Jump to content

Wow AI ace level 109 is Godlike


Pandacat

Recommended Posts

I agree with Tomsk's points. Zoom climb is about who bleeds energy slower. Sustained power climb is about gaining energy faster. Orso, your example of accelerating rocket from 0 speed is more synonymous to sustain power climb, not zoom climb. Not sure how authentic the physics are modeled in DCS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I hadn't watched the video beyond where he was being followed by the Typhon.

 

The actual, viable demonstration of the zoom was against the Spitfire. Note however, when he zoomed on the Spitfire, he did it by first doing a split-S to gain the speed, out of which he then zoomed to attack the Spit.

 

What he appeared to try to show against the Typhon I will argue would not work in reality, ie first accelerating in level flight and then pulling into the zoom until somewhere just above stall, or at least only as far is you are still maneuverable. Then leveling out and accelerating again.

 

The problem with that is how long it would take you to accelerate in level flight to have gained enough speed to zoom. In reality, or at least DCS in the P-51D, it takes too long. In the 51 you have to gain your energy through altitude first before you try to attack a 109. Otherwise the 109 will simply climb away from you, turn casually around the pounce on you, while your still trying to zoom up to him; the 109's sustained rate of climb is simply that great.

When you hit the wrong button on take-off

hwl7xqL.gif

System Specs.

Spoiler
System board: MSI X670E ACE Memory: 64GB DDR5-6000 G.Skill Ripjaw System disk: Crucial P5 M.2 2TB
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D PSU: Corsair HX1200 PSU Monitor: ASUS MG279Q, 27"
CPU cooling: Noctua NH-D15S Graphics card: MSI RTX 3090Ti SuprimX VR: Oculus Rift CV1
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Tomsk's points. Zoom climb is about who bleeds energy slower. Sustained power climb is about gaining energy faster. Orso, your example of accelerating rocket from 0 speed is more synonymous to sustain power climb, not zoom climb. Not sure how authentic the physics are modeled in DCS

 

All of the DCS Warbirds have PFM (Professional Flight Model). You can see that in the DCS-Roadmap: DCS: Roadmap (unofficial - NO DISCUSSION HERE)

 

The flight models are explained here: DCS Product Terms

When you hit the wrong button on take-off

hwl7xqL.gif

System Specs.

Spoiler
System board: MSI X670E ACE Memory: 64GB DDR5-6000 G.Skill Ripjaw System disk: Crucial P5 M.2 2TB
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D PSU: Corsair HX1200 PSU Monitor: ASUS MG279Q, 27"
CPU cooling: Noctua NH-D15S Graphics card: MSI RTX 3090Ti SuprimX VR: Oculus Rift CV1
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

smile.gif no the 109 is definitely not GODLIKE.

its the same as it was with the P51 back then before they toned it down completely.

the AI 190 was very weak ever since.

and for people who think that the 109 is so uber because the 109AI kills a P51 AI everytime...thats only because of the way he AI handles situations. its simplified, or better lack of intelligence.

AI turns as hard as it can, as close to buffeting as possible, without stalling. if that doesnt work, it will try to climb away. thats it.

thats the reason why a P51 of the same skill level will kill a Fw190 every time, and thats why a 109 of the same skill level will kill a p51 AI every single time...

 

the 109 AI at excellent skill level is the only AI which is "fun" to fly against currently. its not really fun, but its at least a little challenging...

 

im not even in shape as i avoided dcs for about a year. and only just began to fly the 109 now and then. but a human 109 is definitely deadlier than the AI 109 set at excellent skill level.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What he appeared to try to show against the Typhon I will argue would not work in reality [..]

 

The problem with that is how long it would take you to accelerate in level flight to have gained enough speed to zoom. [..] Otherwise the 109 will simply climb away from you

 

So it's not actually all that obvious what's happened in that video. The Typhoon thinks he's co-E with the FW-190, or close to it, because he's at a similar altitude and speed. However, in reality he's at a big energy disadvantage, probably around 3000 feet. Why? Well the starting altitude is the same, but if the FW-190 points his nose up and converts his speed to altitude he'll go much higher because the FW-190 zooms much better. From this we can conclude the FW-190 has much higher energy. Moreover the higher the speed the bigger the difference and this fight was conducted at fairly high speed.

 

So really the FW-190 is attacking this Typhoon from a position of energetic superiority. He's booming and zooming the Typhoon, it's just not obvious. Now what the FW-190 would like to do is just point his nose skywards, zoom high, and then drop down on the Typhoon. But there's not enough separation to make that work it'd give the Typhoon an easy shot. So instead, he uses his superior energy to gain horizontal separation from the Typhoon. That gives him enough space to perform his zoom climb safely, and bounce the Typhoon. It's actually the same story with the Spitfire. It looks like the Spitfire has an energy advantage, but that's because the FW-190 is hiding a lot of his energy in his speed.

 

Having a superior zoom/dive is a big advantage. If a good zooming plane stays fast he's carrying a lot of energy in his speed. The only way to safely attack him is from a really big altitude advantage, and it's not easy to make those shots work with that much altitude to burn before you get a shot, and by the time you get there you've burnt a lot of your advantage. Worse still, if the better zooming plane decides he doesn't like the situation he'll just dive away. If the attacker follows it's an energy trap: the BnZ plane will just keep diving to higher speeds rapidly bleeding energy from the attacker. This kind of trick is doubly effective. Firstly the BnZ plane is better at converting his altitude into speed in a dive, and at not losing that excess speed to drag. Secondly, the speed is worth a lot more energy to the BnZ plane than his attacker. If after the dive chase both planes are travelling co-alt at 500mph then that is a huge energy advantage to the BnZ plane, even though it's not obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. My point is, if the 51 doesn't start out with a huge energy advantage, it's not going to have enough time to gain the energy advantage.

When you hit the wrong button on take-off

hwl7xqL.gif

System Specs.

Spoiler
System board: MSI X670E ACE Memory: 64GB DDR5-6000 G.Skill Ripjaw System disk: Crucial P5 M.2 2TB
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D PSU: Corsair HX1200 PSU Monitor: ASUS MG279Q, 27"
CPU cooling: Noctua NH-D15S Graphics card: MSI RTX 3090Ti SuprimX VR: Oculus Rift CV1
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the biggest cheat by AI 109 is it can recover lost energy whole lot faster than a real human can actually do. Like David said, it will turn close to buffeting. Well if a human player does that, he will lose tons of speed an energy and will take minutes to get it back without diving. AI however can get it back in seconds even sometimes in climbing attitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you should see how they supposedly bleed and recover energy in tacview...

 

best advice is, 190 only, not 109, not anything that starts with the letter 'K'

AWAITING ED NEW DAMAGE MODEL IMPLEMENTATION FOR WW2 BIRDS

 

Fat T is above, thin T is below. Long T is faster, Short T is slower. Open triangle is AWACS, closed triangle is your own sensors. Double dash is friendly, Single dash is enemy. Circle is friendly. Strobe is jammer. Strobe to dash is under 35 km. HDD is 7 times range key. Radar to 160 km, IRST to 10 km. Stay low, but never slow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has absolutely nothing to do with the 109 itself.

 

AI aircraft use simple flight models. This is the reason an AI P-51 will fly just fine after taking 5-10 30mm hits, this is the reason the Mig-15 is unkillable in the Sabre unless you saw an entire wing off, this is the reason the 109 will point straight up and fly for miles away from the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has absolutely nothing to do with the 109 itself.

 

AI aircraft use simple flight models. This is the reason an AI P-51 will fly just fine after taking 5-10 30mm hits, this is the reason the Mig-15 is unkillable in the Sabre unless you saw an entire wing off, this is the reason the 109 will point straight up and fly for miles away from the ground.

 

and until the flight model is revised by ED, it is better to stay away from them..

AWAITING ED NEW DAMAGE MODEL IMPLEMENTATION FOR WW2 BIRDS

 

Fat T is above, thin T is below. Long T is faster, Short T is slower. Open triangle is AWACS, closed triangle is your own sensors. Double dash is friendly, Single dash is enemy. Circle is friendly. Strobe is jammer. Strobe to dash is under 35 km. HDD is 7 times range key. Radar to 160 km, IRST to 10 km. Stay low, but never slow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no requirement that the 109 AI should always be set to ace. Set them to average and they're pretty good opponents.

P-51D | Fw 190D-9 | Bf 109K-4 | Spitfire Mk IX | P-47D | WW2 assets pack | F-86 | Mig-15 | Mig-21 | Mirage 2000C | A-10C II | F-5E | F-16 | F/A-18 | Ka-50 | Combined Arms | FC3 | Nevada | Normandy | Straight of Hormuz | Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
There is no requirement that the 109 AI should always be set to ace. Set them to average and they're pretty good opponents.

 

It doesn't matter. You can turn them all the way down and they still have the same characteristics. They can bleed all their speed down to a stall then come out of it and climb well above you. It has nothing to do with the AI pilot settings.

I9 9900k @ 5ghz water cooled, 32gb ram, GTX 2080ti, 1tb M.2, 2tb hdd, 1000 watt psu TrackIR 5, TM Warthog Stick and Throttle, CH Pedals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote=

...Think about this. You have two identical rockets, except Rocket-A weights 10,000lbs, while Rocket-B weights 15,000 lbs, because its payload is full of bricks :D. Both are moving straight up away from Earth at 10,000 mph.

 

If you cut the engines on both at the exact same time Rocket-B will continue to climb longer than Rocket-A, because Rocket-B's greater mass (inertia) works for it against the gravitational and air resistances....

I have an issue with your physics here. Both masses are subject to the same gravitational acceleration of about 9.81 m/(s*s). So their speed will bleed down to 0 at the same time. The bigger mass has more kinetic energy but it also gets more pull from mother earth and these effects cancel each other out.

Drag favors the bigger mass a little; but if you cut the engines after only 5 s they will be at about 26,000 m altitude (supposing your MPH are nm/h) and at that altitude drag is a minor effect.

LeCuvier

Windows 10 Pro 64Bit | i7-4790 CPU |16 GB RAM|SSD System Disk|SSD Gaming Disk| MSI GTX-1080 Gaming 8 GB| Acer XB270HU | TM Warthog HOTAS | VKB Gladiator Pro | MongoosT-50 | MFG Crosswind Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter. You can turn them all the way down and they still have the same characteristics. They can bleed all their speed down to a stall then come out of it and climb well above you. It has nothing to do with the AI pilot settings.

 

You should be able to shoot down an "average" AI 109 in the P-51D. Have you really tried it?

P-51D | Fw 190D-9 | Bf 109K-4 | Spitfire Mk IX | P-47D | WW2 assets pack | F-86 | Mig-15 | Mig-21 | Mirage 2000C | A-10C II | F-5E | F-16 | F/A-18 | Ka-50 | Combined Arms | FC3 | Nevada | Normandy | Straight of Hormuz | Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an issue with your physics here. Both masses are subject to the same gravitational acceleration of about 9.81 m/(s*s).

 

Yes, Earth's gravity, and not mass of the smaller objects, determines acceleration.

 

So their speed will bleed down to 0 at the same time.

 

Only in a vacuum.

 

The bigger mass has more kinetic energy but it also gets more pull from mother earth and these effects cancel each other out.

 

No, NO, NO:cry: I thought you know this ...

 

You already said it, gravity is 9.81 m/(s^2) (period). It's the same for a feather as for a rock.

 

Drag favors the bigger mass a little;

GAAH.gif the rockets are identical, except for their payloads, so air-resistance is identical.

 

but if you cut the engines after only 5 s they will be at about 26,000 m altitude (supposing your MPH are nm/h) and at that altitude drag is a minor effect.

 

Noooooo.... you're doing this on purpose aren't you eyetwitch.gif

 

I stated that the rockets are already moving at the same speed for a reason. If both start motionless, then you have to accelerate both to put them into motion.

 

To accelerate the heavier one to the same velocity, you will need more energy, for the larger mass.

 

Therefore, the rocket with more mass has more energy, when both are moving at the same velocity. That is the key.

When you hit the wrong button on take-off

hwl7xqL.gif

System Specs.

Spoiler
System board: MSI X670E ACE Memory: 64GB DDR5-6000 G.Skill Ripjaw System disk: Crucial P5 M.2 2TB
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D PSU: Corsair HX1200 PSU Monitor: ASUS MG279Q, 27"
CPU cooling: Noctua NH-D15S Graphics card: MSI RTX 3090Ti SuprimX VR: Oculus Rift CV1
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to that, there is a small effect, in which if both rockets have the same drag, the lighter one will deccelerate a bit faster then the heavy rocket. Due to the fact that the higher mass has more inertia (I.e you need more force to slow it down) - another effect of the higher energy in the heavier rocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You already said it, gravity is 9.81 m/(s^2) (period). It's the same for a feather as for a rock."

 

Acceleration is not the same thing as a force. Remember F=ma. Of course there is more gravitational force on the more massive rocket, but it also takes more force to accelerate it.:smilewink:

 

With the same drag coefficient the more massive rocket would go a little further after switching the engines off. Friction is doing the same amount of work on the rockets, but the more massive rocket has more kinetic energy, ergo, it takes longer to slow down.

 

Applied to WW2 fighters the argument goes that a more massive fighter like the P-47 should outzoom a Spitfire. This never happens in any flight simulation I've tried. The power:weight advantage of the Spitfire (or 109, or La-7, or whatever) wins every time. I tested this many, many times in controlled conditions and if someone can empirically demonstrate otherwise I will be grateful.:worthy:

P-51D | Fw 190D-9 | Bf 109K-4 | Spitfire Mk IX | P-47D | WW2 assets pack | F-86 | Mig-15 | Mig-21 | Mirage 2000C | A-10C II | F-5E | F-16 | F/A-18 | Ka-50 | Combined Arms | FC3 | Nevada | Normandy | Straight of Hormuz | Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we should do the same test in DCS. That would be very interesting :detective:

When you hit the wrong button on take-off

hwl7xqL.gif

System Specs.

Spoiler
System board: MSI X670E ACE Memory: 64GB DDR5-6000 G.Skill Ripjaw System disk: Crucial P5 M.2 2TB
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D PSU: Corsair HX1200 PSU Monitor: ASUS MG279Q, 27"
CPU cooling: Noctua NH-D15S Graphics card: MSI RTX 3090Ti SuprimX VR: Oculus Rift CV1
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
"You already said it, gravity is 9.81 m/(s^2) (period). It's the same for a feather as for a rock."

 

Acceleration is not the same thing as a force. Remember F=ma. Of course there is more gravitational force on the more massive rocket, but it also takes more force to accelerate it.:smilewink:

 

With the same drag coefficient the more massive rocket would go a little further after switching the engines off. Friction is doing the same amount of work on the rockets, but the more massive rocket has more kinetic energy, ergo, it takes longer to slow down.

 

Applied to WW2 fighters the argument goes that a more massive fighter like the P-47 should outzoom a Spitfire. This never happens in any flight simulation I've tried. The power:weight advantage of the Spitfire (or 109, or La-7, or whatever) wins every time. I tested this many, many times in controlled conditions and if someone can empirically demonstrate otherwise I will be grateful.:worthy:

 

Gotta test human vs human. AI just cheat all the way to the top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should be able to shoot down an "average" AI 109 in the P-51D. Have you really tried it?

 

Still rubbish for training before going against ace multi player and getting wrecked over and over, getting bored and not playing.

 

Last ai 190 I tried to shoot down landed with all the blades broken on its prop. Wings full of holes, engine full of holes. Pilot probably shot 20 times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...