Print

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

[cestode]

Hi,

Since I started flight simming I have learned a lot about aviation in WWI and WWII. A lot of this comes from lively discussions on message boards and sometimes I'll do some reading on my own after seeing an aspect of flying or combat in a game. While many of these games are designed with historical accuracy in mind, some inaccuracies are inevitable due to technical or gameplay limitations. I'm curious about what aspects of WWI and WWII combat haven't been modelled well in games like the IL-2 series?

For example, I've read that in WWII pilots would coordinate far more with their wingmen compared to the more solo dogfighting approach in most sims. One of the criticisms of the newer IL-2 games is that the engine can't handle as many planes at once as some battles had in WWII. Are there certain mission types that flight sims tend to avoid (eg logistics)?

What else comes to mind? I'm curious about what misconceptions I might be picking up without knowing it from games.

[tomoose]

Cestode;
I think your point about wingman coordination is a good one.  How many times have we read in a book or heard in a movie "stick to me like glue" or something similar.  The wingman's job was in many cases to protect the other guys tail not chase after the first spotted enemy aircraft.  The AI wingmen obviously have limitations and it's kind of hit or miss (no pun intended) as to whether they protect your tail or not.  For example, we are currently flying a campaign in Normandy with Tempests.  There have been many occasions while we're flying towards a ground target and our AI will 'spot' a bandit in the distance (not necessarily attacking us) and immediately break away towards the bandit without any warning at all.  I have to give the command to 'rejoin' to get them back.  Clearly a real wingman/section would not normally immediately break off towards a distant bandit (unless under immediate threat) if that is not the primary mission etc etc. 
As to actual 'realistic' wingmen tactics, a specific example on the Pacific side might be the Thach Weave which you can certainly pull off with a human wingman but it's not part of the AI code (and I'm not sure how it could be coded as I'm no expert). 
The AI wingman sticking to you like 'glue' is a bit of a double-edge sword too.  In some cases they do, in other cases they don't.  It's similar with the commands ordering the AI to 'attack my target'.  Sometimes they acknowledge and attack, other times they acknowledge and don't attack and sometimes they respond no-can-do.

Totally unrelated to tactics etc but the 'emptiness' of the airfields is obviously unrealistic (i.e. total lack of anything going on on the ground that isn't an aircraft as it were).  Going in to FMB and adding moving vehicles etc obviously helps with the immersion but can be a chore depending on the scenario.

Sorry, got on a bit of a rant there.  Good topic though.

[FlyingSaucer99]

For me one of the biggest drawbacks of the game is that the AI does not adapt to combat conditions. (OBS: I UNDERSTAND THE Il2 1946 ENGINE LIMITATIONS).

An example I always like to talk about (because it encompasses several aspects) - fly a mission as a Flying Tiger (AVG) - if you want to make a realistic mission scenario, probably you will face an dogfights always at disadvantage. So to circumvent this you would obviously use tactics similar to those employed by the AVG - fly in pairs, fast, using zoom-and-boom tactics. You probably do it, but the AI does? I highly doubt it. It always end up being a free-for-all dogfight (with more turning than speed itself). How the artificial intelligence hopes to win an air combat (a turning combat) in a P-40 against a Nate or Oscar?!?!

This is my point regarding WW2

Talking about WW1 is another thing - I give a relief regarding Il2 1946 in this aspect because the game was not designed for that. But regarding Il2 series (so ROF and now FC), the AI is a problem also. I can say that because I have ROF, with countless hours in it.

The AI in ROF always end up making a turning dogfight, losing height, losing height, losing height... when u see u are flying almost at the tree top level.

In another aspect, the AI ​​of ROF also lacked the same problem as that of Il2 1946: it would keep fighting until the end. Even against the odds it would fight - it never escapes a good fight.

(And regarding ROF, there are mods recent developed that try to mitigate the turning dogfight problem)

This is my point of view 

[That guy who likes wheat]

Well thanks to the age of 1946, most of the people on here have overly powerful devices capable of running planety of vanilla planes.

[cestode]

Yeah, it seems like the AI in most games isn't the most realistic. I've heard really good things about the AI in WOFF and WOTR, but I've been having a hard time getting them to run well.

[Strawkalling]

Something missing from Il-2, as far as realistic ops goes, is proper landing patterns by AI at the field or on a carrier. That, and the wholly unrealistic and unaerodynamic (is that even a word?) transition by the AI aircraft from base leg onto finals is something of an immersion killer. Plus the sameness of all AI landings and their excessively short rollout. (At least compared with my less than perfect landings!)

Another immersion killer for me is the abruptness of manoeuvres by AI during a cruise phase whenever a waypoint results in a sharp change of direction. It makes flying in formation on an AI very difficult, if not impossible. One recent example for me was where I needed to form up in a B-17 formation. Just when I thought I was getting somewhere, we passed a waypoint and all the other aircraft turned abruptly as if they were a bunch of fighters! By the time I'd turned to the same course, I was over 5 km behind! Didn't the AI pilots ever hear of standard turns?

Just a couple of points, to add my tuppence worth!

Strawkalling

[SAS~Storebror]

I've seen both ends of that straw.
The design choice for IL-2 1946 back in the days was for AI not to use the "complex" flight physics like human player planes do, but instead to use a very much simplified AI compatible flight modelling scheme.
In it's time, there's been no other choice for 1946 actually, as PCs at that time lacked the required performance for hundreds of AI planes to do the necessary calculations of a complex flight model otherwise.
If you think that it's been a poor choice, I recommend to take a look at the presumable successor's supposed successor of IL-2 1946, "IL-2 Great Battles".
That game has complex physics applied to AI. It's a much newer game engine, PCs have plenty of CPU power to get the job done, still AI in that game sucks balls beyond recognition.

That being said, I rather deal with a couple of immersion shortcomings and with AI being able to do like 120% of what I can do (IL-2 1946), than having to deal with AI pilots being as thick as two short planks while at the same time they're capable of throwing an MG17 shell right between my eyes from two miles distance, from the back, passing through 10 feet fuselage and 5 inches steel armor (IL-2 Great Battles).


Mike

[tomoose]

SAS~Storebror;
succinct as usual.  Totally agree.  Given that IL-2 has been around since 2006? it has (thanks to the efforts of modders such as yourself) remained a go-to combat flight sim all these years and with B.A.T. still going strong.

[tomhighway]

Howdy,

Reading through this thread, I noticed some points that "tomoose" made about how wingmen act in the game. That they are too random in their actions concerning doing their job. I've only been playing 1946 since May, and I noticed it too. But something occurred to me, and so I started keeping track of all the pilots in the squadron, by name. Just like in a real squadron, each pilot is a unique person with their own personality. In the game, it seems random how your specific wingman acts on any given sortie. Sometimes he'll stick to you like glue, and the next time he's all over the map chasing bandits on his own, and not following your commands. Well, You almost never get the same wingman in consecutive sorties. But the individual AI pilots seem to follow a pattern, like a real life person would. For instance, when Joe Johnson is your wingman, he's glued to your tail, and keeps your 6 clear all the time. But then when Tommy Tucker is your wingman he never follows orders, and is always off chasing bandits on his own. These AI pilots seem to follow their specific pattern, even if they're in a different element than yours. Some of the AI pilots follow instructions and do what they're told, and some never do. I tend to play "Careers" more than single mission games, and as I started noticing this behavior, I started pausing the game often to check where my wingman, and the rest of my flight were, at any given moment after combat starts. I was pretty amazed to discover that particular pilots in the squadron act pretty much the same regardless of whether they are in your 2 plane element, or a different one. I don't have any mods installed in my game, so this may not be the case if you do.

In response to the OP, I've noticed that no matter who you fly for, Allies or Axis, the AI pilots on the opposing side seem very well coordinated, and most of the AI pilots of your side seem like a bunch of morons who have no idea what they're doing. I've also noticed that the opposing sides planes seem to be capable of maneuvers that they could never pull off in real life. Again, no matter which side you're flying for. I'm no coding expert, so I have no way of checking this, and I believe it was done intentionally by the game designer to make it more challenging for the player.

Just my observations on all of this.

tomhighway

[bomberkiller]

Given that IL-2 has been around since 2006?

Hello tomoose,

here in good old Germany since November 2001! 

For me since December 2001.

Best regards,

Gerhard

[Kopfdorfer]

I have to give some thought to provide more ideas , but some of the AI behaviour that drives me insane ( well , more insane )
is :
1) If a flight lead goes down , the other flight components follow him merrily out of formation and down to circle their
fearless leader's smoke pall , and abandon their mission.
By normal procedure , the No.2 should become the flight lead if the Leader has been destroyed/Injured , or returned to base and
carry on with the mission , and the rest of the flight should follow the "NEW" lead.
2) In my opinion , AI waypoints should be "spatially larger and behaviourally softer" so that should combat make an AI
aircraft miss a given waypoint , they should be able to extrapolate their position , and if they are past waypoint A and nearer waypoint B ,
they should really move on to waypoint B rather than fly back through all that flak again ( perhaps unless waypoint A
was the target waypoint ).
3) AI aircraft taking damage/suffering injury to the pilot should have to make a "Morale check" - a numerical value based on a combination of nationality , aircrew experience , historical timeframe , and should break off and RTB if they fail the check.
4) AI aircraft ( fighter and sturmovik class ) should be able to strafe ships even if they have no ordinance if they have a Gattack Waypoint
attached to the ship , or if they are given the attack ship command by a human flight leader.
So what if the game doesn't model the effects of suppression or rifle calibre ammo on a ship - the fact is that fighters and ground attack aircraft
DID attack ships in order to suppress AA fire or damage the bridge  or muster stations , and in my opinion this behaviour should be modelled whether its effectiveness has been modelled ( yet ) or not.
5) A human flight leader should be able to order his/her flight to land at the nearest friendly base so they don't run out of fuel and lose the aircraft
needlessly.

I know there are more , but I can't take the pressure.


Kopfdorfer

[tomoose]

KD;
Totally agree with your points particularly 1) and 5) although the other points are certainly valid too.  Also with point 1) if I'm not mistaken, the enemy will attack a 'designated' aircraft (set target?) first which, if you are that target, seems to point ALL the enemy at you, LOL.

In relation to 3), also being able to send a damaged squadron member home would be beneficial (i.e. abort/RTB command for just a wingman vice a whole Section or Squadron).

I hadn't considered 2) but it makes sense.