AI Driving - Feedback topic

[dragon01 902]

2 hours ago, Grumpy Old Man said:

It's good that we have the possibility to tune the AI steering component,

but why bother if the devs themselves, who introduced and developed this system can't seem to find a working solution?

Because PID tuning is largely an experimental science (read: lots of trail and error). BI team working on A3 at this point is small, and it'd be rather inefficient to have them all sit down and fiddle with the PIDs. Community can do it just as well (probably better, as players may have a better idea what "feels" right in missions).

[xon2 102]

CONVOYS then; is there ans reason to assume that working on individual vehicles PID values might have any influence  on convoys breaking up/getting stuck randomly? Oukej, you said more than once that those PID values actually is something we can tweak and play around ourselves with. But how do PID values relate to the problems we see with convoys?

[The Man Without Qualities 110]

3 hours ago, oukej said:

 

There's also an initiative for you to try configuring the vehicle PIDs. We'll be happy to hear your thoughts or even go ahead implementing your PID settings for indiv. vehicles which would have better behavior than the current vanilla default.
You'd have our big thanks - and from players too!
Moreover you'll be allowed to claim #CommunityFixedItForYaBIS ;)

 

 

Well, I am not confident that we got nuff detailed information (or even a manual) how exactly all those parameter interact/interwork with each other.

Otherwise it would be very time-consuming blind trial&error.

So is there someone in BIS who could pamper those community members with very short response time for questions??

[SuicideKing 233]

On 6/23/2018 at 12:47 PM, krycek said:

I had a test on Tanoa

A few people i know tried to do some stuff with road networks a year or two ago. Tanoa had quite some issues with road layout and connectivity, which i think makes it worse than Altis, for example.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Indeed. Not sure map makers are connected with AI staff, map and models should be built considering how AI handle them. For example, garden/fence doors being closed on default isn't very wise, as AI hardly considers them open if not opened by default.

[froggyluv 2135]

10 hours ago, ProfTournesol said:

Indeed. Not sure map makers are connected with AI staff, map and models should be built considering how AI handle them. For example, garden/fence doors being closed on default isn't very wise, as AI hardly considers them open if not opened by default.

 

 Simply cant overstate how absolutely critical this is to a genuine infantry gaming experience. Ill never forget first time I was in Sahrani and was about to get a seemingly brilliant squad on squad firefight on those raised terraced areas in downtown Paraiso - a nice multi leveled staired area would be so intriguing when blam - AI couldnt move on or around them at all... Literally couldnt believe why an artist who games would put in a movement deadzone in the middle of a critical city! Happened again years later in Tanoa (also Terraced) but this time they said it was 'more meant for multiplayer'..

 

Anyways enough crying over spilt milk. really hope that AI team and Map terrain and object team work hand in hand this next time around. Where and how high windows that have AI placement points really do matter! Half shuttered windows really do suck! Shit, crying again my bad. NearestBuilding needs tweaking as it sometimes tries to locate the center of the building model some 60meters away...but this is critical for those of us trying to implement an interior AI fighting component. AI crawling under fences works remarkably not bad but man would it be great for them to actually vault over small walls etc -as they are far more common than high fencing. And some nice Nav mesh of roofs, bridges and carrier decks to prevent AI suicide would be nice as well -im starting to take them personally.

[pierremgi 4850]

34 minutes ago, froggyluv said:

really hope that AI team and Map terrain and object team work hand in hand this next time around. Where and how high windows that have AI placement points really do matter! Half shuttered windows really do suck! NearestBuilding needs tweaking as it sometimes tries to locate the center of the building model some 60meters away...but this is critical for those of us trying to implement an interior AI fighting component. AI crawling under fences works remarkably not bad but man would it be great for them to actually vault over small walls etc -as they are far more common than high fencing. And some nice Nav mesh of roofs, bridges and carrier decks to prevent AI suicide would be nice as well -im starting to take them personally.

 

That could be the bill of specs for the so-called quality assurance team!

- why AIs can go thru walls, doors, rocks ? but not players, thanks for that!

- why AIs are unable to go thru a net fence (vanilla destroyed)  and have to make a HUGE detour (Tanoa, North of main airfield)? That's because, destroyed or not, models have the same LOD/lack of path or else.

- why AIs are unable to reach a building position in some vanilla buildings? that's because buildings can have positions without paths. (Tanoa Georgetown is a must for botched houses).

- how could work fine nearestBuilding, nearestTerrainObjects when "house" classes are returning for ages runway lamps..? Just saying the vehicle class is messy as hell. Building, house, hide (ridiculous), static,... find your stuff!

- so, all these problems are linked somewhere. AI drivers or infantry can't see rocks... Lack of path/road can halt the process, or make things weird.

etc.

 

[The Man Without Qualities 110]

By judging the actual ability to play certain CTI missions by using AI, I consider the game A3 as broken.

I hope BIS does not intend to leave A3 as it is now.

Even at release of A3 - this out of my mouth/hands! - A3 was working better in terms of AI handling.

If a possible new customer of A4 is confronted with an A3 as it is right now - I have doubts that he would be very attracted.

 

 

[kremator 1065]

I’ve been an avid supporter of all things Arma/OFP since the early days, but I really AM thinking seriously about whether or not to grab Arma4 (when supporters edition is announced!).  Driving is so broken right now ... remember when we were asked to highlight regressions ?  If convoys WAS working but now it isn’t then this is a massive regression and should be fixed before moving on.

 

We’ve also talked about helping BIS much more by them exposing some engine stuff for us to tinker with, then we could help to improve Arma3 together.  Alas no.

[Tankbuster 1744]

I'm currently in the 'no' camp.

All the trust has gone.

Just to reiterate, ai driving, and convoy driving in particular, used to be pretty decent. Then, even with daily dev builds, it got broken and eventually, pushed to stable in that condition.

Who ever made that call is ultimately responsible for this pooch screw.

[xon2 102]

I have played around with convoys for about 3 hours yesterday (though i broke a promise to myself by doing it cause i swor to finally only play the game and waste my time on testing things out to see where we're at) and i used the 'AISteeringComponent false' command per vehicle either in EDEN or when Zeusing. First i hat 4 hunters doing a convoy (lowest of the three default speeds and column) and they did their job almost without issue. As long as i send them along official, proper roads (hard surface as well as sand) i did not see any weird stuff nor random vehicle stops and convoy break ups. When i send them through the back-country things didn't go as smooth. I then added 2 Hemnts and then things started breaking down again. So, convoys apparently work reasonably well if they consist of only the same exact vehicle. No idea why! Tried the same setup with a pure hemnt convoy and artillery convoy. Its not really great to but better than nothing. Didn't try it without disabling AISteeringComponent with only same vehicle convoys. Its probably the latter (different vehicles) and not the AISteeringComponent that fucks things up. 

[The Man Without Qualities 110]

6 minutes ago, xon2 said:

I have played around with convoys for about 3 hours yesterday (though i broke a promise to myself by doing it cause i swor to finally only play the game and waste my time on testing things out to see where we're at) and i used the 'AISteeringComponent false' command per vehicle either in EDEN or when Zeusing. First i hat 4 hunters doing a convoy (lowest of the three default speeds and column) and they did their job almost without issue. As long as i send them along official, proper roads (hard surface as well as sand) i did not see any weird stuff nor random vehicle stops and convoy break ups. When i send them through the back-country things didn't go as smooth. I then added 2 Hemnts and then things started breaking down again. So, convoys apparently work reasonably well if they consist of only the same exact vehicle. No idea why! Tried the same setup with a pure hemnt convoy and artillery convoy. Its not really great to but better than nothing. Didn't try it without disabling AISteeringComponent with only same vehicle convoys. Its probably the latter (different vehicles) and not the AISteeringComponent that fucks things up. 

 

 

Now imagine the consequences for a CTI:

 

- in very old versions, the transfer of "supplies" was simulated by trucks transferring virtally supply points to the occupied towns. That was given up loooong time ago because you lost lots of supply due to AI truck drivers

- AI commander "buys" depending on the CTI mission complex sets of vehicles to form some useful squads (e.g. few tanks and 1 AA vehicle if > 2tanks in group), they are send by mission logic to the next town to occupy - depending on actual alert setting via roads or straight across landscape. With current AI driving - as often mentioned by me - most vehicle losses caused directly or indirectly  by AI driving in combination with flipping tendency of vehicles and sensitive tires.

- some CTI missions do not utilize proper routines to empty the closer factory environment nor checking the spawn area for new purchased vehicles. Result: vehicles and everything explodes in a huge fireball if the 1st vehicle spawns into another. Until that, AI driver have huge problems to leave the area in a crowded situation. This was not the case in 2016 by using the very same mission files.

[x3kj 1247]

Quote

- some CTI missions do not utilize proper routines to empty the closer factory environment nor checking the spawn area for new purchased vehicles. Result: vehicles and everything explodes in a huge fireball if the 1st vehicle spawns into another.

How is this an AI driving problem? BIS is not responsible for mission design from community authors.
There are certainly issues with driving AI, but not everything is fault of AI driving, or even BIS's fault. Entire Altis is covered with these super annoying small stone walls and those steel road boundary things that can wreck almost all vehicles or at least get them stuck, or flip them. Not just AI, also players are regularly victims of them.This is a map/model design issue. They are indestructible and present almost everywhere.

 

Also, there is barely any slowdown when driving off road. Remember A2, where you where your max speed was cut in half or more in many cases when you left the road. In A3 everything is practically autobahn - except it's littered with obstacles that can wreck anyone foolish enough to drive at max speed (such as those tiny stone walls).

 

Supply truck driving in CTI didnt reliably work in A2 either, which is why people started allowing it to be disabled (benny warfare) back then already.

[The Man Without Qualities 110]

6 hours ago, x3kj said:

How is this an AI driving problem? BIS is not responsible for mission design from community authors.
There are certainly issues with driving AI, but not everything is fault of AI driving, or even BIS's fault. Entire Altis is covered with these super annoying small stone walls and those steel road boundary things that can wreck almost all vehicles or at least get them stuck, or flip them. Not just AI, also players are regularly victims of them.This is a map/model design issue. They are indestructible and present almost everywhere.

 

Also, there is barely any slowdown when driving off road. Remember A2, where you where your max speed was cut in half or more in many cases when you left the road. In A3 everything is practically autobahn - except it's littered with obstacles that can wreck anyone foolish enough to drive at max speed (such as those tiny stone walls).

 

Supply truck driving in CTI didnt reliably work in A2 either, which is why people started allowing it to be disabled (benny warfare) back then already.

Not sure what you wanted to express. I did not blame BIS for odd spawn area management, proper routines were coded even during OFP lifetime. I mentioned the combination of inability of AI drivers to  empty the area by finding a valid path which makes a spawn collision more likely.

Indeed, AI driving was never acceptable, but A3, current status leaves me stunned.

As you mentioned the speed, I do not get the point why BIS is not trying to solve the issue partly by slowing AI driving in general alowing more calc cycles for interaction with the environment.

It is standard that even single AI driven vehicles driving behind you smashing into your rear because they always using bakes to late. This is not the exception, this is the standard.

And right, the use of streets does not bring a real strategic advantage since driving offroad does not bring any real time loss that matters nor wrecks it vehicles properly except those broken wheels cus AI does not recog any stone.

I wrote it very often, in the very beginning of A3 the vehicles did not have this magic auto-back-to-wheels feature as it is now that turns you slowly back to wheels. I loved it. Also driving downhill pressing "W" constantly lead into a crash, there was no magic auto-break. All that is gone and driving even by humans is messed up by strange auto-pilots making this game more arcade-shooter style.

[xon2 102]

So i have repeated the 'useAISteeringComponent false' with slow speed/column and a convoy of 4 Hunters at the front and 2 HEMTT at the back. At some point the last HEMTT got stuck again for no apparent reason on a straight stretch of one of Atlis's big-broad hard-surface roads (like  the one right next to the main airport). The was plenty of space to the HEMTT preceding it, it did not crash into anything nor swerved around...it just stopped.

 

So these convoy troubles are not directly related to the PID values then! So come on BIS,....i put in the hours to test this stuff, and you as a company are just too happy that a lot of community folks put in the hours on devbranch for over 4 years now! So you gotta put at least one ai driving dev that was involved with ai driving implementation in arma 3 over the last years, to investigating this very specific issue. Let him/her sit down for one work-week, 30 - 40 hours to investigate why vehicles in convoys randomly stop and break up the entire convoy. Community members have put in in the hundreds of hours testing this stuff, i am sure. It can't be too much to ask for one ai dev to put in an honest effort. I do not believe for one second that this is a financial and resource issue. Its just management not letting one ai dev look into it. I expect better from BIS.

 

So, Oukej, please bring this up with BIS management again! If the industry average is 10.000 dollars per employee a month (total costs, not sallary), then this one week would cost BIS 2500 dollars. If this dev doesn't find anything within 5 work days, i rest may case and back off.

[Sparker 185]

I suggest we do it like this:

1. Find scenarios and videos showing the evident failures of driving and convoy handling without any mods.

2. Collect (a sort of) signatures of people affected by this issue, most important is to find mission developers of popular scenarios.

3. Create a proper text which explains everything.

4. Send it to someone in the upper management of the company who can dispatch the resources to respond to the problems.

If the company is known for its relations with the content creating community, they won't ignore this (I guess).

[The Man Without Qualities 110]

17 minutes ago, Sparker said:

I suggest we do it like this:

1. Find scenarios and videos showing the evident failures of driving and convoy handling without any mods.

2. Collect (a sort of) signatures of people affected by this issue, most important is to find mission developers of popular scenarios.

3. Create a proper text which explains everything.

4. Send it to someone in the upper management of the company who can dispatch the resources to respond to the problems.

If the company is known for its relations with the content creating community, they won't ignore this (I guess).

 

For this bug and many before:

1.) done

2.) done

3.) done

4.) now you made me laughting

[Sparker 185]

Where is 2.? Having a list of known mission developers is a good argument.

Why does 4. make you laugh? I'm not really aware of the structure of the company and who is responsible for what and who we should send it to, but I can imagine the collective message having more effect than our usual bumping of this thread.

[kremator 1065]

Keep on task guys!  I’m sure that we’ll get the correct BIS response soon.

[xon2 102]

What makes you think that, anything you know and we have missed?

[pierremgi 4850]

AI driving has some remaining weird engine controls. There is no real trouble for a HUNTER traveling on roads. Difficulties come with lack of road segments (or sometimes weird connections between them), blocks like rocks, "invisible" objects for collision, other moving vehicles.

- I'm not familiar with PID, so I'm sure I could spend weeks or months failing doing better than BI devs. I just remarked (see video below) that vanilla tanks are "week" in city progression.

- the collisions are garbled by two things, imho:

    + the lack of inertia (Never seen in real world a tank bouncing and looping in the air);

    + the "velocity" of the event. I means, if you "instantaneously" spawn an object into another one (messing with "can_collide" for example), the cinematic is totally inaccurate.

- There is no logical "exit" "issue" for maneuvering when stuck. You can see an HEMTT trying billions of times to maneuver  right/forward, left/backward.... no matter where the obstacle is, (it doesn't "know" where it is in fact), without attempting something else...

 

Anyway, even if a convoy is submitted to all these following points on each vehicle, the new setConvoySeperation is not too bad!

As you can see in the following video (full AIs!), you can mix the types of vehicles. You can even add an helicopter following the convoy!

The tank remains a hard point for the convoy progression, except on long straight parts of the track.

 

 

So, what I tested so far, with some success:

- place your vehicles in good order for the convoy,

- group them to the vehicle leading, one by one, in the order you want them to start (currently the same as above!). If you make any change (for example changing a HEMTT for another one in editor object type), the order is broken. You have to ungroup all then group them one by one the vehicles again.
Do not hesitate to do that. Otherwise the group order is broken. that's a weakness of the editor (like for support modules which can loose their efficiency if slightly modified afterwards).

 

- in "composition state" field of the group icon (right click):

behavior Safe, column, limited speed mode,

- I used to add :

{ _x disableAi "autoCombat"} forEach (units this select {driver _x == _x && vehicle _x != _x});

It's useful in specific case, like when you want the convoy to cross a battle field while the drivers continues on road. Problems rise when some vehicles are destroyed... So, perhaps, keep that on mind for video trailers if you help with indestructible vehicles.

 

- in init field of the leading vehicle:

this limitSpeed 40;  // a good average

in the init field of all the vehicle. I didn't remark a difference if the leader has the code or not, so let's say all vehicles but leader.

 

this setConvoySeparation 20; // do not try a too close distance. The close distance can break the separation and even stop definitively the vehicle!

With some experience of broken convoy, I added:

0 = this spawn {while {alive _this} do {waitUntil {sleep 1; speed _this == 0}; _this setConvoySeparation 20}};

just to "rearm" the command. It's not 100% guaranteed but I remarked so improvements with that... Just to be tested before giving up!

If you add an helo, increase to separation for it. And reduce the flyInHeightASL ([20,20,20] seems OK).

 

About waypoints:

The idea is: the less intermediate waypoints, the better!

The engine will calculate a path anyway, before the leader starts. Then, all is fluid and there is no stop, like you can see that on each waypoint (probably for calculation).

On the other hand, intermediate waypoints are useful for alternate navigation and offer a little stop allowing the convoy to regroup (especially with tanks!).

 

The convoy separation is certainly a complex behavior and I can say BI did a great effort on that. The vehicles are trying to keep their separation and the leader waits for late queue, driving at low speed. The last intermediate vehicle seem to make the junction with an intermediate position. On the other hand, any sluggish vehicle sucks!

Last but not least, I'm rather sure the AI leader can order (they love to give orders!) the vehicle to repair or refuel or rearm to another one... They have their own trait, after all.

 

 

Now, combat!

The fact is the event issue is unpredictable! You can play the same scenario, again and again without the same result. Never! If the convoy behavior depends on the machine state(Arma engine, scheduler, memory, CPU load...), then be sure the combat mode is far more stormy!

So, as written above, for trailers, do what you want and disable damage on vehicles (at least the leader!), Make enemies dumber, remove some ATs, AAs,...

For an immersive scenario, keep the convoy "AWARE" and cross fingers.

 

How does things work with setConvoySeparation?

- when vehicle leader or leader dies, // the speed limitation is not switched of course. The convoy separation seems to work and the waypoints are not erased. The combat behavior can shift within a short delay. Not too bad.

- when a vehicle can't move anymore, // not sure the convoy separation manages this case. There is perhaps a max distance to keep the convoy, but it's way too long.

- with squad embarked into vehicles... // not sure the convoy stuff is 100% compatible with the setUnloadInCombat... Units embark/disembark repeatedly and sometimes fall stuck in column formation outside. Not great to allow this behavior in convoy.

 

 

 

Note: the HE shells fires on enemy infantry with tank or APC is an added script.

Have fun. Stay positive.

Pierre

 

 

 

 

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

On 6/26/2018 at 4:05 PM, froggyluv said:

 

 Simply cant overstate how absolutely critical this is to a genuine infantry gaming experience. Ill never forget first time I was in Sahrani and was about to get a seemingly brilliant squad on squad firefight on those raised terraced areas in downtown Paraiso - a nice multi leveled staired area would be so intriguing when blam - AI couldnt move on or around them at all... Literally couldnt believe why an artist who games would put in a movement deadzone in the middle of a critical city! Happened again years later in Tanoa (also Terraced) but this time they said it was 'more meant for multiplayer'..

 

Anyways enough crying over spilt milk. really hope that AI team and Map terrain and object team work hand in hand this next time around. Where and how high windows that have AI placement points really do matter! Half shuttered windows really do suck! Shit, crying again my bad. NearestBuilding needs tweaking as it sometimes tries to locate the center of the building model some 60meters away...but this is critical for those of us trying to implement an interior AI fighting component. AI crawling under fences works remarkably not bad but man would it be great for them to actually vault over small walls etc -as they are far more common than high fencing. And some nice Nav mesh of roofs, bridges and carrier decks to prevent AI suicide would be nice as well -im starting to take them personally.

 

it is sad that there is minimal/no communication between the terrain designers and the engine/gameplay/ai designers. this is what happens with outsourcing to cut cost :\

 

like, do the vietnamese Tanoa designers really know what the Prague designers want in terms of AI useability? rip

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

7 hours ago, pierremgi said:

AI driving has some remaining weird engine controls. There is no real trouble for a HUNTER traveling on roads. Difficulties come with lack of road segments (or sometimes weird connections between them), blocks like rocks, "invisible" objects for collision, other moving vehicles.

- I'm not familiar with PID, so I'm sure I could spend weeks or months failing doing better than BI devs. I just remarked (see video below) that vanilla tanks are "week" in city progression.

- the collisions are garbled by two things, imho:

    + the lack of inertia (Never seen in real world a tank bouncing and looping in the air);

    + the "velocity" of the event. I means, if you "instantaneously" spawn an object into another one (messing with "can_collide" for example), the cinematic is totally inaccurate.

- There is no logical "exit" "issue" for maneuvering when stuck. You can see an HEMTT trying billions of times to maneuver  right/forward, left/backward.... no matter where the obstacle is, (it doesn't "know" where it is in fact), without attempting something else...

 

Anyway, even if a convoy is submitted to all these following points on each vehicle, the new setConvoySeperation is not too bad!

As you can see in the following video (full AIs!), you can mix the types of vehicles. You can even add an helicopter following the convoy!

The tank remains a hard point for the convoy progression, except on long straight parts of the track.

 

 

So, what I tested so far, with some success:

- place your vehicles in good order for the convoy,

- group them to the vehicle leading, one by one, in the order you want them to start (currently the same as above!). If you make any change (for example changing a HEMTT for another one in editor object type), the order is broken. You have to ungroup all then group them one by one the vehicles again.
Do not hesitate to do that. Otherwise the group order is broken. that's a weakness of the editor (like for support modules which can loose their efficiency if slightly modified afterwards).

 

- in "composition state" field of the group icon (right click):

behavior Safe, column, limited speed mode,

- I used to add :

{ _x disableAi "autoCombat"} forEach (units this select {driver _x == _x && vehicle _x != _x});

It's useful in specific case, like when you want the convoy to cross a battle field while the drivers continues on road. Problems rise when some vehicles are destroyed... So, perhaps, keep that on mind for video trailers if you help with indestructible vehicles.

 

- in init field of the leading vehicle:

this limitSpeed 40;  // a good average

in the init field of all the vehicle. I didn't remark a difference if the leader has the code or not, so let's say all vehicles but leader.

 

this setConvoySeparation 20; // do not try a too close distance. The close distance can break the separation and even stop definitively the vehicle!

With some experience of broken convoy, I added:

0 = this spawn {while {alive _this} do {waitUntil {sleep 1; speed _this == 0}; _this setConvoySeparation 20}};

just to "rearm" the command. It's not 100% guaranteed but I remarked so improvements with that... Just to be tested before giving up!

If you add an helo, increase to separation for it. And reduce the flyInHeightASL ([20,20,20] seems OK).

 

About waypoints:

The idea is: the less intermediate waypoints, the better!

The engine will calculate a path anyway, before the leader starts. Then, all is fluid and there is no stop, like you can see that on each waypoint (probably for calculation).

On the other hand, intermediate waypoints are useful for alternate navigation and offer a little stop allowing the convoy to regroup (especially with tanks!).

 

The convoy separation is certainly a complex behavior and I can say BI did a great effort on that. The vehicles are trying to keep their separation and the leader waits for late queue, driving at low speed. The last intermediate vehicle seem to make the junction with an intermediate position. On the other hand, any sluggish vehicle sucks!

Last but not least, I'm rather sure the AI leader can order (they love to give orders!) the vehicle to repair or refuel or rearm to another one... They have their own trait, after all.

 

 

Now, combat!

The fact is the event issue is unpredictable! You can play the same scenario, again and again without the same result. Never! If the convoy behavior depends on the machine state(Arma engine, scheduler, memory, CPU load...), then be sure the combat mode is far more stormy!

So, as written above, for trailers, do what you want and disable damage on vehicles (at least the leader!), Make enemies dumber, remove some ATs, AAs,...

For an immersive scenario, keep the convoy "AWARE" and cross fingers.

 

How does things work with setConvoySeparation?

- when vehicle leader or leader dies, // the speed limitation is not switched of course. The convoy separation seems to work and the waypoints are not erased. The combat behavior can shift within a short delay. Not too bad.

- when a vehicle can't move anymore, // not sure the convoy separation manages this case. There is perhaps a max distance to keep the convoy, but it's way too long.

- with squad embarked into vehicles... // not sure the convoy stuff is 100% compatible with the setUnloadInCombat... Units embark/disembark repeatedly and sometimes fall stuck in column formation outside. Not great to allow this behavior in convoy.

 

 

 

Note: the HE shells fires on enemy infantry with tank or APC is an added script.

Have fun. Stay positive.

Pierre

 

 

 

 

 

you're wasting your time

 

 the job of fixing and making sense of the AI is BIS job. they hide their AI code from us for whatever reason, and expect us -- through tedious trial and error -- to find a useable and non-broken pathway to creating fun game content. they could, with few button clicks, post us the AI driving code so we can inspect and 'navigate a path' through the buggy code, but they choose daily to instead conceal and not publish.

 

if BIS wants a change in situation, post the FSM of the buggy/garbage driving AI and the modding community will figure out how best to make use of it to create fun gameplay, while you guys focus on ArmA 4 enfusion. Hopefully there is no link between A3 driving and A4 driving, so there should be no intellectual property concerns with posting the A3 driving FSM. If however there is some link between A3 AI driving and A4 AI driving, there is reason to worry..

 

tag @oukej @klamacz @dr. hladik

[pierremgi 4850]

2 hours ago, fn_Quiksilver said:

 

you're wasting your time

 the job of fixing and making sense of the AI is BIS job. they hide their AI code from us for whatever reason, and expect us -- through tedious trial and error -- to find a useable and non-broken pathway to creating fun game content. they could, with few button clicks, post us the AI driving code so we can inspect and 'navigate a path' through the buggy code,

 

if BIS wants a change in situation, post the FSM.

 

tag @oukej @klamacz @dr. hladik

 

My time belongs to me.

I played and scripted Arma for years because I like that. I'm probably one of the older fan (born in 1960). At least, I didn't waste yours because you didn't try anything I wrote. I just hope this can help some mission makers, even if not perfect. That's the core interest of a forum.

So, your "You're wasting your time"  is a little short and uselessly discouraging for the other ones.

 

For the rest, I don't know why, I doubt the solution is so easy as you wrote.

[Grumpy Old Man 3545]

6 hours ago, pierremgi said:

My time belongs to me.

 

In Arma 2 the time spent setting up a convoy was a mere minute at most.

 

In A3, 9 out of 10 times trying to place a convoy it'll simply not work, and that's being optimistic.

Go to Altis Salt Lake or VR map or any similar barren area, place a convoy there, limit the speed of the lead vehicle to 30, set the group to SAFE behavior and give them a waypoint.

 

Watch how at least 1 vehicle gets stuck, with not one single obstacle in the vicinity.

 

 

This is basically just placing a convoy and making them move.

There are no obstacles, no combat going on, no other scripts or mods hooking into the AI.

That's the most barebones scenario, not some weird edge case that'll happen once in ten years.

Wonder how this got past QA.

 

Cheers