I've spent most time in WOV1, doing Thud Ridge missions, F105 missions in a campaign. So I haven't spend that much time doing A2A. If Ihad it was SFP1 or WOE1. I would generally be playing on normal. But in generally I never found A2A much of a challenge, unless you are flying something unsuitable like a F105. If I'm in something with missiles and a bit of power, Phantom etc, once you get slow, you can almost always disengage extend and comeback for an easy kill. never really had much of a problem with guns in something maneuverable either. Usually you get killed by something you didn't see rather than outfought/outflown. Maybe I'm playing it wrong though, and different style of play/mission whould

Never warmed to IL2, got tired of having my engine shot out by the sniper AI almost constantly, and Russian TIE fighters doing almost impossible maneuverers for the situation. The game is much easier when flying in Russian AC which I always didn't sit well with me. I just didn't want to play as Russian. Again A2G is ok though.

I'm just pleased I can get shot down in this.

The lack of rocket dispersion, relatively unvaried ground targets and the lack of proper modeling of armour are all annoying for us mud movers as well. But one has to accept some limitations.

I really enjoy flying the early aircraft (including some of the rarer early cold war interceptors) and I also really like the infantry mods (great for flying COIN ops).

There is really something to not being able to fire because you don't have rear aspect or because there *might* be an allied fighter in the seeker's field of view - or alternatively firing and watching for the splash after the missile has faded from view. Making contact with the enemy is a big challenge (if you don't use icons). Similarly, infantry can be hard to spot and identify and there are few things as satisfying as using an L-29 Delfin, Mig-15UTI or ab FMA Pucara to pebble hard to spot ground targets.


Compare to the older Janes's sims and you'll see that combat and flight modeling are more particular and interesting (even if the missions are much less varied).

The SFP1/WOX series are great sims so long as you don't expect them to be perfect. Just imagine them as a jet era evolution of European Air War and you realise how impressive TK's work really is.

My two cents,

Basic fun game with easy in and out, easy to modify to your own means and whatever you want to do in it, no thick manuals, no switch-ology, nothing required for lots of time needed to learn it, just get in, get up in the air and shoot, or drop paratroopers, or conduct SAR or fly CSAR or do LAPES from a Herc, or fly ADEXs in a Voodoo against NATO shipping for exercise.

Been 7 years, still playing and modding. Not bad for $3.95 starting out.




Just my opinion.

Honestly Pfunk... I don't see what your problem is, unless perhaps you are running at the
8/06 patch level. My first experience with the 08 level WOE install was 90% of my flight
being blown out of the sky by mig-23's and Su-27's at BVR. the migs were 30 miles away
and the SU-27s were about 40 miles out. I had ported many of my aircraft over from an 8/06
install where I had used the old trick of increasing the value of the detect range in the
data file. Try that and I guarantee that any red aircraft that has the capability to hit you at BVR will hit you as soon as it gets in range.

I read a while back that you had given up on moding your games, and obviously this is at the heart of the issues you are having. You will have to mod the game to get it to the level you want to be at. The AI needs work but it has come a long way.

Some times when I read your posts I have a hard time believing that the guy typing this stuff is the same guy that turned out that Awesome Black Sea Terrain.

Patch level and/or SF1 vs SF2 series is the key here. The '06 patch is 4 years old at this point, and as such is missing 4 years worth of improvements. The '08 patch is 2 years old.

SF2 series is drastically different, especially patched up.

edit - and yeah, I know that you have to "re-buy" the games if you want to upgrade from SF1/Wox to SF2, but @ $20 each, it's not that hard to just grab one a month or whatever works for your wallet.

And... I agree that having to mod the games to get them to what some would consider "playable" is a major PITA. But, the latest trend in 3rd party mods is for them to be 1) high quality and extensively tested and supported, 2) simple drag and drop, and 3) they're usually a one-stop shop for aircraft, effects, terrain, etc... For example Nato Fighters 4+ and the SF2V Exp Pack are updated with each patch and only require the user to drag and drop 4 sets of folder from .rar files. These mods include aircraft, terrains, campaigns, ground objects, weapons, clouds, etc... Very easy.

Remember, guys...a singe aircraft for a certain civilian flight simulator costs twice as much as this whole military flight sim sandbox!

It's like comparing a giant to an ant.

Hi folks,

I chanced on reading this thread and I feel so strongly about the frustration PFunk's going through. It is one of the reasons I joined this forum and hope this very first post of mine in this place would be helpful to you.

My background in combat flight simulator is strong, first one is Jane's USNF published by EA back in the mid 90's. I've play countless number of other titles over the years and those which give me a deep impressions are the ones that allow flight simmers to modify the original models to suit their flavors. Falcon 4 is the first one that comes into my mind. Then the whole Thirdwire TW series comes as the second.

TW series of simulators are very opened and flexible in terms of modification or mod. I believe you do have heard of this terminology in the community. Looking back, even Falcon 4 doesn't provide as much flexibility as TW does. Besides, crowds of enthusiasts have created numerous mods over the years like cockpits, clouds, terrains, weapon packs and add-on aircrafts all of which enriches each simulator of the series to the extent that you don't even want to set an eye on other hardcore or medicore titles. And the mentioned mods bring in more and more refreshment to the original simulator and to the community alike.

As such, I do not see how you are trapped inside your problem. If you do not see the reasons why you fly this simulator, then so be it but you'll miss one hell of a show to an equal magnitude. What Fighter Anthology can manage is what this simulator can manage equally good and to a certain extent even better!

I'm quite certain that your bad experience come from your encountering of the stock Su-7 Fitter. After reading your thread, I've done a little bit of research and experiment. Frankly, the stock Su-7 is coarsely done if I may say so. You're a bit unlucky in the sense that your expectations at that point was thus lowered. However, this is the reason why I'm writing in response to your complaints and hopefully by doing so will help reinforce your confidence in TW simulator(s).

If you're going after the Su-7 in particular, I'd suggest you another version of Su-7. The mod is done by howling1 prior to the Oct 08 patch for Strike Fighters: Project 1 SFP1 and Sep 08 patch for Wings over Vietnam WoV, Wings over Europe WoE and Wings over Israel WoI.

I've also done a bit more research for you, information regrading the Su-7 Fitter. Here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-7

The Fitter A is a fighter bomber, counterpart to the British Hawk Hunter or United States F-105 Thunderchief which in my humble opinion is a fair comparison. The only air-2-air armament on-board the Fitter A is short range IR missile. Therefore one should not expect the Su-7 to engage adversaries at a distance. And for any distance outside the visual range of human pilot is thus inappropriate to consider. Neither the F-105 or the Hawk Hunter are capable of engaging adversaries at Beyond Visual Range BVR distance.

The reason I'm talking about BVR combat here is because it's the most easily identifiable evidence if you like, how the AI behaves in the simulator. I'm trying to avoid discussing all aspects AI behavior because of time constraints. A bit of experience to share with you, the AI in earlier patch level doesn't compare to the latest and also the final patch level of Strike Fighters Series 1 simulators.

Quite unfortunately, the initial design of Strike Fighters: Project 1 SFP1 is not as balanced as it would have been, please correct me if I've suggested the wrong opinion here for the veterans simmers. It is however, for historical accuracy reasons, that SFP1 has to be designed the way it was. In aerial combat history, F-4 were up against MiG-17, MiG-19 and MiG-21 in a number of occasions, however, the later don't have a great variety of arsenals which could counter the F-4 Air-2-Air BVR missile such as the most commonly known AIM-7 Sparrows. Of course, you may argue that MiG-21 were modified in the 90's to carry an array of armaments which include upper class Russian Air-to-Air BVR missiles like the Alamo AA-10, Adder AA-12 and the most lethal Archer AA-11 as it can be launched at boresight range over the shoulder to a maximum of 60 degrees, the same as the European ASRAAM carried by the Euro-Fighter EF-2000. I believe it's this overall arrangement of friendly and enemy aircrafts which leads to what you've experienced in the combat process where you saw ridiculous or even unbearable AI behavior. In fact, this can be changed dramatically by introducing say 1 single Red fighter what about a MiG-23?

According to military doctrines, early years BVR combat depended on less accurate missile technologies which fail to destroy boggies making the pilot to revert back to close range dogfighting. SFP1 has been designed specifically to simulate such scenarios. It's therefore quite unfair to TW to say this simulator is not living up to one's expectations such as yours. On comparison to others, this is not even worth the time to fly it which probably spells your feelings. But then, it's not fair to you either because you've not been told or made aware that there are alternatives by which the AI behavior can be altered to meet with your expectations.

The following video I made is to demonstrate my point. Before that, the following data should be observed.

Adversaries: MiG-23MLAE2 (Don't worry just take it as a MiG-23 will do nicely),
Radar Search Range = 100Km ~ 54nm (Reveal target separation only)
Radar Track Range = 60km ~ 32.4nm (Lock-on target distance, not including missile firing range)
Loadout = 2 X AA-11 (R-73)
2 X AA-7C (R-24R) {Beyond Visual Range BVR class, range = 40km ~ 21.6nm} (i.e. once target within 21nm, AI will launch)
Chaff=60, Flare=60 {Quantity is fictious for demonstration only)
RWR = Enabled

Human aircraft: stock F-4J Phantom II
Radar Search Range = 100nm
Radar Track Range = 80nm (Lock-on target distance, not including missile firing range)

War theater: Desert
F-4J Vs MiG-23 (AI) head-on, 50 nautical miles initial separation.

Simulator: Strike Fighters: Project 1, Patch level = Oct 2008
Weapons add-on : Mirage factory 2009 version

The video is now in processing stage...you will see I constantly keep checking the radar and RWR device. I set the radar range to be on the 50nm notch. You'll see the MiG-23 launched the 1st missile as it was about 20nm away, this can be verified by checking its position on the F-4J radar. The AA-7C is less lethal than the AIM-&P Sparrow and it was my intention to keep cold on the weapons in order to show you how the AI behaves in BVR combat. Near the end, after I launched my first AIM-9 sidewinder IR missile upon the MiG, you can see the AI MiG-23 responded with flares, so in many ways, the AI works as it should and if I may say so, quite admirably.

If you have any questions you would like to discuss please come back and let's all share your views.

Hope this helps and sorry for replying late cause it took a few hours for me to prepare the test environment, the video is fast here and there encoding and producing into MP4 only 20 minutes.




Sorry for the quality, I have to keep the size under 27MB for YouTube.

The problem is not with the first-gen games. They run at sub-par speeds on Vista PCs anyway, so I sold all of those off a long time ago.

My problem is the general gameplay of the second-gen games.

To wit:

1.) AI that cannot do anything but get drawn into dogfights, and promptly get the crap shot out of them by nimbler opponents. Every stinkin' time. They do not manage their energy, they start turning. And they don't turn well. At all. They are summarily shot down without having expended one missile, thus being worse than useless, they are a waste.

2.) Similarly, when they are engaged by a SAM site, they peel off from the formation to go attack it, making their ordinance unavailable for when I need them on the strike. The best thing to do is send them home on strike missions. Go fly really low all by your lonesome and hit your target and leave. It's the only way to get it done and not end your campaign with five aircraft.

3.) Why can't AI use guided weapons on structures? Every other sim lets you.

4.) Can we finally say that default terrains aren't that great? Why must we mod something to get it to look reasonably realistic?

I have every second-gen game. Every last one. I'm getting frustrated and the compulsion to move on to some other game is getting to be too strong.

pfunk

I gave up basically because it seemed like i was playing the same game all over again. Strike Fighters up to SFWOI same scenarios/voices same kinda targets..looked prettier though, but it wasn't enough to make me want to keep playing.

Muahahahaha

So? Both cost money and the FSX aircraft surely delivers less bang for the buck (as it's going to be just one among dozens in the FSX hangar). (YMMV)

Last mission I ordered my wingy to attack my target, a fleeing Mig 21 that I was having a hard time getting my Phantom on his six. I promptly saw a few rounds pass my cockpit. Then he overtook me, sprayed a few more times and finally took the Mig out with a sidewinder. Seemed pretty good to me and looked pretty cool since I was in close chase.

Hello pfunk,

I'm sorry to get back to you so late. I've been doing more than enough experiments over the various subjects that your complaints touch upon the various TW simulators. I should perhaps simplify it by saying TW simulators from now on because after a thorough checking on key DLL files using hex editor tools, they're all identical. I've also carried out a series of intensive tests, by functionality with respect to the AI of the simulator's engine. I do have findings relevant more or less to your complaints above. After the trials, to be fair to all parties, I should perceive your complaints as concerns merely. They could be issues, I really not sure and unable to figure out some of them after receptions of replies from veteran simmers in this community I am referring to the inter-connected community.

My investigation into the AI behaviour of TW simulators is concluded. The result is unfortunately not encouraging. I apologies for not being helpful to you in this particular instance. However, I wish you could understand my original rationale is nonetheless to stand on the defensive side of the debate. Regrettably, I'm unable to seek support and I myself fail to find out supporting figures and data or information which help to carry out testing the AI behaviour in greater details.

For point 1), AI at Oct 2008 level is better. I have a video which I made for demonstration but it's a 20 minutes long clip which I don't think any video upload site support such large size file. Yet what I've observed in that video shows AI engaging another AI aircraft after a BVR engagement. Unlike in previous patched installations, they do not chase each other in circles anymore. First a head-on pass-by, the MiG-23 climbs up then twists itself with its nose now pointing down. At the same time the F-4E banks itself by 90 degrees then pulls back on its stick and performs a break left, it seems that the F-4E knows the MiG-23 is now on its right and behind. By now the F-4E has completed its turn by 180 degree turn, the MiG-23 is down below on the vertical plane climbing up with its after-burn at full throttle. (By the way, I self-destroyed myself and just watched this from the "Arise from the death position). The MiG-23 looks like a small dot but still visible to my naked eyes. I thought that would be another head-on ? To my great surprise, the MiG-23 level'd itself and fired an Atoll which misses the F-4E. F-4E is pointing down and fires an AIM-9 sidewinder, now the critical point is here. The MiG-23 breaks right and keeps dumping flares. Funny, that we human pilots know not any incoming IR missile and for me especially, never use flare because the RWR tells nothing about an IR missile inbound. Only the AI knows from another AI, how ironic! I really can't tell if the MiG-23 is running down for a kinetic maneuver to recruit some more energy to fight back, because I was watching from the F-4E position. The F-4E fires another AIM-9 sidewinder and misses again. I intentionally setup the altitude to be 12,000 feet so the trails can tell me their orientations. I switched to the MiG-23 it is at 4,800 feet something like that and engaging after-burn now. It fires its last Atoll, I switched to the F-4E which is now breaking right and engaging afterburner. The MiG-23 sneaks from below and starts to climb as it gets closer to the Phantom. The MiG-23 should be on the F-4E's six O'clock. Now it's firing its gun from below and shrapnel hits the Phantom. The F-4E is nearly on its level position when it gets toasted.

The last 10 minutes of the dog fighting makes me believe that the AI knows a bit of energy saving for higher altitude combat. I could be wrong though because I'm not reading the AI's minds, I was just watching and make an educated guess.

Point 2), it's obvious, the AI does dump its payload and run. I've nothing to say. It's the shortest test amongst all others that I've done.

Point 3), it's also obvious. But it took me more than 20+ tests to confirm that with many different aircrafts, modified INI files, different loadouts and weapons edit. Extremely tedious, partly because I want to know the fact myself and partly because the result is far-reaching. Someone over there at Combatace has already confirmed that this is the case, you're right, AI doesn't engage structure with guided weapons, in fact all kinds of guide weapons - LGB, EOGB as well as EOGR. So all GB* and AGM* do not engage. In the process, I once attempted to change the properties of the ground objects but in vain, the result remains. So, quite disappointing from a mission design point of view. That's why I said the result is far-reaching. Nothing much I know can be done to rectify this issue until a possible patch issued by TK. So let's wait and pray.

Point 4) Ah...this is interesting. The Israel terrain looks gorgeous. But then when I switched back to SFP1, the plains looks nice equally. However, for mountains, I like the Israel terrain. I guess the texture in that reddish color and irregular shape makes it pretty photo-realistic. Yet, both terrains have the hills and mountains looking smooth, not many edges you can see, you need to fly high and look down from above though.

That's all I can provide you with here, sorry I can't be of any real help here, hope you can understand. Last but not least, are you a modder as well PFunk? If so, you're quite experienced and I should be convinced about what you're bring up here. Thank you and take care!

Best regards
Ticket1 signing off.

Yes he is. Made the Black Sea Terrain which is probably still up at CA. I have a lot of irreplaceable files there too. Just look in the helo section under "Guest" hehe.

In which case, he should know well that Strike mission does not allow LGB and other guided weapons right?

Ticket1,

To your credit, you got into the .dll's to try to figure it out. And yeah, there's a lot of things that TW sims can't do that others can. And, to be fair, there's a lot of sims out there with really screwed up AI. There have been times I've been swarmed by MiGs in F4AF and had all my wingmen out sightseeing. Not often, grant you, but it's happened. The old Jane's sims had the single best AI ever. Yeah, yeah, they had more people. They also made a more comprehensive product with more features.

The best jet sim AI out there, the one that really gives you a look, is LOMAC's. Add the graphics and it's my game of choice right now. When A-10C comes out, it will probably be mine.

Modding a game to get it to work or look better is a losing game. Gimme a complete product any day. I'd wager there are some people who mod more than they play. No, thanks.

pfunk

I assume most of the old sims can't compare with the newer ones but I'm satisfied with TAW's dogfighting AI, although it could be that I just don't know any better.

We have a book describing AI characteristics and performance...

http://198.65.10.229/DID/TEMP/F22_SG.pdf

Andy Bush wrote the chapter on A2A Combat (which he once posted on SimHQ) where I'm still learning proper BFM.

Lots of charts and graphs on the AI, p.354 [book page, not PDF page] talks about the AI not flying the numbers and chasing tail but using the entire flight envelope down to riding the stall when appropriate. I have no idea what most of this means, although I assume it was at least impressive back in '98. Or not <shrug>.

I'm more of a nighttime deep striker, avoiding enemy a/c whenever possible. But when contact is unavoidable, the AI in TAW is excellent at working together as a group in setting me up for a kill me. Even I know that's some pretty impressive coding, especially back in the day (bet it's written in Assembler). I often look back at the ACMI playback and go, "Wow!" But then I'm probably very easy to please on this topic.

Yeah, I've got Flanker 2.5 actually. Also DCS Black Shark. The only trouble was my rig doesn't like it very much so I need an upgrade. I'm also looking forward to A-10C. The significance of choosing to buy a game product specially flight simulation is largely pegged with our insights. We lose that, we're screwed. And more to that, it's a matter of being able to differentiate between a finished product and one that is half-done. SiS and Jane's never, NEVER ever in my entire virtual pilot career disappointed me. The good old days when the F-15 Sentry calls out "This is crystal palace, be advised boggies heading 240......." And the GCI network in F-18 just turns me right on every time I play it. They really scramble, well of course you'll have to programme them to be 100% appearance. Just now I'm reading this http://pc.ign.com/articles/105/1059053p1.html trying to find a latest good WWII and WWI games just to get away from all the hassle of playing a intensively modded game.




You hit the hull right on!! I agree to % We can count by our fingers how many products are fully completed. IL-2 for instance never more than 2 to 3 patches. Strangely, it happens to FPS and RTS as well. Honestly, Company of Heroes feak me out with so many patches. Anyway let's head for that direction. I'm going to get Wings of Prey, Rise of Flight and Civilization 5. Rise of Flight stuns me, the landscape is outstanding. I watched the video and was impressed. Those trees and forest come right out of the box!

Take care and farewell!

Ticket1 out!

Good discussion guys, thanks. I'm sure most of us can relate.

All the prettyness and AI are worth zilch if LOMAC's campaign system isn't even dynamic.