HETMAN - Artificial Commander

[stubs 10]

(Edit: Disregard)

Rydygier, I found the cause to the engine problem.

It only occurs if you use the "flyInHeight" command for the aircraft. I didn't get any problems with the Su-34 however (might need some more testing), even when I tested with and without. I used "this flyInHeight 500."

Thanks, Stubs.

Edit: Nevermind, the problem isn't with flyInHeight, I'll do more testing. Also, the problem occured with the ACE Su-30.

Edited June 7, 2012 by stubs

[euly 0]

(Edit: Disregard)

Rydygier, I found the cause to the engine problem.

It only occurs if you use the "flyInHeight" command for the aircraft. I didn't get any problems with the Su-34 however (might need some more testing), even when I tested with and without. I used "this flyInHeight 500."

Thanks, Stubs.

Edit: Nevermind, the problem isn't with flyInHeight, I'll do more testing. Also, the problem occured with the ACE Su-30.

Do you have the ACE Su-30 defined in your Init.sqf?

[stubs 10]

Do you have the ACE Su-30 defined in your Init.sqf?

I have the Su-30 in the RHQSitRep.sqf under RHQ_Air. But I never heard of it being defined in the init.sqf...

[Rydygier 1302]

Do you mean, that you are editing RydHQSitRep.sqf for adding RHQ with new classnames? It is possible and may work if done correctly, but RHQ arrays defined in init.sqf like any other config variables is easier and recommended way.

[stubs 10]

Yup. :) Thanks for the info! I use "find"to check for errors in the text so it ussually works out pretty well.

Thanks, Stubs.

[friznit2 350]

HAC should detect (re-)spawned units with next cycle. Reset is not needed. Still, not sure if HAC is fully MP compatibile.

It's not, without a bit of tweaking. The code runs for every client connected, so you get a lot of doubling up, which can effect overall performance quite severely. But to be properly MP compatible it really needs to be recoded as FSM's with calls to common functions rather than the current method of duplicating scripts for multiple commanders. Sadly this is well beyond my capabalities, and the experts I know are all currently busy on other projects!

[euly 0]

It's not, without a bit of tweaking. The code runs for every client connected, so you get a lot of doubling up, which can effect overall performance quite severely. But to be properly MP compatible it really needs to be recoded as FSM's with calls to common functions rather than the current method of duplicating scripts for multiple commanders. Sadly this is well beyond my capabalities, and the experts I know are all currently busy on other projects!

Rydygier will obviously know the best way to do it, but I thought MP was just a matter of telling the scripts to exit if they are on clients.

[Rydygier 1302]

Well... MP scripting isn't my speciality, and I doubt if will be, cause MP is rather beyond my interests (never was too good in doing things, that not interest me). FSMs... FSMs are something, that lies somewhere ahead of me and tempting, so who knows? But I don't know any good tutorial for FSM's, haven't any "foothold" to begin learning, especially for level just above absolute beginner. As for functions for HAC - currently I'm doing exactly that. Cutting off some redundancy, and there is real hope for only one set of files for any number of Leaders, still this is a bit of work, and not everyday have a time to play with this.

[friznit2 350]

I may be able to persuade some of the MSO code monkies to take a look at the MP side once we're done on the next version. We already got one working version (albeit a much older set of code) into MP no probs, so it's certainly possible. HETMAN is filling a niche that is sorely missing in ArmA though - a genuine thinking AI commander, so please keep it up. It's a fanastic concept and one that should be getting a lot more attention from the community (IMHO).

[orcinus 121]

@friznet2: +1

I don't play MP so can't comment on that aspect, but agree with everything else 200%.

@all: apologies for the continued delay in releasing the HAC + DAC demo missions, but RL (work) is currently very time-consuming. Basically all is now working - thanks especially to Ryd & MadRussian - & I need to clean up & amalgamate various scripts controlling activation/inactivation of DAC zones, etc. I was hoping to finish a lightweight automatic medic script for the first demo, but probably better left til the second demo.

[euly 0]

How does HAC work with branches of BluFor and OpFor, such as [uSMC, Army] and [RU, Takistani]? I ask because I was starting to create a mission that has two BluFor leaders, USMC and Army, but then I realized I already have a mission with mixed units, just not two BluFor leaders. The HAC complex demo mission uses USMC and CDF, but will it work the same as USMC and Army?

[stubs 10]

Look for this in the "complex mission" init.sqf...

RydHQ_Included = [];

RydHQB_Included = [];

{

if ((faction (leader _x)) == "USMC") then {RydHQ_Included = RydHQ_Included + [_x]};

if ((faction (leader _x)) == "CDF") then {RydHQB_Included = RydHQB_Included + [_x]};

}

foreach AllGroups;

Just Change CDF to the faction needed for LeaderHQB

[Rydygier 1302]

Perhaps such "faction seeker" will be some day integrated in HAC as optional limited control mode (meltedping's idea). Of course above method uses "included" array, so, as is in init config of complex demo, RydHQ and RydHQB_SubAll need to be set to false.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Rydygier

[euly 0]

Look for this in the "complex mission" init.sqf...

RydHQ_Included = [];

RydHQB_Included = [];

{

if ((faction (leader _x)) == "USMC") then {RydHQ_Included = RydHQ_Included + [_x]};

if ((faction (leader _x)) == "CDF") then {RydHQB_Included = RydHQB_Included + [_x]};

}

foreach AllGroups;

Just Change CDF to the faction needed for LeaderHQB

You're right. Good thinking. I believe Army is BIS_US, is that wrong?

---------- Post added at 12:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:12 AM ----------

Perhaps such "faction seeker" will be some day integrated in HAC as optional limited control mode (meltedping's idea). Of course above method uses "included" array, so, as is in init config of complex demo, RydHQ and RydHQB_SubAll need to be set to false.

The array in the Init.sqf works just fine. I don't see the sense in messing with it unless you know a faction seeker will work without problems.

---------- Post added at 12:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 AM ----------

Well... MP scripting isn't my speciality, and I doubt if will be, cause MP is rather beyond my interests (never was too good in doing things, that not interest me). FSMs... FSMs are something, that lies somewhere ahead of me and tempting, so who knows? But I don't know any good tutorial for FSM's, haven't any "foothold" to begin learning, especially for level just above absolute beginner. As for functions for HAC - currently I'm doing exactly that. Cutting off some redundancy, and there is real hope for only one set of files for any number of Leaders, still this is a bit of work, and not everyday have a time to play with this.

I feel like an idiot for some of this stuff because my scripting abilities are limited an outdated, but back in the OFP days, a script with something like

!isServer else goto "exit"

would help eliminate client side scripts.

[Rydygier 1302]

There are some sqf substitutes for that, I think. Problem is to know where, in what moment and in what cases such code should be used, how to deal with local/global effects of given script commands (and to know, which of them works fine over net, and which are malfuncioning), and also important, how usage of given code will affect net traffic. Currently I'm even not sure, what is dedicated server, what differs it from normal server, if this is improtant, and haven't any knowledge about architecture and specificity of such MP prepared computers network or prepared for MP mission. There is also some concept of anti-cheat signing addons for MP, which also is beyond my skills. Easier is to mention all, that I know about MP, than all, that I do not know. Fact, that I never was playing any MP gameplay over the net with another people not makes all this not a bit easier.

All this MP stuff is for me simply another world, terra incognita, sirens and sea monsters devouring ships drawn on map's blank areas... :)

Edited June 9, 2012 by Rydygier

[stubs 10]

DUUUUR!!!

Hey Rydygier, don't worry about the aircraft problem, It was caused by a mistake in the Sitrep.sqf.

sorry for the inconvenience!!

[SavageCDN 231]

@friznet2: +1

I don't play MP so can't comment on that aspect, but agree with everything else 200%.

@all: apologies for the continued delay in releasing the HAC + DAC demo missions, but RL (work) is currently very time-consuming. Basically all is now working - thanks especially to Ryd & MadRussian - & I need to clean up & amalgamate various scripts controlling activation/inactivation of DAC zones, etc. I was hoping to finish a lightweight automatic medic script for the first demo, but probably better left til the second demo.

@friznet2 - another +1 - I agree this is sorely missing in Arma (SP and MP) but would change the game entirely if MP-compatible

@Orcinus - that is great to hear looking forward to the demo

[euly 0]

I've been using HAC almost exclusively over the past few weeks with large maps of upwards of 200 - 300 units. I've left the mission running overnight often just to see the result the next day. What I often notice after 10 hours of real time is only 7 hours have passed in game (this is reasonable because my quad-core is aging), but the main problem is the game slows down substantially and fps is low (less than 20fps).

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me because many units have died and many are then on rest or reserve missions. If I started with 300, and 7 hours later there are 50, wouldn't the game run faster?

I can understand a memory leak, but I usually end up restarting the mission and it will be back to normal, indicating ArmA is running fine.

[Rydygier 1302]

Intriguing issue. At the moment no idea, what is causing this. Perhaps first thing to find out is if this issue will occur on the same map after same time, but without HAC (maybe some manual set of looped waypoint routes to mimic mission dynamics somehow). I can re-think code flow through all loops, but doubt, if find anything this way. Empirical way may prove better - lots of diagnostic diag_logs in each file to know, where code is (stuck?) after theses houres. But this is too time-costly. Running computer all night for some reasons is not an option for me.

As for me - stuck currently at stage, when trying to make, so all Leaders will use same set of files. It is possible (lots of work though), but realized, that if I do this as previously planned (most of global variables, and there is lots of them, must be replaced with setVariabled values), then amount of code will be reduced, but used files will be noticeable larger and less efficient, so HAC after this may paradoxically work worse. Must do this change before start think about any new features or improvements. So, until some new idea will appear in my brain, I'm doing some secondary stuff, lately for example melee combat scripts.

Edited June 13, 2012 by Rydygier

[euly 0]

Intriguing issue. At the moment no idea, what is causing this. Perhaps first thing to find out is if this issue will occur on the same map after same time, but without HAC (maybe some manual set of looped waypoint routes to mimic mission dynamics somehow). I can re-think code flow through all loops, but doubt, if find anything this way. Empirical way may prove better - lots of diagnostic diag_logs in each file to know, where code is (stuck?) after theses houres. But this is too time-costly. Running computer all night for some reasons is not an option for me.

As for me - stuck at the moment at stage, when trying to make, so all Leaders will use same set of files. It is possible (lots of work though), but realized, that if I do this as previously planned (most of global variables, and there is lots of them, must be replaced with setVariabled values), then amount of code will be reduced, but used files will be noticeable larger and less efficient, so HAC after this may paradoxically work worse. Must do this change before start think about any new features or improvements. So, until some new idea will appear in my brain, I'm doing some secondary stuff, lately for example melee combat scripts.

Eight leaders is a bit much though, especially in the context of features that only work with a specific number of leaders. I can't speak for everyone else, but I think 4 leaders is reasonable, 6 is even excessive. Once you do find a way to have them all use one script, then you've probably found a good method to start theorizing MP.

[Rydygier 1302]

There is (or rather probably will be) one important reason for eight Leaders - big boss. One Leader per flank, one in center, one as reserve, opposite side - same. For such army set up four per side is better, than three per side (still possible - one per flank, no center, one in the reserve). Shortly - greater number of Leader gives more army set up possibilities for big boss.

Still time cost of maintaining HAC's code may prove more important factor, and then, if neccessary, number of Leaders may be reduced...

So a question for any HAC users: what was maximal number of Leaders used by you simultanously so far?

[euly 0]

I use 3, sometimes 4, but you should probably create a poll for that question so people don't have to post.

[anthropoid 1]

Hey guys, not entirely sure what HETMAN mod does, but it sure sounds interesting. I probably will eventually get into Arma PVP, but for the time-being I'm having fun just checking out singleplayer stuff. In particular I've been playing Markb50k's "Lost" Mission a lot.

I LOVE that mission: sandboxy, guerilla war, need to fucus on logistics and building up local support, etc.

However, I've been very frustrated here lately with the High Command features in the mission (which I think were somehow based on Clayman's Group Manager that he first created in his "Zero" mod?).

Basically, two things: (1) Regroup / Return to Formation commands work very werid (sometimes) with other AI soldiers somehow becoming Team Leader and the focus of the regroup / return to formation orders; (2) High Command Groups behave erratically (sometimes), examples being: they simply do not respond to waypoint orders; immediately following a firefight after the Team Leader has been killed, the Group charges off 1.5km away from the area where its last waypoint was given (basically where they were 'left'); once a group has charged off like this it seems oblivious to waypoint commands to return.

I go into great detail about it all in the last couple posts in the Lost thread: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?132721-SP-Lost-v-4-0-Like-a-mash-up-of-Dogs-of-War-and-Manhattan-(without-the-bugs)!/page23

Reason I'm posting in this thread is, well cause you are likely to know a lot about AI behavior and maybe could comment generally, but maybe also to speculate whether running Hetman Mod while playing the Lost mission would help? Keep in mind, the Lost mission has some distinct features when it comes to High Command mode (which to me makes it more of a 'mod' than a mission, but ah well . . .). Through the #8 Communications menu in Lost there are a bunch of different options that allow the player to switch around to directly control different AI toons, to merge and split existing groups etc. I don't know how well this would play with Hetman Mod?

[Rydygier 1302]

Hetman is not designed to work with already done missions. This is a tool for mission maker that want to have eg intelligent, dynamic opponent commanding all/part of enemy groups or want to prepare mission with player as such general commander's subordinate, or to prepare only some dynamic war background for mission's plot, or just for a lazy player (as me), who wants only to set up some groups, and voila, get dynamic and unpredictable, but conducted in reasonable and sofisticated manner "instant battle". All info you can find in manual. Shortly - if you set up in editor groups, as many, as you wish, name one of the TL properly and add for them some objective triggers in places, that should be attacked by them (all described in manual), best also some opfor on map (eg defending these objectives' area, or some spots en route), maybe even with own objectives and own Leader, then all these groups get a higher level commanding "brain", that will issue them a waypionts in the manner, that should in certain limit mimic human commander orders (no random, no straight forward, but with flanking, logistic support and so on) with main target - to capture all its objectives and secondary - to defeat any spotted enemy. Artificial commander is, technically, some kind of decision-making automaton with "blurry intelligence". Check also included demos to see with own eyes, what HAC do.

As for "Lost" problems - not sure frankly. Played this some time and will play more, also played with ASR, but for me all works rather good. Regroup works, like should (only ASR feature of rearming sometimes is a little annoying, when you unload cargo, and all, one after one, are going to pick up some shitty smoke grenade stored in teh cargo, pistol without ammo or something like that. Hard to customize their armament, if without weapon they try to arm theirself immediatelly. Sometimes I'm forced to hide cargo from my own men to avoid this "wild rearming"), HC orders are also usually fulfilled. Still, for example I never switch to another unit, not needed. Generally I mess with all this commanding stuff as little as possible. Only sometimes some units incorporate into my group (eg for retrieving BRDM for me as vehicle), and with some creating separate group - nice tool. 90% stuff doing myself. One thing - if group knows about enemy will try to deal with them before return to movement toward waypoint. It is normal, AI behaviour, not so easy to avoid, and for this separate scripting is needed. All also depends, what changes in AI or HC mission maker did. Only he knows full answer, I think. It is possible, of course, that used custom HC scripts contain some problems and issues, I'm not too good familirized with them yet. One for sure - need to accustomed, that in Arma units by default have some degree of independence, and aren't like puppets, that do always exactly, what was ordered and absolutelly nothing more. Especially when in fight. If I found time for more playing will try to do, what you do and if notice something helpful, will describe this in "Lost" thread.

---------- Post added at 09:21 ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 ----------

I use 3, sometimes 4, but you should probably create a poll for that question so people don't have to post.

So created a poll. :)

[anthropoid 1]

Thank you so much for your response Rydygier, that is very

informative. I received a response to one of the threads where I inquired about this last night and the fellow suggested setting HC Groups to "Hold Fire" which supposedly helps with them not pursuing enemies across the map.

Also, it seems that the HC Command features in "Lost" are from the "High Command Extensions" mod by DomZ. I've inquired with him to see if he may have any ideas.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?123232-High-Command-Extensions

I just wanted to add, since you are obviously knowledgeable about the AI in this game: learning more about AI programming is one of my mid-term career goals. I figure that the ArmAverse might be a good venue for me to learn by doing.

At present I am frustratingly inept at editing, modding, and even just getting simple things like CPBO to work to extract .pbo files so that I can (as a simple start) change the time-limit on the Freedom Fighters mission so that you have a week or more to finish it instead of 3 hours :p

My other problem is: I'm still rather bad at the game, and until I can play it competently forging into modding/editing is going to be a 'part-time' activity as I simply learn to play the game more effectively.

Edited June 14, 2012 by Anthropoid
clarity