LAMBS Improved Danger.fsm

[avibird 1 155]

Hey I have used lambs and Vcom AI work together. Lambs handles more of a combat tactics and behaviors while Vcom AI does it as well but lambs does not issue new waypoints like Vcom AI.  I also use MCC4 with GAiA. I feel a combination of lambs Vcom and Gaia mixing in a mission gives you a lot of unpredictability that you don't get from just using one mod or script. 

[Maff 250]

2 hours ago, jandrews said:

Obviously this mod brings many players who want more realistic ai. And from what I've seen it definitely improves arma ai.

 

My question is does lambs alone do it?

From my experience...
LAMBS isn't realistic or believable.
VCOM, TCL, ASR_AI was never believable either.

It is personal choice and depends on what you want the AI to do.
Learn how the AI operate, with or without LAMBS, and design your operation around that.

I mean no disrespect to the creator(s) BTW. 

 

[avibird 1 155]

That is way I use standard AI behavior Vcom AI and GAIA it makes them more unpredictable in a mission. In my humble opinion.

[B_Fox 132]

I've seen this convo time and time again and have asked myself the same thing but what is realistic AI? What does the AI have to do to be realistic and would realistic AI be any fun to watch or even play against? Or is that something people say when the AI isn't doing what they want it to do?

[froggyluv 2136]

2 hours ago, B_Fox said:

I've seen this convo time and time again and have asked myself the same thing but what is realistic AI? What does the AI have to do to be realistic and would realistic AI be any fun to watch or even play against? Or is that something people say when the AI isn't doing what they want it to do?

 

Realistic AI means an AI that reacts as realistic as possible in all aspects of the game. Do they aim realistically? taking time to hone in on their targets to have a better shot or just 'snap-shoot'? Are their animations (speed at which they turn to orient to threat) realistic? Also do they react to nearby stimuli the way people do - if nearby allies are quickly butchered down in front of them do they take a tangible hit -do they panic or go about their business as if nothing happened at all. Do AI use natural camouflage like shadows/terrain and does the game account for that? Do they understand exposing too much of their body when utilizing cover or do they just lay down in the road carefree? Do they stay in cover when moving would be unsafe or just randomly Chicken Dance around?

 

Theres alot that goes into this but without question the more of these boxes checked the better the gameplay experience

[jandrews 116]

It's nice to read others opinions about ai mods.

 

My next question is what combo are you using and why?

 

I have been playing with lambs, tcl, cfbai and nr6. Thinking about adding the melee mod too.  Just making changes in the configurations.  Been interesting to watch. Another group by the name dragon company is doing this as well.  They are way more advanced than me. But good to see people wanting a better experience. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[B_Fox 132]

 

On 12/27/2021 at 7:39 PM, froggyluv said:

Realistic AI means an AI that reacts as realistic as possible in all aspects of the game. Do they aim realistically? taking time to hone in on their targets to have a better shot or

just 'snap-shoot'? Are their animations (speed at which they turn to orient to threat) realistic?

Well with super accurate weapons (usually from mods or dlc) and little encumbrance the AI can turn around (full 180), shoot (1 round) and kill. Of course for a trained sniper or marksman you can excuse that but for the everyday grunt? of course not, that should be impossible! Now I do not know if that's what you mean but the AI has built in parameters to measure a variety of things that would affect this such as; encumbrance, stamina and suppression.There is a whole thread dedicated to AI facts and Myths.

 

The AI has flaws for sure and from what I understand AI mods can tamper with surface level stuff but can never truly change core AI behavior. This is why there will always be the same flaw in the AI no matter how many mods you slap on top of it. But my point was what someone might deem realistic might not be realistic for others or for every situation. IMHO I believe in the search for realism we ended up just bogging down the AI with tools that they don't know how or when to properly use and I would think a more simpler and somewhat unrealistic approach would be more successful (in vcom a AI with a tripod can deploy a heavy weapons without the actual gun). I also believe that intelligent and even unintelligent behavior should be added even though it would be unrealistic behavior. And to get the AI to do specific tasks or orders should be left to specific waypoints or modules as seen in lambs, RHS, and Iron Front.

[Nichols 243]

On 1/2/2022 at 11:43 AM, B_Fox said:

 

Well with super accurate weapons (usually from mods or dlc) and little encumbrance the AI can turn around (full 180), shoot (1 round) and kill. Of course for a trained sniper or marksman you can excuse that but for the everyday grunt? of course not, that should be impossible! Now I do not know if that's what you mean but the AI has built in parameters to measure a variety of things that would affect this such as; encumbrance, stamina and suppression.There is a whole thread dedicated to AI facts and Myths.

 

The AI has flaws for sure and from what I understand AI mods can tamper with surface level stuff but can never truly change core AI behavior. This is why there will always be the same flaw in the AI no matter how many mods you slap on top of it. But my point was what someone might deem realistic might not be realistic for others or for every situation. IMHO I believe in the search for realism we ended up just bogging down the AI with tools that they don't know how or when to properly use and I would think a more simpler and somewhat unrealistic approach would be more successful (in vcom a AI with a tripod can deploy a heavy weapons without the actual gun). I also believe that intelligent and even unintelligent behavior should be added even though it would be unrealistic behavior. And to get the AI to do specific tasks or orders should be left to specific waypoints or modules as seen in lambs, RHS, and Iron Front.

I don't disagree with what you are saying here but I do think that the amount of behavior mods is on the mission designer/community mission team to test extensively to see if it works for them and the group as a whole even likes what it does. As someone that likes to build missions I also like them to be somewhat controllable from a Zeus perspective. Meaning the Zeus should have the ability to redirect without constantly fighting the AI to do what they need done or by extension just allow the Zeus to oversee what is happening without making it overly complicated.

[B_Fox 132]

On 1/4/2022 at 11:49 PM, Nichols said:

I don't disagree with what you are saying here but I do think that the amount of behavior mods is on the mission designer/community mission team to test extensively to see if it works for them and the group as a whole even likes what it does. As someone that likes to build missions I also like them to be somewhat controllable from a Zeus perspective. Meaning the Zeus should have the ability to redirect without constantly fighting the AI to do what they need done or by extension just allow the Zeus to oversee what is happening without making it overly complicated. 

I'm glad you kinda see the my point, its kinda hard to articulate and make it make sense. Of course I cannot and will not tell someone they can or can't play with "X" mod because it is unrealistic, isn't good or up to my standards. In your case you have to use a AI mod that won't generate waypoints and confuse the AI from what you have planed. In a similarly sense I just make missions for the enjoyment of watching the AI fight and I too face that problem of the AI getting confused because a mod has told the AI to do something that might be realistic but ends up being a bit pointless because of the situation or because of the mission.

[john85oc 28]

Hello,

 

I thinking about to replacement a other AI mod with that to do, so i have a ask for that i not found  answer.

Can i used this mod as "Serverside" only mod? or need both server and clients it?

[topden 62]

7 minutes ago, john85oc said:

Hello,

 

I thinking about to replacement a other AI mod with that to do, so i have a ask for that i not found  answer.

Can i used this mod as "Serverside" only mod? or need both server and clients it?

both

[john85oc 28]

Ah Okay thanks for the fast answer 🙂

[Tankbuster 1746]

8 hours ago, john85oc said:

Hello,

 

I thinking about to replacement a other AI mod with that to do, so i have a ask for that i not found  answer.

Can i used this mod as "Serverside" only mod? or need both server and clients it?

You need to run it where the AI you want it to affect are local.

Usually, that's server only. The only time you need it client-side is when you have AI in a player-commanded squad. Needlessly running it client-side will degrade player performance a little.

 

[dvdbrewster 12]

So, I am experiencing a great time with danger mod. 😎  Problem though, while not a real problem is adding this to dedi server in command line serverMod=   cba functions are not visible.   But run it as a mod and launch a dedi server from the launcher you can just load it as a mod and cba setting are visible.    I think I had to be admin with both server client Danger Mod  to have cba functionality.  Anyway thats what Im doing. But I like the ability to hide the mod requirements for mods that run on the server so not all players download them.   I know of course that  zeus would not contain the Lambs Danger addons  if I did not have it running  as admin.  ????????????? 

[Gunter Severloh 4063]

If anyone already does this, run this with Vcom AI, some of the things i seen from the AI while flying (WW2) is

- AI infantry, halftracks, static weapons engage you even in the air.

- While shooting at an AI soldier with my wing cannons, this guy lied prone on the ground and literally rolled trying to evade each rd that was landing around him.

- Seen an AI about to get into a vehicle as he was running towards it, as soon as i disabled it, the AI stopped and turned the other way and ran.

- AI seem to see you when your incoming about to strafe them, so they instead of standing there being cannon fodder they literally start moving to either cover or in general.

 

These are just a few of the things i noticed from the air from my attacks and fly overs, other then worrying about AA guns, i got to mind these guys on

the halftracks with 50 cals too, AI infantry will actually do hull damage if enough rds hit your plane which occurred to me once, so im rather austruck how this

changes the game.

   Lets hope the AI in the base game of Arma 4 when its here gets the same love, that .... would be the shit!

[froggyluv 2136]

Thats cool to hear Gunter - funny how all those little details add up to make a much more immersive time to be had. Had similar experiences using Lamb/VCOM but my all time favorite was a Nazi jumping over a fence as i was hiding in a country back yard and blasting me with his SubMG -scared the S outta me as i forgot they could do that and i thought i had all my angles covered. NAzZEES!!

[mickeymen 324]

 

Hi LAMBS team! Hi to all!

 

I would like to report a LAMBS issue, about Danger Eventhandlers module.
In the mod settings "Enable Explosion Eventhandlers"  tells the player, that the AI will react to the explosions, but in fact this does not happen.
I watched this several times during the game, after that I made a this demo video.

 

 

In this video AI patrols have a safe behavior for their waypoints, but safe behavior not will be changed after explosions near them!

There is a powerful explosion of the mine and explosion vehicle , but the AI will not react to it all, as you can see the AI-patrols continues to walk around safely after a few explosions. Unfortunately, this behavior does not look natural.

Expected behavior - after any explosion within < X meters, the AI should always switch from safe to aware/combat mode and look alarmed. 

 

It would be great if the LAMBS team would add AI response distance to the LAMBS Danger Eventhandlers settings, so that any player can customize it to their liking.

Personally, I would like the AI to be able to react to any explosions within approximately 700-900 meters

 

 

[diwako 413]

Refer to this:
https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3:_Event_Handlers#Explosion

 

It says "nearby" but it does not say how close. In reality it is a very short distance. It is not feasible to track every explosive in the game space to do what you want it to do. The event handler code itself is only used to make AI lose their balance and fall down if e.g. a grenade explodes near them.

[mickeymen 324]

On 2/1/2022 at 9:11 PM, diwako said:

It is not feasible to track every explosive in the game space to do what you want it to do

 

Hi, thanks for answer

if it's not possible to track every explosive, then maybe it's possible to create a limited number of explosion causes? Only large explosions.

For example, only explosion of all vehicles (total destruction) , a big complex package of explosives, air bombing,  can be are taken into AI account,  while the other small explosion - mines, grenades, UGL (40mm) can be ignored.

 

Please try to implement this, It's just that when the AI does not react to big explosions, it looks very stupid.

 

Thank you for this awesome mod!

[Gunter Severloh 4063]

Something i noticed the other day when i was playing a mission i built, i had about 80 garrisoned enemy,

using Lambs the problem was all the garrisoned units that had spawned in and were randomly placed,

ended up moving out of their positions to come and engage me.

 

     So just a note and or warning for those who have or want to use garrisoned units in their mission, Lambs will

make them move,  maybe there should be a check added to prevent or make sure that any AI garrisoned dont move,

or has limited movement within the area they were placed like a 5m range or something.

[diwako 413]

5 hours ago, Gunter Severloh said:

Something i noticed the other day when i was playing a mission i built, i had about 80 garrisoned enemy,

using Lambs the problem was all the garrisoned units that had spawned in and were randomly placed,

ended up moving out of their positions to come and engage me.

 

     So just a note and or warning for those who have or want to use garrisoned units in their mission, Lambs will

make them move,  maybe there should be a check added to prevent or make sure that any AI garrisoned dont move,

or has limited movement within the area they were placed like a 5m range or something.

When using "Task Garrison" it is possible to set the exit condition so that they cannot leave their assigned building position.

 

https://github.com/nk3nny/LambsDanger/wiki/waypoints#taskgarrison

[mickeymen 324]

1 hour ago, diwako said:

When using "Task Garrison" it is possible to set the exit condition so that they cannot leave their assigned building position.

 

https://github.com/nk3nny/LambsDanger/wiki/waypoints#taskgarrison

 

 

Quote

6: Exit Conditions that breaks a Unit free (-2 Random, -1 All, 0 None, 1 Hit, 2 Fired, 3 FiredNear, 4 Suppressed), default -2

 

Please give a Skip Waypoint also as next condition

For several years I can not get the Fighters to leave their houses, after the garrison, so that they switch to the next vanilla waypoint

 

I tried dozens of times and wrote to LAMBS team about this problem, but the AI never switches to vanilla waypoint!

[diwako 413]

On 2/4/2022 at 11:03 PM, mickeymen said:

 

 

 

Please give a Skip Waypoint also as next condition

For several years I can not get the Fighters to leave their houses, after the garrison, so that they switch to the next vanilla waypoint

 

I tried dozens of times and wrote to LAMBS team about this problem, but the AI never switches to vanilla waypoint!

The custom way points added by us are always meant to be end points. Since they are scripted and run custom code that changes the AI's behavior radically from what it usually does the decision was made to not allow further waypoints after them.

[mickeymen 324]

10 hours ago, diwako said:

The custom way points added by us are always meant to be end points. Since they are scripted and run custom code that changes the AI's behavior radically from what it usually does the decision was made to not allow further waypoints after them.

 

It's a pity. This fact makes LAMBS waypoints disposable. The one-shot waypoint is very narrow in its application, but the worst thing is that after applying it, the vanilla AI will be broken...

@diwako I hope someday your team will solve this issue!

 

[mickeymen 324]

@diwako

 

 

 

I have interesting information.  I was sure, that before, I saw how the AI reacts to the near explosion and this is not related to LAMBS!

 

I found out, why in my gameplay the AI not react to the near explosion, while the vanilla AI would react the explosion! I remembered dozens of times how AI was allert after explosion in the vanilla!
There is a vanilla bug/feature  -  if any soldier( player or AI) will put any explosive and the enemy explodes on it, then all the allied side of the killed AI will know about the soldier who put this explosive, even if they do not see his location! 

AI treats this explosion as an attack with firearms. Maybe this is a trick from the BIS so that the AI reacts visually to the explosion. This annoyed me, on the one hand, but from another side it put all nearby opponents on alert and looked visually good.

 

Recently I turned off the knowledge of AI about the enemy who laid the mine using this code:

 

ALL_MINES_OWNER_REMOVED = [];
Ibr_loop_check_all_mines = 
    {
        private _all_mines = allMines;
        
        if (count _all_mines > 0) then 
            {
                {[_x] call Ibr_fn_remove_mine_owner} forEach _all_mines;
            };
                    
        while {true} do 
            {
                sleep 3;                
                
                if (_all_mines isNotEqualTo allMines) then 
                    {
                        _all_mines = allMines;
                        
                        {[_x] call Ibr_fn_remove_mine_owner} forEach _all_mines - ALL_MINES_OWNER_REMOVED;
                    };
            };
    };
    
Ibr_fn_remove_mine_owner = 
    {
        params ["_mine"];
                
        _mine setShotParents [objNull, objNull];
        
        ALL_MINES_OWNER_REMOVED = ALL_MINES_OWNER_REMOVED + [_mine];
    };
    
[] spawn Ibr_loop_check_all_mines;

 

Yes it works!  Now the AI doesn't does not see through objects and obstacles the enemy who placed explosives - this is great, but it also has another side - at the same time, the AI will not come to alert near the explosion, because it does not will know about the enemy attacking it.
Unfortunately, the AI logic in the armament does not react to the explosion itself, it reacts to the person, who placed this explosive as its own attacker.

 

This is the reason why the AI doesn't react to nearby explosions. This does not apply to my video, in which I put a mine in the editor. It's about the gameplay itself.

 

And now I have two choices.
Or leave this code, which allows the AI not to see the player who plases the explosive, but this code will completely destroy visual AI reaction to the near explosion.

Or remove this code, allowing visually the AI to react to near explosion, but at the same time return the "knowAbout" vanilla bug for the player who places the explosive.

 

 

LAMBS Team, I ask you to consider this matter!

The player would like the AI not to see through the objects of the enemy who placed the explosive and at the same time that the AI could react to the nearest explosions!

I'm sure, if you want you can somehow smooth this issue

Edited February 9, 2022 by mickeymen
Added additional info