AI climb speed and attitude is unstable

[GumidekCZ]

AI is trying to climb fast to roughly 70% commanded alt, then AI will set for shallow climb. - thats ok (can save some fuel), but never saw any mention by ED develop team about this behaviour.
BUG/PROBLEM IS WHEN:
When AI is passing Waypoint in climb - AI F-16 or FA-18 will make small "S" turn - Hornet AI more agresive turn.

USING AFTERBURNER IS SET TO OFF - AI will use full MIL power to climb, but could be not enought, AI will increase AOA and fall into the sea.

HIGH OR SLOW SPEED IN CLIMB SET
 - HORNET AI is unable to manage and calculate stable climb profile and by using AFB it speed in steeper climb up too much and will use airbrake with simultaneously decreasing climb angle -> AI is too slow -> AI will use AFB ->...this repeats
- at VIPER the problem is simillar but F-16 AI will not deploy Airbrakes so the unstability is mainly in speed and not in climb angle.

There is only some kind of sweet spot in setting of parameters for AI to climb, but no-one exactly knows what is the key to it.
AI need to be able to calculate/decide for shallower MIL power climb without using AFB (fuel eficitent) or using AFB with steeper climb angle and at higher alt switch to just MIL setting. I did tests only with Hornet and Viper, but I highly suspect others AI models are affected by this bug too.

From my Tacview:

AI_CLIMB_PROFILE _BUG_.trk

Edited November 6, 2024 by GumidekCZ
deleting Waypoint mentioning in report title

[GumidekCZ]

Now thats how look like descent profile now. From 30k at start to 12k in the middle of route - AI starts shallow dive and AI is diving steeper and steeper when closing to final descent waypoinnt - There the AI is still some 1500 feet above defined altitude.

AI is able to descend to 12k only by reaching next waypoint after the descent one - here set also to 12k feet.
AI_Descend_test_.miz

Edited October 4, 2024 by GumidekCZ

[NineLine]

On 10/3/2024 at 2:55 PM, GumidekCZ said:

AI is trying to climb fast to roughly 70% commanded alt, then AI will set for shallow climb. - thats ok (can save some fuel), but never saw any mention by ED develop team about this behaviour.
BUG/PROBLEM IS WHEN:
When AI is passing Waypoint in climb - AI F-16 or FA-18 will make small "S" turn - Hornet AI more agresive turn.

USING AFTERBURNER IS SET TO OFF - AI will use full MIL power to climb, but could be not enought, AI will increase AOA and fall into the sea.

HIGH OR SLOW SPEED IN CLIMB SET
 - HORNET AI is unable to manage and calculate stable climb profile and by using AFB it speed in steeper climb up too much and will use airbrake with simultaneously decreasing climb angle -> AI is too slow -> AI will use AFB ->...this repeats
- at VIPER the problem is simillar but F-16 AI will not deploy Airbrakes so the unstability is mainly in speed and not in climb angle.

There is only some kind of sweet spot in setting of parameters for AI to climb, but no-one exactly knows what is the key to it.
AI need to be able to calculate/decide for shallower MIL power climb without using AFB (fuel eficitent) or using AFB with steeper climb angle and at higher alt switch to just MIL setting. I did tests only with Hornet and Viper, but I highly suspect others AI models are affected by this bug too.

From my Tacview:

AI_CLIMB_PROFILE _BUG_.trk 54.72 kB · 0 downloads

 

I am not sure I am seeing the issue here other than you are trying to force the AI to do something and limiting their ability to do that. I can maybe see limiting their speed or afterburner use at cruise speeds but why on climb? Also, I do not see this S maneuver in your track unless you mean when they hit the end of your assigned path which would just mean they have run out of commands and don't know how to proceed. 

When I tried restricting Afterburner I allowed 375ks, and it climbed fairly smoothly and reached altitude just about a minute later than the unit with afterburner allowed. You set the speed of the restricted after-burner unit to 330, and I can see in tacview that it did struggle to maintain speed and climb more. Even losing a little altitude near the end. 

 

[GumidekCZ]

On 10/31/2024 at 11:22 PM, NineLine said:

I am not sure I am seeing the issue here other than you are trying to force the AI to do something and limiting their ability to do that. I can maybe see limiting their speed or afterburner use at cruise speeds but why on climb? Also, I do not see this S maneuver in your track unless you mean when they hit the end of your assigned path which would just mean they have run out of commands and don't know how to proceed. 

When I tried restricting Afterburner I allowed 375ks, and it climbed fairly smoothly and reached altitude just about a minute later than the unit with afterburner allowed. You set the speed of the restricted after-burner unit to 330, and I can see in tacview that it did struggle to maintain speed and climb more. Even losing a little altitude near the end. 

 

Do you know how many of paid missions I had to tune or put there AFB restriction for AI as Lead in climb? MANY! I hate this! But Im glad I can help to campaign developers and bring players smoother flight experience.
IRL pilots always need to plan the flight and choose between quick AFB climb and saving fuel after reaching cruise alt, OR to do shallow climb without using of AFB - more fuel saving when heavy loaded and better to wingmen form-up in climb, not after reaching cruise alt as in first example.
So as most of DCS campaign missions - where AI is a lead, I (and many others) would like to se smooth AI flight with whatever I setup in ME (except the near stall speeds). I cant immagine, how mix of AFB with speedbrake climb can be NOT-BUG in your eyes.
One good thing ED had done - get rid of the side wave glitch when AI crossing WP as mentioned in recent change log. GOOD JOB TEAM!

Edited November 3, 2024 by GumidekCZ

[NineLine]

Make sure you pass your findings along to campaign creators, this most likely needs to be tuned in the Mission Editor and less about the AI. Remember the AI is not 100% the same as player aircraft so they cannot adjust as easily. A reason the GFM is needed).Thanks. 

[GumidekCZ]

33 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Make sure you pass your findings along to campaign creators, this most likely needs to be tuned in the Mission Editor and less about the AI. Remember the AI is not 100% the same as player aircraft so they cannot adjust as easily. A reason the GFM is needed).Thanks. 

At the time we released Gamblers and started to fixing old Raven One, AI behaved reasonable, able to rejoin in turn and climbed without problems. Now its just ...beeeeep....
Other developers knows about it, players reported annyoing stupid behaviour months ago.

Do the developers need to adjust AI lead climb profile in every new/old mission? Really? Thats what you want from them/us? instead of further tuning AI logic and may be adding some options for AI into ME?

Edited November 5, 2024 by GumidekCZ

[GumidekCZ]

The WORNG descent profile reported long time ago (April 27 2024):
https://forum.dcs.world/topic/347820-ai-descent-angle-wrong-calculated/#comment-5422844