PDA

View Full Version : Id like the AI gunners to be toned down



mynameisroland
07-05-2007, 08:11 AM
I just died online from attacking a Ju88. I dove on the Ju88 at 480mph IAS and as my convergence is extra long I dewinged him at around 500/400 m. I gently leveled off and began to zoom towards my lines when my engine gets knocked out, I go on fire and blow up all within 5 seconds of the dewinging.

The Ju88's suicidal AI gunners hit me while their plane was spiraling towards the ground without its port wing! No hits occured before I tore its wing off.

Is it just me or has IL2 reached its peak for AI absurdness in the latest patch.

Divine-Wind
07-05-2007, 08:35 AM
This is like the 5th thread this month about that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Crimea_River
07-05-2007, 08:44 AM
It's been that way for a long time and can't say it's worse with latest patches.

Any time you're within 1000m of AI bomber gunners, don't stay in one spot for more than a short burst or be going a good clip across their line of fire otherwise they'll get you. AI can hold onto guns with burning hands while pulling 10G's. Underpaid for sure.

Blood_Splat
07-05-2007, 09:02 AM
Carlos Hathcock join the air force. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

horseback
07-05-2007, 09:38 AM
The AI gunners have been at the high farce level forever; you simply ran into an 'Ace' this time.

What you described could easily have happened exactly the same way at any point in the life of the current game engine (certainly it has to me several times in my offline campaign/careers over the years), and I am convinced that the ludicrous range and accuracy of the AI gunners is intrinsic to the game's most basic coding.

If it were not, there is no moral excuse for the AI gunners' behavior to have remained essentially unchanged over the last five plus years.

Hopefully, this will be changed to a more realistic behavior in SoW. If not, there will be little reason for me, as a dedicated fighter pilot wannabe, to cough up forty or fifty of my hard-earned bucks for the game, or another three or four hundred for a more capable video card to play it.

cheers

horseback

Monguse
07-05-2007, 09:51 AM
"I just died online from attacking a Ju88."


The A20c/Ju88/B25J/Pe2/He111 (and maybe others) have the ability to allow the pilot to use level stabilizer and man their own guns. Not all AI gunners are snipers, there could be a human controlling those gun.

Be very wary when attacking bombers.

I_KG100_Prien
07-05-2007, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by Monguse:
"I just died online from attacking a Ju88."


The A20c/Ju88/B25J/Pe2/He111 (and maybe others) have the ability to allow the pilot to use level stabilizer and man their own guns. Not all AI gunners are snipers, there could be a human controlling those gun.

Be very wary when attacking bombers.

Right, but you failed to notice that he got hit after he shot the wing of the JU-88 off. I man my own guns when I'm flying bombers.. I'm pretty good at it, but there is no way in hell I could hit a plane whilst mine was spinning out of control.

The AI, however can.

carguy_
07-05-2007, 10:04 AM
PFFFT try to attack a Pe2.Those things are rock solid and guners even if they have a narrow FOV they still hit you doing a 600km/ dive attack.

Once I was ridin me IARa model and got bbehind one of them.Started blazing away from 150m at dead six.I got him at convergence point so almost all hits were landed on the rear gunner area.I thought I killed him so I got closer to 70m and then THE FRIGGIN GUNNER GIVES ME A PK!

foxyboy1964
07-05-2007, 10:49 AM
I cant comment about Online, Offline only here. I always modify the conf.ini with Maxbomberskill=0, which is supposed to tone down the AI gunners (I think). I'm not sure how effective it is http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

I would imagine that attacking a formation of bombers IRL would have been quite a terrifying experience. The whole point of the formation, as you know, is so that the various aircraft can provide covering fire for each other. Thats an awful lot of guns pointing in your general direction.

When I'm attacking a formation I always go at it from one "end" of the formation. Such that the aircraft I'm attacking "shields" me from the rest of the formation.

The type of aircraft you are flying is also a big factor. When I first started playing the game I always used Bf 109's, and the bombers knocked the sh1t out of me. Since I switched to FW 190's (about 2 yrs ago) I think I've been PK'd once. Sure, I've picked up some engine damage, but I always make it back to my own lines.

Of course this is all Offline, so it doesn't explain what happened to Roland, but I think we should expect to get some hits when we attack large formations. It would be interesting to know what sort of losses the Luftwaffe had against bombers. Any ideas?

buddye1
07-05-2007, 10:52 AM
What I can not understand is why this issue is not addressed.

Is it because the time line is so long in 1946?

Say if you were talking about the 3-4 months of the BOB (a specific time frame), then we know the bomber gunners were not very accurate based on the specific number of RAF A/C shot down in the BOB by bombers.

Are their other valid reasons that this issue is not addressed?

Hawgdog
07-05-2007, 10:56 AM
As I only fly AI online, I'm hoping for a more deadly and ominous AI gunner...like those dudes who used to man the Pe-8!!
Man, a literal 40mm firehose!!

mynameisroland
07-05-2007, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Monguse:
"I just died online from attacking a Ju88."


The A20c/Ju88/B25J/Pe2/He111 (and maybe others) have the ability to allow the pilot to use level stabilizer and man their own guns. Not all AI gunners are snipers, there could be a human controlling those gun.

Be very wary when attacking bombers.

Monguse no human gunner can shoot from a limited traverse machine gun mount and hit an aircraft that is travelling over 400mph when his plane was spinning wildy out of control.

Infact I think the Ju88 was inverted at the time the AI gunner killed my engine.

DKoor
07-05-2007, 12:16 PM
Id like the AI gunners to be toned down Me too.

I just got owned online (engine smoke) by a Boston rear gunner from 200m... after I shot his port wing off http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

But they are right down hilarious from the first days of the IL-2.

Snipers? Yes, sure thing they can hit from great distances, but the thing is.... no sniper in this world is capable of some precise aiming when his ac is in spiral dive.

msalama
07-05-2007, 12:41 PM
Hmmm... any other AC around? Flak?

Not saying that this c**p cannot happen though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

CarpeNoctem43
07-05-2007, 12:49 PM
I'm on the fence about this one. I think this issue may be well served by addressing the other 'AI' issues.

1. Seeing through clouds
2. Shooting through their own plane
3. Not affected by environmental forces
4. Accurate shooting while in serious maneuvers (wasn't there a cease fire rule when in maneuvers?)

The underlying cause of the AI anomalies (not just gunners) are probably so ingrained in the engine that at this point not going to be addressed (or can't be).

The other side of the coin is, these bombers (or any of them) present such an easy target - they really need trick shooting gunners to stand a chance.

IMHO, when you are attacking a group of four bombers - the size of the maps and capabilities of the game dictate this represent a force of 40 bombers.

Best regards,

Raven

Xiolablu3
07-05-2007, 01:43 PM
The problem witht he turrets is that they have absolutely no spread or recoil.

You hit exactly where you are firing every time even in a continuous burst.

This is unrealitic, the turret guns where very inaccurate and more for scaring the enemy than actually hitting him.

Mixed with the fact that planes like the Spitfire and Bf109 are taken out almost every time by one mg hit to the engine (yes it was possible, but certainly nowhere near every time), its far more dangerous attacking bombers than it really was IMO.

Zoom2136
07-05-2007, 02:37 PM
I want a cone of fire dammit... hello bullet dispersion... 0,5 inch mouvement (between the mounting point of the machine gun and the tip of the barrel... assume to be 0.5 meters) translante into 50 inches (about 4 feet) at 100m... 100 inches (about 8 feet) 200m... that only a half an inch mouvement... based on the movement of the gun... we are not even taking into account the mouvement of the plane....

We should have some kind of dispersion or cone of fire... but the hard part is --- how much ??? I think that Oleg should have a look at some FPS (like Ghost Recon) where heavy machine gun have more and more disperion as you keep firing...

horseback
07-05-2007, 03:00 PM
As I said many times before, I believe that the defensive gunners' accuracy has its root in the original game code-when Oleg first envisaged this sim, it was as a single aircraft (Il-2) sim, where the Player was limited to one of two roles: either pilot or gunner in a given model of Sturmovik.

Obviously, the game became something else eventually, but the coding for how effective the player or ai defensive gunnery works appears to have been written very early on, and has never changed.

A realistic/historically accurate model of the gunner's task would've made that part of the game pretty much impossible to succeed at, condemning the player to being endlessly being shot down by 109s and 190s.

Besides being not exactly the ideal way to get and hold paying customers, given the near iconic status of the Il-2 in the Great Patriotic War, it might well have been considered an act of treason in immediate post Cold War Russia to realistically depict the way it actually was.

However, the current setup, which stands the fighter vs. bomber contest on its head is a freaking disaster in the current fighter-centric combat flight sim, especially for the offline player. I can't believe that Oleg and his team are so dense as to be unable to see that, so I must assume at this point that the error is unfixable.

I have high hopes for the upcoming Storm of War series, but if it works the defensive gunnery routines in the same old way, the RAF fighter role becomes unplayable.

cheers

horseback

mortoma
07-05-2007, 03:26 PM
I disagree, no matter much I'll be hated for disagreeing. I have always stood my ground in these forums over the years.

I think the AI get lucky sometimes but they are also quite sucky just as often. Overall, I am much better than they are at gunning. Even when they are 'ace'. Gunning as a defensive gunner in this game or several other similar games is really not all that hard. Maybe before groaning about the supposed hyper accuracy of the AI, people should try it for a while to see just how truly easy it is.

Of course I played B-17 Flying Fortress II for a long in about 1998 or so. I got good because it's mostly what I did while in the bomber. I also would quit gunning most of the time when we were at the target run so I could bomb the refinery or whatever. I was also quite good at that after a while.

But in any case, I get in turrets all the time in this game and find it easy to actually outdo the AI at gunning. One time I was online in a coop and hopped into the gunner positon of a SBD on a Pacific map. Once me and the human pilot got to the hot zone, I shot down four Zekes in about 15 seconds, maybe 25. I did not get credit for the fourth though due to us getting shot down by AAA and crashing before that last Zeke went in. Offline in a Dgen mission it's not uncommon for me to score two or three kills if I get the opportunity. I doubt whether any AI gunners on any given AI controlled aircraft get that many kills. Maybe collectively several of them can do so.

mortoma
07-05-2007, 03:38 PM
There is one aircraft which I hate to see as a gunner!! The big, bad Wulfe!! No matter how good you are an A model FW will usually shred your bomber before you can do the same to him. The firepower they have is just too much better than you have with your puny MGs.

stalkervision
07-05-2007, 04:00 PM
I found that if you go into in a 90% vertical dive from a three thousand feet above a bomber you have a fair chance to survive without taking hits and take it right out..

SeaFireLIV
07-05-2007, 04:08 PM
To be honest, I feel bomber gunners are fairly good in general when shooting at aircraft on their 6, they should be. You should never park yourself on the six, or near, of any bomber (unless it has no gunner). Any fighter should fear this.

The problem, especially in mynameisroland`s case is that there appears to be no programming to take into account violent aircraft shake of the bomber, or ` fear of death` of the gunner. Therefore a bomber can swing about and the AI gunner is still just as accurate as ever. The plane could be in a spinning dive, but until he bails he`ll just keep shooting accurately. Although this shooting while going down does not happen tyoo much thankfully.

Now I hear BOBwov will feature FEAR in AI gunners, so hopefully, as soon as something goes wrong the bomber gunner should be way off target or just stop shooting.

Be thankful. In CFS3, gunners keep shooting while the plane is going down in flames and NO ONE`s actually manning the gun! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

faustnik
07-05-2007, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
The problem, especially in mynameisroland`s case is that there appears to be no programming to take into account violent aircraft shake of the bomber, or ` fear of death` of the gunner. Therefore a bomber can swing about and the AI gunner is still just as accurate as ever. The plane could be in a spinning dive, but until he bails he`ll just keep shooting accurately.

All that sounds true to me. The other huge factor in firing a hand held gun was recoil.

stalkervision
07-05-2007, 04:47 PM
flew a few quick missions me in a 109 and eight b-17's . no problem whatsoever dealing with them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Of course in "regular missions" for some very strange reason all the sniper gunners come out of the woodwork.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Scorpion.233
07-05-2007, 07:40 PM
I just know that when I'm flying 700 meter behind him, and 200 meter lower, that no gunner should be able to hit me with a lengthy burst.

I just get nightmares from those red .50 tracers. I can see them flying at me given a perfect lead by the gunner, and every single one taking out an important system.

A lone bomber was easy prey in IRC right? I think lone bombers in the game are often more deadly then when they're packed together.

ake109
07-05-2007, 09:00 PM
Them AI gunners also seem to be equipped with some Ultra High Tech Night Vision + Light Protection Boba Fett Helmet. Their aim is still true even if firing straight into the midday sun or in pitch darkness of the night.

I'd really like the game to factor in the 'attacking with the sun behind you' advantage to give some more tactical depth. Especially since the game graphics are now advanced enough to replicate the sun's glare fairly. Remember those old 80s/90s flight sims where the sun was just a clearly defined orange circle?

Crash_Moses
07-05-2007, 09:26 PM
Heck...I remember when the sun was just a square...

ake109
07-05-2007, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by Crash_Moses:
Heck...I remember when the sun was just a square...

Eh? A Square? A single pixel?

What game was that? IL2 1946 (literally 1946?)

Sillius_Sodus
07-06-2007, 12:01 AM
Lukcy hit, Golden BB.

Attacking from dead six is risky. My initial approach to a formation of bombers is at an angle. The AI gunners aren't great at computing lead. Also, the best gunners usually start shooting early so I try to avoid those. As soon as you see the tracers coming towards you, start jinking! Otherwise a frontal or high diving pass is pretty safe.

Good hunting,
Sillius_Sodus

mynameisroland
07-06-2007, 03:49 AM
Can I just emphasise to those who didnt read the whole of my post - I was hit after I had destroyed the Ju88's wing and the Ju88 had entered an uncontrollable rolling dive.

Until I had dewinged the plane there was no discernable AI tracer.

I often shoot down bombers without taking hits, especially head on.

However recently I am getting hit by golden BBs left right and centre. Last week I attacked a B17 online, 90 degree deflection coming in from his starboard wing. My gunsight was giving him plenty of lead, so that my aiming point was well forward of the actual aircraft. When I opened fire I saw strikes hitting his fuselage at extreme range, then my gunsight and engine are knocked out, I saw no tracer fire before this point.

The only turret which possibley could have got a bearing on me was the mid upper, and then it would have had to have been an incredible shot.

I maintain that gunners whould not be able to hit aircraft that attack using high speed and extreme angles.

In neither of these two cases am I appraching from level dead six with an overtaking speed of 10 mph. Were talking about attacking with very high speed and from an intercept angle which presents a minimum target to the gunners.

GIAP.Shura
07-06-2007, 04:37 AM
I wish I could find one of these sniper AI to man the backseat of my IL2. I can't even remember the last time one of them shot down one of those FW bastages who delight in blowing me to smithereens. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Roblex
07-06-2007, 03:27 PM
I do remember reading an RAF pilots bio where he describes shooting down a Ju88 or He111 then deciding to stay and watch it spiral into the sea. He got shot down by a gunner who decided to spend his last few seconds shooting rather than try to bail from a spinning plane.

In real life fighter pilots were a lot more cautious about attacking a bomber than online pilots are. They did not expect to get a kill on every pass because they attacked at high speed from awkward angles while jinking so were lucky to get a short burst on target before jinking away again. Alternatively they shot at extreme range then turned away quickly and just hoped to get a lucky hit. I have seen a lot of real guncam footage showing fighters breaking off before really getting in effective range or just making high speed snapshots but very little footage showing the sort of attacks beloved of Hollywood and online gamers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The only one that springs to mind involved a solo B17 with a dead/bailed gunners and even at point blank range he did not seem to be doing mortal damage though a lot of debris was flying off.

If I am flying a bomber and man the guns myself I reckon I have at least a 50/50 chance of getting the fighter before he gets me because 90% of them are too lazy to attack intelligently. A fighter attacking from any angle behind the beam using forward firing guns is by definition converging on a central point and making the gunners life easier. Even if he jinks he is still tending towards that same point.

Grand_Armee
07-06-2007, 03:46 PM
I can understand his point...hell, once the plane is going down, there ain't no point in shooting for any bomber gunner...unless he wasn't issued a parachute.

The thing that gets me is that the dorsal gunner on planes like the Li-2 can actually fire down/aft. Hell, the girth of the plane alone should stop that.

AS for getting my arse whacked by the Pe-2 by taking rounds from his six...I've learned how to BnZ properly.

BnZ has changed my life....

Roblex
07-06-2007, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by Grand_Armee:
I can understand his point...hell, once the plane is going down, there ain't no point in shooting for any bomber gunner...unless he wasn't issued a parachute.

The sad reality is that for many gunners, especially tail gunners, they were doomed as soon as the bomber started to spiral in. The chances of getting out of the seat & turret, fighting their way forward against G forces, finding the chute they probably were not wearing in the turret , then getting out safely were pretty minimal. If you are going to die anyway why not try to take the blighter with you?

luftluuver
07-06-2007, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by Roblex:
The sad reality is that for many gunners, especially tail gunners, they were doomed as soon as the bomber started to spiral in. The chances of getting out of the seat & turret, fighting their way forward against G forces, finding the chute they probably were not wearing in the turret, then getting out safely were pretty minimal. If you are going to die anyway why not try to take the blighter with you? Actually it was very easy to get out of the tail turret, but as you say they had to get their chute first.

Know a tail gunner who flew in Wimpies for CC. He said they would rotate the turret and open the doors to get a better view.

mortoma
07-06-2007, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by GIAP.Shura:
I wish I could find one of these sniper AI to man the backseat of my IL2. I can't even remember the last time one of them shot down one of those FW bastages who delight in blowing me to smithereens. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif True!! I have noticed this years ago. How the AI gunners are far more effective against you than they are for you when you're on their side. Especially in the same aircraft. This is one reason I have gotten pretty good at gunning. I got tired of piloting Bombers/Fighter Bombers only to get shredded by enemy fighters. My answer is to simply put the plane on autopilot and then jump into the best turret or gun port while I being attacked, because I feel I can do better than the AI in my own aircraft. And I am right, I can do much better every time. I still get shot down at times though. But by being the gunner I can increase my odds of survival considerably. Then after the fight is over I generally jump back into the pilot's seat.

mortoma
07-10-2007, 06:10 AM
In the new sticky thread, "I remember: interviews with VVS pilots" there is a statement by Mladshii Leutenant Zvyagin and he indicates the bomber defensive gunners were good.

Here's the quote: "Bombers have poor maneuverability. It's quite easy to shoot it down. Although their gunners were shooting, and we lost a lot of pilots to their fire... "

Notice he said they lost a <span class="ev_code_RED">lot</span> of pilots to their fire!!!

Bsnakeman
07-10-2007, 06:40 AM
Bomber gunners are the AI top aces in this sim !!!

Best,

Feathered_IV
07-10-2007, 07:28 AM
So uh, why not set the AI to rookie then? Or is that too hard? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

rnzoli
07-10-2007, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The Ju88's suicidal AI gunners hit me while their plane was spiraling towards the ground without its port wing! No hits occured before I tore its wing off.

Is it just me or has IL2 reached its peak for AI absurdness in the latest patch.

Well, this story reminds me of a nighgtfighter Me-110 pilot account, who had one of it's engine shot out and put on fire by a gunner from a Lancester (?), totally unexpectedly, after the Lanc was hit heavily and started its final dive towards the ground.

If this happened rarely in IL-2, I would say this was realistic. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

horseback
07-10-2007, 09:57 AM
Well, this story reminds me of a nighgtfighter Me-110 pilot account, who had one of it's engine shot out and put on fire by a gunner from a Lancester (?), totally unexpectedly, after the Lanc was hit heavily and started its final dive towards the ground. 1. How does the pilot know what really hit him? It was dark, his victim was an unstated distance away, it may or may not have been set afire, and I have to wonder if the fire came from another, undetected nearby aircraft's guns after the nightfighter revealed its position...

2. Was this presumed Lanc spiraling & missing a wing, or was the pilot trying to hold it relatively steady, so that his crew could bail out?

3. A Lancaster's tail gun was a four gun turret; how does this compare in terms of hitting power or accuracy to the rear facing flexible gun position(s) of a Ju 88A?

4. Attacking a formation of bombers was always a bit hazardous, but the ratio of bombers downed by fighters vs fighters shot down by bombers in real life favors the fighters by a <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">HUGE</span> margin. The odds for a fighter attacking from any angle improved enormously when they attacked any multiseater wandering around by itself, regardless of its defensive armament.

Meditate upon these things.

cheers

horseback

BSS_Sniper
07-10-2007, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by Blood_Splat:
Carlos Hathcock join the air force. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

It's more like Adelbert Waldron II joined, since he has the highest number of kills in Vietnam, more than Carlos and actually the highest in US History. BTW, he was US Army. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

alert_1
07-10-2007, 01:16 PM
Last night I fly on server with turbulence set on and while was very hard to get gun solution in bad weather, AI rear gunner on Pe2 hadnot the problem at all - ping- a I was dead at 800m LOL!

horseback
07-10-2007, 04:44 PM
Turbulence has NO EFFECT on AI pilots. Note that when your aircraft is on autopilot, or when you're occupying the gunner's seat, that the aircraft you are in does not wobble and bounce in turbulence, or even get that little 'bounce' when you cross a river.

I believe that when an aircraft has an all ai 'crew' that they act as a single unit: the gunner has all the SA of the AI pilot, even to the point of knowing EXACTLY what he is doing or where he's about to go, in addition to the usual precise knowlege of any attacking aircraft's range and energy state.

A human piloted aircraft tends to throw off the aim of his ai gunner, because his piloting is not as precise and predictable as the ai pilot's flying, even when the aircraft he's flying is missing a wing and spinning towards the earth.

cheers

horseback

horseback
07-10-2007, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
So uh, why not set the AI to rookie then? Or is that too hard? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Even Rookie ai gunners will smack you at ridiculous angles and ranges with a regularity impossible for the gunners they supposedly simulate; attacking from a five to seven o'clock angle will get you smacked from as far away as 700m, more if you approach from a high level rather than beneath. As you approach to within 300m, you're increasingly likely to be toast, until at 250m or so, it becomes inevitable.

Attacking a Rookie bomber from a near level seven to eight o'clock will get bullets in your engine or cockpit at well over 400m, practically impossible for a human being in the real aircraft to do on purpose.

I spent several hours in QMB finding this out right after the last patch, flying 109s against Il-2s, P-40s vs Stukas, FW 190s vs A-20s and P-51s vs FW 200s. The results were consistant.

cheers

horseback

rnzoli
07-11-2007, 04:38 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well, this story reminds me of a nighgtfighter Me-110 pilot account, who had one of it's engine shot out and put on fire by a gunner from a Lancester (?), totally unexpectedly, after the Lanc was hit heavily and started its final dive towards the ground. 1. How does the pilot know what really hit him? It was dark, his victim was an unstated distance away, it may or may not have been set afire, and I have to wonder if the fire came from another, undetected nearby aircraft's guns after the nightfighter revealed its position...

2. Was this presumed Lanc spiraling & missing a wing, or was the pilot trying to hold it relatively steady, so that his crew could bail out?

3. A Lancaster's tail gun was a four gun turret; how does this compare in terms of hitting power or accuracy to the rear facing flexible gun position(s) of a Ju 88A?

4. Attacking a formation of bombers was always a bit hazardous, but the ratio of bombers downed by fighters vs fighters shot down by bombers in real life favors the fighters by a <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">HUGE</span> margin. The odds for a fighter attacking from any angle improved enormously when they attacked any multiseater wandering around by itself, regardless of its defensive armament.

Meditate upon these things.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Horseback, I found the original text for you:



We are right in the middle of the returning bomber formation and look for our next victim. Again, Schani sees a blip on his screen, so we start the chase for the third time, however, we are having trouble closing the distance. I give my "ES" full power. There are some Polar lights in the north that enable me to see the bomber quite early: another Halifax, recognizable by its bluish exhaust glow (the Lancaster's exhaust glow looks orange). This time, I close in from astern and then give a burst from my two, forward-firing Mk 108 30mm cannon. Its right wing immediately bursts into flames, and I notice the code "EQ-P." The Halifax inclines to the left and slowly goes down.

Suddenly, something unexpected happens: diving away, the brave British rear gunner gives me a burst from his four Brownings, and my plane is hit in the right engine, which immediately catches fire. To watch the bomber go down, I had to lower my left wing, and that saved my life. The bullets pass over my head and into my right engine. While the burning Halifax goes down [at 01:36 hours], I try to extinguish the fire. Unlike the British, we have no fire extinguishers. The only means of putting out the fire is a steep dive with a strong relative wind that we hope will extinguish the flames. Thank God, it works!

Source: Night hunt: A BF 110 pilot bags three bombers in one mission (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200106/ai_n8956884/pg_3) I have heard about this artice on these very forums.

And now onto your questions/comments:

#1. Answered by the article above. The pilot was deliberately tracking the bomber's demise and he saw the tracers that hit nearly him as well. Your question makes me wonder however, if the pilot had been killed with this burst, we would have never known that the gunners can be surprisingly brave sometimes even in real life, right? There you go with something to mediate about yourself.

#2. Answered by the article above. Right wing on fire, definitely going down. Not spiraling, not losing wing, but the point is that the gunnner shot back instead of rushing to bail out from the doomed bomber before the plane would enter an incontrollable dive or explode mid-air.

#3. The original post was not about the hitting power, but the suicidal AI gunner, shooting back from a doomed aircraft simulated in IL-2. The parallel is drawn between the gunner behaviours, not their hitting power.

#4. Define HUGE and then posts sources, charts, statistics that prove it. Compare with your QMB results when all bombers are Rookie or Average.

We have been through these dicussions, I don't think the AI gunners are 100% realistic, but human manned gunners can be better. So whenever I see yet another thread for http://web.t-online.hu/rnzoli/porktheAI.gif , I would like to point out:

Using unrealistic solutions to make the combat AI more realistic - this will NOT work.

To make combat against AI more realistic, the AI coding needs to be improved with modelling currently unmodelled effects or G-forces, turbulence, fear, loss of SA etc. This will make the AI more realistic, and there will be no need to "pork" it.

Now, the question of additional CPU cycles and the additional cost in HW for playing this game at reasonable smooth display, is another, but very much related matter...

Bsnakeman
07-11-2007, 06:51 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
So uh, why not set the AI to rookie then? Or is that too hard? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Mister, it´s not too hard to set to Rookie or Ace but it doesn´t change much or it does for you ?!

horseback
07-11-2007, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
Horseback, I found the original text for you:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
We are right in the middle of the returning bomber formation and look for our next victim. Again, Schani sees a blip on his screen, so we start the chase for the third time, however, we are having trouble closing the distance. I give my "ES" full power. There are some Polar lights in the north that enable me to see the bomber quite early: another Halifax, recognizable by its bluish exhaust glow (the Lancaster's exhaust glow looks orange). This time, I close in from astern and then give a burst from my two, forward-firing Mk 108 30mm cannon. Its right wing immediately bursts into flames, and I notice the code "EQ-P." The Halifax inclines to the left and slowly goes down.

Suddenly, something unexpected happens: diving away, the brave British rear gunner gives me a burst from his four Brownings, and my plane is hit in the right engine, which immediately catches fire. To watch the bomber go down, I had to lower my left wing, and that saved my life. The bullets pass over my head and into my right engine. While the burning Halifax goes down [at 01:36 hours], I try to extinguish the fire. Unlike the British, we have no fire extinguishers. The only means of putting out the fire is a steep dive with a strong relative wind that we hope will extinguish the flames. Thank God, it works!

Source: Night hunt: A BF 110 pilot bags three bombers in one mission (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200106/ai_n8956884/pg_3) I have heard about this artice on these very forums.

And now onto your questions/comments:

#1. Answered by the article above. The pilot was deliberately tracking the bomber's demise and he saw the tracers that hit nearly him as well. Your question makes me wonder however, if the pilot had been killed with this burst, we would have never known that the gunners can be surprisingly brave sometimes even in real life, right? There you go with something to mediate about yourself.

#2. Answered by the article above. Right wing on fire, definitely going down. Not spiraling, not losing wing, but the point is that the gunnner shot back instead of rushing to bail out from the doomed bomber before the plane would enter an incontrollable dive or explode mid-air.

#3. The original post was not about the hitting power, but the suicidal AI gunner, shooting back from a doomed aircraft simulated in IL-2. The parallel is drawn between the gunner behaviours, not their hitting power.

#4. Define HUGE and then posts sources, charts, statistics that prove it. Compare with your QMB results when all bombers are Rookie or Average.

We have been through these dicussions, I don't think the AI gunners are 100% realistic, but human manned gunners can be better. So whenever I see yet another thread for http://web.t-online.hu/rnzoli/porktheAI.gif , I would like to point out:

Using unrealistic solutions to make the combat AI more realistic - this will NOT work.

To make combat against AI more realistic, the AI coding needs to be improved with modelling currently unmodelled effects or G-forces, turbulence, fear, loss of SA etc. This will make the AI more realistic, and there will be no need to "pork" it.

Now, the question of additional CPU cycles and the additional cost in HW for playing this game at reasonable smooth display, is another, but very much related matter... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>1. You assume that the pilot saw the tracers of the rounds that hit him, when the text you cited says nothing about tracers. The guns on RAF turrets all had flash suppressors, to limit the flash of the muzzle blast. I can't remember any night bomber crew memoirs mentioning their own use of tracers, which would simply be like a huge "Here I Am!" sign for a nightfighter seeking them out.

2. Nice to know, but also a valid point when the original poster's plaint was that he was smoked from an aircraft in a flaming death spiral. I've made scale models of Halifaxes; the rear gunner wouldn't know if the wing was on fire unless he saw the light reflected on one of the twin tail/rudders over his shoulder. Let's imagine that the pilot hadn't given the abandon ship order, and that the gunner thought the bomber pilot was taking evasive action, and was simply trying to do his job, rather than deciding to fight to the (literally) flaming end.

3. Again, I believe that the damage done to the original poster's a/c was part and parcel of the unreality of the ai gunner modelling. It's not so much that they never miss, it's that when they hit, they always hit the same places: engine and cockpit.

4. Let's use the Schweinfurt raids of October 1943 for a yardstick: the 8th Bomber Command flew over three hundred B-17s, which were the most defensively advanced bombers of that time, crewed by very well trained gunners firing heavy machine guns (more & heavier guns than the vast majority of bombers of that war), and flying in very close and disciplined formations designed for maximum mutual support into the teeth of the German air forces.

They lost around one third of their number, scrapped over one fifth of the returning bombers, and claimed to have shot down over 100 German fighters.

German losses on that day were less than 20 aircraft on all fronts. Of the LW fighters and zerstorers lost in the vicinity of the bombers, all could be accounted for by the claims of the 56th FG, which arrived earlier than the Germans expected.

Assuming that German records were remotely accurate, we can assume that while maybe one or two fighters were shot down by the bombers, out of the literally thousands of bursts of machine gun bullets fired that day by those gunners, only five or six actually found their targets with any meaningful effect.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">So HUGE losses could be conservatively defined as, say, 50:1.</span> The real-life problems of aiming and firing a machine gun at another airplane and hitting it from any angle other than a dead level six or twelve o'clock were orders of magnitude greater than those for the pilot equipped with a calibrated reflector sight and fixed cannon or multiple heavy machine guns aligned along his axis of flight.

The game models the defensive gunnery problem much more simply than it does the classic fighter gunnery problem (for the Player). If you flew your coop missions with human gunners AND pilots crewing your virtual bombers, your scores against attacking fighters would be far less, but since the Player gunner or AI gunner in an all ai plane gets the benefit of a perfectly stable firing platform rather than the wobbling, bouncing, cold and windy platform the real men serving the guns in the real bombers and attack craft, the bomber vs fighter contest is consistantly stood on its head.

The current generation of AI gunners are excessive in the range at which they consistantly make hits, the high angles at which they hit you, and the places where they hit you. There is no meaningful difference between Rookie and Ace gunners when the attacking fighter has a realistic convergence setting of between 200 and 400m, and on top of that, they (and their guns) are the next best thing to invulnerable.

Personally, I also object to their being able to shoot accurately while doing loops, sideslips, negative-G or high G maneuvers, or while being hammered by heavy fire (when my fighter flips & flops about shamelessly at a few 7mm BB hits). I understand that you believe that sort of thing is reasonable, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I don't expect the current game to be fixed in this regard, so mostly, I'm just evangelizing for the next Maddox 1C product to be an improvement.

Since many of the issues I object to are usually Yes/No questions and the new game will enjoy a much more advanced and hopefully efficient engine, I'm expecting an ai gunner model that is both more realistic and accurate in terms of game vs real life historical results.

I don't demand perfection, but that doesn't mean that I think that we shouldn't keep striving to come as close as possible.

cheers

horseback

AnaK774
07-11-2007, 05:38 PM
Use of flash suppressors is to prevent muzzle flash blinding user, not to hide it from target/surroundings

K_Freddie
07-11-2007, 06:04 PM
Your approach was quiet simply WRONG.
A 400-500m shot is nearly impossible in realistic mode, maybe the game equals the AI chances.
It takes one shot to knock out an engine, and I've had many a gunner blast at me while they were on the way down, and usually 1 in 5 bullets are tracers.

You're vague on the a/c you're flying. If you're pulling G's a hit on your wings will tear it off more easily than a '6' shot - seen it happen many a time. Stress factors are modelled here.

I've done a gazillion B17's with minimal damage - tactics old boy..tactics http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

horseback
07-11-2007, 08:41 PM
Anak-

all I can point out is that the flash suppressor suppresses the flash; in order to limit the flash for the directly behind the gun, it also limits (okay, maybe not completely, but far better than nothing) the amount of flash visible from most viewpoints excepting the direction the gun is aimed. Were this not the case, it would be pointless to have put flash suppressor on wing mounted guns of USN night fighters like the F6F-5N.

Freddy, I have no idea what you're talking about. You might try reading the whole thread.

cheers

horseback

rnzoli
07-12-2007, 03:39 AM
1. You assume that the pilot saw the tracers of the rounds that hit him, when the text you cited says nothing about tracers.
Let's say there were no tracers. The pilot however said that he was homed in on this bomber by his radar operator, and there is no mention of any other aircraft in firing range either (I also assume that this is because the bomber stream is not so tight at night to avoid collisions). So why do you assume that someone else shot out his engine? You can pick reasons forever why the pilot was wrong in assessing the situation, but you need to provide a credible alternative explanation as well, to sound convincing.

German losses on that day were less than 20 aircraft on all fronts
I assume those don't include damaged aircraft, which can be repaired later. So an engine failure, a damaged cockpit etc. don't count.

I've made scale models of Halifaxes; the rear gunner wouldn't know if the wing was on fire unless he saw the light reflected on one of the twin tail/rudders over his shoulder.
IIRC the same article mentions that the pilot usually tried to move away from his burning victims, because the flames illuminated his aircraft, too, not just the bomber's own tail/rudder surfaces. Actually, this may have been the reason why the gunner shot back: the flames suddently illuminated the attacker, which was totally undetected before the attack. Point is: the gunner must have known that they were hit and on fire, and the attacker considered it to be a brave act to fire back in that situation. It is quite funny how you try to downplay his bravery, while the pilot, who was his enemy speaks highly of it.

It's not so much that they never miss, it's that when they hit, they always hit the same places: engine and cockpit.
I disagee, during my practice against Betties, I often heard small caliber hits on me, without any sign of damage. But that happened usually when not flying towards the bomber. When flying towards the gunner, or course your biggest cross section is the engine and cocpit.

So HUGE losses could be conservatively defined as, say, 50:1.
OK. In this case, can we say that I start shooting down B-17s in formations in QMB. When I am out of ammo or get some damage, I disengage and start a new mission. If the realistic target is 50:1, how many B-17s should I be able to destroy without losing an aircraft (due to PK, bailing or exploding). 50 would be the historically huge margin, so maybe 30 would be good enough for a PC flight sim?
I am trying to devise a test where charts can be drawn http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


If you flew your coop missions with human gunners AND pilots crewing your virtual bombers, your scores against attacking fighters would be far less, but since the Player gunner or AI gunner in an all ai plane gets the benefit of a perfectly stable firing platform rather than the wobbling, bouncing, cold and windy platform
I am far from sure about this. Bombers don't wobble and bounce that much, especially not when using the level stabilizer on bomb runs, or maintain formation with other AI aricraft. I think human gunners are able to pull better lead on the attackers in case the human pilot is not trying to fly the bomber like a fighter. (Human gunners do better than AI gunners on AI piloted bombers.) Of course, when plunging to earth, the platform is indeed wobbly, but that doesn't preclude emptying the ammo belt on the nearest fighter and hoping for a lucky shot.

There is no meaningful difference between Rookie and Ace gunners when the attacking fighter has a realistic convergence setting of between 200 and 400m
Having flown literally hundreds of co-op missions online, where bomber formation attack is the norm of the day, I can surely see a big difference between AI Ace and Rookie bomber gunners. Offline I practice against Ace or veteran, online most of the bombers are set to Rookie. The rookie gunners open fire later and they are not so accurate at all as the Ace gunners. IMO setting the gunner level to Rookie does eventually permit the application of historical tactics, but of course, still no hanging on their six etc. With my average piloting skills, I can down one or two bombers in each mission and even if slighly damaged from rear gunners, I can reach a field and land. Unfortunately, I suspect that the AI gunner level is Average or Veteran on DF servers online. Another problem I saw is that people often push their attacks against bombers when they are damaged, instead of breaking off. Considering that reduced speed and manouverability will greatly increase the fighter's exposure to gunner fire, usually this is really bad idea. I know the original post was about healty aircraft, but I also suspect that a lot of other people also come in support of AI porking requests.

Personally, I also object to their being able to shoot accurately while doing loops, sideslips, negative-G or high G maneuvers, or while being hammered by heavy fire (when my fighter flips & flops about shamelessly at a few 7mm BB hits). I understand that you believe that sort of thing is reasonable, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
LOL, I understand that you are so personally attached this subject, that you didn't understand my main point at all. So here is once more: "I don't think the AI gunners are 100% realistic [...] To make combat against AI more realistic, the AI coding needs to be improved with modelling currently unmodelled effects or G-forces, turbulence, fear, loss of SA etc. " So where is our disagreement then? Shooting from a doomed bomber was not the regular situation, but it did happen sometimes (as an exception), so if it does happen occasionally in IL-2, that's certainly NOT a peak of AI absurness with the latest patch. If it happened always in IL-2 - well, then it would be surely absurd.

horseback
07-12-2007, 06:34 AM
As regards the nachtjager pilot account, I am merely suggesting that there are reasonable explanations for alternate interpretations of what he reported.

Like most modern non technical types, you assume FAR too much capability and consistancy from the WWII era radars mounted on the aircraft; most of these had ranges of less than 3km, and little if any capacity for tracking targets outside a very narrow cone directly in front of the aircraft. It would be quite easy to miss an aircraft two or three hundred meters off to one side from his intended target, and it happened quite often. Bomber Command suffered more than its share of mid-air collisions, even with a 'widely dispersed' bomber stream.

Have you ever taken a flight on a WWII era aircraft like a DC-3? I've spent several hours in the air in B-25s, C-47s, and even a few precious minutes on the Pima Air Museum's B-17G Sentimental Journey, right after it arrived at Davis Monthan AFB in 1969 or '70. They bounce. They jiggle. They wobble. They make the unwary and inexperienced passenger blow chunks just like he would on a medium sized ship at sea for the first time.

They all do a constant dance of varying intensity in proportion to how busy the air currents are in their vicinity, and the pilot is usually playing a game of 'catch-up' because he lacks all those marvelous modern gadgets that instantly respond to his inputs or those of the auto-pilot's. How far behind he is depends on his skill and how quickly they are changing, but he is almost always behind the curve.

It is nothing like a modern airliner or General Aviation aircraft, with hydraulically or electrically boosted controls, and even less like flight by the AI or automatic pilot in the game. That is why a human OR ai gunner in the game is so much more effective. You might as well be sitting at your kitchen table and 'shooting' at your targets with a laser pointer.

It is far less challenging than 'flying' and aiming the guns of a fighter in this sim.

Hitting an aircraft with flexible gun while riding in another aircraft was one of the most difficult tasks in military history. Doing it as consistantly as the current game permits you to would take an astounding level of skill and luck, given the attrition rates of bombers when opposed by fighters in World War II.

That's all I'm saying.

cheers

horseback

luftluuver
07-12-2007, 06:57 AM
I know a WAG** that when in training got a 5% (iirc) hit rate on the drogue target. The instructer was very happy with the score (noted in his log book) as most gunners got much less than that. This was in a Bolingbroke with a powered turret.

So what would be the hits with the adrenilin running, a manuevering enemy and own a/c and turbulance compared to the docile air firing when in training?

** wireless air gunner > radio operater/gunner

If RL gunners of the 8th AF were as good as the gunners in Il-2, there would have be no need for P-51, P-47 and P-38 escorts.

rnzoli
07-12-2007, 09:38 AM
It is far less challenging than 'flying' and aiming the guns of a fighter in this sim.
So why is more challenging to fly and aim the guns of fighters, when we are equally unaffected by the turbulence (fighters don't bounce and wiggle as they should either), and we are equally unaffected by fear like the AI (we don't die either, just press a few more buttons to fly again).

My point is that if the root of all evil is lack of turbulence and the resulting spread in bullet stream, I figure that it should improve also the fighter's aiming capabilities?

Or can we expect realistic, turbulence-affected gunners in BoB, BUT, isntead of praise from fighter pilots, we can expect tons of cursing and shouting againt, due to their aim will be affected by the turbulence as well?

I am just wondering. I mean, if you set up low level turbulence with bad weather in IL-2, it is hard to hit anything, even stationary ballons. I can imagine the outcry, when fighter pilots realize that they lost more with turbulence modelling (aiming becomes more difficult), than they gained (AI gunners are less effective also). Then we will be back to square one again...

Dtools4fools
07-12-2007, 10:02 AM
If RL gunners of the 8th AF were as good as the gunners in Il-2, there would have be no need for P-51, P-47 and P-38 escorts.


Love it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

5%!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Now considering that a drogue target is much slower than a fighter and manouvers very little, then how much would the the percentage of a good gunner on a real target. Well below 5% me thinks. Plus not-so-good gunners hit rate of next to zero...

Friend of mine did good ole' Flak shooting in an exercise in southern Switzerland. He remembered that the entire valley was criss-crossed with tracers zipping towards drogue target. Everybody impressed by the spectacular fireworks display. And zilch hits in target...

*****

BBB_Hyperion
07-12-2007, 10:18 AM
Monguse no human gunner can shoot from a limited traverse machine gun mount and hit an aircraft that is travelling over 400mph when his plane was spinning wildy out of control.

Infact I think the Ju88 was inverted at the time the AI gunner killed my engine.

Don't be so sure about that when you aim in the center of the spiral and the other plane flys through it there is a good chance that when it passes it hits. There are three reasons for it the spiral center is stable and the plane spiraling down is normally slowed down and the bullet speed adds to your speed depending on angle of course.

More a problem is that the plane is still firing while all ai crew bailed out or that they can aim at high g load at all but that is a problem since years even on fighters. What i don't like on ai gunners is that they are never surprised.

horseback
07-12-2007, 10:23 AM
I am just wondering. I mean, if you set up low level turbulence with bad weather in IL-2, it is hard to hit anything, even stationary ballons. I can imagine the outcry, when fighter pilots realize that they lost more with turbulence modelling (aiming becomes more difficult), than they gained (AI gunners are less effective also). Then we will be back to square one again... If you set up low level turbulence in IL-2, the turbulence affects only the the Player pilot; it has NO effect upon the ai pilot. Take off in a fighter in those conditions, and hit the Autopilot key, and the aircraft stops all that shaking, even though you're still below the prescribed altitude for the turbulence.

Take off in your Sturmovik or Stuka in those conditions, and then switch to the gunner's position. Again, everything is suddenly smooth as glass. The ai are just as unaffected by turbulence as they are by clouds, G-limits, high Gs and overheat.

Taking away that single gross imbalance would do much to restore the reality factor missing in the defensive gunner vs fighter scenario we have now.

cheers

horseback

lowfighter
07-12-2007, 10:29 AM
Well, at least the difference between rookie and ace ai gunners is easy to test. I set a tight group of 12 B17 attacked by 4 Bf109G6 (ai aces+me). When the B17 was set to ace, and repeated several times, the result was mostly all Bf shot down or one left (with lot of holes or that beautiful Messer smoke hehe), and perhaps 2-3 bombers shot down. When B17 set to rookie, the output was 7-8 bombers shot down at the cost of perhaps a fighter or none. I think it's pretty clear.

horseback
07-12-2007, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by Dtools4fools:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If RL gunners of the 8th AF were as good as the gunners in Il-2, there would have be no need for P-51, P-47 and P-38 escorts.


Love it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

5%!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Now considering that a drogue target is much slower than a fighter and manouvers very little, then how much would the the percentage of a good gunner on a real target. Well below 5% me thinks. Plus not-so-good gunners hit rate of next to zero...

Friend of mine did good ole' Flak shooting in an exercise in southern Switzerland. He remembered that the entire valley was criss-crossed with tracers zipping towards drogue target. Everybody impressed by the spectacular fireworks display. And zilch hits in target...

***** </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Had a similar scenario during a small arms familiarization session on the fantail of my ship well west of Midway in the late 1970s. A seagull (or possibly an albatross-I'm guessing the wingspan was over 2m) started following us about 40-50m back and maybe 10m above the surface of the water, almost level with the flight deck we were firing from.

There were two M60s and at least ten M-14s blazing away at that stupid bird for a good ten or fifteen minutes, until one of the chiefs realized that we might be shooting at a Protected Species, and even firing from a deck on a Fast Frigate doing under 10 knots in very calm seas, we never even came close to the damned thing...and every single man with a gun on that deck had qualified as Expert Marksman with small arms and had the ribbons to prove it.

cheers

horseback

rnzoli
07-12-2007, 01:45 PM
Taking away that single gross imbalance would do much to restore the reality factor missing in the defensive gunner vs fighter scenario we have now.
What you describe is an imbalance that existis in bad weather only (AI smooth, human-piloted shaking). But what imbalance do we have right now, with regard to turbulence, in good weather, or above the turbulence layer close to the ground (e.g., >400m)?
None. Both the AI and human aircraft can fly smoothly. So I imagine that introducing some level of turbulence at all altitude, at all weather conditions, the fighters' aim will be affected too. And then the fighter pilots, instead of complaining about the gunners, will complain about why they can't hit anything, why their aircraft are wobbly, etc.

Or is there a reason, why the same amount of turbulence would affect the rear gunners more, than the fighters?

rnzoli
07-12-2007, 01:50 PM
Now considering that a drogue target is much slower than a fighter and manouvers very little,
Consider also that the target drone does not fly on a trajectory towards the gunner's aircraft. I think there is a contemporary gunner manual somewhere on the net offering very simple aiming tips on how to lay a bullet stream into the predicted path of the attacking fighter's predictable flight path. Calculating lead at other flight paths are significantly more difficult, because the fighter is not coming towards your guns.

horseback
07-12-2007, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Taking away that single gross imbalance would do much to restore the reality factor missing in the defensive gunner vs fighter scenario we have now.
What you describe is an imbalance that existis in bad weather only (AI smooth, human-piloted shaking). But what imbalance do we have right now, with regard to turbulence, in good weather, or above the turbulence layer close to the ground (e.g., >400m)?
None. Both the AI and human aircraft can fly smoothly. So I imagine that introducing some level of turbulence at all altitude, at all weather conditions, the fighters' aim will be affected too. And then the fighter pilots, instead of complaining about the gunners, will complain about why they can't hit anything, why their aircraft are wobbly, etc.

Or is there a reason, why the same amount of turbulence would affect the rear gunners more, than the fighters? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No human pilot can match the ai pilots in this game for smooth coordinated flight maneuvers. That is why a human gunner with an ai pilot is vastly more effective than an Ace ai gunner with a human pilot.

The reason is quite simple, as I have pointed out in earlier posts in this thread and others.

A smooth and/or predictable flight path allows for more accurate shooting. A human pilot takes that away from the ai gunner, and an ai pilot permits that to a much greater degree for a human gunner. I believe that the sheer unpredictability of a human pilot increases the workload of his ai gunner enormously, despite his still godlike SA.

When you or I 'fly' over a river in this game, there is a little 'bump' as we go through the 'cooler' air. If we are allowing the autopilot or an ai pilot to fly while we lounge about in the gunner's seat as we cross over that river, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">there is no bump.</span>

When you or I pilot our virtual aircraft through stormclouds, we shake and wobble. When the autopilot is set on or we're riding shotgun again, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">there is no shaking and wobbling.</span>

When you or I are flying an aircraft in this sim that is being hit by flak or a burst of light machine gun fire, it bounces and jerks, and if we are trying to line up on a target, we usually are thrown off of it. On those extremely rare occasions when I let the autopilot run while my aircraft was in combat, I recall <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">no jerking or bouncing or missing of the targeted aircraft by the autopilot.</span>

I have to assume that the same is true of the ai gunners, because of the countless times they have oiled my windshield or blacked out my screen while I am pounding the living s**t out of their aircraft (and often, their gun positions) with fire from multiple heavy guns.

As I also pointed out, WWII era aircraft did not normally fly smoothly and easily, especially the larger ones. Flying these aircraft was hard physical work, and demanded constant attention. Flying formation in a bomber was incredibly demanding, and it was no-one's idea of a precision operation. There was a great deal of shifting, bouncing and slipping of aircraft in relation to each other as well as from the ideal straight and level course under perfect conditions.

Even today, modern high tech warplanes cannot hold perfect position relative to each other; watch the videos of any high precision aerobatic team like the Red Arrows, the Thunderbirds, or the Blue Angels, and you'll see the other aircraft in the formation appearing to move back and forth relative to the camera plane.

Now try to imagine trying to shoot at another aircraft curving in at you from 250m away (that's what I believe the 'sure kill' range for a Rookie AI gunner is) from one of those wobbling and surging aircraft.

cheers

horseback

Xiolablu3
07-12-2007, 04:20 PM
The problem when making AI humans is not getting them to be good, its getting them to be fallible thats the hard part.

Its easy to have an AI gunner who can calculate a plane movements and know exactly where to place the bullet to hit him square in the eyes.

Its hard to make him behave erratically and get him to miss whilst still appear as though he's trying to hit.

Its a complex subject and takes some serious skill to program well.

One idea I had to make it less accurate is to have more 'spread' on the guns, so that the gun doesnt hit precisely in the centree of the cross hair each time. This would be more realistic representing hte 'kick' and 'recoil' of the gun, also the gunners 'humanity' in that he cannot be perfect all the time.

It would be a crude way of doing it, but I think it would work.

Also it would stop players manning the guns being so pinpoint accurate. It is not easy to shoot exactly where the crosshair is aimed. Anyone who has shot even an air rifle can tell you that. I would think especially when the gun you are firing is a high powered machine gun which shakes about, even when mounted.

ake109
07-12-2007, 07:58 PM
Yes, anyone played FPS games like Counterstrike? The way the M249 disperses fire on automatic, something like that would be good for swivel mounted gunner MGs.

rnzoli
07-13-2007, 02:38 AM
There is already a bullet dispersion for all the guns (fighters, rear gunners etc.). Fire the guns on the ground, stationary position, and you will see that bullets will not all hit the same point, they will disperse.

I was thinking about the same possibility, but further increasing this dispersion would be another kind of unrealistic "porking" of the guns: giving an unrelisticly large spread to guns in order to "compensate" for the ultra-stable shooting platform...

The introduction of shaking and wobbling to the platform would be a significant improvement - the guns would fire with a small spread, but their aiming would be more difficult, as the shaking/bouncing/vibration would move that bullet stream around altogether. So a good or lucky gunner could still bring down a fighter, which would become impossible if the bullet stream is "diluted" with a larger spread of bullets.

However, I don't think this is end of the story. I did the test he recommended, whoa, dramatic indeed. But the lack of bouncing/wobbling of AI-piloted planes mean an advantage in the following circumstances only:
- low-level turbulence under 500 m
- crossing a river at low level
- flak and gun hits shaking the plane.
Adding that to the AI would of course make it more realistic, but I am not sure if that's the whole story. Because when you attack a bomber box in level flight, glued to their bombing run, there would be no shaking anyway, neither for human, nor AI pilots. Most of the combat takes place outside of the above listed situations.

The trouble I have is that AI has got a targeting computer, literally. While my joystick has a resolution of say, 256 or 1024 discreet values, my screen has 1280 pixels resultion width, the AI knows my position and speed up to the accuracy of 1 million dicreet values, and move its gun angle also with such smoothness and accuracy. Moreover, no "picure" is rendered for the AI, it is shooting based on his radar-guided targeting computer, without ever looking through its virtual gunsight. I think the combat against AI would benefit from decreasing the current 10-digit precision of lead computing as well, to the order of the precision that is available to humans as visual output/joystick input (4-digit precision).

Stuntie
07-13-2007, 04:43 AM
Actually its fairly simple to fix code wise.
Once you have the over accurate calculated aim point as currently used you apply a randomly generated offset to the X and Y of the aim point. This can be related to skill level - i.e. Ace +/- 3 degrees, Rookie +/- 10 degrees, and to tracking time i.e. once the bullets get to the target area the gunner can start to compensate by recalculating the aim point making sitting right behind a firing bomber a hazardous task, as it should be.

Add in max offset increases for injury and violent manouvering and you have a falliable gunner that will still blow you out of the sky if he gets lucky, or you get stupid.

horseback
07-13-2007, 10:13 AM
I did the test he recommended, whoa, dramatic indeed. But the lack of bouncing/wobbling of AI-piloted planes mean an advantage in the following circumstances only:
- low-level turbulence under 500 m
- crossing a river at low level
- flak and gun hits shaking the plane.
Adding that to the AI would of course make it more realistic, but I am not sure if that's the whole story. Because when you attack a bomber box in level flight, glued to their bombing run, there would be no shaking anyway, neither for human, nor AI pilots. Most of the combat takes place outside of the above listed situations. Not exactly. The ai pilot is perfectly smooth. He does not vary in altitude or sideslip in the slightest degree. You or I cannot begin to approach that precision, due to human limitations, and it gets worse if your stick or rudder pedals are the least bit spiky or nonlinear.

As for 'scatter', I don't think that it applies to ai gunners the way it applies to the Player, since the ai is exempted from almost every other limitation imposed on the Player.

The trouble I have is that AI has got a targeting computer, literally. While my joystick has a resolution of say, 256 or 1024 discreet values, my screen has 1280 pixels resultion width, the AI knows my position and speed up to the accuracy of 1 million dicreet values, and move its gun angle also with such smoothness and accuracy. Moreover, no "picure" is rendered for the AI, it is shooting based on his radar-guided targeting computer, without ever looking through its virtual gunsight. I think the combat against AI would benefit from decreasing the current 10-digit precision of lead computing as well, to the order of the precision that is available to humans as visual output/joystick input (4-digit precision). This is a brilliantly reasoned explanation! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

The fact is that the Player is pitted against the computing power of his own system, and the game is set up so that the ai gunner 'bot is actually choosing not to shoot you down <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">if</span> you do A, B, C AND the right random number is generated at certain ranges and angles.

I really have to question whether you can 'force' the ai gunner 'bots to miss if they don't want to. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

The question is, will BoB allow you to 'compete' realistically with the gunner 'bots (by limiting their abilities to perceive and aim to a microfine degree), or if the programmers will put historically realistic human like limitations on their effectiveness according to angle, range, speed, and the stability actually generated by the specific firing platform (adding or subtracting on the basis of the relative skill levels of the ai pilot and gunners)?

cheers

horseback

rnzoli
07-13-2007, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by Stuntie:
Actually its fairly simple to fix code wise.
Once you have the over accurate calculated aim point as currently used you apply a randomly generated offset to the X and Y of the aim point.
Something like that, but the offset cannot be randomly generated all the time, because it would randomly shake the gun. The correct way would be to implement a "walking offset", gradually converging to an earlier generated random offset with a given angular speed. When the offset is reached, a new one is generated and the gun offset would start converging onto the newly generated offset target, instead of jumping there right away. This would make it
- possible to compensate with very good reflexes
- possible to be lucky sometimes, with limited distance between the old and new offset target near to each other
- possible to blast to pieces anyone staying near the guns too close (<50-100 m)

Applying this offset to human-controlled guns would give the picture where the gunsight is slighly floating, doesn't precisely point at the same path all the time.

As for the guy call Bob, I don't know. The real solution is still shaking the gun platform itself (the AI-piloted plane), and modelling G-forces, modelling gun weight and intertia. The latter would give the human gunners with the sensation of gyro and torque effects so much loved by fighter pilots http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif No longer possible to shove the gun from one side to the other in a millisecond http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifMy real fear is that we know Oleg - he is a stubborn maximalist. If he doesn't have the time to develop the best solution, he would rather not touch anything, and leave stuff as they are right now. Since I probably won't have SoW:BoB compatible machine anyway until Christmas 2008, I shouldn't even bother with worrying.