Some SF2 KAW questions

[Nicholas Bell 117]

Streakeage, how does the DCS AI compare to SF2?

[+streakeagle 871]

Streakeage, how does the DCS AI compare to SF2?

Overall, I think SF2 still has better AI, but it is hard to compare. I have problems with both of them. The biggest problem in DCS is that the AI, like SF, use a simpler FM than human flown aircraft. The simple FM usually favors them getting away with maneuvers you may have trouble following. But that is partially offset by the other big problem: the AI is fairly predictable. It will almost always make the same choice when faced with the same situation. So, you can find a hole in its logic that will allow you to beat its over-capable FM. But even with those two flaws, I have had some great dogfights against DCS AI. They are best at vertical stall fighting. They will climb until you stall, then come back down. They rarely succeed in going offensive with this strategy, but you can only shoot them if you risk it all on a snap shot that will end with you stalling/spinning or learn to be exceptional at energy management. They usually only get hits on me in two situations: chasing wingman too long while lead is behind me or a head-on pass. When fighting a flight of four, it seem like the lead engages while everyone else hangs out waiting to see the results. If you can identify and engage the lead, the other three are usually harmless. If you chase a wingman, the lead is fairly aggressive and must be watched. When I write multi-aircraft engagements, I tend to break flights up into pairs so I face twice as many aggressive leads. As stupid as this sounds, I think this behavior isn't a bad model for the failures of the fluid four, and just like real life, it is solved by going to the fluid two. The AI seems weakest in a horizontal rolling scissors. I can usually spit out any enemy in front of me no matter how our aircraft performance compares.

 

In SF2, the AI seems to be a bit more dynamic. I can play the same mission repeatedly and get different results even if I follow the same course of action. But it I typically end up in turn fights with agile aircraft and can win with patience staying in the circle and using altitude if necessary since most SF2 AI pilots don't do well in the vertical. I say most, because sometimes I think I have found Col. Tomb from Vietnam who unexpectedly engages me in the vertical. SF2 AI has a preference for the player. SF2 AI can and will kill me far more often than DCS AI, but I can and usually do kill them far faster and easier than in DCS. SF2 AI is also suicidal. They like to hit the ground -- a lot. Sometimes, DCS AI will misjudge and scrape a hill or mountainside, but SF2 aircraft seem to just dive to the ground sometimes.

 

Despite any differences in AI, the outcomes of the fights are usually the same for me in both games. Using F-86 vs MiG-15 as an example: If I fly the F-86 in DCS, I can get proficient enough to win the majority of the time in 1 vs 4 fights, ammo fuel being my only limits. If I fly the MiG-15bis, I can pretty much do the same, but having less ammo, I have to aim more carefully to get multiple kills. When I do the same in SF2 KAW, the main difference is that the AI has a better chance of getting hits on me, but I won't run out of ammo or fuel: if I get a good burst on a target, it goes down. In DCS you have to be more careful with your aircraft. You can stall your engine, cause structural failure, or even depart controlled flight. I am fearless in both games since I can't die, but if I want to win, I have to be more patient and careful in DCS. SF2's flight and systems modeling is much more forgiving.

 

Overall, due to the FM and systems modeling as well as the UFO like MiG-15 AI, I find flying the F-86F in DCS more fun and challenging than in SF2. The better looking terrain doesn't hurt either even if it is the wrong map. But the overall superiority is marginal, and SF2 has a lot to offer in terms of large scale fights, correct map/environment/ground objects, etc. So, if you enjoy 1 vs 1 or 2 vs 2 dogfights that focus on the accuracy of the aircraft modeling, I would fly DCS. If you like full fledged missions or better yet, campaigns with a broad environment, SF2 is still far superior.

not to divulge state secrets, but there may be a new Banshee in the works..

 

as to Razbams, streak, I don't know if you've seen these:

 

http://combatace.com/files/file/14889-sf2-kaw-f2h-2-banshee-tweeks-pak-for-razbam-banshees/

 

http://combatace.com/files/file/15415-sf2-f2h-3-banshee-tweeks-pak-for-razbam-banshees/

 

http://combatace.com/files/file/15417-sf2-f2h-4-banshee-tweeks-pak-for-razbam-banshees/

 

I may have seen these, but I don't believe I downloaded them, or if I did, I don't believe I installed them. Looking into it tonight. Thanks.

Edited March 11, 2016 by streakeagle

[Nicholas Bell 117]

Thank you for your detailed insight into the DCS AI, Streakeagle.   Think I will hold off a bit until I hear of improvements.  The predictable part reminds me too much of IL-2 '46, which is good for a mission now and then, but not so if played frequently.  I've got my SF2 setup pretty nicely tweaked (damage modeling, gun accuracy/weights, AI by type) to keep me on my toes.  Enough that I am often just satisfied to RTB safe (with my flight) - forget gaining victories.

 

Glad you find enjoyment in both sims!

[Do335 382]

SF2 F-86 FM is pretty uber, it can fly circles around the mig. Otoh seems the sabre is weak in DCS, there was a big discussion on the DCS foras. It'd be nice to mix them together and average it out:p

(Note pure FM performance and not piloting skills)

[+streakeagle 871]

I haven't flown multiplayer in DCS since the MiG-15 became available, so my experience has been either flying in F-86 against AI MiG-15s or in MiG-15 against AI F-86s. The F-86 is a much easier aircraft to fly, but you have to fly it to its limits to beat the AI MiG-15. I don't find the F-86 to be "weak", just requiring patience to get the AI in front of the guns. Some people think the MiG-15 takes too many rounds to kill. But that historically claimed 10:1 kill ratio was really less than 3:1 because most of those "kills" flew home, were patched up, and fought again. Personally, I can take out a MiG in a very short burst: aim for the wing root, it comes off quick and they go down instantly.

Edited March 13, 2016 by streakeagle

[Do335 382]

I haven't flown multiplayer in DCS since the MiG-15 became available, so my experience has been either flying in F-86 against AI MiG-15s or in MiG-15 against AI F-86s. The F-86 is a much easier aircraft to fly, but you have to fly it to its limits to beat the AI MiG-15. I don't find the F-86 to be "weak", just requiring patience to get the AI in front of the guns. I don't find the F-86 to be "weak", just requiring patience to get the AI in front of the guns.  Personally, I can take out a MiG in a very short burst: aim for the wing root, it comes off quick and they go down instantly.

It is why I said FM and not piloting skills. A good pilot can beat anything But in contrast do you need to fly the mig "to the limit" to down the -86, is the question..

 

 

 

Some people think the MiG-15 takes too many rounds to kill. But that historically claimed 10:1 kill ratio was really less than 3:1 because most of those "kills" flew home, were patched up, and fought again.

Have seen all kinds of numbers but don't care 'bout them these days, just nationalism at work... and comparing who's better at killing...

Edited March 13, 2016 by Do335

[+streakeagle 871]

The difference is that we now have the numbers from the former Soviet Union instead of US pilot claims. The numbers in Vietnam turned out to be very accurate. Only a handful of disagreements between US claims and North Vietnam losses. But Korea was overclaim central. Against USSR pilots the kill ratio in Korea was close to 1.5: 1 in favor of the US and somewhere between 2:1 and 3:1 overall. Which makes the mantra from Top Gun about dropping from 10:1 down to 2:1 a bunch of poppycock. In Vietnam, like Korea, the kill ratio varied greatly over time as tactics and orders were changed. Overall it wasn't far from 3:1, about the same or even better than Korea.

 

But with better equipment and better pilots, the kill ratio goes insanely high with the F-15... but the F-15 never fought in a 10-year politically restricted environment with USAF generals ordering tactics that further increased losses to enemy fighters. The Navy was far smarter and saw its kill ratio improve in Vietnam despite using the same aircraft (F-4) and facing the same political restrictions.

 

As for flying the MiG-15bis at the limit... no, you don't have to fly at the limits to beat the F-86, but the MiG-15 is just harder to fly, period. It is far easier to stall/depart and taking off and landing require more care. The F-86 was well-designed to be pilot friendly. The MiG-15bis was not.

[Do335 382]

Well, basically you have some ppl saying 'Murica!, we got more kills! Some others saying Mother Russia!!, we got more kills! I've seen them in various places and it was always pointless. This kind of history go hand in hand with politics... Politics for kings and queens and their puppets. They don't just wanna live like ordinary ppl, but wanna control the entire planet and wanna do it by killing others in war, and then claim the kills even years after.

I learn about these but don't dwell on it any longer than have to. There are better ways to learn about our beloved airplanes. It is as far as I will say on this matter...