DCS Air-to-Air Dogfight AI

[streakeagle]

How is it that when I fly P-51D vs P-51D or P-51D vs Fw190D9, the AI is remarkably challenging despite having the same aircraft or one very close to what I am flying while the same is not true in any way shape or form when I fly jet vs other jets.

 

Whether in a P-51D or an Fw190D9, the AI flies a very efficient vertical energy fight. I can always spit him out in front of me in a horizontal/rolling scissors game, but I have to risk running out of energy and/or starving my engine of oil in vertical low to negative g climbs to get a shot. It takes patience, careful energy management, and/or good gunnery to consistently kill the AI in prop vs prop in 1 vs 1. While the AI almost never gets behind me and only gets a couple of head on passes, if he gets a chance to shoot, he aims almost perfectly. AI vs AI is strange to watch. Targets on the defensive can either maneuver aggressively like they do when I am attacking them, or they can go into a steady state turn, which the attacker turns into a very quick kill with its laser accuracy. So, while the AI is far from perfect, it is for the most part a challenging opponent... at least in 1 vs 1. 1 vs 2 is a different story as the wingman almost does nothing useful until his lead is dead. Of course, that might even be realistic behavior for WW2 tactics.

 

Jets are completely different in their effectiveness. I primarily fly the F-15C in guns only combat vs MiG-23s, MiG-29s, and Su-27s, but also fly the MiG-29 and Su-27 vs F-4s, F-15s, and F-16s. Either way, I get the same results. I easily convert to the enemies tail and rather easily line up for a gunshot. The only challenge for the F-15C is the dispersion of the 20mm gun. I don't get the dispersion at all, the real one is somewhat accurate. How is it that the Su-27 or even the MiG-29 doesn't outperform the F-15C? At a minimum, they should be flying circles around the F-15C and quite possibly stomping it in the vertical as well (though the Su-27 is sensitive to the fuel loadout in both cases). I expect the F-15C to be competitive with missiles if not outright dominant, but I should have to fight as hard, if not harder to beat the Soviet fighters compared to the P-51D vs the Fw190D9.

 

I am going to guess that prop fighters have separate logic for dogfights than jets. As the AI pretty much flies props to their ideal limits. Whereas I don't think that is the case for the MiG-29 and Su-27 AI. Perhaps they are optimized for missile combat and therefore don't have refinements necessary for getting in close?

 

Just wondering.

 

I just wish the prop AI had more tricks in their bag than zooming up and hanging on their props. As challenging as they are to kill, I pretty much stay on their tail 100% of the time waiting for a good shot and/or trying not to starve my engine. Are they exempt from oil starvation? I would say so given the way they climb and flop around without losing their engine. The AI seldom shoots me down, but it frequently ropes me into a climb that causes my engine to die while matching his pitch/roll.

 

As good as the prop AI looks in 1 vs 1, 4 vs 4 can get ugly. It reminds me of dominoes, because once one side loses a plane, that side usually disappears pretty quickly. Conga lines also tend to form. I like the conga lines for gunnery practice. I end up lining up on an enemy AI lining up on one of my wingmen with an enemy AI lining up on me. I have to be really fast and accurate or the enemy gets my wingman, me, or both very quickly.

 

I hope that as DCS begins to have more air-to-air focused modules such as the F-15C, Su-27S, and MiG-21bis, that the dogfight AI is improved. It would be nice if the AI could have selectable behavior reflecting doctrine and training levels for given countries, but also having gamey options to easily vary their difficulty from easy target to flawless ace.

[GGTharos]

Why, are the the migs and flankers made out of magic?

 

The AI is what it is. I don't believe it will change any time soon.

 

I primarily fly the F-15C in guns only combat vs MiG-23s, MiG-29s, and Su-27s, but also fly the MiG-29 and Su-27 vs F-4s, F-15s, and F-16s. Either way, I get the same results. I easily convert to the enemies tail and rather easily line up for a gunshot. The only challenge for the F-15C is the dispersion of the 20mm gun. I don't get the dispersion at all, the real one is somewhat accurate. How is it that the Su-27 or even the MiG-29 doesn't outperform the F-15C? At a minimum, they should be flying circles around the F-15C and quite possibly stomping it in the vertical as well (though the Su-27 is sensitive to the fuel loadout in both cases).

[Kuky]

They are not made out of magic GG, they are very good dogfighters, especially the MiG-29, that's what this aircraft is made for... in sim against AI in any of these aircraft, the AI is not flying these jets to their full potential, so winning fights against them is fairly easy... but on the other hand, fighting AI P-51D is quite a challenge.

[GGTharos]

Like I said, the AI is the AI.

 

But to say that either of these aircraft would 'stomp' the F-15C in the vertical is an interesting statement. In some regimes they might be relatively equal, but in others their climbing ability is inferior.

A strike eagle with CFTs and all the associated pylons, sure, different story.

 

They are not made out of magic GG, they are very good dogfighters, especially the MiG-29, that's what this aircraft is made for... in sim against AI in any of these aircraft, the AI is not flying these jets to their full potential, so winning fights against them is fairly easy... but on the other hand, fighting AI P-51D is quite a challenge.

[streakeagle]

An Su-27 with fuel down to combat weight is far superior to an Eagle in thrust-to-weight. If the F-15C got newer engines, it could be a different story, but they didn't. At peacetime ratings of 23,450 lb x 2 against a 44,500 lb takeoff weight or even a 38,000 lb 1/2 fuel combat weight is far from impressive against its competitors. Throw in turn performance that is lacking due to its lack of any kind of high lift device for dogfighting on its wing leading/trailing edges and a solid 45 degree sweep delta for speed and you get a double inferior aircraft when facing an Su-27 and to a lesser degree the MiG-29 in a WVR guns only fight.

 

An F-15C fighting an Su-27 close in isn't too much different than a P-51D fighting a Spitfire. The P-51 is faster, but the Spitfire is lighter in wingloading and powerloading with corresponding improvements in climb, acceleration, and turn performance.

 

Pilot quality being equal, I would expect the F-15C to lose more often in a 1v1, and a lot more often in a 1v2.

 

In the case of the F-15 and Su-27, I can swap planes and compare... AI always loses, and quickly. So its not flying the jets anywhere near their limits or I would have trouble beating it in at least one of the aircraft.

 

P-51D vs P-51D or P-51D vs Fw190D9, the AI plays really close to the absolute limits in the vertical, which makes up for lackluster performance in horizontal scissors.

 

For comparison, in Battle of Britain 2 Wings of Victory, I can swap between Spitfire and Bf109. The AI is probably the most realistic and when set to the highest skill level the most difficult to beat. I have trouble beating either aircraft because the AI flies each plane to its strengths.

 

Realism goes beyond accurate button pushing system logic. I can get that from MS FSX. It is combat that sets DCS apart from FSX and makes up for its lack of maps and very limited flyable planeset. At some point, the AI needs to step up in flexibility/realism, especially with air-to-air finally becoming a focus in DCS 1944 and with the impending arrival of the MiG-21bis and F-15C AFM.

[eFirehawk]

Quick tip for you, try guns only against the Mirage 2000 :) I do the same. I noticed that AI F-15s, SU-27s and so on were useless, but for some reason while the AI doesn't do a very good job with the main fighters, the Mirage 2000 sometimes is quite difficult to keep up with, at least for me. :) I did that since the FC1 days... and weirdly the M2000 was even harder to beat in guns only in FC1.

[Kuky]

Yes, the Mirage (and the F-5 also) are the best AI in dogfights... well they used to be anyway, I haven't done much against them in FC3... maybe things have changed.

[sobek]

The AI is what it is. I don't believe it will change any time soon.

 

In case of the prop fighters, it has already changed. The AI is remarkably different from jets.

[MudRat02]

I noticed this the other day. A mate I usually play against wasn't available and I was bored, so I did some BFM with a range of jets (I was in the F-15). It was ridiculously easy, so I tried increasingly foolish manoeuvres to put the enemy jet in a position of advantage. It seems to confuse them more than anything. I'll try the Mirage though.

[karambiatos]

did you put them on excellent?

 

also try putting the enemy aircraft on an intercept mission.

 

either way the biggest problem with the AI is the moment they get the slightest amount of damage they turn on their nav lights and RTB.

[MudRat02]

I just tried a few on excellent just then: F/A-18, Mirage 2000, F-16, Su-27. Started with the bandits on my six, no real difference between them as far as I was aware.

 

I never noticed this till recently :S

[falcon_120]

The point here, as the OP says, is that it seems the AI performs different with the props planes than with jets, and it is a very interesting point I think. I have also felt this when dogfighting.

It's not that plane A should be better than plane B, but why in the case of props it's look that the plane is flyed at its full potential while this does not seem to be the case with jets?

 

I don't think we will get an answer from the coders but it is interesting.

[GGTharos]

An Su-27 with fuel down to combat weight is far superior to an Eagle in thrust-to-weight. If the F-15C got newer engines, it could be a different story, but they didn't.

 

The real-life power curves don't agree much with that. There's more to performance than Wikipedia numbers.

 

As for 'new engines', the F-15 has had them since '86. And there's a reason why they haven't been further re-engined.

[=Thrust=]

I noticed since the first lomac in dogfight gunzo against AI, the level is very poor with each new software even me with su 27 100/100 fuel and whichever plane with 50, 40, or 35 percent fuel :( in close combat

Dont know what happen

And then imagine if i try 50 percent fuel, what a pity.

It was better before , please to improve that for training, please ..... :thumbup:

Edited November 18, 2013 by =THRUST=

[FLANKERATOR]

The biggest problem about AI jets in close quarters is the complete lack of energy management. They just keep pulling G's, bleeding speed and falling far below corner speed. The only situation where they appear to hold their own is flat scissors.

Maybe that will change on upcoming modules.

[SUBS17]

I agree the props AI does better energy management because it will often climb to gain more energy and then employ a cut and slash attack. Problem is though that the prop AI does not factor its fuel use or loss in combat, is not really scalable(we do not have a decent easy prop AI for noobs to practice with). Vs jet AI energy management is one issue and making full use of its capabilities, they also fly set patterns which does make it easy to nail them. AI props also have an issue where they can out perform the player as thrust/weight/climbing is much better for the AI P51D than humanly piloted ones.

[lunaticfringe]

An Su-27 with fuel down to combat weight is far superior to an Eagle in thrust-to-weight. If the F-15C got newer engines, it could be a different story, but they didn't. At peacetime ratings of 23,450 lb x 2 against a 44,500 lb takeoff weight or even a 38,000 lb 1/2 fuel combat weight is far from impressive against its competitors.

 

A half-gas F-15C at 38,000lb is a thousand pounds LIGHTER than an *empty* Flanker-B, and already has a 20lb/sqft wing loading advantage against that bone dry Flanker. Put that same 7500lbs of gas in the Su-27, and the numbers get even worse for the Sukhoi, and we're not even talking about hanging a comparable number R-73s and R-27s off it yet.

 

Throw in turn performance that is lacking due to its lack of any kind of high lift device for dogfighting on its wing leading/trailing edges and a solid 45 degree sweep delta for speed and you get a double inferior aircraft when facing an Su-27 and to a lesser degree the MiG-29 in a WVR guns only fight.

 

"High lift device", you say?

 

The laws of physics state that the F-15 is *barely* single inferior in this engagement, meaning that the Flanker is also single inferior in response to the Eagle, as is the Fulcrum, because the substantially lower wing loading *is* the "device". Superior wing loading equals a higher amount of energy per square foot, and a higher level of lift available at all equivalent airspeeds.

 

The Flanker and Fulcrum *only* hold a rate advantage, only hold it at their respective corner velocities, and only hold it as long as they can stay on corner; fall below, and you're losing rate because you're at a lower available G than the Eagle, because he's still above his own CV.

 

An F-15C fighting an Su-27 close in isn't too much different than a P-51D fighting a Spitfire. The P-51 is faster, but the Spitfire is lighter in wingloading and powerloading with corresponding improvements in climb, acceleration, and turn performance.

 

Your analogy is crap based on the terms of your own stated thrust/weight comparison. Wing loading and thrust loading *both* go to the F-15, as does specific excess power.

 

Pilot quality being equal, I would expect the F-15C to lose more often in a 1v1, and a lot more often in a 1v2.

 

Given the nature of your comparisons, you'll excuse me when I don't place much faith in your expectations.

 

And depending on the nature of what the AI knows about relative performance, it's entirely believable that the AI has trouble at the edges of what constitutes prime performance for the Su-27 and MiG-29, given that 9 times out of 10, the F-15's corner velocity will be *lower* than it's Russian counterparts. At that point, it's all down to relative weights to define the apparent separation based on wing loading. And keeping in mind that the Su-27 can't get to a lower loading than a half-fuel F-15C, period, you can see the trouble in finding the margin, and why it can get stuck doing the only logical thing it sees- rating the nose.

[blkspade]

I do believe the only difference in dogfighting the AI in props or jets is the human element. The P-51 is just completely unforgiving to your slightest engine management mistakes, not to mention the less accurate gunnery aids. All the AI do the same things in action or reaction to your maneuvers. Its just infinitely easier to make up for an energy management error in a Jet than the P-51, vs the AI. As I got better in the P-51 vs the FW-190, I noticed the AI would consistently disengage with me on his 6'oclock low. He'd always have just enough advantage to out climb, extend and reengage. Some of this from the AI no longer being omniscient, and the lack of sensors. I've had the AI jets trying the stall fight just like the props, there is just an enormous margin for error.

[Exorcet]

The laws of physics state that the F-15 is *barely* single inferior in this engagement, meaning that the Flanker is also single inferior in response to the Eagle, as is the Fulcrum, because the substantially lower wing loading *is* the "device". Superior wing loading equals a higher amount of energy per square foot, and a higher level of lift available at all equivalent airspeeds.

Wing loading is a pretty simple way of looking at it though. I'm not arguing that the F-15 is pitifully outmatched, but a WL and static TWR advantage doesn't make it a superior dogfighter either. The Flanker has a better wing design for subsonic dogfights and both aircraft make use of lifting body technology.

 

 

 

The real problem with AI jet fighters is that in FC 1.12b AI pilots were much better, very aggressive, and they knew (as much as AI can know) what to do in guns only dogfights.

 

Today I tried FC3 dogfight guns only vs every single AI fighter jet in game: Su-27 was deploying flares, and the fearsome Mirage 2000 succeed to damage my hydraulic while I played around him. That made me angry so I killed him with damaged hyd.

 

How it's possible AI deteriorated so much from FC 1.12b?

 

I never tried FC1 and I don't remember much from FC2 at the moment, but one thing to consider with the AI is that a modern fighter is probably more complex to simulate than pure guns WWII fighter. Missiles are the primary weapon of the modern fighter for one thing so it wouldn't surprise me if missile logic beat gun logic. Obviously there is no such issue for the WWII planes.

 

If the case of the P-51 specifically, it has AFM. The AI has SSFM (supersimple flight model as I sometimes call it, use the fly AI aircraft mod and see for yourself). The AI P-51/Fw-190 ignores stall, recoil, engine management, performance degradation from damage, etc. The SFM that the modern jets have makes the AI and player aircraft closer to each other in terms of performance. Though even if the fighters were AFM they still don't have as much to deal with as the prop planes.

[GGTharos]

WL and TWR is the most simplistic way of looking at it. The eagle can complete it's maneuvering in a shorter amount of time, which is a measure of capability, and is not complete. But generally that means advantage.

 

Wing loading is a pretty simple way of looking at it though. I'm not arguing that the F-15 is pitifully outmatched, but a WL and static TWR advantage doesn't make it a superior dogfighter either. The Flanker has a better wing design for subsonic dogfights and both aircraft make use of lifting body technology.