[TEC] Some aircraft AI tests/questions

[kapuhy]

Originally Posted by Jeff-Groves

You have a link to the specific pages?

I didn't bookmark it at the time, but now I found it again:

https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/sho...bs#post1620030

TDW's post #1144

Originally Posted by gap

Should we join forces for a SH5 Aerial ASW mod?

With pleasure!

EDIT: Oh and I just checked: MAD sensor based on SH4:OM now does work in SH5 too. I just got detected sitting still at periscope depth (with periscope down) and accurately bombed by MAD Catalina. It still needs a lot of tweaking to be historically correct, but the capability is there.

[Jeff-Groves]

You can find all available Script commands in SHSim.act
Use 010, open SHSim.act, then do a find strings as a Search.

[kapuhy]

Originally Posted by Jeff-Groves

You can find all available Script commands in SHSim.act
Use 010, open SHSim.act, then do a find strings as a Search.

Thanks again Going to sleep now so I won't test anything today, but just did what you suggested and at least two things immediately caught my eye: there are GetContactSpeed and ContactIsMoving commands, maybe these could be used to differentiate aircraft behaviour based on target speed (to avoid this endless loop from my video).

[gap]

Originally Posted by kapuhy

I didn't bookmark it at the time, but now I found it again:

https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/sho...bs#post1620030

TDW's post #1144

That's a bit odd actually. If what TDW had wrote in that old post was true, I would have expected a Ship:IsSubmerged() boolean variable. We have a Ship:GetContactDepth() continuous variable instead, and your test seems to demonstrate that it is working as supposed. I can be wrong, but my suspect is that, at the time of that post, TDW had not a full knowledge of SH5's AI.

Still talking about those scripts, I think we should differentiate preconditions for bombing strategy from the ones set for other strategies; while a bomb attack against a contact below 8.5 m of depth is desiderable, a gun strafing attack run or a torpedo attack in the same conditions wouldn't make any sense

Originally Posted by kapuhy

EDIT: Oh and I just checked: MAD sensor based on SH4:OM now does work in SH5 too. I just got detected sitting still at periscope depth (with periscope down) and accurately bombed by MAD Catalina. It still needs a lot of tweaking to be historically correct, but the capability is there.

My all time dream: Jeff's K-class blimp featured in GWX (which for some odd reason has never been imported into SH5) equipped with MAD and armed with retrorockets

[kapuhy]

Originally Posted by gap

That's a bit odd actually. If what TDW had wrote in that old post was true, I would have expected a Ship:IsSubmerged() boolean variable. We have a Ship:GetContactDepth() continuous variable instead, and your test seems to demonstrate that it is working as supposed. I can be wrong, but my suspect is that, at the time of that post, TDW had not a full knowledge of SH5's AI.

That's my thought too - he's writing that he set having ammo as condition and thet he has no way of adding depth to it, yet in latest IRAI version depth contition is there - TDW probably didn't know of it at the time.

And just a thought about this command - it might also be used to simulate British lack of knowledge about U-Boat maximum diving depth and consequently setting their depth charges too shallow (although I'm not sure whether it wouldn't be sacrificing gameplay for historical accuracy too much - unlike the player, Germans didn't know how deep British can set their depth charges) EDIT: plus, there's no way in script commands to end this "lack of knowledge" at specific date... so no, it can't.

Originally Posted by gap

My all time dream: Jeff's K-class blimp featured in GWX (which for some odd reason has never been imported into SH5) equipped with MAD and armed with retrorockets

As long as Jeff agrees, I'll be happy to make it happen

[gap]

Originally Posted by kapuhy

And just a thought about this command - it might also be used to simulate British lack of knowledge about U-Boat maximum diving depth and consequently setting their depth charges too shallow (although I'm not sure whether it wouldn't be sacrificing gameplay for historical accuracy too much - unlike the player, Germans didn't know how deep British can set their depth charges) EDIT: plus, there's no way in script commands to end this "lack of knowledge" at specific date... so no, it can't.

I am afraid it was the other way around. Remember that most of the times an U-boat was intercepted by an enemy aircraft, she was sailing on the surface. Due to aircraft's speed, the submarine had a short time for submerging and avoiding the attack, so reaching max diving depth was out of question. Actually, one of the problem of early air depth charges is that their pistol was set too deep; they exploded too far below U-boat's keels and little damage was done. Experience and more accurate calculations led the British to reduce this depth setting. Let me find the source(s) that I took this information from and I will post the link here.

In game, this can be simulated without need of messing too much with AI scripts. Unlike ship-borne depth charges, air depth charges have their depth settings working. We can set up two or more copies of each DC with different detonation depth settings and then - according to historic data and gameplay convenience - we can switch from one to the other by use of date settings in each aircraft eqp file

Originally Posted by kapuhy

As long as Jeff agrees, I'll be happy to make it happen

I think I has already agreed loooong ago, and I think someone had tested his blimp in game. IIRC the plan was to make K-calss blimps part of OHII's campaign as convoy escort, but then they were given up because it was found that they fell down when they were made to follow surface units.

More recently Jeff has talked about a better blip model he had in his hands, but then again the discussion about importing that model in game faded down, but in the first instance let's wait for Jeff's feedback on this topic.

[kapuhy]

Originally Posted by gap

I am afraid it was the other way around. Remember that most of the times an U-boat was intercepted by an enemy aircraft, she was sailing on the surface. Due to aircraft's speed, the submarine had a short time for submerging and avoiding the attack, so reaching max diving depth was out of question. Actually, one of the problem of early air depth charges is that their pistol was set too deep; they exploded too far below U-boat's keels and little damage was done. Experience and more accurate calculations led the British to reduce this depth setting. Let me find the source(s) that I took this information from and I will post the link here.

I know, sorry for being unclear: this remark about simulating shallow settings was about shipborne DCs at beginning of the war (I remember players complaining in the past that in 1939 British destroyers can sink their boat even at 150-200m, despite in real life British having at this point no idea German boats can dive that deep). But again, thinking about this: simulating enemy lack of knowledge while player does have hindsight is not entirely fair