Idea for more indecisive action

[Creaghorn 10]

it's just an idea,

 

IMHO AI has too sharp eyes. whenever AI is flightleader, he gives the sign to attack enemy aircraft which are not even a pixel yet. he is able to see enemies, before even a black dot appears. maybe they are visible on radar, but definitely not as specks. that's the reason why i chose to always be the flight leader. because then i only attack when i actually see a formation (don't use radar). it's more realistic because i miss a lot of enemies. but the enemy AI still does, so i got often attacked by enemies who have seen me miles before i see them. and if i see an enemy formation it's alomst never a surprise attack. i can live with that.

 

but what would be if the AI sight could be reduced to a distance a real average human (without bionic man eyes) can see? there would be less dogfights, because everybody would pass each other unseen. if there is a dogfight, mostly the combatants get seperated into own smaller dogfights. How often happens one human player loses visual contact to own squadronmates or left enemies and heads for home or continues his sortie (without radar)? the same should be for the AI. but it's not. if their super eyes would be reduced to average human eyes, they would also leave the scenerie and go their way because they simply don't find the enemy automatically. it happened so often i got stalked deep into firendly territory by enemies who could see me and i could not see them. with eyes much reduced they would head home.

 

1. less enemy contact (as it was in real)

2. more indecisive action and no more fights till the last enemy is destroyed.

[themightysrc 5]

I think I like the idea. And for those of us still quite new to CFS/OFF who use TAC, why not make the AI's "vision" equal whatever the human opponent has set - 2, 4 or 8 miles? I wonder how doable that would be...

[Dej 17]

Creaghorn,

 

With the game as it stands you could always use Interlocutor's method of leading the flight but periodically pressing A to see if your wingmen chase off after something. It simulates your wingmen watching the skies while you do the difficult business of getting where you're meant to go.

[Creaghorn 10]

Creaghorn,

 

With the game as it stands you could always use Interlocutor's method of leading the flight but periodically pressing A to see if your wingmen chase off after something. It simulates your wingmen watching the skies while you do the difficult business of getting where you're meant to go.

 

 

thanks dej,

 

it's not about getting surprised. i'm fine with that. it's about the enemy's and own AI's bionic eyes. it should be maybe half of the sight they have right now. you can often see your wingman in 15000 feet, giving sign to attack an enemy formation at treetop level 5 miles away, and vice verca. enemy scouts seeing you from 15000 feet, five miles away and attacking you. i don't want my flightleader nor enemy AI doing this. i want my own AI or enemy AI only attack when specks or formations are "clearly" visible as such. right now it's more like jediknights feeling enemy presence and attacking, miles before seeing them visually.

with at least half AI vision you will get less enemy contact and fights turning home without killing everybody more often, as it should be.

[Bullethead 12]

but what would be if the AI sight could be reduced to a distance a real average human (without bionic man eyes) can see? there would be less dogfights, because everybody would pass each other unseen.

 

I'm not sure this would lead to fewer encounters, but it might make things more interesting.

 

Right now, the situation is like this: If the AI was a human player, he not only is using TAC to spot you at 8 miles, but is also using padlock and target-player external view to determine your identity and altitude the moment it spots you. As such, it immediately makes up its mind whether to fight or flee.

 

This, IMHO, is why we usually meet far more scouts than 2-seaters. Having flown a few careers as a non-leading 2-seater pilot, I've seen many times that the usual response of AI 2-seaters is to run away the instant a higher enemy scout (identified via target-player view) appears at the 8-mile TAC range. If you're not using these same cheats/aids, you'll never know they were there at all because they'll run away long before you see them. Thus, if you limit how far the AI can see you (and identify you and know your altitude), you'll probably run into more 2-seaters than you do now, especially if you don't use the cheats/aids.

 

It would be nice if the AI was stuck with the same settings you use. But this would doubtless require a major overhaul of the whole player padlock and external view systems to limit their range or even totally disable them. IOW, no more using "padlock nearest enemy" as you fly along to scan for and IFF planes you can't even see yet, even if you're not using TAC. You'd have to be able to set the ranges for these things so the AI would know what its own limits are.

 

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought it was going to be about tweaking the AI so it doens't fight to the death of all on 1 side so much :).

[Creaghorn 10]

i think if the sight of the enemy is as the human sight, they also won't fight to death. On a dogfight the aircrafts are spread around a lot, so when they are spread far enough (out of human eyesight), they will automatically form up again and continue their mission or go home, instead of stalking you for miles.

i am talking about no use of radar or any other view than VC. In real life one also couldn't jump out and have other views. But even for the people using the features, it would be far better with shorter view of AI.

i would only like to know wich file i have to alter for my own use, there is no need of a patch if the dev's think there is no need. but i want it to be as realistic as can be, so at least i would love to change it for myself.

does anybody know which file is responsible?

i found pilotattributes and pilotconstants. is it one of those?

 

i would be very thankful if soemone could give me a hint.

[Bletchley 8]

If it could be done, then I like the idea as well - particularly if it could be made scaleable, so those that still wanted a lot of action could keep things as they are.

 

Bletchley

[Bullethead 12]

i think if the sight of the enemy is as the human sight, they also won't fight to death. On a dogfight the aircrafts are spread around a lot, so when they are spread far enough (out of human eyesight), they will automatically form up again and continue their mission or go home, instead of stalking you for miles.

 

Being "within human sight" is itself a big variable, depending on the person's eyes and weather conditions :). So first, you'd have to make a decision on a "typical value" for this on a good day.

 

But in most flightsims, this distance is way longer than the distance at which aircraft become visible on the monitor. This is because, even today, most computers just can't handle drawing every airplane in real time that you can potentially see, while at the same time having the detailed ground extend out a realistic distance, the undetailed ground extend out to the horizon as seen from high altitude, and having the sky full of clouds, not to mention any airplanes you have up close to you with guns blazing. And besides that, different users run at different screen resolutions, so have a big difference in how many pixels they have per foot of object length at a given distance. And the guys who made the game have to expect some people to be running at a fairly low resolution.

 

So what ends up happening is that airplanes don't become visible on the screen until well inside the range that the average pilot could see them. And when an airplane 1st appears on the screen, it's going to range from only 1 to perhaps 3 or 4 pixels wide, depending on resolution. You can't tell anything at all about the target's identity from just 3 or 4 pixels. But remember, this thing is actually much closer to you than you'd be 1st seeing it in real life. Thus, in real life, you'd probably be able to identify and even tell the color of the target at the range it first becomes a visible dot in the game.

 

This is why most flightsims have "cheats" like TAC, labels, and target-player external views. They exist to give you the information you'd really be able to see in real life with your real eyeballs, but which the game is incapable of giving to you with just a few pixels. This is why I refuse to call these things "cheats"; they're actually aids, and quite necessary ones if you want to be realistic. Playing without them is basically the same as saying your supposedly eagle-eyed pilot is really very near-sighted. How realistic is it to think he'd have even been accepted for flight training?

[Creaghorn 10]

i know what you mean and you are completely right.

another reason to reduce the sight of AI.

it's also a difference searching the skies for some specks or knowing they are here and looking for them, though maybe exactly the same distance. it's so much easier to overlook them when not knowing where to look at. but that's how it was in real. i love it to search the skies, looking for specks, analizing every single part of the sky. but that's me. it's absolutely legitim for everybody to use radar and tac and whatever they want to use. i don't because i have very sharp eyes and have a 22" screen with 1680 X 1024 and i think that should be enough for me. nonetheless i experimented sometimes, using radar and checking out what the white spots on radar are, and often i see a formation of maybe triplanes, diving from very high altitude and from far away for me. when i look up, i see nothing. when i look down from the triplanes view, i see absolutely nothing. when i give sign to attack, my flight exactly knows where to go and where the enemy is, though altitude difference of 15000 feet. but they are realistically simply too far away.resolution or screen or dots or whatever, in RL nobody would be able to attack or respond the attack, because they would simply not see them.

i remember sitting on the shore of my hometown in croatia, watching the fishing boats going out at sea and disappear in the horizon. doesn't matter what kind of weather, on some point i simply was not able anymore to see them. even knowing they were going to that direction. and i was sitting still, not in a moving craft. in BHAH they would still know you are there, know you are an enemy, and they would attack you. or your flight leader would attack them. that's all what i mean. simply reduce the sight of AI to a point which is more realistic and human. i think lot of people here would appreciate it. or at least would like to have a choice, similar to dm hc or normal.

[Bletchley 8]

See this discussion at The Aerodrome:

 

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft...g-distance.html

 

It looks as it 2-4 nautical miles might be a reasonable distance for AI pilots to pick up an aircraft visiually. Much les than the current 8 nautical miles (if that is the current OFF standard inherited from CFS3).

 

Bletchley

[Interlocutor 0]

It seems to me that there would be, in real life, a big difference between what one might see against the backdrop of the sky, versus what one might see against a backdrop of ground clutter. Radar (the TAC) takes no account of that.

 

Simply put, I suspect the assertion that a typical pilot (decent eyesight) could see and even identify an aircraft out to 3 or 4 miles is overly optimistic.

[Creaghorn 10]

It looks as it 2-4 nautical miles might be a reasonable distance for AI pilots to pick up an aircraft visiually. Much les than the current 8 nautical miles (if that is the current OFF standard inherited from CFS3).

 

Bletchley

 

 

totally agree.

right now you have about 80% enemy contact when on a sortie because friendly and enemy AI sees everything. that's why you can wrap up 10 kills in 5 flying hours. even the best months of the best aces they never had such kill per hour ratio.

i agree with 2-4 NM sight the most. aces will have rather 4 and average and rookies less. might be more boring for some people, but definitely 100% more realistic. and the sim is mostly about realism as much as it can be.

on offensives and days where you go up to 3 times a day for hours each sortie, and there was overall much more airtraffic, of course the chance of running into enemies is bigger. that's why aces had some month where they had doublefigure kill numbers, and month with only a handful the most. the more often you are up, the greater the chance to run into enemies, depending on weather and airactivity. that's how it was in real.

[Jammer28 0]

As incredible as it may seem, this is a quote from Chuck Yeager’s book speaking of himself and Bud Anderson:

“We had the best eyes in the group, and could pick up specks in the sky from fifty miles away.”

[Bullethead 12]

As incredible as it may seem, this is a quote from Chuck Yeager’s book speaking of himself and Bud Anderson: “We had the best eyes in the group, and could pick up specks in the sky from fifty miles away.”

 

Quite so. And all the WW1 books you read talk about spotting the enemy (at least against a sky background) many, many miles away and maneuvering for position for many minutes prior to the engagement. I myself have 20/15 vision and have no trouble at all spotting airplanes against the sky and can identify most of them by general type (Cessena, Piper, Beech, etc.) at ranges of several miles. I can even identify most jetliners leaving contrails, at least dividing them into the 2, 3, or 4-engined types :).

 

The typical WW1 scout was about 20-25' long, about the same length as a large car or SUV. How far away can you see those things? Maybe you don't live in a flat, open area, but if the LOS goes 10 miles, you should be able to see cars that far away. If you can't, I don't want you driving on the same roads as me .

[+Polovski 414]

and then you plonk 10 litres of castor oil on your goggles ... ;)

[Interlocutor 0]

and then you plonk 10 litres of castor oil on your goggles ... ;)

 

Agreed, Pol :yes: .

 

It's one thing to be sitting on the ground, stationary, looking up at the sky for specks. I suspect it would be quite a different story, sitting in an open cockpit biplane, vibrating with the power of the engine, buffeted about by the wind, peering through a none-too-finely manufactured windscreen coated with a film of oil, through goggles covered with the same, looking for specks.

 

And particularly against the backdrop of the ground. Since my earlier post in this thread I checked out Bletchley's link to a thread in the Aerodrome forum. There's a quote from Raymond Collishaw, the RNAS Tripe ace, which is worth repeating here I think:

 

"At that time, we had some excellent pilots in No. 10 Naval Squadron. A series of tests were made over the aerodrome: several teams of two Sopwith triplanes each were to take part. In each team, both aircraft were to go to 18,000 feet. One aircraft was to remain there and take notes of what he could see and the other aircraft was to fall out of control to the gound. These experiments were repeated at 18,000 feet, 10,000 feet and 5,000 feet. The general result was that the observer pilot above had great difficulty in seeing a small 1917-type fighter when 5,000 feet above it and he could certainly not see it in suffiecient detail to know what was happening to it. Incidentally, in the test conducted at 18,000 feet all experiments indicated that the observer lost the descending triplane at 12,000 feet. These tests showed there was much ignorance amongst pilots as to what could be seen below from various heights."

 

I've been flying BHAH for a month now without TAC & labels, and for me at least, 5,000 feet or so is the limit at which I can spot an aircraft below me against ground clutter. And that's if I have the leisure to just look down while I'm flying level. If I'm maneuvering briskly in a fight, I'm sure it's much less than that.

 

I agree that I'd be curious to see what the game would be like, TAC-less and label-less, if the AI also labored under such constraints. But for those who do fly with TAC and believe that setting it to 4 miles radius better simulates the reality of spotting aircraft in the real world, well, maybe an argument can be made that it does so for aircraft seen against the backdrop of the sky. But the TAC will also show you, when set at 4 miles radius, any aircraft as far away as 20,000+ feet straight below you, and I submit that is an absurdity .

 

Given this, it seems to me that using the TAC set at 2 miles radius would be a potential compromise with reality; if looking down you should only be able to see a WW1 pursuit aircraft at 5,000 feet in reality, but looking against the sky perhaps out to 15,000 or 20,000 (3 or 4 miles), then setting it to 2 miles (10,000 feet for the sake of argument) is arguably reasonable I suppose.

 

But for my part I prefer to forgo the TAC & labels entirely, and just assume that the mile to two miles at which I can see "specks" in the game, coupled with the "zoom" feature to simulate focus and/or binoculars, is an adequate simulation of reality given castor oil & whatnot :yes: . I don't think TAC/labels are in any way "cheats", I just like the game better without them.

[Tonyo - legion 2]

I agree with Polovski & Interlocutor on this, theres many variables which would reduce the range of your vision flying a/c of this time period, vibration, cockpits open to the elements, size of A/c ,dirty goggles, smoke from ground battles etc these all have to be taken into account.

 

 

I also fly without TAC, but sometimes have the labels turned on in case theres a good screenshot opportunity - but only for that reason,

 

I invariably end up as a lawn dart, - I fly the BE2 a lot, which is just cannon fodder,

 

I'm happy to end a mission having completed all the objectives & still be alive, never minding about kills...

 

He who fights & runs away..... can get his ar*e kicked another day!!!

[Bullethead 12]

and then you plonk 10 litres of castor oil on your goggles ... ;)

 

Which is why most folks didn't wear goggles, or so they say in their memoirs. Besides, I fly pushers and inlines mostly so don't have that problem at all :).

 

Here's a curious thing..... All my life I've regarded castor oil as a powerful laxative. When I was little, whenever I was sick, Mom always shoveled castor oil down my throat to get rid of the germs as quickly and violently as possible. That was how she was raised, too. So every time I read some WW1 rotary pilot's memoirs, I've looked for them reporting heavy casualties to their supply of skivvies, either from long patrols or from pulling high positive G in turns and loops. Strangely, nobody I've read so far has mentioned that....

[+Polovski 414]

I think that would really depend on the many variables involved there from craft type, alt, enemy alt, weather etc. Open cockpit 100mph freezing wind numbing everything, often raining, oil from the engine, depending on what you fly. No goggles oil in the eye too, fatigue.

 

Anyway making AI see longer or shorter range is not just a simple tweak - it's currently just the same as it was in CFS3.

 

Maybe they didn't report on their dwindling supply of fresh undies as it's not the sort of thing you wrote about ;)

[Bullethead 12]

That's the major reason for eating lot's of French Cheese, very binding that stuff, and it was freely available from the farmers of the area. Also the reason for consuming mass quantities of Brandy, Whiskey may been more British, but Brandy was kinder to the bowels

 

Hmmm.. I'm currently recovering from a bought of dysentery picked up from fishing in nasty bayou water. The doc put me on a bread and water diet, no cheese, and put me on pills that will make me puke if I drink any booze. I envy these old pilots

[Creaghorn 10]

one thing what reduces eyesight of AI and wich makes less enemy contact and more fights without decision. set your cloud slider to 5. it has not the slightest impact to fps. lot of people here think it's eating up recources. it is definitely not. it looks much better and there are more clouds, more haze and everything. it looks by far more realistic and AI can not see through clouds. i'm doing it for days and it works pretty well.

[Mr. Lucky 0]

I think that would really depend on the many variables involved there from craft type, alt, enemy alt, weather etc. Open cockpit 100mph freezing wind numbing everything, often raining, oil from the engine, depending on what you fly. No goggles oil in the eye too, fatigue.

 

Anyway making AI see longer or shorter range is not just a simple tweak - it's currently just the same as it was in CFS3.

 

Maybe they didn't report on their dwindling supply of fresh undies as it's not the sort of thing you wrote about ;)

 

 

"Gentlemen, today we get a change of underwear!".."Yeeeaaahhh!"....."Ok, John, you change with Charlie, Roger you change with James ......."

[+Polovski 414]

eeuuuaeeerk now we know why it wasn't reported ;)

[rabu 9]

one thing what reduces eyesight of AI and wich makes less enemy contact and more fights without decision. set your cloud slider to 5. it has not the slightest impact to fps. lot of people here think it's eating up recources. it is definitely not. it looks much better and there are more clouds, more haze and everything. it looks by far more realistic and AI can not see through clouds. i'm doing it for days and it works pretty well.

 

 

Interesting, CH, what system do you have, just curious..

[Creaghorn 10]

Interesting, CH, what system do you have, just curious..

 

 

nothing spectacular.

 

2,2 amd quad core

nvidia 260 gtx

3,5 gig ram

22" lg screen

 

my settings are

overall: ? (doesn't matter anyway)

aicraft txt: 5

terrain: 3

scenery: 3

effects: 5

clouds: 5

 

fps between 60 and 30 (depends on what's happening)

my screen doesn't allow more then 60 fps i think