Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mr.g-c

Largely Mod-able AI

Recommended Posts

I suggest that Modders should able to mod the AI in Arma2 to a large extent and even change/replace their Default/Hardcoded FSMs

So you can fully change and/or replace even their DEFAULT behavior, how they react to certain circumstances.

So Modders can then also script AI FSMs for certain Unit classes, so that for instance AI Snipers rather remain covered, in distance, prone and not running at Front like in current Arma1.

Etc.... countless possibilities when this would be possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. More freedom to actually change the FSM would be greatly appreciated. At the moment even if someone would manage to make something usable FSM-wise the default FSM will still override the custom FSM as soon as it encounters something that is covered by the default FSM. It is more or less impossible to actually change the behaviour of the AI since the default behaviour will interrupt whatever custom behaviour you give it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inkompetent described it exactly how it is.

I remember in the OFP1 Postmortem Article, that BIS said they initially wanted to make the OFP1 AI completely mod-able but they didn't achieved that for whatever reason.

Another problem with FSMs is, according to MadDogX who tried to code some custom, advanced FSMs, that you can not get a status report on WHAT the AI is actually doing.

So it is after all in Arma1 quite useless to code something FSM-wise on your own, because hard-coded FSMs will overwrite your custom ones AND there is a really really important command/stus-report missing.

Those two things fixed for Arma2 and it would be very awesome way openend for the modders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Inkompetent described it exactly how it is.

I remember in the OFP1 Postmortem Article, that BIS said they initially wanted to make the OFP1 AI completely mod-able but they didn't achieved that for whatever reason.

Another problem with FSMs is, according to MadDogX who tried to code some custom, advanced FSMs, that you can not get a status report on WHAT the AI is actually doing.

So it is after all in Arma1 quite useless to code something FSM-wise on your own, because hard-coded FSMs will overwrite your custom ones AND there is a really really important command/stus-report missing.

Those two things fixed for Arma2 and it would be very awesome way openend for the modders.

This.

BIS please read this topic ! smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe if they BIS is trully trying to make very good AI, in this case it will be hardcoded into the engine.

the reason AI was hardcoded in OFP1, was I believe the fact

the AI code would work faster.

And I actually believe in Arma 2 it's even more hardcoded to use one entire CPU (multiple cores) for it's work.

Which would mean, making it mod-able would conflict with effectiveness on the performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want BIS to deliver as great and up-to-date AI in combat as possible. I can then tweak it's behaviour the way i desire it to work (aggressiveness and such) with already given script-commands from days of OFP.

I already can change alot of things, what is problem is that AI is dumb in too many ways in basics of shooter AI. It doesn't lean, it doesn't peak... It doesnt' do anything, but shoots accurately and moves slowly and mostly idiotically. If BIS doesn't improve/implement those aspects to it's AI then modders can't do a damn thing. This was problem in ArmA already. Given scirpting language was powerful enough. Hardcoded AI sadly sucked donkey's balls.

So i say, BIS give us good AI and don't improve moddablity as i already have pretty powerful tools to change the way AI plays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the ability to create new waypoint types and ai behaviour functions would be nice. I was working on a script for ai to cover a tank, or use the tank as cover, and it failed due to the ai's incapability to navigate and distractions from urban enviroments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply have a toggle-switch in the addon that says "override hard-coded A.I.". Then the game can look to the addon for all instruction or let the A.I. stand there like statues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously would not mind if BIS spent a few months improving the AI as much as possible.

Also, they should make some video about the AI, so we can give out constructive criticism and praises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to think the vids of conflict and the participants in it will escalate to show off the shiny new AI, especially in close quarters and interactions with civs.

Can't wait!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe if they BIS is trully trying to make very good AI, in this case it will be hardcoded into the engine.

the reason AI was hardcoded in OFP1, was I believe the fact

the AI code would work faster.

And I actually believe in Arma 2 it's even more hardcoded to use one entire CPU (multiple cores) for it's work.

Which would mean, making it mod-able would conflict with effectiveness on the performance.

The thing is that every kind of config file is loaded by ArmA as you start the program. I'd assume that this also covers the FSM, which means that if an addon changed/added things to the FSM this would also be loaded at startup and put into memory and thus not slowing the game down a bit.

It'll take a tiny bit longer to start ArmA, but that's it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes i don't see any real disadvantage here either.

Its just two problems to be fixed to be able to have perfect possibilities for largely modded AI - far better ones than any scripted solutions with current available commands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you think it will be harder to mod because of the usage of multiple processors? I always heard its harder to code to for multi-core processors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
do you think it will be harder to mod because of the usage of  multiple processors? I always heard its harder to code to for multi-core processors

Depends on how ArmA2 is done. As I've understood it the game is made so that the core game runs on one core and AI on the other, in which case the FSM itself is a single-core system, so it shouldn't be problematic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voted Yes.

I don't think BIS, or any company, will have the time and dedication to give a truly competitive, human-like AI. This is a job for the community  tounge2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Voted Yes.

I don't think BIS, or any company, will have the time and dedication to give a truly competitive, human-like AI. This is a job for the community  tounge2.gif

Yes i think that too!

Good said!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
do you think it will be harder to mod because of the usage of  multiple processors? I always heard its harder to code to for multi-core processors

Depends on how you want to mod the AI. I guess the AI will be a heavy thread operation, perhaps even multi-thread for future (about half a year actually) hexa- and octocores.

The best thing would be a very flexible language which isn't too hard but gives you lots of freedom like Lua with the compiler built in the editor and directly in the AI subsystem. Something like a superset of SQF/SQS is proprietary and I think something which is used more generally would be better. But I haven't really been in to OFP/ArmA scripting.

Maybe BIS/BIA needs to extend like CryTek to develop more technology to sell licences of and to cram in their nextgen IP? crazy_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello , I don't undestand much about AI , but..

I voted no , because I am lost as to what "AI" should be moddable:

1. Is it the individual soldier/fireteam battle drills?

2. Is it the Squad AI that makes the low-level tactical decisions?

3. Is it the Side AI that (with GUARD) makes the bigger tactical decisions?

For the latter two I fail to see how the community could do better AI with linear , static FSM scripted automatons

rather than the dynamic, non-linear, learning, mistake-making(for unpredictability) robots BIS can program.

(On a sidenote,this notion that exists in the ARMA community that mod makers have a "Wand of Awesome" with which they can do what BIS possibly never could is something that completly baffles me anyways)

For the first I can see how theoritically you could define FSM "actions" that you provide to BIS's squad AI so it can call them up when it sees fit. So a better FSM-Soldier-AI-API could be nice.

Of course I would not mind at all if we get way more config parameters to change behaviour , formation of squads.

But I really don't see how scripts would do any good on the squad level.

But I am no computer scientist and AI expert.

P.S: That FSM formation stuff in ArmA was a step in the wrong direction in my book.

P.P.S: Of course for the squad AI a larger set of script commands that set their behaviour/stance on which the BIS AI then can act wouldn't be bad either. A larger set of waypoints (e.g Attack,Delay,Defend) with more parameters would do wonders as well.

If you managed to then get a Custom Waypoint in which you can give the AI custom goals it tries to achieve you have more AI flexibility right there I believe, all while letting BIS dynamic AI work it out for you.

P.P.P.S(Its getting silly): The AI doesn't even to act all fancy human-like , all it needs to do is completly suprise you, otherwise it fails in war,badly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lwlooz, you simple didn't got the topic then.

FSM a step in wrong direction?!?!?!

Arma1 entire internal AI is based on FSMs.

I think this was made to fullfiill their idea of having a entirely mod-able AI like they actually wanted to have in OFP1 already.

However there are TWO major drawbacks in current mod-able FSM system for Arma1 (Inkompentent and i listed them before) and all this topic is for, is suggesting to FIX those TWO major drawbacks, in order that community could fully/largely mod the AI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arma1 entire internal AI is based on FSMs.

From my limited understanding of FSM's, most of the complex stuff like pathfinding, spotting, aiming and so on that would strain the CPU in is done in the engine. The FSM just tells them what to do and when to do it.

Under fire -> Run to nearest cover, go prone, shoot back if enemy is seen. The engine handles the complex algorims like working out the path, finding the cover and such.

Only a few people seem to have a good understanding of FSM's. For one they are complicated and very different to the normal scripting. I think the lack of good tools to edit them is also a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]The FSM just tells them what to do and when to do it.

Under fire -> Run to nearest cover, go prone, shoot back if enemy is seen.

Thats what i meant with "core" actually...

Sorry maybe i was using the wrong words....

Or we could structure it like "inner-core AI" for the things that the engine itself is doing (the CPU intensive stuff), then "core AI" for the things mentioned above.

I just meant a level deeper than the normal scrip-made AI changes.

Yes there are not enough tools/documentation out for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

Again I apologize for having the intelligence of a haystack , but what is this amazing thing scripted FSMs can do? How does the current function of scripted FSM's differ from normal scripts other than in structure? Furthermore what you want to tell AI to do through an script-interpreter?

And before anyone answer I would like them to check out how FSM currently work in ArmA(characters.pbo).

I fail to completly see how they are the holy grail (In their current form).

Addendum: The config FSM has too few parameters to my knowledge to be usuable,but that can be changed. That still bears the question how much the config should define and how much a dynamic AI BIS can program should then execute based on those configurations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again I apologize for having the intelligence of a haystack , but what is this amazing thing scripted FSMs can do? How does the current function of scripted FSM's differ from normal scripts other than in structure? Furthermore what you want to tell AI to do through an script-interpreter?

It's much less processor consuming than scripting solutions. Other than that? No i don't think there is much more.

I've looked at it, and at least i can't see anything super compared to scripts (other than being less demanding from CPU). Then again i'm pretty conservative and hardly ever change my ways if i learn one stuff. Damn i never even bothered learn to write functions tounge2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had to read through this post before I finally voted yes. If anything, joining servers using different combat fsm addons, could at least reduce the AI predictability. Existing 'fsm bugs' (I think) might be possible to tone down (i.e. snipers sidearm problems, if fsm related).

But it also seems like a double egded sword. How fun would it be when you join a server only to find out that its AI can only use grenades because of a new fsm bug? I do have a feeling this can cause more pain than good in certain circumstances.

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  

×