How many "Average Pilots" are out there?

[Creaghorn 10]

I agree with what BH said above about the murderous intent of AI pilots , and about the effect that has on the lifespans of our own pilots.

 

But I also think there's yet another factor in the short careers of our DiD pilots at least, also raised by BH I think in another thread, and that's the "edge" the enemy AI aircraft have in terms of sighting and detection.

 

I've flown about 50 DiD missions now, TAC-less & label-less, using 7 pilots; one of the 7 got up to 25 missions/15.45 hours). These 7 DiD campaigns include 2 in 1916 (including the 25-mission guy) and 5 in 1917, all Allied. Five of those 7 pilots are dead, two still flying. Of the five dead, one was killed in a collision with a fellow squaddie (the 25 mission guy), the others have all been shot down by enemy a/c.

 

Now in all of those missions, I have yet to see an enemy 2-seater. I have never succeeded in surprising an enemy formation. In those missions where I have encountered enemy single-seaters, they have always had an advantage of altitude or numbers, and often both.

 

I'd been musing on that when BH made a post in another thread, suggesting that enemy aircraft must always have their TACs and labels turned on, and TACs with a full 8-mile radius at that. If this is indeed true (devs?), then naturally the AI flight leaders will choose to avoid combat when at a disadvantage. This would explain why I've never seen enemy 2-seaters; they must be programmed to turn away when first sighting single-seaters at 8 miles out. It would help explain why my summer 1916 N17 French Storks pilot, he of the 25 missions, only saw German single seaters on about 6 of his missions; Fokker EIII's, his only possible German single seater opponent, may often have seen themselves at a disadvantage against N17's and thus avoided combat (or they may have simply been unable to keep up with or climb up to the N17's).

 

So DiD pilots who fly without TAC & labels will almost always be caught at a disadvantage by enemy aircraft, if BH is right about the way the AI is "programmed" to choose its fights. At least, at a disadvantage as perceived by the AI's programming.

 

All of us have read accounts of real WW1 pilots in which they describe how they surprised enemy aircraft unawares? Also, many WW1 aces ran up their scores against enemy 2-seaters; how many of our TAC-less/label-less DiD flyers have ever seen an enemy 2-seater in the air?

 

I love the game, I love its immersiveness, it's been effectively the only game I've played since it came out, and that for 2 or more hours each day. And I can't see that changing anytime soon. But I would be very pleased if, for those of us who like to fly without TAC & labels, Pol/Winder would consider, if it is possible, reducing the effective visibility range for enemy AI pilots to 2 miles or less, to put them on an even footing with us mere mortals :yes: .

 

Now I also agree with what Pol & Winder have been saying about how we human pilots are not as careful with our lives are real-life pilots would have been. But we never seem to get the chance to "pounce", unseen, on an enemy formation when we fly TAC-less & label-less either, so easy kills cannot be had. And I can submit that as a DiD pilot I try to be very careful with my pilots lives, but even then, with a couple hundred cumulative flight hours now, I can't imagine accumulating several hundred in-game hours with one pilot without getting killed, let alone flying throughout the war safely.

 

I guess the question, for me at least, is therre any way to change the AI so that it doesn't always see you far enough away to avoid fighting when you have the advantage of numbers or height?

 

look at the thread Idea for more indecisive action on page 2. that difference would turn a very very good sim into perfect sim from the realism point of view. but as long as i understood it seems to be a difficult tweak or coding.

[Bullethead 12]

I cannot answer this question as its dependant on how the player plays - Olham quoted somewhere that he plays cautiously (preserving his virtual pilots life) but even then I think reality would see him fly and fight very differently.

 

So there is no real solution to this other than for you to lower the 'rating' i.e. the settings if your pilot dies too quickly given your mode of play.

 

Please don't think I'm complaining about how things are at present. With the standard damage model and realism settings up around 100%, I think you all have nailed the realism of the "hardware" side of things (except for the "Realistic" setting on AI Gun Fire (Range), but I can live with that ). The airplanes fly like I've been led to expect, the guns work like I expect, and the planes are as vulnerable to them as I expect. Bravo!

 

So it's a very dangerous world out there. If you don't have a strong sense of self-preservation, then you're not going to last very long. And I agree with you that probably none of us virtual pilots, even those who fly "cautiously", are quite as careful as the real guys were.

 

However, even flying cautiously, we still die in droves. Sure, we're not 19 anymore, but neither are we feeling the physical exertions, discomforts, and privations of the real guys, so that kinda balances out IMHO. Besides, most of us have been flying real and/or sim planes for many years, so have a lot more experience than they did. So I think the main reason for the near impossibility of long-term survival at high realism settings is that the AI pilots fly considerably less cautiously than we do.

 

This of course is next to impossible to quantify, and I realize that not only is AI tweaking about the hardest thing to do, but even once tweaked it will still never be as good as a good human. But it's definitely happening, and I'm pretty sure an overly tenacious AI is the main reason both for the short pilot lifespans and the sometimes very high kill totals obtained in that time. So if possible, perhaps you could tweak the AI some?

 

What I see is too much tenacity once in a fight. Once engaged, each AI plane individually appears only to break off combat if it suffers serious damage. Maybe they also leave if they run out of ammo, but if so I've never noticed it (usually because if the AI has that many firing opportunities, one of them kills me ). The engaged AI planes, both friendly and enemy, appear to ignore such important tactical considerations as:

• that they've blown all their E and are now forced to turn-fight in planes built for E-fighting
  
• that the fight is getting down to an unfavorable altitude for them
  
• that the fight is getting far down below their assigned patrol altitude
  
• that the fight is taking them down into heavy concentrations of enemy AAA
  
• that the numerical odds have swung heavily against them during the battle
  
• that damage below their current break-off threshold has already compromised their ability to fight effectively
  

As a result, fights in OFF last longer and are seemingly way more bloody than in real life. The player is presented both with more targets to kill and more chances of dying in a given amount of time. Fights are almost always decisive rather than being mostly inconclusive.

 

So it seems to me that it would be helpful to tweak the AI to pay more attention to the above factors. This is both friendly and enemy AI planes. Have planes fight for a while, then withdraw, either to regain E and then re-engage, or to go on about their business or maybe RTB. If the enemy decides to all it quits, then the player is less likely to kill so many of them or die himself. And if the friendlies have had enough, it would likely impose similar caution on the human :).

 

As mentioned, I hardly ever get shot down, and usually don't take much damage, either (at least when flying scouts--FEs are another matter!). So I figure I fly both well and cautiously--I keep my 6 clear and I don't take stupid chances that put me in line for a lot of incoming fire. I try hard not to get tangled up with and fixated on anybody, at least until the fight scatters out, so I can maintain my SA. I'm deathly afraid of collisions from a blindspot, which is usually what kills me. In real life, I figure I'd rarely get a kill flying like this. But in OFF, I not uncommonly get 5 kills in 3 sorties. This isn't what I'm trying to do, it's simply survival. The enemy just won't quit coming at me even when he's clearly disadvantaged, so it's always him or me, and when he's at such a disadvantage, it's usually him. And then the next sortie some dipstick on 1 side or the other rams me in a swirling melee when all I'm trying to do is find the edge of it

 

But I'm not complaining. Such AI tweaks as noted above would just be the icing on the cake. OFF's a lot of fun as-is and I've rationalized the high scores of my short lives as you can see. I figure what I'm doing is about as good as can be done, so I'm happy with it, even if nobody lives long enough for me to write a good series of AAR posts about him. And I have to admit that I feel a lot better now, knowing that most other folks are having the same trouble reaching 17 hours

[Bullethead 12]

So DiD pilots who fly without TAC & labels will almost always be caught at a disadvantage by enemy aircraft, if BH is right about the way the AI is "programmed" to choose its fights. At least, at a disadvantage as perceived by the AI's programming.

 

All of us have read accounts of real WW1 pilots in which they describe how they surprised enemy aircraft unawares? Also, many WW1 aces ran up their scores against enemy 2-seaters; how many of our TAC-less/label-less DiD flyers have ever seen an enemy 2-seater in the air?

 

This isn't just a problem for DiD guys eschewing the visibility aids. I make shameless use of TAC, labels, pause, and the target-player external view, and I have exactly the same experience. I never surprise anybody, and when I'm flying an Entente scout, I never even see a German 2-seater on radar. The only times I've seen German 2-seaters at all is when I'm flying a 2-seater myself. In my 1 brief German career, however, I came across a flight of unescorted Quirks considerably lower than myself, who pressed on regardless. That was a happy day, but I digress....

 

Here's what happens to me when flying an Entente scout... When unidentified dots 1st appear on TAC, I immediately pause the game and check them out with the target-player view. If they aren't friendly, then they're always German fighters. About 90% of the time, they're higher than I am to a greater or lesser extent, and are already diving towards me. Most of the rest of the time, they're co-alt, and occasionally they're just slightly lower. In these cases, they're still reacting to me, climbing and trying to work around behind me. I've watched this happen many times--if left alone, they will eventually climb up, circle around, and swoop on my tail. The only way to avoid this is to attack them at once or, if you don't want to fight them, try to out-climb them. Very, very rarely I've come across German fighters far below me. This usually happens when I'm deep over Hunland and they've just taken off, but sometimes it's near the trenches where they've been fighting other friendlies before I came along. These are the only ones I've ever been able swoop. But even they always see me coming and are turning and dodging long before I reach them.

 

There are 3 implications to this. First, German scouts can see rather further than I can even with TAC, and they use the time they thus gain to grab an altitude advantage, or at least try to, before I see them. The 2nd implication is that German 2-seaters see just as far as their scouts, which is why I never see them at all even on TAC. And 3rdly, German eyes are infallable, which is why I never surprise anybody or catch even a glimpse of a fleeing German 2-seater.

 

I don't believe the Brit AI sees as far as the German AI. Brit 2-seaters run away, too, but only after the Germans show up to me on TAC.

 

The strange thing, though, is that if you fly as a non-leading German bomber pilot, your AI boss will press on regardless. So I'm thinking that German 2-seater AI is different depending on what role you're playing.

 

Anyway, I've just come to accept all this as a fact of life in OFF. The vast majority of my fights are going to start with me being swooped by Alabtri, and it's up to me to rise to the occasion. C'est la guerre :).

[tttiger 0]

The problem with Dead is Dead is: Dead isn't really Dead.

 

So, it's kind of a farce and beating on your hairy chest and saying you fly DiD and that makes you more of a man than those who don't is nonsense.

 

What happens when you die in DiD?

 

You go back and create a new pilot.

 

If the OFF code was such that when you are killed in DiD you are shut out of the sim/game FOREVER, then Dead really would be Dead.

 

My pilots never die. Neither do the AI. I've killed Herman Goering at least a half dozen times. He keeps coming back. Pity. I could have prevented WWII.

 

I retire my pilots when they get their VC (or when their real life counterpart stopped flying; easy to tell by the rosters in the briefing).

 

I do keep score (kills:deaths ratio) but when my pilot crashes I don't have to waste time creating a new one.

 

I play this sim for the dogfights and the ground attacks (yes, Siggi, some of us fly every ground attack mission and even if I get shot up I almost always can limp back across the lines. Not flying ground attack missions is truly lame).

 

I appreciate the fact the ground fire is going to be toned down but it really isn't all that bothersome if you make only ONE pass, drop your bombs or shoot your rockets (HUGE explosions!) and get out of Dodge as fast as you can in a tight climbing turn. The AI gunners have trouble tracking that maneuver.

 

In air-to-air combat I am a believer in Boelcke's Dicta and only attack when I have the advantage. But I'm out there hunting and I hunt until I have the advantage and can attack.

 

But, hey, if you think it's more "realistic" running home to your aerodrome every time there is danger, you can do that, too.

 

I really think this DiD stuff is a phoney issue. And the DiD score board sticky is a joke. Since we never compete head-to-head, what's the point?

 

The use of the other aids (and I use 'em just like Bullethead describes above; great minds indeed think alike) may be worth debating but DiD is a non issue to me.

 

Oh, and WM, thanks for you post above. I still don't think you (or anyone) can quantify reality (example: I lose no points for having my clouds turned off but it keeps my FPS in the playable range). No, I don't get hung up on the numbers. But that's because they seem quite arbitrary. I just ignore 'em.

 

One of the truly great aspects (and there are many) of OFF is that it offers so many possible combinations.

 

Whichever you choose, then that's "real" to you. And that's "really" all that matters.

 

 

Tony

Edited April 20, 2009 by tttiger

[zoomzoom 2]

Yes, very good points Bullet head. One thing that I think makes up for the "Gained experience with every flight" advantage we have is the "Not really being there as much as we may try" factor that we are fighting. I mean after all, we dont go on extensive training flights to learn our new machines every day. Eat at a mess of all flyers discussing the very craft we are in and its plusses and minusses, idiosyncrasies...etc.. etc. Go to bed bunking with comrades who's daily exploits with the enemy and tactics learned can be shared and raked over again and again to constantly glean you the best chance of survival possible. The closest thing we have to THAT immersion is this site. But when you come home from the drive from work and sit down at that console and fire up OFF with a head full of other things......well, its often at this point I'll lose a pilot. After I've gotten my "head back in time" though, its a great deal better. I guess we need some pre-play immersion drills!! Anyway....that is a testimonial in and of itself as to the realism of this game.

 

ZZ.

 

 

Tony.......whatever floats yer boat. All some folks here are saying is that due to thier historical research, DiD is pretty darned close to as realistic as you can get, and I agree with em. If you don't....ok.

Edited April 20, 2009 by zoomzoom

[Siggi 10]

So, it's kind of a farce and beating on your hairy chest and saying you fly DiD and that makes you more of a man than those who don't is nonsense.

 

 

...yes, Siggi, some of us fly every ground attack mission...Not flying ground attack missions is truly lame.

 

 

Tony

 

I'm having difficulty reconciling the first sentiment with the second. How many hairs does each GA mission put on your chest sir?

 

As for the DiD thing, I can't understand why it puts such a burr up yo ass. Does it detract from your enjoyment of the sim that others get a kick out of DiD and the killboard and all that other stuff? Maybe it's just that it's a standard you don't feel up to tackling? Chill out pops, you enjoy the sim your way and we'll enjoy it our way.

 

And finally...yay! I reached 17 hours today. Yes, quiet at the back, I know I did eight or nine of those in England. Gothas, Zepplins...cough...

[Interlocutor 0]

The problem with Dead is Dead is: Dead isn't really Dead.

 

So, it's kind of a farce and beating on your hairy chest and saying you fly DiD and that makes you more of a man than those who don't is nonsense.

 

Hmmm. Well, since my chest isn't very hairy , I regret it if I've given any impression that I think flying without TAC or labels is in any way better than any other way of playing the game. It's just the way I like to fly myself now (that could change someday I'm sure), so I've been making comments & asking questions about how my own prefered way to fly could be made better for me. Please take all my comments in that light. Others should play as they like, no better or worse at all, just different.

 

I've got a question now, given BH's last observations, about how the game engine "constructs" the environment we fly in before each mission. As a preamble, I'll say that I flew many campaigns (i.e., got killed lots ) with the Storks in N17's in July 1916 with TAC & labels & warp before I stopped using these features. My pilots used to see German two-seaters a lot, usually 3 Roland C2's in a formation well behind Allied lines.

 

Now I've been assuming that when a campaign mission is "constructed" for us by the game, that there's some coding whereby the game "pulls together" different stock "mission templates" for different German & Allied squadrons and off we all go. So how hard would it be to mod the game to generate more 2-seater flights for both sides, particularly solo 2-seater formations, and populate our skies with more such targets. Regardless of whether one chooses to fly with our without various features such as TAC/labels/warp, having more 2-seaters around would make it more real, it seems to me.

[zoomzoom 2]

Congrats Sig.

 

ZZ.

[Bullethead 12]

Now I've been assuming that when a campaign mission is "constructed" for us by the game, that there's some coding whereby the game "pulls together" different stock "mission templates" for different German & Allied squadrons and off we all go. So how hard would it be to mod the game to generate more 2-seater flights for both sides, particularly solo 2-seater formations, and populate our skies with more such targets. Regardless of whether one chooses to fly with our without various features such as TAC/labels/warp, having more 2-seaters around would make it more real, it seems to me.

 

I don't think it's anywhere near that scripted, simply because there are times when you meet nothing at all. And this can go on for quite a while if there ain't many enemies in the area. Or maybe you might have met some 2-seaters, but they saw you first and ran away before you saw them. Or maybe everybody you could have met got tangled up with other friendlies before you came alone.

 

What I think happens is that each squadron is given 1 or more missions every time you do a mission. These all go do their own things, meeting various enemies or not, all without any regard to what you're doing. They don't even all take off at the same time--I've seen both friendly and enemy planes take off while I'm flying over their fields. You just meet the enemy whom you cross paths with as a result of everybody carrying out their own plans.

 

So I still think the whole reason why 2-seater sightings by Entente scouts are so rare is because they always see you before they even show up on your TAC, and run away before the ever come within your TAC range.

[Interlocutor 0]

I don't think it's anywhere near that scripted, simply because there are times when you meet nothing at all. And this can go on for quite a while if there ain't many enemies in the area. Or maybe you might have met some 2-seaters, but they saw you first and ran away before you saw them. Or maybe everybody you could have met got tangled up with other friendlies before you came alone.

 

What I think happens is that each squadron is given 1 or more missions every time you do a mission. These all go do their own things, meeting various enemies or not, all without any regard to what you're doing. They don't even all take off at the same time--I've seen both friendly and enemy planes take off while I'm flying over their fields. You just meet the enemy whom you cross paths with as a result of everybody carrying out their own plans.

 

So I still think the whole reason why 2-seater sightings by Entente scouts are so rare is because they always see you before they even show up on your TAC, and run away before the ever come within your TAC range.

 

Thanks, BH, if your description of the way missions are built is the correct one, then I'd agree that the conclusions you draw are valid. Sometimes, though, the innate mechanic in me wants to understand "how it works", why the things that happen to us happen that way. I freely admit that I don't know how PC sims are constructed, and though I was a software engineer in a previous lifetime , that was in the days when VAX/VMS was hot stuff , so my prior experience isn't very informative. But I would love to hear a brief description of how the innards of campaign missions are put together from the devs themselves, even if it's just "BH got it right in his suppositions"...

[+Polovski 460]

We need more 2 seaters, more 2 seater squads, more yes.. time.. and to stop tweaking this and actually go make em?

 

2 seaters are on a mission and in reality would too run away if necessary - not because they are "easy" but because often they had to get vital info back home. So that is fairly realistic, even if the AI do always run miles from you.

 

RexH looked through and from the SDK the AI vision is about 4.3 nautical miles, fairly reasonable. It is exactly how CFS3 had it. The TAC display is MEANT to be used for the player to even that up some - it's an "awareness" tool, to compensate for the fact you are on a computer screen with limited pixels. The fact it spoils immersion is tough not a lot we can do about that. AI is meant to not see through cloud so should be possible to approach some. The AI "sight" will not get changed for P3.

 

Now guys just go play the sim ? ;)

[Bullethead 12]

RexH looked through and from the SDK the AI vision is about 4.3 nautical miles, fairly reasonable. It is exactly how CFS3 had it.

 

That may be, but apparently something else is kicking in that's giving AI Germans, whether 2-seaters or scouts, rather more than the 8 mile visibility range of the TAC. Either that, or the "8 mile" TAC range is a misprint for something considerably less. The fact remains that German scouts are always attacking, or maneuvering to attack, before the Entente human player can see them even at the 8-mile TAC setting, and that German 2-seaters never show up on TAC at all, at least when you're a Brit scout.

 

When I'm flying an FE2, I meet and fight German 2-seaters every 2nd or 3rd hop, so it's not like there's that much of a shortage of them, just a lack of variety in the types (almost all DFWs). Given that the Germans weren't as aggressively into the deep penetrations as the Brits, I wouldn't expect to meet 2-seaters all the time as a Brit. Every 2nd or 3rd hop seems about right. But never seeing them AT ALL, even on TAC, when I'm flying a Brit scout in the same area at the same time.... that strikes me as being a problem. Why don't I meet them just as often as when I'm in an Fee?

[Creaghorn 10]

RexH looked through and from the SDK the AI vision is about 4.3 nautical miles, fairly reasonable. It is exactly how CFS3 had it. The TAC display is MEANT to be used for the player to even that up some - it's an "awareness" tool, to compensate for the fact you are on a computer screen with limited pixels. The fact it spoils immersion is tough not a lot we can do about that. AI is meant to not see through cloud so should be possible to approach some. The AI "sight" will not get changed for P3.

 

Now guys just go play the sim ? ;)

 

hallo sir,

IMHO 4,3 is very very far vision for a WW1 pilot with all his interfering things he has to handle with (dirty googles, vibration, 3 dimensions, wind, coldness...). apart from that you won't change it, but it would be quite perfect between 2 to max 4 (ace 4, average 3, rookie 2, something like that). it's not a matter of when one can see a speck or a pixel. it's a matter of when deciding to attack. with 4 NM one in the air might be able to see specks or not, depends of lot of things. but when he sees it, he has to get close enough to see if friend or foe (ca 2NM), and THEN deciding to attack or to run if two seater. a hughe difference. so at least my opinion ist 4,3 nm is much too good vision.

 

the difference is, you can maybe with a little luck see specks at 4 nm, but you have to get close to at least 2nm to see shapes of aircraft and tell if friend or foe, without seeing any markings. and that's no limitation of hardware. it's quite realistic. but AI knows from 4,3 you're an enemy. that's the problem.

the perfect way IMHO was in rb3d. you sometimes could see specks and they sometimes could see you. but only after getting closer there was an attack. i think the different classes had difference sights so better squadrons surprised you more often because they have seen you earlier.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Creaghorn

[+Polovski 460]

Well I said it was reasonable not perfect, and it's "around 4.3nm". But there isn't a simple button to press to enable all this. Yep variable etc would be good. If the craft see you at 4nm and decides to investigate, it does not mean they are out to kill you until they are closer. Just imagine the enemy is coming to you to check you out, and yes coming in aggressively until they are sure either way.

[Interlocutor 0]

We need more 2 seaters, more 2 seater squads, more yes.. time.. and to stop tweaking this and actually go make em?

 

Pol, is the addition of additional 2-seater missions to the campaign mode something we players can do as "mods", or is it something you folks have to do? A vibrant modding community often helps a game increase sales ...

 

The AI "sight" will not get changed for P3.

 

Fair enough, thanks for the answer.

 

Now guys just go play the sim ? ;)

 

Pol, for my part I hope you understand that my comments about things like AI sight range and density of 2-seaters on missions are not made to aggravate you or to speak poorly of the wonderful sim you have built. Quite the opposite. In fact, it eeems to me that the types of "constructive criticism" you have been getting over the last month or so about various aspects of the sim speaks to the dedication and diligence which you and the development team have exhibited in trying to make BHAH the very best WW1 flying sim it can be.

 

Your efforts in fixing the few real "bugs" and in addressing various players' "points of view" about how things "should be" have been exceptional. In my case at least, I've come to look on the BHAH dev team as "wonder workers" who will do anything within the limits of the CFS3 engine itself to engineer a truly immersive WW1 flying experience. Thanks for what you've done so far, and for answering my questions about what more will and will not be done.

 

And I've never stopped playing the sim .