Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kremator

Chain link fences are NOT cover !

Recommended Posts

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!!!

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ 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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×