Zephyr Net
http://jkpeterson.net/forum/

Agression?
http://jkpeterson.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1848		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  SPIAPL [ Sun Aug 03, 2008 15:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Agression?
Are some types of fighters in FA more aggressive than others at the same skill level?

While I have been working on Dawn of the Jet Age, my Korean War project, I noticed that in AI vs AI fights, the MiG is always a fierce little bastard, while the Sabre (even at Ace AI) will barely even try to win a fight. But when I fight against a MiG using a Sabre myself, I usually win.

I completely remodeled the Sabre, and was pleased to see that its agression improved somewhat, but in computer fights the MiG still almost always wins, even when it is at average skill and Sabre is set to ace.

Perhaps this is realistic to some extent, since the MiG was supposed to be the superior aircraft between pilots of equal skill (which, fortunately for American pilots, was pretty rare in Korea).

Any advice?
Author:  eburger68 [ Sun Aug 03, 2008 15:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
SPIAPL:

In my experience, "aggressiveness" of aircraft is determined in large part by the following aircraft characteristics:

- AI model (fighter, bomber, etc.)
- flight envelope
- loaded seekers (visual, radar, etc.)

I suppose loaded ordnance/weapons could also have some effect.

How closely do your MiG-15 and F-86 resemble each other? What are the key differences?

Eric L. Howes
Author:  SPIAPL [ Sun Aug 03, 2008 17:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
MiG has a modified MiG-17 flight envelope. It has a better thrust-to-weight ratio, higher ceiling, and that wicked 37mm cannon, but no radar.

Saber has a modified A-4 flight envelope. (Went into the PT and changed the class to fighter.) It is a little bit faster and has a gunsight radar (my own custom design).

But it seems the AI-controlled Saber is just not using its full capabilities, or the kill ratio would be much more even.
Author:  CAG Hotshot [ Sun Aug 03, 2008 18:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
A-4 flight envelope bomber performance...

What exact AI did you chose for it?

BTW you really need to do alot of work to get Sabre performance from an A-4 envelope. Have you simply tried to modify the MiG's envelope to match your Sabre?

Also what is the top end speed limits you have set for the MiG-15?
Author:  SPIAPL [ Sun Aug 03, 2008 19:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
CAG Hotshot wrote:
A-4 flight envelope bomber performance...

What exact AI did you chose for it?


F.BI, the fighter AI. I even changed the class in the PT file to Fighter.

CAG Hotshot wrote:
BTW you really need to do alot of work to get Sabre performance from an A-4 envelope. Have you simply tried to modify the MiG's envelope to match your Sabre?


I used speed and altitude specs from the internet and from Enzo Angelucci's "Encyclopedia of Military Aircraft".

CAG Hotshot wrote:
Also what is the top end speed limits you have set for the MiG-15?


Max speeds in the envelope were mostly unmodified, since I simply set the structural speed so that the plane will break up if you try to exceed about 590 knots. Speeds and altitudes for the other g-envelopes were extrapolated so that the lopes fell inside each other, and looked pretty reasonable.
Author:  SPIAPL [ Mon Aug 04, 2008 16:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
The problem apprears to have been solved.

E-burger called it: it was the weaponry. One of the first things I noticed was that aircraft with 20mm or larger guns (Panther, Banshee, MiG-15) were always more agressive than the ones with the 50-cals (Saber, F-80 Shooting Star). Hell, my Banshee is even meaner than the MiG!

So I experimented by replacing the 50's on my Saber with 20-millimeters. The results were telling: the Sabre didn't just hit harder (one would expect it to do that with more powerful weapons), it fought harder. The AI Saber was now pulling harder turns and firing more often. At one point it even scored three victories in a row!

Obviously, this pleased me, but since E-class Sabers didn't go around packing 20-mil cannons, I had to switch back to the 50-cals. So I copied the "Chance" information from my 20-mils to the 50-cals. The new Saber still hasn't beaten me in single combat yet, but it has given me a run for my money a few times, and now my wingmen should give a much better showing. Thanks E-burger and CAG! :)
Author:  CAG Hotshot [ Fri Aug 08, 2008 19:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
Did you make the cannon or gun weapon the primary or secondary weapon for that aircraft? Are the cannons the first weapon on the hardpoints? What range do you have for its seeker? What mile range do you have it set to attack other airdcraft in the missions?

BTW The Sabre is supersonic in a dive so setting max speeds as the control for an inaccurate FM wont really cut it...


CAG out...
Author:  SPIAPL [ Sat Aug 09, 2008 12:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
Had to go back and check this, as FA and my internet connection are on different machines.

All cannons on all my fighter aircraft are set as primaries. The secondary option is used only for the side and tail-mounted guns on the B-26 and B-29.

The cannons are usually listed as the first weapons: the visual-340 or whatever that is comes first, and in the Saber's case the gunsight radar is listed before the guns.

My Saber can go supersonic in a dive without breaking up (although the MiG can't), but it will shimmy and shake something fierce, and it will brake up around 615.

BTW is it Sabre, Saber, or just a matter of preference?
Author:  SPIAPL [ Sat Aug 09, 2008 13:01 pm ]
Post subject: 
Oh, and the ranges for the 50-cal and 23-millimeter are both 1.2, or roughly 2200 yards.
Author:  CAG Hotshot [ Sat Aug 09, 2008 13:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
Do you have a visual seeker in the Sabre as well as its gun radar?
Author:  SPIAPL [ Sat Aug 09, 2008 14:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
That I do. And you are never going to believe this: I discovered that I had the empty and max takeoff weights put in backwards when I remodeled the Saber, so that that it was way overloaded even when empty. :oops: This was quickly corrected, and now it's doing much better in AI one-on-ones. The MiG is still winning most of the time, but the Saber is no longer getting utterly pwned the way it was before. In the last fight I set up, the Saber was so agressive it ran out of ammo! :shock: :(
Author:  CAG Hotshot [ Thu Aug 14, 2008 23:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
What data did you use for climb and turn rates and drag co-efficients for both of these aircraft?
Author:  SPIAPL [ Sat Aug 16, 2008 09:53 am ]
Post subject: 
I try to stay out of those areas in the toolkit, because I wouldn't really know what I am doing there.

If you're talking about the numbers under the "Movement" button, the roll, climb and dive rates are usually the same for all aircraft except for the huge bombers.

I will go back and look at it though.

For now, my Sabre is handling itself pretty well, and quite realistically.
Author:  CAG Hotshot [ Tue Aug 19, 2008 17:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
How can your aircraft are behaving realeastically if you dont understand drag coefficients and turn rates?

If you dont have true performance data to work with or have never flown the aircraft yoruself, how do you know what realeastic is?
Author:  SPIAPL [ Wed Aug 20, 2008 14:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
Unfortunately, as I am 29 years old, I have never flown an F-86.

As I said, I will go back and look at those areas in the toolkit.

The standard for realism that I am going by is the simulation "Mig Alley" by Rowan Software, an awesome sim. It modeled spins, roll torque on the P-51, and airframe stress very well. At least I would assume so, since the company clearly would not be dumb enough to try and create a historically accurate simulation without a few veterans to help them.

For now, my current model stops climbing at the listed ceiling, breaks up if you push it too fast, and pulls the right G levels at the right altitudes. That's good enough for me, and hopefully it will be good enough for the players when I release DOTJA. In any case, it was the AI dogfighting like it was half asleep that bothered me. That problem is fixed now. Thanks to you and e-burger for your help. I have greatly appreciated your time and advice.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/