DCS AI loses to 25 year old sim
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 сер 2024
- 00:00 - Intro
00:22 - DCS Fight 1
01:08 - Falcon 4.0 Recreation
02:16 - DCS AI gives up
03:30 - Falcon 4.0 knows about the vertical
05:04 - Falcon 4.0 knows how to Scissor
06:14 - It just gets sadder in DCS...
07:32 - I have a loss for words
08:00 - Falcon 4.0 knows how to handle terrain
08:20 - Some community videos, this is no fluke!
Honestly, dcs fanboys are the worst. They watch some youtubers trying it out and think they know best. Whenever they see the word 'flight sim', they instantly dismiss others and make ridiculous claims like 'its a military simulator' or something.
Pinned. There are some insane delusional fanboys out there that accept this SLOP
I've been around since the early LOMAC days and couldn't agree more. I still play and love DCS (since it's overall the best sim in most regards, let alone the multiplayer) but these fanboys and enthusiastic newcomers are THE worst. All they care about is the "meta this, meta that" as if they were playing LoL, Fifa, or some crap along these lines, they brought the "yea competitive gaming bro" mentality to DCS. All they do is watching the same cringe content creators, binge on stupid Discord channels and watch some idiotic tutorials about spamming AIM-120's. To top it off, DCS is usually their first experience when it comes to flying or aviation in general.
dcs is like ea games. itsagame
@@quackgarage9551 i too hate it when comp players get into sim and/or realistic games. same thing happened to a ton of shooter games meant to be realistic, the comp soyboys got in and the developers made a ton of "Meta" changes. i always enjoy playing the underdog in games but when there's not much choice between bad things, makes it really hard to have fun that way. and if you like using another thing that is lightly too powerful, good luck trying to use it after the next patch.
it's also annoying seeing the youtuber normies make a bunch of videos where they give every single one of their autismo fans the best hyper efficient strategies and whatever.
ruins the fun of trying to learn what is good and what is not good whenever you can tell what is best already due to the fact everyone is using the same thing.
this is very generalized but i'm sure you get what i am saying. glad to see someone understands that games don't always have to be pure arcade and comp.
and fuck the new tom clancy ip fans in general, fuck these assholes. tom clancy is rolling is his grave.
@@alex01763 dcs on top💯💯💯
It is amazing how these old 90's golden age sims have way better content, missions, campaigns, and AI than DCS in 2024. We've traded high fidelity cockpits for sims that were actually playable.
real
Yup. Pretty don't equal good.
@@Enigma89FULL FIDELITY IS A TRAP
@@Enigma89 the man, the myth, the legend
Speak for yourself. Dcs is way more enjoyable than those basic ass games. Y’all compare one trick ponies to huge diverse games, it’s stupid.
Man didn't even use BMS to prove his point.
@@NoBrainSilent didn't have to hahaha. Gilman Louie is a genius, anyone that knows falcon history knows DCS can't hold a candle to their experience. Pete bonnani directly consulted in both 3 and 4. Actually I bet falcon 3 has better AI.
@@andrewa837 As someone who played both EXTENSIVELY (to the point of my grades suffering) I can tell you that Falcon 4 definitely has the better AI compared to Falcon 3. It handles you doing out of plane maneuvers much better which was one of the first things I noticed. A lot of my "tricks" that worked against Falcon 3's AI simply did not work in Falcon 4.
@@NuclearFalcon146 Oh yeah, Falcon 4.0 tactics are a lot better. They put a lot of work into it.
I played Falcon all the way to falcon 4 then allied Forces and I have both Falcon 4 BMS and DCS and sorry but DCS for me is a fair bit better. Falcon BMS has come a long way but the only hingvi miss is the Dynamic Campaign.
Digital Cockpit Simulator.
multiplayer???🤡🤡🤡🤡
@@margelatul2001 Oh, that's a good excuse to have a worse AI than a 25-year-old sim.
@@807800 I'd rather have horrible ai and multiplayer than no multiplayer but i assume you don't play multiplayer cuz u don't have friends or is there another reason I'm missing
@@margelatul2001 Sure, good for you, but you're the ignoring the issue here. The developer have been promising about fixing the AI, but nothing.
And as you can read, how on earth could a game from 25 years ago, freaking 1998, have better AI than DCS?
I mean, in 1997, the fastest super computer in the world was 1.06 TFLOPS, your mainstream CPU today is way faster than that!
@@807800 womp womp
Same thing applies to IL2 1946 vs IL2 BOS/DCS WW2
The AI in 1946 is crazy in scissoring and takes the nastiest snap shots. Crazy thing is the AI even recognizes your type of aircraft and fights you accordingly (Energy fighting or turn fighting)
I used to play 1946 for 8 hours at a time and that AI is DISGUSTING when set to max. Also with that AI the difficulty setting matters because it can be absolute potato that cannot hit the broad side of a barn (missing by apparently a precise miss distance) to apparently nailing you with impossible shots and perfect maneuvers on max difficulty. It even affects gunner accuracy (too bad for players all player aircraft have default AI gunners).
That's not AI but scripts and aimbot!
Yup, got 155 hours in IL 1946 and the AI would always beat my ass if I dared to not watch my speed and the enemy's nose
@@WanderfalkeAT I'd agree on your statement if you were also including ChatGPT and other models to not be AI
@@Squee7e there is a very credible argument to be made that many LLMs are not AI in the way the world was used for most of its existence, though language changes and AI is becoming a term that has broader and broader usage. For example somewhere between the early 2000s and 2010s the term "NPC" largely became synonymous with AI despite both terms prior having very distinct meanings, and almost no games having anything remotely close to what would then be called "AI" (as almost all of them were either algorithms with heavy limitations or fully scripted, and nearly none of them were capable of analyzing inputs in real time and "learning" from them). All of that said, LLMs are closer to the "traditional" understanding of AI than NPCs in videogames like IL-2 1946. 1946's AI could not autonomously adapt or learn. It was purely reactive with no proactive elements that weren't programmed in.
I knew the AI wasnt great when, me a player with less than 10 hours, beat an SU27 armed with r-73 on veteran diffuclty, in an A-4E-C
Broooooooo an SU-27 loses to a skyhawk? That ai is braindead
its an A-4E😂😂😂 the C stands for community since its a mod it isnt actually anything to do with the plane or plane variant
@@margelatul2001 Ah thanks, wasnt sure if the C really mattered, i decided to just keep it in for clarity
@@cat-nl4sv np
ED have two devs and a turnip working on their AI. Don't worry.
At this point I trust the turnip more than the two devs.
That sounds like decent pitch for eastern european cartoon.
i always said that, ED team are 5 or 6 guys in a very small room so no one can join and help, its their baby like they say, so...no more coders here because we want that money and we are very jealous of our "bay-bay"
cranking out updates slower than tf2's potted plant and janitor
ED? Like Elite Dangerous?
Well but DCS balances this out very well! The ground AI is so good, it can even shoot you with AA through hills.
But when you put a ECM (it doesn’t need to be turn on btw) on the A-10 a SA-11 will lock you but don’t shot even if you are on top of them. My friend show me that, DCS is just stupid, try this later. (It only works with the A-10 for some reason)
@@TaFusaro Perfectly balanced as all things should be...
I call DCS a technical sim. It's all about the buttons, but there is little about war and tactical employment in there. It is a dead world with barely the hints of an AI.
DCS is not technical at all, try to pull 9g in a F-16 with mk84’s, nothing happens! You don’t get even a single avionics and SMS fault.
@@TaFusaro True. But I was referring to Technical as in focused on the task of operating the equipment, rather than on the actual battlefield employment during a tactical operation.
@@CptFugu Operating as well, they implemented the CAT I and CAT III storage config not that long ago, I never got a FLCS bit fail, never got any fault to be true. DCS don't have the EPU safety pin as well
@@CptFugu Why woudl you want to play with all of the buttons when there is no battlefield around?
In DCS, there isn't much to do in single-player to be honest, ED has totally forgotten the solo community, but in the multi-player world, you can find nice dynamic servers, like DDCS hardcore, with logisitics missile stock piles, air frames, ground operations, heli slings. Everything is human driven, with no AI, and it changes everything
The problem... is not really feasible in DCS, you need to know programming to be able to create such a dynamic world, but with DCS native tools, the best you can get is a noob server like GS servers lol
So technically, not even that is DCS TM
Dcs is always like this . They always hit you with the "We ArE wORkInG on AI CHanGeS"
LOL such an ordinary ED EnDing
DCS AI is Light-Years ahead of where it was just a few years ago. Still needs work, but there's also the added impact "here" of not knowing the ME setup. Most things about DCS take work. I know that's a difficult concept for modern gamers but... it is what it is.
2 weeks
@@Mikkall still doesn't compare to the original lock on modern air combat which is a shame
@@Mikkallill be dead before they release a dynamic campaign gahaa
How to enjoy dcs:
Step 1: Disregard fixed wings entirely.
Step 2: 🗣Helicopter
Step 3: ?
Step 4: You are now enjoying Dcs
DCS Ai also heartily loses to the indie game Tiny Combat Arena's AI. It's weird.
I've seen F-14's and Mig29's run away from the frogfoot after a merge in DCS.
TCA AI still needs work. When they dont have guns, yet do have missiles they will run away, I have seen lots of instances where the AI just crashes their plane for some unknown reason and the AI dont do evasive manoeuvres to counter missiles.
In TCA's defense, it's literally just one guy making the game.
bms ai is hands down better in every aspect, the ai will shoot you if you fly though the hud at high aspect, the dcs ai wont shoot in that situation. the bms ai will do active missile defence apart from flares, it will maintain a high rate turn which makes it impossible to tighten down and shoot a missile, the dcs ai just reverses in front of you, literally hands you the kill. the dcs ai just dumps all its flares as soon as it gets within a certain range of you.
@@_cyantist the flare dumping is hilarious.
Watching the AI use some actual BVR TEAM tactics in Falcon BMS made it real hard to ever want to fly against AI in DCS ever again.
It's not a fair comparison, DCS AI is from the time of the first Flanker (1995) while F4 came out in 1998. So clearly 3 year advantage ;)
We could only hope the AI was copied from Flanker.
however, Falcon came out in 87 yet evolved into what it is today and you mean SU-27 flanker for DOS in 95, flanker 2.0 was a paid update with 3dfx glide support released in 99
Not fair? It's 29 years later and DCS still has outdated AI. 100% devs fault.
@@pusheenthecat9264 I'm noting the trend of jokes and sarcasm being taken seriously more often tha ever and it's getting worse.
@@ChucksSEADnDEADyeah it’s pretty bad, what level of reading comprehension do you have to have to miss that one…
I love when I’m fighting a ai pilot on the highest difficulty setting and like 2/10 times he ends up either just diving his aircraft into the ground for some reason or running away. Especially love how the WW2 ai just doesn’t adhere to the laws of physics that my aircraft adheres to
I remember a few years ago I was running a BMS campaign with a buddy. We were running a tacview track of our last CAP sortie and we watched in silence as a chinese flanker outran and outmaneuvered 2 amraams by dragging the missiles and split s-ing out of the way. "DCS, eat your heart out" were the words that broke the silence.
In DCS, they literally hit the brakes, go to 300 knots at a 45 degrees "notching", and somehow the missiles "miss" or they just hit lol
@@StoneCoolds missile kinematics and tracking in DCS are horrible. You literally cannot hit anything above 15nm with a medium range missile.
DCS LoOks PrETtiEr, So iT's BeTteR
It has all of switches like the real thing. Realism 10/10.
@@Hornet135 Half of planes are in early access half of switches are placeholders.
@@andrewa837 Exactly. Just too much half finished stuff overall.
@@Hornet135 so a cabin simulator not a combat simulator. Cool.
@@markcorrigan3930 kinda
Falcon 4.0 was so ahead of it's time that other than Graphically it still has not been surpassed as a single plane study level sim.
ahead of its time ? Or simply, what came later or became bigger, did not reach its standards. It does look gamey, the graphics are seriously dated, but somehow those coders were able to do things other lazier ones never managed or never bothered to fix. It would seem the coders are either difficult to get or coders education and ability went seriously downward. Most games arent made by coders right, only use generalized 'languages'. Not only coding, but the whole air thing is also a parallel depth that The coder needs good understanding of. One can code but if he is a dummy, good luck with that :) Guess DCS devs are dummies. :D
I’ve dragged a lot of BMS ai close to the ground and have not once been able to force a manoeuvre kill. In DCS it seems to be 50/50.
The bandit
is down.
Remember that DCS is an evolution of Lock On: Modern Air Combat, which was released in 2003. That was based on Flanker 2.0/2.5, which released in 1999. That is the DCS AI. It is almost as old as Falcon 4.0.
You were very kind not to compare the Falcon 4.0 AI's group BVR tactics against the DCS AI in BVR.
That might be an explanation, but it sure ain't an excuse.
The Flaming Cliffs series is a derivative of Flanker and LOMAC, DCS is a lost cause.
Actually, dcs is older than f4. DCS has its beginnings in 1995s Su-27.
@@johnpancoast3236 I'm just not sure if that code survived to Flanker 2.0. You can pretty clearly see stuff in Flanker 2.0 that is in (or was in) DCS.
@@wmouse It did, along with some of the same people working on both.......and still involved with dcs today. 😉
DCS is an evolution of Flanker 2, which released the same year as Falcon 4. 25 years of development, aircraft AI is still terrible and I've even seen helicopters getting stuck on buildings.
Ah yes, DCS AI Helis, flying under the tree tops, passing through all the branches, my favourite.
It is sad that there is no Falcon 5.0 , if micropose picks that up with a new dynamic campaign and a easy to use mission editor , I bet it will be the best F16 combat sim for PC .
Look up the bms mod for falcon 4.0, you prolly already know about it already but after finding that out i didnt wanna spend another second on dcs, 7 bucks for the og game and the mods free as opposed to 70 dollar unfinished dlc on dcs
@@Squigdude13BMS is easily the best modern era flight sim out there.
@@RhodokTribesman military, you mean
Now I'm curious how the old Jane's Fighters Anthology performs.
05:09 "This guy is going to scissor me like no tomorrow." 🤣🤣🤣
hehe
Its kind of shocking when compared side to side like this.
We're the idiots paying $60 for modules to play in this environment.
No, DCS is a lot better, it has a multifplayer version and the ai works but it's hard to set-up (it's bad ik)
The thing is most of us are either playing online against real people or against each other or ground missions. My buddy and I for example spent a lot of time doing long range bombing missions and CAS.
@@Blind_HawkThe ground ai is even worse than this
@@BorysSkrzypceNo it isn’t. What you’re saying makes no sense
@@Blind_Hawk Is most correct?
Enigma who ran the Cold War Server said 20% of people play multiplayer. Which seems low, are 80% really playing without a dynamic campaign and this AI.
I can’t believe I’m saying this…
Ace Combat has better AI than DCS….
You should do a video of ground units, they don't have reverse and they get stuck in buildings and bridges.
Falcon ground units phase through everything. They're nothing special either but at least part of a dynamic campaign
@andrewa837
Plus, from my experience, all infantry (manpad teams included) are completely invisible, unlike DCS. Though I still prefer BMS AI. The SAM crew AI's can be insanely sneaky, waiting for an actually good shot. The SA-15's and 10's can be especially dangerous. I remember being able to (in DCS) fly up and strafe an active SA-2 site and fly away perfectly fine. To be fair it didn't have any shorad, which made it possible in the first place, but I doubt I should be able to do that so easily. That and, again, the pilot AI's are atrociously bad
@@GenericName1084 min engagement distance depending on variant goes from 6 to 3.7 miles and min altitude went from 1,600 feet with the V-750VK/VN to 1,000ft with the V-755 20DP and 300ft with the V-755U DSU.
The biggest success of the SA-2 in Vietnam was increasing the number of AAA kills by forcing the US to fly lower. Without SHORAD the SA-2 is vulnerable to being snuck on.
YEAH! That was so annoying, spent hours flying in CAS missions to find the last guy who was hugging a fucking three story building.
DCS's engine is very very old, it was originally called SU-27, released for DOS in 95 and could run on a 486 ( because that's all the Russians could have at the time, yes ED was a Russian dev team, not sure about current though. ) it evolved from that to Flanker 2.0/2.5, Lock On modern combat, Flaming Cliffs 1/2/3, then DCS. You can see the limitations in the damage modeling, it's still the same as it was since Flanker and Flight physics relies on LUA files ( if plane at this speed, then this is your turn rate plus other factors ) instead of the the planes obeying world physics.
Comparing the Falcon F-16's flight model vs DCS's F-16, DCS's flies like a brick. Clean, nothing on it, starting altitude 2,000ft perform a split S at a controlled 400 kts, you will come close to smacking the ground. While in BMS you can perform a split S within 1000 feet.
Hell DCS even sucks in the training department, here buy this plane for 80 bucks and not get any training content to teach you how to utilize this aircraft effectively, just read the manuals, no video, no special training mode, just manual. But yet Falcon had videos, and a properly done step by step manual to go along with it to train you. While others like Jane's USAF had in sim training for each step and would nag you until you performed said actions in training.
I played every iteration that Preceded DCS and I full on agree, ED needs to create a completely new engine from the ground up and have accurate flight models, better more realistic damage modeling, and better AI, the old engine just can't do it.
I used to play with 1.0 editor a lot ince afaik that was the only way getting something going, saw the same in 2.0, lomac. Never DCS-ed apart from 40 min BS1, left it there. Still same menus, same mission editor, a bit prettier. It always tried to fry GPU on release or the stutter was serious anyway.
In Flanker 2, you could cheese every fight by flying really low. The AI would constantly switch between maneuvering and terrain avoidance.
As dumb as it was, maybe ED needs to bring this back, even though it's probably going to break helicopters completely, which then takes 3 months to fix.
I got caught in scissors sooo many times in OG F4
AI from 1998 smarter then most war thunder pilots
The most expensive tech demo on the market!
What would be interesting is comparing DCS to its earliest direct predecessor, Flanker.
I get the impression DCS is more PVP than PVE oriented when it comes to air-to-air.
that imfamous turn @ 3:11 is the infinite rate turn that is due to the fact of every DCS AI flys a SFM or standard flight model where they do not lose energy, maintain airspeed and G indefinitely. which i think is ridiculous i believe this was changed around maybe a year ago for some aircraft but still affects a majority of the aircraft in dcs world especially in instant action missions for the hornet and mustang.
I didn't play the original Falcon 4.0, but I spent a lot of time in Allied force. I studied the manual for months, overcoming the language barrier and the difficulty of understanding things, I watched Pete Bonanni's video tutorials to understand how to fight migs, and gathered my strength to test myself in a fight with migs or su. Each fight was like a dance with death, and I was doing my best to avoid being left in the crosshairs, let alone win the fight. And when I managed to shoot down a mig, it was a real celebration, I almost never enjoyed the game as much as I did at such moments. And when I was ready for the campaign, I never got into a dogfight, not even with the 29, let alone the 21, the falcon's AI taught me an important lesson, you better not mess with it, otherwise you will understand why NATO respected the 29 and how you should handle these guys in the air, otherwise you will get a nice opportunity to eject from your sockeye in the DPRK.
Remembering this experience and playing DCS, the artificial intelligence there is just a joke
Feels like multiplayer and good graphics have made game devs less inventive in general
Imagine if they spent their button and switch simulation development time on things that actually mattered like AI
In all fairness, DCS is pretty much a game where the multiplayer experience is the reason to play
War thunder has better dogfighting AI than that, and I'm pretty sure they just pull towards you constantly. Didn't realize it was that bad.
Yea I’ve seen the ai planes on ec maps randomly pull for shots or fire missiles at people that get too close to the bombers
@@stormjet814 I've never seen them fire missiles, but they can definitely dogfight, especially the plain name ones that pad player counts at certain BR ranges.
@@evandoerofthings6538 if i remember they have advantage on the player with some physic effect set to null like G and stuff maybe they corrected that but idk been a month or 2 i stopped playing this shit
@@evandoerofthings6538 "Edward" getting 10 kill streak in AAB
What I'm slowly gathering is that I will need to start playing BMS for a good single player experience.
I remember having good fights with the DCS AI back then but when I fly against the AI now they pretty much always crash into the terrain
Well, i mean... multiplayer. Not protecting ED tho, but i personally i hate them for prices
To add insult to injury. When you try to watch back the track where the AI has done the same thing over and over like clockwork it will change when you try to replay it.
And then just randomly eject in the middle of corrupted track.
Good video brother. DCS AI is like: "Oh, I'm on deck, let's do a infinite two circle fight with him at my 6"
@@TaFusaro omg he's coming at me let me fly straight and dump flares
@@andrewa837 It’s incredible how DCS AI has always the exactly same behavior, it’s literally that haha
This is why i've stopped playing DCS. I'm slowly getting into BMS, but i've never used the F-16 and am a bit busy. But DCS is just too frustrating ATM, ground AI is literally non existent beyond the aiming script(which is fucking shit, it has perfect aim and always sees you) and the 'move when nearby friendly is hit' script. Half of the experience was learning the aircraft, that is fun. But i've been playing DCS for about 2 years, the problems were still apparent from the beginning, but no development of core ground AI and marginal development of BVR only AI over a several year period is just atrocious. You can only go so far on a MP only experience. Especially if ground attack is what you enjoy.
"... DCS has secured a $77m contract to offer certain support services to the US Air Force's (USAF) Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Centre Fighter Test …"
"Some air forces have used DCS World as a training aid. A professional version called Mission Combat Simulator (MCS) is available for organizational use."
You do realize that the public and private versions of software are usually separate, right?
@@mjkoo5365 ok Mr no multiplayer 😂😂😂😂🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
On point. I tried to take on a Mig-29, guns only in BMS. Flew circles around my F-16 and eventually shot me down. Same thing repeated 10 times. In DCS, it's relatively easier as the AI sort of 'gives up' after some time.
AI just dumps ALL flares at pre-merge
You can change that in the AI settings, you can make it so they only chaff/flare when a missile is fired.
It should be a good project to import these older but better AI scripts into DCS.
Oh wow.. seeing and hearing the original Falcon 4.0 again brings back so many memories
Even the RWR sounds were epic 😄
And thats why I play Falcon 4 Allied Force
Eye opening. Saved me some money - thanks a great lot for this.
Thats the reason why I play Falcon 4 Allied Force on my channel
Even Strike Fighters 2 AI is, marginally, better than DCS's, and it's not particularly bright.
Especially strike fighters 2 North Atlantic ai is also much better . They will shoot you if you cross their nose
Trust me, you flying a Mig-23 -> you also would not turnfight a F-16, you'd extend for miles and turn back for a frontal attack again. You'd also not start vertical maneuvers because of the hard time you'd have to set the wing sweep for climb and dive. There is almost nothing that can beat the mig-23's acceleration in straigt flight, so he tries that instead. That mig-23 in Falcon 4.0 flew like a guy in a Mig-21 and lost all his energy within seconds. You were even able to shoot at him with the gun.
Anything is better than literally flying straight. It's funny despite how primitive the flight models and aircraft are in Falcon 4.0 you still see the wings sweep realistically. I have lots of other footage of the mig23s doing it.
I didn't get a single thing that was going on during this video (basically), since I am not familiar with advanced fighter jet combat lol, but I can TOTALLY understand that having the DCS AI CRASH INTO THE TERRAIN is completely outrageously bad. I could also tell the 1998 AI was surviving far longer than the 2024 AI, and it seemed like you were having a difficult time with the 1998 one.
Being beat by a 1998 sim is extremely embarrassing 😅😅You've actually convinced me to check out that 1998 game and learn how to do combat in fighter jets lol
Ah, yes.
I forgot that there's a wholly cheaper, much more rich and full, equally if not moreso capable combat flight sim available.
Thank you for this video popping up in my recommendations to remind me that Falcon 4.0 exists.
Wow thats so cool! Never realized Falcon 4 had such good ai
I like ace combat
Arcade plane goes woosh, carries 40 missiles, shoots orbital laser
I play DCS for the flight model and Fidelity and focus on ground combat. If never were to want to do dog fighting it’s always multiplayer. I played Falcon AF/BMS for years. But switched to DCS because it more accurate for what I wish to use it for. If you want to play solo dogfighting and don’t feel DCS AI is up to par then play Falcon/BMS. But I find these simulators far more enjoyable playing with actual people. Who really want to play alone?
I prefer playing alone generally. People suck.
@@majorborngusfluunduch8694 Why do people suck. That are fore more unpredictable than a computer simulation. And I have spent countless hours flying on a team, from prebriefs and mission planning to full debriefs. There's nothing else like it.
Because most DCS multiplayer is just fancy team deathmatch
But the flight models are nonsense too. What does “fidelity” mean anymore? Is it all just marketing fluff?
None of the flight models in DCS are remotely as good as the BMS F-16 flight model, and I would bet most of the other ones as well.
very cool video idea i appreciate the breath of fresh air. im subbing
what skill level was the AI in DCS vs the AI in Falcon 4?
important question
Yeah defintely feels like these DCS AI were not set to a high skill level. DCS AI on Ace is fairly solid
@@hresvelgr7193I agree from experience.
@@hresvelgr7193 yeah 100%. I flown dcs long enough to recognize the difference between rookie VS Ace AI enemies...
Important information missing. Just stupid it isn’t mentioned, even if it is on Ace level.
i feel like an alien coming here, like idk cool magic words
Well, DCS is 15 years old, and if you go back to Flanker (1) that's close to 30 years old. I guess they still use the same AI engine 😂
Excellent video and excellent point!
Would be interesting to see some other aircraft, the mig 23 is low fidelity
Contentious statement sir. I agree. Falcon 4 and follow ons is a great game. For me, the main points is the fact that it takes place in a dynamic environment. Try the "going for a rate fight on the deck", in falcon and dont be surprised when a zsu or manpad ruins your day. Go for full-on bvr at full afterburner and end up walking home.
As I started with DCS, I was always annoyed by the buggy campaigns and mostly useless AI when I played redfor. One mission where we needed to take off, my wingman consistenlty crashed at the IL-76 and ejected. I know he was following waypoints, but as if it wasn't possible to programm the AI avoiding obstacles on their path.
back then they didn't have enough space for programming actual AIs so they just sacrificed the souls of veteran pilots directly into the game
Great job in showing this. 100% true and hopefully DCS gets its act together and actually does something about it.
Well, Falcon was one of the most realistic ones. I loved the Microprose and Janes sims, I don't really know how advanced the AI was regarding dogfighting. What the sims did usually have where realistic and motivating campaigns ... storylines. Strike Commander was also awesome, there was some dogfighting there. And a wonderful storyline with cinematic sequences.
good work
Great Video! Most Studios don't even try anymore these days as long as money comes in somehow.
I just found out about this game (+BMS) since i'm interested in "DCS-like" simulators.
Never heard of Falcon BMS but looks super intersting!
Are there still active players? Do i have to be fluent in "aviation" to play it? (I'm a Beginner)
DCS really offers nothing new or better except graphics. It's just better looking.
Convinently ignoring carrier operations, better multiplayer or the ability to fly anything that's not a Viper or a frankensteined Viper
@@hresvelgr7193 I wasn't talking just about Falcon 4.0. I have been playing flight sims since the 1980's and DCS has not brought anything new or groundbreaking to the genre except better-looking graphics and high-fidelity cockpits.
@@gtdcoderits only good for youtube tactical milsim larpers content multiplayer fun lol
@@hresvelgr7193 I'd fly a viper and an F15C constantly in a campaign where I get medals and actively repel the enemy rather than have multiple aircraft fly in a dead ass environment
@@muhammadsaleh7229 You say that as if you can’t make DCS not a “dead ass environment” which is completely and utterly wrong
Anything with a multiplayer component is an excuse to not work on the Ai.
"Oh do you think the Ai sucks? Yes? Well we just spent a day on it, you're supposed to play multiplayer."
They sometimes out right say this. It's pathetic.
I remember when I used to play DCS, I would beat an F-14A with the A-4E community mod, on average 50% of the time, with the other 50% me losing too much energy and literally crashing into the ground (pilot error)
man i remember playing DID f-22 sim as a kid. it was all frustration until i got my head around on how to actually lock targets and fire some aim9 and am120. i wish more sims reproduced the 90s campaing style of those back in the day games and not be barren empty worlds outside of a cockpit. Might even give BMS a try!
Maneuver kill with a rate fight at 180° seperation is wild
Which part of the vid?
@@andrewa837, 7:35, but rewatching it was not 180°. Still, you'd not even pulled him into the hud at the time he crashed. I think anyone but the AI would have prioritized not hitting the mountain or would have considered hiding behind it.
@@nightlight0x07cc Oh I see what you mean. Lol. Yeah no excuse for the AI here.
@@nightlight0x07cc Check out my newer video, it gets worse.
For WW2 content DCS AI is noticeably worse than IL2 BOX and that is saying somthing. Also the flight model in DCS WW2 aircraft is just not right for most of the aircraft (hyper sensitively). DCS is good for one thing - in depth cocpit simulator. If you like learning when to flip switches go for it. Otherwise not so much.
it's not just DCS: i wanted to play the Ka-50 campaign, but my wingmen would simply fly into mountainsides or nosedive when i told them to use their A2G missiles.
I got so sick of it I decided to fly an IL-2 BoS campaign: the campaign itself has interesting attrition-mechanics, but the AI will simply take every head-on and crash into the enemy XD
And should they miraculously miss they will both enter a lazy turn in which the AI will magdump every bullet without pulling lead, so firing a perfect bullethose JUST behind the bandit^^
its baffling honestly..
I'm just glad i'm a multiplayer, but it was pretty scarring wanting to fly PvE for once and not being able :D
Its because people spent thousands on their vr and hotas setups and cant handle that older non-vr games are better.
@@thelordofcringe honestly the only thing that made old sims bad is lack of headtracking and resolution, now with dgvoodoo2 and ddrawcompat, we are in a golden age with that too.
DCS AI is lucky DCS missiles and radars are also broken.
As I’ve seen some people mention war thunder, AI are 50/50 they’ll either kick your fucking ass in and take advantage of every mistake you make or just brain off and do the widest turns
Great job man! Another 90's sim player here. Miss the challenge of beating the pc (yes, the pc, AI is far more complex and today anything is called that way, when is not). The main point of every game is to be fun, alone or multiplayer, then you can add whatever you want: endless manuals, insane cockpit details, etc. Eagle Dynamics are becoming a snowball: poor pc (ai lol) behaviour, 3d models of lock on era, endless (again) own and third party products (rip F-15E) and so on. I think they will stop for two years to put in order the mess that the sim is.
It’s a shame DCS AI is bad. It was bad in LockOn and in Flaming Cliffs. The dynamic campaign in Falcon is cool and all from a technical standpoint, but never had much interest in it. I never could get past the opening day BARCAPS or the inevitable shoot-down on some suicide mission to crater a runway before losing interest. Does the US not have cruise missiles for that task? Why are we sending fighters to photograph the damage? Satellites are a thing.
What I enjoyed most was the sandbox element of Flaming Cliffs, setting up my own scenarios based on real-world limited conflicts. The issue was always the AI. Always. It was a coin flip if it would work. AI wingmen were useless, basically decoys and nothing more.
Try fighting a mig-15 on ace in dcs. It’s great. J-20 on BMS = mig-15 ace dcs
@@briantoplessbar4685 that's hilarious
Actually I've found out that the Hornet (playable one) has the best dogfighting AI currently and sometimes the Su30, whenever it decides to work. The rest are bugged out to the point that they decide to run away at the merge.
DCS ai I believe is based on similar algorytm as IL2 1946 was. Enemies are dumb. But their jets have unlimited amount of flares and engines produce thrust comparable with Millenium Falcon only lol
If you're already playing Falcon, you should check out the BMS mods for it, really helps to modernize the visuals and allows you to add whole new maps, planes, functionalities, etc...
@@RealSiViX I have BMS and a whole hotas setup :)
This video is fucking hilarious I can’t stop laughing
Same exact thing with Arma bro. People will gobble on Bohemia's dick saying "muh ai is advanced actually" when they can't even drive a truck without deviating from the road to purposefully ram into the nearest tree. I think there is a species of 40-year old british men who live on sim forums to defend the company from any kind of accusation that the game is not perfect, dismissing any kind of evidence as outright fakery
The KEY difference is that ARMA allows complete modding of their environment. DCS doesn't open anything up to the public, such as terrain creation, or custom aircraft with avionic.
@@andrewa837 you have a point, but only to a degree. The arma engine is horribly made and you encounter things that are hardcoded into the game for no reason (for example, if AI cannot find a path, they will noclip through walls and things) and there's no way to stop them from happening even with mods. DCS is less open and at least they're transparent about it I guess, but same shit different company, the bottom line is that fans need to stop sucking up to the devs when the design is plainly incompetent
I pay to play MP with a diverse set of aircraft. Thats always been the case with DCS/LOMAC.
Core features we're missing, shame they really put all the eye candy as first priority to any really meaningful changes. it just seems like their strategy is "If it looks good it means it plays good"
Their strategy is sucking in new players. That's why they advertise it as F2P on Steam and amazing visuals with epic soundtracks sell games/modules. Competent AI could be too frustrating, especially when you're still figuring out how your first module works, with a cheap joystick, bad settings, no headtracking...and it's not like new players could recognise how a good dogfight is supposed to look.
They really don't care about the old players. We probably already bought all the modules we want anyways.
I'm curious, how did you set up the AI in the DCS mission editor?
Exactly, don’t get me wrong the DCS AI ain’t the best but you can make it better in the AI advance settings.
wow,this brings back memory`s..falcon 4.0,micropose..it used to be my favorite!
DCS enemy AIs units are over-cheated monkeys and Ally AIs are stupid as a rock, period. Said that, I have been enjoying DCS gameplay a lot during 4-5 years, and I play EXCLUSIVELY SP.
I'm not saing that DCS is the culmination of human technology and knowledge, quite the opposite. I hate the frame drops, the constant CTD, the overprized stuff, the way ED ignores every request to fix core problems or easy suggestions from players, the GET US MORE REALISM mantra, the general bugs everywhere because all is EA, the broken core functionalities every update, etc.
But, How come I enjoy it? because I understand what is the strong point for single player in DCS. With all due respect, I don't say this as a critic to your point (that is completely accurate and understandable), but another way to enjoy it.
DCS is a great sandbox, with a powerfull Mission Editor and a great scripting engine, that allows us to play and create highly inmersive missions, with a lot of voiceovers and in-mission triggers.
I don't care if the AI is not a match for a 1vs1 fight, because I don't play that way. I have 2 o 3 times a week where I have enought time to play a DCS mission, so I try to make it count: I play missions where I taxi, takeoff, fly to the AO, launch AI packages to open a gap in the enemy defenses, bomb/escort/take pictures of/support/explore/hunt something, AAR returning to base and land. All surounded by random events, voiceovers, in-mission events and in VR.
For me the joy is the ride during the mission and, if DCS do not ruin it with a bug (missiles refuse to be launched, triggers fail because reasons, CTD in the worst moment, etc), I can call it a day.
for single players like me, I think that BMS is about dinamic campaign (strategic) and air combat (a way to play "Multiplayer" in single player). DCS is about history driven missions.
Anyway, DCS should have an AI improvement for sure. Because even history driven missions are ruined when your support package decides to drop all the payload and return home instead of doing their asigned SEAD mission :(
sim dark age feelsbadman
DCS is Ultra Realistic Cockpit Simulator so they dont care outside of cockpit sadly
They care about making never-ending Early Acce$$ modules and graphics
Yep, very revealing haha
Love Falcon Series