Roadmap of Mi-24p ?

[Robo76]

If an enemy unit is unmasked by its own fire, it should immediately appear in Ai Petrovich's target menu. From a greater distance, it could be "unknown". If Ai were not at a sufficient distance to identify it, she should be aware of the threat of hundreds of projectiles flying at her from a given location, and register the threat as a general designation according to the danger, e.g. medium-range anti-aircraft systems, short-range anti-aircraft systems. Because when you attack an airfield full of AAA, there are bullet paths in the air, do you avoid them and Petrovich? He pretends to look for fire units, even though they are already shooting at his sight. In such a situation, I always wonder how much vodka Petrovich drank again and that he must have gone blind....  And then next time I'll take the Ka-50, where I can find the target myself.

 

Edited Saturday at 03:27 PM by Robo76

[Raffi75]

3 hours ago, Robo76 said:

So for another debater who apparently doesn't use Ai Petrovich :

1. AI doesn't even see the units already firing around the Mi-24 cockpit. If there are trucks next to the AAA firing, it refuses to target the AAA. I would expect the AAA firing to be at the top of the target list and not at the bottom (it often isn't there).

2. Ai cannot see the JTAC smoke signal. If the unit is near a forest or in a city, it doesn't matter if the colored smoke can be seen for miles. Ai "searches" all the trees in the forest and buildings in the city, she doesn't primarily look around the marked location, so she may find the unit after searching everything in sight.

3. Ai It cannot see and therefore will not target a partially damaged unit. I was killed several times by an M1A2, M2A2 and a Gepard, which had red health, but the AI did not see them even after repeated approaches until they shot me down with a machine gun / cannon.

4. Ai can swap an enemy target with a friendly helicopter. All she has to do is momentarily lose sight of the marked enemy and if another helicopter is nearby , Ai will continue tracking it. Ai won't even tell you that she's already tracking another target.

(If you want to argue that this doesn't happen to you, it's just that you don't use the Mi-24 for combat.)

You didn't understand what I wrote. In real life, and therefore in the game, the copilot has only his eyes at his disposal. So detection depends solely on skill. In contrast, Western pilots have various electronic systems to help them see further and detect more.

What you wrote about I also have in the game. Not often, but it does occur.

[Robo76]

27 minutes ago, Raffi75 said:

You didn't understand what I wrote. In real life, and therefore in the game, the copilot has only his eyes at his disposal. So detection depends solely on skill. In contrast, Western pilots have various electronic systems to help them see further and detect more.

What you wrote about I also have in the game. Not often, but it does occur.

But those AI "eyes" suffer from cataracts. And when I look out of the pilot's window myself, I see enemy units before the AI calculates and realizes. That can't happen when the AI operator looks out of the window the same way as the (player) pilot. That has nothing to do with realism, it's just errors in the AI, which you then pass off as an imperfect pilot-operator who makes mistakes, has "bad equipment" and is having a bad day.

Edited Saturday at 03:56 PM by Robo76

[Raffi75]

18 minutes ago, Robo76 said:

But Ai's "eyes" suffer from cataracts. And when I look out the pilot's window myself, I see enemy units before Ai thinks about it. This has nothing to do with approaching realism, it's just errors in Ai, which you then pass off as an imperfect pilot-operator making mistakes.

I have no problem communicating with Petro. I know his weaknesses and I know how to react. I am not defending him. The AI's bugs and suggestions have been reported, so I am waiting for them to be implemented. Until they are implemented, I have to react to what is happening myself. It is stupid, for example, that when I am flying in pairs and my wingman launches his missile at his target, Petro is able to give a message about the missile. When it comes to ground fire, I have no problem with that. I get information from which side they are firing. What annoys me the most is the lack of reselection of the same target after the first hit.

[Robo76]

2 minutes ago, Raffi75 said:

I have no problem communicating with Petro. I know his weaknesses and I know how to react. I am not defending him. The AI's bugs and suggestions have been reported, so I am waiting for them to be implemented. Until they are implemented, I have to react to what is happening myself. It is stupid, for example, that when I am flying in pairs and my wingman launches his missile at his target, Petro is able to give a message about the missile. When it comes to ground fire, I have no problem with that. I get information from which side they are firing. What annoys me the most is the lack of reselection of the same target after the first hit.

Whatever it is, I don't have the strength and time to prove it to ED for several days, and they won't touch it for several years anyway, with the excuse that it corresponds to realism as they see it. And if I don't like Ai, the most I can get from ED for dissatisfaction with their work instead of a fix is a threat of a ban from the discussion forum.

[Raffi75]

12 minutes ago, Robo76 said:

Whatever it is, I don't have the strength and time to prove it to ED for several days, and they won't touch it for several years anyway, with the excuse that it corresponds to realism as they see it. And if I don't like Ai, the most I can get from ED for dissatisfaction with their work instead of a fix is a threat of a ban from the discussion forum.

Relax, it's just a game.

[Ramius007]

Lack of target distance information is odd, it should be first info that pilot get after target detection, long before identification

[Weta43]

OT, but saying it anyway...

I've been coming here for a long time, & I've never seen anyone banned for pointing out a problem - or perceived problem - with the game.

What I have seen a lot of people banned for being d*cks in the way they go about pointing out those problems.

2 quite different things...

5 hours ago, Robo76 said:

And if I don't like Ai, the most I can get from ED for dissatisfaction with their work instead of a fix is a threat of a ban from the discussion forum.

 

[Weta43]

I agree about the gunfire thing - if Peter's boy can tell there's someone firing, it's not super difficult to work out if the projectiles are aimed at you & if they are, the offending unit should be on the target list

(Actually, skip that - the SIM knows without calculation, because THE SIM is omniscient. The code's just not passing the information along.)

Ordering the threats is probably the hardest part - is an infantry unit that's already firing at you more or less of a threat than the Strella you're still well out of range of - & is that more of a threat than the tank that is currently tracking you & that in 2 seconds you'll be within range of?

[Robo76]

12 hours ago, Weta43 said:

OT, but saying it anyway...

I've been coming here for a long time, & I've never seen anyone banned for pointing out a problem - or perceived problem - with the game.

What I have seen a lot of people banned for being d*cks in the way they go about pointing out those problems.

2 quite different things...

 

It is difficult to maintain a phlegmatic approach in a discussion when people from the ED team or their admins oppose, despite the evidence, arguments and testimonies of more people, that something is different than what they think in ED. When they don't know where to go and it's embarrassing, they admit the error or problem by looking at it - and then usually nothing happens for years (like the unbreakable landing gear on the F-16 reported a year ago, which I reported a year ago and ED initially denied). The cancellation of the stable versions of DCS was made by ED out of beta testers who pay ED and report problems for free in their free time. And as a reward, most " beta testers " encounter an arrogant approach to reporting with the justification that we don't have time for it now, because we are making the next great news here and there (which they then release full of often serious bugs) and they don't care about fixing old problems because they don't make money from it anymore. With every major update, most MP players pray that DCS will work at least as it always has and not paralyze MP. Then comes the standard ED excuse that the fix was very complicated and took longer, but that they have discouraged many players during that time and they still don't get it.  ED is supposedly just people. But so are we DCS players. If someone gets upset by this attitude and expresses themselves more strongly (not in a rude way), they will get demerit points and a warning of a possible discussion ban. The person who constantly excuses ED or defends how they are doing it right doesn't have a problem with such a debater, so you don't have to worry.

 

Edited 16 hours ago by Robo76

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

12 hours ago, Weta43 said:

Ordering the threats is probably the hardest part

Sure but for example door gunners' ROE can be set to "return fire" only, so that tells me the underlying logic is already present and functioning.

[Robo76]

12 hours ago, Weta43 said:

I agree about the gunfire thing - if Peter's boy can tell there's someone firing, it's not super difficult to work out if the projectiles are aimed at you & if they are, the offending unit should be on the target list

(Actually, skip that - the SIM knows without calculation, because THE SIM is omniscient. The code's just not passing the information along.)

Ordering the threats is probably the hardest part - is an infantry unit that's already firing at you more or less of a threat than the Strella you're still well out of range of - & is that more of a threat than the tank that is currently tracking you & that in 2 seconds you'll be within range of?

It is not necessary to rank the targets exactly according to their danger, It is enough if they are at all at the top of the Ai list and the player will be able to choose the one that is the most dangerous for his next planned attack. When attacking an airport, even in the current state of Ai, the order of the targets in the Ai list is not correct. For example, if you destroy a Hawk-TR or Hawk-CMD, the Hawk's launchers and search radar may no longer be at the top of the Ai menu.

 

Edited 15 hours ago by Robo76

[LuseKofte]

22 hours ago, Robo76 said:

If George has a problem, he just needs to turn on the FCR radar, which can find and shoot at targets in the bushes.

yeah, in rotorhead server it is common FCR users kill off friendly units due to lack of situational awareness. I am not at all happy about Petro myself, I find him a bit simplified and easy solution when it come to problemsolving

[Weta43]

11 hours ago, Robo76 said:

It is not necessary to rank the targets exactly according to their danger, It is enough if they are at all at the top of the Ai list and the player will be able to choose the one that is the most dangerous for his next planned attack. When attacking an airport, even in the current state of Ai, the order of the targets in the Ai list is not correct. For example, if you destroy a Hawk-TR or Hawk-CMD, the Hawk's launchers and search radar may no longer be at the top of the Ai menu.

 

You say it's not necessary to order them exactly, but what you're asking for is for them to be ranked correctly +/- a little bit of wiggle room.

You're still asking for them to be ranked well enough for you to not be annoyed by their stupidity (which is what irritating you now...)

Getting the ranking correct (so the most dangerous are "all at the top of the Ai list") is the only trick bit, as the SIM already knows who's tracking who (including engagement parameters) and who's shooting at who & who's going to do the most damage if they hit seems both non-trivial, and not always what you want to happen anyway

For you - how would you rank threats in a way that's useful across a range of scenarios?

Should the AI show the 10 infantry that are already shooting at you at the top followed by the 30 that are tracking you but not yet firing, then the Shilka that you're in range of but that hasn't yet detected you followed by the Igla that you're out of range of but has detected you..

Or the Igla, then the Shilka, then the active infantry then the rest (armed, then unarmed)

If there are 100 units that could theoretically engage you, do you list them all, or trim the list to most threatening first?

If you trim the list, what if your mission is to destroy some howitzers that pose no threat to you, in the middle of a range of targets that do?

How long do you want your head down scrolling through targets to find the howitzers at position 132 (after everything with a gun & a few trucks)?

I agree Petrovich's listing isn't great now, but I don't think it's as easy to get right as simply telling someone to fix it.

That said, I hope they're actively trying to figure it out, not just consigning it to the 'too much effort for the increase in sales" bucket. It's one thing to sell things "as is, where is", it's another to say things will be finished to a particular standard in a reasonable amount of time, then not finish them because 'finishing' is more work than was initially thought.