A Thread at SimHQ

[Ticket1 0]

Hi folks,

 

A bit helpless feeling...not the OP of this thread http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3055729/This_Game_Has_Annoyed_Me_for_T.html#Post3055729 but myself.

 

As I'm a supporter and long-time Thirdwire TW simulator players, I can't stand the complains the original poster OP mentioned up there.

 

The TW series is very opened in terms of aircraft modifications from flight model FM, artificial intelligence AI, aircraft's skins as well as weapon's performance. I believe the OP is being upset by the stock model of SU-7 the Fitter and some of the Russian arsenals. What he wants is a less-than sophisticated Beyond Visual Range BVR engagement combat. And I think I can be of some help at that.

 

It's quite unfair to the OP as well as TW series of simulators if what is generally known to the community is not precisely conveyed and propagated, especially to the OP in this case.

 

Unfortunately, I've not been granted the permission to post on the forum. I'd like to share with the OP and also others in the forum about how to tweak the Su-7 DATA.INI file as well as some of the weapon's effectiveness, but I need to communicate with the OP as to which weapon or BVR aircrafts he would like to see in actions.

 

I wish the OP will read this forum as well.

 

Anyway...why joining SimHQ needs approval? A bit difficult I say...

 

Tk1

[Fubar512 1,350]

In that particular case, I can well imagine that there's more to it than the thread-starter stated

 

In as far as BVR is concerned, rest assured that the crutches that we came up with many years ago (I now refer to them as cheap workarounds), are no longer necesary with the '08 patch level, and certainly not in SF2 and its follow on titles. And that workaround was ramping up the max visible distance setting (under the detect system header) by several hundred percent. It was fun back then, but also led to some wildly unrealistic behavior on the part of many of the AI aircraft and ground models.

Edited September 3, 2010 by Fubar512

[+Dave 2,322]

Well don't let that thread title and his rant lead you astray. There is more to it than what he is saying. Thus why you didn't see anything about the latest expansion pack on there front page. (Or at least I didn't see anything) The history of this sim is loaded with flame wars, mod team divisions and general jackassery. That is why a post over there about CombatAce being down disappeared. That is why that forum is dead and all the traffic for the Thirdwire sim is here. That is his way of saying he is done with this sim series I suspect. The reason why joining SimHQ requires approval is their call, its their site.

[+hgbn 91]

Well I joined this joint for the downloads but stayed for the eels

 

 

Jokes aside I really think that this is THE place for any Thirdwire fans.... And I like the people here..

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Dave::

That is his way of saying he is done with this sim series I suspect.

Nah. There was a time you'd poast every 6 months or so, that you were giving up the game. Never happened. Never will. There's no where else to go.

 

I read it, I agree mostly. But that's why TK goes out of his way to say this is a game. I've internalized that so well, knowing its pretty much a one man operation, I'm still stoked using SF 2006 for my singular, never varying purpose. The big advance in the game is emphasis on Cold War jets. That happened at the beginning, but no other sim out there does it, so after as much modification as possible, this is still the best and only game out there, and has been since the SF start, and may be for a long, long time.

 

Although AIM-4 Falcon in a "lite sim - fun game" never made sense to me, I was happy to see TK include the thing because it was an ancient artifact never seen before by TheSims players.

 

I'd patch up to 2008 or better get the SF2 but (Fubar) the recent BVR advances are "crutches" themselves requiring deep workarounds for non-RHM BVR engagement (AI night gunnery with that F3D planned for Korea campaign, AI night IRM engagments, etc...), and TK's Crimson Tide camera glare at sunset, I can't handle. Recall that at night, BVR can start at zero feet.

 

I know there's some complaints about lack of out-of-box, so to speak, flayabal MiGs. TK poasted that someday that will happen, which means it will happen (Dave, its just a game). TK also said there will be no "strategic level game" so ya'll be flying TK's MiGs long before you fly TK's SAC bombers (all you CA Peacenukes, it would be a game).

Why play MiGs anyways?

[+Dave 2,322]

Dave::

Nah. There was a time you'd poast every 6 months or so, that you were giving up the game. Never happened. Never will. There's no where else to go.

 

 

True but that was ages ago. He post seem more final than mine. I learned to take a break and that keeps me from leaving. It wasn't every 6 months that is for sure.

[Ticket1 0]

Hey folks,

 

Really don't know what possess of me, but I've done it!  3 to 4 hours I think to write something back to him.  Here, please check my understanding, I could be wrong on the doctrines thing though.   

 

http://simhq.com/for...tml#Post3087086

 

By the way, YouTube sucks BIG time!!!  The same .MP4 uploaded, MySpace did it in a heartbeat whereas ja*kas* YouTube turned me down saying that the conversion of my video failed.  What the h***!!!

 

One thing though, there is a glitch in Oct 2008 for SFP1.  Maybe you've already noticed that in the video.  When I jumped external view to the AI MiG-23 and jumped back to my own F-4J by external view, the jet engine sound is gone, any idea?  It's not a problem with the F-4J but other aircrafts as well, say if I swap to fly the MiG-23, I hit the same problem.  What's the cause of the problem?

 

 

 

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=106441264

 

 

 

 

Tk1

Edited September 4, 2010 by Ticket1

[Fubar512 1,350]

No offense, but you'd be better off beating your head against a cement wall, for all the difference that would make to some of the folks over there. There's a rather sordid tale behind the animosity some of them have towards TW products, but it's not really not worth getting into on an open forum.

 

In regards to BVR, well, F-14Bs will engage you with AIM-54s at ranges in excess of 50 nm (100 nm is the farthest I've seen the AI launch from), and MiG-29s and Su-27s routinely launch Alamos from 30-35 nm.

[Wrench 9,850]

Personally, I wouldn't have bothered.

 

wrench

kevin stein

[Ticket1 0]

No offense, but you'd be better off beating your head against a cement wall, for all the difference that would make to some of the folks over there.  There's a rather sordid tale behind the animosity some of them have towards TW products, but it's not really not worth getting into on an open forum.

 

In regards to BVR, well, F-14Bs will engage you with AIM-54s at ranges in excess of 50 nm (100 nm is the farthest I've seen the AI launch from), and MiG-29s and Su-27s routinely launch Alamos from 30-35 nm.

 

 

 

Well, I know but just want to get it off my chest.

 

 

In fact, if we take a look at the flight simulation market in the last couple of years, one may find a few titles countable by 5 fingers which strikes the balance between hard-core and medi-core.  Yesterday, I saw a clip on YouTube about Flaming Cliffs 2. Quite honestly, if you fly the Desert Map in SFP1 at 8,000 or above, you'll probably notice the mountains' texture looks way better than that in FC2.  And FC2's mountains all have too sharp edges which looks not pretty at all.  And the learning curve is steep.  The number of aircrafts flyable can hardly be compared to TW series.  I wouldn't say the flight simulation market is declining but definitely not good at all.

 

So we should treasure what we have here.  And that's why I reply to that thread.  But SimHQ is not as good as before as far as forums go.

 

 

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Exactly Fubar. AI engages BVR only with radar missiles, like the two example missiles you poasted. They won't engage when armed with infrared (MiG-21PF), nor with guns (F3D), until the AI get within the target's defined visual range, so we are back to square one on that. You might consider creating "fake" RHM missiles that get expended near the target, so the AI can then switch to close visual engagement with (real) IRM or guns. F3D escorting B-29s in the new Korea mod will need some kind of workaround like this so they can engage targets far beyond gun range with the purpose to get within gun range.

 

 

I'd say TheSims market has declined big time. If TK can do as well as he has with his simple grafix, a larger company can do far more programming, and hence gameplay developement, using the same grafix. But they waste their resources on the newest grafix that never seems to work at game releace (ie...LOMAC). It seems the larger TheSims developers think they have to compete grafix wise with the ground shooter games -- WretchFest Maximus. They can't and never can.

Edited September 5, 2010 by Lexx_Luthor

[+Dave 2,322]

Ticket

 

You had a great thought out response, but you got the answer I was expecting. Smoke and mirrors like Fubar said.

[+Dave 2,322]

Back to your original post though the AI does need work both friendly and enemy. It isn't perfect but it still gives you a good fight. Thanks to the mod at SimHQ for the smoke and mirror cartoon. It almost made my day.

[Ticket1 0]

Exactly Fubar. AI engages BVR only with radar missiles, like the two example missiles you poasted. They won't engage when armed with infrared (MiG-21PF), nor with guns (F3D), until the AI get within the target's defined visual range, so we are back to square one on that. You might consider creating "fake" RHM missiles that get expended near the target, so the AI can then switch to close visual engagement with (real) IRM or guns. F3D escorting B-29s in the new Korea mod will need some kind of workaround like this so they can engage targets far beyond gun range with the purpose to get within gun range.

 

 

I'd say TheSims market has declined big time. If TK can do as well as he has with his simple grafix, a larger company can do far more programming, and hence gameplay developement, using the same grafix. But they waste their resources on the newest grafix that never seems to work at game releace (ie...LOMAC). It seems the larger TheSims developers think they have to compete grafix wise with the ground shooter games -- WretchFest Maximus. They can't and never can.

 

Hi Lexx_Luthor,

 

 

Good to have you back! I've played with you nuke toys quite a few times, it's really impressive.

 

I've spent many hours trying to figure out how the game handles AI, and to my surprise, the Oct 2008 has done a great job.  More importantly, it's the flexibility as I mentioned in my thread at SimHQ that the game offers to the simmers which matters.  I can just slightly tune the DATA.INI file and the MiG-23 can fire upon my F-4 Phantom at range like 30nm.  Likewise, I can do the same to the AVIONICS.INI file and I can lock-up the MiG-23 at 100 nm and fire upon it with a modification of the AIM-7P.  It's highly modular.

 

Grafix, it kills a product!   I've been spending much time on Civilization IV recently.  And the forthcoming Civilization V seems to emphasize on graphics rather than gameplay, I'm quite certain that this move will kill the product's sale.  LOMAC is not a failure but the hardware requirement kills its popularity.  I can't run DCS: Black Shark at medium with frame rates up to 60, now that's I call it rubbish.  If you look at H.A.W.K., not talking about its gameplay but the graphics is good and so are the frame rates on the same machine I'm running. 

 

Mnay years ago, Eidos JSF deployed a special technique I've forgotten the name, that you can see smooth transition of horizon to sky so much that as if they are real scenery.  If a simulator is produced to run on future PC, there's no point of releasing it before the requirements can be met.

 

 

 

Back to your original post though the AI does need work both friendly and enemy. It isn't perfect but it still gives you a good fight. Thanks to the mod at SimHQ for the smoke and mirror cartoon. It almost made my day.  

Thanks!

 

 

 

"It almost made my day", so what is the inadequacy?

 

 

[Ticket1 0]

Dave, Lex

 

Good to have you around, just want to ask you a question. What exactly does the avionics.dll file do?

 

 

 

 

Tk1

 

 

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

avionics.dll -- I suppose that file has data on how avionics works in game. I never got deep into Windows programming so I never used dll files. I still do DOS programming though (Fortran90).

 

--

 

Ticket::

I can just slightly tune the DATA.INI file and the MiG-23 can fire upon my F-4 Phantom at range like 30nm.

 

Forget firing. Think engaging. With no radar directed R-23R or -24R onboard, the MiG-23 sleeps like a baby unless it comes within your F-4's defined MaxVisibileDistance.

 

 

 

Likewise, I can do the same to the AVIONICS.INI file and I can lock-up the MiG-23 at 100 nm and fire upon it with a modification of the AIM-7P.

 

RHM again. More important, any Player can engage with radar from 100nm out when carrying IRM or guns. With no RHM aboard, AI won't engage unless within a target's defined MaxVisibileDistance.

 

We're back to SF1. Yawl fellas/fellattes might want to look into some style of fake RHM method described earlier for that F3D in Korea mod. I suppose TK took a programming shortcut as the Cold War era he covers was heavily populated by big western fighters with big radars and radar missiles. F3D had all that, except the missiles.

 

 

--

 

Tick, I gather you can't help Pfunk because the problem is not flight modelling, but AI programming. I agree with Pfunk's poast after yours, but I can deal with it and not squeal like stuck pig. And Pfunk is stuck here, and most likely isn't going anywhere (go where?).

 

 

 

Now, I have *fixed* the AI issues -- for my purpose -- but they may not be what tactical dogfight gamers want. Download Timmy's MiG-9 and the readme I wrote (hopefully) explains the workaround I came up with -- gutting the flight model and severely limiting gee so AI can fight without ending up at sealevel. Gutting flight models also allows more realistic numbers of aircraft to be in the air at one time (hundreds of them), which I consider an equal trade for "FM realism." I also sacrifice terrain detail for map size, so those sqwealing about TK's terrain may not like my ideas on that at all. But then, only I, and no other, can fly from every SAC airbase surrounding the Soviet Union on one map. Another air combat TheSims First, only in teh SF!

Edited September 5, 2010 by Lexx_Luthor

[+Dave 2,322]

Good post Lexx..

[Ticket1 0]

Tick, I gather you can't help Pfunk because the problem is not flight modelling, but AI programming. I agree with Pfunk's poast after yours, but I can deal with it and not squeal like stuck pig.  And Pfunk is stuck here, and most likely isn't going anywhere (go where?).

 

 

 

Now, I have *fixed* the AI issues -- for my purpose -- but they may not be what tactical dogfight gamers want. Download Timmy's MiG-9 and the readme I wrote (hopefully) explains the workaround I came up with -- gutting the flight model and severely limiting gee so AI can fight without ending up at sealevel. Gutting flight models also allows more realistic numbers of aircraft to be in the air at one time (hundreds of them), which I consider an equal trade for "FM realism." I also sacrifice terrain detail for map size, so those sqwealing about TK's terrain may not like my ideas on that at all. But then, only I, and no other, can fly from every SAC airbase surrounding the Soviet Union on one map. Another air combat TheSims First, only in teh SF!

Lexx

 

I'm trying to help, it's just I'm taking a slower pace.  I'm planning how to help.  It's quite obvious from his writings he wants to have some BVR combat experience and more on that, he actually wants to WATCH AI behaves so.   As you understand that there are so many mods out there and add-ons need to dress up before I can set up a test environment.  I want to show what I know about the topic by way of Video clips but that takes quite considerable time.

 

 

Just now I'm back from WoE testing some LGB targeting.  There seems to be some sort of glitch in laser designation.  I'm too used to hardcore designation skill like F/A-18 and F-15 as well as Falcon 4.  I'm still trying to figure out how the same or similar can be done in TW series, it's no easy task because I need to download more aircrafts to try out and Mirage factory's weapon pack contains just a few Russian LGB.  

 

Now it takes some time before I can reply.  The following is what I'm going to reply him, pending a video demonstrating what I mentioned in the reply:

 

Hi PFunk,

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

Let me address your question one by one.  Note, don't expect good news for every one of them though.

 

1.) AI that cannot do anything but get drawn into dogfights, and promptly get the crap shot out of them by nimbler opponents. Every stinkin' time. They do not manage their energy, they start turning. And they don't turn well. At all. They are summarily shot down without having expended one missile, thus being worse than useless, they are a waste.

 

You're wrong then!  Excuse me to be so direct.  My video has sufficiently demonstrate that AI not necessarily need to engage into dogfight and dogfight only.  As you can see, the MiG-23 engaged me at almost right at 21nm away, exactly the range of the AA-7C Apex Semi-Active Radar Homing missile SARH.  Note, I've also shown you how I checked my RWR Radar Warning Receiver and the MiG-23 started tracking me when it was 30nm away.  You must observe the F-4J's radar closely and estimate the position. The scale is in steps of 25, 50, 100nm.

 

I believe when you're talking about energy management, I would not say the AI can maneuver extremely well.  The reason is the Flight Model FM which is described in the DATA.INI file in most case.  I do have seen some aircrafts perform 'miracle' turns, nearly right around its own axis.  Now that's a faulty FM and should not be considered.

 

As far as using missiles, the AI performs well.  Regrettably,  I engaged in the fight otherwise, the MiG-23 would have fired upon me using its AA-11 archer and you would see how good it does the job without ever getting close to me to use its guns.  Another thing I'm trying to point out is that the AI knows well about its arsenals and is capable of prioritizing which one to use.  So, let's take Su-27 as an example.  The AI will use the AA-12 Adder first, then Alamo AA-10 and then AA-11 Archer in that order with EXCEPTION that when it is engaged by another adversaries from its six, then it will turn around and tries to engage it.  Situations like that will become more complicated.  Added to the scenario when a Patriot battery starts tracking it, situation will become even more stormy.  If you set the Enemy on Hard setting, the Su-27 might engage its adversaries on its six, and at the same time, try to jingle a bit to evade the Patriot threat until it resolves the immediate threat on its six then it will escape because normally Su-27 loadout doesn't carry Anti-radiation missile on a aerial combat mission.

 

But the AI does have built-in intelligence to engage defensive, meaning it knows when to dump chaff or flares whereas we human pilots can dump both and waste either one of them.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Thanks Dave!!

 

 

Ticket, he's right about AI turning and turning and turning, once closure is made. Although, streakeagle may be the one to ask if SF2 has offered improvements on this. It may have.

 

Do you use a mission editor to create test missions? Share them with others. Mission editors are the only efficient laboratory equipment that allows us to discover details about AI behavior.

 

AI dumping chaff and flares may not be intelligence, but simplified scripting. I assume it always happens given the approach of a missile. Not complaining, hay it works. I can't use ECM in my game since I plan to use nuc warhead SAMs and AAMs. ECM deflected SAMs always self-destruct not far off the launch pad. In the game, self-destruct is the main warhead. The SAM site gets nucked. Chaff works though, as the missile is confused as it approaches the target, far from the launch point, and just keeping flying and flying like Duracell Bunny without self-destructing.

 

Later!

[MigBuster 2,884]

The problem is there - its discussed earlier in that SIMHQ thread and he does have a few valid points that I'm sure TK will try to address.

 

The friendly AI in SF2 (may not be as noticable in SF1) will engage enemy jets in flat horizontal turns regardless of their jet or the enemies - so if the jet is a MiG-15/17/19, Vampire, or Meteor they get slaughtered without fail. (this is on all Hard settings btw)

Edited September 6, 2010 by MigBuster

[FastCargo 412]

Here's a question to folks...are there any sims where the AI simulates a good 'boom and zoom' opponent?

 

Not a joke, I'm seriously asking.

 

FC

[Fubar512 1,350]

FC, the best dogfight AI was always assumed to be the one in Rowan's MiG Alley. After reinstalling it and trying it over the last year, I can say that the differences in the guns-only dogfight AI between MA and SF2 is marginal, at best. And no, MA's AI doesnt BnZ, either.

[MigBuster 2,884]

Here's a question to folks...are there any sims where the AI simulates a good 'boom and zoom' opponent?

 

Not a joke, I'm seriously asking.

 

FC

 

 

Interesting question - I suppose Modern and WW1/WW2 AI can get away with horizontal turning fights without most people noticing.

 

Ironically I have had experience of such things in Wings Over Israel - Enemy jets have always been better at not getting into slow turning fights. MiG-23s sometimes engaged me at high speed and kept their energy high - this is still not perfect - but better than them slowing down into a futile turning fight - what happened to those guys!

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

FC::

Here's a question to folks...are there any sims where the AI simulates a good 'boom and zoom' opponent?

FB-PF. Oleg eventually programmed into FB/PF the ability of AI to choose to fight at high speed or low speed. With the built-in mission editor, I ran lots of tests on this. At the start of engagement, each AI "examines" its selected opponent and chooses one style of fight or another. I'll give one test I ran alot, but my memory is fuzzy after...6 years? LOL.

 

Head on starting from beyond visual engagement range. During closure, A6M2 vs P-40, the P-40 would go high, climb slightly, the Zero would maintain altitude. Switch to A6M2 vs I-153, the Zero climbs high, the Polikarpov does not. Against the biplane, even the Zero becomes a BnZ fighter (so to speak). To me, this was evidence of at least scripting behavior given relative performance between planes. Now, for after closure I don't recall my tests but general in-cockpit gameplay I never forgot. I went SF shortly after this, and never went back.

 

For after closure dogfighting, in general, when I was in a slower, significantly more manueverable aircraft relative to my opponent, the enemy would stay well out of range at high speed, and not turn tightly and lose speed nor altitude. It was frustrating, as it should be in a slower plane. However, Oleg should have gone even further and allow the AI to extend farther to gain enough room to reverse and bounce the slow opponent again. But as it was, it prevented the SF situation of every plane dropping to stall speed at sea level, although Migbuster's MiG-23 WoI description above is an interesting counterpoint.

 

That said, TK nailed AI terrain avoidance. IL-2-FB-PF terrain avoidance was notorious, best exemplified at the PF realeace with the AI formations running into New Guinea mountains, ruining campaigns. TK's terrain avoidance is so effective, a low level strategic night/all-weather penetration campaign screams out to be modded here. I'm into high altitude, stratosphere stuff -- sorry about that.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

MiGbuster::

I suppose Modern and WW1/WW2 AI can get away with horizontal turning fights without most people noticing.

I wonder how OFF and ROF do it. I never played CFSn.

 

DR.1 vs SPAD

 

Ki-43 vs P-38

 

For the latter WW2 pair, Oleg eventually, well after PF releace, did fairly well here as I recall. Not perfect but not bad. He did have a dedicated AI programmer working for him in the Moscow Bureau.