Sorry if already answered. Just curious really, this game has a lot more play-ability for me with good AI. Servers are not populated when I am able to play.
Sorry if already answered. Just curious really, this game has a lot more play-ability for me with good AI. Servers are not populated when I am able to play.
We continue to work on a revision of the AI behaviour.
Just got notice for example that one of our coders, (ATAG_Oskar) found and fixed the bug which sometimes caused the AI to refuse to land... which I know drove a lot of people nuts.
I know it probably is "TOP SECRET" but I would wager money that other SPs like me would Love to hear about some of what is going on with the attempts to rework the AI and how integrating a Dynamic Campaign into COD is coming along. It has been pretty tight lipped so far. Think there is any way you could throw us a bone? If not, then it is what it is Sir.
S!Blade<><
Weirdly I was trying to shoot some footage in the Single Player mission "German attack column".
Now before 4.55 all the 110's carrying their bombs reached the column and dropped their bombs, now though only half do as the Hurricanes/Spitfires ow attack the enemy approach and some avoid and drop their bombs. This didn't happen in v4.54 but it does now so I do wonder if a small fix was dropped in for v4. 55?
"The needs of the Flight Sim Community outweigh the needs of the one or the few"
I also think I see improvements, and that's great! With every patch, the game is more enjoyable, and hats off to TF! I take the answer as 'TF is doing everything they can, as they can'. And I say it shows! Great job guys (and gals if any)! Love your work, and look forward to the day I can pay you for it.
https://theairtacticalassaultgroup.c...ad.php?t=30570
TFS is working hard for the future of your favorite sim!
ASUS TUF Gaming A15 FA507NV, AMD Ryzen 7 7735HS CPU, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Laptop GPU, 8 GB GDDR6 VRAM, 16 GB DDR5 RAM, 512 GB SSD, Windows 11 Home 23H2, VPC MongoosT-50 Throttle, VKB Gladiator Pro, MFG Crosswind, Wheel Stand Pro, EIZO CS240, Track-IR 5
Was this a Quick Mission? They were updated in 4.55. In the original versions of many of these missions bombers were not being intercepted because the interceptors were too far away. Or they intercepted after the target had been bombed.
What you are describing sounds like how it should work. If you are an escort you can fend off the interceptors so more of the bombers get through. And if you don't support them they will get shot down in greater numbers.
I think that mission may have more ground targets added as well.
I set spacing to 'far' right before landing and it seems to be a good work around for now. I have made a 4v6 spit v 110 mission with AI set to high, and dialed back a few attributes, and I have played this mission about 50 times and the AI seems absolutely superb! They fight to the end of ammo, they seem to work as a team more and the bastards are hard as hell to hit. They like to pull up at the last minute when you're sure they're going down.
I just put opentracker on my computer, and I'm using a aruco marker, so I got like 10 bucks in it, and it works very well. I have played flight sims for 25 years and I cannot believe how much a head tracker pulls you into the game!
Are vary issues playing in this "accident", first, games are to be played in the way they are designed - this crash are consequence of:
Player think that is in a "open world game" + an unaware/uninspired mission maker, e.g. the one that made CloD default missions - missions that more hinder than help game image.
E.g. In DCS World if you start a Single Mission, tasked to land in Kobuleti, refuel an return to Tsibuli, but instead decide land in Krymsk, what happens?
1 - By tuning your radio (select an ATC) in Krymsk you can ask for clearance to land and receive. Select between several ATC in DCS is a feature existing in game code.
2 - After landing when you call ground crew (another feature existing in game code) and ask for refuel, but then nothing happens. Why?
Refuel service in airbases is mission maker decision, if he add only for Tsibuli, no way to refuel in Krymsk.
Comparing to CloD.
In CloD player can't select an given base "controller" (equivalent to DCS ATC), but only one "controller" for all bases.
In a given QM your group are tasked to land in Manston (but briefing don't tell this), and due laziness in fly more decide landing in Hawkinge.
Ask authorization for land to "controller" and is denied - not because you can't land there, but due and error in game code, that inverse answer authorized by denied and vice versa, I have posted evidence of this.
But, even if answer is correct - authorized, "controller" are authorizing you landing in Manston not in Hawkinge, because you can't tune you radio in other controller - what is correct for BoB radios they are tuned to a "controller" of a sector.
But CloD AI only land under "controller" control, not player control* - and controller only will give authorization for AI landing when they enter in airbase capture radius.
And that is the problem, like in DCS, CloD mission maker have set capture radius only for Manston, then AI will never be authorized to land in Hawkinge or other place.
Now a real AI bug came to play - bad ground avoidance and/or blind adherence to player order for keep formation, consequence: crash on ground.
* An CloD initially planed radio command for AI (TAB 2 6 4) - Return to Home (like in IL-2:46) will avoid this, but in CloD "disaster" this command was "sweep under the rug" instead fixed.
(*) QM missions briefing are bad done and don't tell player where he are supposed to land if he are not playing in "GPS" mode, then he think that are in an "open world game" and can land everywhere. Well he can, but not AI.
And "workaround" (someone say that CloD is synonymous of workaround), MISSION MAKER set capture radius to all bases. **
Remembering that if plan use Windsock - another QM missions design fault, their use is limited to 64, and could be limited more if mission has some kind of objects - I think animated.
As "workaround" have "collateral effect", in certain missions will lead group land in undesired base base if they overfly their capture radius. Correct is fix radio commands, restoring the originals.
** Another CloD peculiarity came to play: CloD programmers love for inverse order (e.g. parking positions) define that landing order are from high to lower formation number, then all group landing before player - if has playing as squad leader (No. 1). If not, he need know their number in formation and follow the briefly radio message, but anyone tell then their number.
Last edited by 1lokos; Mar-18-2019 at 15:43.
[QUOTE=Craterman;330482]I set spacing to 'far' right before landing and it seems to be a good work around for now.
Spacing to Far does not help, when player lands on “wrong” airfield, AI still remain in formation flight behind the landed leader which results in crash of the AI. If player lands on the correct airfield this does not happen.
This stubborn formation flight I see also when I am involved in a dog fight and the AI not bothering about the
fight, it just tries to remain in formation. Even without order system you would hope that AI reacts differently in both cases.
I hope this is covered in 5.0 Tobruk.
Well, help in save some of the wingman's.
When payer goes for land, order change formation for line astern, but keeping "close" formation, then when he are on final order "far formation", AI will spread out and he can land alone if act faster, sometimes the "workaround" end OK, sometimes not.
Wonderful sim but a couple of urgent AI issues...
Firstly, AI aircraft turning with the rudder jammed hard over. Totally unrealistic and a hangover from the old Il2 Sturmovik 1946. Oleg Maddox was an aerodynamicist and I can never understand why he didn't fix this with the first patch back in 2002 or whenever, nor that it has rarely been complained about ever since.
Secondly, just set up a mission with a landing waypoint for an He 115 off the north Kent coast - it promptly turned inland and landed on its floats at Manston... Then out of curiosity set up a mission requiring it to take off just off the coast again - couldn't see it anywhere at sea then found it at Manston again, straining to move through the grass on its floats (a bit ironic considering that a previous bug had aircraft parked on grass sliding backwards as if they were on ice!)
Sorry to complain! Must add to redress the balance what a fantastic sim this is - it just gets better and better!
Lucky that you have not selected Walrus, this will take of and landing in sea... with wheels down.
"Tip" - for this amphibious planes take-off and landing in sea is need place runways there, they don't became visible, but the runway yellow and red/white boards became visible...
We hope to address the seaplane issues for TF 5.0.
Thanks
I seem to be getting some better AI combat in certain circumstances. Like it figher v fighter. But, not complaining just informing, in others, not so much. I notice if I make a mission with fighter escort, no matter what I do, the fighters (even set to normal flight) will ALL attack the enemy fighters. ALL fighters responding to only two enemies is not realistic. 'Normal flight' should ignore enemy fighters.
Repeat please?
"Speed is life. Altitude is life insurance. Surprise is key."
~ AMD FX-4100 3.6GHz (OC to 4GHz) ~ 8GB RAM ~ ASUS GTX1050Ti Phoenix 4GB ~
T.16000M ~ TWCS Throttle ~ TFRP Pedals ~ DIY IR Headtracker
The AI set to normal fly seem to want to join the fighters that are set to attack fighters. And the bombers, who don't keep formation worth a ____ fly off to the target alone. The bombers are better off keeping formation, as a lone target is doomed. And 8 fighters responding to 2 enemy is just, not 'I', but only really 'A'.
Bookmarks