ARMA AI

[NeMeSiS 11]

Evening,

Has anyone who has ArmA seen any evidence of .fsm files lying around somewhere and if yes, could someone post one as an example.

Because "O Ye Great Awesome BIS"(as people refer to them here) is way behind schedule in updating their Biki.

TA

A very small part of the formation.fsm

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> class Combat

{

name = "Combat";

init = /*%FSM<STATEINIT""">*/"_vehicle = vehicle _this;" \n "_commander = effectiveCommander _vehicle;"/*%FSM</STATEINIT""">*/;

class Links

{

/*%FSM<LINK "Member">*/

class Member

{

priority = 1.000000;

to="Member";

condition=/*%FSM<CONDITION""">*/"!(isFormationLeader _commander)"/*%FSM</CONDITION""">*/;

action=/*%FSM<ACTION""">*/""/*%FSM</ACTION""">*/;

};

/*%FSM</LINK>*/

/*%FSM<LINK "Leader">*/

class Leader

{

priority = 0.000000;

to="Leader";

condition=/*%FSM<CONDITION""">*/"true"/*%FSM</CONDITION""">*/;

action=/*%FSM<ACTION""">*/""/*%FSM</ACTION""">*/;

};

/*%FSM</LINK>*/

Ive no idea how to look at it, and its quite a big file for pure text (40kb) and there are other .fsm files aswel. But ive no idea how/if they are linked with eachother and i dont know where to start

But the most important thing is that its there!

[Second 0]

This is my primary expectation from ArmA: True supression. Yes i know that AI shoots even not to kill, but does that suppressive fire have a effect to anyone.

Does ArmA have any kind of fear effect?

Does AI or player react to incoming fire negatively?

Can AI be truly suppressed when firing at it?

[Col. Faulkner 0]

This is my primary expectation from ArmA: True supression. Yes i know that AI shoots even not to kill, but does that suppressive fire have a effect to anyone.

Does ArmA have any kind of fear effect?

Does AI or player react to incoming fire negatively?

Can AI be truly suppressed when firing at it?

I second this (pun intended). I always wanted just two

enhancements to the AI;

1. The AI guys would know how to take cover

2. They could be "suppressed" by fire

[madrussian 347]

It appears that at least a few of you want to "speed up" the AI reaction time in ArmA.  With all due respect, I'm not convinced this is necessarily a wise thing to do.  

Please allow me to explain.

OFP did one thing (in particular) that I haven't seen in ANY other game.  That is, when you ambushed the enemy, it took them some time to figure out what was going on, where the fire is coming from, etc.

It took them a little bit to get their bearings.  They didn't instantly spring into action, all face you at once, and open fire in unison!  (which is precisely what happens in countless other games.)  

Think about it.  In the islands of OFP/ArmA, combat is not going on 24/7.  It is for YOU, the player.  But that AI has been guarding his post for hours, even days in shifts.  Or maybe he's riding along in a convoy, thinking about his family back at home.  Or any other such scenario you can think of.  

Put yourself in his shoes for a moment.  You're on guard duty, maybe chatting things up with one of your buds.  You've been doing this for hours.  Suddenly you hear gunfire.  Your first reaction is more like, oh sh&t, what the heck just happened?  Then a panic… oh my god… danger!  It does take a second or even a few for things to register.  Even then, you likely don’t yet know the position (or in certain cases even the direction) of the enemy.  You definitely don’t respond with T1000 type reflexes!

If you have any doubts, go back and watch Band of Brothers and Saving Private Ryan again.  Those two films depicted this realistic reaction time for ambushes very well IMO.

Also, someone mentioned earlier that AI in ArmA sometimes crawls right in front of cover?  I think this makes sense in certain cases, during their initial reaction, as they may not yet have fully identified and placed the threat.  All they know at that point is they need to hit the deck and get next to some cover.

Now, I'm not saying the system is perfect by any means.  However, IMO, the reaction time for AIs, at least, in OFP/ArmA is actually one of the many things that sets these games apart from the competition… for the better.

Just my 2 cents...

[Soldat32 0]

Im all for the supression idea but right now as is Enemy AI in AA is way too accurate and their response time from the time you open fire on the enemy is just plum nuts.Immediately they see you,target you,and bam your dead.IMHO OFP enemy AI was just fine,only friendly AI really needed help.I see your squad members die much faster now to.

I have also tested using the Enemy AI sliders,even reduced them to 0 and it does nothing.THe enemy still act the same with uber targeting and accuracy.Also any chance of using supressed weapons on stealth missions is worthless as all the enemy are instantly alerted and spot you once you fire.Hopefullythis can be addressed in a patch.

[froggyluv 2136]

Im all for the supression idea but right now as is  Enemy AI in AA is way too accurate and their response time from the time you open fire on the enemy is just plum nuts.Immediately they see you,target you,and bam your dead.IMHO OFP enemy AI was just fine,only friendly AI really needed help.I see your squad members die much faster now to.

I have also tested using the Enemy AI sliders,even reduced them to 0 and it does nothing.THe enemy still act the same with uber targeting and accuracy.Also any chance of using supressed weapons on stealth missions is worthless as all the enemy are instantly alerted and spot you once you fire.Hopefullythis can be addressed in a patch.

I hope this is tweaked ASAP because aimbots are a game-killer. Whats the point of stealth or a well-thought out tactical approach such as higher ground if the enemy AI instantly knows where you are. I un-installed CS 2 years ago when after I took a shot between the eyes while I was exposing maybe 3 inches of my head peeking out of a window 40 feet over a bot.

[sniperandy 0]

Quote[/b] ]VBS2 uses "agent AI" which ArmA does not. Pretty much everything you saw in that VBS2 video does not apply to ArmA.

I guess that means that we will have to lock Keycat into his dungeon until he comes up with a Grouplink version

And who said this?

I would wait till BIS releases the FMS editor.

Agent-AI is a word used in VBS2 by BIA. However, the FSM editor you see in the Agent-AI video on VBS2.com is/was the same.

And before you have to go through this AI scripts I better wait for the FSM editor with the simple gfx interface

[frederf 0]

Sorry. I was told VBS2 uses agent-AI and ArmA does not. If this is wrong then I have misinformed.

[twisted 128]

Sorry. I was told VBS2 uses agent-AI and ArmA does not. If this is wrong then I have misinformed.

yeah i read that somewhere as well. I hope they do reconsider and Add it in to Arma - imagine where the community would be able to take the AI. and that's something BIS could benefit from a lot.

as for AI, I've found that the AI do figure out a persons location a bit too quickly in some situations which needs to be changed, but most of the time when i get shot its in a hail of bullets not through a single shot (althought that does infrequently happen).

[walker 0]

Hi all

IMHO froggyluv I do not think high ground has such a great tactical advantage in the age of direct fire weapons such as high velocity rifles.

I think this is a common misconception that is derived from the gravity enhanced weapons of the past, cavalry charges and hand powered missile weapons. It may still have an advantage in terms of hand grenades and slowing direct assault but with modern infantry weapons at their normal engagement ranges gravity is not a factor.

As to visibility it is a simple fact if you have LOS on him he has LOS on you. Also high ground is an obvious and prime target for counter observation and suppression fire.

There are however strategic advantages to high ground for the purposes of observation and the use of indirect fire or correcting and guidance of direct fire from other units.

I personally in OFP and ArmA do not like assaulting from a hill or defending its forward slope or ridge line where you are silhouetted. I think firing from it just makes you an easy target out in the open. In towns a rooftop or high window makes a one shot only position that any serious opponent will be scanning and watching at all times.

IMHO Of far more importance to the infantry and other ground forces is defilade, the reverse slope for defence; catching the enemy, as they skyline themselves in assault. And I prefer the use of low ground for cover in approach to assault. In towns you want defilade and cover too, alley ways, back to a wall so no one can creep up on you, leaning round a corner (soooo good in ArmA with the double click now) and a pre mapped escape route.

But most important you want your team with you covering your back and plan of interlocking fire.

There is a famous story of two officers from two different countries, one was trying to explain to the other how the soldiers from his country would use complex pre planned fires to assault a hill preparatory to assaulting the next target beyond. The other listened respectfully and quietly till his fellow officer had finished and when asked as to how the soldiers in his army would approach it said simply "We would not go up the hill we would go around it."

Kind Regards walker

[dm 9]

"Agent" is simply a technical term which describes each AI entity within the engine, whereas in OFP and ArmA they are called "units" in VBS2 they are called "Agents". Its nothing more than different nomenculture, so lets nip this "omg VBS AI is betterer than us!" in the bud now

Since VBS2 and ArmA use the same basic engine, both are driven by FSM's which we can see on the surface, and some much more complex AI "under the hood" trapped in the exe code which we can not read.

Since I'm actually doing AI at uni, it would be quite interesting to be able to see some of the AI code and to see what methods (if any) BI are using. For example, is BI using A* for pathfinding or have they written their own algorithm? It'll probably never happen tho

[berowe 0]

I've noticed an issue- in crowded city firefights (custom designed) sometimes the soldiers overlap onto each other- this is ugly but acceptable.

The problem here is when/if a soldier runs into a civilian they practically become untargetable by the opposite side. Whether 'melded' into the civilian while standing, or else stuck together with one prone and the other straddling (yes, an odd sight) the combative seems to become invisible to the AI.

I was observing a crowded street fight as a civilian and saw this to a great extent- a russian rifleman was prone and a civilian walked up to him and they seemed to get stuck together. The americans came through the village, killing off the other commies, but when they got to the prone guy they ignored him. A whole squad sat there 5m from the russian/civilian as he shot them one-by-one.

I don't know if this is an AI issue, or a graphical one? I'm guessing the presence of the civilian kept the US troops from shooting the russian? I'll try to repeat this myself. I would've thought that in the worst case the US may have tried grenades/AT weapons on the guy- as they seem to not care about the explosive effects of those weapons on nearby civilians?

Oh and about high-ground. If you've ever run up a hill/mountain in full battle gear you'll realize that elevation still has SOME value in modern combat

[froggyluv 2136]

Hi all

IMHO froggyluv I do not think high ground has such a great tactical advantage in the age of direct fire weapons such as high velocity rifles.

I think this is a common misconception that is derived from the gravity enhanced weapons of the past, cavalry charges and hand powered missile weapons. It may still have an advantage in terms of hand grenades and slowing direct assault but with modern infantry weapons at their normal engagement ranges gravity is not a factor.

As to visibility it is a simple fact if you have LOS on him he has LOS on you. Also high ground is an obvious and prime target for counter observation and suppression fire.

There are however strategic advantages to high ground for the purposes of observation and the use of indirect fire or correcting and guidance of direct fire from other units.

I personally in OFP and ArmA do not like assaulting from a hill or defending its forward slope or ridge line where you are silhouetted. I think firing from it just makes you an easy target out in the open. In towns a rooftop or high window makes a one shot only position that any serious opponent will be scanning and watching at all times.

IMHO Of far more importance to the infantry and other ground forces is defilade, the reverse slope for defence; catching the enemy, as they skyline themselves in assault. And I prefer the use of low ground for cover in approach to assault. In towns you want defilade and cover too, alley ways, back to a wall so no one can creep up on you, leaning round a corner (soooo good in ArmA with the double click now) and a pre mapped escape route.

But most important you want your team with you covering your back and plan of interlocking fire.

There is a famous story of two officers from two different countries, one was trying to explain to the other how the soldiers from his country would use complex pre planned fires to assault a hill preparatory to assaulting the next target beyond. The other listened respectfully and quietly till his fellow officer had finished and when asked as to how the soldiers in his army would approach it said simply "We would not go up the hill we would go around it."

Kind Regards walker

Hi Walker,

My point was that exposing so little of myself AND being at a different elevation should present some degree of difficulty to a bot in both determining your where-abouts and the shot itself. 1 shot in 1 second kill (his back was also to me ) , up 40 ft., right between the numbers, would certainly be the shot of a lifetime yet happens routinely in games like CS - I hope not ARMA.

As far as higher ground being preferred in modern combat, I've only shot live rounds at a range and played lots of paintball in the Pocono Mts. so I'll defer to actual combat vets.

My guess would be that the greater the angle of the slope, the greater the advantage as the person higher-up would offer less of a target than the person below especially if he were prone.