AI improvements - what would you like to see?

Taking this out of the SE5a thread ...

What AI issues do you think need to be resolved? What kind of improvements would you like to see?

Before any criticism, I want to say that the AI in RoF is some of the finest that I have ever seen. It is a very difficult task and probably a subject of endless debate.

Now, my #1 request: I feel that AI accuracy is the #1 AI issue right now.

1. In some aircraft the AI uses a non-historical, unrealistic maneuver to consistently kill the player.
2. The effectiveness of the pull up into a stall and snap off a well aimed shot scenario is an AI issue, not an FM issue. The airplane is behaving just fine, it's the AI that is not.
3. The general accuracy of the AI, front and rear, is an AI issue that can be solved.

The solution is to impart simulated human limitations to the AI. In the case of accuracy, the idea that I proposed would simulate human limitations by requiring the AI to take a period of time to acquire a firing solution. This would prevent the AI from achieving consistent success under unrealistic conditions.

In the SE5a thread I threw out a solution that - if I were coding - I would explore. Since I'm not coding, my opinion means about as much as any other opinion posted on the internet . However it may be done, I do hope that 777 takes a look at many aspects of the AI with an eye towards simulating more human behavior.

I support your overall contention that AI accuracy is the number 1 issue in an overall high quality AI implementation. It is by far the one thing that could improve my enjoyment of this sim more than any other (and I do enjoy this sim from so many perspectives). Especially item 3 on your list. I spent hours the other day reading over every post, past and present, that I could find on this issue trying to figure out what I could do better to deal with AI accuracy (especially of rear gunners). I subsequently went into the sim and tried these techniques, many times, and none really moved me forward.

Yes, it's the non-humanity of the AI that annoys me most of all.

The diving for the deck.
The notion that my body is actually 1/2 the size of the plane, meaning 50% of every bullet that hits is hitting ME in the cockpit. That might be pilot hitbox size or the AI's ability to aim for the pilot directly.
The ability for gunners to compensate for any move I make while his pilot is also making moves to perfectly blow my nose off (not the plane's nose, see above).
Snapshots from historically unlikely angles as mentioned.
An unconfirmed notion I have that enemy AI will seek you out over your wingmen/allies whilst those AI allies seem to make little if any effort to follow you. Hitting the F2 key I'll often see me vs 3 enemies and my 3 wingmen vs 1 enemy. In a flight of 8, it's just worse.



The Jedi Master

They need to make it so the AI will take shots at planes from non-perfect firing positions. The problem with the AI now is that when they fire they hit you because they wont fire unless they are lined up. A real human will make guesses and push their plane in a general direction in hopes of getting a shot. The AI does not do this and it is evident.

They also need to destabilize the AI guns. A random value that gets added to the bullet arc would fix it. The idea here is that the AI lines up to fire on you and it controls every aspect of the plane to draw a perfect bead and keep the plane aligned then it fires directly at your pilot. If they cant fix it so it takes non-perfect shots then they need to add a random value to the bullet trajectory (on a per burst) so that the burst moves away from the direct pilot shot in a random direction at a random angle (all very minor but just enough that a pilot hit is not achieved with every pull of the AI trigger.

I haven't seen the RoF AI code, but most combat flight sims do introduce some random element to when the AI take a shot, whether it is an 'angle or arc of fire' that the target must be in for the AI to take a shot. It amounts to a cone of uncertainty that gets larger with less AI experience (ace=narrow cone, green=broad cone). RoF's cone may be too narrow, thus sniping.

I've said this before in other threads, for other sims as well, but there is a limitation in modeling the AI, that is the AI has one objective: to get a guns solution on you. It does not work to improve its position.

What ends up happening is the "pull up and snipe" maneuver, rather than the AI trying to seek energy parity.
What also ends up happening is that the AI will fly like you do because both of you are trying to get guns on target. You circle and the AI will circle, you go vertical and the AI will go vertical, stall fight... almost like your moves are being mirrored. Try it. Is there any resolution? I don't see a way out, but I'm not a programmer.

There was a terrific board war game called Squad Leader decades ago. In that "sim" platoons of men are in combat, and under certain conditions (such as their squad leader dies...etc) they have to check morale. Imagine a morale check being implemented in RoF: Each AI aircraft has to make a certain percent 'check for morale' to engage or not engage, OR in worse case scenario, to split-S and run like he!! when:
1) flight leader goes down (morale check with a heavy penalty)
2) damage to aircraft (depends, if gas tank hit and leaking, then almost 100% run because the fumes are super dangerous to ignite)
3) out of bullets (again...)
4) being out numbered
5) being at lower altitude
6) etc...

The various factors can be cumulative penalties to the check. This might yield a more human AI, but one that may be reluctant to engage, which may piss some people off. Playing late war German Air Service could be frustrating with the SPADs and SE5s running for it.

Again, the AI does not have to run-like-a-little-girl, but if the player has not already engaged and they fail morale check they can choose not to engage and fly away to seek more altitude. If this isn't clear, or you think it sh!te, say so.

Boelcke Dicta

Yes, but how do we implement it?

It's certainly not easy. For a start I would like to see the accuracy issue addressed. That I really do believe can be done.

Making the AI understand combat moves would be really, really difficult. It can definitely be done, but doing it is the equivalent of teaching it to play chess.

Here's an example of how it could start to work = ... maybe :):
One would have to code a decision tree -
Pick mode:
- Track and shoot.
- Flee.
- Setup.
- Evade.

Mode selection would be based on AI position, enemy position, odds, immediate circumstances (being shot at), damage state, etc. The programmer has to be the AI pilot - what are the factors and what is the final decision?

Once the mode is chosen the specific action must come next.
Flee:
Turn towards home and dive as fast as possible.

Evade:
In immediate danger - turn, spin,some other violent evasive action. Speed, altitude, aircraft capabilities all come into play.

Track and shoot:
Similar to current AI behavior. Try to make corrections for a shot.

Setup:
This is where the chess analogy comes into play. No short term solution presents itself - what to do? A list of potential maneuvers is available. The list has to be weighted for best choice depending on current position. Once this is done the maneuver should be carried out to completion. This is how to escape the "mirror image" AI behavior.


How might this play out?
AI sees player. Mode = setup. Maneuver = merge.
AI approached player head on. Mode = Track and shoot. Maneuver = slight correction for solution.
AI has passed player. Mode = setup. Maneuver = wingover.
AI completes maneuver. AI is above and to the right of player. Mode = setup. Maneuver = diving turn.
AI completes maneuver. AI is behind player at 4:00. Mode = Track and shoot. Maneuver = turn right for solution.

and on it goes. It is actually more difficult than the chess analogy because the always does the best thing. For AI you have to randomize it and sometimes make a bad decision based on AI level.

All of the above probably barely touched on the difficulties. Definitely not easy. However, I do think that a chess like weighted algorithm with an element of randomness would be interesting (something that I have always wanted to code too )

The thing that pi$$es me off more than anything is my worthless, piece of cXXp wingmen who do NOTHING TO ENGAGE THE ENEMY THAT'S ATTACKING MY A$$ OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've been tempted to shoot their sorry a$$ down out of spite!!!!!!!!!!!

I would just like it so that the AI (both friendly and enemy) would understand when to disengage and not chase a target half way across France.

I'd like to see the AI break off when they are out of ammunition. Some amount of inherent survival instinct would be good too "...Oh, look Ma, no wings...hmmm time to head back to the aerodrome".

My bloody arms were dropping off this morning as I tried and tried again to get my attendant 'sightseers' to earn their corn and follow instructions but they steadfastly ignored the balloon and armed convoy. With this bunch of loafers I didn't fancy taking on approaching E/A so beat it back to base. Result: 1 ballon. Poor return for a five plane sortie.

OK, calmed down and had a nights sleep.

I'm wondering if it's my fault and there's something I'm not doing correctly when I try to "manage" my flight-but I don't think so.

I have the default "k" key as well as a button on my joystick programmed to tell my wingmen to attack. I've gone to the external plane view and I can see "me" waving and pointing at the enemy targets but they don't do diddly. I've tried slowing WAAAY down so my wingmen are in my back pocket and are close enough to "see" me-doesn't seem to matter...

Has anyone had success getting wingmen to follow commands?

1. Able to turn horizontally without losing altitude
2. Able to turn near maximum turn rate (current AI don't).
3. Able to dive at a target
4. Better at shooting from the rear hemisphere than from the front hemisphere
5. Natural deflection shooting - no more banking the wings 110 degrees and pushing negative g's for a shot
6. Actually respond to orders to engage, etc.
7. Correct tactics for different aircraft, e.g. hit and run with Spad, etc.
8. Self-preservation, i.e. will not engage 4vs1 if there's an option to run for it.
9. Greater variety of defensive tactics besides spiraling earthward
10. Cooperative tactics

Honestly, over the years I've noticed in many sims, including RoF but PARTICULARLY in Il-2, you have useless wingmen. You get attacked? They don't care. They'll go off on their own and attack whatever.
HOWEVER, once you get on someone's six and are laying into them? Guess who shows up, almost colliding with YOU as they steal your kill from under your nose???
I would have 2x as many kills in the average Il-2 mission if I didn't have wingmen stealing them from me. Of course, they always show up AFTER I've put dozens of rounds in. So I waste 2/3 of my ammo load shooting up planes I don't get to take down.



The Jedi Master

Less precision in coordinating turns.

A lot of problems with the AI in gunnery, flying, etc. would be solved if they weren't such perfectionists at keeping the ball centered.

If you haven't seen it yet HERE ...

So all our hypothesizing, and theoretical solutions, are likely for naught and we will be left with the warts and syphilis of our current opponents and enemy. This is disappointing given the high fidelity of most other aspects of the sim.

I think I recognize people from this community who used to fly (may still do...) First Eagles (FE) by Thirdwire. While the flight models and physics engine of that 'simlight' do not approach RoF, I have to say that FE's AI (both your wing men and hostiles) at least give you a very realistic fight. The AI does as commanded, the opponents try to energy manage, etc.

I think it all comes down to the programming foundation that was established and whether the soul and determination is there to make a better AI in RoF.
Is it too late to make a silk purse out of the sow's ear?

If funding is the issue, why not work towards RoF II, which could correct the AI foundation and could include a channel map for $xx.xx. Given the vocal support for funding continued development, I do not see why this wouldn't be successful.

Il-2 had terrible AI until the 4.11 patch. Now it's tons of fun to fight the AI. If a few guys working for free could turn something so bad into something so good, I don't see why the same couldn't happen for RoF. The first thing is to incorporate Criquet's changes into the default game.

I fly with Criquet's mod, while there is a slight improvement, it isn't much at this time. Just an opinion, but it looks like the problem lies a bit deeper than the files we have access to.

I'll try to find the thread that explains how the AI are tasked within a mission, and this explains a lot about why they behave so strangely in many contexts.
I'm sure Pat can chime in to verify given his knowledge of mission generation.

I fly with Criquet's mod, while there is a slight improvement, it isn't much at this time.

Ditto. If you're into flying Mods On, this one's a must. While it's far from perfect, it does make the rear gunner AI a little easier to deal with and the scout AI flies a good bit better. I was actually able to down a DFW CV in my new 8 RNAS Career in a Sopwith Pup, while taking no damage from the rear gunner! I dove in from above, making my profile move constantly from the gunner's point of view, leveled out about 150 yards behind the enemy aircraft, lead, and shot, and wound up flaming the engine. The gunner's shots were close, but it was far more realistic than the previous sniping-the-pilot-no-matter-how-perfect-the-attack-is AI.

The main thing that bothers me about the AI isn't the enemy. It's when I lead a flight, and my wingman(men) will go running off after the first enemy aircraft they see regardless of whether or not I gave the order to attack. I have to fire a flare telling them to maintain formation and cover me to get them to return. And this doesn't happen just once per sortie. They'll take it upon themselves to attack anything they see as many times per sortie as they spot something. It's unrealistic and very annoying.

Well if they don't fix it there is always OFF P4 which looks outstanding.

Soon I hope. To tell you the truth the whole beta career in ROF has been a bit of a flop for me. Really leaves me wanting. I don't want to sound negative but they would have to fix SO much and it sounds like from Jason its not going to happen.

@Bandy: IMHO a very badly worded question by the original poster and - hopefully Jason doesn't mind too much - maybe not the best response. For myself I am NOT talking about an AI overhaul. I am talking about incremental,evolutionary progress. Every little bit is a good thing. There is no reason to make this an all or nothing thing.

Of course, but it's best to slow the bleeding while you wait for a suture. Small improvements are highly welcome in the absence of bigger improvements.

I agree fellows, I've seen enough posts and responses to have known better. It is so easy to react to a poorly worded post.

Evolution is fine, and I'm sure we'll all find out what is in store for this year very soon. At the same time, as was stated later in that thread, I think we can all agree that 'wishing' or 'dreaming' of a fine-featured day is part of being a flight sim pilot within the community.

If we didn't voice wishes we'd still have terminator AI following us through clouds, and so on...

Some excellent posts here, so far I agree with basically everything that's been stated. Without a doubt, the most significant issue that I feel is keeping this sim from achieving pure excellence right now, are the matters concerning the AI's unrealistic behavior. Personally, I feel this is the greatest immersion killer. A problem that resonates through both single-player and online co-op. And like Patrick's OP, I feel some of these issues are completely feasible to improve upon if they are given appropriate attention, like;

1) Superhuman AI scout gun accuracy in all regimes except when trailing from dead 6, where they are largely ineffective.
2) Superhuman AI gunner/turret accuracy, particularly from distances well outside of realistic effective combat ranges.
3) Superhuman AI situational awareness. They know where you are at all times when you're in range, regardless of their orientation or preoccupation with another opponent.
4) Superhuman AI visibility. With the exception of clouds, they can see through all objects to track the player's a/c and never lose sight of it.
5) No AI self-preservation or damage assessment to initiate RTB protocol.
6) Enemy AI's fixation on player's a/c regardless of accompanying AI wingmen or tactical situation.
7) AI wingmen's complete disregard for multiple AI opponents attacking player's a/c when they're not themselves engaged and in a position to assist.
8) AI wingmen's complete disregard for maintaining formation discipline or for executing direct orders.

These fixes alone would be a huge improvement on the entire RoF experience and open the door to a flood of immersive mission and campaign possibilities.

Teaching the AI basic and acceptable ACM on the other hand is a difficult proposition, but can also be accomplished, as has already been demonstrated by the work Team Diadalos has done with the 4.11 patch for IL2. Personally I believe that certain well scripted scenarios with some appropriate variability for AI pilot skill, a/c, and spatial circumstance could give a very convincing impression of AI understanding and reaction to a given tactical situation. Games from several different genres have managed to accomplish this in the past, and gave off the impression of superb AI, when really it was well executed script.

It's difficult to gauge how important 777 believes looking into the AI matter is. They've addressed a few issues already, and I'm sure everyone is thankful for that. However as far as I'm concerned, the AI issue should take precedence over a host of other matters. Obviously, priorities among players will always be split, and I also respect that 777 has a business model they believe will sustain them into the future... but I really feel they should improve upon what they already have, starting with the AI. As it stands now for me and the people I fly with, as impressive as RoF is in other departments, it's difficult to stay interested in it when these issues surface immediately upon first contact with the AI. It takes us straight out of the beautiful and convincing atmosphere that RoF accomplishes so well, and makes us feel like we're just wasting our time playing some console arcade game for the masses.

Anyway, that's my 2.

Well, I would happily trade the seaplanes for AI improvement work and even forgo the Channel map for a major dynamic campaign upgrade - these things are more worthy of my $$$ and are much more desirable to me.

Yes, but they're far less tangible. Those are more in the realm of "things people believe should already be in the game." Harder to justify selling that. Besides, the AI improvement would be global, part of the free version, so you can hardly charge for that.




The Jedi Master

I've only been playing since like July and I'm bled dry, I still love rise of flight but I'm picking up Over flanders fields since it's a far superior game in it's current state when compared to the totally lack luster package that is Rise of flight at that moment, combined with it's awful AI and crappy career mode. I've been playing nothing but PWCG for months with the AI and gunner mod and I'm just sick of it now, time for an overhaul but Jason says an overhaul isn't going to happen so I'll go elsewhere.

I love this game, had it for two years and have been one of it's vocal fans but I'm becoming frustrated. The AI's are not just aces, they are super shots. I fly a Camel and can handle it reasonable confidently. There isn't a manoevre I do in which I spin.Flying against one ace I have no trouble. Get above and stay above and behind. But against two aces the fight is a farce. No matter what manoevre I make, I only have to be in one of their sights for a fleeting moment and I'm downed. I've had one stand on it's hind legs like a begging dog and at an impossible range take me out with around five to ten rounds max. As I was coming from behind and fairly high above him, the situational awareness was more than astounding. I've recorded several fights and watched them carefully to analyse my mistakes. I can't see any. I do not waste energy turning at max, I change direction quickly, switching from one bank to the other. I change height erratically to fox the opponent and then five enemy rounds and I've got the order of the wooden cross.
I've had OFF for the same time and never used it. I don't want to do so but I think it's time I did.

1. Stupid wingmen (or even flight leaders) that do not engage in a fight that you as the player is involved in a few hundred meters away
2. Enemy aircraft just turning in tight circles to the deck most of the time

I took that to mean that there couldn't be a ground-up rebuilding, not to mean that nothing else would be
looked at, adjusted, fixed, as time and resources permit.
I'll leave it to Jason to correct me there if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain I have it right.

I suspect and hope so; I find it hard to believe that Jason and 777 would consider the current state of the AI acceptable in the long haul . . .

I'm not so sure, take a look at the banner plastered on the main site.



"superb AI"?

The blog update at least mentioned "future improvements on things such as AI" but it's obviously not a focus of theirs which is what gets me, the AI is such an important thing and effects nearly everyone that plays ROF, even the multiplayer guys often fight against the absurd AI gunners.

Ai improvment?

I would like to see REAL WWI tactics!

- German ruse: multi altitude protection of heavies and reco
- German ruse (and later used by allies): the false spin down to the deck
- Defensive circles for the heavies and reco
- Better and more intelligent Ace behaviors
- Better protection for aces
- Lone wolf aces
- German pilots trying to stay/fight over their own territories
- 1918 tactic: multi-squadron large sweep
- Advantage-only engagements

I have played a lot of flying games and the AI in RoF is really good. The problem is the longer you play the better you get and then you start to notice all the problems with the AI and you start to take advantage of those problems.

AI will always be the weakest part of a flight simulation. There is no way around that but to be fair to RoF they have a pretty good AI all things considered.

Frankly, AI is the weakest part of any game that relies on it, from chess to racing to strategic combat.



The Jedi Master

Good how?

You mean cheap? Super accurate and able to fly the aircraft perfectly without fault? Then yes, the AI is amazing.

But as this thread and about a thousand others made by people complaining, shows that the AI is rather crap. Especially compared to other flight sims out there, OFF has surprisable AI that has blind spots, IL2's recent user made update has surprisable AI with blind spots and then there's WOV BOB2 which supposedly has the best AI ever.

Rise of flight's AI can't even sustain a horizontal turn, they don't boom and zoom anymore, they don't try to maneuver for a better position, they just turn at you and shoot when you happen to be in their sights.

Over on ROF forum the problems of the unrealistic AI's has generated the longest post ever. So it is a real problem. Tom Cundall and I have both flown many hours in Tiger Moths. These are very close in performance to the SE5a. Tom raised the issue of engine vibration affecting accuracy. There has been input from some who have had a great deal of experience with firing military weapons. Modern ammunition has more projectile punch than the old 303 and so a straighter trajectory. Yet they still experienced a low rate of hits per round. Everything Pat Wilson says I agree with. Situational awareness, accuracy etc are more than uncanny. As I said earlier, in QMB I can take a single ace DVa with no trouble. I can wipe the floor with two veterans, but so far I have never survived two aces. Why? Because the second I get in the sights of one, no matter what distance, no matter what manoevre he and I are in I'm cat's meat. Someone earlier invoked the Dicta Boelke. I never get down to my opponent's level. The old Mick Mannock always above, seldom on the same level, never below is part of my DNA, Yet no matter how far away I am, one will rear up like an angry cobra and bite me. Today it happened again. Ten rounds from a plane standing on it's tail and in the flight record I viewed later, so far away it was almost impossible to locate it.
On the matter of accuracy I suggest you read Tom's analysis of the death of MVR. Nothing shows the absurdity of the AI's accuracy better than this. As Tom is, I believe, writing a thesis on WW I aerial combat believe me he is cluey. He points out MVR was flying straight and head on the the ground fire, so no deflkection shooting, was being hammered by multiple guns, many on fixed ground tripods and yet ONLY ONE BULLET struck the plane.
As I said earlier I am more than frustrated and have installed OFF. Just going over to sorting out the controls and fly it.It's a pity it has come to this as I have been an enthusiastic advocate for ROF.

edited note. Master, I like your comment, the longer you fly the better you get. I have around 600 hours in RL Tiger moths, I have been flying ROF for two years, I can do any manoevre with impunity in a Camel, yet I can't dodge an ace AI. Please tell me what I'm doing wrong.
If Jason is serious in even keeping present users I hope and pray he will listen to disgruntled users and do something to rectify this absurd situation

Heya R_S,



I think it means the longer you fly RoF, the easier it is to predict the AI ( as with any sim,really ).

But I find it strange that you can't dodge 2 Ace AI in Alby DVas - and since you mentioned your apparent skills in a Camel, I thought I'd fire up a QMB to see what you mean.

Well, 2 Albies down and a prefectly fine Camel brought back to base.

I imagine your question is rhetorical....but, What are you doing wrong?

Simplest answer is: "Not what everyone else is doing that doesn't have a problem with 2 Ace AI".

...doesn't help much, but without a track attached to your post, kinda' hard to give you a better answer then that.

Other than maybe, your hours and hours of Tiger Moth time doesnt seem to be doing you any favors or give you that advantage you think you have.

I recorded the mission of you'd like to swap tracks.

S!

This.

Only way it will happen (and it probably never will) is if they go back to how the game was in the beginning. One could fly with 4 AI wingman online. So 3 players could get 15 planes in formation, like IL2.

Not enough people in MP servers to do this as it is now, and offline AI formation are limited to 5 planes, so these large (historical) squadron sweeps will never be seen in this game.

Also, rear turret guns are absolute pain in the ass to use. They're buggy as hell. If the pilot controls were as buggy, I'm sure they would fix them. It's beyond me why they wont fix turret guns. I dont fly, or buy, 2 seaters anymore.

I agree, apart from the "pretty good" part. IMO it's only pretty good in that you can shoot down things that are trying to shoot you down. To me, it's the main let-down of an otherwise brilliant sim, no doubt because of the ever-increasing abilities, and hence standards we are applying to sims. After a fair while I became tired of the repetetive tactics and haven't flown RoF since.

While it's true that AI can be a weak part of a flight sim, it's not always by the same factor. The new AI for Il-2 4.11 is very good, much better than RoF. I would say the same thing of Falcon BMS even though that's a very different kind of sim.

WWB, thanks. I'd be delighted to know what I'm doing wrong. Small problem--I'm computer illiterate, being brought up in an age before even TV, I take it a track is a flight record
. How do I send and receive it?
Second on reflection perhaps it has to do with my cockpit views. I am only using POV. I have TR5 but cannot use it in the Oz sunlight. As a sop to my aging eyes I use enemy icons. Being a purist, my cockpit view is fixed at around the same position as a normal pilot and I do not use zoom, snap views or external camera shots such as combat camera.. A great deal of the time I rely on the red arrows to indicate roughly where the enemy is. Other than that I fly full realism. I'm setting the height at 3000 and face to face so as not to gain immediate advantage.
So can you help?

I don't think it's your choice of settings as I flew pretty much the same...

3000 meters
Face-to-face
12:00 noon
No External views or padlock.
full real settings w/ engine warm and subtitles.
Standard views (slightly zoomed out)
Using TrackIR5 (but that is not an advantage IMHO - just an immersion bonus)

--No icons here though, and I would suggest this may be the crux of your issues. Chasing around an arrowhead on the edge of your monitor is not using your plane's energy to its best potential to be sure - especially since you do not have "eyes-on" your target to know if he is gaining or losing energy. Has more or less energy than you...or much more information you should be collecting to make better judgments on putting yourself in a better position tactically, let alone getting a gun solution.

I'd be happy to discuss this further with you if you wish in PM or something to not hijack the thread.

S!

Consider using snap views and the zoom function then, or put up curtains so you can use track-ir? You're really handicapping yourself, as those functions are supposed to make up for the inherent limitations of viewing the world through a small rectangle.

I know there's no way I could have achieved the level of success I've had in ROF if I didn't fly with my Track-Ir.

Not even close...

While that may be true for you Copter....TrackIR is still an immersion bonus, not a necessity for success.

...just look at the "ROF Championship" website. Watch the videos, and see some TOP ACES using snap and pan views. No TiR there!

Jus' Sayin'...

Yeah, I know but I just can't maintain situational awareness by flying the hat to change views and flying the aircraft at the same time!

I fly helo's that use a "hat" for normal control inputs and to control the autopilot-but I can turn my head to see what's going on---thank goodness!!

That's all he said in his post.
I'm in the same boat. I never used nor missed TrackIR when flying IL2, even online. While I always thought
it would be nice and intended to purchase it at some point, I never felt hampered by not having it.

RoF was a different story for me, I just couldn't get the hang of maintaining proper awareness with the snap views.
Mostly I think because of that top wing in my face all the time. Track IR has made all the difference to
my RoF experience, and I wouldn't go back.

Look around with your head or use your thumb? No brainier really.

Heya Gambit,

True Dat'

...just like rudder with the Z and X keys of days ago, or throttle with plus and minus.

It's all in what you are used to.

...but I'd hate for other readers of the thread to think they need TrackIR in order to succeed at ROF when they clearly don't.

No Brainers for me these days is HOTAS, 2560x1600 res, TiR, and high-speed Internet.

YMMV

WWB,I know you suggested this part of thread is OT and perhaps PM is the way to go but it does seem to have touched on a real point of interest and I'm sure lurkers might find it useful. I can see that reliance just on the arrow is limiting and perhaps including a snap view above the wing could be a help. As to energy flying, it's something I'm very aware of in my own control. Although the Camel is a T&B, I don't use it that way. As I said earlier I get above and behind where possible and try to drop down on my opponent. But just the arrow and POV hat does block situational awareness of the opponent's move. I use icons because my advanced age demands some help.
TIR5 is a great help and as autumn approaches I'll be able to get back to using it. But I'm facing a challenge now and I intend to handle it.

R_S,

PM would be easiest, as discussing ACM in the open. would likely elicit many distractions of varied opinions with different levels of skill. I'm not the know-all, be-all of ACM, and there are many more out there that have a tighter grasp on it than I. Only because you asked, I offer what I do know in an attempt to help.

But be that as it may, let's just say your on the right "Track" (pun intended) with setting up additional views. Try pan mode. A single snap view over the wing (as you suggested) would not be as benificial as you might think. You really should strive to keep eyes on target every moment you can...it will only help you improve the decissions you make while getting position.

I do not believe in the whole Boom-n-Zoom OR Turn-n-Burn roles mentality.

No, instead my philosophy is: every plane performs every role dependant on the situation and circumstances one finds one's self in. It's a very dynamic (or fluid) role. A role that can swap back and forth many times during the course of a single combat.

You do seem aware of this, at least in part, by striving to keep your Camel above. But I can also see the difficulty in keeping that role if you are unaware of your enemy's energy state, or even the enemy's position (pitch and bank) for that matter.

So I would suggest the most important thing to practice at this point is:

Keeping eyes on enemy at all times - To make more informed decissions on best choice for maneuver dependant on what enemy is doing.


After all, what else do you really need to be looking at?

...and of course you can leave your icons on.

S!

Which is why I mentioned the T-Ir. If you've spent enough money to purchase ROF and have a computer that's strong enough to run ROF well, you should be able to fork the bucks for the system. I KNOW you don't need it to fly the sim but the immersion one gets from using it is truly indescribable. I'
ve been flying flightsims since the original "Gunship" (I think it was MicroProse) in the 80's so I have a few hours flying them.

I have over 8,000 hours of real flight time in helicopters that operate basically on the higher end of the airspeeds and altitudes available in ROF and I've never flown a sim that gave me the "feeling" of real flight that ROF does.

I wouldn't feel that way if I wasn't using my Ti-r 5 because it's the one thing that makes me feel like I'm "really" flying....

I spent years flying IL-2 WITHOUT Track Ir but couldn't go back after I upgraded.

They have a TI-R 4 on Ebay for 51 dollars-I'd sell blood if I had to to get one because yes-it makes the sim that much more realistic--and enjoyable!!!

Just sayin' as that's my opinion

Back to the AI issues...

The two things that annoys me the most are not about how they behave in combat, but their landings:

• Land into the wind. Landing with 5m/s tail wind, or cross wind, when you have a large open space is stupid and dangerous.
• Make emergency landings when damaged. I don't know how many AI mates I've lost because they've glided away damaged, aimed for an open field, and in the last moment turn into a forest or a building and get themselves killed.

One thing for combat

• climb! Even when in a plane with excellent climbing ability facing a weak opponent, they turn and turn and turn, loosing altitude and speed in the process.

Yeah, the emergency landing glitch is a hoot!

I'd have to say that the majority of the enemy aircraft I've disabled and forced to make "unscheduled" landings, end up in a treeline totally destroyed!

Don't mind it when when my victims do that----hate it when my wingmen do it!!!!

Agreed +100

I learned to land (mainly just the speeds, radiator settings, etc.) from Requiem's training vids on youtube. He did remind me of an important step (one that I neglect because I'm used to ATC telling me in the real cockpit). I ALWAYS buzz the field and check the windsock before landing, and ALWAYS line up my approach to be as much into the wind as possible. I've noticed that my wingmen do EXACTLY the opposite. If the wind is blowing from the direction of the open field, they'll come in over the hangars. If the wind's coming in from over the hangars, they'll land from the direction of the open field. They always land with a tailwind, in the exact reciprocal to a headwind. This isn't as important in my Jasta 11 career in the Albatros, but when the DR. 1's arrive, or in my RE8 career, it's imperative, or we'll be losing planes every sortie from crash-landings, even with no battle damage.

As for emergency landings, I've only witnessed a handful, and surprisingly they've all been successful. I'm sure the problem is there, I just haven't witnessed it yet.

As a person who hardly ever plays off-line, the AI is not of the gravest concern, to me. AI gunners, perhaps, but that's about it.
I'll tell you one AI item I'd love to see...balloon observers jumping out and parachuting down to the ground when you attack them. Would that be immersive, or what? Not sure how that would be implemented, I know everything needs a trigger. Maybe when your first rounds hit the balloon, over the side he goes.

In reality, as soon as an enemy aircraft was seen to be approaching you would be out of that balloon in a shot.
if the balloonatic waited until rounds were hitting the balloon it may be too late.. if it then burst into flames, it would then be dropping all around him, plus and more importantly, the oxygen around him would be drawn to the fire and he would probably then get an 'air steal' and his chute may collapse.. (been there, done that for real.. it's frightening)

Besides that, the old WWI chutes were static deploy. You couldn't free fall away from danger before opening. Odds are good that the chute would be in flames along with the balloon.

A list of quibbles I've noted about the AI:

1. Flies at maximum speed, always. I took off as a SPAD 13 with a SPAD 7 flight leader. I could barely keep up and I this is with a min fuel load, no bombs, all the engine management tricks. I could understand a max performance climb but once at 2000m, lean it out, cruise to the objective. Too many flight sims' AI do this, non-cooperative lead flying. Usually the AI's simplified FM allows them to do superhuman. I blame the auto career generator for planning 185 kmph legs on the mission.

2. AI friendlies sit right in tail gunner's sights. I lost 4 friendly aircraft to one two-seater on a mission as they just sit in the heart of his engagement envelope. Does AI not understand attacking turreted planes from better angles?

There is no simplified FM for AI in RoF.

I agree with your point that it would be great if the AI flight leaders would throttle back a little when cruising. This is probably more an issue with the missions than the AI, however. The speed set in the mission should be set lower so the AI knows the orders are to cruise at that speed.

Nope. And I thought it was just me

So after a few more career missions:

1. Who flies at -3C temperatures in the rain with a stiff wind and 1000m ceilings?
2. Why don't the AI land/takeoff into the wind?
3. Why did my AI lead decide that diving headfirst into 3 enemy but 250m over their own airfield was a good idea?

I've returned from ~10 patrols, once wounded, two victories. Nearly every single flight at least one of my flight (usually lead) is wounded, crashed, or killed. The auto-resolve flights and the actual flights are so disparate in result it's stupid.

Is there any way I can change some career values so we stop flying in poor weather, fly at a reasonable speed in cruise, and at a respectable altitude? Also, I'm pretty sure that the 11:05 takeoff time means we takeoff at ~11:10 because warm up time isn't included in the calculation for flight planning. I think this is why my flight always runs flat out from WP to WP, because they are 5m late due to T/O.