Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
To be fair to the Devs (all hail the Devs) the AI logic has improved greatly - you should have flow with the silly SOB’s a few year ago AI’s not the Devs
In most cases yes, in some cases no. I do find the blue AI more passive than they were in previous editions of falcon. Quite frequently I see blue AI CAP packages not engaging
bandits at all. Back in the old SP days or OF from what I remember is that they were more aggressive. I also don’t really see this passive behaviour in red AI. Red AI is always quite aggressive. Always chasing you when you run (now even more than in previous versions) and red AI most of the time engage my package or other blue packages. This is mostly in TE’s. In campaigns it’s not as much an issue.It would be very nice to see an overhaul in AI, especially the blue side. It would be nice to see AI be more aggressive, more capable etc. Right now they are often easy targets. They’re not capable of evading active missiles at all. Right now the only way to keep them alive in a fight against bandits with active missiles is to keep them out of the fight alltogether. They go defensive too late (when missile goes active…of course this is true for the red side as well) and happily fly into engagements/threat area’s at 300 kts or lower. And they happily circle around in defended target area’s at 250 kts… The blue side takes way too many losses against sam/AAA defended area’s…even SA-2 level defense. although sending a prowler/growler along with the package does help a lot. However when you read real stories of the gulf war, coalition pilots faced many sams of SA2 and SA3 type evading many of them. And coalition took very few losses. Create this type of mission in falcon and it’s carnage. In real life the west has pretty clear air superiority and take very few losses. In falcon this is not nearly the case. I don’t suggest that SU30 type bandits should be easy targets…but the blue side does need to be far more capable than they are now. I once created a TE with 2 F-22’s with 120’s facing 3 or 4 F-5’s with AIM9’s. The F-22’s lost. this is just 1 example. But I see quite often that blue forces lose against inferior bandits. even facing equal numbers. Yet in real life the west only lost 1 fighter in an air to air kill since desert storm.
I realise that improving AI is easier said than done. This is by no means criticism of the devs. They do amazing work and what the BMS team has done with this sim is simply amazing. This is just an area that imo could use improvement.
-
I realise that improving AI is easier said than done. This is by no means criticism of the devs. They do amazing work and what the BMS team has done with this sim is simply amazing. This is just an area that imo could use improvement.
Im not going to deny that the AI, the decision making, plays a part - but Im also going to point out that you have to replicate the systems involved, before you can expect prototypical results from replicating prototypical engagements.
In the case of an F-22 against F-5s, it is complicated in the real world by radar mechanisation (non existent in BMS), and by EW (essentially non existent in BMS). Of course, if it was F-22s with AIM-9s against F-5s with AIM-9s, then you would still expect the F-22s to perform very well, assuming both sides were crewed by competent pilots. Id not be surprised if you told me that real world, the F-5s have won before. Seeing as you tend to see F-5s piloted by aggressor pilots who BFM and ACM for breakfast, lunch and dinner. If they go up against scrub Raptor pilots… well. Anything is possible.
-
It would be very nice to see an overhaul in AI, especially the blue side.
Placebo effect. There is no Red vs Blue AI. All AIs are the same.
-
Placebo effect. There is no Red vs Blue AI. All AIs are the same.
Blu3wolf, Dee-Jay, thank you for your replies.
Maybe it is part placebo effect. I didn’t really think there would be different programming for red and blue AI. However I see differences a bit too often to call it placebo effect. Maybe it’s an AI vs human player effect?Here’s a simple scenario of TE’s that I regularly create. For example a DCA mission. I set up 2 cap stations for blue air. A west station and an east station. the west station manned by me with an F-16 2 ship, the east station manned by AI flying F-15, 16 or 18 for example. As threats I have a single strike package incoming of say 2 SU27’s escorting 2 SU30’s for example. Or in other missions I have red side also divided in a west and east section. Frequently when I do this all the red elements engage, I’ve never seen red air not engaging.
Often I see the blue east AI cap station circling only, not engaging at all even when threats are in the area. When I reverse the situation and I fly a blue air strike package into a red air defended airspace with an east and west cap, I get attacked by both AI cap stations…Another thing I frequently see a difference is in a chase. when me and my are chasing down a bandit my wingman is often not capable of launching a slammer or heaters, even though we are in optimal range. When red air chases us, they never seem to have that problem.
Or this scenario. a basic 2v2 setup. both sides equipped with slammers. I tell my wingman to flex at safe distance and myself attack red air with amraams. After I launch I go defensive and turn back towards my wingman. every now and then a red air bandit still chases me and I tell my wingman to clear my 6. Instead I often see him simply rejoin my wing and now we both end up defensive. if my wingman had launched the fight would be over or at least neutral again. This may be a bit unconventional tactics, but I often do this with AI wingmen because they are not able to defend against slammers, so I initially keep them at a safe distance. and when situation is reversed, I never see the red air wingman rejoin his lead without launching against me…so again red air seems more aggressive.
Even if it is placebo, that still doesn’t change the rest of my post about air superiority. The west has enjoyed clear air superiority in every conflict we’ve been in. You don’t see this in falcon. Blue side takes way too many losses against even Vietnam era defenses…
-
Blu3wolf, Dee-Jay, thank you for your replies.
Maybe it is part placebo effect. I didn’t really think there would be different programming for red and blue AI. However I see differences a bit too often to call it placebo effect. Maybe it’s an AI vs human player effect?Here’s a simple scenario of TE’s that I regularly create. For example a DCA mission. I set up 2 cap stations for blue air. A west station and an east station. the west station manned by me with an F-16 2 ship, the east station manned by AI flying F-15, 16 or 18 for example. As threats I have a single strike package incoming of say 2 SU27’s escorting 2 SU30’s for example. Or in other missions I have red side also divided in a west and east section. Frequently when I do this all the red elements engage, I’ve never seen red air not engaging.
Often I see the blue east AI cap station circling only, not engaging at all even when threats are in the area. When I reverse the situation and I fly a blue air strike package into a red air defended airspace with an east and west cap, I get attacked by both AI cap stations…Another thing I frequently see a difference is in a chase. when me and my are chasing down a bandit my wingman is often not capable of launching a slammer or heaters, even though we are in optimal range. When red air chases us, they never seem to have that problem.
Or this scenario. a basic 2v2 setup. both sides equipped with slammers. I tell my wingman to flex at safe distance and myself attack red air with amraams. After I launch I go defensive and turn back towards my wingman. every now and then a red air bandit still chases me and I tell my wingman to clear my 6. Instead I often see him simply rejoin my wing and now we both end up defensive. if my wingman had launched the fight would be over or at least neutral again. This may be a bit unconventional tactics, but I often do this with AI wingmen because they are not able to defend against slammers, so I initially keep them at a safe distance. and when situation is reversed, I never see the red air wingman rejoin his lead without launching against me…so again red air seems more aggressive.
Even if it is placebo, that still doesn’t change the rest of my post about air superiority. The west has enjoyed clear air superiority in every conflict we’ve been in. You don’t see this in falcon. Blue side takes way too many losses against even Vietnam era defenses…
Again, you are comparing apples and tractors. Blue air doesnt face a real world opponent in falcon, either. The supreme leader would scream like a little girl at the prospect of getting the air force he is represented as having, in BMS.
-
Again, you are comparing apples and tractors. Blue air doesnt face a real world opponent in falcon, either. The supreme leader would scream like a little girl at the prospect of getting the air force he is represented as having, in BMS.
But falcon is trying to simulate real world weapon systems and trying to be a realistic combat simulator. And with regard to modelling the F-16 (avionics, flight model etc.) it’s superb! All I’m trying to say is that the AI could use some more attention. On simhq there was a member F-18 pilot and he said that real world wingmen are not idiots. They don’t need constant coaching. In falcon (and most other combat sims I’ve seen to be honest) they do.
Falcon blue air doesn’t face a real world threat, fair enough. But North Korea in falcon is arguably a similar threat as Iraq was in Desert storm. Mostly older sam systems like SA-2, SA-3 etc. and when you send in blue air strike packages against these threats, losses are quite high, whereas in real life the coalition lost hardly any aircraft at all. So what I’m saying is that real life blue air is far more capable than falcon blue air, even when facing ‘the same’ threat types. I don’t really see how that is comparing apples to tractors. -
-
Aaarggh! Don’t you guy’s get bored?
-
But falcon is trying to simulate real world weapon systems and trying to be a realistic combat simulator. And with regard to modelling the F-16 (avionics, flight model etc.) it’s superb! All I’m trying to say is that the AI could use some more attention. On simhq there was a member F-18 pilot and he said that real world wingmen are not idiots. They don’t need constant coaching. In falcon (and most other combat sims I’ve seen to be honest) they do.
Falcon blue air doesn’t face a real world threat, fair enough. But North Korea in falcon is arguably a similar threat as Iraq was in Desert storm. Mostly older sam systems like SA-2, SA-3 etc. and when you send in blue air strike packages against these threats, losses are quite high, whereas in real life the coalition lost hardly any aircraft at all. So what I’m saying is that real life blue air ….I would like to win 1.000.000$
Do not worry, we are all in the same ship, and we are several thousands of ppl who would like a better AI. I can tel you that you can be already happy with what we have now … And remember, is will always remains robots.
For another experience, may I suggest HvH … -
I would like to win 1.000.000$
Do not worry, we are all in the same ship, and we are several thousands of ppl who would like a better AI. I can tel you that you can be already happy with what we have now … And remember, is will always remains robots.
For another experience, may I suggest HvH …I would like that too!
My posts may have come across as a rant, but they were certainly not meant that way. This thread is about what you would like to see. Well I would like to see improved AI.
However I realise that this is very complex and not easy to accomplish at all. I have nothing but respect for the BMS team, what they have done with this sim so far is already amazing. And it only keeps getting better! -
VR support , fixed campaing supply systems (so if i lose 2 F-16s from my squadron they really are lots, now those planes wont always count right)
Better sam tactics so north korea is bit more dangerous enemy. (They have shit fighter but lots of sam’s so…)
Use “smoke and mirros”, if player wont know how its done it can be very Simple random suhtdown / enable etc…And less god eye view Intel in map, its bit better now than it was in relase version of BMS but some more tuning would make it more suprising.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
If we can have something in a new update : no more thread about what people want in a new update
It gives us too many ideas and thus work
-
If we can have something in a new update : no more thread about what people want in a new update
It gives us too many ideas and thus work
There is a saying I use: Ideas are easy. Execution is hard!
-
If we can have something in a new update : no more thread about what people want in a new update
It gives us too many ideas and thus work
I already have a few from this thread Jp and I know for damn sure you have
-
My requests aren’t easy, but one can hope:
- UI - I’d like it to be updated so it is no longer fixed at 1024x768. Aesthetically and functionally, I think it is very good, but I’d like a higher resolution that matches the screen resolution
- Terrain - Higher resolution terrain and less texture repetition
- 3D models - Better models for A-10 and the common aircraft in KTO
- Damage model - Would love to see 3D models missing parts of the airframe. Even if we could get rid of the explosing/vanishing of hit aircraft. It may be better to have aircaft switch to a damage model on missile impact, and stay that way until it hits the deck, or at least ‘vanish’ after a longer delay.
- More tower/AWACS comms etc.
- AG JHMCS implementation
-
More steerpoint lines instead of only 4 when you try to make areas of interest, like tankers, AWACS areas etc.
Greetings
-
@NIL:
More steerpoint lines instead of only 4 when you try to make areas of interest, like tankers, AWACS areas etc.
Greetings
Out of curiousity, how many lines can the real thing have programmed in via the cartridge?
-
Depend the generation of the update. Latest can increase up to 1000 for the 1st line.
-
Israel Theater configuration tool has an option to install pilot body right away. Would be great to have that for default BMS with an option for legs-only and for F/A-18 too…
And the auto-updating texture that features mission briefing on the kneepad akin to WDP… Right now you can do it manually but that’s way too much effort for a mission that will take 10 times less time to get completed.
-
Reinforcements by supply for GUs similar to squadrons to make longer lasting and interesting campaigns which maybe would make worth attack infrastructure and supply.