[TEC] Some aircraft AI tests/questions

[Jeff-Groves]

Also. Seeing as a LOT of GR2 files are modded with a Loose import?
(Which We all know does incredible file size growth.)
Is it really that much of a difference on file size?
You also have to consider I can BY PASS the loose import for a better fit and thus a smaller file.

If I'm not mistaken? The K-ship in GWX is the largest dat in the Air folder.

[kapuhy]

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.

Originally Posted by gap

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

If there was one situation where SH5 weird physics can be of some help, this is it:

[gap]

Originally Posted by kapuhy

If there was one situation where SH5 weird physics can be of some help, this is it

According to Wikipedia, K-class blimps had a cruise speed of 93 km/h (50 kn) and a maximum speed of 125 km/h (68 kn). What was PBY's speed during your tests?

EDIT: I wonder if wing shape and area have an effect on SH5's aircraft physics

[Jeff-Groves]

In GWX, there are hidden wings.

[gap]

Originally Posted by Jeff-Groves

In GWX, there are hidden wings.

Yes, I suppose that invisible wings will be needed in SH5 as well.

[kapuhy]

Originally Posted by gap

According to Wikipedia, K-class blimps had a cruise speed of 93 km/h (50 kn) and a maximum speed of 125 km/h (68 kn). What was PBY's speed during your tests?

I randomly set 30 kn as maximum speed and 10 kn as minimum speed. I don't see a reason why you couldn't set, say, 1 kn as minimum.

Originally Posted by gap

EDIT: I wonder if wing shape and area have an effect on SH5's aircraft physics

I don't think so, considering that defining one of plane's machine gun barrels as left wing in Goblin does absolutely nothing to its ability to stay in the air.

EDIT: From what I see, it seems to be very simple: engine power and mass affect speed, so does turning and damage. If speed falls below stall speed ("minimum speed"), plane falls. If hitpoints drop to zero, it explodes and falls.

[gap]

Originally Posted by kapuhy

I randomly set 30 kn as maximum speed and 10 kn as minimum speed. I don't see a reason why you couldn't set, say, 1 kn as minimum.

I don't think so, considering that defining one of plane's machine gun barrels as left wing in Goblin does absolutely nothing to its ability to stay in the air.

EDIT: From what I see, it seems to be very simple: engine power and mass affect speed, so does turning and damage. If speed falls below stall speed ("minimum speed"), plane falls. If hitpoints drop to zero, it explodes and falls.

Yes, it all makes sense. Engine damage might decrease speed; wing damage might increase minimum speed. If that was true, we should set the gondola as the main fuselage, and the balloon itself as the wing with a disproportionately high hitpoint value, so that damaging it will decrease blimp's buoyancy (but making it to fall down would take an impossible amount of AA bullets).

EDIT:

After all, it shouldn't be impossible for an U-boat to set those hard-asses of fire, thus making them to collapse into the sea:

Originally Posted by https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/wwii-submarine-hunting-blimps/

One of the airships’ most famous battles came on the coast of Florida when the K-74 spotted a German sub [...].

Unfortunately, the submarine crew spotted the attacking airship and lit the low-flying vessel up with the sub’s anti-aircraft guns while the airship dropped two depth charges.

The consequences were immediate and severe for the blimp. The air envelope was severely damaged and set on fire by the German guns. The crew was able to extinguish the fire, but they could not maintain altitude and slowly settled into the sea.

The envelope shouldn't explode though since, as with every US airship, it was filled with helium rather than with the highly explosive hydrogen.

[kapuhy]

Originally Posted by gap

Yes, it all makes sense. Engine damage might decrease speed; wing damage might increase minimum speed. If that was true, we should set the gondola as the main fuselage, and the balloon itself as the wing with a disproportionately high hitpoint value, so that damaging it will decrease blimp's buoyancy (but making it to fall down would take an impossible amount of AA bullets).

Good idea

Only thing that I don't know how to solve as far as blimp is concerned is turning - planes in SH5 pitch and roll when turning, and while my modified super-slow Catalina pitched and rolled a lot less at these speeds, it might still look a bit weird with a blimp (that said, I've never seen a blimp maneuvering at full speed...)

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.

Well SH5 can handle PB4Y with its 124k polys, I don't see why it wouldn't be able to handle the blimp (although, as a fan of simplicity I'd certainly cut from it everything that's not going to be visible in game anyway).

[gap]

Originally Posted by kapuhy

Only thing that I don't know how to solve as far as blimp is concerned is turning - planes in SH5 pitch and roll when turning, and while my modified super-slow Catalina pitched and rolled a lot less at these speeds, it might still look a bit weird with a blimp (that said, I've never seen a blimp maneuvering at full speed...)

Have you tried playing with drag values?

[kapuhy]

Originally Posted by gap

Have you tried playing with drag values?

Not yet, but I will - not just for the blimp, but also I hope it might be one of things that would affect planes' ability to adjust their position so that AI does drop bombs on faster targets. EDIT - because it seems to me that what happens is: AI doesn't know how to lead the target, so the closer it gets, the tighter it has to turn, ultimately either hiting stall speed or "terrain ahead" warning and breaking off to recover.

[gap]

Originally Posted by kapuhy

Not yet, but I will - not just for the blimp, but also I hope it might be one of things that would affect planes' ability to adjust their position so that AI does drop bombs on faster targets. EDIT - because it seems to me that what happens is: AI doesn't know how to lead the target, so the closer it gets, the tighter it has to turn, ultimately either hiting stall speed or "terrain ahead" warning and breaking off to recover.

I am trying to find the video of a turning blimp. In the meanwhile, if you are into technical stuff you could have a look into this 1941 document by US War Department on airship physics (you can skip directly to p. 47):

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...rodynamics.pdf

Drag is one of the few physic parameters affecting SH planes. Adjusting them wisely might be required not only for improving their general airworthiness and their bombing accuracy, but also - within reasonable limits - for differentiating one aircraft from the other.

[kapuhy]

Originally Posted by gap

Drag is one of the few physic parameters affecting SH planes. Adjusting them wisely might be required not only for improving their general airworthiness and their bombing accuracy, but also - within reasonable limits - for differentiating one aircraft from the other.

I'll start worrying about differentiating planes after they stop flying backwards and dropping bombs while upside down but point taken, and from what I've seen so far there's an awful lot of copy-paste approach in the way these parameters are set in SH5 planes (not gonna lie, I copied drag and similar stuff from stock planes too, leaving fine-tuning for later).

[gap]

Originally Posted by kapuhy

I'll start worrying about differentiating planes after they stop flying backwards and dropping bombs while upside down but point taken, and from what I've seen so far there's an awful lot of copy-paste approach in the way these parameters are set in SH5 planes (not gonna lie, I copied drag and similar stuff from stock planes too, leaving fine-tuning for later).

Exactly my point. All the aircraft seem to have more or less the same physic settings, and they all might be awfully wrong

[Jeff-Groves]

Originally Posted by kapuhy

flying backwards and dropping bombs while upside down

THAT I want to see!

[Jeff-Groves]

Originally Posted by kapuhy

as a fan of simplicity I'd certainly cut from it everything that's not going to be visible in game anyway.

Took another look at the model and there is still a lot that can be removed.
As an example. Do we really need the coffee pot on the stove?