Jump to content

Got bored and turned to the dark side.


Pilotasso
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well actually no, it isn't. You have organizational level responses, which is what you're talking about, and flight level/individual level responses, which is what we're talking about.

 

You can't have teh first work too well without the second.

 

Its all part of it, if you read the original F4 manual it covered the various types of missions you could expect from the AI. Some of these missions included Ambush caps etc by the Migs. When you consider how the AI responds now to your F-16s presence they use various tactics depending on their experience level. Ace AI you can expect a 4 ship formation to separate and the lead element to attempt to draw your fire and turn back. The rear element(eg Mig29) climbs to near ceiling level and is the element that will engage initially. All this ties into the DC, a veteran 4 ship responds with a champaign drag manouvre with much the same idea but executed differently. I think these responses are scripted but they are quite effective at being a problem that must be delt with. Looking at the bigger picture the more kills a unit gets the higher its experince level and the more effective it is. There are aspects on the ground and in the air where it could be made more realistic such as unit replenishment/rest/repair etc.

[sIGPIC]2011subsRADM.jpg

[/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest IguanaKing

I don't know if they're connected, but the AI in Falcon 4.0 has always been better than the AI in LOMAC, IMHO. ATC operations are MUCH better, package interaction and the subsequent COMs are better, and your wing-nuts don't act like UPT washouts when it comes to tactics. Heh...their low-level navigation skills left a lot to be desired though. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are not gonna see a DC in Lock-On. Why? because it would take more man hours than the sim has in it since Flanker. The DC took something like 3/4 of F4 man-hours.

 

It's an unreasonable expectation.

 

But reasonable expectations which make lack of DC less of an issue for those of us who would love one:

 

1) Large mission data base. I put about 200 hours into FC, but dropped out finally---could not find enough interesting missions already made, and those I did make myself, lacked surprise, and took mucho time. We need a central location with many missions for download. You can tell by the movies there must be quite a few out there, hehe.

 

2) Improve mission editor. No brainer and not that much work, relatively.

 

3) Advanced FM's for all flyables-- this would be huge, and obviously they know how.

 

4) Increased control for player, more wingman options, and the ability to call flights into the air.

 

5) Improve online interface.

 

these "doable" improvements would just ify a new $80 edition--for me anyway.

 

But I'll take what I can get, and the ka-50 will get me into the air again for sure.

 

If you are serious about modern air combat you of course must have both F4 and LO.

 

The list of what F4 needs is equally long:

 

1) flyable red AC, well matched to falcon in a to a,

 

2) Su-25T level FMs

 

3) LO quality terrain and objets.

 

4) Damge modeling on alot of stuff

 

5) lots of little stuff like IFF, etc.

 

Ceratinly worth comparing the 2 great jet sims, ranting and praising. But if you don't have a fundamental respect for both sims-----then maybe you deserve flames from everyone, hehe.

 

In the end the sims are so different you can't say which is "better" without ignoring or not understanding great parts of the other. LO has the look and feel (at least in the 25T), F4 has the war.

E8600 Asus P5E Radeon 4870x2 Corsair 4gb Velociraptor 300gb Neopower 650 NZXT Tempest Vista64 Samsung 30" 2560x1600

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(..Writing this while giggeling..)

 

Pilotasso.. You are my new hero..! Good to see that your exccelent piloting skills are based on more than just countless hours in front of the computer screen.! Allthough I must say that I have no idea what most of the things you're talking about even mean.. c",)

 

As for the rest of you guys..! WHERE THE HELL DID YOU FIND TIME TO LEARN ALL THIS..! (again.. giggeling in awe)

 

I take my hat off for you all...

"But (504)Brewber said they were'nt friendly.. So I took'em out.!"

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are not gonna see a DC in Lock-On. Why? because it would take more man hours than the sim has in it since Flanker. The DC took something like 3/4 of F4 man-hours.

 

.

 

 

I don't think that it would be impossible to create a DC for a future ED sim as we are talking more powerful PCs than what we use now for a start. I view the DC as like a chess board and all the units on it are placed at the start. From there they follow their own patterns and get eliminated or advance as the game progresses according to the players success rate.

[sIGPIC]2011subsRADM.jpg

[/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is no longer valid. UbiSoft doesn't support LO anymore so one shouldn't pay attention to anything from their site, not that there are any news about LO there. What I recall is that before the release of LO the guy who has been in charge of DC programming has left ED, don't know how true is that.

"See, to me that's a stupid instrument. It tells what your angle of attack is. If you don't know you shouldn't be flying." - Chuck Yeager, from the back seat of F-15D at age 89.

=RvE=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor AI response, will a DC solve this?

 

Multilevel AI is integral part of DC structure, like SUBS17 said.

 

Poor graphic optimization, bringing any system to its knees with too many unit, does a DC solve this?

 

Who says it should be a DC role???

 

Well actually no, it isn't. You have organizational level responses, which is what you're talking about, and flight level/individual level responses, which is what we're talking about.

 

You can't have teh first work too well without the second.

 

I agree up to a point. The lowest level can be considered as a seperate module in respect to program structure but higher levels of AI actions are obligatory for the lowest level AI and has great impact on its actions.

 

To clear the things up let’s take a look at

Kevin Klemmick Dynamic Campaign AI Interview - By Glen "Sleepdoc" Kletzy

and

Kevin Klemmick Player Bubble Interview - By Glen "Sleepdoc" Kletzy

 

The second part is about “playet bubble” which prevents Falcon going suicidal (unlike LO) coping with controlling hundreds of units.

 

Another great source on multilevel AI and DC are Lead Pursuit’s (Falcon 4 Allied Force developer) Development Notes http://www.lead-pursuit.com/devnotes.htm

 

And for the future, if someone claims another person consider (for example) DC as remedy for graphics engine issues – quote, please, Falcon 4 Allied Force to be better than Lock On (without questioning and undisputedly) – quote, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:suspect:

 

/None/ of what you just said requires a DC at /all/. Youcould set such things up in JF18. There are -other- things that may be related to the DC that affect behavior, but /none/ of them require it.

 

 

Its all part of it, if you read the original F4 manual it covered the various types of missions you could expect from the AI. Some of these missions included Ambush caps etc by the Migs. When you consider how the AI responds now to your F-16s presence they use various tactics depending on their experience level. Ace AI you can expect a 4 ship formation to separate and the lead element to attempt to draw your fire and turn back. The rear element(eg Mig29) climbs to near ceiling level and is the element that will engage initially. All this ties into the DC, a veteran 4 ship responds with a champaign drag manouvre with much the same idea but executed differently. I think these responses are scripted but they are quite effective at being a problem that must be delt with. Looking at the bigger picture the more kills a unit gets the higher its experince level and the more effective it is. There are aspects on the ground and in the air where it could be made more realistic such as unit replenishment/rest/repair etc.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand how Falcon's DC works ... and let me reiterate:

The DC provides contiuity for this behavior, but YOU DO NOT NEED A DC to have this behavior.

 

This isn't some argument for avoiding DC. It is an argument for getting priorities straight - ie. in order TO HAVE a good DC, you need to have some 'individual' level things right, and build on those.

 

Multilevel AI is integral part of DC structure, like SUBS17 said.

 

 

 

Who says it should be a DC role???

 

 

 

I agree up to a point. The lowest level can be considered as a seperate module in respect to program structure but higher levels of AI actions are obligatory for the lowest level AI and has great impact on its actions.

 

To clear the things up let’s take a look at

Kevin Klemmick Dynamic Campaign AI Interview - By Glen "Sleepdoc" Kletzy

and

Kevin Klemmick Player Bubble Interview - By Glen "Sleepdoc" Kletzy

 

The second part is about “playet bubble” which prevents Falcon going suicidal (unlike LO) coping with controlling hundreds of units.

 

Another great source on multilevel AI and DC are Lead Pursuit’s (Falcon 4 Allied Force developer) Development Notes http://www.lead-pursuit.com/devnotes.htm

 

And for the future, if someone claims another person consider (for example) DC as remedy for graphics engine issues – quote, please, Falcon 4 Allied Force to be better than Lock On (without questioning and undisputedly) – quote, please.

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand how Falcon's DC works ... and let me reiterate:

The DC provides contiuity for this behavior, but YOU DO NOT NEED A DC to have this behavior.

 

This isn't some argument for avoiding DC. It is an argument for getting priorities straight - ie. in order TO HAVE a good DC, you need to have some 'individual' level things right, and build on those.

 

Sorry, but, you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Anyways. I am not saying a DC wouldnt be nice to have. But there are bigger issues that need to be addressed, and I think the DC should be at the bottom of the list. If we cant even have functional, indepth, missions (or TE' s since you all have to reference to F4), then what good is a DC.

 

I am sure ED could make a DC right now. And no one would be happy with it, because it wouldnt be like F4 :( , why? Because the AI doesnt react very well, and it would feel the same as it does now, generic and sterile.

 

People need to quit beating the DC drum, and realize why there is no DC.

 

I think I am just repeating GG.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People need to quit beating the DC drum....

 

well this is a thread about the "darkside", hehe, and the drum is worth a few taps anyway.

 

first if haven't spent at least 40 hours trying to understand and fly the f4 DC, you can't understand the passion of the drum beaters.

 

I haven't flown f4 in 18 months at least, but the experiences are burned into my brain from years of dabbling here and there. I'll go back again, no doubt. To have any chance, you have to know what's going on in the war, adjust your priorites, and re-plan the flight accordingly, an interesting and sometimes tedious process. Finally you are taxiing, and the immersion starts to take hold. The unknown looms like a primordial monster. You do have a bunch of tools in flight to help, and your mind races to keep track of them. Calling for "HELP" is always high on my list with the air threats, hehe, because they can be VERY serious, espcially when you see that little "29" on the panel. Unexpected SAM launches will always get your attention. You have to keep your wingmen healthy and on task. All this and more just to get in a position to attempt your mission. Doing that job will keep you very busy, and then you try to get home. By that time the guy in the tower seems awful real.

 

Then it's time to catch up on the war again, while the headlines fly by, pick another flight and do it all over, and over, and over. The F4 DC really can't be overstated if you have had a real taste. There is nothing to compare it to.....it's a living breathing masterpiece, and you get the scary feeling at times that the war will spill right out into you living room and take over your town. You BETTER win, or else.

 

 

With Lock-on you get a little taste of this flying online, an the addreniline rush of a fight is real for sure. But the big picture is not there. It's a single action with no history on no destination---which is not to say it's not damn fun and challanging. And with FC you also get to feel like your're really flying (with the 25t) in a way that F4 can't touch. And the graphics are so damn gorgeous, you have to love the sim. I can't wait for BS, and I'll build a serious machine just to fly it.

 

If we had both in one....but life is imperfect.

E8600 Asus P5E Radeon 4870x2 Corsair 4gb Velociraptor 300gb Neopower 650 NZXT Tempest Vista64 Samsung 30" 2560x1600

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F4 DC can be and /is/ frequently overstated. It still has some rather maddening modes of behaviour and inane quirks ;)

 

And creating a DC before creating a comprehensive AI system would have just made it worse. You'd have a 'picture' alright ... you just wouldn't want to fly in it.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When started the thread Pilotasso pointed out two things - missile and flight dynamics modelling. After page 2 there is not a single post about that. You just keep chewing this DC stuff.

I've always found pointless and annoying threads like "F4 vs LO", "Su-27 vs F-15" etc where most people act like football fans, supporting two blood-enemy teams. I can imagine what's going on in the Su-30MKI thread, I can spell the words without even read the first post...

  • Like 1

"See, to me that's a stupid instrument. It tells what your angle of attack is. If you don't know you shouldn't be flying." - Chuck Yeager, from the back seat of F-15D at age 89.

=RvE=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the reason that F4:AF's DC is successful is due to the sim's marginal graphics. Ground units move with impunity through cities and treeless hillsides with no need to regard roads until they cross a river. This allows hundreds of ground units to maneuver simultaneously with little draw on the processor. Units in Lomac are very detailed and generally use roads. My low-end pc simply cannot handle more than a dozen or so ground units at once. F4:AF on the other hand is pretty smooth regardless of the bevy of activity around me. Much that we have become used to in Lomac would need to be compromised in order for a DC to be possible on an average pc.

 

Smokin'Hole

Smokin' Hole

 

My DCS wish list: Su25, Su30, Mi24, AH1, F/A-18C, Afghanistan ...and frankly, the flight sim world should stop at 1995.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOMAC doesnt get slow due to none of the of the reasons you pointed out.

 

How much of the CPU do you think it takes to keep a car on a road?

 

LOMAC is slow because of obsolete and incomplete 3D graphics handling.

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Pilotasso,

 

Far be it from me to question your greater experience with the sim. To be honest, I was guessing anyway. But in my experience when I build little scenarios for the Su-25, ground units which are told to remain on a road result in slightly slower framerates than when I allow the same number of units to travel waypoint to waypoint. I multiplied that observation by hundreds of battalions in a DC, and figured that would be a CPU killer. As far as the question of an obsolete graphics engine is concerned...I don't know such is the case but I don't doubt it. Lomac is obviously VERY CPU demanding, F4 is not. And here is what I do know: The FM in lomac is as good as any sim available to an amature with limited funds. F4:AF is to jets what Mario Kart Racer is to cars.

 

Enjoy your time on the dark on the dark side.

 

Master Arm On...

 

Smokin'Hole

 

:pilotfly:

Smokin' Hole

 

My DCS wish list: Su25, Su30, Mi24, AH1, F/A-18C, Afghanistan ...and frankly, the flight sim world should stop at 1995.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Pilotasso,

 

Far be it from me to question your greater experience with the sim. To be honest, I was guessing anyway. But in my experience when I build little scenarios for the Su-25, ground units which are told to remain on a road result in slightly slower framerates than when I allow the same number of units to travel waypoint to waypoint. I multiplied that observation by hundreds of battalions in a DC, and figured that would be a CPU killer. As far as the question of an obsolete graphics engine is concerned...I don't know such is the case but I don't doubt it. Lomac is obviously VERY CPU demanding, F4 is not. And here is what I do know: The FM in lomac is as good as any sim available to an amature with limited funds. F4:AF is to jets what Mario Kart Racer is to cars.

 

Enjoy your time on the dark on the dark side.

 

Master Arm On...

 

Smokin'Hole

 

:pilotfly:

 

Actually F4AF is optimised for dual core which is what I need right now.

 

F4:AF is to jets what Mario Kart Racer is to cars.

 

 

LMAO.....go read the MLU manuals and then think about what you just stated.

[sIGPIC]2011subsRADM.jpg

[/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When started the thread Pilotasso pointed out two things - missile and flight dynamics modelling. After page 2 there is not a single post about that. You just keep chewing this DC stuff.

I've always found pointless and annoying threads like "F4 vs LO", "Su-27 vs F-15" etc where most people act like football fans, supporting two blood-enemy teams. I can imagine what's going on in the Su-30MKI thread, I can spell the words without even read the first post...

 

This isn't a F4 vs LO thread, its good to discuss the DC though or ways to improve missions.

[sIGPIC]2011subsRADM.jpg

[/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest IguanaKing

Subs, I don't have F4:AF, but I have F4 SP4.2. Are the FMs in AF comparable to SP4.2? In SP4.2, I thought the flight model for the F-16 was getting pretty damn good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:suspect:

 

/None/ of what you just said requires a DC at /all/. Youcould set such things up in JF18. There are -other- things that may be related to the DC that affect behavior, but /none/ of them require it.

 

That is part of how the DC works, it may start off as one big MP mission but remember after each flight you land and go and select the next mission off the ATO. You could go one better though and follow JF-15E and have maintenance and Squadron management.

[sIGPIC]2011subsRADM.jpg

[/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey ... are you -not reading- what I'm writing? :)

 

The continuity is a minor thing compared to in-flight behavior. Once you have the behavior, you can add the continuity and the resource computations and make it go on and on. Or you can add it right away and end up with something that has a DC, and sucks.

That some behavior is part of the DC is just fine - at some level you can mix them, it makes sense, and it works smoother - and that's why it is that way in F4, and that's why you're harping on about it. But make no mistake about it, the dynamic *campaign* is nothing more than a reasonable game theory calculator. It doesn't actually have anything to do with *flying* in any way, shape or form ;)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest IguanaKing

How about all of the COMs that go along with the DC, and the air and ground threats/traffic? As for the flight model. I don't know what others have seen, but the MAJOR difference I saw in "feel" between SP4.2 and LOMAC was the graphics. Our computers obviously can't produce the physical sensations of flight, so its up to our eyes to attempt to make the substitution. In F4, the DC and the logic associated with it also provided us with the auditory aspect of flight in combat. LOMAC falls short, MISERABLY in that department, but the visuals are cool enough to keep my flight sim interest focused mostly on LOMAC. Avionics modelling and systems management is also quite watered-down in LOMAC, but I've been told BS changes all of that, so I look forward to it. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This threads now at 10+ pages. It's nice to talk through the merits of a good DC but the reality is that ED have'nt even looked at a patch for one in either LOMAC or Flamming Cliffs, their unlikely to do anything for BS and the next sim will probably be equally deficient whenever that arrives +2 yrs?. If we are to ask ED to do anything then lets be realistic and ask for minor tweaks to the ME to at least introduce any kind of random element that takes us away from the sterile and repetitive game play we currently have. This is'nt a rant just an observation of where we are and whats realistic to ask for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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