AI Discussion (dev branch)

[oukej 2911]

Does this mean that Courage set to 1 effectively disables any sort of take cover/garrison building reaction to combat for AI?

No, the behavior (formation) FSM which governs the covering routines is used on any AI, regardless the skill. Also currently the AI is not able to use the buildings autonomously.

I'm not noticing any suppressive effects for any units I'm testing.

...

But as I mentioned, it doesn't alter his fire rate/accuracy etc. Is anyone else finding similar things?

Try decreasing the AimingSpeed skill

And then checked the danger.fsm, but I can't see it as a danger cause anywhere. They seem to be only 0-8 and DCBulletClose is listed as 9 but I don't see any mention of it save for a comment:

Danger FSM is put to a very little use in the vanilla game. Basic reactions are in the engine, group behavior (going into covers, bounding overwatch) is in the behavior (formation) FSM.

[bad benson 1733]

just some general questions:

how "in engine" is the function for finding cover? i was just wondering if it's possible to debug what a unit finds as cover (actual postion) to be able to judge better how well the unit actually uses the cover it found.

after all those years the only thing i can perceive as remotely close to using cover is the leaning on corners. watching AI behave a lot of times is really cryptic and it's hard to judge what exactly is happening or what they are trying to do.

also would it be theoretically possible to replace the cover finding system with one's own just for testing? or even alter the current one? or is all that too hard coded?

just wondering in general, if it would, performance aside/ignored, even be possible to make AI that is much more complex. like for example for certain missions with very few but very effective AI. or is everything very locked down and unaccessible?

[das attorney 858]

Try decreasing the AimingSpeed skill

Yes but that would make them worse at aiming all the time. I want them only to be unable to shoot back when suppressed.

Re: Danger FSM - I mentioned it as there was that post by you saying a new DangerCause was added, but I can't see it there. If you're saying that's how it's supposed to be now then cool.

[Guest]

No, the behavior (formation) FSM which governs the covering routines is used on any AI, regardless the skill. Also currently the AI is not able to use the buildings autonomously.

Gotcha, thanks for the response

[2nd ranger 282]

Well like I was saying a few pages ago, there should be a subskill that affects rate of fire. oukej suggested reloadSpeed, but that doesn't do anything. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but I've tried various combinations of subskills and I can't influence an AI's rate of fire at all.

Recently in a mission I have been trying to alter enemy AI to make them consistently inaccurate, but the problem is that when you lower their aimingAccuracy, their ROF stays high because aimingAccuracy influences an AI's 'control' over his shots, meaning that a low value will make them just blat blat blat away as fast as they can. Conversely, if you raise an AI's general skill or at least his aimingAccuracy, his ROF will drop slightly because he's controlling his shots. But then you can't make him very inaccurate because the best way to do that is with a low aimingAccuracy value.

I think the problem is that the AI no longer cares if they have a proper bead on a target before they fire. In Arma 2, a low aimingShake value would significantly lower their ROF because they wouldn't shoot until their sights were lined up (as far as I could tell, the command setUnitAbility did the same thing). In Arma 3, their gun could be swaying all over the place, but they still fire at the same rate (actually I haven't noticed any effect when using aimingShake in A3). The only way I have been able to lower an AI's ROF is by setting a high suppression value, which obviously wares off.

[oukej 2911]

a new DangerCause was added, but I can't see it there.

It's one value added to the priorities list :)

how "in engine" is the function for finding cover? i was just wondering if it's possible to debug what a unit finds as cover (actual postion)

You can see what the AI understands as a cover position if you - as a squad leader - select a subordinate and look around. You'll see thin lines snapping either to building positions (with number) or cover positions (without a number). The cover positions are determined dynamically (not bugless - can be thin signpost or a fence), building positions need to be manually set in the path lod.

also would it be theoretically possible to replace the cover finding system with one's own just for testing? or even alter the current one? or is all that too hard coded?

Currently the cover selection can't be altered. It's done by a function in the behavior (formation) FSM. These functions that are used by the vanilla soldier FSM are not publicly documented and as I already mentioned there are some problems with them as well. After we fix the main issues we'll try to clear this up a bit also for you :)

But you can exchange this whole vanilla behavior (formation) FSM for a scripted one made by yourself. Vanilla FSM for civilians is scripted.

performance aside/ignored

Everything is possible :)

Well like I was saying a few pages ago, there should be a subskill that affects rate of fire. oukej suggested reloadSpeed, but that doesn't do anything. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but I've tried various combinations of subskills and I can't influence an AI's rate of fire at all.

If I understand it well you'd need something like a trigger-happines variable?

The rate of fire is mainly controlled by the weapon's fire modes configuration.

If you only want to reduce the rate of fire for some time - what about making the AI randomly cease fire?

I'd avoid using other skills to achieve a different rate of fire (all have different purpose). But you can try the aimingSpeed too and see if the AI's rate of fire decreases as they take longer to get the weapon's aim back from the outside of the acceptable error range.

[2nd ranger 282]

I've been doing things with helicopters recently, and I'm finding that AI pilots are ignoring flyInheight commands. For example, a ghost hawk will ignore any flyInHeight value over 10m. It will descend to 9m or less if you tell it to, but otherwise the command has no effect.

[oukej 2911]

I've been doing things with helicopters recently, and I'm finding that AI pilots are ignoring flyInheight commands. For example, a ghost hawk will ignore any flyInHeight value over 10m. It will descend to 9m or less if you tell it to, but otherwise the command has no effect.

Strange. I've just tested it and it works on my side. Just few notes - AI tries to keep the altitude in flight and the command doesn't affect the flight AGL in hover & AI will always try to fly safely and avoid obstacles (fly in an altitude safe enough to avoid the tallest object in the surroundings of the flight path)

---------- Post added at 14:23 ---------- Previous post was at 14:16 ----------

Now for something completely different...

How often do you use the "Hold Fire, Engage at Will" (WHITE) combat mode? When & why?

[Variable 322]

How often do you use the "Hold Fire, Engage at Will" (WHITE) combat mode? When & why?

Never. Seems to me like an illogical thing to say.

What I do wish is for is a way to order the AI to target an enemy unit, while under hold fire, and order him to Engage (or any other future command). I would expect that the AI would then move towards the enemy until he can see and use his weapon against that particular unit, and stop, confirming with "ready to fire". With the lack of such a possibility, the player-commander must manually order the AI to move to a specific position to target the enemy, and that's a bit gruelling.

Of course, "hold fire, target [enemy] unit" is extremely useful on ambushes or setting up for an attack on an unaware enemy, but that's a different matter.

[seba1976 98]

How often do you use the "Hold Fire, Engage at Will" (WHITE) combat mode? When & why?

Ditto. Never understood the logic of it, seems contradictory. Never used it.

[oukej 2911]

What I do wish is for is a way to order the AI to target an enemy unit, while under hold fire, and order him to Engage (or any other future command). I would expect that the AI would then move towards the enemy until he can see and use his weapon against that particular unit, and stop, confirming with "ready to fire".

This should work exactly the way you described. (and would happen automatically in the WHITE combat mode) I've only noticed sometimes the AI can't acquire an aim good enough to say "Ready to fire". Seem like the AI overestimates itself and picks a location from which firing is possible but extremely difficult.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

Thank you for the good info oukej.

[st_dux 26]

Now for something completely different...

How often do you use the "Hold Fire, Engage at Will" (WHITE) combat mode? When & why?

Very rarely. I get how it's supposed to work, but I've found that the AI's engagement behavior is usually too unpredictable to be used when stealth is a concern.

On a related note, there doesn't seem to be much purpose in distinguishing between engage at will and non-engage at will combat modes with AI squads. AI leaders fairly reliably give engagement orders all the time anyway, so the only way to really disable an AI squad's engagement behavior is with the scripting command "enableAttack".

[bullhorn 18]

Is there a way to make AI autonomously assault, breach and clear a building occupied by players? I've been testing with vanilla, DAC, ASR AI and a few others and in ALL cases they're either just switching to idle status or they just go away somewhere else... It's enough to lay prone in the building for 10-20 sec for them to 'forget' about you and go elsewhere.

[froggyluv 2136]

There was a version of BCombat some time back in which I literally couldn't ditch AI in a house period. Was stuck on that 1st mission of the 2nd chapter of the campaign, the one where your all alone and have to make it thru a town to some hilltop on the other side with just a pistol to start. I tried to shoot and evade by runnin to 2nd floors but each and every time they'd come up the stairs and nab me -was spooky feeling of being hunted. I don't know about now but it's worth a shot, also FOA mod might improve that.

[JamesTheClarke 40]

First off, let me thank the devs for opening this thread. "Official" AI discussions can often be like opening Pandoras box when it comes to a flood undeserving "hate mail" and non-constructive complainers. It's rare that a company does this and I appreciate BIS efforts on continuously making a great game even better. Here's my take on the current AI state, I hope it helps the devs out a bit:

As one of the main mission makers of our community one of the things that unfortunately frustrates me on a regular basis is the AI's inability to drive / fly vehicles "properly". I can work around most of the infantry AI issues some way or another, but with vehicles it becomes a lot more apparent (immersion breaking) to the players if I "cheat" around a bit via Zeus to make them work as intended.

The issue is the same for all vehicle classes but it's the most noticeable with light ground vehicles such as trucks and technicals. Countless times mission sections were delayed because I had to check upon a technical which kept crashing into some obstacle or another thus immediately destroying its wheels. Or a tank was about to engage the players only to drive into a minor ditch and getting stuck there for the rest of the mission.

If Bohemia could implement a driving AI similar to Vcom that would make encountering vehicles a much more enjoyable, immersive and scary experience.

I've also noticed that lighter CAS helicopters such as Littlebirds and Wildcats tend to lose their sense of terrain once they've identified targets on the ground. Meaning they'd plan attack flight routes giving them perfect angles for their forward mounted mini guns and rockets but ignoring the fact that said route would make them intimately familiar with a nearby hill, mountain or forest tree line.

In my opinion the vehicle AI (their path finding, decision making and overall behaviour) needs an overhaul sooner than the infantry AI. Vehicles are often the assets in a mission causing the "holy shit" effect infantry-based communities are looking for. At tank creeping through their lines, looking for targets. A group of technicals flanking an element. A helicopter devastating a platoon formation. But if these powerful enemy assets take themselves out rather than being destroyed by the players it steals their sense of accomplishment and can leave a foul after taste on an otherwise good or even great mission.

Edited June 2, 2015 by JamesClarke

[bad benson 1733]

You can see what the AI understands as a cover position if you - as a squad leader - select a subordinate and look around. You'll see thin lines snapping either to building positions (with number) or cover positions (without a number). The cover positions are determined dynamically (not bugless - can be thin signpost or a fence), building positions need to be manually set in the path lod.

first of all. thank you for your detailed answer. much appreciated.

i am already aware of what you described there. what i was talking about was something that shows the cover a specific AI unit sees as "this is my cover now..i'ma go use that". much like you can so wonderfully debug the perceived position, among other things, an AI has of a certain unit using nearTargets.

just to illustrate: something like... getCurrentCover _unit with the return being a position.

so you could run a loop that shows you actually visually where an AI thinks it should go in a certain moment. i feel like that would be also very helpful to give better feedback on the cover system once you guys start working on it more indepth.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

I've also noticed that lighter CAS helicopters such as Littlebirds and Wildcats tend to lose their sense of terrain once they've identified targets on the ground. Meaning they'd plan attack flight routes giving them perfect angles for their forward mounted mini guns and rockets but ignoring the fact that said route would make them intimately familiar with a nearby hill, mountain or forest tree line.

In my opinion the vehicle AI (their path finding, decision making and overall behaviour) needs an overhaul sooner than the infantry AI. Vehicles are often the assets in a mission causing the "holy shit" effect infantry-based communities are looking for. At tank creeping through their lines, looking for targets. A group of technicals flanking an element. A helicopter devastating a platoon formation. But if these powerful enemy assets take themselves out rather than being destroyed by the players it steals their sense of accomplishment and can leave a foul after taste on an otherwise good or even great mission.

Its not just helis.

Jets will slam into the side of hills if they are locked onto a laser target and doing a bomb run on it. If the target is near sea level its okay, but if the target is on a hilltop, the jet will still approach as if the target is near sea level, often slamming into the hillside.

[kremator 1065]

^^ Yup all embarrassing ! I can't remember the AI driving/piloting being so bad in Arma2 (or is that my rose tinted spectacles!) Perhaps opening up the control FSMs for us to help fix (I'm using the royal us of course!)

[Grumpy Old Man 3546]

Is there any way to make AI walk with "LIMITED" speed, keeping formation with their weapons lowered?

This is totally mind boggling.

In Careless behaviour they have weapons lowered, but ignore formation.

Same with Safe behaviour.

With Aware they keep formation just fine but their weapons are raised.

Would be nice for various reasons to have AI keep formation at "LIMITED" speed with their weapons lowered.

Other than that have there been any changes to AI convoy behaviour?

I could swear it's 200% better now than some weeks ago, especially with convoys taking sharp corners.

Cheers

[2nd ranger 282]

So this new ammo usage thing - will this prevent the AI firing 40mm smokes when they run out of HE?

[gammadust 12]

just to illustrate: something like... getCurrentCover _unit with the return being a position.

so you could run a loop that shows you actually visually where an AI thinks it should go in a certain moment. i feel like that would be also very helpful to give better feedback on the cover system once you guys start working on it more indepth.

there is something that might serve your purpose: expectedDestination command.

but, in my experience, you won't find an array of possible positions, or rapidly changing positions. It will return the position the AI is moving to at any given moment, if there is no danger around, that will be the formation position as geometricaly calculated from the leader position (ie. a leader in its place will have a higher command waypoint). While under combat there is a mix of leader given engage orders and what i suspect is some sort of self issued position, but these are already after a low level engine have evaluated potential positions. In

expectedDestination positions are the smaller color coded spheres on the ground.

[R3vo 2654]

So this new ammo usage thing - will this prevent the AI firing 40mm smokes when they run out of HE?

02-06-2015

EXE rev. 131024 (game)

DATA

Added: New property aiAmmoUsageFlags for ammo (see a future SITREP for more details)

ENGINE

Added: New aiAmmoUsageFlags parameter for ammo. The engine will read old values and convert them to the new param if no new param is set.

Allows the AI to become more aware of the primary purpose of a given ammo. This will come with AI ability to use smoke grenades for smoke cover once suppressed. #suppression #aiModsHadItLike100yAgo

[taken from AI developement changelog]

Seems so

[seba1976 98]

#aiModsHadItLike100yAgo

A seba1976's inappropriate comment prevention system. Will work! :)

[cyruz 103]

That new system is interesting, should be able to make AI fire RPGs at helos and tanks fire HE at infantry etc, good times :)