Taking Cover

[Un_FriendlyFire 0]

I think the cover system is fine for the moment. Leaning and being able to go wherever. No need for "splinter cell" style stuff. Although this is tricky in a game that isnt just 90 degree flat surfaces like GR or R6 for example soldiers pressing themselves against bushes or something.

My main wish is that the AI were a 10th as good at using cover as me. and that the "take cover" command didnt mean "RUN AWAY!!! RUN AWAY!!!"

[dentist guba 0]

1:r6 vegas style cover systems actually tend to give the guy behind it a disadvantage especially in MP. gears of war has a similar system and when i played it online i crouched up against a low wall and started shooting at someone but he had manually put his player bhind a wall so he could shoot accurately without leaving cover-i lost.

2:i think getting the AI to use cover is much more important because it is the main area they need improvement.

[MATRA 0]

...

I think any cover system should stick to first person to prevent seeing anything that you shouldn't be able to see.

As long as you can turn it off or to 1st person in server options cant see any harm on it. You can play the hole SP game in 3rt person anyway.

But I agree, the Vietong system seems more suitable for ArmA, dont ask me why .

And yes I played Vegas.

[teioh 0]

...

I think any cover system should stick to first person to prevent seeing anything that you shouldn't be able to see.

As long as you can turn it off or to 1st person in server options cant see any harm on it. You can play the hole SP game in 3rt person anyway.

But I agree, the Vietong system seems more suitable for ArmA, dont ask me why .

And yes I played Vegas.

whatis the vietcong system? I did a google search for movies but I couldn't find any showing the cover system

[NeMeSiS 11]

I think it was a small difference in hight between normal crouching and aimed crouching.

When you were just sitting somewhere you were just below the cover, while when you started using the iron sights you lifted a bit so you could look over your cover.

It probably wouldnt work in ArmA (because of the animations/objects not having a specific heights/the way first person works compared to the overlay in other games).

[Heatseeker 0]

The vietcong cover system would be the only one i could live with in Arma, but it would have to be considered early in the game's development for good implementation, the objects, walls, windows, etc size and placement have to be made with it into acount and there are so many of them in the game.

The best thing about it is that its simple, just involves the objects and the animations but then making a.i. use it would be hard in a game like Arma.

On the other hand im fine how it is and i have no problems using cover in Arma.

Arma is not walled in, small or "linear" and what kills you most often is not the target you are taking cover from the unexpected one that poped out of nowhere .

[Guest]

Ai behaviour in Ghost Recon when under fire really impressed me Imho, unlike in Arma, many of the units would look for the nearest object on the map specified as a cover point, crouch down, and scamper over to it, then either remain in crouch or go prone, and return fire - some would remain in position and go prone as well (unlike Arma, where pretty much everyone just drops to the ground and sits there) Pretty cool stuff, but, dunno, maybe adding all these cover abilities for Ai in Arma might lag it too much?

I had *thought* that in Arma, combat mode basically means units try to find cover, although ive rarely seen anything more than drop to prone, and lay there till conflict over/dead, or, if anything else, they will move to enemy position (depending on behaviour setting)

[Dallas 9]

...

I think any cover system should stick to first person to prevent seeing anything that you shouldn't be able to see.

As long as you can turn it off or to 1st person in server options cant see any harm on it. You can play the hole SP game in 3rt person anyway.

But I agree, the Vietong system seems more suitable for ArmA, dont ask me why .

And yes I played Vegas.

whatis the vietcong system? I did a google search for movies but I couldn't find any showing the cover system

ATM my Vietcong is uninstalled, played it for 3 years.

[canis lupus 20]

I would like the AI to take just a little more cover, but there is one thing in arma and ofp that is very important to the realism, they do as a real soldier is trained to do under fire, they drop, if anything should be changed it should be what they do after they drop, I would love to see them run behind cars and other stuff, but when the first shot is fired all they should do is drop.

[Col. Faulkner 0]

"drop" is the second thing they should do: "dash, down, roll, crawl, observe, sights, fire"

[benreeper 0]

Are there jets, tanks, etc. on a huge island in R6V? No, and that's why this topic is useless. The two games are programmed differently and you CANNOT swap features into each game. Hey if it's fair to say that a R6V feature (cover) should be in Arma then it's also fair to say that R6V should have vehicles, hundreds of AI, 2000km viewdistance and other ArmA things.

If stating the obvious is fanboyism them I'm one.

Also I bet those "cover areas" in R6V are scripted in the sense that the game knows what they are, where they are and how they should be used. How may of those areas are in a typical R6V: level 100? How many would you have to put in ArmA, if it could be done: 10,000? What additional strain would that put on a system in which people are already complaining about performance.

It's fun to say X feature from Y game should be in this game but unless they are comparable games then it's not a fair discussion and naysayers have a right/duty to point this out.

--Ben

[Thunderbird 0]

Being in the army, the "taking cover" element is one of the first elementary "technics" you learn during your classes, you would often use it during "supposed" enemy contacts.

Since some other game of another completely different style have already implemented it doesn't mean that that should not be done for ArmA, Ghost recon's taking cover system is pretty well done even if the game has been released on 2001: AI troops tend to find cover while machine gunners cover'em.

However, carrying out the same in ArmA is possible but would need a massive use of the "nearestobject" command which might require a lot of system resources.

regards,

TB

[Baff1 0]

One thing I'm not short of is system resources.

[walker 0]

Hi all

A cover system can in theory be put into ArmA; but for ArmA we must have a true generalised solution unlike the scripted cover system in R6V.

The R6V solution is little like the cam created artillery solutions in OFP before CoC UA. Such solutions are low grade hacks and bring up more problems than they solve. They are unreliable, unrealistic and buggy. They use up massive resources when compared to a true ballistic artillery solution. I tend to call such solutions: hacky, crappy and temporary.

The hardest part is the cover point type recognition. The cover an object corner provides is different from a low wall or a high wall. Consider also corners have direction of cover. ArmA already deals with some building positions: rooftops, windows, doorways and the rest.

As humans we recognise cover quite easily. That to myself as professional system analyst is a BIG red flag. Anything humans find easy means in computing it is very complex: seeing, voice recognition, walking and facial recognition are all good examples of what it is hard to do in computers. It is the things we find hard such as adding up massive strings of numbers and remembering them, that humans find hard and are easy to program into a computer.

We need to ID such points and categorize such points in ArmA for the AI. There are are not thousands of them but probably hundreds of thousands, possibly even millions, so individually doing it would take a massive labour intensive effort, and the same at every new map. A better method is to use a neural net and teach it to recognise the different forms of cover, that is a generalised solution and doable.

We then need the ability for AI to use such cover positions that we do in an FSM function for which we now have the editors. Note using is not the same as recognising mentioned above. I do not think it will be as hard as recognising cover as there will only be a finite number of modifiers, not seen, seen, receiving fire, hit, cover blown, type of cover etc. possibly as few as 30 or so reaction types, perhaps as many as 200. Either way they are reasonable numbers.

We then need a few additional animations, for that we will have to wait for O2 and the animation editing tools. At the moment all we have is: Stand, crouch while walking, kneel, prone, lean left standing, lean right standing, lean left kneeling, lean right kneeling, roll left and roll right. It would seem sensible to start on using these right away then add in other animations when we get the tools.

I fully expect to see ArmA using such a system with in the next 6 months. The will be a true generalised cover system not a point scripted solution and so unlike R6VC it will be a true AI take cover solution. I do not say there is anything wrong with point scripting. I just point out it is not a generic solution and so not is not acceptable for ArmA.

Kind Regards walker

[Barely-injured 0]

Well I am an old school fan and I think putting vegas cover system in ArmA is incredibly stupid.

But ArmA could do with the cover system from an other R6 game which is the one used in "Raven Sheild" (( The last self respecting R6 game !! )). The "fluid stance" allows you to lean or peak just as much as you want, it is discussed lengthly in Dslyecxi's famous article tactical gaming done right

But for now we should concentrate on how to implement existing cover system to be used by the AI like what smart people like walker are talking about.

[Col. Faulkner 0]

How can the AI take cover when there is none? The ground is

all as flat as a golf course (with no "sand-traps")!

[TrunkzJr 0]

I wouldn't mind being able to lean up against a wall.

[tj72 0]

Maybe if the AI uses enough simple data points and a few functions it would have enough info to take good cover. With Its current location and the nearest cover object such as a building it has a library of referance data on every object in the game so if its house073 and its rotation is known, then the AI will know how exactly far the corners are from its center point for its current cover obj. Then and every single time it wants to. Just to give the AI that ability to draw a general "corridor" and have a good sense of the boundaries and open space would solve almost all of these here "wishes" about the games AI and cover CQB and blah.

When the AI is out in the open it needs to find the forests or the ridge. Just to scan if a bunch of trees are nearby should allow the AI to generally understand that its a forest and its a good place to move to.

Its not hard to call a function and get the relative height in a grid sampling of the bots location. Then it runs some checking on that topography to find the "ridge" or the "Valley" or whatever. Then it climbs the hill and orients towards the enemy and simply makes a reference point of when they are behind the ridge or on top or over it towards the enemy. Now the bots can fire from the high ground and then dissapear behind the ridge when they determine they are under fire. All this can be done with some pretty cheap tricks like some functions and a few commands and some invisible objects to just get the existing AI sytem aimed and placed in a more logical tactical format. All this is called locally like we add a local sensor array to this AI to activate all this crisp logic.

[Maddmatt 1]

How can the AI take cover when there is none? The ground is

all as flat as a golf course (with no "sand-traps")!

Are you blind? Trees, buildings, vehicles, walls, rocks and more. There is plenty of cover and concealment.

I think the main thing ArmA needs with regards to cover is improvement in the way AI uses it. Players can already use it fine.

[Second 0]

How can the AI take cover when there is none? The ground is

all as flat as a golf course (with no "sand-traps")!

Are you blind? Trees, buildings, vehicles, walls, rocks and more. There is plenty of cover and concealment.

I think the main thing ArmA needs with regards to cover is improvement in the way AI uses it. Players can already use it fine.

Have you ever walked on earth? There are pllenty of cover even in fields, pits, rock holes etc... where man can lie down and be compelitely covered and hidden from enemy fire. In OFP this was possible with very high terrain detail, but ArmA is at the moment too demanding (average gamer don't have powerful computer enough) that it could be used. But ArmA's map is improvement over OFP's ones, there are indeed lot's of cover, but which cover only one side of soldier so if your covered from one enemy you aren't covered from other + 7.62 NATO and 7.62x54 (russian) pierce most trees i've seen in ArmA. Sand-trap's and pits in general would enable possibilities for AI to crunch, fire and hit prone etc...

EDIT: Yes i'm living in WWII trenches (as it's said in my country) and i value urban warfare zero to none, play R6 or Ghost Recon or many-many others in the line if you want urban warfare "experince". But there are almost zero to none good realistic FPSs which happens in plain nature (because it isn't media-sexy nowdays)

[Maddmatt 1]

How can the AI take cover when there is none? The ground is

all as flat as a golf course (with no "sand-traps")!

Are you blind? Trees, buildings, vehicles, walls, rocks and more. There is plenty of cover and concealment.

I think the main thing ArmA needs with regards to cover is improvement in the way AI uses it. Players can already use it fine.

Have you ever walked on earth? There are pllenty of cover even in fields, pits, rock holes etc... where man can lie down and be compelitely covered and hidden from enemy fire. In OFP this was possible with very high terrain detail, but ArmA is at the moment too demanding (average gamer don't have powerful computer enough) that it could be used. But ArmA's map is improvement over OFP's ones, there are indeed lot's of cover, but which cover only one side of soldier so if your covered from one enemy you aren't covered from other + 7.62 NATO and 7.62x54 (russian) pierce most trees i've seen in ArmA. Sand-trap's and pits in general would enable possibilities for AI to crunch, fire and hit prone etc...

EDIT: Yes i'm living in WWII trenches (as it's said in my country) and i value urban warfare zero to none, play R6 or Ghost Recon or many-many others in the line if you want urban warfare "experince". But there are almost zero to none good realistic FPSs which happens in plain nature (because it isn't media-sexy nowdays)

I know that, but he said that there was no cover at all which is obviously not true. There is plenty of cover in game, obviously not as much as real life.

[froggyluv 2136]

EDIT: Yes i'm living in WWII trenches (as it's said in my country) and i value urban warfare zero to none, play R6 or Ghost Recon or many-many others in the line if you want urban warfare "experince". But there are almost zero to none good realistic FPSs which happens in plain nature (because it isn't media-sexy nowdays)

Now thats just ignorant.

Cover, is used in all environmental situations. It's not an 'urban 'thing. As T-Bird said earlier, it is the first thing taught in combat training and is so instinctive, even kids use it when playing toy guns.

There's room in ArmA for ALL types of gamers so just because you prefer the great outdoors doesn't give you the right to dismiss others preferences. Personally i enjoy the whole spectrum, from long-range open battlefields, to stealthy sabatouge to take that town. ArmA has already improved cqb a great deal we're just looking at possible tweaks.

[dmitri 0]

How can the AI take cover when there is none? The ground is

all as flat as a golf course (with no "sand-traps")!

I'm surprised no one has spoken\whined about Arma's step down in terrain detail from OFP Resistance.

I used to enjoy playing at High terrain with a lower view distance. Far more cover with the pitted terrain.

[Baff1 0]

How can the AI take cover when there is none? The ground is

all as flat as a golf course (with no "sand-traps")!

It could walk near to any rocks, tree's, buildings, walls and bushes in preference to a direct path from A to B.

It can walk down the sides of streets, not the middle, it can run for any rocks or low walls, while the machine gunner spams out rounds in your general direction.

It can position itself at street corners on crossroads with a unit facing every direction.

It can attempt to break line of sight by running behind trees and bushes or even lying flat behind a low rise in the topography.

[walker 0]

Hi all

To add to Baff1's last post and refer back to my own.

As you can see Baff1 quicly ID'ed a few forms of use of cover. That is the simple part the problem though is ID ing the forms of cover.

He might say: "Oh well I see the cover then use it.", but what he is doing is far more complex. He would have skipped many stages to come up with that simple answer. For instance how did distinguish one type of cover from another? Or the left side of the street from the right?

The first question is what is seeing the cover?

Trust me when I say we are into some very complex mathmatics just to see one dot. To then add up a mass of dots and come to an interpretation that that mass of dots is a sandbag wall of kneeling height shooting cover and lay down defilade rather than not very bullet proof bush, is very very complex. We have some advantages though ArmA does a lot of this for us and IDs the terrrain features but we still have to interpret them. And there are many different types and combinations.

Kind Regards walker