Special Aircraft Service

the SAS Hangar => The Lounge => Stainless' new Flight Simulator => Topic started by: Stainless on July 14, 2015, 02:53:06 AM

Title: Combat AI
Post by: Stainless on July 14, 2015, 02:53:06 AM
I've been thinking about this for a while and want to get it in here for review.

The design structurally like this.

Top level design



1. Maneuvers

A big list of possible actions. Things like high g level turns, Immelmans, loops, etc.

Each will have it's initial state conditions. Things like altitude > X, wings level, speed > X
 
These default initial conditions can be modified in the aircraft definition. So to do a loop the initial velocity will have to be greater than an aircraft specific value.

2. Situational awareness

Each maneuver will be assigned a list of codes which define when it should be used. I am currently working on an assumption it will be 36 values based on 6 O'Clock High, 12 O'Clock Low, etc.

This will be modified by the aircraft definition to emulate real world tactics. Spitfires turn, 109's climb, etc.

3. Pilots

Not all pilots are the same, the pilots will be assigned a skill level (and possibly an aircraft skill level, so a pilot might be an ace BF109 jockey, but useless in a Me 262).

This skill level will change over time should they survive.

4. Decisions

Firstly the code will find a target. Targets will be ranked by a risk reward system. Targets that pass the test will be added to a list. This list will then be randomised based on pilot skill. So an ace will always take the best target, a rookie might get it wrong and select the wrong target.

Once I have a target, the code will build a list of possible maneuvers this will include some error based on pilot skill. So a rookie might try to do a loop with insufficient energy and stall out.

Again these will be ranked based on risk reward.

Once again the list will then be randomised based on pilot skill. A rookie in a 109 might attempt to out turn a spit, a rookie spit pilot might try to follow a 109 up high.

Then the code takes over and tries to fly the maneuver, no faking it here. All maneuvers will be based on flight inputs.




Well that's my basic design.

Ideas?




Title: Re: Combat AI
Post by: sniperton on July 14, 2015, 04:30:17 AM
If I'm not mistaken, this is a sort of 'lone wolf' type of combat AI, effective once enemy forces already clashed, formations dispersed, and everybody fights on his own ('furball'). I wonder how you will deal with coordinated attacks and defences like a pair of fighters attacking a formation of three bombers.

I think you should consider adding a 5. 'relational' or 'responsibility' level of decision-making defining the level of freedom available to that plane under the given circumstances: 'I'm the wing leader', 'I'm a flight leader following the wing leader', 'I'm a Roger following/covering my leader', 'I'm a lone wolf', etc. This way you would create cooperative individual AIs

Another approach would be, as I see, to create collective formation AIs for 4, 3, 2, or 1 plane(s), which are programmed to act together, but of course only so far as the individual skills of the pilots and the situation allows.

As you will have to integrate this AI behaviour into a larger tactical or even strategic situation with multiple formations, I would opt for the second approach, but as I'm a complete outsider, the decision and the solution is yours.  ;D
Title: Re: Combat AI
Post by: VF111Sundowner on July 14, 2015, 05:10:32 AM
Also a #6
What is their current state, fuel ammo, do they already have damage. This affects decision making as well.
One of the few grips I have with IL-2 it every enemy pilot attacks like they have all the ammo and fuel in the world even after being engaged in a furball already.
Title: Re: Combat AI
Post by: wildblue on July 14, 2015, 08:02:50 AM
Can't wait to try the game!

I'd suggest like sniper has said to include some sort of "cooperation protocol" to have more realism in formation vs formation, let's take this scenario:

-BoB, 12 Spitfires have scrambled and climbed up to intercept 8 Bf 109s and 12 Do-17s, objective is to defend their airfield.
1) Like you said based on skill they will attack the most important target, which in this case is bombers, but it would be a mistake if all the Spits left the 109s alone;
2) The Line Abreast formation of the RAF would provide less SA than the 109s finger 4 so maybe that could be taken into account somehow?
3) After the targets have been chosen each member should have a role, ex: the wingman would not go and randomly leave his leader alone to pursue a lone bomber
Title: Re: Combat AI
Post by: hello on July 14, 2015, 09:02:09 AM
Hey there Stainless,
probably one of the best AI guys is Buddye, over at A2A. He did some really good work on the BoB WoV AI:

http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=33747&sid=b009de634f17a2741e987c75329dd4be

He probably will be able to give valuable advise (if he's still around)
Title: Re: Combat AI
Post by: Kopfdorfer on July 14, 2015, 03:55:40 PM
Hi Stainless,

                  Regarding your framework for constructing a game engine for aerial combat. All the factors you listed are relevant , but the order in which you listed them is not reflective of the chain of events I believe you wish to create.
Furthermore , I believe that an effective AI behaviour can only be achieved after breaking down the events into the most elemental salient components (ie by starting with the simplest possible path of events) , then by adding details/factors that affect the passage of each combat through the component steps .

While this is not my breakdown , I am unable to provide you with the source of this hypothesis , age being what it is (I forget where I absorbed this some years ago) , a fundamental path for aerial combat in its most elemental form is something like this :

1) Find the enemy - get within visible range
2) Fix the enemy - identify and assess for type , aggression , direction , altitude etc
3) Manoeuvre for tactical advantage
4) With tactical advantage                                     4A) Without tactical advantage
5) Attack                                                              5A) Evade
6) Repeat 3) , 4) , 5)
7) Disengage

From this template , you begin to add variables that effect the outcome of each step , for instance :
a) Pilot Experience vs enemy experience
b) weather
c) enemy aggression and reaction ( fight or flight , or absolutely the worst , indecision)
d) relative altitudes , direction of travel , range ; number of aircrew available to lookout
e) what tactical manoeuvres the enemy uses vs what tactical manoeuvres the human pilot uses

What other variables affect this second tier , for instance :
1. proximity to friendly base
2. stage of the enemy mission
3. type of enemy mission
4. angles of view from specific aircraft types - blind spots
5. technical advantages/disadvantages

Furthermore , I am not an expert , merely an enthusiast , but I would like to emphasize that in my experience the most engaging sims are consistently those with the most highly developed AI , even at the expense of visual graphic beauty.

Good luck with your project , Stainless , I have been watching the evolution and will continue to do so.

Kopfdorfer
 
Title: Re: Combat AI
Post by: Stainless on July 15, 2015, 02:46:38 AM
Yes, most of you are talking about the higher level AI.

My AI code is always built in layers.

You start with the lowest level, the ability to fly the plane.
Then you add the ability to perform specific flight tasks.
Then you add a layer for strategic thinking, fight or flight is a very basic example.

When it comes to the last layer I normally have different modes for it. In this case I am expecting to have strategic thinking for specific conditions.

At the moment I am thinking along the lines of ...



Obviously adding to that as required.

The condition of the aircraft, pilot experience,  weather, and everything else come into the decision making process.

Title: Re: Combat AI
Post by: tomoose on July 15, 2015, 06:47:54 AM
Stainless;
the word 'tactics' has been mentioned and I'd like to recommend that be considered if at all possible with regard to the AI.  For example; tactics against a group of heavy bombers is obviously different than tactics against a group of fighters.  Again, I'll use the old game, "B-17, The Mighty Eighth" as an example.  Enemy fighters would attack from all angles but there were definitely some manoeuvres involved reflecting historical tactics such as staying out of gun range getting out ahead of the bomber formation then turning in for a head-on pass.  That's just one example but you get the idea.

Conversely, there are defensive tactics such as the 110s IIRC forming a defensive circle.  Perhaps these are too specific to program into the game.

One "weakness" of the AI that is a particular bugbear of mine is the trend of AI to stick with the 'leader' even when he is damaged.  We noticed this a lot on our last campaign.  Hit and damage the lead HE-111, for example, and it begins to break off in a particular direction, off-course and yet the remaining intact 111s follow like zombies instead of continuing on-course to their target.  A tad unrealistic.

On a related subject on the human-AI interaction side.  If I am flight-lead with AI in a coop mission and I get shot-down, none of my fellow human players can 'control' my remaining flight to either RTB or join-up etc (not sure if I explained that properly).  In short - more control of AI by the human "chain of command".
Title: Re: Combat AI
Post by: Music on July 31, 2015, 05:49:44 PM
I'd like to see the ai cooperate, if one is firmly on the six of a plane, it tells the others that it has acquired RS-A, and the other planes focus on other targets. When he loses RS-A, the other planes see it as a target again. Don't know how much levels you can do, if any, but to fine tune, if RS-A is moving out of intercept range, or away for the original plane, or, he's having trouble keeping it FOV, high g turns, it remains a open target.   

I would also like more commands for wing men and flights:

Gain alt, For Wing or Flight

Drop alt, For Wing or Flight

Range/Roam, for other Flights

Protect Bombers, Wing and Flights

(And rewindable NTRKS :P)
Title: Re: Combat AI
Post by: Pursuivant on October 20, 2015, 04:48:20 PM
The AI for Wings Over Flanders Fields is allegedly quite good, since it takes things like panic, pain, and fatigue into account.

While it gets justly screwed on other aspects of the sim, the "role playing" elements from Combat Flight Sim 3 were quite good, because they gave crewmen different ratings in different skills, and their skills improved with time.

The Very old sim "B-17" probably had some of the best "immersive" AI elements, in that each crewman on your bomber had rankings in various skills, as well as a morale level.

If you're not familiar with it, the idea of the "OODA loop" is based in air combat - Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. Combining this with a standard "decision tree" for AI programming will really help realism.

Finally, I've yet to see a flight sim where AI can lose "situational awareness" of a foe which is hidden from view, or where AI can mistakenly attack friendlies, or get drawn into an ambush because they don't have full SA. Getting the visual detection, ranging, and SA elements right would be huge.
Title: Re: Combat AI
Post by: Stallwarning on June 26, 2017, 05:23:17 AM
In my opinion the possibility to bounce on the AI will be really nice.  :)
Title: Re: Combat AI
Post by: Stainless on June 26, 2017, 08:04:58 AM
Yes, I have just read a very good history of the Battle of Britain and the description of the German tactics was very interesting.

Basically the flight leader would bounce the enemy, and the rest of the flight would stay above and only engage if the leader was in trouble.

This is why some pilots claimed so many kills while others got nothing.

It just has to be in.
Title: Re: Combat AI
Post by: Pursuivant on June 26, 2017, 08:11:56 PM
Basically the flight leader would bounce the enemy, and the rest of the flight would stay above and only engage if the leader was in trouble.

This is typically because the leader's gunnery skills were better, which is a good advertisement for why you want to have different areas of competency, rather than/in addition to an overall skill rating.

This is why some pilots claimed so many kills while others got nothing.

There's far more to it than that. The fraction of 1% of combat pilots who made ace did so due to superior eyesight, spatial awareness, gunnery skill, piloting skill, and most of all a form of homicidal aggression which allowed them to overcome fear and natural distaste for killing to attack the enemy in the most efficient manner. Obviously, being a flight leader who got to be the shooter helped boost scores, but you can bet that for every Johnny Johnson or Stanford Tuck, there were 100 flight leaders whose names are mostly forgotten to history because they didn't have the "killer instinct" and skills required to get a confirmed kill rather than a probable.
Title: Re: Combat AI
Post by: Stainless on June 27, 2017, 02:25:38 AM
Yes, I agree with you. Personality traits make aces, not flying skill alone.

However the German philosophy of the "Teutonic Knight" was all encompassing in the Luftwaffe, and it severely limited the efficiency of the air force.

To the extent that bombers sometimes went into action without fighter cover because flying bomber cover gave the fighter pilots no freedom to attack the enemy.

Stuka's particularly suffered as a result. Even when the fighters were given the unpleasant job of escorting bombers, the British tactics meant that they were pretty ineffective.

On one raid on Gosport, despite a fighter sweep ahead of the raid, and a large number of 109's on escort duty, the Stuka's suffered terribly.

One squadron of Spitfire's engaged the top cover and kept them busy preventing them defending the bombers. (The spit's had a very good day shooting down 8 109's without losing a single pilot)

A second squadron of Hurricanes arrived just as the Stuka's changed formation to line astern prior to the attack. They shot down 10 Stuka's from a single squadron in a single pass.

Then a third squadron of Hurricanes and a small contingent of Beaufighters arrived as the Stuka's were at low level trying to get back to France.

Overall the German's lost 45% of the bombers , with a further 10% damaged so severely they were scrapped. The 109's fared better, but still lost many aircraft and pilots.

In contrast, on one fighter sweep, the flight leader (I can't remember his name, but it was one of the famous ones) got in position behind a formation of Hurricanes. He bounced 5 aircraft before the flight leader noticed and the formation broke up. He did not even follow the fleeing aircraft, he knew his advantage was gone and turned back to France.

I am going to have to write a tool that allows you to design AI's I think.
Title: Re: Combat AI
Post by: Mick on June 27, 2017, 03:57:35 AM
... another very big improvement would be to deprive AI from their current stock advantages, such as:

They can see at night like in daytime

They can see even when facing the sun

They can see inside and through clouds/fog (which prevents you from hiding in the clouds like in RL to escape your enemies ...  :-X)

Regarding AI skills there are currently 4 levels in stock game in scripted missions/campaigns, ranging from noob to ace (skill 0 to skill 3)
Title: Re: Combat AI
Post by: Stallwarning on June 28, 2017, 05:39:41 AM
Hi,

I'm just looking in the book of Donald Caldwell: The JG 26s war diary 1939-1942. On the 18th of August Gerhard Schöpfel spotted a Hurricane formation below him above Canterbury. He ordered his Gruppe (the III./ JG 26) to stay high and he alone bounced the last Hurricane. Seeing that the flight didn't respond he continued to shoot them down, but the last Hurricane's radiator was damaged by his attack and oil sprayed on his windshield. His victim was 501th squadron, one pilot was killed, three injured. If we could do that in your simulator it would be just simply wonderful. :)

Cheers,
Stallwarning
Title: Re: Combat AI
Post by: Dimlee on June 28, 2017, 03:33:57 PM
Do you mean stock IL-2? if I'm not mistaken they did lost (at least part of) those capabilities in 4.11 or in 4.12. It should be mentioned in one of readme files.

... another very big improvement would be to deprive AI from their current stock advantages, such as:

They can see at night like in daytime

They can see even when facing the sun

They can see inside and through clouds/fog (which prevents you from hiding in the clouds like in RL to escape your enemies ...  :-X)

Regarding AI skills there are currently 4 levels in stock game in scripted missions/campaigns, ranging from noob to ace (skill 0 to skill 3)
Title: Re: Combat AI
Post by: Pursuivant on June 29, 2017, 03:00:56 AM
However the German philosophy of the "Teutonic Knight" was all encompassing in the Luftwaffe, and it severely limited the efficiency of the air force.

This had more to do with Goering's craptastic abilities as a strategist and the popular misconception that close escort was the best way to defend bombers. The USAAF suffered from the restrictive "close escort" mindset as well, until fighter pilots finally got permission to detach a few units to go on fighter sweeps (the German equivalent was "freijadg"). The BoB might have been very different if Luftwaffe fighters had been given the same tactical freedom as the 8th AF Fighter Command in 44-45.

To the extent that bombers sometimes went into action without fighter cover because flying bomber cover gave the fighter pilots no freedom to attack the enemy.

Don't forget that "friction"/SNAFU was a big factor as well. Weather over the UK and English Channel wasn't always the best, dead-reckoning navigation is as much art as science, and during the BoB the Germans didn't have the luxury of extended time to form up. That meant that it wasn't uncommon for fighters to miss their rendezvous, meaning that bombers had to proceed to their target on their own. I hope that this sort of "friction" gets modeled in the game. (Note: Navigation should be one of the skill sets for aircrew, and most land-based day fighter pilots sucked at it. Typically, they just followed roads or railroads, or used other landmarks to navigate. Night fighter and navy pilots were necessarily better navigators. Patrol bomber and night bomber navigators were best of all, but still considerably less than perfect. At least one Luftwaffe night fighter was captured by the British when it mistakenly landed in the UK.)

One squadron of Spitfire's engaged the top cover and kept them busy preventing them defending the bombers. (The spit's had a very good day shooting down 8 109's without losing a single pilot)

For anything beyond single plane maneuvers, IL2 AI isn't very good, and where I hope your sim will do better. To get really solid AI, especially for a campaign like the BoB where so much dependent on ground controlled intercept, you need the Operational Command level. Basically, the Group Commander to Air Marshall level where you push representations of squadrons, wings, and groups about on a map. AI at this level can be quite basic, just covering vector, movement, altitude, mission, and possibly a few other things, like land/take off, refuel, rearm, join/separate, attack/retreat, or relinquish/assume command. Sort of like the commands in IL2 FMB, but for AI in realtime. Combat at this level can be extremely abstract.

Below that, for any air force which has radios and/or AWACS, you need Squadron/Group Command level, where aircraft within a "maneuvering unit" (from section to group) can be ordered around by a leader who's on the scene (typically Squadron Leader or Wing Commander). Commands and AI at this level are a bit more complex, but don't require that much attention to aircraft capabilities. The basic commands are take off/land, attack/break contact, stay still (orbit)/advance/retreat, left/right/straight, ascend/descend/hold altitude, hide/make yourself obvious, verify target, confirm that you've received orders, report your fuel/ammo/damage/oxygen/ordinance/crew injury state, confirm your location, close escort/far escort/top cover/bottom cover/free flight, separate/merge formation, hand off command to [x aircraft], follow [x aircraft/formation]. For aircraft to ground control, there will be a few other commands, like confirm my position/altitude using radar, or give me a homing beacon/airfield lights/weather report/other navigational aid.

There should also be the ability to separate, merge, or rearrange flight elements, order formation changes, and order standard multi-plane tactics like "beam defense," "beam attack," "bounce," "defensive circle," "coordinated attack," or "drag and bag" (with the option of players being able to add other standard formations or tactics).

Ideally you'll be able to give, and hear, radio commands like, "Red flight ascend to Angels 20, orbit over Blue Flight and keep the Jerry fighters off their tails. Blue flight, form line abreast, orbit here until White flight has engaged, then attack Stukas from 2 o'clock high just as they pass Canterbury. Keep plugging away until you've got them all, the Jerry fighters show up, or they retreat past the coast, then duck into the clouds and head for the rally point. White flight, form line abreast and follow me. We'll ascend to Angels 18, use the clouds to stay out of sight, and then bounce the Jerry fighters from 6 o'clock high just before they reach Canterbury. Keep your eye on your leader and don't chase the Huns after they've passed the coast. Everyone, rally point is Angels 15 over Maidstone. Pancake at 1430 hours."
Title: Re: Combat AI
Post by: Pursuivant on June 29, 2017, 03:47:32 AM
... another very big improvement would be to deprive AI from their current stock advantages, such as:

It's simpler to make AI all seeing and all knowing. Realistically, the opposite should be true. Realistically, "elite" units are only elite because they screw up less than "average" units. Furthermore, during WW2, the average standard of flying skill, gunnery, etc. was shockingly low, due to some combination of lack of time and resources, or faulty training doctrine. During WW1 it was even worse. For post-WW2 conflicts, things got better, but even well-trained pilots equipped with the latest technology can still screw up, and history has shown that, even with the best training, most fighter pilots are victims waiting to happen.

Aircrew should be blind to the enemy by default. They should be assumed to be lost by default. They will avoid contact with the enemy by default. They will avoid any form of risk to their planes (e.g., breaking off missions due to mechanical failure or bad weather) by default. They will have less than full mastery of their plane/equipment until they reach a very high level of skill.

Regarding AI skills there are currently 4 levels in stock game in scripted missions/campaigns, ranging from noob to ace (skill 0 to skill 3)

Skills should be rated from 1-100%, or some variation like 1-10, with most aircrew having skill levels of 30-50% (3-5). Pilot skill should be expressed in terms of pilot hours and possibly hours in type. Combat experience should be expressed in terms of combat sorties or hours of combat flight. Factors like injury, fatigue, pain, fear, g-forces, and hypoxia should negatively affect skills in most areas.

At the very least, you want to break out Piloting, Navigation, Gunnery, Equipment Operator, and Ordinance skills. If you want to get fancy with the basic skills:

Piloting: IFR, Aerobatics, Combat Maneuvers, Single-Engine, Twin-Engine, Multiple Engine, Glider, Seaplane, Vertol, Autogyro, Low Altitude/NOE, Fuel Conservation, Rotary Engine, Radial Engine, Inline Engine, Jet, Rocket, Turboprop.

Navigation: Dead Reckoning, Celestial Navigation, Radio/GNSS navigation.

Gunnery: Fixed gunnery, Flexible gunnery, Turret gunner, Gunnery computer (e.g., the gun targeting systems on the B-29).

Equipment Operator: Radio, Electronic Warfare/ECM, Sonar, Radar.

Ordinance: Air-to-Air Unguided Rocket, Air-to-Ground Unguided Rocket, Bombardier/Level bombing, Glide bombing, Dive bombing, Skip bombing, Bouncing Bomb, Heavy Cannon, Torpedo, Guided Bomb, Guided Missile, Guided Torpedo, Aerial Mine, Cargo Dropping, Paratroop Dropping.

If you want to get into "role-playing" aspects, you can do things like rate aircrew by things like Strength (necessary to manage heavy controls, force open hatches, etc.), Reflexes, Health/Fatigue, Aggression/Courage, Morale/Stress Tolerance, Eyesight, and Situational Awareness. Possibly have a stat for Luck as well, since there does seem to be an element of luck which explains the survival of certain pilots.
Title: Re: Combat AI
Post by: benson on July 06, 2017, 04:46:21 AM
Two great posts there Pursuivant.
Title: Re: Combat AI
Post by: Zoran395 on July 06, 2017, 07:49:35 AM
Quote
... They will avoid contact with the enemy by default. They will avoid any form of risk to their planes...
Based on what I can read about operations on the Eastern Front, you can see how tactics/mindsets did evolve over the duration from 41 to 45 on both red and blue sides.
So three things to add to the (extensive) wish list:
- Can the AI behaviour evolve over time and depend on the date of the mission?
- Can the parameter "They will only attack if at a definitive advantage" be factored and evolve over time (or the experience of the AI pilot)?
- When considering radio communications, can their absence or unreliability/unidirectional nature be modelled in the AI behaviour? This also evolves over time as tactics and equipment improves.


Title: Re: Combat AI
Post by: Stallwarning on July 09, 2017, 03:32:45 AM
Hi,

This idea came to my mind:
-Friendly units reporting enemy formations. Just small transmissions to supply minimal but useful info to the other guys.
 For example: Achtung, Indianer in Sektor AB12, Caruso Südost, Hanni 20. (Attention, fighters in sector AB12, course Southwest, altitude 2000 meters.)
                     etc. ,etc....
                     Also add after the transmission: "Red Flight avoiding fight." or "Red Flight engaging bandits."

Cheers,
Stallwarning
Title: Re: Combat AI
Post by: Pursuivant on July 22, 2017, 02:45:14 AM
So three things to add to the (extensive) wish list:
- Can the AI behaviour evolve over time and depend on the date of the mission?
- Can the parameter "They will only attack if at a definitive advantage" be factored and evolve over time (or the experience of the AI pilot)?
- When considering radio communications, can their absence or unreliability/unidirectional nature be modelled in the AI behaviour? This also evolves over time as tactics and equipment improves.

I don't think AI is needed for most of these things.

Basic doctrine, like 2 vs. 3 plane sections, standard formations, and standard attack or defensive formations can just be plugged into "look-up tables" (or equivalent) for various air forces and dates. From there, it's less AI than "decision trees" to determine unit, flight, and section behavior.

For radios, there really are only four categories: no radio/radio > reliable/unreliable (AKA "in range"/"out of range" or "unjammed/jammed") > all planes/lead planes only > send & receive/receive-only. Each of those categories affects tactics. No radio should be default, since even after radios became common, jamming, malfunction or damage can limit radio effectiveness. Unreliable/reliable radio means that aircraft equipped with radios will initially try to use radios, then abandon them if they prove to be malfunctioning. If only lead planes are equipped with radios group tactics depend even more on "follow the leader" than normal. If planes only have radio receivers, they can respond to ground control commands and might be able to use RDF, but otherwise behave as if they have no radios. Again, these options don't require AI so much as look-up tables and decision trees which sort of mimic AI.

The real hassle for this sort of programming is digging through historical training documents, carefully analyzing training films, etc. to get a sense of what air forces used which doctrines, and when they used them. That sort of info doesn't tend to make it into the histories, especially for smaller and losing air forces.
Title: Re: Combat AI
Post by: fallout3 on July 22, 2017, 05:31:58 AM
IMHO, the biggest missing piece of AI behaviour is AI single-ship/formation Takeoff and Landings that Players could be able to take part in. Current IL-2 AI takeoffs and lands like a sleepwalker, smooth, elegent, perfect, and unaerodymic. Doubt any human player could stay in close formation with any AI in any machine in IL-2 during these phases of flight.
Title: Re: Combat AI
Post by: Mick on July 22, 2017, 07:03:34 AM
I know for sure that it is possible to make a java class mod that takes in account not only the AI visibility problems I previously mentioned, but also factors like fatigue, g-forces,  hypoxia, and also g-forces for the plane and engine probs if you overheat too often, because Lutz (from De l'Histoire à la Simulation - II/JG51 site) already made one several years ago ...

For ex, if you overheat your engine too often, or simply don't respect the required oil T° before take off, your engine will lose power, mission after mission, etc ...

Unfortunately he never released it to the public ... ::(
Title: Re: Combat AI
Post by: Stallwarning on July 30, 2017, 12:33:20 PM
So sad  ::( ::( ::(
It would have been one of the must hve mods.
Title: Re: Combat AI
Post by: Vortex on August 03, 2017, 04:49:08 AM
Maybe you can give the ground attackers some good AI too. Cause the AI bombers / ground attackers in IL2 dont do their job very well and it would be nice to have some decent AI for this.