Chain link fences are NOT cover !

[kremator 1065]

Dear BIS,

 

This has been bugging me for AGES.  Unless the AI believe that they are incredibly thin, something has to be done about them thinking these fences are cover.   I've just spent the last 30 minutes watching the AI go head to head with each other to check the AI abilties and every time there is a chain link fence the AI inevitably die.  Could you please remove this from their list of cover?

 

Thanks

 

Krem

[twistking 204]

on the other hand, AI seems to ignore most of editor placed fortifications as cover. for example AI doesn't use sandbags as cover, which is kind of stupid...

(stable branch...)

[HeroesandvillainsOS 1504]

I really wish BIS would make the AI trying to preserve their own life in any capacity a top priority. It's totally maddening how little they care about dying.

[kremator 1065]

Well the more we complain about it, hopefully they will listen.   They have done so in the past.

 

So a list of what we need .....  Chain link fences are NOT cover, Placeable sandbags ARE cover!

[das attorney 858]

on the other hand, AI seems to ignore most of editor placed fortifications as cover. for example AI doesn't use sandbags as cover, which is kind of stupid...

(stable branch...)

 

 

Maybe related to this:

 

https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/193836-ai/?p=3084199

[oukej 2911]

Currently we have no list of cover-friendly/unfriendly objects. The creation of cover positions around edges of map objects is fully governed by an engine algorithm. We are aware of the issue that sometimes the cover positions get created on rather inappropriate places (traffic signs, fences).

[froggyluv 2136]

The creation of cover positions around edges of map objects is fully governed by an engine algorithm.

 

 I knew it - our robots are governed by other robots!!!

[cosmic10r 2331]

Currently we have no list of cover-friendly/unfriendly objects. The creation of cover positions around edges of map objects is fully governed by an engine algorithm. We are aware of the issue that sometimes the cover positions get created on rather inappropriate places (traffic signs, fences).

Is it possible to create a list of appropriate cover and non within that context?

Would aid in AI survivability...

Won't someone think of the AI...

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

 I knew it - our robots are governed by other robots!!!

 

take me to your leader

[kremator 1065]

Is it possible to create a list of appropriate cover and non within that context?

Would aid in AI survivability...

Would seem to me that this would be quite a 'thing' to work on then!

[dragon01 902]

Currently we have no list of cover-friendly/unfriendly objects. The creation of cover positions around edges of map objects is fully governed by an engine algorithm. We are aware of the issue that sometimes the cover positions get created on rather inappropriate places (traffic signs, fences).

Ah, yes, the old ArmA2 classic of marines leaning around lampposts and taking cover behind telephone poles. Unfortunately for them, this only works in old cartoons. You guys are not that skinny, you know? :)

[kremator 1065]

Now I'm not a modder but is there anything that could be done in the models, or the config to get a solution (not an immediate solution but one that COULD be developed)?

[galzohar 31]

Currently we have no list of cover-friendly/unfriendly objects. The creation of cover positions around edges of map objects is fully governed by an engine algorithm. We are aware of the issue that sometimes the cover positions get created on rather inappropriate places (traffic signs, fences).

 

So it's really limited to just map objects, and absolutely ignores editor-placed / script-spawned objects? :(

[Greenfist 1863]

So it's really limited to just map objects, and absolutely ignores editor-placed / script-spawned objects? :(

No, placed or spawned objects are also used as cover.

[froggyluv 2136]

So it's really limited to just map objects, and absolutely ignores editor-placed / script-spawned objects? :(

 

[bad benson 1733]

might be that sandbags aren't considered cover because they are not very high. and since the AI doesn't have a duck-shoot-duck routine, they would either go prone and be blind or be exposed. but i'm just talking out my ass. no idea what happens on the engine level and how stuff is evaluated.

 

i found attorney's post pretty interesting though. i wonder if that still applies.

[Greenfist 1863]

My AI seems to use sandbags.

Notice how they ignore the bags that are placed too low, and use the stacked ones as cover. As well as the regular ones of course.

 

Looks to be a purely dynamic system and works surprisingly well. (Except with those chain link fences and other transparent objects obviously)

[cosmic10r 2331]

I was watching an AI teammate lean back and forth from behind a stop sign pole yesterday and thought of this thread lol..

Would be great to have a tiered system of cover.

Primary, secondary and this is NOT cover...

[bad benson 1733]

My AI seems to use sandbags.

 

Notice how they ignore the bags that are placed too low, and use the stacked ones as cover. As well as the regular ones of course.

 

Looks to be a purely dynamic system and works surprisingly well. (Except with those chain link fences and other transparent objects obviously)

 

wow that is really cool to see. i noticed the other day myself how AI gravitated towards cover a lot especially when on the way to somewhere. reminded me a lot of gl4 in arma 2. turns out it's good to test before making statements :lol:

 

considering hte "issue" with poles i wonder, if they just consider the height but not the width of objects or if it's just a problem with them considering every cover point they find a corner.

[Greenfist 1863]

considering hte "issue" with poles i wonder, if they just consider the height but not the width of objects or if it's just a problem with them considering every cover point they find a corner.

I believe it's the width. Because to them all units are a meter long floating sticks, (as in they can't see enemy's legs, shoulders, arms, or sides). So they think they themselves can hide behind narrow poles too. Which might work when they're facing other AI units and not players.

 

The stick theory test video:

[kremator 1065]

^^ that is just hilarious and SAD at the same time!

 

A 'this is NOT cover' tag on items would be great.  OR a change in the engine!

[cosmic10r 2331]

Wow. That is something I did not realize to the extent that the vid makes it obvious.

It's gonna take awhile to fully process

-ai must always be aiming center mass along the plank and any body hits are actually "misses"

-the clutter geometry really needed that update if they were able to see that little 2x4 behind trees and bushes..

I'll have more later lol

[cosmic10r 2331]

So i did some fiddling before work and came up with a simple rally point for AI teammates...

Seems to work fairly well as Aussie Peel itself is a bit of a nightmare... 

 

Really just fiddling with the AI and how they react...

 

[das attorney 858]

I think this would be much easier (for BIS) if they used base classes for these (and all) types of objects.

 

Currently, chainlink fences inherit directly from "Wall_F", so the config is something like this:

 

class Wall_F;
class Land_Net_Fence_4m_F : Wall_F {
    // config stuff
};
class Land_Net_Fence_8m_F : Wall_F {
    // config stuff
};
class Land_Net_Fence_Gate_F : Wall_F {
    // config stuff
};

But they could add a baseclass and do this:

 

class Wall_F;
class ChainFences_base : Wall_F {}; 
class Land_Net_Fence_4m_F : ChainFences_base {
    // config stuff
};
class Land_Net_Fence_8m_F : ChainFences_base {
    // config stuff
};
class Land_Net_Fence_Gate_F : ChainFences_base {
    // config stuff
};

And then scripters and even their own algorithm could have an easy way to determine if object is valid cover:  (isKindOf or engine equivalent).

 

But I think it is too late in the games life to add this and potentially bugger up hundreds of mods and missions.  This kind of thing would have been good in Alpha/Beta phase of the game.

 

The only other way I can think of would be to add a new property to Oxygen models (defaulted to true for back-compat) which tells AI if this p3d is valid cover for the engine algorithm to sort through.

 

Anyway, I hope they can do something (before Arma 4)...

[Greenfist 1863]

I think the cover finding should stay dynamic as it is already, and not bound to any boolean config or model attributes. All it needs is more accurate checks for width, penetration, and transparency of objects.