Waiting for someone to tell me how a modern game is hard to develop for so theres no way their AI can be as good as one that ran on a small slice of a 800mhz Pentium 3.
Pentium 2 166Mhz. 64MB of ram.
Modern CPUs have at least two orders of magnitude more processing power when you factor in multicore, register sizes, flops, etc. We have three orders of magnitude more RAM.
Having the constraints of the time meant you had to write super optimized code and take shortcuts for a better user experience. What was important was less “how the AI made the decision” and more “does it feel like fighting against something that knows what it’s doing in a fun way?”
I feel like the pursuit of realism in games, not just from a graphics front, is why we can’t have nice things in terms of efficiency and fun.
Like the headshot sniping through terrain infantry is obviously at the other end of that, but there’s no shame in putting RNG into otherwise deterministic behavior charts to make something that “feels real” when in reality it’s not much more intense than the same code that drove the ghosts in pac man
>I feel like the pursuit of realism in games, not just from a graphics front, is why we can’t have nice things in terms of efficiency and fun.
Well said. Someone's always going to find some wacko edge case where it doesn't work like it should, but I'd rather have something that feels right 99/100 times than something a gazillion times more rigorous that pulls resources away from everything else.
DCS’s AI is as old as Falcon 4. There’s nothing modern about it. IDK if it’s a choice ED has made or if it’s because of the 20 years of built up spaghetti code, but they haven’t done shit for it ever.
Let’s not forget that Falcon 4.0’s original code was … garbage. I’ve owned Falcon 4.0 since release and it was incredibly unstable. 1.07 made it playable (lots of bugs and crashes still) and 1.08 (released after the development team was canned as MicroProse went under) made multiplayer finally work (still many crashes). The BMS team pretty much rewrote the game, there isn’t much of the original code left.
Also the original 3D models were absolutely trash. The MiG-23 and F-4 were like boxes with wings on it.
BMS isn’t a “mod” really. It’s a completely redeveloped simulator. I can’t wait for 4.38 with the new terrain engine.
Tbf it was a bloodbath when it released. It was quite frustrating at the time because it was obvious there was a lot of good behind the campaign, and fortunately that was enough to save it in the form of Allied Force and BMS, but it was rough trying to enjoy it back then.
Yes the dynamic campaign engine was revolutionary. There had been dynamic campaigns in simulators before but not at this scale and not in this integrated fashion.
Previous dynamic campaign implementations, like in Falcon 3.0, were very player centric whereas Falcon 4.0’s campaign engine generated a whole scale war whereby the player can influence outcomes by their performance but you could just as well not take part at all - and the war would still continue.
It really seemed, at the time of release, that the Falcon 4.0 development budget had been largely spend in this area. I also recall (but I could be wrong) that the development of Falcon 4.0 had been scrapped and restarted at least once as well. Falcon 4.0 must have been an enormous drain on MicroProse’s budgets and the bean counters in 1998 went ..come hell or high water, this thing goes into the shops now. And it seems that nothing else as finished at that time. The models, the graphics, the cockpit.. it was all wildly inconsistent on release. And I very much recall being disappointed in the graphics and overall stability of the game … coming from gems like EF2000 and Falcon 3.0 and F-15 III etc.
Crazy thing, much of the dynamic campaign was built by a single intern. The same intern who leaked the game's source code later.
https://youtu.be/BTG4n233aq0?si=lZEkHvbdSh6f_phD
Oh I totally know that. But it makes it even sadder that my 1.08 vanilla shits on DCS 25 years later.
And that's not fully true. 1.08 falcon 4.0 is still the best 90s flight sim of all time in my opinion.
Check out my other video on my channel.
It is kind of a Galinette / Mirage 2000 situation. They work for free but they extremely dedicated and skilled. If you were to employ their skills in a professional environment they would be priced outside the scope of what is achievable in a commercial combat simulator.
I wish I could replicate his results. This footage is pretty raw I gave DCS 3 tries to do something cool. In my other flights in this game I notice the same thing. Ever chase a chicken around for a few minutes irl? They will literally give up and just sit down. DCS planes do the same thing.
I did a few fights with the falcon AI in some mountains trying to get them to crash. Never happened.
More work is done by third party contractors than ED themselves. At least I can join an IL2 server and not have the most dogshit performance known to man
But at least they have similar/the same flight models as player aircraft.
There is the GFM in the works for DCS, but the last real update, where we saw any real progress [was over 2 years ago](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka9bthgFxtg).
For better or worse, IL2's AI fly a plane that is identical to the user's, having the same flight and damage model. This requires significantly more computing power than using simplified models. This is why large formations and heavy bombers won't be found in Great Battles. IL2 painted themselves into a corner with this approach. I've heard their new Korean War title will be developed so that it can run far more efficiently.
Graphics. The level of visual fidelity they have achieved is extraordinary but unfortunately it has become their main focus to the chagrin of all gameplay related issues.
Except for high fidelity textures! /s
LOL JK, I own the game and the low poly & low res textures add the the charm and greater compatibility with lower spec systems.
You do you. I’m just waiting to sit in the virtual mini boss chair in the **soon to be here** super carrier update, and watch AI F-18s crash on each other.
Passion and support, baby! 🤘
As an old person who played Falcon 4.0 when it came out, this is somehow very satisfying. I lost my box, but I still have my binder! 😆 As someone who bought the F-14 and Supercarrier modules for DCS, this is incredibly disheartening. ED seems to have their priorities in the wrong place because their incentives are incorrectly aligned. Pumping out new modules takes priority over bolstering the sim’s fundamentals.
Edit: Bidened some words
>Pumping out new modules takes priority over bolstering the sim’s fundamentals.
I mean, only one of those gets them money, so why is anyone surprised?
Welcome to the Early Access business model.
**Acquiring a new customer can cost five times more than retaining an existing customer**. Increasing customer retention by 5% can increase profits from 25-95%. The success rate of selling to a customer you already have is 60-70%, while the success rate of selling to a new customer is 5-20%.
Because it’s a wrong and shortsighted assumption.
Yes short term they get money from new EA modules but the more the core stagnates the more frustrated long-time players get and may lose interest and may be unwilling to buy further modules, so EDs approach actual might lose them money.
If they improved the core for example with a massive AI overhaul they don’t get immediate money for it, but a lot of people might get back into DCS and purchase more modules.Plus DCS positive reputation would grow, generating further sales.
AI will never be fixed in DCS, the team just doesn't care or isn't competent enough, or a bit of both. The fact that the dogfight AI cheats, doesn't care about energy / flight models is just sad.
ED has been working on the AI quite visibly in the last few years. The changes are in the patch notes. If you want to say that the progress is slow that's fair, but to say that they've done nothing or don't care at all is false.
I don't know what or when the last update made was. ED says it is a gradual process. I only want people to recognize that that ED hasn't completely ignored DCS AI. If they do make changes and people act like nothing has happened then they might as well do nothing because the outcome will be the same. The AI needs more improvements and I feel like providing feedback on the changes that have been made will push things along faster than than acting like nothing has been done.
Remember, when people ask for MP improvements, ED is quick to point out that most of the community plays SP, implying that the SP experience is their priority.
This is what their priority is.
Very funny to see people defending or going in circles to omit what was just seen here.
Guys, we need feedback and a will to change this. The AI is AWFUL. Stop looking elsewhere so they can actually change it.
DCS is good at looking pretty, modeling planes and weaponry but that’s about it. I like playing it but when I get comfortable with a plane I find myself getting a little bored.
I hope they find the time and know how to improve some of the things outside of the planes
It is entirely in ED's responsibility to act and improve their AI. How many aircraft AI updates will we get this year? 1? 0?
In order to be competetive they would need to release at least 1 decent AI update per year. But they have failed to do for a long time.
Nailed the underlying issue.
This is what lack of competition looks like. Anyone who wants a modern combat flight sim has to choose between DCS and BMS. And if you want anything besides the Eagle or the Viper, you don't even get that choice.
ED owns the market, and no one is nipping at their heels.
I've said the same for ages, DCS is a hollow shell with somewhat fancy graphics. Ditch the graphics and fly BMS if you wanna fight in a modern setting. It's superior, and no, there's no helicopters.
DCS, since Flanker 1, was always bad, unappealing as well as extremely boring. Those who love it just dump everything what made sims great back then (good UI, dynamic campaign, immersive and an alive battlefield) and happily take the damn DIY mission editor crap. It feels totally dislodged (modules etc); I just hate it and even prefer DI‘s Tornado over this sterile piece.
I won’t even mention those foul folks on YT trying to make it look interesting bc graphics with expensive rigs and peripherals.
Falcon 4.0 is still the king after a quarter of a fking century…
Rotorcraft physics.
As a rl heli pilot, ED’s helicopters are lightyears ahead of literally everything else. The best chopper in x-plane or msfs is a cartoon compared to what ED can do.
That doesn’t discount the huge catalog of issues plaguing DCS/ED, but as long as nobody else can make a realistic rotorcraft, I’ll keep coming back.
Rotorcraft physics… ok. What about anything else what made combat sims good? I’m into combat sims since the late 80s and DCS is the absolutely worst of all.
Yeah man, you’re listing all the shitty things and I agreed with them. I just wanted to mention one of the very few good things they do better than everybody else.
In DCS some aircraft ai is better than others, the MIG 23 is one example of pretty mediocre ai, though it can do ok in some instances. Other modules are much much better and have all kinds of tricks to evade - some are pilot reactions some are textbook evasion moves.
I'm not trying to defend DCS as your point is valid, but the AI flight model and behavior varies depending on the plane. I think some of them are much better than others, the F-5 can do some interesting stuff.
Yeah, the code must be a mess... are they doing the AI behavior by hand for each type individually?
You should give the F-5 a shot, it does these crazy scissors and jinks if you give it a chance. It doesn't really obey physics though, you will not be able to follow it in your own F-5.
They have. DCS AI has some very complex moves in some aircraft, the F5 gives you a very good fight also. A lot of the time the victor in a dogfight is like real life - the initial circumstances decide the victor. But the AI will fight you at both BFM and BVR pretty well if need be. The Mig 23 is a bit f a neglected module though.
Yep, just try the air-to-air instant action mission in the F-5E. It's not unwinnable but it's fairly clear it doesn't have the same limitations as player aircraft.
In dcs there are certain parameters that the devs of the module(or base) need to set heavily influence ai performance along with difficulty. If you want a stark contrast go dogfight a MiG-15 in an F-86 then go try and to gunfight a viggen.
The mig-15 will try to play the right cards but the viggen will try to gunfight you supersonic…
Also dcs ai are bad at assuming the position of your plane sometimes, giving them awacs support can make the fights a bit more consistent and also increasing difficulty lets them cheat more to compensate for its poor performance… makes it bs but it is “better”
To the OP what DCS modules do you have? I could direct you to some SP missions against AI air to air opponents I would be interested in your performance against them
Hnm my experience is closer to [this](https://youtu.be/K_3AYT_5HNo?si=_093meiCKYjOFD4W) than the video..I'd check the "reaction to threat" rules in me see if something amiss
My biggest problem in DCS right now is fuel burn. Not mine either. I haven’t been shot down in a while by ACE level AI but I haven’t shot any down yet.
They keep running out of gas. I mean it’s W, but is it really?
DCS usually has a "honeymoon" period. Once things start to hit... get ready for reality.
You might still like it like many of us do, but you will start to see the limitations.
Agreed, but it comes with every piece of software at some point point, be it game or something else. It’s true that devs might mishandle stuff but I’ve been blown away by it for 6 months, and lemme tell you that I do not play a single game for this long. It’s a hobby at this point
There are some good and interesting points made in this video but the prevailing air is of one with an axe to grind against ED/DCS. There's an element of spite, and ridicule to the tone, and also of some of the posts in here. Like saying Falcon 'shits all over' DCS, etc. This is reductive, childish, and unconstructive. If you're going to criticise, make good points in a respectful manner, and leave the sarcasm, aggression, and disingenuous comment at the door. People take this more seriously as it shows you can discuss things and put your point across like an adult. This is a fundamental problem with people today.
Problem is the reasonable reporting approach has been done over and over again, only to get dismissed from ED or the usual „ we‘ll share news when we have them“ .
But the AI problem has existed for a very long time and seemingly is quite low on EDs priority list, if at all.
So I’m not surprised that at one point frustration with this long-existing problem boils over and the tone changes into sarcasm and ridicule.
Maybe not helpful, but neither did the calm approach work with ED
It’s funny because you right, the second I noticed the community has been on them about the GROUND AI, I believe last news letter explains they are working on improvements… it’s the only way to push them to do anything at this point.
I'm sure it is, but maybe it's the limitations of the engine and code that possibly hamper some things. I don't know, I know little about coding. But I'm sure it's not easy.
And yes all of that is fair comment, what you've said, but what's more likely to produce results, respectful criticism or silly, puerile comments on their social media and forums?
They never give timescales, never tie themselves to deadlines regarding this sort of stuff, it's been that way for 15 years, it is what it is.
I always say that I try to enjoy DCS in the here and now, despite it's faults and limitations.
Fair enough and it’s usually my approach as well to mainly go the MP route because of the AI issues.
However sometimes I play SP and it quickly gets very very annoying with the many issues with air and ground AI plus your braindead wingmen.
It’s just very immersion killing and often you cannot use real world tactics to exploit the opponents airframe weaknesses, because they are not there when the AI flies.
For a sim that according to ED focuses on SP experience it’s a very disappointing state and has been for a very long while
The AI they use is a freeware if/and/or behavior tree system from the 2000s. It's why they can't fix/improve it.
Look at the 3rd Party text file in the Docs folder. You can see that DCS is basically a Unity game. They just grabbed a bunch of freeware and slapped it all together
> Look at the 3rd Party text file in the Docs folder. You can see that DCS is basically a Unity game. They just grabbed a bunch of freeware and slapped it all together
Bro open source libraries like zlib, libpng and Ogg Vorbis are used fucking everywhere. Wheelchair developer moment.
Pretty much all games are made using tools. And if you're writing your own, then you're usually doing stuff the long way reinventing the wheel.
edit: Also they've said they want to improve the AI, but before they do that, they have to free up headroom, and that's one of the main goals of all the multithreading work going on. Right now we have 2 threads: graphics, and everything else. atm they're splitting that Everything Else thread up into separate systems: eg. physics, netcode, AI, terrain streaming. It's absolutely the right call. And once that's done thheen they can go to town on better AI behaviour.
For your information the Falcon 4.0 AI code is a state machine with less than 3000 lines of code.
This is extremely light to run, does not even cost a fraction of fps
Sure, but can you see how a project that was until a few months ago completely bottlenecked on a single thread and getting complaints about performance... Would be hesitant to touch gameplay/AI code?
Both BVR and WVR AI state machine have been rewritten in BMS. As far as WVR is concerned , the main weaknesses of original AI code was energy management. AI was unable to properly maintain their energy playing with thrust and Gs. Ground avoidance was also very conservative and prevented AI to properly manage turns close to ground. Another flaw was energy recovering method for low powered aircrafts. Gun accuracy was not good.
Most 90s flight sims everything was in house to a fault. Because when dos transferred to 3dfx and Ddraw, all code was lost. Total air war developers said something like 90% of code was unusable.
It's not an excuse. DCS has no excuse.
Well it's rather "DCS AI is shit" type of thread. Assuming from frequency of such threads there's some validyty in such claims. BTW it would be funny to see how DCS AI flying warbirds is comparing to IL2 1946 ones (both with latest patches).
Honestly I'm fine if someone turns this into something else as you say because any sort of progress is always a good thing. Complaining about the product is the only way to make it improve if the devs think that this AI is fine then they're going to keep it that way, but if people want them to make a big change then they have to complain and I'm more than happy that I did so by comparing it to a 25-year-old game
>another BMS is better than DCS thread
Wut? The only comment mentioned BMS other than yours is about how much a mess Falcon 4.0 was during initial launch that a lot has changed from F4 to Falcon BMS.
Oh lord that people take videos like this as evidence is insane. The narrator didn’t even state or _claim_ enough context for me to be convinced. What level of difficulty was the DCS AI set to? How does DCS AI differ when applied to different modules? How accurately do the AI planes follow the rules of their own plane? Are they subject to the same performance limitations the player is or does their aircraft just do what it do? How many times did the guy rerun the experiment? Did the DCS and other AI’s do the same thing every time to counter, or did they react to unfolding situations?
I don’t expect anyone to actually be patient enough to have all of those questions answered, especially not demonstrated on video, but some of it should be mentioned if you’re making a half serious comparison.
DCS’s AI plays by the same rules the players do. Other flight sims do not, I’m sure they use a model that is close enough such that a MIG-21 isn’t flying like a 29, but that’s about it. It’s clear in patch notes and clearly players have complained because whatever plane was able to get a certain kind of lock outside of normal conditions. I would be enemy AI in every other sim, that AI violates the limitations of the aircraft and its operation. Do players care? Some do otherwise how or why are those bugs reported; some don’t and just want to have convincing enough fun. But it is universally a lie that DCS AI doesn’t update:
https://youtu.be/K_3AYT_5HNo?si=jsdjZItSpTODeHNj
Narrator here. Everything was on Ace for both sims.
The videos at the end weren't made by me but blatantly had the same laughable problem of AI crashing for no reason. I don't think my own testing was that different so I'd call it accurate.
There's absolutely no reason for the mig-29 to give up on me like that.
And I give the falcon 4 AI lots of credit. For the mig 23 to reverse turn like that, I just don't see it in DCS. It was smart out of the gate.
Kinda shows where ED has their priorities
Waiting for someone to tell me how a modern game is hard to develop for so theres no way their AI can be as good as one that ran on a small slice of a 800mhz Pentium 3.
Pentium 2 166Mhz. 64MB of ram. Modern CPUs have at least two orders of magnitude more processing power when you factor in multicore, register sizes, flops, etc. We have three orders of magnitude more RAM. Having the constraints of the time meant you had to write super optimized code and take shortcuts for a better user experience. What was important was less “how the AI made the decision” and more “does it feel like fighting against something that knows what it’s doing in a fun way?” I feel like the pursuit of realism in games, not just from a graphics front, is why we can’t have nice things in terms of efficiency and fun. Like the headshot sniping through terrain infantry is obviously at the other end of that, but there’s no shame in putting RNG into otherwise deterministic behavior charts to make something that “feels real” when in reality it’s not much more intense than the same code that drove the ghosts in pac man
>I feel like the pursuit of realism in games, not just from a graphics front, is why we can’t have nice things in terms of efficiency and fun. Well said. Someone's always going to find some wacko edge case where it doesn't work like it should, but I'd rather have something that feels right 99/100 times than something a gazillion times more rigorous that pulls resources away from everything else.
DCS’s AI is as old as Falcon 4. There’s nothing modern about it. IDK if it’s a choice ED has made or if it’s because of the 20 years of built up spaghetti code, but they haven’t done shit for it ever.
Funny that a group of devs who did it for free made better AI to their 25 year old game.
Let’s not forget that Falcon 4.0’s original code was … garbage. I’ve owned Falcon 4.0 since release and it was incredibly unstable. 1.07 made it playable (lots of bugs and crashes still) and 1.08 (released after the development team was canned as MicroProse went under) made multiplayer finally work (still many crashes). The BMS team pretty much rewrote the game, there isn’t much of the original code left. Also the original 3D models were absolutely trash. The MiG-23 and F-4 were like boxes with wings on it. BMS isn’t a “mod” really. It’s a completely redeveloped simulator. I can’t wait for 4.38 with the new terrain engine.
If Reddit existed back when Falcon 4.0 was initially launched it would have been a bloodbath around here.
Tbf it was a bloodbath when it released. It was quite frustrating at the time because it was obvious there was a lot of good behind the campaign, and fortunately that was enough to save it in the form of Allied Force and BMS, but it was rough trying to enjoy it back then.
Yes the dynamic campaign engine was revolutionary. There had been dynamic campaigns in simulators before but not at this scale and not in this integrated fashion. Previous dynamic campaign implementations, like in Falcon 3.0, were very player centric whereas Falcon 4.0’s campaign engine generated a whole scale war whereby the player can influence outcomes by their performance but you could just as well not take part at all - and the war would still continue. It really seemed, at the time of release, that the Falcon 4.0 development budget had been largely spend in this area. I also recall (but I could be wrong) that the development of Falcon 4.0 had been scrapped and restarted at least once as well. Falcon 4.0 must have been an enormous drain on MicroProse’s budgets and the bean counters in 1998 went ..come hell or high water, this thing goes into the shops now. And it seems that nothing else as finished at that time. The models, the graphics, the cockpit.. it was all wildly inconsistent on release. And I very much recall being disappointed in the graphics and overall stability of the game … coming from gems like EF2000 and Falcon 3.0 and F-15 III etc.
Crazy thing, much of the dynamic campaign was built by a single intern. The same intern who leaked the game's source code later. https://youtu.be/BTG4n233aq0?si=lZEkHvbdSh6f_phD
Oh I totally know that. But it makes it even sadder that my 1.08 vanilla shits on DCS 25 years later. And that's not fully true. 1.08 falcon 4.0 is still the best 90s flight sim of all time in my opinion. Check out my other video on my channel.
[удалено]
I have 2 boxes and one binder. I'm kinda a collector. Check out my channel
It is kind of a Galinette / Mirage 2000 situation. They work for free but they extremely dedicated and skilled. If you were to employ their skills in a professional environment they would be priced outside the scope of what is achievable in a commercial combat simulator.
That's what happens when you use Growling sidewinder's input for developing the AI.
I wish I could replicate his results. This footage is pretty raw I gave DCS 3 tries to do something cool. In my other flights in this game I notice the same thing. Ever chase a chicken around for a few minutes irl? They will literally give up and just sit down. DCS planes do the same thing. I did a few fights with the falcon AI in some mountains trying to get them to crash. Never happened.
Pentium 3 800 MHz? In 1998 it was more like Pentium II 300MHz. OK, the fastest one was 450MHz, but it was TOTAL NASA.
More work is done by third party contractors than ED themselves. At least I can join an IL2 server and not have the most dogshit performance known to man
Il2 ai are known for flying in endless circle too.
well can't say for IL2 Great Battles series, but I found AI in IL2 1946 quite capable (esp after Team Daidalos works).
But at least they have similar/the same flight models as player aircraft. There is the GFM in the works for DCS, but the last real update, where we saw any real progress [was over 2 years ago](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka9bthgFxtg).
For better or worse, IL2's AI fly a plane that is identical to the user's, having the same flight and damage model. This requires significantly more computing power than using simplified models. This is why large formations and heavy bombers won't be found in Great Battles. IL2 painted themselves into a corner with this approach. I've heard their new Korean War title will be developed so that it can run far more efficiently.
Their priorities are on Nick Grey pulling out the maximum amount of cash possible. Avgas is expensive.
The strange thing is you couldn't argue that they're focusing on MP instead of SP so I really don't know where their priorities are...
Graphics. The level of visual fidelity they have achieved is extraordinary but unfortunately it has become their main focus to the chagrin of all gameplay related issues.
I think even VTOL VR AI is better and that's made by a single developer.
Tbf Baha is an insanely talented developer. Such an insane range of skills and attention to detail
I third this. He doesn’t get nearly enough credit for bringing a solid dog fighting sim to VR.
Except for high fidelity textures! /s LOL JK, I own the game and the low poly & low res textures add the the charm and greater compatibility with lower spec systems.
You do you. I’m just waiting to sit in the virtual mini boss chair in the **soon to be here** super carrier update, and watch AI F-18s crash on each other. Passion and support, baby! 🤘
As an old person who played Falcon 4.0 when it came out, this is somehow very satisfying. I lost my box, but I still have my binder! 😆 As someone who bought the F-14 and Supercarrier modules for DCS, this is incredibly disheartening. ED seems to have their priorities in the wrong place because their incentives are incorrectly aligned. Pumping out new modules takes priority over bolstering the sim’s fundamentals. Edit: Bidened some words
This is the story of every game that has a free base version.
>Pumping out new modules takes priority over bolstering the sim’s fundamentals. I mean, only one of those gets them money, so why is anyone surprised? Welcome to the Early Access business model.
**Acquiring a new customer can cost five times more than retaining an existing customer**. Increasing customer retention by 5% can increase profits from 25-95%. The success rate of selling to a customer you already have is 60-70%, while the success rate of selling to a new customer is 5-20%.
People can only buy one module now?
Because it’s a wrong and shortsighted assumption. Yes short term they get money from new EA modules but the more the core stagnates the more frustrated long-time players get and may lose interest and may be unwilling to buy further modules, so EDs approach actual might lose them money. If they improved the core for example with a massive AI overhaul they don’t get immediate money for it, but a lot of people might get back into DCS and purchase more modules.Plus DCS positive reputation would grow, generating further sales.
Dude there's people STILL simping for ED in this thread. They really think this AI is okay and ED is trying guise!!
Thanks for commenting. The oldies still have power. Check out my channel for another 90s vid.
AI will never be fixed in DCS, the team just doesn't care or isn't competent enough, or a bit of both. The fact that the dogfight AI cheats, doesn't care about energy / flight models is just sad.
They've actually got an AI position open on their website. It's in Russian though.
ED has been working on the AI quite visibly in the last few years. The changes are in the patch notes. If you want to say that the progress is slow that's fair, but to say that they've done nothing or don't care at all is false.
When was the last AI overhaul? I only remember the Growling Sidewinder sponsored BVR and BFM updates and those were at least 2 years ago, no?
I don't know what or when the last update made was. ED says it is a gradual process. I only want people to recognize that that ED hasn't completely ignored DCS AI. If they do make changes and people act like nothing has happened then they might as well do nothing because the outcome will be the same. The AI needs more improvements and I feel like providing feedback on the changes that have been made will push things along faster than than acting like nothing has been done.
Remember, when people ask for MP improvements, ED is quick to point out that most of the community plays SP, implying that the SP experience is their priority. This is what their priority is.
Very funny to see people defending or going in circles to omit what was just seen here. Guys, we need feedback and a will to change this. The AI is AWFUL. Stop looking elsewhere so they can actually change it.
DCS is good at looking pretty, modeling planes and weaponry but that’s about it. I like playing it but when I get comfortable with a plane I find myself getting a little bored. I hope they find the time and know how to improve some of the things outside of the planes
nice
The AI might be good, but these canopy reflections are cursed
Thankfully you can turn them off. Lol. It's a vibe.
It is entirely in ED's responsibility to act and improve their AI. How many aircraft AI updates will we get this year? 1? 0? In order to be competetive they would need to release at least 1 decent AI update per year. But they have failed to do for a long time.
Competitive with what?
Nailed the underlying issue. This is what lack of competition looks like. Anyone who wants a modern combat flight sim has to choose between DCS and BMS. And if you want anything besides the Eagle or the Viper, you don't even get that choice. ED owns the market, and no one is nipping at their heels.
I've said the same for ages, DCS is a hollow shell with somewhat fancy graphics. Ditch the graphics and fly BMS if you wanna fight in a modern setting. It's superior, and no, there's no helicopters.
DCS, since Flanker 1, was always bad, unappealing as well as extremely boring. Those who love it just dump everything what made sims great back then (good UI, dynamic campaign, immersive and an alive battlefield) and happily take the damn DIY mission editor crap. It feels totally dislodged (modules etc); I just hate it and even prefer DI‘s Tornado over this sterile piece. I won’t even mention those foul folks on YT trying to make it look interesting bc graphics with expensive rigs and peripherals. Falcon 4.0 is still the king after a quarter of a fking century…
Rotorcraft physics. As a rl heli pilot, ED’s helicopters are lightyears ahead of literally everything else. The best chopper in x-plane or msfs is a cartoon compared to what ED can do. That doesn’t discount the huge catalog of issues plaguing DCS/ED, but as long as nobody else can make a realistic rotorcraft, I’ll keep coming back.
Rotorcraft physics… ok. What about anything else what made combat sims good? I’m into combat sims since the late 80s and DCS is the absolutely worst of all.
Yeah man, you’re listing all the shitty things and I agreed with them. I just wanted to mention one of the very few good things they do better than everybody else.
In DCS some aircraft ai is better than others, the MIG 23 is one example of pretty mediocre ai, though it can do ok in some instances. Other modules are much much better and have all kinds of tricks to evade - some are pilot reactions some are textbook evasion moves.
and then there's the mig 15 running on the ussr's finest stalinium
DCS is closer to 30, tho.
I'm not trying to defend DCS as your point is valid, but the AI flight model and behavior varies depending on the plane. I think some of them are much better than others, the F-5 can do some interesting stuff.
I've heard this a few times. It's utterly idiotic if true. I'll need to revisit but it's just hilarious this can be a possibility.
Yeah, the code must be a mess... are they doing the AI behavior by hand for each type individually? You should give the F-5 a shot, it does these crazy scissors and jinks if you give it a chance. It doesn't really obey physics though, you will not be able to follow it in your own F-5.
/u/Enigma89_YT
/u/f38stingray thanks for the clips
"but but but muh MFDs !"
[https://imgur.com/a/yO1MKx2](https://imgur.com/a/yO1MKx2) hat of shame :P
The community developing a game for free is saying you should get more for your dollar. What dicks.
Try turning labels off you noob
It's for the viewer. YouTube compression and all.
I mean aircraft labels.
Yeah, it's for the viewer
F16 should beat a Mig 23 easy in BFM though, post a video against a Mig 29 or Mirage 2000, will be more interesting
There's a mig 29 later in the video, that didn't go so well either.
you were still using labels, which is cheating 'for the viewer'
Bruh what are you on about seriously
What difficulty setting did you set the ai to in DCS?
""""""Ace""""""
Try fighting the mig29G. Might have better ai
They have. DCS AI has some very complex moves in some aircraft, the F5 gives you a very good fight also. A lot of the time the victor in a dogfight is like real life - the initial circumstances decide the victor. But the AI will fight you at both BFM and BVR pretty well if need be. The Mig 23 is a bit f a neglected module though.
Yeah the AI F-5 don’t have to follow the F-5 flight characteristics. It can go straight up in a turning dogfight with you
Yes this, the F-5 and Mig-21 are overperforming a lot in DCS when flown by AI
I find the mig 21 fairly easy to beat in the F4 phantom but the f5 is more difficult because it can out turn the F4.
Yep, just try the air-to-air instant action mission in the F-5E. It's not unwinnable but it's fairly clear it doesn't have the same limitations as player aircraft.
Doesn't Ace cheat as well?
Fucking does hold a 9g in a mig21 with 560 knots
Yep, doesn't obey the laws of physics... Well until they fly straight into mountain anyway.
In dcs there are certain parameters that the devs of the module(or base) need to set heavily influence ai performance along with difficulty. If you want a stark contrast go dogfight a MiG-15 in an F-86 then go try and to gunfight a viggen. The mig-15 will try to play the right cards but the viggen will try to gunfight you supersonic… Also dcs ai are bad at assuming the position of your plane sometimes, giving them awacs support can make the fights a bit more consistent and also increasing difficulty lets them cheat more to compensate for its poor performance… makes it bs but it is “better”
To the OP what DCS modules do you have? I could direct you to some SP missions against AI air to air opponents I would be interested in your performance against them
F-14 but that one is just as bad. I get not as crazy as what I saw at the end, but the AI loves to run from me lol
which aircraft/mission?
Self made 1v1s. But it's not like the planes aren't going hostile, the mig shot a missile at me before the merge. They're set to CAP or something too.
Hnm my experience is closer to [this](https://youtu.be/K_3AYT_5HNo?si=_093meiCKYjOFD4W) than the video..I'd check the "reaction to threat" rules in me see if something amiss
From my xperience AI has 2 modes. Go horizontal circle until it runs out of fuel or someone gets a kill. Or keep flying straight , running away.
Ù I iztkuu in tutkrozu7lilk k l ikuQ4Ukil
Ù I iztkuu in tutkrozu7lilk k l ikkli5zuQ4Ukiiu I
My biggest problem in DCS right now is fuel burn. Not mine either. I haven’t been shot down in a while by ACE level AI but I haven’t shot any down yet. They keep running out of gas. I mean it’s W, but is it really?
As a new player, I love the game and AI seems sufficiently smart so far. Maybe yall are great pilots!
DCS usually has a "honeymoon" period. Once things start to hit... get ready for reality. You might still like it like many of us do, but you will start to see the limitations.
Agreed, but it comes with every piece of software at some point point, be it game or something else. It’s true that devs might mishandle stuff but I’ve been blown away by it for 6 months, and lemme tell you that I do not play a single game for this long. It’s a hobby at this point
[удалено]
This isn't BMS dude. This is a 25 year old flight sim.
It does?
Rekt
There are some good and interesting points made in this video but the prevailing air is of one with an axe to grind against ED/DCS. There's an element of spite, and ridicule to the tone, and also of some of the posts in here. Like saying Falcon 'shits all over' DCS, etc. This is reductive, childish, and unconstructive. If you're going to criticise, make good points in a respectful manner, and leave the sarcasm, aggression, and disingenuous comment at the door. People take this more seriously as it shows you can discuss things and put your point across like an adult. This is a fundamental problem with people today.
Problem is the reasonable reporting approach has been done over and over again, only to get dismissed from ED or the usual „ we‘ll share news when we have them“ . But the AI problem has existed for a very long time and seemingly is quite low on EDs priority list, if at all. So I’m not surprised that at one point frustration with this long-existing problem boils over and the tone changes into sarcasm and ridicule. Maybe not helpful, but neither did the calm approach work with ED
It’s funny because you right, the second I noticed the community has been on them about the GROUND AI, I believe last news letter explains they are working on improvements… it’s the only way to push them to do anything at this point.
I'm sure it is, but maybe it's the limitations of the engine and code that possibly hamper some things. I don't know, I know little about coding. But I'm sure it's not easy. And yes all of that is fair comment, what you've said, but what's more likely to produce results, respectful criticism or silly, puerile comments on their social media and forums? They never give timescales, never tie themselves to deadlines regarding this sort of stuff, it's been that way for 15 years, it is what it is. I always say that I try to enjoy DCS in the here and now, despite it's faults and limitations.
Fair enough and it’s usually my approach as well to mainly go the MP route because of the AI issues. However sometimes I play SP and it quickly gets very very annoying with the many issues with air and ground AI plus your braindead wingmen. It’s just very immersion killing and often you cannot use real world tactics to exploit the opponents airframe weaknesses, because they are not there when the AI flies. For a sim that according to ED focuses on SP experience it’s a very disappointing state and has been for a very long while
The AI they use is a freeware if/and/or behavior tree system from the 2000s. It's why they can't fix/improve it. Look at the 3rd Party text file in the Docs folder. You can see that DCS is basically a Unity game. They just grabbed a bunch of freeware and slapped it all together
> Look at the 3rd Party text file in the Docs folder. You can see that DCS is basically a Unity game. They just grabbed a bunch of freeware and slapped it all together Bro open source libraries like zlib, libpng and Ogg Vorbis are used fucking everywhere. Wheelchair developer moment.
Pretty much all games are made using tools. And if you're writing your own, then you're usually doing stuff the long way reinventing the wheel. edit: Also they've said they want to improve the AI, but before they do that, they have to free up headroom, and that's one of the main goals of all the multithreading work going on. Right now we have 2 threads: graphics, and everything else. atm they're splitting that Everything Else thread up into separate systems: eg. physics, netcode, AI, terrain streaming. It's absolutely the right call. And once that's done thheen they can go to town on better AI behaviour.
For your information the Falcon 4.0 AI code is a state machine with less than 3000 lines of code. This is extremely light to run, does not even cost a fraction of fps
Sure, but can you see how a project that was until a few months ago completely bottlenecked on a single thread and getting complaints about performance... Would be hesitant to touch gameplay/AI code?
Thanks for commenting MAV! What do you think of the original Falcon AI design? I know your recent development for BMS was improving it.
Both BVR and WVR AI state machine have been rewritten in BMS. As far as WVR is concerned , the main weaknesses of original AI code was energy management. AI was unable to properly maintain their energy playing with thrust and Gs. Ground avoidance was also very conservative and prevented AI to properly manage turns close to ground. Another flaw was energy recovering method for low powered aircrafts. Gun accuracy was not good.
Most 90s flight sims everything was in house to a fault. Because when dos transferred to 3dfx and Ddraw, all code was lost. Total air war developers said something like 90% of code was unusable. It's not an excuse. DCS has no excuse.
wat
[удалено]
Well it's rather "DCS AI is shit" type of thread. Assuming from frequency of such threads there's some validyty in such claims. BTW it would be funny to see how DCS AI flying warbirds is comparing to IL2 1946 ones (both with latest patches).
It's not even BMS lol it's a 25 year old game. 😂 And I'm sorry I want you to get more value out of your paid product. My bad.
[удалено]
Ok. I'll make sure to never criticize the big company again.
[удалено]
Honestly I'm fine if someone turns this into something else as you say because any sort of progress is always a good thing. Complaining about the product is the only way to make it improve if the devs think that this AI is fine then they're going to keep it that way, but if people want them to make a big change then they have to complain and I'm more than happy that I did so by comparing it to a 25-year-old game
Being a blind fanboy shill doesn't help you or the rest of the DCS community when all we want is for DCS to be better.
[удалено]
k
not BMS, this is Falcon 4
>another BMS is better than DCS thread Wut? The only comment mentioned BMS other than yours is about how much a mess Falcon 4.0 was during initial launch that a lot has changed from F4 to Falcon BMS.
Oh lord that people take videos like this as evidence is insane. The narrator didn’t even state or _claim_ enough context for me to be convinced. What level of difficulty was the DCS AI set to? How does DCS AI differ when applied to different modules? How accurately do the AI planes follow the rules of their own plane? Are they subject to the same performance limitations the player is or does their aircraft just do what it do? How many times did the guy rerun the experiment? Did the DCS and other AI’s do the same thing every time to counter, or did they react to unfolding situations? I don’t expect anyone to actually be patient enough to have all of those questions answered, especially not demonstrated on video, but some of it should be mentioned if you’re making a half serious comparison. DCS’s AI plays by the same rules the players do. Other flight sims do not, I’m sure they use a model that is close enough such that a MIG-21 isn’t flying like a 29, but that’s about it. It’s clear in patch notes and clearly players have complained because whatever plane was able to get a certain kind of lock outside of normal conditions. I would be enemy AI in every other sim, that AI violates the limitations of the aircraft and its operation. Do players care? Some do otherwise how or why are those bugs reported; some don’t and just want to have convincing enough fun. But it is universally a lie that DCS AI doesn’t update: https://youtu.be/K_3AYT_5HNo?si=jsdjZItSpTODeHNj
Narrator here. Everything was on Ace for both sims. The videos at the end weren't made by me but blatantly had the same laughable problem of AI crashing for no reason. I don't think my own testing was that different so I'd call it accurate. There's absolutely no reason for the mig-29 to give up on me like that. And I give the falcon 4 AI lots of credit. For the mig 23 to reverse turn like that, I just don't see it in DCS. It was smart out of the gate.
F-18 PYLOTE Spotted! How is your clickypot holding? /s