PDA

View Full Version : What was Olegs. assumptions on AI gunnery?



JSG72
09-06-2011, 09:05 PM
?

Was it based on actual records?
Was it based on Allied/Axis claims?
Was it based on Common sence?
Was it based on the perameters of the then 2001 modern technology associated within Flightsims,that limited his criteria and forced us to put up with it?

None of the above.

Discuss?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Luno13
09-06-2011, 09:16 PM
This has been discussed numerous times, but I guess I'll summarize what I've argued before...

D) is the best choice provided. I have a feeling it was made that way, in part, to provide some balance towards bombers which never had proper defensive formations or proper escorts in this sim. Bomber pilots would also never fly online if they were guaranteed to be shot down.

DT has reduced gunner skill since 4.10. I have more success taking the gun from the AI and manning it myself, even while managing the plane and trying to line up for a bomb run.

The solution would be to add some element of difficulty to the gunnery by means of implementing some kind of inertial modeling, instability, recoil, etc.

However, bombers should get a revised AI system to better protect themselves and incentives for online players to escort bombers.

JSG72
09-06-2011, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by Luno13:
This has been discussed numerous times, but I guess I'll summarize what I've argued before...

D) is the best choice provided. I have a feeling it was made that way, in part, to provide some balance towards bombers which never had proper defensive formations or proper escorts in this sim. Bomber pilots would also never fly online if they were guaranteed to be shot down.

DT has reduced gunner skill since 4.10. I have more success taking the gun from the AI and manning it myself, even while managing the plane and trying to line up for a bomb run.

The solution would be to add some element of difficulty to the gunnery by means of implementing some kind of inertial modeling, instability, recoil, etc.

However, bombers should get a revised AI system to better protect themselves and incentives for online players to escort bombers.

And so. Purely from popularity gains amongst Simmers?

Interesting analogy......

WTE_Galway
09-06-2011, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by JSG72:

And so. Purely from popularity gains amongst Simmers?

Interesting analogy......

Remember ship AA reload rates are way slower than real life simply because no-one would play a game that put up the suicidal amount of AA generated by a real WWII capital ship.

horseback
09-07-2011, 11:22 AM
This one threw reality out the window. Oleg originally envisioned the game as a single aircraft simulation featuring the Il-2 in several versions, with the player able to act as either pilot or gunner. Making the defensive gunnerís job as difficult as it actually was would have made the game unplayable in the sense that the player could almost never win, so Oleg and his team apparently went overboard in the other direction, making it much easier for the rear gunner than it was for the in-game pilot to shoot down aerial targets. This carried over into the succeeding versions of the game engine and the introduction of multiple gunnersí positions.

Historically, during WWII it was much harder to find enemy aircraft than it is in the game by several orders of magnitude, but a combat flight sim requires that you encounter the enemy in the air almost every time; I think that Oleg & Co compensated for this by making the gunnerís job of putting the crosshairs in the right spot much easier than it would be in real life, and made the gunners of individual aircraft far more effective than they could be far out of proportion to their numbers.

Of course, this bled over into the AI routines, and I think that it was harder to limit the ai gunner routineís awareness and accuracy based on human reaction time and angles of the targetís approach than it was to simply set a range for each skill level within which they sometimes, usually and then always hit the attacking Playerís aircraft, regardless of his speed or angle of approach, as long as the gun position could theoretically bring the guns to bear.

Of course nowadays trying to run the game would cause the computers we were using at the turn of the century to burst into flames; with all the processing power, RAM and video capacity available on the average gamersí computer today one would expect that the ai gunners (at least) would be upgraded to something approaching realistic limitations.

There have been recent steps in that direction; they can no longer hit you in clouds or the dark nearly as often, you can Ďkillí a gunner more easily and a high speed attack is much safer than approaching at lower speeds. They still shoot with astounding accuracy at ranges (and angles) beyond human skill while their aircraft is making radical maneuvers, bombers will drop out of formation to dodge a potential attacking Player long before he reaches his convergence range, and there is still a point at which they simply will not miss, even when you are passing them at an extreme angle and high speeds; if you get too close, youíre dead. Period.

A few simple steps to improve realism would be to limit gun traverse speeds, add recoil effects, make the gun platform inherently unsteady (this is why your ai gunners arenít remotely as effective when youíre flying the planeóyou canít possibly fly Ďon railsí the way an ai pilot always does), and severely limit accuracy at progressively higher deflection angles and longer ranges (and by longer ranges, I mean the historic maximum limit of around two hundred meters for a no-deflection shot).

We could apply the option of setting different standards for online or coop play, but for the offline player seeking a realistic fighter campaign experience, the ai gunners have to change.

cheers

horseback

DKoor
09-07-2011, 03:00 PM
It was based on the fact that they need to kill and frustrate human simmers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

pogobbler
09-09-2011, 11:27 PM
they need to kill and frustrate human simmers. Smile

Was that "human simmers" or "human sinners"? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

x6BL_Brando
09-10-2011, 01:34 AM
Looking on the positive side, the uber gunners certainly improved people's tactics and flying abilities.

RegRag1977
09-10-2011, 02:24 AM
My guess is that Oleg simulated Ai being able to learn and improve by being able to hit refly. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Let's not forget that the most unrealistic thing in this sim is the human flying and gunnery skills, compared to real pilots in WW2...Not only the AI defensive gunners... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mortoma
09-14-2011, 11:49 AM
I never or rarely have any trouble with the accuracy of gunners. Set the AI of enemy bombers on average or veteran at the highest and no more troubles!!

I get sick of people complaining about something that is no real problem over and over through the years. Personally, I can even set the AI bombers to ace and never have much trouble.

The real problem I think is that people just don't know how to fly and seriously don't know how to attack bombers. If I can fly for years and not have much trouble getting hit by gunners, then that proves that it can be done and it proves to me it's a matter of skill, or lack thereof on the part of some bitter people. How many times do we have to hear this? Suck it up and practice your flying skills. I rest my case.......

Wildnoob
09-14-2011, 03:07 PM
Usually I don't have problem with AI gunners. Perhaps because I always attack strike planes in high speed passes and in angles difficult/impossible to get hit.

Not meaning this is the case with people here, but online the players usually just park on the plane's 6 and remain there until the plane or they got shoot down. If the AI is really "sniper", then we gonna have an unrealism problem but compensated by most for their unrealistic tactical abordation.

Perhaps consideration also should be gived to the weapon mount systems. For example, flexible guns are less accurated than turrents. This is not modelated for the player, but maybe for the AI it is, after all, the focus in strike planes is in piloting, not gunning.

I think the worst part of AI is the non engine limitations. And not only with fighters; in the the IJAAF campaing it is extremely difficult to cath the B-29s with the Ki-61 at medium altitude, when it shouldn't be so. If you add uber gunners in a case like this then it becames even more complicated.

danjama
09-14-2011, 04:07 PM
So every time we hit refly, the ai gunners improve? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif Brilliant idea.

The more i think about it, the more astonishing this sim is.

BillSwagger
09-15-2011, 04:54 AM
common sense,
I've found that the people who usually complain about AI gunners aren't using proper tactics.
They fly right up to a bombers six with little speed advantage and eat lead.
I can usually fly through formations on veteran mode with no hassel provided i keep my speed up and attack from the proper angle.
Why should gunners not be accurate?
How hard do you think it is to shoot at a moving target from a gun that swivels? easier than from a fixed platform?

There are harder shots, and pot shots, and air speed is a big factor.
you can set up a QMB and take the seat of a gunner and shoot at EA. I have a blast doing that too.
It doesn't equate to AI effectiveness but i still get kills.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v..._0hM&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7ELhy4_0hM&feature=related)
These shots make it look a bit easy to hit targets from a swiveled platform.

Common sense point of view, anyhow.

You can look at technical charts and training.
Aside from flying in formation and learning the gear of their position on board their aircraft, B-17 crewmen spent weeks training their gunnery skills.
This was done in the same fashion they trained singled engined pilots, using a target towed by a plane to shoot at.


Lastly,
Its a game...
I know its suppose to be 110 percent accurate.
But its still a game.
enjoy...

Wildnoob
09-15-2011, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
common sense,
I've found that the people who usually complain about AI gunners aren't using proper tactics.

Yeah...


They fly right up to a bombers six with little speed advantage and eat lead.

Tell them if they were Infantrymen to run towards machine guns and heard: "Are you crazy?!" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif


You can look at technical charts and training.
Aside from flying in formation and learning the gear of their position on board their aircraft, B-17 crewmen spent weeks training their gunnery skills.
This was done in the same fashion they trained singled engined pilots, using a target towed by a plane to shoot at.

Again, with proper tactics attacks can be performed with a really large margin of safety. Like it was in RL. Still the gunners will hit somebody in a momment. Specially when the pilots were inexperienced and/or were pressed to attack the formation, worse if it had escort.

I don't see much difference from real life reports when realistic tactics are used against gunners in IL2. The sim must still be a lot wrong in this area. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

RegRag1977
09-16-2011, 02:46 AM
Originally posted by danjama:
So every time we hit refly, the ai gunners improve? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif Brilliant idea.

The more i think about it, the more astonishing this sim is.

Not at all, in fact gunners are modelled with a rather high and fixed skill to anticipate the players unrealistic UBER flying and gunnery skill. They of course don't improve each time we hit refly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif , or they would be even better than what they are currently IMO.

The real problem is for the beginners: taking the bomber kill for granted may prove fatal to them. The seasonned pilots have learn to respect gunners: lots of technique to attack safely, and sometimes lot of cold blood to decide not to attack them at all and survive (ie when speed difference is not enough and you are already struggling to close in).

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Or if you will one can just imagine AI, worried by uber human skill, hitting refly in another dimension, in the dark when our computers are off and when we are sleeping!they are sooooo bored to be historically correct when we are soooo UBER and able to learn and improve,..., in that dimension, they do have their forum boards too and they complain about our skill everyday, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif it's a real war going on there and there's no guarantee that mankind will make it in the end (think Terminator 3, Rise of the machines) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Raiiid if you're here can you help me explain that? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Johnners50m
09-16-2011, 07:41 AM
I reckon it just boils down to programming. It's probably a lot easier to write algorithms for the guns to hit their targets than it is to write ones to simulate human gunners attempting to hit those targets.

No balancing, realism or marketing decisions - this was just the only do-able way to implement AA and air-to-air gunnery by the bad guys.

BillSwagger
09-16-2011, 01:38 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...-TLc&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp1teqL-TLc&feature=related)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...2V-4&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWQh80o2V-4&feature=related)

Wildnoob
09-17-2011, 01:05 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...iYsY&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xhpcar4iYsY&feature=related)

20:47 - 21:01. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif