Something has to be done about AI shooting through the jungle.

[old_painless 182]

2nd ranger, I couldn't tell from the video if you were hit? At least the first shot, you were much too obscured for the AI to spot you, unless you had moved before the video started. Without scope a human player would not have been able to make you (unless you moved around). I think that is the standard BI should measure AI detection by

[ivan keska 45]

Question are you jogging or walking? Because i've noticed a difference in how well they engage you based on how you move around, because when i took my time and walked like you would in real life they had a hard time engaging me and seeing me it seemed. Also are you making sure they can't see you or didn't see you. Because I've noticed times when they fired at me i couldn't see them but the spot I was in a few steps back they had eyes on me.

But will admit there are strange moments mostly when they do surpressive fire, in where i can be on the other side of a tree and they just spray at my location like there is nothing there and they do see me.

[Beagle 684]

The main problem in here is that hearing should not play such a big role in a ongoing firefight. You wont be able to hear movement, and after a few shot you will either wear earplugs or lose the ability to pinpoint the noise for quite a while. (ears ringing)

[road runner 4344]

The main problem in here is that hearing should not play such a big role in a ongoing firefight. You wont be able to hear movement, and after a few shot you will either wear earplugs or lose the ability to pinpoint the noise for quite a while. (ears ringing)

exactly, if you're in a firefight, the bad guys will be spraying and praying and firing in all directions.

@old painless, totally disagree, the peripheral vision is much greater using iron sights compared to focusing through optics, there fore slight/increased/exxagerated movements would be much more easily detected through iron sights.

[korax 4]

Somehow I don't want the AI spotting nerfed, even after watching that video, I feel it you made it impossible for AI to spot you through bushes then all of a sudden we're going to have complete nincompoops running about the forest bumping in to each other. What I would like to see though is more of a "spray and pray" approach used by AI when a unit is fully/partially concealed (and not on the direct area, maybe a sweeping motion around the general location) to add to the immersion

[Greenfist 1863]

This is just a quick test of AI spotting ability and comparing it to what the player sees. I've used one particular tree type as concealment, because it illustrates what I believe to be the issue, namely that the AI only needs to see a few pixels of your character before identifying you as a target, while you might not even be able to see them through the foliage.

 

From the AI's perspective, I am partially visible in both scenarios (when zoomed in). The question is should the AI be able to spot me considering my level of concealment, distance, and to a lesser extent, environmental conditions? Even if they should see me, should they be able to identify me as an enemy so quickly? To the latter question, look how quickly the enemy guy starts shooting at me after he emerges from behind the tree in the second clip. AI skill is default.

 

I think that particular tree has some geometry/material issues. It's not this bad with most vegetation.

A short test: (red=sees me, green=I'm safe)

Notice how none of my pixels are even visible in the thermal view.

[2nd ranger 282]

Oh I know, that's why I picked it. I have another video where I'm barely concealed in one of the big ferns and a patrol walks right by me.

[dragon01 902]

The main problem in here is that hearing should not play such a big role in a ongoing firefight. You wont be able to hear movement, and after a few shot you will either wear earplugs or lose the ability to pinpoint the noise for quite a while. (ears ringing)

Even without hearing loss, hearing plays too much of a role. It should alert the AI that's something's up, but no amount of aural cues should be able to make them shoot at you. Generally, unless you're very close, it's hard to place a noise with accuracy better than "it's in this general area". If you ever placed your cellphone in a place where it's not visible (say, under a newspaper or a book) and forgot about it, you'll know what I'm talking about, especially if you live in a big house. :) 

 

The problem with hearing is probably best shown during the night (the showcase is too bright, but the campaign mission based on it is perfect for this). Assuming they're in alerted state, the AIs can spot and shoot at you, despite not being able to see you (no NVGs+too far for flashlight to be of any use). IRL, they'd be shooting at your muzzleflash, meaning that rolling to the side a few times should throw them off completely.

[NeMeSiS 11]

One aspect that seems to lead to confusion is difference between an AI's ability to see and to hear enemy.

For example, Ollem developed the TPWCAS mod in which the AI State is displayed via a ball displayed above their head:

* No ball - unsuppressed.

* Green ball - suppressed by friendly fire.

* Yellow ball - suppressed by sporadic enemy fire.

* Red ball - suppressed by heavy enemy fire.

* Black ball - unit is fleeing (fleeing does not mean the unit is running away, but will not be able to be suppressed).

So is there a debug mode where AI Alertness is visually reprensented? e.g. a multi-coloured exclamation mark where:

* No exclamation - unalerted

* Blue exclamation - alerted by audio cue

* Yellow exclamation - alerted by partial-visual cue

* Red exclamation - alerted by clear visual cue

etc.

This I think would help mission designers, modders and even players enormously.

Not for modders IIRC. I cant be bothered to check the ArmA3 files, but in ArmA2 we could identify these causes. I once made a thingy that replaced the ArmA3 danger fsm so it would tell me what the AI was doing to identify these types of bugs, but i didnt really learn anything new. (In general, pretend that they are actual people and you will do fine, though they are better at hearing and there are a few objects which are bugged and the AI kinda partially see through)

 

EDIT: I also have some memories from years ago (ArmA2 times) where a dev once said that the AI requires visual confirmation to see if you are friendly or enemy before attacking, though ive no clue if that actually worked and if its still works like that in ArmA3, though may be worth testing.

[domokun 515]

Not for modders IIRC. I cant be bothered to check the ArmA3 files, but in ArmA2 we could identify these causes. I once made a thingy that replaced the ArmA3 danger fsm so it would tell me what the AI was doing to identify these types of bugs, but i didnt really learn anything new. (In general, pretend that they are actual people and you will do fine, though they are better at hearing and there are a few objects which are bugged and the AI kinda partially see through)

 

EDIT: I also have some memories from years ago (ArmA2 times) where a dev once said that the AI requires visual confirmation to see if you are friendly or enemy before attacking, though ive no clue if that actually worked and if its still works like that in ArmA3, though may be worth testing.

Quite. I often feel that uncertainty is not something that is well-modeled in Arma AI. Some uncertainty,even hesitation would go a long way to reducing the impression of facing terminators ;) But without such debugging tools to identify those FSM Danger Causes, its only guesswork, which isn't very scientific.

[oukej 2910]

I also have some memories from years ago (ArmA2 times) where a dev once said that the AI requires visual confirmation to see if you are friendly or enemy before attacking, though ive no clue if that actually worked and if its still works like that in ArmA3, though may be worth testing.

That still applies. (however if you open fire or endanger the AI it will guess you're an enemy even if it still doesn't see you)

[-Coulum- 35]

Haven't gotten to play on Tanoa yet, but if its anything like what was on altis i would say that a big issue is not so much whether the ai can see you or not, but rather how long it takes them. In your video 2nd ranger, the ai maybe should have eventually spotted you, because you were technically visible. But it should have taken alot longer. Like a couple of minutes 

 

As frustrating as it is to get spotted when camoflauged and partially concealed, its pretty dumb when Ai simply never see you even though you are visible. Like the situation you mention

 

I have another video where I'm barely concealed in one of the big ferns and a patrol walks right by me.

 

If you're only partially concealed they should eventually spot you. otherwise its too easy. 

[tortuosit 485]

This is just a quick test of AI spotting ability and comparing it to what the player sees.

Pretty much my experience again and again. E.g. if AI is far away, like 100m +... You are in a house, walk along a window quickly, and they instantly spot you inside the house in this super complex scenery (from their point of view). You can just play accordingly...

 

That still applies. (however if you open fire or endanger the AI it will guess you're an enemy even if it still doesn't see you)

OK, but if I do not open fire they detect me as an enemy after a long observation process -> 0.0000214 ms? I wonder if the complexity of a scenery can even be measured and if so, if it is part of the spotting capabilities of AI.

I know it is super complex and dependent on every situation and we should offer proof. After all playing I find myself trying to never ever get into their LOS for only a millisecond.

[metalcraze 290]

I have never, not a single time had AI shoot me through the jungle hundreds of meters away. Now shooting me in the jungle because I ran into AI gunsights - that happened a lot. DUH!

[focher 15]

I have definitely experienced being "invisible" to the AI up until very close visual contact in the jungle. This is while I was wearing a stealth uniform and had not fired my weapon (so no heat from the barrel). I've literally had them run right by me in a field while laying prone - but that was just a delayed detection. In fact, it was such a strange encounter I didn't fire because I thought for sure they had to be friendly to be so close and not shooting at me. Like a meter away. But then they killed me and I realized better of it.

[pierremgi 4738]

You're playing in front of your screen and you are more reactive on a moving than a static enemy.

An AI shoot at you any time it can have a computed clear Line Of Sight (LOS) + knowsAbout you. And furthermore, it ceases fire only if you're dead. No matter if you're not returning fire, just prone. The engine knows your status.

 

The knowsAbout acquisition should be different in jungle area than in open field, but also on static vs moving target. A kind of loop back regulator added to the engine.

 

Furthermore, AIs suffer of 3 linked problems:

- when AI "knowsabout" , be sure it doesn't loose your position even if you're circumventing a building. Where a player will scout at left /right sides alternatively, an AI knows what you're doing!

- this knowsabout remains too much time (6 minutes) even by dark night without NVG, Say You're dead, if you shot at AIs direction and try to escape in the dark.

- When an AI runs, overpass a corner of a building, makes a 90° turn to shoot at you, it rarely fails! Such skills are absolutely impossible for human beings.

 

Two ways to explore here:

- drastically decrease the knowsabout at loss of sight (LOS). 4 to 1.4 for example, less by night without NVG. Not zero of course!

- consider the position of the LOS, and not the actualized position. NB: Perhaps, this weird behavior (actualized position) occurs with some buildings but not for the whole situations. One obvious case is the exit of the jail in all Tanoa escape missions. Be discovered, turn around the jail blocks, units are waiting for you exactly where you're appearing again.