AI Discussion (dev branch)

[turin turambar 0]

Thanks for the vid. It was quite easy to reproduce. (one has to run immediately after killing the opfor guy) We'll look into that.

Just a note: the AI has probably heard you (shooting (even suppressed shot would have been audible outside) & running) - that's a correct behavior. Wrong is that their estimate is too precise and they even fire thru the door only if player happens to be behind them.

More than a bug, it's a flaw of the system. The way the AI "knows" about a target is kind of abstract, from what I know. Just a 0-100 value (or maybe it's 0-1.0, it's the same), right? The sounds done by the player increases the value. But imo, sound increases it too much, it should be a lower amount, and hell, there should be a kind of cap or limit of what amount of information you can gain only with sound sources.

For example, if a hidden sniper shoots several times at a large distance (let's imagine for argument sakes he is really well hidden and have a flash suppressor) eventually the AI will know the exact location. That's BS. I don't think in real life you can determine more than a vague "it's coming from the East" from only the sound of the shots.

Your "AI config task force" still needs to do a *ton* of work. For example, if you still are going to use the numerical value, it should decrease drastically if the AI loses line-of-sight with the target. Right now, they can see a target, go prone (breaking their own line of sight with the high grass and bushes) and still fire accurately because they seem to remember your x,y,z coordinates. I saw some YT videos with that happening.

[msy 22]

More than a bug, it's a flaw of the system. The way the AI "knows" about a target is kind of abstract, from what I know. Just a 0-100 value (or maybe it's 0-1.0, it's the same), right? The sounds done by the player increases the value. But imo, sound increases it too much, it should be a lower amount, and hell, there should be a kind of cap or limit of what amount of information you can gain only with sound sources.

For example, if a hidden sniper shoots several times at a large distance (let's imagine for argument sakes he is really well hidden and have a flash suppressor) eventually the AI will know the exact location. That's BS. I don't think in real life you can determine more than a vague "it's coming from the East" from only the sound of the shots.

Your "AI config task force" still needs to do a *ton* of work. For example, if you still are going to use the numerical value, it should decrease drastically if the AI loses line-of-sight with the target. Right now, they can see a target, go prone (breaking their own line of sight with the high grass and bushes) and still fire accurately because they seem to remember your x,y,z coordinates. I saw some YT videos with that happening.

I think the really problem ARMA AI has is:

Although AI should be complicated and sophisticated, but the most important is that AI should do men basically do and should not do men rarely do. Such as AI ignore the grenade near under him is ridiculous, AI's silent sharing info is ridiculous too.

Why sometimes men sigh the old OFP's AI is more comfortable than ARMA1\2\3's? Maybe it is because that AI do less things men rarely do than the later AI of ARMA1\2\3. In ARMA1\2\3 sometimes AI is like a cheater some times AI do things in a bedraggled way. A clear and frank AI is what I like even they are simpler than the current one.

It is just like playing chess or cards with AI. Do you like the AI that don't play by the rules? I don't.

Edited December 2, 2013 by msy

[maturin 12]

Turin, you have everything wrong.

The AI can't ever acquire a target without having line of sight. It's not abstract. There is a value called knowsAbout that ranges from 0 to 4.0, but this is just a sort of debug tool. It measure what the AI knows, but not whether it is correct.

Sometimes the AI will fire at footsteps, but this only happens very close up. The AI can also get real time live input on your location by a group member that has eyes on, but he can't take shots at your through concealment this way.

For example, if a hidden sniper shoots several times at a large distance (let's imagine for argument sakes he is really well hidden and have a flash suppressor) eventually the AI will know the exact location. That's BS. I don't think in real life you can determine more than a vague "it's coming from the East" from only the sound of the shots.

If you sit behind a house and fire at the sky, they will never ever find you. Probably won't even get a good ballpark estimate and may end up staring in the exact wrong direction.

Your "AI config task force" still needs to do a *ton* of work.

Of course, this is still very, very true.

[old_painless 182]

Thanks for the vid. It was quite easy to reproduce. (one has to run immediately after killing the opfor guy) We'll look into that.

Just a note: the AI has probably heard you (shooting (even suppressed shot would have been audible outside) & running) - that's a correct behavior. Wrong is that their estimate is too precise and they even fire thru the door only if player happens to be behind them.

There is another case similar to this that was raised some time ago with a video as well, http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=8226.

Thread in which it was raised: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?154708-OVER-POWERED-AI-!-Please-fix-this-for-final-game-ruins-coop&p=2393067&viewfull=1#post2393067

[NeMeSiS 11]

AI seeing through an object is pretty much always a case of a bugged object, not something wrong with the AI. It barely belongs in an AI thread.

I would also like to encourage people to use a script like the one that can be found in the description of

The script basically shows what the AI actually knows, so we dont get stuck on whatever interpretation of what people think is happening.

[SaOk 112]

Spotted AI team-mates stucked prone with pistol in hands, only able to spin still, issue is appearing with the latest beta patch.

To the earlier AI team-mate issue where they might head away from player after setpos, ignoring all command. I use now this code when setpositioning units. Havent yet seen the issue, but maybe too early say:

{
_x SPAWN {private ["_group"];_group = createGroup WEST; _this disableAI "FSM"; [_this] join _group; sleep 2; _this enableAI "FSM"; [_this] joinsilent player;(group player) selectLeader player;};
} foreach units group player - [player];

Edit: Didnt help, got a team-mate ignoring again. So will need to clone soldiers after fast-travel.

Edited December 2, 2013 by SaOk

[Make Love Not War 10]

To the earlier AI team-mate issue where they might head away from player after setpos, ignoring all command. I use now this code when setpositioning units. Edit: Didnt help, got a team-mate ignoring again. So will need to clone soldiers after fast-travel.

Damn. You're probably running out of patience with all this, but maybe try:

{_this disableAI _x;} forEach ["TARGET","AUTOTARGET","FSM"];

Other than that, I think it's time to re-create the Star Trek teleporter Arma-syle. :) Thanks for the update.

[oukej 2910]

More than a bug, it's a flaw of the system. The way the AI "knows" about a target is kind of abstract, from what I know. Just a 0-100 value (or maybe it's 0-1.0, it's the same), right? The sounds done by the player increases the value. But imo, sound increases it too much, it should be a lower amount, and hell, there should be a kind of cap or limit of what amount of information you can gain only with sound sources.

There is a value called knowsAbout that ranges from 0 to 4.0, but this is just a sort of debug tool. It measure what the AI knows, but not whether it is correct.

I have to confirm that. KnowsAbout tells you that the AI is more or less sure about a threat. But it doesn't tell anything about the AI's estimate of the location and direction of the threat. By audible sources the AI will (should) never get that estimate purrfectly correct.

But there are many variables entering the observed issue. Like e.g.

AI seeing through an object is pretty much always a case of a bugged object

I wasn't able to clearly reproduce the issue in other buildings. On the other hand, the geometry seems fine. There could be something with the door (thin aperture around - visually unnoticeable, possibly shuffling AI checks)

Such as AI ignore the grenade near under him is ridiculous

True. That is completely missing and sadly it ain't an easy thing to introduce.

AI's silent sharing info is ridiculous too.

After introduction of 3D chatter that shouldn't be the issue anymore ;)

The info is shared directly only inside a group.

Even there, the shared information doesn't give exact position (subject of tweaking), the error is on a soldier-level.

And unless the AI has clear LoS it won't open fire on a target it learned about only by a report. It will also cease fire after couple of seconds after loosing the LoS, even if another AI in the group has a LoS on the target and keeps giving the reports about it's movement.

If you see the AI constantly firing thru a view obscuring object or even wall or door (issue reported by Msy) without supposedly having a clear LoS, it means there's a bug somewhere - either in the object itself (wrong geometries) or how it's perceived.

Edited December 3, 2013 by oukej

[maturin 12]

But groups SHOULD share information, sometimes. Squad leaders are going to be have radio contact with the rest of their platoon.

And AI SHOULD engage consistently through view-obscuring objects. In an ideal world, if a team leader saw targets conceal themselves near perforable objects, he should order his base of fire to engage that object directly. I know that half the community is begging for this feature in AI control UI.

[Variable 322]

And unless the AI has clear LoS it won't open fire on a target it learned about only by a report. It will also cease fire after couple of seconds after loosing the LoS, even if another AI in the group has a LoS on the target and keeps giving the reports about it's movement.

This is not how infantry react to a reported contact. Most of the bullets ever fired in human warfare history were on reported targets without LOS, to suppress the target that should be "somewhere over there". That explains the ridiculous gigantic ratio between bullets fired and actual kills. The AI should firee a lot of bullets in the general direction of a reported contact, after some delay, and with very very low accuracy.

Thanks for the update!

[2nd ranger 282]

But groups SHOULD share information, sometimes. Squad leaders are going to be have radio contact with the rest of their platoon

Yeah but how should the game decide which AI groups should communicate? Allowing all groups of the same side to communicate wouldn't be very realistic. The only way to ensure that would be if there was a way of linking separate AI groups via script or another 'link' tool in the editor. Basically allowing the AI leaders to share information.

[Alwarren 2766]

The info is shared directly only inside a group.

Even there, the shared information doesn't give exact position (subject of tweaking), the error is on a soldier-level.

And unless the AI has clear LoS it won't open fire on a target it learned about only by a report. It will also cease fire after couple of seconds after loosing the LoS, even if another AI in the group has a LoS on the target and keeps giving the reports about it's movement.

But that IS a problem. AI should only share information if they are able to; however, even without radio or any means of communication, they instantly know about things. There is no way you can take out an isolated unit from a group silently without the entire group knowing all of a sudden. This breaks a lot of stealth based missions

Wouldn't it be possible to share this information only if the units are within calling distance of each other or have a radio? At least that would give a more realistic picture.

[oukej 2910]

But groups SHOULD share information, sometimes.

Well, I didn't say they don't ;) Sometimes, something at some speed, just not directly and by far not as much as on the squad level. Good point made by2nd Ranger

And AI SHOULD engage consistently through view-obscuring objects. In an ideal world, if a team leader saw targets conceal themselves near perforable objects, he should order his base of fire to engage that object directly. I know that half the community is begging for this feature in AI control UI.

This is not how infantry react to a reported contact. Most of the bullets ever fired in human warfare history were on reported targets without LOS, to suppress the target that should be "somewhere over there".

I agree, but then you have to deal with "when" & "how". The other extreme can easily be AI headshooting you behind a bush. Suppresive fire or fire on estimated location is nice, but has to be dealt with properly (before that, several other measures have to be implemented and features adjusted & tweaked).

But that IS a problem. AI should only share information if they are able to.

If you play as a leader you can often go around without noticing the death of your subordinate. The same way it works for the AI. It reports on a regular basis, but it doesn't know about each other all the time or instantly (unless they see each other, hear the noise) How fast the AI reacts to death, hit or bullets flying around is also dependable on the AI's skill.

Wouldn't it be possible to share this information only if the units are within calling distance of each other or have a radio? At least that would give a more realistic picture.

Please note that the radio is currently of quintessential importance to the AI. The radio item itself has no real effect on the communication other than visual - subtitles and audible - radio msgs. Removing the item does not remove the comm functionality. However weird that may look, please understand, that the game doesn't currently have any mechanics to deal with commanding or squad communication without a radio. It would be nice to have, but it's really a complex task with great amount of possible game-breakers to deal with and with no as high payoff value.

[msy 22]

Well, I didn't say they don't ;) Sometimes, something at some speed, just not directly and by far not as much as on the squad level. Good point made by2nd Ranger

I agree, but then you have to deal with "when" & "how". The other extreme can easily be AI headshooting you behind a bush. Suppresive fire or fire on estimated location is nice, but has to be dealt with properly (before that, several other measures have to be implemented and features adjusted & tweaked).

If you play as a leader you can often go around without noticing the death of your subordinate. The same way it works for the AI. It reports on a regular basis, but it doesn't know about each other all the time or instantly (unless they see each other, hear the noise) How fast the AI reacts to death, hit or bullets flying around is also dependable on the AI's skill.

Please note that the radio is currently of quintessential importance to the AI. The radio item itself has no real effect on the communication other than visual - subtitles and audible - radio msgs. Removing the item does not remove the comm functionality. However weird that may look, please understand, that the game doesn't currently have any mechanics to deal with commanding or squad communication without a radio. It would be nice to have, but it's really a complex task with great amount of possible game-breakers to deal with and with no as high payoff value.

Include my last four videos, From the fifth and sixth, can you tell me where is the info sharing?

Why ARMA AI usually likes to do things at wrong time or wrong place?

Complecated and sophisticated AI is welcome, But before that, A clear and frank AI that can usually do things that human beings should do and rarely do things that human beings won't do is most important.

Please never make the AI like an Martian. I prefer an AI that has only an IQ of a border collie rather than that has an IQ of a naughty monkey.

Plz completely watch it.

Edited December 3, 2013 by msy

[jw custom 56]

Yeah but how should the game decide which AI groups should communicate? Allowing all groups of the same side to communicate wouldn't be very realistic. The only way to ensure that would be if there was a way of linking separate AI groups via script or another 'link' tool in the editor. Basically allowing the AI leaders to share information.

An array of groups allowed to communicate should be created either by script or placing a module and link groups. Groups should then be able to communicate based on distance etc. and their action should be based on group state etc. Many things could/should be added into consideration based on mission creater input!

The AI should firee a lot of bullets in the general direction of a reported contact, after some delay, and with very very low accuracy.

...and accuracy should increase over time based on distance and skills.

[jiltedjock 10]

An array of groups allowed to communicate should be created either by script or placing a module and link groups. Groups should then be able to communicate based on distance etc. and their action should be based on group state etc. Many things could/should be added into consideration based on mission creater input!

...and accuracy should increase over time based on distance and skills.

GL4 did this years ago in Arma 2, with configurable maximum distances for info sharing based on whether the group was in a vehicle etc. Sometimes I wish the devs would spend a couple of weeks playing the best of the Arma 2 mods.

[oukej 2910]

Plz completely watch it.

I have looked into that issue right after the first vid, the issue is wedded to the building. If you wan't to keep an eye on the progress, please start a FT issue and let me know via PM so I can tell you once it has been fixed.

In the latter videos you are dealing with completely different issues. What alarms the AI and what doesn't (based on audible sources). And how is the information shared across the groups.

A clear and frank AI that can usually do things that human beings should do and rarely do things that human beings won't do is most important.

But that is the most complex ;) I'm sorry to disappoint you, but human-like, even monkey-like behavior is still beyond reach even of the academic level AI. And that itself is couple of years, decades, ahead of any AI usable in an open game environment & with home-PC computing power :/ Many things are not (often can't be) simulated in Arma 3 on the same level how player perceives the game (e.g. not everything the player hears, the AI hears as well).

I'd like to ask you for your patience. We are constantly working on the AI, trying to improve it and your feedback is of a great value to us!

The most helpful is of course a isolated 100% repro about objectively (also present-day game-wise) wrong behavior, as simple as possible, 2-3 AIs... ;) submitted into Feedback Tracker . That is like a golden nugget to us ;)

But by far not only - a description of general experience helps us greatly to decide on the course of action we should take, what to prioritize, even if we can't eliminate the variables that can count towards it (subjective matter, skill settings, mission, mods, scripts used...)

---------- Post added at 14:30 ---------- Previous post was at 14:24 ----------

Sometimes I wish the devs would spend a couple of weeks playing the best of the Arma 2 mods.

I can assure you we do :) Sadly not every scripted solution can easily make it into the engine as a full-scale game-wide mechanic :/

[Alwarren 2766]

If you play as a leader you can often go around without noticing the death of your subordinate. The same way it works for the AI. It reports on a regular basis, but it doesn't know about each other all the time or instantly (unless they see each other, hear the noise) How fast the AI reacts to death, hit or bullets flying around is also dependable on the AI's skill.

I'm afraid that isn't true, that is why I liked to the ticket (here's the link again). The AI teamleader is immediately aware of the demise of his subordinate, even over long distance . I'll retry my repro for this, I haven't tried in a while, but unless something has changed, the problem still persists.

Please note that the radio is currently of quintessential importance to the AI. The radio item itself has no real effect on the communication other than visual - subtitles and audible - radio msgs. Removing the item does not remove the comm functionality. However weird that may look, please understand, that the game doesn't currently have any mechanics to deal with commanding or squad communication without a radio. It would be nice to have, but it's really a complex task with great amount of possible game-breakers to deal with and with no as high payoff value.

Understood, but even then, if a team member is klilled, the AI should only become aware that something is amiss after a while, not immediately; it's not like the subordinate is continuously transmitting and they hear his death scream on the radio. Please understand that this is really a gamebreaking issue for a number of mission. It is impossible to dispose of a separated team member without everybody being immediately alerted. IMO this severely impacts gameplay.

[f2k sel 164]

Alwarren is correct I made a report in A2 with the exact same problem instant knowledge several 100 meters way.

Knowsabout was 0 when shooting at that distance so they weren't detecting shots.

Death should only be reported when new orders are issued and he doesn't respond or after some random time to simulate random check in.

Even if the dead unit isn't in the group I believe they can see dead bodies through objects which is another issue.

[maturin 12]

I'd like to ask you for your patience. We are constantly working on the AI, trying to improve it and your feedback is of a great value to us!

Thanks for taking part in this thread.

You may underestimate (or then again, maybe you don't) how ravenously hungry a lot of us are for tidbits of information about AI development. Not full devblogs, just general indications of what you regard as the most pressing issues, and what you are tinkering with at the moment.

Currently, for example, the AI buffs in the community have the impression that the devs are very slowly changing the setting UI for AI accuracy, but don't really plan on any new features ever. And we're badly in need of a morale boost from knowing that you share our concerns on the main issues. Such as how robotic and sudden the AI spotting system is, to name one. It beats EVERY (and I do mean every) newb about the head from the very first minutes of gameplay.

Sadly not every scripted solution can easily make it into the engine as a full-scale game-wide mechanic

Except for everything ever implemented by Zeus or ASR? Or even ACE.

What is your definition of full-scale? Because the biggest ArmA games to every take place rely heavily on ACE's suite of script-heavy features, including armor penetration more complex than any game short of Steel Beasts. And explosives that throw fragmentation hundreds of meters. And hundreds of AI that take bullets hits and start to suffer from blood loss and pain individually. And this has all been stress-tested under the harshest conditions for YEARS now, and BIS refuses to look into any of it? Because Jesus forbid scripts or something?

Edited December 3, 2013 by maturin

[oukej 2910]

Understood, but even then, if a team member is killed, the AI should only become aware that something is amiss after a while, not immediately

Your report is valid. It shouldn't. After all - we don't have any vital-signs live-stream of subordinates ;)

You may underestimate (or then again, maybe you don't) how ravenously hungry a lot of us are for tidbits of information about AI development. Not full devblogs, just general indications of what you regard as the most pressing issues, and what you are tinkering with at the moment.

Afaik it's generally this http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=14905 and interconnected issues - things that reduce the enjoyability or give the impression of cheating AI. (nerfing first, pimpin' later ;) - that to say would be too simplified)

The UI work is more about adding the ability to properly test the AI, add standards and some reliability. Not locking down current AI, more about locking down some variables to allow for AI improvements.

Because Jesus forbid scripts or something?

In: Ezekiel 25:17 ;)

Armor simulation is a good example (and I believe it has been improved in A3). Others are sometimes better as "optional" or modular features, because they don't always fit everywhere. The community solutions generally (at least today) present a great inspiration to us and indicate what is missing in the vanilla game. Though it is still valid to ask "why we didn't" this discussion doesn't belong into this thread.

[fabrizio_t 58]

I'm afraid that isn't true, that is why I liked to the ticket (here's the link again). The AI teamleader is immediately aware of the demise of his subordinate, even over long distance . I'll retry my repro for this, I haven't tried in a while, but unless something has changed, the problem still persists.

Yes, it's still exactly like that.

I doubt any repro is needed, i'm sure BIS knows this problem.

---------- Post added at 17:52 ---------- Previous post was at 17:48 ----------

Even if the dead unit isn't in the group I believe they can see dead bodies through objects which is another issue.

Not sure about seeing through things, but sure there's something wrong with corpse detection.

I've run a danger.fsm events inspector during ArmA3 campaign intro ( till embarking the truck) and multiple (enemy) "dead body" events were triggered.

[ProfTournesol 956]

I'm so happy to see this continuous discussion with devs about AI that i could buy another supporter edition...

[jiltedjock 10]

I can assure you we do :) Sadly not every scripted solution can easily make it into the engine as a full-scale game-wide mechanic :/

I understand, but I wish they were available as modules. Even just an armour penetration module, wind affects on ballistics module, and an inter AI group communication module would go a long way to improving things.

The one thing I hate a new Arma player to see is an AI group standing in the distance in a wedge formation, waiting to be sniped. It has been the same since OFP. When I started playing all my Arma2 missions with GL4, the immersion and replayability increased dramatically.

[bohicafool 12]

Please address the pathing of all vehicles. They still get caught in between buildings and get caught up on the stone hedges. Also the AI infantry constantly get trapped in buildings even when there is a logical exit. Another problem, the AI infantry get caught in buildings that have been destroyed.

These problems would make the game less frustrating. And thank-you for a brilliant simulation:)