "air" (to prevent AAA from devastating ground forces).

Definitely something mission designers should consider.

But I would still prefere a general solution on the AI decision making level.

[Mr_sukebe]

Good shout ref the ME options to limit target type.  I’ll take a scan later.

 

As feedback to ED, can I suggest that these changes are mentioned in one of the upcoming weekly updates.  Clearly Shargat and myself were unaware of the new capabilities which have been added at some point and either they weren’t in the Change Log notes are we’ve missed them.

The key point being that we’re probably not alone in being frustrated with this game logic for a long time, and not everyone is going to spot and read this thread.  On top of that, sing the praises of your dev team that we now appear to have a fix.

[Mr_sukebe]

Update:

Just tested the settings. i.e. within Advanced Waypoint/Options/Restrict Targets/  then chose the option of Engage Ground Unit Only.

With that enabled, I was able to fly my Huey right up to a BMP3 and park next to it without being shot at.

Without that setting enabled, I was being sniped by of all things the 30mm cannon.  On checking, the BMP was unable to hit the Huey with their machine gun (sorry, not sure what it is).  However, flew it twice and all of the hits and damage were from the 30mm cannon.  

What would be cool would be if we could apply the setting of Engage Ground Unit only by weapon, e.g. such that we could enable it for the 30mm cannon, but leave the machine gun free to fire.  I'm guessing that would require significantly more effort.

On a positive note, we have a partial workaround that does work.  Excellent.

[Kobymaru]

So the workaround for being too good at hitting things is that they're not allowed to shoot at stuff at all?

 

Edited August 11, 2023 by Kobymaru

[Mr_sukebe]

3 minutes ago, Kobymaru said:

So the workaround for being too good at hitting things is that they're not allowed to shoot at stuff at all?

 

 

what’s more realistic?

From what I’ve read most small arms fire and non radar/computer guided AA has been pretty much ineffective against aircraft unless there’s lots of it.

For myself, my intent is to:

- Set a min altitude for big Flak units, to reflect that they weren’t used against low flying aircraft

- disable AA fire for most armoured units (eg tanks, APCs).  That will prevent T55s sniping me at 2-3km away with their main gun 

- have dedicated smaller AA fully enabled, eg boffors, 20mm units, dedicated smaller calibre units such as Shilkas

Whilst it increases the complexity of mission design and build, I believe that it better reflects what I’ve read over the years.

 

Whether you choose to use it is your concern.