[Mobius]

Sushi, are you planning to make changes that will boost realism?

FreeSpace has an arcade-light combat system, where the player is more than capable of taking down a lot of opponents during a mission. It's no secret in fact, that you need a load of kills to earn the status of "Ace".

In flight simulations is so much harder to do the same, effectively boosting realism, so I'm asking if it's possible to represent that in FS2 via code changes.

[General Battuta]

Do you really need to make any code alterations? Table edits alone should remove all the damage and rate of fire penalties the AI is shackled with.

Take away the debuffs that difficulty level imposes on the AI, and they're pretty capable of ripping the player apart.

[Sushi]

Do you really need to make any code alterations? Table edits alone should remove all the damage and rate of fire penalties the AI is shackled with.

Take away the debuffs that difficulty level imposes on the AI, and they're pretty capable of ripping the player apart.

What he said. Pretty much all of the nerfs are controlled via tables.

[General Battuta]

Also, ironically, I've found it a lot easier to get kills in a big furball in Falcon 4.0 than in Freespace.

Freespace weapons are fairly dumb compared to, say, the AMRAAM. In Falcon 4.0 multiplayer dogfights with large numbers of planes, I could point my nose in the general direction of the furball and maddog-fire all my AMRAAMS without even getting a radar lock. The missiles themselves would pick targets and home in (though, of course, this wasn't a great idea in team games.) Evasion was effectively impossible.

Then I'd eject. 

[Mobius]

Do you really need to make any code alterations? Table edits alone should remove all the damage and rate of fire penalties the AI is shackled with.

Take away the debuffs that difficulty level imposes on the AI, and they're pretty capable of ripping the player apart.

I've already tested that, and I can ensure you that it won't work.

Please note that fair fight and insane difficulty are two separate things. The change you proposed helps with balancing only in a partial way. The AI needs better maneuvers to increase the rate of survival.

What he said. Pretty much all of the nerfs are controlled via tables.

I doubt it due to my personal experience in tabling. Changing the tables won't alter in a radical way the complexity of the AI's maneuvers.

Also, ironically, I've found it a lot easier to get kills in a big furball in Falcon 4.0 than in Freespace.

Freespace weapons are fairly dumb compared to, say, the AMRAAM. In Falcon 4.0 multiplayer dogfights with large numbers of planes, I could point my nose in the general direction of the furball and maddog-fire all my AMRAAMS without even getting a radar lock. The missiles themselves would pick targets and home in (though, of course, this wasn't a great idea in team games.) Evasion was effectively impossible.

Then I'd eject. 

It's not wise to compare a big furball in Falcon 4.0 with a classic FreeSpace dogfight. First of all, you're basing your personal opinion on what can be pointed out (in FS terms) as secondary and their homing capabilities. Those factors have little importance when it comes to short range primary weapons and good maneuvers.

Your example doesn't make sense.

[General Battuta]

FreeSpace has an arcade-light combat system, where the player is more than capable of taking down a lot of opponents during a mission. It's no secret in fact, that you need a load of kills to earn the status of "Ace".

In flight simulations is so much harder to do the same, effectively boosting realism, so I'm asking if it's possible to represent that in FS2 via code changes.

My example directly addresses the fact that it is as easy/easier to do the same in a flight simulation, in a certain somewhat absurd scenario.

As for the rest, the only big problem with AI maneuvers is that they tend to be a little too horizontal. You can simply increase the frequency of AI evasives with the table, and that ought to give them 'better maneuvers'.

[Mobius]

My example directly addresses the fact that it is as easy/easier to do the same in a flight simulation, in a certain somewhat absurd scenario.

Try to do the same with guns and let me know.

As for the rest, the only big problem with AI maneuvers is that they tend to be a little too horizontal. You can simply increase the frequency of AI evasives with the table, and that ought to give them 'better maneuvers'.

That'd increase the frequency, not the quality, of evasive maneuvers.

[General Battuta]

You never said anything about guns.

As for the latter, are the AI evasives that bad? They do need to get a little more vertical, but they're often decently effective. It's the periods in between evasive jinks when they leave themselves open.

[Mobius]

You never said anything about guns.

We were discussing pure dogfights in the Diaspora subforum, so this is self explanatory. What was the point in mentioning the AMRAAM and its capabilities?

As for the latter, are the AI evasives that bad? They do need to get a little more vertical, but they're often decently effective. It's the periods in between evasive jinks when they leave themselves open.

They need to be improved.

[Sushi]

They need to be improved.

Fair enough... what exactly are you after/proposing?

I have made one change that lets the AI dodge vertically (at least, more often than they do) but I have a feeling you're after more than that.

[General Battuta]

You never said anything about guns.

We were discussing pure dogfights in the Diaspora subforum, so this is self explanatory. What was the point in mentioning the AMRAAM and its capabilities?

As for the latter, are the AI evasives that bad? They do need to get a little more vertical, but they're often decently effective. It's the periods in between evasive jinks when they leave themselves open.

They need to be improved.

No, you were comparing Freespace (an arcade-light combat system) to flight simulators (in flight simulations it is much harder to do the same). Thus why I brought up the AMRAAM. At no point did you delineate a difference between missiles and guns, until it was necessary to do so to prove yourself correct.

Now move on or this topic is headed for a lock.

What changes do you want to see to the AI behavior? In what way is it currently unsatisfactory?

[Mobius]

Fair enough... what exactly are you after/proposing?

I have made one change that lets the AI dodge vertically (at least, more often than they do) but I have a feeling you're after more than that.

Going pure vertical is interesting, and I would like to know if it's possible to perform stuff like partial rolls followed by a pure vertical maneuver (the turn rate is not favorable if, let's say, a fighter points down). Changing how the AI turns may be a very good addition.

No, you were comparing Freespace (an arcade-light combat system) to flight simulators (in flight simulations it is much harder to do the same). Thus why I brought up the AMRAAM. At no point did you delineate a difference between missiles and guns, until it was necessary to do so to prove yourself correct.

Since when flight sims are based on dogfights involving modern aircraft, only? Are you completely forgetting the load of WWI and WWII simulations?

[General Battuta]

At no point did you specify any particular flight sim or genre of flight sims. You're nitpicking over increasingly tiny points for reasons of ego. Now drop the topic.

[Sushi]

Going pure vertical is interesting, and I would like to know if it's possible to perform stuff like partial rolls followed by a pure vertical maneuver (the turn rate is not favorable if, let's say, a fighter points down). Changing how the AI turns may be a very good addition.

Are you talking about a split S sort of move? I'm pretty sure that already happens... and I'm not sure what you mean by the turn rate.

[Rodo]

if you want realism you could:

give every ship other than bomber-fighter +50% of hitpoints and reduce the players weapons to -50% , then make the player unable to damage any capital ship that's already damaged by 90% of it's hitpoints (except when using bombs on a bomber of course).

everyone says it would be a waste of time and boring... I would say it's challenging and very tempting.

[Mobius]

Sushi: Yeah, a Split S. I'm not sure the AI is currently capable of performing it - it banks or points down.

About the turn rate:

Code: [Select]

$Name: GTF Ulysses
[...]
$Rotation time: 3.0, 2.6, 5.0
This clarifies why the AI needs to roll to improve the effectiveness of maneuvers: the differences between those values are notable.

Rodo: It would be challenging, but it wouldn't alter the quality of the AI's maneuvers.

[Sushi]

Sushi: Yeah, a Split S. I'm not sure the AI is currently capable of performing it - it banks or points down.

About the turn rate:

Code: [Select]

$Name: GTF Ulysses
[...]
$Rotation time: 3.0, 2.6, 5.0
This clarifies why the AI needs to roll to improve the effectiveness of maneuvers: the differences between those values are notable.

Rodo: It would be challenging, but it wouldn't alter the quality of the AI's maneuvers.

The AI does occasionally roll randomly and then pick a direction to turn, so a spontaneous split S is certainly not impossible. That said, there is no difference in Freespace between pitching up and pitching down, whereas in modern planes there is a HUGE difference (thus the reason for the split S). Why roll and pitch when you can do just as well with plain old pitch?

As you pointed out, the Retail ships usually do have a (very slight) difference in performance between yaw and pitch. That's highly mod-dependent, though.

[Rodo]

Well I just placed two lokies and ordered to attack themselves with the highest AI in retail. (both indestructible)

After watching from afar the action I get the filling that they do this:

The loki that get's the back end of the other first will always be on the back.

The pursued loki will never try to hit the aggresor (maybe because the AI can't turn that hard? and I say AI because I know the loki can turn like that)

The aggresor will focus on trying to keep himself on the back of the enemy rather than trying to hit it hard and make every hit count.

Maybe a change can be done by making the aggresor to focus more on inflicting damage rather than keeping the back end of it's target.

[Mobius]

The AI does occasionally roll randomly and then pick a direction to turn, so a spontaneous split S is certainly not impossible. That said, there is no difference in Freespace between pitching up and pitching down, whereas in modern planes there is a HUGE difference (thus the reason for the split S). Why roll and pitch when you can do just as well with plain old pitch?

As you pointed out, the Retail ships usually do have a (very slight) difference in performance between yaw and pitch. That's highly mod-dependent, though.

By looking at the tables, pitching without rolling doesn't seem convenient...

[Sushi]

Well I just placed two lokies and ordered to attack themselves with the highest AI in retail. (both indestructible)

After watching from afar the action I get the filling that they do this:

The loki that get's the back end of the other first will always be on the back.

The pursued loki will never try to hit the aggresor (maybe because the AI can't turn that hard? and I say AI because I know the loki can turn like that)

The aggresor will focus on trying to keep himself on the back of the enemy rather than trying to hit it hard and make every hit count.

Maybe a change can be done by making the aggresor to focus more on inflicting damage rather than keeping the back end of it's target.

That sounds like the "Circle fight" stalemate problem. I've got something in the works that should reduce that problem somewhat.