AI Driving - Feedback topic

[Grumpy Old Man 3546]

On 8/2/2017 at 3:38 PM, The Man Without Qualities said:

I want to have formation setting working independant from alert/behavior level.

 

This.

It is absolutely bonkers that you absolutely can't have a rifle squad patrol in formation, with "LIMITED" speedmode and NOT having their weapons raised.

There's probably some magic combination out there that will make it work but at this point, no idea.

Tickets were made, a plethora of them got lost when migrating to the new feedback tracker, automatically marking inactive tickets as trivial and closing them for whatever reason.

 

Tank physics like in the videos shown by @lex__1 above perfectly show the most glaring issues.

To add one, the entire chassis is moving in the opposite direction of where the main cannon turret is moving, as seen in the first video above at 25 seconds. The cannon is moving, chassis moves in opposite direction, tank loses speed.

This happens quite frequently and is very obvious when you're driving in rough terrain above 50km/h.

 

Cheers

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

Just now, Grumpy Old Man said:

 

This.

It is absolutely bonkers that you absolutely can't have a rifle squad patrol in formation, with "LIMITED" speedmode and NOT having their weapons raised.

There's probably some magic combination out there that will make it work but at this point, no idea.

Tickets were made, a plethora of them got lost when migrating to the new feedback tracker, automatically marking inactive tickets as trivial and closing them for whatever reason.

 

Tank physics like in the videos shown by @lex__1 above perfectly show the most glaring issues.

To add one, the entire chassis is moving in the opposite direction of where the main cannon turret is moving, as seen in the first video above at 25 seconds. The cannon is moving, chassis moves in opposite direction, tank loses speed.

This happens quite frequently and is very obvious when you're driving in rough terrain above 50km/h.

 

Cheers

 

let it go :) game is 4 yrs after launch, appreciate what we have, and hopefully things are improved for arma 4

[Grumpy Old Man 3546]

55 minutes ago, fn_Quiksilver said:

 

let it go :) game is 4 yrs after launch, appreciate what we have, and hopefully things are improved for arma 4

 

I absolutely enjoy arma 3, all the long wanted changes like sling loading, PiP, UAVs, firing from vehicles, diving, 3d editor, weapon resting, audio changes (these are damn good), switching to directX11 and physX, sensor overhaul etc.

Showing off screenshots makes most folk look twice because they mistake it for a photo at first glance.

 

Not gonna comment on arma 4 until alpha is out. Considering arma 3 still has some DLCs to come out I guess arma 4 won't be due until 2020.

 

One can only hope.

 

Cheers

[The Man Without Qualities 110]

Why is the ArmA series such a success and the best game of this kind? Because there is zero competition.

No other company is willing to develope and maintain such a game sandbox - don't ask me why.

80 % or more of all shooter titles in this market can be done in A3 with acceptable results compared to the original game.

DayZ as a mod was in fact an own game in A2.

There were C&C like mods, deathmatch games which would be own titles if done by other game studios.

 

This is the sexy part on OFP/ArmA and why I love it - despite all the bickering.

 

 

The odd part is: despite some brilliant ideas in 2001 and before, BIS is not really focussing on developing a brilliant game engine with some example assets (content like islands and vehicles) and some example missions, no, BIS is still trying to

develope and release GAMES. There they fail on regular basis.

The engine, proper support of addon maker and mission maker - proper DOCUMENTATION of all functionality - and we would have a solution.

Missing would be an authority to balance all created addons to achive in itself working weaponary (like it is done by RHS today) to be used in missions.

The good game ideas coming from outside BIS - DayZ-A3 and PUBG as an example.

 

I am waiting since OFP that the "instant disembark of crew when reaching certain damage level" is fixed. Now we have a parameter that is supressing this half-way, the crew is still bailing out within the fraction of an second - and kills you via iron-sight 20 miliseconds after bail-out.

 

IF at company at this globe would decide to release its engine (with similar capabilities) with a similar or better modding support as BIS is providing....what do you guess, would I keep on waiting for A4?

 

 

[pierremgi 4888]

Ai driving. Now, I understand how AIs work: Langton's ant emergence.

Solution is at min. 3

 

 

[joostsidy 685]

14 hours ago, pierremgi said:

Ai driving. Now, I understand how AIs work: Langton's ant emergence.

Solution is at min. 3

I think this is a little off-topic or was it a joke? :-) because this is nothing like AI vehicle driving, it's ant style exploration. It's also seems broken, because even after min 3 you see weird highways and area fills emerging that don't fit organic/efficient exploration behaviour. It does look pretty :-)

 

My guess is that Arma driving uses a navigation mesh/map with some kind of A* navigation algorithm.

 

[Vasily.B 529]

19 hours ago, The Man Without Qualities said:

Why is the ArmA series such a success and the best game of this kind? Because there is zero competition.

No other company is willing to develope and maintain such a game sandbox - don't ask me why.

 

Actually there is competition for arma, but its not yet released. "Titan Vanguard"

As for this bailing out issue, you can try my mod:

 

[lexx 1364]

It's not just that there is no competition, it is also the "feeling" of the game. While many things have changed over the year, in its core it still resembles the old Operation Flashpoint. This "Titan Vanguard" would need to be really damn good to make me consider switching over.

[The Man Without Qualities 110]

@Vasily.BTitan Vanguard is not intended and not tailored for mass market. And it looks like pre-A2 when I look at trailers. And no real information on feature set, performance etc.

To your addon: will crew receive damage inside the tank? Your addon would need to touch the vehicle addon as such IMHO to make realistic harm to a crew when exposed to blast etc inside vehicle.

 

@lexx: Feeling came from the SP stories, that was proper done in OFP + OFP:Res. For MP you need an extensive and complete set of weapons for Land/Air/Water for at least 2 factions at release to use it as mission maker.

A1 was quite OK, but vehicle models were pretty limmited (remember, commander without turret-MG), A2 set was a joke, A3 was incomplete and futuristic crap.

And I stick to my general complaint: if you cannot simulate high-tech weapons....don't do it. Weapons until 1985 gave lots of fun already.

And sensors upgrade improved a lot, but status is still far away from acceptable simulation of sensors+tracking vs. countermeasures.

 

[lex__1 422]

2 hours ago, lexx said:

It's not just that there is no competition, it is also the "feeling" of the game. While many things have changed over the year, in its core it still resembles the old Operation Flashpoint. This "Titan Vanguard" would need to be really damn good to make me consider switching over.

Titan Vanguard is a platform that provides open VR space, without restrictions, and creating VR conditions for a simulator of any events. It's very likely that this is an expensive product and not for a mass gaming consumer.

[pierremgi 4888]

8 hours ago, joostsidy said:

I think this is a little off-topic or was it a joke? :-) because this is nothing like AI vehicle driving, it's ant style exploration. It's also seems broken, because even after min 3 you see weird highways and area fills emerging that don't fit organic/efficient exploration behaviour. It does look pretty :-)

 

My guess is that Arma driving uses a navigation mesh/map with some kind of A* navigation algorithm.

 

 

A joke, certainly.

Off topic? Perhaps not so much. Broken? No. It's not a trial to simulate ant behavior. Just the fact that algorithm can be amazing. With a small change on one variable, you can obtain a counter-intuitive solution, sometimes elegant one. Of course, Arma vehicles are not ants. But how many months to have a solution when a vehicle is stuck between two walls (crossroad in towns)? Just to say, sometimes, we are trying to reproduce what a human+vehicle will do in such case, forgetting the fact all of this is algorithm. It's just a thought and I don't have any idea of what could be done.

[Vasily.B 529]

On 30.08.2017 at 1:25 PM, The Man Without Qualities said:

@Vasily.BTitan Vanguard is not intended and not tailored for mass market. And it looks like pre-A2 when I look at trailers. And no real information on feature set, performance etc.

To your addon: will crew receive damage inside the tank? Your addon would need to touch the vehicle addon as such IMHO to make realistic harm to a crew when exposed to blast etc inside vehicle.

 

 

Titan vanguard will have "civilian version" aswell. As for my addon, crew is taking damage in vanilla arma, you just need to hit in proper place to kill gunner for example. It happened to me twice as far as i remember, in RHS its very noticeable, tank crews are mortal.

[kremator 1065]

Guys & at DEVs ... is this a regression?

 

Spawn a HEMTT (or any other road vehicle) place a waypoint DIRECTLY behind the vehicle (up to around 100m) and try to get it to move..... it won't. 

 

Now put the waypoint further than100m directly behind the vehicle and it will move.  I cannot remember AI driving being this bad that they couldn't plot a path directly behind them ... is THIS the reason that they are shocking drivers ?

[dragon01 902]

 

On 8/31/2017 at 5:00 PM, Vasily.B said:

Titan vanguard will have "civilian version" aswell. As for my addon, crew is taking damage in vanilla arma, you just need to hit in proper place to kill gunner for example. It happened to me twice as far as i remember, in RHS its very noticeable, tank crews are mortal.

Which will likely be for training firefighters and the like. "Civilian" could just mean that it won't have features that are classified or depend on military-specific licenses. This isn't exactly competition for ArmA. Open-space VR isn't too well suited for consumer use due to the fact you might not have enough room for it to work properly and that if you're going to interact with a physical object, it must be represented outside the simulation somehow. You can't sit in a chair that isn't really there, for example, and I really don't think Titan Vanguard will feature an exosuit to get around that limitation. 

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

On 9/7/2017 at 6:38 AM, kremator said:

Guys & at DEVs ... is this a regression?

 

Spawn a HEMTT (or any other road vehicle) place a waypoint DIRECTLY behind the vehicle (up to around 100m) and try to get it to move..... it won't. 

 

Now put the waypoint further than100m directly behind the vehicle and it will move.  I cannot remember AI driving being this bad that they couldn't plot a path directly behind them ... is THIS the reason that they are shocking drivers ?

 

the driving was bad prior to the 2016 overhaul, but not broken. now some parts are better, but they are irrelevant because other parts are broken (like that you mentioned, pathfinding when first course of action must be a 3-point or U-turn.

[The Man Without Qualities 110]

I fired up my game PC after holidays to play a CTI. I gave up after few hours, one reason was actual pathfinding (my A3 is updated by steam, so always up-to-date).

I've seen following AI driving brilliance:

 

- Hunter vehicle hammering a lamp pole until wheels broken

- LAV accelerating and breaking in high frequency because a truck was blockinh the street and that until truck was pushed to the side

- few support trucks unfortunately ordered to stop on a road, but AI of next vehic recoged to late, started breaking but slammed into with still to high speed - all 4 vehics lost in fireballs

- vehics still kill you when you order them with 1-1 to your position

 

In addition, my "golden setup" in launcher did not work (wich I tested out in April/may and which was running "stable" ) with the new release, my client crashed several times due to memory handling issues.

 

So WTF we have?

 

For sure NOT a mature game.

 

 

 

 

[Vasily.B 529]

1 hour ago, The Man Without Qualities said:

I fired up my game PC after holidays to play a CTI. I gave up after few hours, one reason was actual pathfinding (my A3 is updated by steam, so always up-to-date).

I've seen following AI driving brilliance:

 

- Hunter vehicle hammering a lamp pole until wheels broken

- LAV accelerating and breaking in high frequency because a truck was blockinh the street and that until truck was pushed to the side

- few support trucks unfortunately ordered to stop on a road, but AI of next vehic recoged to late, started breaking but slammed into with still to high speed - all 4 vehics lost in fireballs

- vehics still kill you when you order them with 1-1 to your position

 

In addition, my "golden setup" in launcher did not work (wich I tested out in April/may and which was running "stable" ) with the new release, my client crashed several times due to memory handling issues.

 

So WTF we have?

 

For sure NOT a mature game.

 

 

 

 

Well, Carmageddon had the same "possibilities" and was mature game ;)

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

// Tanoa
player setPos [10429.1,6566.17,0.00145674];
player setDir 64.9052;
_vehicle = createVehicle ["B_APC_Tracked_01_rcws_F",[10591.8,6644.39,0.00135493],[],0,'NONE'];
createVehicleCrew _vehicle;
_group = group (effectiveCommander _vehicle);
_wp = _group addWaypoint [[10437.9,6573.58,0.00151587],0];
_wp setWaypointType 'MOVE';

 

@klamacz this kind of issue is holding back designers from doing more with vehicles, convoy missions, etc. maybe useful for Tanks DLC

 

 

[pierremgi 4888]

27 minutes ago, fn_Quiksilver said:

// Tanoa
player setPos [10429.1,6566.17,0.00145674];
player setDir 64.9052;
_vehicle = createVehicle ["B_APC_Tracked_01_rcws_F",[10591.8,6644.39,0.00135493],[],0,'NONE'];
createVehicleCrew _vehicle;
_group = group (effectiveCommander _vehicle);
_wp = _group addWaypoint [[10437.9,6573.58,0.00151587],0];
_wp setWaypointType 'MOVE';

 

 

 

Too heavy load for the bridge?

 

Yeah, I had some "broken" paths on Lingor, but on a BI official map, it's not cool at all.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

added a vid to the above issue

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

Can we get a dev to check over the road network on Tanoa WRP to ensure bridge assets don't cause issues.

 

I've also noticed a difference in bridge useability between tracked vehicles and wheeled vehicles, some do better on other bridges, and vice versa.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

https://www.red3d.com/cwr/papers/1999/gdc99steer.pdf

 

we also need a road network path following offset, so we can have bi-directional traffic. In short, keep a vehicle to one side of the road, by telling it to traverse always on the right/left side of a road segment node.

 

this is not new for RV engine

 

https://resources.bisimulations.com/wiki/driveOnRoadSide

[krycek 349]

On 9/30/2017 at 8:18 AM, fn_Quiksilver said:

 

@klamacz this kind of issue is holding back designers from doing more with vehicles, convoy missions, etc. maybe useful for Tanks DLC

 

By now I'm pretty sure they implemented Brick's AI for bridges.

 

[R3vo 2654]

22 minutes ago, krycek said:

 

By now I'm pretty sure they implemented Brick's AI for bridges.

 

[inlesco 233]

Some great news from the recent dev branch build for AI driving of wheeled vehs: https://forums.bistudio.com/forums/topic/140837-development-branch-changelog/?page=46&tab=comments#comment-3240468

 

Anybody fancy to share some impressions from the update?