Two Questions for ED!

[westr]

Question 1 : when the AI Zero is released at the same time (I assume) as the F6F Hellcat. What sort of flight model is this going to receive? 
Because, by accounts the Zero was highly agile, tight turning but lacked the speed and power of aircraft like the Hellcat and Corsair, so like the accounts the American pilots adapted their tactics to exploit the advantages of their aircraft. But if we have SFM AI aircraft still, and in particular the Zero it’s going to be difficult to get a fully authentic experience when flying air combat in say the Corsair or Hellcat, having to dumb down skill levels for example to make it a fairer fight?

I know ED are working on flight models for AI, will this now be a priority for the upcoming pacific theatre? 
 

Question 2 : Will the Enterprise carrier receive animated deck crew? Something that in my opinion will add huge amounts of immersion to the PTO, and carrier operations. 
 

Really excited about the Pacific, I feel it’s been a long time since it’s been properly represented in a simulation, and loved the scenarios and the feeling of flying alone around the Pacific looking for enemies in Microproses Pacific Air war in the 90s and i’ve been waiting for Eagle Dynamics to do this for a long time. I sincerely hope it’s a success for them and us as sim lovers!  

 

[Silver_Dragon]

Ai Zero will coming into de WW2 assets pack, no with the F6F hellcat. Surely with the release of WW2 Marianas Map.

[Nealius]

Until the GFM is developed I don't think the AI will display any of the Zero's peculiarities. It should be easily escapable in a dive due to the force on the ailerons making it uncontrollable at certain speeds with which the Wildcat and Hellcat could operate fine.

[Yo-Yo]

2 hours ago, westr said:

Question 1 : when the AI Zero is released at the same time (I assume) as the F6F Hellcat. What sort of flight model is this going to receive? 
Because, by accounts the Zero was highly agile, tight turning but lacked the speed and power of aircraft like the Hellcat and Corsair, so like the accounts the American pilots adapted their tactics to exploit the advantages of their aircraft. But if we have SFM AI aircraft still, and in particular the Zero it’s going to be difficult to get a fully authentic experience when flying air combat in say the Corsair or Hellcat, having to dumb down skill levels for example to make it a fairer fight?

I know ED are working on flight models for AI, will this now be a priority for the upcoming pacific theatre? 
 

Question 2 : Will the Enterprise carrier receive animated deck crew? Something that in my opinion will add huge amounts of immersion to the PTO, and carrier operations. 
 

Really excited about the Pacific, I feel it’s been a long time since it’s been properly represented in a simulation, and loved the scenarios and the feeling of flying alone around the Pacific looking for enemies in Microproses Pacific Air war in the 90s and i’ve been waiting for Eagle Dynamics to do this for a long time. I sincerely hope it’s a success for them and us as sim lovers!  

 

AI Zero is going to have the same maneuvering characteristics as the real plane, so Corsair and Hellcat pilots will need to keep that in mind when fighting it. If you want to get a feel for how that plays out before Zero is released, you can try something like FW-190A or Bf 109 vs I-16. I do see an issue with AI F4 and F6 trying to outturn when they really shouldn’t, but we’re actively working on making AI planes use different tactics depending on their opponents.

[Yo-Yo]

1 hour ago, Nealius said:

Until the GFM is developed I don't think the AI will display any of the Zero's peculiarities. It should be easily escapable in a dive due to the force on the ailerons making it uncontrollable at certain speeds with which the Wildcat and Hellcat could operate fine.

GFM will have the same trajectory characteristics as SFM does now. The flight path, energy, and roll performance of SFM planes are already fine-tuned to match real-world data. What GFM brings to the table is more accurate short-period behavior, better stability and controllability, improved contact modeling, ground handling, and more—since it’s built on the same solid-body model.

[twistking]

40 minutes ago, Yo-Yo said:

GFM will have the same trajectory characteristics as SFM does now. The flight path, energy, and roll performance of SFM planes are already fine-tuned to match real-world data [...]

But this is currently true for WWII only, correct? Modern aircraft seem to be worse in that regard compared to warbirds.

[[HOUNDS] CptTrips]

1 hour ago, Yo-Yo said:

GFM will have the same trajectory characteristics as SFM does now. The flight path, energy, and roll performance of SFM planes are already fine-tuned to match real-world data. 

 

Would you say the current AI 109-K4 is fined tuned and matching real world Data?

 

 

[westr]

2 hours ago, Yo-Yo said:

GFM will have the same trajectory characteristics as SFM does now. The flight path, energy, and roll performance of SFM planes are already fine-tuned to match real-world data. What GFM brings to the table is more accurate short-period behavior, better stability and controllability, improved contact modeling, ground handling, and more—since it’s built on the same solid-body model.

Is there a timescale for the GFM? 

[Yo-Yo]

2 hours ago, [HOUNDS] CptTrips said:

 

Would you say the current AI 109-K4 is fined tuned and matching real world Data?

 

 

What is wrong in your opinion? I tested AI 109 and it matches real numbers.

[Yo-Yo]

2 hours ago, westr said:

Is there a timescale for the GFM? 

As it is ready...  We have seen that everything works, and now we have a big task ahead—to correctly replace the model for all bots.

[[HOUNDS] CptTrips]

Well, I don't have the expertise or the data to challenge it.  Just my gut reaction.    I don't do jets, but I've heard similar complaints about the AI mig-15.  I generally hang extra weight off it to tone it down to a level that feel more right to me.  I just assumed there were known issues with the current AI FM that would be improved with the on-going work.

So there is likely not going to be any change to the energy retention etc in moving from SFM to GFM for AI?  I could largely expect it have the same abilities it has now?

Just trying to manage my expectations. 

 

[Yo-Yo]

34 minutes ago, [HOUNDS] CptTrips said:

Well, I don't have the expertise or the data to challenge it.  Just my gut reaction.    I don't do jets, but I've heard similar complaints about the AI mig-15.  I generally hang extra weight off it to tone it down to a level that feel more right to me.  I just assumed there were known issues with the current AI FM that would be improved with the on-going work.

So there is likely not going to be any change to the energy retention etc in moving from SFM to GFM for AI?  I could largely expect it have the same abilities it has now?

Just trying to manage my expectations. 

 

MIG-15 AI FM was made using very detailed TO materials, so all matters - energy, performance envelopes, etc is very close to real. Human MiG-15 also used the same data. And it was tested some times ago, just in case. to check the complaints.  I can say that "known issues" never was proven with accurate tests. The complaints about energy retention come from poor energy management by players—such as using excessive G to gain angle more quickly.

[peachmonkey]

7 minutes ago, Yo-Yo said:

 I can say that "known issues" never was proven with accurate tests. The complaints about energy retention come from poor energy management by players—such as using excessive G to gain angle more quickly.

this may be a speculation, but one of the complaints I've seen about bf109 is that the non-mw50 AI 109 performs just like the one equipped with the mw50 option. If there was never a track depicting this behavior then it's just a rumor, I guess.

[Yo-Yo]

31 minutes ago, peachmonkey said:

this may be a speculation, but one of the complaints I've seen about bf109 is that the non-mw50 AI 109 performs just like the one equipped with the mw50 option. If there was never a track depicting this behavior then it's just a rumor, I guess.

I just tested bf109 with MW-50 in the tank and it did not show something weird. As far as I know, current bots authorized to use MW-50 and 1.8 ata if MW-50 is choosen in ME.
So, I will try the same test for w/o MW-50.

P.S. I tried, and where is significant difference with and without MW-50. But this test was conducted in our current version. I do not want to say that it is not so for open beta  , will check later.

[[HOUNDS] CptTrips]

1 hour ago, Yo-Yo said:

MIG-15 AI FM was made using very detailed TO materials, so all matters - energy, performance envelopes, etc is very close to real. Human MiG-15 also used the same data. And it was tested some times ago, just in case. to check the complaints.  I can say that "known issues" never was proven with accurate tests. The complaints about energy retention come from poor energy management by players—such as using excessive G to gain angle more quickly.

A related question, based on AI level, does it effect things like making the AI manage E more poorly like try to pull too much G for a shot and waste more energy than an ace?

My other gut feel was that it was equally amazing capability at rookie as ace, but again I have no measurements.  I had to add weight, changing skill level didn't seem to tone down it's capabilities in E management.  That may have been an illusion.

Cheers.

 

[twistking]

2 hours ago, Yo-Yo said:

MIG-15 AI FM was made using very detailed TO materials, so all matters - energy, performance envelopes, etc is very close to real. Human MiG-15 also used the same data. And it was tested some times ago, just in case. to check the complaints.  I can say that "known issues" never was proven with accurate tests. The complaints about energy retention come from poor energy management by players—such as using excessive G to gain angle more quickly.

I found the Mig-21 to be the most overpowered when flown by AI (but haven't tested in a while, so would not know if it changed recently). It's a third-party aircraft though. Does ED do AI setup and tweaking for all third-party aircraft as well or is it the responsibility of the module developer?

[Yo-Yo]

1 hour ago, twistking said:

I found the Mig-21 to be the most overpowered when flown by AI (but haven't tested in a while, so would not know if it changed recently). It's a third-party aircraft though. Does ED do AI setup and tweaking for all third-party aircraft as well or is it the responsibility of the module developer?

It is quite uncertain  who is in charge in this case, but my opinion is that AI must be as close to real thing (especially if all necessary information is available) to be a fair counterpart for other planes.

[Nealius]

I've had AI P-47s laden with 1000lbs of bombs and a drop tank, not jettison them, and maneuver like a Spitfire, so I'm pressing X to doubt the claim that the AI SFM is tuned to realistic energy states. It's also well documented that AI Mustangs, Jugs, and Spitfires maintain unrealistic energy in climbs making it impossible for the player to maintain formation in Reflected's campaigns.

Edited February 9 by Nealius

[twistking]

10 hours ago, Nealius said:

I've had AI P-47s laden with 1000lbs of bombs and a drop tank, not jettison them, and maneuver like a Spitfire, so I'm pressing X to doubt the claim that the AI SFM is tuned to realistic energy states. It's also well documented that AI Mustangs, Jugs, and Spitfires maintain unrealistic energy in climbs making it impossible for the player to maintain formation in Reflected's campaigns.

If the SFM doesn't prevent realistic performance, but it's just an issue of tuning and tweaking like @Yo-Yo says, maybe it's best to just make dedicated bug posts for each problematic plane?
In the past i never considered doing a bug report about questionable AI aircraft performance, because i was (wrongly) assuming, that we would have to wait for the GFM to see any improvements...

[Yo-Yo]

14 hours ago, Nealius said:

I've had AI P-47s laden with 1000lbs of bombs and a drop tank, not jettison them, and maneuver like a Spitfire, so I'm pressing X to doubt the claim that the AI SFM is tuned to realistic energy states. It's also well documented that AI Mustangs, Jugs, and Spitfires maintain unrealistic energy in climbs making it impossible for the player to maintain formation in Reflected's campaigns.

Please show the track(s), so we could measure this "unrealistic" climb. "It's also well documented" sounds like "everybody knows this well-known fact" that widely used to push a fake

By the way, yesterday I climbed straight with AI Spit programming to fastest climb in ME for a test, and we got the same altitude at 5000 m at the same speed and place plus-minus my stick imperefection in G.
So, you have only to try Mustangs and Jugs yourself.

[Yo-Yo]

4 hours ago, twistking said:

If the SFM doesn't prevent realistic performance, but it's just an issue of tuning and tweaking like @Yo-Yo says, maybe it's best to just make dedicated bug posts for each problematic plane?
In the past i never considered doing a bug report about questionable AI aircraft performance, because i was (wrongly) assuming, that we would have to wait for the GFM to see any improvements...

The question is, how it will be considered "problematic", because the statements like "I feel the plane X has too much energy" or "everybody knows that AI plane YY is unrealistic in turns" will not be acceptable. Just now I tested AI Jug with fuel by default, 1000 lb of bombs and external tank (that all was jettisoned as AI started to fight  ), and the fight was over in 2 minutes by shooting from dead 6. I could not see a "Spitfire" before me.

 

[twistking]

44 minutes ago, Yo-Yo said:

The question is, how it will be considered "problematic", because the statements like "I feel the plane X has too much energy" or "everybody knows that AI plane YY is unrealistic in turns" will not be acceptable. Just now I tested AI Jug with fuel by default, 1000 lb of bombs and external tank (that all was jettisoned as AI started to fight  ), and the fight was over in 2 minutes by shooting from dead 6. I could not see a "Spitfire" before me.

For aircraft that have playable versions, i would suggest letting two AI fight against each other (guns only) and the player tries to simply follow the friendly aircraft through the engagement. Maybe give the player aircraft 10% less fuel to account for less than optimal player control inputs.
If player can't follow the friendly, he can proceed to post a track in the bug forum and you, or whoever is responsible can take a look at it.

Additional note: I think you should also consider a gameplay/difficulty feature, where the Mission Editor can give (reasonable) "handicaps" to AI aircraft (something like 5, 10, 15% less max thrust and 5, 10, 15% more empty weight). This could maybe improve quality of bug reports, because it may take some frustration away from beginner players.
I'm by no means a beginner, but still often struggle against AI that is evenly matched. I'm absolutely willing to accept that this is user error, but i would also be more relaxed about alleged (assumed, rumored...) performance discrepancies if i could just give AI that little handicap to make it a little bit easier for me.
Would also be a good training option overall and could even make sense narratively and immersively when the mission uses aircraft as stand-ins for older variants (less thrust) or newer ones (more weight), or wants to simulate aircraft that are just badly maintained...
The old trick of adding bombs to fighters to weigh them down works, but is not ideal for many obvious reasons...

Edited February 9 by twistking

[PawlaczGMD]

18 hours ago, Yo-Yo said:

It is quite uncertain  who is in charge in this case, but my opinion is that AI must be as close to real thing (especially if all necessary information is available) to be a fair counterpart for other planes.

I find that some people often complain unjustly about AI flight models, but the Mig-21 really has a lot of excess performance. It is nothing like fighting against a player.

[Yo-Yo]

8 minutes ago, twistking said:

For aircraft that have playable versions, i would suggest letting two AI fight against each other (guns only) and the player tries to simply follow the friendly aircraft through the engagement. Maybe give the player aircraft 10% less fuel to account for less than optimal player control inputs.
If player can't follow the friendly, he can proceed to post a track in the bug forum and you, or whoever is responsible can take a look at it.

Additional note: I think you should also consider a gameplay/difficulty feature, where the Mission Editor can give (reasonable) "handicaps" to AI aircraft (something like 5, 10, 15% less max thrust and 5, 10, 15% more empty weight). This could maybe improve quality of bug reports, because it may take some frustration away from beginner players.
I'm by no means a beginner, but still often struggle against AI that is evenly matched. I'm absolutely willing to accept that this is user error, but i would also be more relaxed about alleged (assumed, rumored...) performance discrepancies if i could just give AI that little handicap to make it a little bit easier for me.
Would also be a good training option overall and could even make sense narratively and immersively when the mission uses aircraft as stand-ins for older variants (less thrust) or newer ones (more weight), or wants to simulate aircraft that are just badly maintained...
The old trick of adding bombs to fighters to weigh them down works, but is not ideal for many obvious reasons...

This handicaps one can make himself just changing the fuel quantity  Last few months I participated in AI improvements  and if I have the AI of the same type and with the same fuel weight, I ended in stall-mate turns more than in 90% of fights. 

[Yo-Yo]

Just now, PawlaczGMD said:

I find that some people often complain unjustly about AI flight models, but the Mig-21 really has a lot of excess performance. It is nothing like fighting against a player.

In this case I would not argue..