Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Whacker]

Well exempting certain extreme examples your flat wrong.

The Luftwaffe was getting gang banged on all sides, so they are a rare case. Look at the pilots form most other nations, they were well trained. Hell you have to be to get the thing in the air.
many civilians have this idea that warriors are just handed a rifle and told to go kill something. With few exceptions this is wrong. Most governments put much money into training them to be all they can be (guess who I was with eh? lol!).
This goes double for technical MOS's. Pilots have always been an elite class within the armed forces, and have been entitled to and had the best of everything that is availible-training included.
Now sure if were talking Soviet union 1940 or Luftwaffe 1943+ then there you are-an extreme example. Pilots thrown into aircraft with little training with hopes that they might run into an enemy something or other before they die.
But that case is far and away not the norm. Hell look at the same Luftwaffe, but in 1940. Their rookies were probably better than most others.

Now how about the other way round? You want a Luftwaffe rookie from '45 to be a flying retard right? Well should an RAF or USAAF pilot from the same era have the same skills? Most certainly not.
Anyone who climbs into a combat cockpit has had a good deal of trining, and with the exception of extreme examples as cited above and their like they are some of the best trained warriors on the battlefield, rookie or not.

Sorry, what I've read is completely contrary to what you are saying, and I'll trust my books over you (unless you can demonstrate you're a published authority on this subject).

Skills varied wildly over the years, and every end of the spectrum was represented throughout the war.  The Luftwaffe indeed suffered later in the war, as did the Japanese air forces, these are facts.  An increasing number of pilots were pressed into service in the later years of the war who were not well trained at all, and not remotely a "highly trained killing machine" as you say, this is a fact.  Stories from the US naval pilots, allied fighter pilots in europe, and preserved training data and averages bear this out, and do not line up with your position.

[Whacker]

Must agree on the scles for AI levels, though I dont really experience that myself (flying mostly against Veterans).

Also CWMV talked about Barbarossa and SCW, where the Germans were definitely well trained (still). And there were some quite talented rookies. Experience was lacking, sure but a more or less talented rookie in a superior plane (the 109) should still be a little challenge to down. This is of course not the case in late war, where axis lost both the training and the better-planes advantage.

So if you want it really realistic, then make skills for each side in every part of the war,
like Axis 1941 - Axis 1945.
Allies 1941 - Allies 1945.

Or use 4.11. There are different sub skills in each skill, some rookies are better than others (randomly, would be cool if this was according to date and axis/allies; or is it already?).

I'm all for properly scaling AI levels, some variation within each level would be outstanding too and give more variety.

If I understand correctly, I'm NOT for hard-coding certain AI capabilities or aspects to various nations based on the years and pilot training/kill/survival rate averages.  The beauty of the game is it gives us an open framework to do whatever.  Want a historical campaign?  Great, make one and research the time period it's set in, and bias each side toward the proper skill levels in the proper ratios.  Alternate history?  Great, make it up however one wants.

In general, the skill levels should be a generic thing that we can use.  It's up to the campaign makers and dgen/dcg wizards to configure their templates and missions as they see fit to either line up with history (using the generic skill levels), or to make whatever alternate history they want.

[CWMV]

Since you seem to have trouble reading Ill just re-post what I already posted above:
"Now sure if were talking Soviet union 1940 or Luftwaffe 1943+ then there you are-an extreme example. Pilots thrown into aircraft with little training with hopes that they might run into an enemy something or other before they die.
But that case is far and away not the norm."
Perhaps you require a different language? I understand that English is a secondary language to many here.
Either that or you enjoy addressing things that have already been covered, and acknowledged, in hopes of avoiding furthering the conversation.
In which case bravo, objective achieved.

And as I asked above:

"Now how about the other way round? You want a Luftwaffe rookie from '45 to be a flying retard right? Well should an RAF or USAAF pilot from the same era have the same skills? Most certainly not.
Anyone who climbs into a combat cockpit has had a good deal of trining, and with the exception of extreme examples as cited above and their like they are some of the best trained warriors on the battlefield, rookie or not."

So?

[Roger Smith]

it's a skill level (Easy to Hard), not a how-long-you-trained-and-how-long-you-have-flown-ometer

[Whacker]

Since you seem to have trouble reading Ill just re-post what I already posted above:
"Now sure if were talking Soviet union 1940 or Luftwaffe 1943+ then there you are-an extreme example. Pilots thrown into aircraft with little training with hopes that they might run into an enemy something or other before they die.
But that case is far and away not the norm."
Perhaps you require a different language? I understand that English is a secondary language to many here.
Either that or you enjoy addressing things that have already been covered, and acknowledged, in hopes of avoiding furthering the conversation.
In which case bravo, objective achieved.

And as I asked above:

"Now how about the other way round? You want a Luftwaffe rookie from '45 to be a flying retard right? Well should an RAF or USAAF pilot from the same era have the same skills? Most certainly not.
Anyone who climbs into a combat cockpit has had a good deal of trining, and with the exception of extreme examples as cited above and their like they are some of the best trained warriors on the battlefield, rookie or not."

So?

Nice.

Let ME put it a in a more simple way so perhaps YOU get it.

This is a game, a simulation.  It has four tiers simulating relative pilot skill levels.  We need it to simulate barely trained fools all the way up to aces.  Right now, it doesn't do that well.  Hence some of us are mentioning this so that the mod wizards can take this into account as they tweak the game.

All the drivel you spouted about the Luftwaffe, russian pilots, etc, has jack all to do with this.  It's a verified, historical fact that there were varied skill levels of pilots throughout the years.  We need the game to be able to recreate the "flying retards" up to the aces.  The nonsense you spouted about "highly trained killing machines" is irrelevant, there WERE historically a wide range of skills represented, and not in the ratios you implied either.

Pleasant evening or day to you, sir or madam.

[CWMV]

Drivel...indeed. Correct, but drivel nonetheless.
My contention is that there is little to no place for barely trained fools in the sim as it stands in 4.10.1
Simply no point to it.
Your contention is that they existed. Well aren't you insightful.  Doesn't mean its worth inclusion.
We don't need a game to simulate the r-tards, we all have it already.
If you want a turkey shoot play stock.


And let me put it to you since apparently the you haven't gleaned it from others here: This will not happen in 4.10.1 as it stands now.
"...we aren't going to develop AI any further. Not worth the time, effort and stress.
So feel free to discuss AI all you want, but unless some is willing to re-write the entire AI code from scratch, don't expect it to change."

If you don't like it, fix it or go to 4.11, which has apparently made the AI very flexible.
Alternatively you can wait for the DBW team to add it to DBW.
So run along now and play with Java. JG53 valentine was superbly talented at this sort of thing perhaps he would be willing to give you a few pointers.

[pdittrich]

to give you a few pointers.

i think i see what you did there ... 

[Ace]

Hello, I´m a newbie on DBW

Sorry for my  English, is not my first language.
sorry if this isn't´the right place for my doubt.


Need help understanding AI in DBW.
I recently installed DBW 1.71 over il2 1946, patched up to 4.10.1m, and I just try it out in QMB, oddly the AI doesn't  "obey" any of my orders,
I call my wingman to cover me, the rest of the flight and wingman to attack a foe, etc, the all responds positively, but dont do what is asked, the all simply acts on there own, go after foes automatic, no leader and wingman tactic, they all just attack singly, a, they help only when one of us  is attacked, this happens with both friendly and foe aircraft.

Is this a feature of DBW 1.711, our did I miss something,  did something wrong??

Besides DBW 1.71, I don't have any mod installed our  active in jgsm.

[agracier]

Hello, I´m a newbie on DBW

Need help understanding AI in DBW.
I recently installed DBW 1.71 over il2 1946, patched up to 4.10.1m, and I just try it out in QMB, oddly the AI doesn't  "obey" any of my orders,
I call my wingman to cover me, the rest of the flight and wingman to attack a foe, etc, the all responds positively, but dont do what is asked, the all simply acts on there own, go after foes automatic, no leader and wingman tactic, they all just attack singly, a, they help only when one of us  is attacked, this happens with both friendly and foe aircraft.

Is this a feature of DBW 1.711, our did I miss something,  did something wrong??

Besides DBW 1.71, I don't have any mod installed our  active in jgsm.

I've got DBW 1.71 and even though I am quite certain it has one form of the AI mod installed as default, I also have a separate AI Mod installed anyway. I have the following folder in my #DBW folder : AI_MOD_v3_0

which contains:

EEBBE344D2C2A05A
readme.txt
5E38276C86FE9E26
106BE08E745DD716
DA920CD60E028A40

I don't have any of the problems with my wingmen as you describe. So maybe you might wish to try this out.

Mind you, even with the AI Mod, wingmen and other planes will not always do what you command or set them up to do. For instance, I like low flying missions - 200-500m - and some planes, no matter how low you set up their waypoints, they end up climbing to 1000-2000m anyway ... clear cases of insubordination ... ha ha. But at least planes hardly ever fly straight on into mountainsides anymore like they used to.

[rhinofilms]

I have 1.71 as well and I could swear I read about an AI fix that addressed the problem with AI aircraft having much better speed, acceleration and climb rates.  When I play offline I still experience AI enemies with much better performance and it's quite frustrating.

Is there a separate AI fix out there?

[BravoFxTrt]

Its the IL-2 AI Plague. Nobody knows how to fix it thus far.

[agracier]

I have 1.71 as well and I could swear I read about an AI fix that addressed the problem with AI aircraft having much better speed, acceleration and climb rates.  When I play offline I still experience AI enemies with much better performance and it's quite frustrating.

Is there a separate AI fix out there?

I wish there was ... no matter which plane I fly, my wingmen are always faster and have an exaggeratedly better performance than I do ... maybe it is Artificial Intelligence's way of letting us know that us humans days as the predominant lifeform on Earth are numbered ... so start getting used to being number two .... ha ha