Staged Mission Editor: Best Climb Seems FUBAR

[CptTrips]

I might be wrong on this, but something doesn't seem right.

To trouble shoot I flew a mission manually while using .psave to drop files of my pos while recording film so I can go back and see what my speeds were at the time I save pos.  I was then creating a Staged Mission basically mimicking what I had actually flown.

I started a take-off in a Camel and lifted off ~64 mph and climbed for ~20 sec at ~67-70mph from ~71-74 ft ASL to ~445 ft ASL.
That was a climb of ~374ft in 20 sec.   That would be a climb rate of ~1122 fpm.  Not exact measurements but in the ball-park. 

The Camel according to Wiki has a max climb rate of 1085 fpm so within the slop of my measurements, I'd call that good, or at least not surprising.

However, when I plot the same flight profile in the Mission Editor, at the alt I flew it at the speeds I recorded, the segment is telling me my best climb is 472 fpm.  WTF?  So then it complains that the segment is unflyable.  It can't be.  I flew it!  What is it basing that number off of?  The flight model seems right, I think the Mission Editor is FUBAR! 

(See attachment.)

[Note:  Double checking...changing the fuel load-out didn't change the reported best climb.  So that isn't it.]

[CptTrips]

[CptTrips]

Another data point....

So I decide to just ignore the warnings and create the mission with the data I actually flew so knew that was a good climb rate.  It appears that the AI is limited to that bogus climb rate.  Instead of climbing at the defined speed of 70mph for instance, they are wobbling along at 50mph.  Like they are constantly on edge of stalling trying to climb beyond their max climb rate.  Meanwhile, I can climb right past them at the proper climb rate. 

So I believe the Editor is truthfully reporting the climb rate of the AI, but that climb rate isn't the proper climb rate that I am capable of (which is very close to the documented rate). 

That makes it kinda sucky to have to follow them in take-off an climb out as they have less than half my climb rate.

As another test, I create a simple air spawn and level flight at 100mph and they had no problem maintaining that speed in level flight as defined in the mission file.  So it is a climb issue.

[hitech]

What is the climb rate of a camel supposed to be? And if you ignore the best climb rate. It will do exactly what you are speaking of.

HiTech

[CptTrips]

What is the climb rate of a camel supposed to be? And if you ignore the best climb rate. It will do exactly what you are speaking of.

HiTech

I'm not sure I understood your comment.

Let me phrase it more carefully.


1. Under as close of conditions as possible, I manually flew the camel at ~70mph for 20 sec and climbed ~374ft   = ~1122fpm.

2.  I tried as closely as possible to plot the same climb in the editor but it stated only a climb rate of 472fpm is possible.  If I ignored that warning and plot what I flew, and then build the mission and follow the AI as they try and fly it, it did not appear as if they could attain that climb rate and they were wallowing at ~50-55mph and not 70mph and did not seem to attain the target height in that time.  I got the impression that the AI was truly limited to the climb rate the editor had reported, even though seem to have a much higher climb rate flying manually. 

Are you disputing #2?  Are you saying the AI should have climbed as I plotted it regardless of the warning if that is what I could fly manually?  It didn't appear to be the case as I flew along side the AI as they tried.  I can redo a test.  I'll try to create a side by side climb with the AI.  The AI should be able to stay right along with me.  I'll try to get direct evidence if it can't, like a film.

I'm not debating what the max climb rate should be, I'm just saying it seems it should be the same for the AI as a manual pilot under the same conditions.  What ever that number is. 

(Also, the warning said in some future version, violating those climb numbers would break the build.  So if you start enforcing them, they should definitely be realistic.  But we can argue about that later.  )

[CptTrips]

Wait.  I guess before I bother testing more I need to make sure I'm making the proper basic assumption.

Do the AI and player use the same flight model?

Should I expect them to basically exhibit the same performance? 

[hitech]

 Different model. The number shown is Max.

[CptTrips]

Different model. The number shown is Max.

OK.  That is my problem.  I was assuming the AI could fly what I flew with the same plane.

Basically I was creating a utility to let me just fly the route the way I wanted and record the data, then create a route and segments out of the recorded data programmatically.  Then I was going to have the AI fly the first route while I fly another manually recording the next set of data interacting with the first AI route.  I could then continue that like again like laying down multiple audio tracks.   I thought that might be easier to create complex interacting behaviors than futzing with the editor.

Got all that working, but the AI can't fly what I just flew with the same plane.  It is using a significantly different flight model with only 42% of the climb rate.  Doesn't that seem like a pretty big discrepancy?  Could we tighten that up?  Could anyone record various flight profiles to help you update the data?

Hmmmm. 

Could the Editor could have an optional switch to ignore it's normal constraints and just fly the freakin profile as defined?  Like an advanced option. It was true recorded flight data.  If anyone ever submitted a mission it should be an easy scan to see if that override had been checked if you have concerns.

   


   

[CptTrips]

On the bright-side, I now have a good strategy against the AI. 
Don't try and out turn them, out CLIMB them!  You have twice the climb rate! 

[CptTrips]

The other bad thing here is when you are the flight leader and you set yourself on auto-climb auto-pilot, you just leave your AI wingmen in the dust because they can't even come close to keeping up with you with the exact same plane and load-out.   

[Bizman]

The other bad thing here is when you are the flight leader and you set yourself on auto-climb auto-pilot, you just leave your AI wingmen in the dust because they can't even come close to keeping up with you with the exact same plane and load-out.   

That's the problem with real players as well. If the leader has full throttle, there's no chance for the wingmen to stay in formation, no matter how skillful they are. There's always minor delays between command, receiving and action. Plus the inaccuracy of gauges which leads to minor adjustments which eat speed and increase distance between planes. The leader should always reduce speed to allow the wingmen to catch up without having to use WEP.

[CptTrips]

That's the problem with real players as well. If the leader has full throttle, there's no chance for the wingmen to stay in formation, no matter how skillful they are. There's always minor delays between command, receiving and action. Plus the inaccuracy of gauges which leads to minor adjustments which eat speed and increase distance between planes. The leader should always reduce speed to allow the wingmen to catch up without having to use WEP.

I'm not talking about a momentary gap.  It is a continual increasing gap.  It is continually increasing because they only have 42% of your climb rate.  Every second you climb, they fall further behind and below you. 

If they are the lead and you take-off with them and climb out with them to a combat altitude, you are going to have to take over twice as long to get to that desired altitude as you should have to. 

Are you suggesting the FM just be left that way?

This isn't minor.  It's not even in the ball park.  They have less than half the available climb rate as the player's plane.  As numerically reported in the Editor and verified by Hitech.  (at least for the Camel) This isn't my imagination, or an incorrect interpretation of what happened.

Rather than just excuse it, I'd prefer to just fix it. I'm even offering to assist collecting the flight data if that is useful.

[Bizman]

Although we're comparing AI to real players, the issue is the same. If the leader continuously flies at full throttle, the followers can easily fall beyond icon range. That's not momentary nor is it minor, but with live players it's understandable. The followers can't read the leader's mind in order to simultaneously do the same turns and other actions no to mention other elements that can distract them.

I understand your concern, though. If the AI wingmen only have 42% of the leader's climb rate, that would equal a late night highly boozed scenario mission with the best pilot leading the group. That doesn't sound like making the AI act like real players, only us Finns. For what I've learned, there's many players who really practice to be good in this game, flying sober in daylight.

[CptTrips]

Although we're comparing AI to real players, the issue is the same. If the leader continuously flies at full throttle, the followers can easily fall beyond icon range. That's not momentary nor is it minor, but with live players it's understandable. The followers can't read the leader's mind in order to simultaneously do the same turns and other actions no to mention other elements that can distract them.

I understand your concern, though. If the AI wingmen only have 42% of the leader's climb rate, that would equal a late night highly boozed scenario mission with the best pilot leading the group. That doesn't sound like making the AI act like real players, only us Finns. For what I've learned, there's many players who really practice to be good in this game, flying sober in daylight.

Oh I get what you are saying.  Especially in turns between the inside corner planes and the outside corner planes.  That is not what we are dealing with here. 

I get there is a different flight model between the AI and player.  Given you would want to keep the AI as lightweight as possible as far as processing, it seems perfectly reasonable that you wouldn't try and use a full fidelity force based flight model for each AI plane.  I would suspect there is probably some type of interpolation lookup table of values.  It seems there is either bad data or a bug in the interpolation. 

Or if it is an unavoidable side effect of a consciously design trade-off, then maybe an override  flag to just fly the points as designed.  At least for non-attack segments.  When the AI breaks off the route to go fight something, let him use his normal FM, but on route fly what i put in.

But ideally, we could just adjust the built in model to get closer to reasonable.

Oh, and if I lived in Finland I would drink heavily in Winter too. ;o) 

   

[hitech]

The large difference may also just be with WWI planes. I never tested the WWI ai.

HiTech