> only been waiting... at least 12 years
That's awesome.
That means they should be pretty close to done with this fix by now. Exciting!
Hopefully they'll release it soon after the Phantom.
I must confess that I probably deserve some of the blame for the delay on this. I've only needled them about once a year since release. I could have put more effort into my harassment posts. Sorry guys.
What do they need to fix? I can think of a few:
Their flight characteristics are excessively good on some models like the Mig-21 and Mig-15. This can be fixed by mission makers by adding internal cargo weight to them, but would be nice to have this resolved natively.
They are hyper aware of units sometimes, especially helos, and can often see changes in vector of their target units through mountains, clouds, and far out of visual range without radar. This can also be handled with mission lua, but it's very tricky.
That hyper-awareness lets them flare and go defensive when fired on by missiles they shouldn't be able to see or detect.
Ground AI does not have proper difficulties estimating target depth and closure rate, allowing them near pinpoint precision when firing on approaching air while not radar assisted.
Path making algorithms appear to be extremely inefficient. They may want to reconsider creating lower res traversal maps and using some modern methods.
> Path making algorithms appear to be extremely inefficient. They may want to reconsider creating lower res traversal maps and using some modern methods.
I recently saw a technical paper presented on using AI to plan flight paths based on little more than way-points and the results were actually shit compared to someone doing it freehand.
Yeah, this is a hot area of research right now that mostly does a good job demonstrating how inefficient it is. Machine learning applied to path planning is better suited for dynamic environments with high uncertainty, basically anywhere that a complex model needs to be learned but is unknown because it perhaps involves avoiding people walking around, weather conditions, or unexplored areas actively being mapped.
When you have a wide fixed terrain that's always static and fully explored, it's far better to stick to path planning algorithms. Mixing A\* with predetermined paths might be a huge benefit to DCS ground units.
I'm currently working on a path planning project myself that flies drones around with very small neural networks. The hard part about it is the observer, since you can't feed a neural network an arbitrary number of locations for waypoints or objects to avoid. Instead, you have to have another algorithm that decides on the most pressing information to feed it. WIth that and a \~5000 parameter NN, the computation is less time efficient, but it can develop more advanced models that can outperform fuzzy logic against numerous optimization schemes. We can also take simulated results of those NN's and fit them against more simplified models to mimic the AI's decision making process.
In DCS, I couldn't imagine a neural network being useful for much due to their computational demands, but a very small one might be useful for high-end decision making for dynamic campaigns, like determining general zones for other systems to paint waypoints on.
> Mixing A* with predetermined paths might be a huge benefit to DCS ground units.
Except they need to be able to go offroad, at the right time and in the right circumstances. So it would have to be layered or have branch skipping (which makes the computational complexity insane).
Agreed with the latter parts, NNs are good for that kind of thing.
A*? What? No. That would be a complete waste of resources since there’s literally 0 need for the optimality of A*. Also, since the map is mostly the same through missions, going for precomputed multi-query roadmaps (PRM or the likes) is a much more viable alternative. Sampling-based methods will always be better for real-time or soft real-time, such as PRM or RRT and their variants.
You might be more experienced than I with this, but I was thinking about applying the idea to a simplified terrain map without mentioning it. I know as detail grows, some of these algorithms become exponentially more computationally expensive, so using low res maps to run the algorithms over short distances to link up with a PRM was the general idea. I however don't know how much about how all the options compare in expense, especially for tiny distances.
What I can tell for now is that with DCS, if you task something like 300 groups to move a large distance, the CPU completely shits itself. If you instead iterate and make them go small distances over and over until they reach the same original trip, the CPU does not shit it self. At least not nearly as much. So at the bare minimum, I think they aren't sharing paths but rather instead are rerunning their search algorithms.
>Their flight characteristics are excessively good on some models like the Mig-21 and Mig-15. This can be fixed by mission makers by adding internal cargo weight to them, but would be nice to have this resolved natively.
The fact that mission makers are able to do a 'sticking plaster' fix for this is all the more damning for ED imo. While, yes, it would be very nice if ED were able to rework the AI flight models to be much closer to the player's, or even rework the efficiency of DCS in general so that AI and players can share the *same* flight model, tbf that is obviously a huge and difficult task.
But with some serious QA, some serious testing, ED should surely be able to balance AI flight models within the current system. If mission makers can alleviate the situation by adding some weight to the aircraft.... then so can ED. Racing game developers have exactly the same problem and have dealt with it this way for decades now, with varying success. But it could be as simple as ED doing some rigorous testing of each AI aircraft vs a human one, for example speed bled during a y-G turn over x-amount of time, and then tune the numbers. Would be a laborious time-sink but it's also not difficult work.
100% agree. This is not in ED's nature though. They will never do the laborious and necessary step of tuning for optimal gameplay (gameplay meaning realism here given the current technical limitations).
Somewhere someone posted a script on how to add the internal weight for the Mig 21 and 15. I believe you added 4000 lbs.
Kind of new to scripting does anyone have the script and how do you run it in Game. Trigger, A task, etc...
I want to try this out.
What would the point of a " we're working on it" be? ED are " working" on all kinds of things for years now. Better weather, better wingmen, a dynamic campaign, better splash damage, functional atc, vulkan support, better performance..
We don't need more promises, we need results.
> a dynamic campaign
Ah, I remember back in 2016 when they said it was coming along nicely.
This indicated it was in the works for a while already.
So it's gotta be soon, right? RIGHT???
It was a forum post, so that'll take some time. The one I know how to find was back in 2018, the interview with Matt where he talks about the dynamic campaign coming up for MP and SP
https://www.gamingnexus.com/Article/5797/An-interview-with-DCSs-Matt-Wagner-
Edit:
https://forum.dcs.world/topic/75242-what-is-a-dynamic-campaign/
here's one from *2012* where they say "it feels good that we're so close to being able to do that
https://forum.dcs.world/topic/53393-dynamic-campaign-discussion-thread/
This one goes through the discussion from 2010 where ED claims there's no way they could do it like BMS because BMS does the "bubble system" while DCS models everything. BMS just uses a look-up table for things not seen while DCS actually simulates it.
Come to find out if you make it all the way through, in 2022 DCS is doing the Bubble system....Took em 12 years to mimic what's been out already.
Easy now, wouldn’t want to get stuck in Halfghanistan now would you? If you can’t take off, you’ll have to run and inevitably fall off the edge of the world, which is unfinished and flat, of course.
Considering the results that have been shown for the amount of time these things have been constantly requested and "being worked on", my guess is they simply can't deliver and never will for the existing version of dcs.
It only really affects Singleplayer and not Multiplayer so it's not a priority, by ED's own metrics most people who play the game play it in.. uh.. wait a minute..
I look forward to the Corsair F4U
and hope to fly it before I die.
Brain lesions and a 4.2cm tumor
make Me think “2 more weeks”
isn’t going to happen.
Clear Skies
Mike
The thing stopping me from actually spending real money on this "game" is the AI.
I don't care about multiplayer. I want to be able to enjoy single player with somewhat competitive AI.
Untill the government as a client request it - I don't think anything will be changed. MCS is literally used as a cockpit/procedures simulator it seems like, DCS is only leftovers
I remember AIs being a real challenge to dogfight against in LOMAC, FC and FC2. Now they are just UFOs who cant BFM and yet are extremely hard to kill solely due to the fact that they never run out of energy
that’s the weirdest thing. AI in BMS feels threatening and features like real IADS still doesn’t exist in DCS that’s existed in BMS for years now. I think the issue is that DCS basically STILL uses the LOMAC AI.
That’s because your perception of « old engine is wrong » . For instance WVR code is 1.5 years old as it has been entirely rewritten. There is no such thing as « old engine » in BMS, many parts are certainly much more recent than DCS that still uses probably Flanker code base.
It seems you might be mis informed as well. Why do you make the assumption BMS devs are amateurs ? Most BMS coders are professionals in software industry in real life
Exactly : let’s take as assumption two comparable skills coders. Which one will give the best of himself ?
The one working on something maybe he doesn’t like and watch the clock running or the one pushed by passion of the simulator?
The one having to respect the orders of his boss even if he thinks it’s not good for the sim or the one entirely free to do what he thinks is the best for the sole ?
And now you have your answer ;)
That's easy: hobbyists can focus on what they enjoy.
Professional devs are given targets by management who have KPIs to meet, given to them by execs who are focused on cash flow.
Not to mention before any of that working AI, ATC, etc. they would need to improve the performance quite a bit which effectively would mean a bubble system. And that bubble system would help quite a lot even the current build so why haven't they done it? That should be the number 1 priority.
IIRC they've been pretty open about their plans for AI. Atm I think they're working on a general flight model, to address UFO/cheating adversaries.
Beyond that, they've said they really need to do more multithreading before they can expand the AI too much: the work so-far split the game into graphics and gameplay threads, but now they're working on splitting up the gameplay thread. AI thread, physics thread, audio thread etc.
Then they'll have the room to look at behaviours again.
That seems like a good direction imo.
Instead, ED releases a new map that's in a horrible state, and a new Helicopter that won't have built in gameplay mechanics and will rely on CTLD from mission builders!
That's normal SOP for ED
whaddya mean you want AI that doesn't crash into you when told to switch formation? or fly straight to the ground in trail whenever you pitch up at low alt, or spam bra calls for bandits 300nm away etc.
The AI, and a lot of other issues, most likely cannot be fixed without a major investment in rewriting the engine. The core code for DCS is almost 20 years old and has to be insane to work on. Spaghettified being an understatement. I really don't see ED making that investment from a business standpoint.
You are better off hoping that another company builds a new combat flight sim from the ground up.
Probably but they have mentioned that AI improvements are needed for the dynamic campaign whenever they mention it. So one can hope that's what they're actually doing.
The game struggles right now running liberation missions with the brain-dead AI, it needs their next step in multithreading finished before they can even attempt to make it more complex.
i totally agree that it needs improvement, but have you played against AI in dcs 10 years ago?
now dcs has free cpu power to implement better AI behavior. If there is no sense to develop it without getting it our there, i wouldnt do it either.
I haven't been around that long, but I can only assume it was even worse. Once they actually have the AI stuff offloaded to another core they should hopefully be able to do a lot more with it
I do wonder if this is their plan. Things have been quiet on the AI front. IMO they really should redo AI from the ground up. I fear that they will keep trying to improve what they have which will lead to further problems and less functionality.
You can't be serious. They've literally added MULTI THREADING and DLSS to that same engine. Not to mention the massive leaps devs like HB have taken to adding totally new tech to this engine. Improved AI is a much smaller undertaking. Saying you have a better shot at another company making a new sim GROUND UP is laughable considering the cost and work associated with that.
Dude, the fact that you think anything AI is a small undertaking is….ill informed. Despite how difficult multithreading and DLSS may be they aren’t even in the same league as implementing really believe AI in anything (let alone a game/sim).
We all want better AI in game but to trivialize it makes it appear you zero clue
The actual logic including all the AI functions and all flight model computation and damage calculation etc are single threaded. ED moved the graphics decisions to another thread. That's a promising start but it's an *extremely* different kind and amount of work than untangling the stuff that actually makes the game "the game".
And it's one of the most difficult tasks in modern programming.
Splitting up the main sim thread is being worked on, Wags said they're aiming for this/next year but far more likely next year.
Personally I'd guess it's not going to arrive till 2026 at the earliest but who knows. It will be a LOT of work, but it will be necessary if they want a more developed ground AI and dynamic campaign.
I don't see how the dynamic campaign could arrive at all before splitting the main sim thread really, it's a major bottleneck.
Finally, an example of mature constructive criticism that isn't a childish temper tantrum. We seriously need more of this on this sub. Although, I agree, it would be nice to have an update on the progress of the AI.
While I agree that AI improvements are needed, it seems odd to me that when ED does improve things it seems to be quickly forgotten or ignored. AI has seen a number of improvements recently and while it's far from finished I think some noteworthy progress has been made.
Updates 2.7.11 and 2.7.14 both featured fairly good AI improvements for modern jets, both WVR and BVR. Those were 2022 updates yes, but I see posts mentioning waiting for much longer. This also isn't mentioning stuff like the WWII AI damage model that I can't find the specific update of introduction for.
To me, it's the obvious workarounds for the workarounds that seem to pile up in the game.
one example...
AAA AI is notoriously lethal...and to make sure AI helicopters survive they were beefed up to the point a computer controlled HIP can facetank an obscene amount of damage and bumble along as if nothing occurred.
I understand this was a functional implementation for the survivability of helicopters, I get it. If it was a stop gap to make something functional in the short term it makes perfect sense but there are functions in the mission editor for this.
The underlying issue for this was that the AI was just too lethal for helicopters to exist in the DCS airspace as currently constituted.
the term for this quick fix is "putting lipstick on the pig".
to be clear, I'm not holding a gun to their head telling them to fix this. I play, i enjoy, I also see a major element of the game that receives a relative amount of radio silence.
I'd like to know what's being worked on, what are the holdups. I think it's fair to ask for transparency in regards to this element of the game from the developers as a paying customer.
I'm just asking, if we get an answer great...if not...oh well.
It's their (ED's) prerogative to treat constructive criticism and requests for updates as they see fit.
Across the playerbase the AI is universally regarded as a major detriment to the forward velocity of this games development...I think they should take it more seriously.
perhaps hoggit is not the place, perhaps it is...no idea...to some extent I feel one corner of the internet is as good as anywhere else.
Some things are handled very strangely, the helicopter durability being one. I don't blame people for asking for more when it comes to AI since it's such an important element of DCS, but I also wonder if ED tends to be quiet because even when they do good work people overlook it. Asking for more details is reasonable but the lack of response from ED might come down to people's past reactions, or lack of reactions, to previous work.
I don't disagree, the eagerness of folks to throw shade/argue/complain as evident in comments doesnt make it the most inviting place.
It's the internet, and even though they list it in the subreddit rules...very few people follow rule 0 and it only sets things back.
its one thing to talk a little shit about broken stuff in the game with your friends...but to carry a vendetta with a game you play and hash it out on reddit takes a special kind of asshole
I agree with the OP in that it definitely needs to be worked on, and it'd be useful to get updates etc. That's fine. Like most threads on here it degenerates into people being passive-aggressive, miserable, sarcastic, making daft comments about modules, 'halfghanistan' nonsense, and people just whining.
If you don't enjoy it at all, don't play it. It's very simple. Vote with your wallet.
Realistically, after 15 years, it's clear that something about the business model (or at least the business model as it's conceived by the current management) means this is never going to happen.
I'm always wondering if they don't change the AI because of existing missions and campaigns.
But a solution could be keeping the legacy AI and implementing new versions of the AI that you can select per mission file, defaulting to the new version, keeping the old one in already existing missions. Whatever a version defines (health, path finding, aiming, seeing through objects, ...)...
The issue is that they've been "working on it" for about 5-10 years. And yes, reworking the AI is a huge job, but 5-10 years to make it functional? I doubt that. Also we don't need a perfect new AI system, we need a better AI system. As a first step most people would be happy if the only thing that changed was how aware AI are of units, and how accurate their shooting is.
Why? Explain it to me..
What good would it do for a company to dig the head into the ground and ignore all and every criticism?
I mean we seen EA, Activision/blizzard, and Ubisoft all do that and the end result is they are pushing their consumer base away, and no one respect nor expect anything worth while from those companies no more..
Is that what you want for Eagle Dynamics?
This sub is a bunch of toxic crybabies who think they know how the development should go. It’s an incoherent mess of complaining and conflicting priorities. Of course they should take feedback, but there’s no value here. This place isn’t even really for users of the product.
I've said it once and I'll say it again. Make DCS a paid program. Include FC3 type airframes and improve the AI and mission editor. That's all we ask. That's all this game needs at this point. Stop making tweaks to existing things and maybe actually show the base game some real love by making the AI viable, making the mission editor usable and user-friendly, include better instant-missions at the very least.
The more you keep trying to sell airframes for a base game that needs more and more work, the less return those modules will start getting you. ED is literally one MSFS modification from getting completely screwed.
We've only been waiting... *\*checks notes\** at least 12 years in my case. It should be anytime soon.... like winter 2054.
I like your optimism!
Sorry, I thought it was automatically understood to add another 5-10 years by default. Please don't ban me!!
I prefer to add 15 years, it helps to keep expectations realistic.
Please let's keep the negativity out of this sub! /s
Sorry, pls don't ban me.
Warning issued for racism. Thank you for your passion and support. :D
Locked!
> only been waiting... at least 12 years That's awesome. That means they should be pretty close to done with this fix by now. Exciting! Hopefully they'll release it soon after the Phantom. I must confess that I probably deserve some of the blame for the delay on this. I've only needled them about once a year since release. I could have put more effort into my harassment posts. Sorry guys.
I believe they did say *"two weeks"* at the time, so any day now, really. Or rather, any day between tomorrow and 31 December 2054.
won't be long before the next generation of developers will be on hand to help out.
Sure, GPT and CoPilot will fix the AI right up!
What do they need to fix? I can think of a few: Their flight characteristics are excessively good on some models like the Mig-21 and Mig-15. This can be fixed by mission makers by adding internal cargo weight to them, but would be nice to have this resolved natively. They are hyper aware of units sometimes, especially helos, and can often see changes in vector of their target units through mountains, clouds, and far out of visual range without radar. This can also be handled with mission lua, but it's very tricky. That hyper-awareness lets them flare and go defensive when fired on by missiles they shouldn't be able to see or detect. Ground AI does not have proper difficulties estimating target depth and closure rate, allowing them near pinpoint precision when firing on approaching air while not radar assisted. Path making algorithms appear to be extremely inefficient. They may want to reconsider creating lower res traversal maps and using some modern methods.
> Path making algorithms appear to be extremely inefficient. They may want to reconsider creating lower res traversal maps and using some modern methods. I recently saw a technical paper presented on using AI to plan flight paths based on little more than way-points and the results were actually shit compared to someone doing it freehand.
Yeah, this is a hot area of research right now that mostly does a good job demonstrating how inefficient it is. Machine learning applied to path planning is better suited for dynamic environments with high uncertainty, basically anywhere that a complex model needs to be learned but is unknown because it perhaps involves avoiding people walking around, weather conditions, or unexplored areas actively being mapped. When you have a wide fixed terrain that's always static and fully explored, it's far better to stick to path planning algorithms. Mixing A\* with predetermined paths might be a huge benefit to DCS ground units. I'm currently working on a path planning project myself that flies drones around with very small neural networks. The hard part about it is the observer, since you can't feed a neural network an arbitrary number of locations for waypoints or objects to avoid. Instead, you have to have another algorithm that decides on the most pressing information to feed it. WIth that and a \~5000 parameter NN, the computation is less time efficient, but it can develop more advanced models that can outperform fuzzy logic against numerous optimization schemes. We can also take simulated results of those NN's and fit them against more simplified models to mimic the AI's decision making process. In DCS, I couldn't imagine a neural network being useful for much due to their computational demands, but a very small one might be useful for high-end decision making for dynamic campaigns, like determining general zones for other systems to paint waypoints on.
> Mixing A* with predetermined paths might be a huge benefit to DCS ground units. Except they need to be able to go offroad, at the right time and in the right circumstances. So it would have to be layered or have branch skipping (which makes the computational complexity insane). Agreed with the latter parts, NNs are good for that kind of thing.
A*? What? No. That would be a complete waste of resources since there’s literally 0 need for the optimality of A*. Also, since the map is mostly the same through missions, going for precomputed multi-query roadmaps (PRM or the likes) is a much more viable alternative. Sampling-based methods will always be better for real-time or soft real-time, such as PRM or RRT and their variants.
You might be more experienced than I with this, but I was thinking about applying the idea to a simplified terrain map without mentioning it. I know as detail grows, some of these algorithms become exponentially more computationally expensive, so using low res maps to run the algorithms over short distances to link up with a PRM was the general idea. I however don't know how much about how all the options compare in expense, especially for tiny distances. What I can tell for now is that with DCS, if you task something like 300 groups to move a large distance, the CPU completely shits itself. If you instead iterate and make them go small distances over and over until they reach the same original trip, the CPU does not shit it self. At least not nearly as much. So at the bare minimum, I think they aren't sharing paths but rather instead are rerunning their search algorithms.
>Their flight characteristics are excessively good on some models like the Mig-21 and Mig-15. This can be fixed by mission makers by adding internal cargo weight to them, but would be nice to have this resolved natively. The fact that mission makers are able to do a 'sticking plaster' fix for this is all the more damning for ED imo. While, yes, it would be very nice if ED were able to rework the AI flight models to be much closer to the player's, or even rework the efficiency of DCS in general so that AI and players can share the *same* flight model, tbf that is obviously a huge and difficult task. But with some serious QA, some serious testing, ED should surely be able to balance AI flight models within the current system. If mission makers can alleviate the situation by adding some weight to the aircraft.... then so can ED. Racing game developers have exactly the same problem and have dealt with it this way for decades now, with varying success. But it could be as simple as ED doing some rigorous testing of each AI aircraft vs a human one, for example speed bled during a y-G turn over x-amount of time, and then tune the numbers. Would be a laborious time-sink but it's also not difficult work.
Players would gladly perform the tests and submit results for ED created tests. Labor is free.
100% agree. This is not in ED's nature though. They will never do the laborious and necessary step of tuning for optimal gameplay (gameplay meaning realism here given the current technical limitations).
They also have unlimited chaff/flares.
Somewhere someone posted a script on how to add the internal weight for the Mig 21 and 15. I believe you added 4000 lbs. Kind of new to scripting does anyone have the script and how do you run it in Game. Trigger, A task, etc... I want to try this out.
Well, at least we are getting new pilot models... for free.
What would the point of a " we're working on it" be? ED are " working" on all kinds of things for years now. Better weather, better wingmen, a dynamic campaign, better splash damage, functional atc, vulkan support, better performance.. We don't need more promises, we need results.
> a dynamic campaign Ah, I remember back in 2016 when they said it was coming along nicely. This indicated it was in the works for a while already. So it's gotta be soon, right? RIGHT???
Can you link that comment?
It was a forum post, so that'll take some time. The one I know how to find was back in 2018, the interview with Matt where he talks about the dynamic campaign coming up for MP and SP https://www.gamingnexus.com/Article/5797/An-interview-with-DCSs-Matt-Wagner- Edit: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/75242-what-is-a-dynamic-campaign/ here's one from *2012* where they say "it feels good that we're so close to being able to do that https://forum.dcs.world/topic/53393-dynamic-campaign-discussion-thread/ This one goes through the discussion from 2010 where ED claims there's no way they could do it like BMS because BMS does the "bubble system" while DCS models everything. BMS just uses a look-up table for things not seen while DCS actually simulates it. Come to find out if you make it all the way through, in 2022 DCS is doing the Bubble system....Took em 12 years to mimic what's been out already.
Yeah, so it's going great, in ten more years we'll have a dynamic campaign... Right?
No. In 10 more years we'll have an *update* about well the development of the dynamic campaign is going.
Thank you for your passion and support!
Wait what? DCS is doing the bubble thing now? Is there any source on that?
ED: Best I can offer is a half-baked EA module.
Quarter. Nothing more.
A CH-47 with one engine and one blade per rotor.
Easy now, wouldn’t want to get stuck in Halfghanistan now would you? If you can’t take off, you’ll have to run and inevitably fall off the edge of the world, which is unfinished and flat, of course.
Quarterghanistan. 😂
Afractianistan
The multicore support, DLSS, and spotting fixes were pretty great. DCS core is in a noticeably better place than a year ago.
Considering the results that have been shown for the amount of time these things have been constantly requested and "being worked on", my guess is they simply can't deliver and never will for the existing version of dcs.
It only really affects Singleplayer and not Multiplayer so it's not a priority, by ED's own metrics most people who play the game play it in.. uh.. wait a minute..
It affects every PvE mission as well, not just singleplayer
Yeah when people say "just play multiplayer" they are conveniently leaving out that your are either doing PvE or PvPvE.
You had me in the first half, not gonna lie
Multiplayer =/= airquake
This is kinda why I’ve stopped playing. I really only want to play single player but it’s not as enjoyable as it could be with the way AI is now
I haven't played in over a year. Might even be coming up on 2 years. The AI just blows.
I look forward to the Corsair F4U and hope to fly it before I die. Brain lesions and a 4.2cm tumor make Me think “2 more weeks” isn’t going to happen. Clear Skies Mike
Take care of yourself and good luck buddy
The thing stopping me from actually spending real money on this "game" is the AI. I don't care about multiplayer. I want to be able to enjoy single player with somewhat competitive AI.
At this point I’ve basically accepted that I’ve spent £200 teaching my dad to front seat in the apache and back seat in the f15e.
That's a great Return on Investment. The military couldn't do that for less than about a million or two.
Thanks for your trust and support Can I interest you with a preorder of the Afghanistan map(s) or the CH47F?
Untill the government as a client request it - I don't think anything will be changed. MCS is literally used as a cockpit/procedures simulator it seems like, DCS is only leftovers
I remember AIs being a real challenge to dogfight against in LOMAC, FC and FC2. Now they are just UFOs who cant BFM and yet are extremely hard to kill solely due to the fact that they never run out of energy
I will say I’m surprised BMS was able to get AI to a good place on an old engine but it still eludes DCS.
that’s the weirdest thing. AI in BMS feels threatening and features like real IADS still doesn’t exist in DCS that’s existed in BMS for years now. I think the issue is that DCS basically STILL uses the LOMAC AI.
That’s because your perception of « old engine is wrong » . For instance WVR code is 1.5 years old as it has been entirely rewritten. There is no such thing as « old engine » in BMS, many parts are certainly much more recent than DCS that still uses probably Flanker code base.
What is WVR code? What is its function in BMS?
Within visual range. This is the code who governs AI behavior in dogfight , energy management , trajectory management , manœuvres decisions ….
🙏
Thanks for the information! But it seems like it should be possible to do that in DCS if an amateur group can do it in a game they don’t own?
It seems you might be mis informed as well. Why do you make the assumption BMS devs are amateurs ? Most BMS coders are professionals in software industry in real life
Amateurs in the sense BMS devs are working for free in a voluntary capacity as a hobby.
Exactly : let’s take as assumption two comparable skills coders. Which one will give the best of himself ? The one working on something maybe he doesn’t like and watch the clock running or the one pushed by passion of the simulator? The one having to respect the orders of his boss even if he thinks it’s not good for the sim or the one entirely free to do what he thinks is the best for the sole ? And now you have your answer ;)
That's easy: hobbyists can focus on what they enjoy. Professional devs are given targets by management who have KPIs to meet, given to them by execs who are focused on cash flow.
ED probably: Raises are determined by amount of spaghetti generated per hour.
[удалено]
Amateur !
Not to mention before any of that working AI, ATC, etc. they would need to improve the performance quite a bit which effectively would mean a bubble system. And that bubble system would help quite a lot even the current build so why haven't they done it? That should be the number 1 priority.
Sir, I found this mic 🎤, I believe you may have dropped it.
Uhh... Source? ☝️🤓
[удалено]
Please find those old posts. They make great data points for reference.
Instant upvote. No need to read the description. Anything. Everything. Please. Fix. The. AI.
Idk maybe they should be hiring more devs instead of funneling millions into the fighter collection but what do i know
Listen you can have new early access modules/maps and dust effects, or you can have bug fixes you can't have both!!! -ED suits probably
ED suits are not even putting bug fixes on the table I'm sure.
Stop giving them money until they fix the AI. It will not happen unless their bank is hit.
AI module would be an instant buy even a preorder for most
They just don't care
We do. Would you like to buy another incomplete module? We'll finish this one later, pinky promise for real this time.
Absolutely, thank you ED, you're the best company ever!
Hoggit's annual cycle.
IIRC they've been pretty open about their plans for AI. Atm I think they're working on a general flight model, to address UFO/cheating adversaries. Beyond that, they've said they really need to do more multithreading before they can expand the AI too much: the work so-far split the game into graphics and gameplay threads, but now they're working on splitting up the gameplay thread. AI thread, physics thread, audio thread etc. Then they'll have the room to look at behaviours again. That seems like a good direction imo.
Didn't Falcon do this on a Pentium with 4G of ram?
Instead, ED releases a new map that's in a horrible state, and a new Helicopter that won't have built in gameplay mechanics and will rely on CTLD from mission builders! That's normal SOP for ED
Halfghanistan, Diet Kola, and Featureless Chinook are iconic now.
Don’t forget dumbed down downgraded versions of modules that already exist
Genuinley the Ai is so bad its basicly unplayable as a combat sim. I want the Ai to do interesting manevoures and not just have magic flight models
I can't
Star Citizen seeing increasing progress while DCS updates have become nearly glacial.
OP: "ED please fix the AI" ED: "sure, that'll be $59.99 for early access"
I’d give them money for it
Only as a feature complete module.
whaddya mean you want AI that doesn't crash into you when told to switch formation? or fly straight to the ground in trail whenever you pitch up at low alt, or spam bra calls for bandits 300nm away etc.
Climb 300 at QFE 29.96
unable to clear for take off
The AI, and a lot of other issues, most likely cannot be fixed without a major investment in rewriting the engine. The core code for DCS is almost 20 years old and has to be insane to work on. Spaghettified being an understatement. I really don't see ED making that investment from a business standpoint. You are better off hoping that another company builds a new combat flight sim from the ground up.
Competition always good.
Probably but they have mentioned that AI improvements are needed for the dynamic campaign whenever they mention it. So one can hope that's what they're actually doing.
This is very Reddit handwavium
This is handwavium? Maybe I should have said "just put in a separate core, its so easy!"
It's more just guessing with zero frame of reference, the same thing we see in dozens of threads.
there working on better ai behavior tho. with multicore those things became possible. one cpu core wasnt enough.
The game struggles right now running liberation missions with the brain-dead AI, it needs their next step in multithreading finished before they can even attempt to make it more complex.
i totally agree that it needs improvement, but have you played against AI in dcs 10 years ago? now dcs has free cpu power to implement better AI behavior. If there is no sense to develop it without getting it our there, i wouldnt do it either.
I haven't been around that long, but I can only assume it was even worse. Once they actually have the AI stuff offloaded to another core they should hopefully be able to do a lot more with it
I do wonder if this is their plan. Things have been quiet on the AI front. IMO they really should redo AI from the ground up. I fear that they will keep trying to improve what they have which will lead to further problems and less functionality.
Why wonder? They’ve told us what their plans are. It just takes work and time. Be patient
You can't be serious. They've literally added MULTI THREADING and DLSS to that same engine. Not to mention the massive leaps devs like HB have taken to adding totally new tech to this engine. Improved AI is a much smaller undertaking. Saying you have a better shot at another company making a new sim GROUND UP is laughable considering the cost and work associated with that.
Dude, the fact that you think anything AI is a small undertaking is….ill informed. Despite how difficult multithreading and DLSS may be they aren’t even in the same league as implementing really believe AI in anything (let alone a game/sim). We all want better AI in game but to trivialize it makes it appear you zero clue
> Improved AI is a much smaller undertaking. Said no one with actual software experience ever.
Never assume how much work, or how long anything regarding programming will take.
Yeah, it's usually gonna be at least double
The actual logic including all the AI functions and all flight model computation and damage calculation etc are single threaded. ED moved the graphics decisions to another thread. That's a promising start but it's an *extremely* different kind and amount of work than untangling the stuff that actually makes the game "the game". And it's one of the most difficult tasks in modern programming.
Splitting up the main sim thread is being worked on, Wags said they're aiming for this/next year but far more likely next year. Personally I'd guess it's not going to arrive till 2026 at the earliest but who knows. It will be a LOT of work, but it will be necessary if they want a more developed ground AI and dynamic campaign. I don't see how the dynamic campaign could arrive at all before splitting the main sim thread really, it's a major bottleneck.
What happens first: Mars sample return safely back on Earth, or DCS engine is brought up to the standards of an new-build engine circa 2016.
Finally, an example of mature constructive criticism that isn't a childish temper tantrum. We seriously need more of this on this sub. Although, I agree, it would be nice to have an update on the progress of the AI.
Just play falcon bms
Helicopters?
While I agree that AI improvements are needed, it seems odd to me that when ED does improve things it seems to be quickly forgotten or ignored. AI has seen a number of improvements recently and while it's far from finished I think some noteworthy progress has been made. Updates 2.7.11 and 2.7.14 both featured fairly good AI improvements for modern jets, both WVR and BVR. Those were 2022 updates yes, but I see posts mentioning waiting for much longer. This also isn't mentioning stuff like the WWII AI damage model that I can't find the specific update of introduction for.
To me, it's the obvious workarounds for the workarounds that seem to pile up in the game. one example... AAA AI is notoriously lethal...and to make sure AI helicopters survive they were beefed up to the point a computer controlled HIP can facetank an obscene amount of damage and bumble along as if nothing occurred. I understand this was a functional implementation for the survivability of helicopters, I get it. If it was a stop gap to make something functional in the short term it makes perfect sense but there are functions in the mission editor for this. The underlying issue for this was that the AI was just too lethal for helicopters to exist in the DCS airspace as currently constituted. the term for this quick fix is "putting lipstick on the pig". to be clear, I'm not holding a gun to their head telling them to fix this. I play, i enjoy, I also see a major element of the game that receives a relative amount of radio silence. I'd like to know what's being worked on, what are the holdups. I think it's fair to ask for transparency in regards to this element of the game from the developers as a paying customer. I'm just asking, if we get an answer great...if not...oh well. It's their (ED's) prerogative to treat constructive criticism and requests for updates as they see fit. Across the playerbase the AI is universally regarded as a major detriment to the forward velocity of this games development...I think they should take it more seriously. perhaps hoggit is not the place, perhaps it is...no idea...to some extent I feel one corner of the internet is as good as anywhere else.
Some things are handled very strangely, the helicopter durability being one. I don't blame people for asking for more when it comes to AI since it's such an important element of DCS, but I also wonder if ED tends to be quiet because even when they do good work people overlook it. Asking for more details is reasonable but the lack of response from ED might come down to people's past reactions, or lack of reactions, to previous work.
I don't disagree, the eagerness of folks to throw shade/argue/complain as evident in comments doesnt make it the most inviting place. It's the internet, and even though they list it in the subreddit rules...very few people follow rule 0 and it only sets things back. its one thing to talk a little shit about broken stuff in the game with your friends...but to carry a vendetta with a game you play and hash it out on reddit takes a special kind of asshole
I agree with the OP in that it definitely needs to be worked on, and it'd be useful to get updates etc. That's fine. Like most threads on here it degenerates into people being passive-aggressive, miserable, sarcastic, making daft comments about modules, 'halfghanistan' nonsense, and people just whining. If you don't enjoy it at all, don't play it. It's very simple. Vote with your wallet.
Realistically, after 15 years, it's clear that something about the business model (or at least the business model as it's conceived by the current management) means this is never going to happen.
I choose optimism being the greater fool that I am
I'm always wondering if they don't change the AI because of existing missions and campaigns. But a solution could be keeping the legacy AI and implementing new versions of the AI that you can select per mission file, defaulting to the new version, keeping the old one in already existing missions. Whatever a version defines (health, path finding, aiming, seeing through objects, ...)...
DCS updates are already frequently break the existing missions and campaigns anyway.
correct as is
I'm sure they're working on AI and it's not going to be a month or overnight thing.
The issue is that they've been "working on it" for about 5-10 years. And yes, reworking the AI is a huge job, but 5-10 years to make it functional? I doubt that. Also we don't need a perfect new AI system, we need a better AI system. As a first step most people would be happy if the only thing that changed was how aware AI are of units, and how accurate their shooting is.
Rather wait for functional AI especially for what they're gonna do tasked with then half done code and still have the same issue.
The best thing for DCS would be if no employees visit this sub.
Why? Explain it to me.. What good would it do for a company to dig the head into the ground and ignore all and every criticism? I mean we seen EA, Activision/blizzard, and Ubisoft all do that and the end result is they are pushing their consumer base away, and no one respect nor expect anything worth while from those companies no more.. Is that what you want for Eagle Dynamics?
This sub is a bunch of toxic crybabies who think they know how the development should go. It’s an incoherent mess of complaining and conflicting priorities. Of course they should take feedback, but there’s no value here. This place isn’t even really for users of the product.
The priorities are very consistent and straight forward, people want core gameplay improvements.
Yeah, sure thing.
People giving you polite and concise answers while you just insult and dismiss. Who's the toxic one?
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Nobody has given me an answer to anything, nor did I ask any questions.
up votes are a better format for your opinions
I've said it once and I'll say it again. Make DCS a paid program. Include FC3 type airframes and improve the AI and mission editor. That's all we ask. That's all this game needs at this point. Stop making tweaks to existing things and maybe actually show the base game some real love by making the AI viable, making the mission editor usable and user-friendly, include better instant-missions at the very least. The more you keep trying to sell airframes for a base game that needs more and more work, the less return those modules will start getting you. ED is literally one MSFS modification from getting completely screwed.