How's ARMA2 AI shaping up?

[celery 8]

Thats easy to explain, they were pogues! :D

OFP's AI is like a bunch of children. If you tell them exactly what to do using waypoints and triggers they are VERY smart! But if you leave them to their own devices and just say (MOVE) to this town in (LINE) formation, well then half of them will just go off and eat candy behind the BMP-2... And that is what lots of mission makers do

Like real squads, they need to be given good orders and good directions in order to be effective

And that's what makes it bad. No initiative or any idea what to do unless the mission maker scripts them to the finest detail. It's beginning to sound like any other fps out there with their pre-scripted AI dudes, only not so smart or agile.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Thats easy to explain, they were pogues! :D

OFP's AI is like a bunch of children. If you tell them exactly what to do using waypoints and triggers they are VERY smart! But if you leave them to their own devices and just say (MOVE) to this town in (LINE) formation, well then half of them will just go off and eat candy behind the BMP-2... And that is what lots of mission makers do

Like real squads, they need to be given good orders and good directions in order to be effective

In fact, OFP AI can be very effective, the trouble is that default AI settings are way too limited : try Sanctuary OFP WW4 mod (here) and you'll see that WITHOUT ANY SCRIPT, just setting some default values to a higher level (greater group formation, better awareness, better AI FOV etc.), setting them to the same level as the player, and you'll see that succeeding the missions is REALLY a challenge. The AI is then very reactive, flanks you etc. The main trouble with AI is its inability to use effectively map objects (buildings, bridge, etc.).

[walker 0]

Hi all

Guard Waypoints and Guarded By Triggers

Celery have you used the Guard Waypoint combined with a few Guarded By triggers scattered around the map on objectives for the Guard side? Add in a few recce units with waypointed moves and you will have more Intiative than you can cope with. The More groups on Guard waypoints the more emergent behaviour you get. This is because it is sensitive to initial conditions, like a whole bunch of objects balanced on a ball.

And I agree with what ProfTournesol said.

Too many waypoints spoil the mission

Oh and setting lots of waypoints actualy limits the AI to those waypoints. Less is more. If you do have to use waypoint moves, alter size of waypoint for variablity only tighten for precision! Remeber there are timing functions. BRANCH TO A GUARD WAYPOINT! use Seach and Destroy if you want tight Guard trigger linked to move waypoints.

Remember Guard waypoints do not get turned off. So waypoints after them do not get used unless the script to end the Guard waypoint.

Kind Regards walker

[topeira 10]

a good AI is an AI that does what humans would do WITHOUT a human scripting them to do so.

if u need to tell the AI (via the editor or the ingame command system) what to do so they take care of themselves than THEY ARE NOT SMART!!

with a good AI i can just throw some AI in the editor, spawn myself near them and have the enemeis work together, flank and find cover well.

in GTAIV (one of the mods) i could spawn enemies and a a terrific battle will commence - they would take cover, spread out, take vehicles to chase me etc. all this without me ever telling them where to find cover, what vehicles to take or where to go. THAT'S good AI.

[De_little_Bubi 1]

@topeira:

This cant work for games where the ai has different purposes.

In real life you cant drop some troops and hope that they are making the mission.

you have to tell them what they should do, guard,attack patroll etc...

[NeMeSiS 11]

a good AI is an AI that does what humans would do WITHOUT a human scripting them to do so.

if u need to tell the AI (via the editor or the ingame command system) what to do so they take care of themselves than THEY ARE NOT SMART!!

with a good AI i can just throw some AI in the editor, spawn myself near them and have the enemeis work together, flank and find cover well.

in GTAIV (one of the mods) i could spawn enemies and a a terrific battle will commence - they would take cover, spread out, take vehicles to chase me etc. all this without me ever telling them where to find cover, what vehicles to take or where to go. THAT'S good AI.

Thats not exactly the same, the AI in ArmA is programmed to attack and hunt down enemies, however this behaviour is just not activated by default in case the mission designer does not want to use this behaviour.

There is a big difference between just dropping AI's in the editor and dropping the AI's in the editor with a 'Guard'/'S&D'/'sentry'/... waypoint placed on top of their own heads. You are still using the same AI, but that behaviour just cant be activated by default otherwise making a mission would be impossible. Just imagine trying to make a mission when every unit you place automatically uses the behaviour activated by the guard waypoint, it would be a mess and every mission would just be TDM.

You just cant compare AI's in that way.

Still, if the ArmA2 AI still cant use cover properly (Lying behind a pole/bush in ArmA1 is nice but not very usefull if they cant fire from there...) it would be more then dissapointing and i will be standing right behind you when you tear down the barricades of the AI programmer's house. :D

[Second 0]

OFP's AI is like a bunch of children. If you tell them exactly what to do using waypoints and triggers they are VERY smart! But if you leave them to their own devices and just say (MOVE) to this town in (LINE) formation, well then half of them will just go off and eat candy behind the BMP-2... And that is what lots of mission makers do

But this doesnt' have much to do with AI, but how it's told to do it's stuff. Basically we discuss of tactical execution of battle, which is mission designers job. Mission designer can fine tune AI's behaviour to more cautious (go hiding when enemy contact is met, don't engage, don't move until contact to enemy is broken), that is pretty much all he can do.

Still how ever how smartly waypoints and syncronations are designed by designer, base problem remains. AI doesn't handle suppressive fire, AI doesn't handle movement over terrain under fire, AI doesn't understand about being hard target but still effective shooter (in other words if they get behind cover they are hard targets, but can't engage enemy or they can engage enemy and expose them selves to enemy fire) AI doesn't handle basic drills. Well they can move in bounds now, that is something. AI is even unable to use great firing positions such as walls, rocks and houses on itself.

[Crazyfox 0]

Im sure BIS is doing their best to get us some good AI.

Don't compare with other games where the AI usually have a premade pattern on each map.

I haven't seen any AI working together on any game. (And don't say that attacking at the same time is teamwork.)

Also I think a lot of the people here complain on the AI from what they've seen in multiplayer in Arma.

Sure the AI needs improvments but 95% of the missions out there are just poorly made. Like if you attack some enemies in a village in Arma there is a plutoon just lying around and waiting inside the same village without helping out their friends.

And Ive never seen any mission where the maker have put up a trigger for the enemy to run away after taking too many losses.

[Baff1 0]

A mission maker shouldn't have to.

All AI should self trigger by default.

[De_little_Bubi 1]

of course he have to. how could the ai know whats his purpose in this place? only mission maker knows what the ai should do.

in reality the mission/map maker writes the most stuff for ai. arma is realy great at this point cause the simple stuff is already added, you dont need to set waypoints etc in detail...

[Jinn 10]

I wonder - will there be able bots to properly retreat\flee from the battlefield ...

As it was in the Armed Assault:

Goes M163 of the enemy. Crew: driver and rifleman.

We kill the rifleman... It remains the only driver.

M163 is completely no longer efficient without rifleman...

Nevertheless, the driver instead of that would go away, continues the movement \"attack" - stupid travel from side to side...

In arma 2 will the same?

It would be better if the M163 was returning to base ...

Or maybe the rifleman there sat a free bot...

Or for an extreme case the driver of change in the place the arrow - that would at least shoot, but do not be stupid cannon fodder...

hope my remark is understandable... =)

[maddogx 13]

I wonder - will there be able bots to properly retreat\flee from the battlefield ...

As it was in the Armed Assault:

Goes M163 of the enemy. Crew: driver and rifleman.

We kill the rifleman... It remains the only driver.

M163 is completely no longer efficient without rifleman...

Nevertheless, the driver instead of that would go away, continues the movement \"attack" - stupid travel from side to side...

In arma 2 will the same?

It would be better if the M163 was returning to base ...

Or maybe the rifleman there sat a free bot...

Or for an extreme case the driver of change in the place the arrow - that would at least shoot, but do not be stupid cannon fodder...

hope my remark is understandable... =)

Could be scripted by the mission maker, but I guess that would be tedious for a large number of vehicles. As I understand, Arma2 does have a "surrender" mechanic, but I'm not sure how it extends to vehicles. Returning to base isn't really viable, because a "base" in ArmA is a pretty abstract concept. There may or may not be a collection of objects that are intended to represent "the base", but the AI doesn't really understand that by itself.

Obviously, an AI driver should know that his vehicle is no longer combat ready without a gunner, but how should he decide whether or not to drive to his next waypoint anyway? Maybe it's still important that he gets there.

The situation is rather complex and difficult to handle with simple rules. It is very dependent on the situation.

[smeg head 10]

To be perfectly frank the AI we've seen so far in OFP and A1 is quite bad. They don't talk normally, mostly they are just silent, their movements are robotic, their maneuvering is retarded and they have no self-initiative. The only thing they can do is shoot when they see the target and that's what they do too well at times.

I think you are confusing 'smart' with 'believable'. Good AI is NOT about moving gracefully through the battlefield with hand signals, super speed and aggression, all to the sound of lovely melodious voices coming in over the radio. Those are all cosmetic touches which make the AI seem more 'lifelike' but don't make them any better at killing you.

The game F.E.A.R. for instance was praised as having one of the the best AI. Enemy soldier would show initiative by chasing you down, valuting over shelves and sliding through vents until BLAM you blew them away while they wasted time looking cool.

Seeing baddies valut over shelves sure looked sweet, but smart behaviour it was not. How many guys did you single handedly kill again? :rolleyes: 200, 300?

In that game the 'smart AI' was really just stupid AI which looked and behaved believably. NPS's got scared and ran away, they leapt over obstacles and kicked down doors. THey screamed at each other with emotion and they sounded like a real military unit. They also shot at you at the same time ;) But in the end they still just ran blindly around corners, the only difference was that they looked cool when they did it. They were 'believably dumb'. They were not smart

In F.E.A.R., Half Life, COD4 etc... I could single handedly kill 200 guys without getting killed. In OFP, play a suitably hard mission and you'd be lucky to get more than a few kills if that. "OMG How can this be" i hear you say? They act so clunky and they don't show initiative! Their movements are robotic! They don't talk normally! Why are they still able to kill me?

In the end it is because it is not these things that are important. OFP's AI is challenging because the NPC's are able to communicate to each other, and because they rather bluntly just shoot at what they see. They don't waste time kicking down doors and rappelling down ropes and leaping over shelves. Unlike the AI of other games their job is to kill you, not to provide you with eye candy!

Now you might say that you personally do not find OFP's AI challenging, but bear in mind that I am not talking about missions where you and your co-op friend have an M-21 and a LAW each, and the enemy are marked with nice big yellow squares in 'cadet mode'. Even the red objective markers on the map give players a BIG help because they show you where to look for the enemy. Put yourself in a forest against a patrolling enemy squad and OFP's AI will will have you cowering in the bushes.

Of course, thats not to say that I wouldn't love it if OFP's AI was as believable and lifelike as the AI in F.E.A.R ;) but when it comes to 'smarts' I'd pick OFP's AI.

[froggyluv 2133]

Good post smeg head.

The discussion over whether BIS style AI is horrific or genius has been going on in these forums for a long time. I think your points are valid as far as other games 'feeling' more lifelike thereby giving the player the illusion of a much stronger AI. But seriously, who wouldn't better enjoy playing Arma where guys are checking corners, setting up ambush in windows, hurdling fences and yelling out orders in frenzied urgency -I know I would!

Edit- I know that these things are far tougher to put in such a free roaming game, I just hope that the AI is taking at least a '3' on the top 5 things to revamp/improve for Arma2 and future titles.

Edited May 4, 2009 by froggyluv

[Second 0]

It's because people dont' understand that if AI acts smartly but yet performs poorly, there are other factors around than goodness is AI.

Such as game designed to favor player.

-Difficulty level. Playing COD4 on hardest level and it gets DAMN hard. 200 kills without dying? Not.

-AI is designed to die easier (hitpoints) and shoot poorly and cause less damage than player (partially related to difficulty level). MOH:airborne can be tweaked to present equal ground for all one-hit-one-kill, player and AIs. Poor AI? Not.

Most likely if AI seems to act smartly it because they are smart. They just have to face aggressive bear with stick and rocks.

[thaFunkster 0]

... In OFP, play a suitably hard mission and you'd be lucky to get more than a few kills if that....

...Unlike the AI of other games their job is to kill you, not to provide you with eye candy!

Amen to that!

Its true, they did what they were there to do well. They made you feel fear and respect like you would if real people were chasing you through the forest with AK-47s.

I really learnt the feeling of fear in this game, especially when I was on foot and I would hear the ominous squeak of tank or BMP tracks coming my way. Then I just started to really feel like "I dont want to be here anymore, I want to go home".

EDIT: PS - To sum up, in OFP if you gave away your position with gunfire when enemies were around, you could be gauranteed they will come looking for you, they will find you and they will kill you. This felt real. I soon learnt that I could not just sit sniping above an enemy base without repercussions like in many games.

Edited May 5, 2009 by thaFunkster

[topeira 10]

i do not agree with smeg head that much.

yes, the AI in FEAR was more believeable than smart and u, smeg, said that arma is harder cuz of the AI. i think u r wrong.

as SECOND said - in arma u die in 3 or 5 hits. no health packs either.

another point is that the map in ARMA is open so AIs can shoot from afar and with their ability to see through vegetation and u get attacked by more AIs at the same time. in FEAR u get attacked by 4-7 enemies. ARMA - more.

if the same cover-nodes system was used in ARMA than the AI would be better at finding cover and flanking you and making better choices around nodes, but this system is limiting and the devs will need to place thousands of cover nodes on the map. its impossible. and they will miss too many covers that way.

FC2's AI was as believable as FEAR's but they "spreading" tactics and flanking maneuvers where really really efficient.

again - best AI IMO is stalkers - i dont think they use cover nods and they do everything they're supposed to better than any other AI. they cant go prone but still.

i was flanked , sneaked behind and out maneuvered more times by that AI than in any other game. and i am the first guy to say "that AI looks like he's takking cover and flanking but its just a coinsidence that this object is hiding him and the flanking maneuvre is just a path finding mistake gone well.". the AI by GSC really is good.

and i still praise GTAIV's AI cuz they are really independent and THAT is a proof of a solid AI. i have a mod that i can press a button and 10 enemy AIs will spawn in a group 200 meters away. if i go there they will know, without map specific scripts, how to flank me, how to advance to me, how to find their path through anything and how to take cover behind anything bigger than a large turtle.

Edited May 5, 2009 by topeira

[urbanwarrior 0]

I think smeg head was right about fear's AI but not about arma's AI being good because you can't kill as many enemy as in other games. The reason you can't kill as many enemy is because your squadmates where usually running round in circles or crawling 100m's behind you so couldn't give proper support, or trying to fire an m240 from a standing postion in 1 or 2 shor bursts before getting killed. The other reason was that the enemy AI could usually pin you from 300m's with a single shot whilst standing even though you may have been running. This in itself would be possible in real-life but not nearly as often as in arma.

[Baff1 0]

FEAR's AI was simply excellent.

It came at from all directions.

To play it through and not die was challenging and tactical.

I had to choose my killing fields wisely or they would find a way to outflank me.

You can make any game hard by setting the AI with higher damage or greater accuracy, and yes it makes it challenging, just as playing through Doom on hard with only a pistol is very challenging.

But getting spotted through the grass and one shooted by AI, you yourself could not spot through the grass, although making the game harder is one example of poor AI not good AI.

There is more to game than being challenged. It's another example of fighting against the game engine rather than the game.

The excellent pathing and cover mechanics of games like FEAR and Unreal make for fluid and intresting gun fights.

Brothers in Arms, with it's suppression system is a fun game mechanic. It might not be the world's most advanced AI, but it carries the entire title.

Obviously I would like a game with a lot more depth than just one single unit tactic repeated over and over again, but better just one than none at all.

In games like Total War the morale and flanking mechanic again carries the entire game.

It's what differentiates it from the rest of the run of the mill battlemasters which end up as being a simple rock paper scissors mechanic where the right counter unit is used to attack each formation to overcome it. Ranged vs melee, cavalry vs artillery etc.

Spotter plus artillery vs everything...

It gives the AI "life". Makes them react to their changing circumstances rather than just standing around waiting to be picked off from the optimum angle of attack.

When large scale battles are modelled in ArmA it just turns into a big mosh.

(Especially in towns were the pathing is poor).

Yes it's very hard, but it's not fluid.

I find if I play with any friendly AI at all, I spend the whole game micromanaging my squad. fighting the interface to get them to not behave in a totally suicidal fashion.

This is true of a lot of games of course, hence co-op is where it's at.

I like the squad AI's in Ghost Recon and Hidden and Dangerous the best. They use cover on their own, they can be assigned rules of engagement, stealth, assault, fire at will, and basic commands, follow, hold position, on the fly waypoints, arcs to to cover...and the rest they do themselves. they have perhaps no more than 9 command options.

They have one more crucial interface, the soul switch.

So that I can easily and fluidly switch between which team member I am controlling at the touch of a button and place them in a supporting position and press hold position (or the await go code in R6 is uber).

ArmA and OpF have very highly complex functions I can ask them to do. Switching stances and alertness modes, assigning fire teams etc. Looting weapons from dead bodies, healing at the medic..

But there are too many of them.

They have functionality, masses of functionality, but not intelligence. They can't make enough decisions for themselves.

Frankly it is unforgiveable to have to order each of my AI's individually to heal at the medic in combat. They should not need to be told, it should be of the highest priority for them to do so at all times. Even if it turns them into suicide lemmings.

It would far better if I had a function to individually stop them from getting medical attention or better yet stop them as team. (Perhaps there is a sniper using the wounded as bait). It's a total waste of my life to micromanage them in the current way.

Similarly, I should not have to tell them to go prone. They should all do this on enemy contact by default also.

Once again if you can forsee a scenario where this limits them, include an option to tell them not to go prone.

Since as with the healing it is a given that 9 times out of 10 I shall want them to do so.

Likewise for the looting of enemy weapons, when a soldier runs out of guns and ammo I should not have to spend a few minutes individually asking him and each of his mates to pick up one off a specific dead body. He should automatically loot the nearest body when he runs out/low in a fight. Ok I can tell him to get a different one if I don't like his choice, but his default state should not be to choose no gun at all.

As it stands in ArmA and OpF it's very poorly optimised.

Cackhanded even.

They should not wait to be told what to do, I should not have the option to be able to tell them to do anything I can imagine. They should all do it of their own accord unless I ask them not to.

They already have all the functions they need coded into the game, they just don't use them.

It's poorly thought out.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Baff1

[thaFunkster 0]

...

if the same cover-nodes system was used in ARMA than the AI would be better at finding cover and flanking you and making better choices around nodes, but this system is limiting and the devs will need to place thousands of cover nodes on the map. its impossible. and they will miss too many covers that way....

Just wondering, would it be so hard to create a system where any object on the map automatically has a corresponding cover node? That way they would not need to be manually placed, and you could still have all the benefit of a cover node system.?

[nodunit 397]

Put yourself in a forest against a patrolling enemy squad and OFP's AI will will have you cowering in the bushes.

Yes...I remember the evacuating Everon mission with a squad in the forest, my squad was killed and here I am dashing around hills, every time I got..well anywhere I was so afraid I waited 10 minutes just to make sure that patrolling hind didn't see me or that group of soldiers didn't... Any other game I'd just have shot them.

@ topeira FC2's AI was scripted via area just like Crysis's. If the editor allows you to open the map you would see spheres connected by lines and area lines everywhere as cover points and such, thats not to say it's bad but its not as 'dynamic'. You can't just say...

You're completely new with the mission editor, and you want to shoot some AI maybe practice or just screw around. Here you can just slap down an AI unit from what side, then choose one of them to be the player and there you go! Instant dynamic AI that only required placing.

In Crysis and FC2's you would need to place the AI, place nodes, place an area, set up his gear, attach a weapon and so on. If you want AI in a vehicle you need to add the vehicle entity, then the AI, then link them via flowgraph.

example and this is the easy way.

In OFP/Arma/Arma2's case you come with AI already in the tank. The AI in BI's games would be preferred for this sort of thing as they are "out of the box ready" and easy to work with, it's as easy as shake and bake.

Btw for Arma2 BI did adress the issue of AI seeing through shrubbery, http://www.bistudio.com/developers-blog/arma2-vegetation-progress-2-2_en.html

Each AI fits their game well enough. Crysis you have the more 'closed corridor' AI that in a way function better on movement but are limited and have to coded on the fly, of which a person new to the editor will not likely know much of how to do.

Whereas BIS games AI are "backstage" coded, a simple click and stick will place them, without a waypoint they may not move anywhere at first but if they see you they will start hunting you, can go anywhere and engage at far range distances. Sure they may not be the brightest AI but then again what AI is? One way or another they all have their dee dee dee moments or properties.

Edited May 6, 2009 by NodUnit

[topeira 10]

baff1 - great post. well phrased and i agree bout everything. however i just appreciate AIs that had paths made for them less (FEAR).

thafunkmaster - i thought about this too. why dont devs make objects and on their way from MAYA or 3Dmax or whatever dont they go through another program where they can place cover nodes on the corners so when an object is placed on the map than the nodes are attached automatically. in crysis it was the case with trees and barrels but not much more.

the problem might surface when the objects is half sunk into the ground or at a weird angle, but it's still a decent solution, i would think.

i am no programmer though. my opinion counts very lil

nodunit - i know how crysis' AI works, kinda. i never got into flow charts and i even had troubles getting them into buildings. this is why i never gave it as a good AI example. its way too heavily scripted and not independant.

i dont assume u saw the nev-meshes or nodes for FC2's AI, right? u r just assuming, i believe.

i am positive completely that in order to navigate around they need to be restricted so they wont go into high hills or rocks or buildings, and of course they needed nodes for stationary weapons and such. that im sure of. this is why u couldnt place AIs in the editor - too complex for most of us.

but since the AI in FC2 doesnt really use cover (they just kinda straf around and run around. they even never EVER EVER crouch, which is a shame cus a crouching enemy feels alive. just "feels" but it gives the impression he is being careful or stealthy. they never do that in FC2 and i dont understand why not) so i dont think there are cover nodes in that game.

i am still curious to STALKER and GTAIV's AI. have u played those games, nodunit?

can u guess how come the AI in GTAIV knows how to navigate everywhere and how come they know how to use cover so wisely? same with stalker?

if i was to develop a way for the AI to find cover than i'd go with a "virtual-sensors" way -

this way the AI "shoots" virtual sensors (many. around 50 o more) towards the position of their enemy. the sensors travels on the ground at crouch level (around 3 feet high) and wherever the sensor hits and object than it means it cover.

then there are more sensors around the point of impact iwth the cover that shoot towards the enemy and these more fine sensors detect the edges of the cover.

this way there's no need for cover nodes.

[lecholas 2]

Just wondering, would it be so hard to create a system where any object on the map automatically has a corresponding cover node? That way they would not need to be manually placed, and you could still have all the benefit of a cover node system.?

Well, I always thought about building positions and pathways in objects (builings, bridges etc.) as of something like proto-system of that sort. It's not much used by the default AI though. I wonder if that's not leftover from BIS' tests to implement more complex cover system.

And to sum up OFP/Arma AI you can quote:

Fire without maneuver is indecisive. Maneuver without fire is fatal.

[nodunit 397]

nodunit - i know how crysis' AI works, kinda. i never got into flow charts and i even had troubles getting them into buildings. this is why i never gave it as a good AI example. its way too heavily scripted and not independant.

i dont assume u saw the nev-meshes or nodes for FC2's AI, right? u r just assuming, i believe.

i am positive completely that in order to navigate around they need to be restricted so they wont go into high hills or rocks or buildings, and of course they needed nodes for stationary weapons and such. that im sure of. this is why u couldnt place AIs in the editor - too complex for most of us.

but since the AI in FC2 doesnt really use cover (they just kinda straf around and run around. they even never EVER EVER crouch, which is a shame cus a crouching enemy feels alive. just "feels" but it gives the impression he is being careful or stealthy. they never do that in FC2 and i dont understand why not) so i dont think there are cover nodes in that game.

i am still curious to STALKER and GTAIV's AI. have u played those games, nodunit?

can u guess how come the AI in GTAIV knows how to navigate everywhere and how come they know how to use cover so wisely? same with stalker

After a bit of looking around in sandbox2 I noticed that these AI points are only on interiors (and the deck of the carrier). Otherwise if outside they are (mostly) free to roam with Forbidden area's shaped around objects and an area for them.

I'm guessing this is the movement area so that they can move around in a larger distance but after looking at this more I saw no crouching either unless they were by one of the "forbidden objects" and if I had to guess I'd say FC2 would be the same way though without the forbidden area's.

You're correct that I am going on assumption, since we can't make single player or view single player FC2 maps we won't really know other then going on the premise that it runs on the same engine (regardless of what they say we all know its true) and their AI acts similar in certain situations.

As for Stalker I've never played that nor GTAIV but if I had to guess I would say a similar aspect.

Oh and your virtual sensor idea is good but sounds very intensive especially if you have hundreds of AI at once.

[Baff1 0]

As well as cover nodes I also like the system of pathing lanes Unreal uses.

A lane is built into the map that if the AI is near, it will walk upon.

A staircase for example, is a typically tricky path that lanes make easy for AI.

I was thinking that in ArmA I would like to see twin lanes on either side of roads.

So when an army marched down it, by default they used the side of the road.

In a town, they would thus be seen walking along the side of the road close to the walls.

And not get so lost etc.

This would however require to types of AI track, one for infantry and a different one for vehicles that used the centre of the road, or one side per direction.

This I think is the reason why Unreal and Fear AI are so highly mobile. They can jump from one lane/track to another.

For open area's of ArmA I think this is not necessary. The AI already do an excellent job in the open. Moving in formation etc. The convoy AI on the roads is great too.

But in towns, or at that bridge, it gets very sticky.

As with cover nodes, this is quite a lot of extra work for level designers.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Baff1