AI Improvement

[froggyluv 2130]

Yeah this to me constitute "not using cover". I too see the ai often move to cover but it is often for such a short time that it doesn't really make an effect on gameplay. It looks cool but often in combat the ai are not sticking to cover but rather moving to cover - and this gets them killed. Rarely do I see an ai engaging me while he is partially obstructed by cover. Even rarer still is seeing the ai fully hide themselves from me in cover. And both these events are not to due to ai genius but rather fluke. The ai chose the right cover spot at the right time, with the right stance. The ai need to "camp" more, or at least, there should be an easy way for mission-makers and modders to make them camp.

Yeah pretty much. On a group level they are pretty good, but on an individual level they are quite dumb.

Well I expect this will be remedied as the last time I really delved into an Arma 2 SP session - ACR I believe -I was amazed at how well and how long my AI guys would pick their cover tree in the woods and fight from that one spot. Unless i pulled my distance maybe 30m away from there -they'd stay put. I wish there was some sort of 'unleash' command in which AI wouldn't try to keep formation at all and focus exclusively on their survival and positioning to counter engage.

Another thing I notice in Arma2 (haven't tested here) is that it is the AI leaders who are screwing up their subordinates cover plans by meaningless orders - try placing 50 individual enemies and your in for a much harder fight.

[Guest]

Nope. He has a point, with GTA at least.

Just like Arma, in GTA you are fighting enemies in a 360 degrees world and the AI can hadle it quite well, getting into proper cover, shooting in and out of cover and pushing forward; But thats it. The duration of a firefight have little to do with the AI, more with aiming system, 3rd person view and not the same health system for the player and NPCs.

Arma AI makes much more complex things (flaking, supression, some guess work...; that is specially evident when you are outnumbered, I got my ass served in the Inf showcase mission, often getting killed from positions that I tought were secure) but they fail at the simplests thing that is getting into cover when necessary. What is the point of knowing much complex stuff when you can kill them before they use those routines?

For open fields and such I think there is room for a lot of *possible* improvements. That cover thing that was intruduces in A2 betas probably wass just the beginning of a deeper change, that can only be made with a game starting from scratch (setting objects and stuff, even map design). I can see the AI using, at least, the up\down stances to shot from or hide in cover.

CQB and indoors seems to be the real problem, as the AI seems to HAVE TO always work in somekind of hive mind instead of individuals. They see, they report, they ask for higher levels what to do, then they do instead of just react for immediate treats. which is often the case in CQB scenarios.

I'm glad you generally get the idea of what I am saying.

To everyone else, perhaps I worded things a little bit wrong. I do not literally mean other games have more advanced AI than Arma.

I am saying their output in CQB, scripted, fake, or basic, is much better than in Arma. I honestly couldn't care less if the AI in Battlefield use 0% of my CPU because they are so fake, they *act* real. I agree that the AI in games like Battlefield generally suck. But what do you think would happen if you put Arma AI in there instead?

You would walk into a room, confronted by 10 Arma bots, who would look at you, ignore all available cover, lay on the floor, and then spend the next 15 seconds babbling to eachother trying to figure out what to do. By which point you decide the game sucks and turn it off.

Now, lets put things back into context a little. In real life rarely are you encountered with kiddy shooter scenarios, busting through buildings killing hundreds of people in crazy CQB. Real life battles tend to be much longer range and outdoors.

Arma simulates out door, long range combat very well. It's huge steps ahead of anything else. Luckily, this is where 90% of combat in Arma happens, and it's great. In this situation the AI has very few complex tasks, it can do it's job and it does it well.

The other 10%, well, like many of you I have played Flashpoint, Arma, and Arma 2 for hundreds and hundreds of hours. Don't tell me you haven't heard of this:

AI Have no clue how to deal with buildings

AI often can't perform simple tasks, like walking through a door

A command as simple as "get in that chopper" can leave AI running around like headless chickens

Getting AI to use intelligence, stay behind cover, and not die, is normally impossible.

AI can't drive or pilot to save their lives

In CQB AI will often stare at you and do nothing

In CQB AI get stuck and don't know where to go

In towns you may order an AI to walk 10 feet ahead, he will run 400 metres in a loop around town to get to that spot

AI go prone, all the time, no matter what, even if they blatantly need to find cover or move.

Etc, etc, etc...

I would go on but there is no point.

All I am suggesting is that the devs find a solution to "merge" some characteristics from fps games, into the already well working long range Arma AI, to make *simple* tasks possible, and to make CQB possible.

As I have said, the issues here are limited mainly to CQB and simple tasks. The AI seems to think way too hard about the most trivial of things.

You can think what you want about my comments, but no matter how advanced the AI engine is under the hood, it doesn't mean anything if the engine self destructs every time you ask it do something simple.

How anyone can possibly defend the CQB AI in Arma is beyond me.

---------- Post added at 19:13 ---------- Previous post was at 19:05 ----------

@Metalcraze, I voted your ticket up. Your video summarizes Arma 2 AI. 100% retarded when confronted with someone closer than 100 meters. This is more than just reflexes. His general behavior was mind boggling.

He identified you as an enemy. He looked at you. He wet himself a little. He then layed down. (Why would you lay down?? lol). After laying down he finally decided that, maybe he should try and kill you. And then, after all that, the retarded reflexes kicked in and he couldn't catch up with you.

There are so many flaws. The game is clearly optimized for long range combat, fair enough. But this is shocking.

[chrisb 196]

The problem with ai for Arma 3 is they have to live upto modded ai from both arma & arma2.

With modded ai in A2 we had the choice of pretty good all round ai, they weren’t perfect but they were very good, what I would like to see in BIS ai:

Well the basics we need are for them to have an awareness of their surroundings, this will lead onto heightened reactions when they are engaged.

Ten things below that make the ai better, not perfect, but better. If BIS ai could be this standard to start with, then the growth from that would be pretty impressive:

A foreword, all of these are simple tests, most very short some longer. Many are really low quality recordings (some quite old), full screen on some is fine (720hd), others need just 200% browser screen to see what’s going on, well you will see what I mean..

1/ Reaction to sound of fire ‘unseen’

To react to firing ‘unseen’ is one thing, to search out and deal with the threat is another.

2/ Reaction to smoke

3/ Reaction to incoming fire plus evasive counter actions

4/ Find cover wherever possible, but preferably hard cover

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH-urIkuLdY&list=PLj7LIw2iwG-HBxjqFG4Y32YHKRMkz2AF-&index=42

5/ Movement from cover to cover, the ability to break formation when ordered to and move sensibly through an area

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMiRCWs32QY&list=PLj7LIw2iwG-HBxjqFG4Y32YHKRMkz2AF-&index=54

6/ Quick/fast reactions from fire, seek the threat out quickly within a close area.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJu6Mi02JQA&list=PLj7LIw2iwG-HBxjqFG4Y32YHKRMkz2AF-&index=17

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXtY7C-QIdI

7/ Finding somewhere to position themselves, a good position, not just rush in, use caution. Then defend that position if need be, in this case a building.

8/ Talking of buildings, to use them and also to engage from them

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMcZfEr1y-M&list=PLj7LIw2iwG-HBxjqFG4Y32YHKRMkz2AF-&index=68

9/ Using buildings & position to see out (I have so many examples of this, just picked one out the hat)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxRJRD19l5I&list=PLj7LIw2iwG-HBxjqFG4Y32YHKRMkz2AF-&index=58

10/ The ability to surprise, they also throw grenades, may try to escape if captured, play dead until you've gone etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktZc_6sOlEo&list=PLj7LIw2iwG-HBxjqFG4Y32YHKRMkz2AF-&index=55

Most of the reactions above are configurable, as to what extent they may use these abilities.

Edited March 19, 2013 by ChrisB

[eem 1]

One thing I have noticed is that in this alpha build of ArmA3, the infantry AI (vanilla) will do things that previous versions (vanilla) did not do at all or barely.... so from my perspective, ArmA3 feels better already.

hint... and this really goes more for players with no prior combat infantry training...(or those with but are new to the game.. :)

Your AI will be a lot smarter if you don't do things that break it's trained doctrine... remember this game derives at it's core from a real military simulator sold to militaries around the world to train their troops. If you put yourself in the right position as a team leader, your AI will do all kinds of cool stuff for you, you will live longer as they will be watching the right sector(s), and call out threats relative. Also, when your player calls out threats to the AI they will already be in halfway decent position to respond. Just a little bit of knowledge goes a long way in this regard... I recommend studying a little on infantry formations and the roles of each position, then know which commands in ArmA will put your team in a decent stance and formation for a given situation the AI will react accordingly. One thing that is fun for me is in the editor, create a skirmish but put yourself in a non-leadership position. This can be done by making yourself a lower rank than the group leader. Then you will receive orders from the AI team lead and can give a more organic feel to what might have otherwise been a pretty static mission... :)

of course the above is more about the AI you are commanding...The other side of the discussion around the AI is more about presenting a threat to players that is believable enough to think there might have been a human performing that action instead of some "bot". Although, I don't know many humans who can with some degree of effectiveness jump from driving a tank, to flying an A-10, to providing the proper amount of force and circumstance in a firefight.... with that I think the AI in ArmA (any version) is topnotch compared to anything else I've seen in the consumer gaming world... (private and government is another matter.. ;)

[metalcraze 290]

I am saying their output in CQB, scripted, fake, or basic, is much better than in Arma.

Say again?

What's even more ridiculous is that in the middle of this video you can see how friendlies and enemies are standing literally 2m from each other and fire at each other like it's a scene straight from Hot Shots.

If we are to throw around strawmen - let's put Battlefield bots into ArmA3 world. It will just be human models floating in the air in the default animation with hands stretched to sides because they will have zero input on when they should play what animation and what cover they should take.

All I am suggesting is that the devs find a solution to "merge" some characteristics from fps games, into the already well working long range Arma AI, to make *simple* tasks possible, and to make CQB possible.

It won't work because games you use as examples have no AI. They use scripts. If you will come at BF bots from a side or rear they will keep staring down the corridor completely ignoring you. As the video demonstrates.

How will BIS script every possible scenario when you can come from any side in any numbers? Hell you can just blow up the wall (something you can do only in BF3 mp where - surprise - there are no bots) and go through a new hole. What then?

Edited March 18, 2013 by metalcraze

[froggyluv 2130]

I am saying their output in CQB, scripted, fake, or basic, is much better than in Arma. I honestly couldn't care less if the AI in Battlefield use 0% of my CPU because they are so fake, they *act* real. I agree that the AI in games like Battlefield generally suck. But what do you think would happen if you put Arma AI in there instead?

So you'd rather be fooled into something that looks like good AI than actual AI -reminds me of this

Ignorance is bliss. No thanks, I'd rather Arma keep building up their AI in incremental fashion than to try and mimic those other shooters scripted AI nonsense -you may find them fun, I find them utterly boring and predictable to mind numbing heights.

To say AI can't drive or pilot is just silly- they can traverse an entire country, drop off a squad to fight (by the hundreds), engage in enemy vehicles, and return home for lunch with a few orders. How many of your games allow for this? To nitpick that they sometimes stop for bunnies, or don't always line up the best trajectory for a missle attack compared to what they can do *relative to other games* is absurd.

Yes CQB still needs alot of work, I think everyone can agree upon this. But also look at the progress they have made as compared to OFP or Arma. They couldn't lean out from anything or place themselves in cover at all because they lacked the proper pathfinding to measure in such small increments. Ai can now crawl under a small space in a fence and take you out - thats pretty serious micro maneuvering in a game with potentially hundreds of AI's running around. You really can't come in here trashing their AI, especially comparing them to scripted shooters without acknowledging what they can do. Compare them to other sandbox-open world game AI -what do you have?

All I am suggesting is that the devs find a solution to "merge" some characteristics from fps games, into the already well working long range Arma AI, to make *simple* tasks possible, and to make CQB possible.

Ah yes, sounds reasonable enough -just "merge stuff". :rolleyes:

No thanks, I prefer the Red pill of realistic and flawed AI to the Blue pill of generic fluffy whack-a-mole "AI".

You would walk into a room, confronted by 10 Arma bots, who would look at you, ignore all available cover, lay on the floor, and then spend the next 15 seconds babbling to eachother trying to figure out what to do.

Hmm, put 3 AI in a room and every time I enter they shoot me dead in less than 2 seconds -10/10 ;)

Edited March 18, 2013 by froggyluv

[Guest]

Clearly the way I word things lets me down. As I keep on saying, I know full well that most other games use "fake" AI. At least in these games you keep mocking, the "ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE" has "ARTIFICIAL intelligence.

In Arma, CQB AI have no I. They are simply artificial, the intelligence part got left out.

Again, I see all the points you raise about other games, but you do nothing to prove how Arma is in any way better. (In CQB)

I am not some random guy who has just showed up and is hating, I have put as many hours in as any one else, and the AI in Arma falls to pieces as soon as they require CQB intelligence.

And your point about vehicles?

To say AI can't drive or pilot is just silly- they can traverse an entire country, drop off a squad to fight (by the hundreds), engage in enemy vehicles, and return home for lunch with a few orders. How many of your games allow for this? To nitpick that they sometimes stop for bunnies, or don't always line up the best trajectory for a missle attack compared to what they can do *relative to other games* is absurd.

There is nothing difficult about getting the AI to go from point A to point B, unload some troops, and then move to point C.

In a helicopter, they have virtually no obstacles to navigate, if you are lucky they won't crash into a tree on the way.

In vehicles, they have to follow a road. This is nothing new for any game. But the AI struggle. They can't make sharp bends without doing an 8 point turn, if they get too close to a vehicle in a convoy they stop, turn around, faff about, and then get back on their way. I can't even list a single point about ground based vehicle AI that is good. The physics of the cars do not help matters.

My knowledge of what causes the problems is limited. I know that. So my ability to constructively suggest how to improve things is flawed, which I apologize for. It might make me come across as un-constructive but I try. It's people who analyse things so carefully as yourself who should be thinking of ways to fix these issues, as you seem to understand the finer details.

However, my knowledge and experience of what the AI does is true, and my experience with Arma AI, dating right back to OFP, has been mixed. Some situations, with mods, in large outdoor areas, I have been literally blown away. The experiences I have had with friends in co-op is simply un-paralleled by any other game. Hundreds of AI merging on you from miles away, bullets and rpg's zipping over your head, it's awesome!

On another scale, confront the AI in CQB and the experience turns sour really fast. It's not terrible, and many of the situations I have pointed out do not occur 100% of the time. But the problems do exist, and do happen.

I just don't understand why everyone is so biased that they refuse to accept the flaws in this game.

If I made a list of Arma's good points, vs Arma's bad points, I would have a bible filled with the good, and a tiny sticky note filled with the bad. Arma get's a 120% from me in terms of how high I rate it. But to ignore some of it's weakest points, brushing them off with no real explanation, it doesn't make sense to me.

---------- Post added at 23:14 ---------- Previous post was at 23:11 ----------

P.S:

No thanks, I prefer the Red pill of realistic and flawed AI to the Blue pill of generic fluffy whack-a-mole "AI".

A.I is A.I mate, it's all artificial. No matter how you look at it, you are eating the blue pill every time. It's a question of which game tricks you the best.

[froggyluv 2130]

Well sorry if I come across as hostile or rabid fanboy - it's that I care ALOT about the AI Bohemia continues to deliver and I've seen the fate of other games just reduce AI to small scripted scenes or just outright omit them entirely (BF3). Of course I want to see them beef up the CQB, I've been ranting about implementing some indoor sub-routines ad nauseum infintum :D

The thing is I want valid AI concerns to scream to the front -grab BI's attention -and when a post comes across as "AI sucks period", I'm worried that BI will finally toss their hands up and say lets go full on MP or less extreme, it dilutes the main points many of us our trying to make. A clear vision if you will.

Now, your talking about the whole AI experience -not just the skills of the AI per se. Arma3's urban landscape adds to the AI experience as they are able to move freely and unhindered, now we just need them to hold cover, react to imminent threats quickly, use proper stance and movement thru buildings and eventually to use doors and windows effectively.

There is nothing difficult about getting the AI to go from point A to point B, unload some troops, and then move to point C.

In a helicopter, they have virtually no obstacles to navigate, if you are lucky they won't crash into a tree on the way

Maybe nothing fancy with that one individual endevour, but think about the entire AI machination when 5 of these helos are doing this under fire in dicey landscapes....Its not like the scripted Helo scene from Half Life where they don't have to worry about anything at all except your RPG, they have flight mechanics, trajectory of landings, evasive maneuvering, trees, hills etc... I'm always a little impressed by how well AI helos line up their missile strikes no matter how I try and evade them on foot :)

[Guest]

Fair enough man, I understand all your points.

I will say right now, I 100% agree that I want real, legitimate, non scripted AI! It's just the way it is now is very, very far from that dream.

And regarding helos, I agree about their engagement abilities. It normally takes them 1 to 3 runs before they decide to engage me, but when they do it is awesome. Dodging hydras is fun!

However I'm not too sure about their path finding in groups. I tried having 5 fly in formation, and no kidding, 2 of them crashed into each other, and all 5 exploded instantly, lol...

And without an invisible H they really, really aren't good at landing.

But there is plenty of hope for the future, I will say that.

BIS always deliver, they will again I am sure.

---------- Post added at 23:45 ---------- Previous post was at 23:43 ----------

And so far, Arma 3 has very much exceeded mine and most peoples expectations. Please don't think I am taking stabs at BIS.

They have done an AWESOME job!!!

I just really get annoyed by the AI.

[maddogseamus 1]

I think the AI model in ARMA 3 is extremely accurate.

[-Coulum- 35]

I wouldn't be too quick to bash scripted ai features. Keep in mind that most of the mods we love to say improve the ai... Zeus, GL4, TPW Suppress, TPW LOS and even ASR_AI... are scripts. Indeed they are much more complex dynamic and flexible than what you may see in battlefield or call of duty, but they are in the end scripts.

There is nothing difficult about getting the AI to go from point A to point B, unload some troops, and then move to point C.

In a helicopter, they have virtually no obstacles to navigate, if you are lucky they won't crash into a tree on the way.

In vehicles, they have to follow a road. This is nothing new for any game. But the AI struggle. They can't make sharp bends without doing an 8 point turn, if they get too close to a vehicle in a convoy they stop, turn around, faff about, and then get back on their way. I can't even list a single point about ground based vehicle AI that is good. The physics of the cars do not help matters.

Mmm no it isn't quite that easy. Imagine that you only had a chart showing you the azimuth, height, x,y and z displacement of a helicopter and nearby objects. This is only updated as fast as your computer is capable of. Now using this info, create a way of telling a blind person a single set of instructions on what keys to press in order to get that helicopter from any point on the map to any other point on the map. It would be quite a bit of work and is made even harder when you factor in the possibility of having to avoid certain areas of danger, or sticking to areas of cover as much as possible, which ai does do currently. It is quite an accomplishement.

Your right though grouping ai does make there vehicle handling go kind of crazy.

On another scale, confront the AI in CQB and the experience turns sour really fast. It's not terrible, and many of the situations I have pointed out do not occur 100% of the time. But the problems do exist, and do happen.

I just don't understand why everyone is so biased that they refuse to accept the flaws in this game.

Yes I agree. basically the smaller scale you get the less intelligent the ai become. In urban combat or even just combat in general, the individual ai don't seem to actually think much besides to aim and shoot their rifle. The smartest individual action I've seen ai do in combat is chuck a grenade into a compound after i ran in there to hide. There is not much intelligence in the individual ai. But then again their isn't much intelligence at that level in many other games as well. This is why I think that simply giving ai realistic skills (turn speed, aim spotting - not intellegence) will make the ai much better than the ai of some of the games you mention.

Clearly the way I word things lets me down. As I keep on saying, I know full well that most other games use "fake" AI. At least in these games you keep mocking, the "ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE" has "ARTIFICIAL intelligence.

I think the only thing that let you down is the fact that you mentioned bf3 and COD - because they truly don't have any ai.

Games like GTA however do have some features arma could take pointers from like cover usage. It is the basic things that other games (Read GTA, fallout, Ghost recon - not COD BF3 etc.) often have done well that arma fails at.

[johncage 30]

first step to ai improvement, open up two more cores and give them a dedicated thread so they're not limited by the fact that the game uses 2 cores.

this means faster reaction time, more units with the ability to react faster. pathfinding occurs more quickly...no more flaffing about doing loops next to an obstacle.

[metalcraze 290]

Clearly the way I word things lets me down. As I keep on saying, I know full well that most other games use "fake" AI. At least in these games you keep mocking, the "ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE" has "ARTIFICIAL intelligence.

In Arma, CQB AI have no I. They are simply artificial, the intelligence part got left out.

'Artificial' is surely there but the 'intelligence' part was never there in BF3 as we can see.

Again, I see all the points you raise about other games, but you do nothing to prove how Arma is in any way better. (In CQB)

CQB has issues and I never denied that. However if the scenario that happens in that video happened in ArmA you would've been shot in the first second or two. In that video BF bots don't acknowledge player's presence unless he's directly in front of them and they just run past the player completely ignoring him. How can you even say it's better than ArmA's AI?

If ArmA AI is bad in CQB (which it is), scripted bots are even worse.

There is nothing difficult about getting the AI to go from point A to point B, unload some troops, and then move to point C.

Sure driving straight from A to B through enemy fire zones is not hard. In ArmA however threatened AI will try to avoid roads and make its way through areas with at least some concealment.

And all current games but ArmA don't do even simple A to B. It's always spawn 100m away from C.

[Guest]

Sure driving straight from A to B through enemy fire zones is not hard. In ArmA however threatened AI will try to avoid roads and make its way through areas with at least some concealment.

And all current games but ArmA don't do even simple A to B. It's always spawn 100m away from C.

You are correct about your last point, if there is one thing Arma AI does do well, it is the fact it doesn't really on AI spawning in 100m away from you. Other games have to learn from this.

Regarding AI driving, they go a bit nuts if they are engaged, if there was a minefield to their left, and a minefield to their right, and an AI with a pistol shooting at them from 100m away, they would rather drive off the road and blow up...

It's certainly a very hard task for BIS to fix.

[CodenamePingu 10]

Yap, this is all true.

[nohalfmeasures 1]

As much as the AI is kinda Retarded at times and then also a tad OP at the same time this is more than likely that this is due to either the AI is still a WIP and just basic atm or their with holding the proper ai till latter on. None the less it's rather annoying sometimes.

[youoldduffer 1]

Biggest problem i have with the enemy AI is their ability to shoot through fog, they spot you nigh on straight away whether your proned or crouched/behind a rock, when you do manage to sneak up and fire they know with pin point accuracy where you are (even if your using a silenced weapon) and then headshot you lol.

I do like the fact that they seem to flank you and also dont just stand around when they're under fire.

[jiltedjock 10]

9/ Using buildings & position to see out (I have so many examples of this, just picked one out the hat)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxRJRD19l5I&list=PLj7LIw2iwG-HBxjqFG4Y32YHKRMkz2AF-&index=58

Hi Chris, I don't disagree with your points, but when using GL4 and the AI positions itself "looking out", it is a fluke. There is nothing in GL4 that scripts the AI to face out a window or door.

What I would add to your list is a need for group level tactics to utlise base of fire tactics. As you know, GL4 can give the appearance of this quite effectively.

Edited March 19, 2013 by jiltedjock

[dnk 13]

My 2 cents, and I'm still learning about how ArmA handles the AI scripts, so excuse any ignorance, but I want to see this improved as much as anyone.

How hard is it to AI map a level for cover and use it in the scripting (say for an intern or other lowly programming grunt)? My idea is to take "tiles" (or square meters or some such breakdown of the map) and give them values based on the amount of cover provided in a set of directions (whether it be N, S, E, W, or N, NE, E, etc, or multiples of 60-degrees or whatever). Then further aggregating these into another map (not literal in a visual sense) for overall terrain cover quality. It then should become a lot easier to send the AI from cover to cover and to act smartly in non-desert terrains. Basically, if they know what direction they need cover from and where they're going, they can choose from available terrains that provide cover in the appropriate direction using the data from the AI map and path to it. Further mapping could include values for quality of LOS on certain directions, so if providing support/suppression/engagement is more important, they can choose a tile with both cover and good LOS instead of just cover (in the case of being suppressed).

For example, an AI is being actively suppressed by enemies from due north. This activates a "findcover" command, which then looks for nearest tiles with moderate/good cover from the north. Then the AI gets pathed to that tile and moves out to it. Currently, AI just stand up, deer in headlights, and take it.

Another example, an AI in a city is ordered to engage a target while not under attack. It knows the location of the target and then looks for a tile with a LOS number in that direction high enough to be at least equal to the distance between said tile and target's tile, while not being too far out of formation. It moves in and should generally be able to start engaging. Currently, AI will just sit around inside a building staring at a wall instead. If the AI can't find anything, perhaps this can be taken into consideration when choosing whether the group remains in place or moves to a new location.

Additionally, a more aggregated map (and non-directional) can be used so the AI knows when it is covering generally "open" ground, where it should employ a base of fire element and a rapid movement element to cross.

I think a lot could be done with this, simplifying dynamic AI scripting with some pre-"rendered" (or laboriously stitched together by an intern) mapping. Let an intelligent human go through and evaluate maps at a given resolution in "hot spots" of CQB (anything with significant amounts of settlement), and let a more generic algorithm construct all the natural terrain outside of these areas based on object placements (like, a given tree model would automatically give certain cover values in all directions in adjacent tiles). I'm sure you could literally draw/paint the map first then have another program translate the color scheme into a much (disk size) smaller numerical map(s). This gives both the intelligence of a human to the AI in the places it needs it most (evaluating terrain, LOS, and cover), while not impacting the performance much, if at all.

[bad benson 1733]

To react to firing ‘unseen’ is one thing, to search out and deal with the threat is another.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdn6z...z2AF-&index=12

the end of the video shows exactly one of the main things that are missing from the game core. is it really that hard to put this into the game? i mean all it is, is creating a list of houses near the sound source ("nearestobjects" ran by "firednear" event handler) and then assigning some units of the group to cycle through all building positions (acquired by "buildingpos"). this ability could easily be made optional and limited to a certain radius to avoid it being game/mission breaking (which is a lame excuse in most cases looking at how open most missions are designed).

my last video would show an almost perfectly satisfying AI (apart from bad close range reflexes) with this feature alone and yet it still isn't included in the game. i just don't get it:mad:. while using positions in houses as cover or positions to fight from would (combined with the current super simple indoor "pathfinding") just be cosmetical and probably not 100% functional, this house search feature would improve gameplay a lot.

if the AI's obsession with prone would be removed alon with that we would already have something far superior to arma 2 vanilla but yet....well it's an alpha so let's hope for the best.

[SavageCDN 231]

first step to ai improvement, open up two more cores and give them a dedicated thread so they're not limited by the fact that the game uses 2 cores.

this means faster reaction time, more units with the ability to react faster. pathfinding occurs more quickly...no more flaffing about doing loops next to an obstacle.

QTF - The single greatest improvement they could do....

[viper[cww] 14]

I think the AI is vastly improved, they have handed my ass to me on more then one occassion, it's actually scarier to engage them now as they WILL do anything they can to flank you, which is the outcome off 99% of engagements if you don't put them all down first time.

[froggyluv 2130]

the end of the video shows exactly one of the main things that are missing from the game core. is it really that hard to put this into the game? i mean all it is, is creating a list of houses near the sound source ("nearestobjects" ran by "firednear" event handler) and then assigning some units of the group to cycle through all building positions (acquired by "buildingpos"). this ability could easily be made optional and limited to a certain radius to avoid it being game/mission breaking (which is a lame excuse in most cases looking at how open most missions are designed).

my last video would show an almost perfectly satisfying AI (apart from bad close range reflexes) with this feature alone and yet it still isn't included in the game. i just don't get it:mad:. while using positions in houses as cover or positions to fight from would (combined with the current super simple indoor "pathfinding") just be cosmetical and probably not 100% functional, this house search feature would improve gameplay a lot.

if the AI's obsession with prone would be removed alon with that we would already have something far superior to arma 2 vanilla but yet....well it's an alpha so let's hope for the best.

Yep, it is a bit frustrating why some of these basic indoor routines can't be implemented. For instance, we know the code now exists that determines if a unit is inside (ie.JSRS), we know that LineIntersect can be used to improve LOS and provide quicker reaction (tpwcas) and that neither of these proved to be exceptionally expensive CPU-wise. Why can't it be hardcoded to check if unit

IsInside

and if True, give him a different set of behaviors ie.. don't go prone/don't face walls (LOS)/increase turning speed and perhaps more left/right head checks etc....

I just don't get it.

[Opticalsnare 12]

They still pretty retarded.. I was playing on some coop game just now before i ctd, i was driving about in a Truck with a HMG on my todd and i pretty much wiped out half the entire enemy forces on my own in like 20 mins. When i was on the ground i was picking off enemy soldiers and they were just running about like headless chickens waiting to be slotted it was far too easy. Imo i see no improvement or difference over A2 AI although i hope this is because of the alpha status currently and hope this will be improved upon.

[viper[cww] 14]

I think that's got more to do with the point that your Blain Cooper.