[TEC] Some aircraft AI tests/questions

[gap]

Originally Posted by Jeff-Groves

You have a link to the specific pages?

I am afraid the "specific pages" are the whole IRAI thread
I don't remember any specific post or date that aircraft AI was discussed on, but I remember that at some pome point a "kamikaze" tactic was introduced for when aircraft were fatally damage and they can only choose where they will fall down. Somehow, this tactic made aircraft even more awkward than they are now and lesser likely to drop bombs, so it was removed in a later IRAI version

[gap]

Originally Posted by Muckenberg

The Admiralty introduced a minimum depth of fifty feet (fifteen meters) for deep charges to protect surface vessels dropping charges from explosion. Beginning in the summer of 1941, the Coast Command introduced fifty feet of bombs dropped from aircraft until a hydrostatic detonator was deployed to a depth of twenty-five feet.

I will look for more information.

Thank you Muckenberg

From my own research I remember that initially depth charges pistols were set too low. Later studies demontrated that in the time elapsed from aircraft dtection to DC dropping, the U-boat couldn't dive that much, and pistol settings were adjusted accordingly.

I can provide dates and figures, but now it is dinner time and I am too hungry to bother checking the file where I gathered the data

[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.

[Mister_M]

Originally Posted by kapuhy

So, nothing has changed since SH3...

[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

[gap]

Originally Posted by kapuhy

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).

No matter how many complain about that, all the SH shipborne DCs since at least SHIII don't get their maximum detonation depth parameter applied; they behave as if they were proximity fuzed, and without access to the game code there is little we can do about it.

Originally Posted by kapuhy

But again, thinking about this: simulating enemy lack of knowledge while player does have hindsight is not entirely fair

Well, in the case of air DC's I don't think this initial lack of knowledge by the British can be exploited by the player. Unless you cheat with the external camera, when you see an aircraft on the horizon you never know its armament. It might carry depth charges, regular bombs, torpedoes, guns, cannons and rockets in various combinations so, no matter how wrong were initial British calculations on depth bombs' most effective detonation depth, if you don't want to risk a too erly patrol end or, even worse, an abrupt campaign end, your best strategy won't change: dive as fast as you can!

[Jeff-Groves]

This is where I got the K-Ship 3D model a ways back.
I got written permission at that time and have the original files and textures.
http://www.alteredearth.com/airship.htm

I believe even in GWX the K-ship will fall out of the sky if it drops below a certain speed.
Took me quite a while to get it working as it does for SH3.
It was the mod I was working on at the time that got me invited to join The Grey Wolves Team.

[gap]

Originally Posted by Jeff-Groves

This is where I got the K-Ship 3D model a ways back.
I got written permission at that time and have the original files and textures.
http://www.alteredearth.com/airship.htm

Amazing model indeed, but having only seen the renders I would say that it is way too high on poly count for our game. I am afraid that making that model "game-ready" would involve more work than it is worth.

What do you think Jeff? Shouldn't we stick to your own model instead? And if yes, after more than ten a decade from when you created it, is there any field where we could improve it, maybe taking inspiration from the K-74 model by Farley & Skinner?

[Jeff-Groves]

It's actually not that bad for poly count!
Most of the high counts are internal parts that can be removed as You will never see those parts.
A rough test model with some internals removed reduced the polys to 63238 or so.
That can be reduced further by selective remove of more unneeded parts.
The basic out side stuff is really not that bad.

[gap]

Originally Posted by Jeff-Groves

I believe even in GWX the K-ship will fall out of the sky if it drops below a certain speed.
Took me quite a while to get it working as it does for SH3.

I can imagine that. After all SH's AI was not done for handling airships and, for that matter, even more traditional aircraft fall down at times with no reasonable reason lol

Originally Posted by Jeff-Groves

It's actually not that bad for poly count!
Most of the high counts are internal parts that can be removed as You will never see those parts.
A rough test model with some internals removed reduced the polys to 63238 or so.
That can be reduced further by selective remove of more unneeded parts.
The basic out side stuff is really not that bad.