Bouben

I see. That is exactly what I was suggesting to devs and what devs confirmed that it is being worked on. So we have to wait.

But AI does not care about flash in the actual code, got it? The AI is influenced only by some work-around calculations that has nothing to do with us, humans. Also, I see smoke in daylight combat in Arma, not prominent flashes at a distance. And flash visible through leaves in daylight in Arma? Not possible. Just smoke. Anyway, the main point is that the player, at the moment of firing, was completely out of LOS for the AI, because the AI was completely obscured by leaves of the tree. Even if there was a stroboscope flashing from the player's position, the AI should not see it because it was behind an obstacle - the leaves. The AI cannot be programmed in such a microscopic way that would allow them to see through millimetre spaces between individual leaves. It has to be programmed in a way that respects the behaviour of people playing the game in various resolutions on their monitors. The AI has to be believable, not necessarily mathematically precise. The AI is simply bugged.

This is insane. People are not able to comprehend that tactics are not an answer for AI that is wrongly programmed. I really hate when people having no clue about AI's programmed functionality in the game post their random-encounter adventures as a proof of how good the AI is... Variable, please, do some AI tests. "Random" delays in AI reactions, and "feel" of correct behaviour is not the point here. Do some test and you will see how problematic the AI is. If you are not able to comprehend the fact that AI is not influenced by visually chaotic environment and that player is, then there is nothing to discuss anymore. The first enemy in the video is the proof how badly is AI perception programmed. There is no way to see the player in such conditions. The AI was completely behind leaves of the tree yet was able to fire absolutely precisely at the player's position. Absolutely not possible IRL. ---------- Post added at 14:50 ---------- Previous post was at 14:43 ---------- The flash was completely obscured by daylight and most importantly leaves of the tree behind which the AI was positioned at the moment of firing.

I believe this is already there.

Yes, it could definitely be much better even without sophisticated camo algorithms. I agree with that, mate.

Use bCombat. Much better. I dare to say the best yet. ---------- Post added at 00:17 ---------- Previous post was at 00:15 ---------- A lot of things you described are already in the game. The camouflage value is there. And it is not sufficient and never be in simulation games with hardcore dedicated community implementing real-world tactics.

Any mods used during this? If so, list them here.

Well, I would love to see an algorithm for it. I suppose it would not be the easy part of math...

What ripoff plan?? Seriously? With all that features for free?

Interesting. Sad it is probably not by LOS check but some kind of other logic.

Oh well...I guess it is pointless to explain you how AI in the game works, right? ---------- Post added at 19:44 ---------- Previous post was at 19:43 ---------- This does not solve the fact that AI is perfectly able to aim on a target even if their view is completely obscured by grass. As I said, the AI is interested in target only from target's perspective. That has to be changed in order to simulate AI behaviour properly. ---------- Post added at 19:46 ---------- Previous post was at 19:44 ---------- I have a strange feeling this is going to be a placebo effect. You have to test it on a completely flat terrain with a near-laboratory conditions. Otherwise many other variables in AI behaviour will affect the results. ---------- Post added at 19:48 ---------- Previous post was at 19:46 ---------- Also notice in the video how they immediately spotted you on the road. That is because grass does not play a role in their LOS check. They are only interested in what terrain type you are on. Even if you was on a road with grass clutter, they would see you clearly. The terrain type would instruct them to see you, basically. UPDATE: The grass would have to be rendered as actual objects in order to have a "true" LOS check on a target. It would then work exactly as with buildings and rocks and other objects. But the AI would not be able to cope with it in its current state. ---------- Post added at 20:00 ---------- Previous post was at 19:48 ---------- ---------- Post added at 19:44 ---------- Previous post was at 19:43 ---------- This does not solve the fact that AI is perfectly able to aim on a target even if their view is completely obscured by grass. As I said, the AI is interested in target only from target's perspective. That has to be changed in order to simulate AI behaviour properly. ---------- Post added at 19:46 ---------- Previous post was at 19:44 ---------- I have a strange feeling this is going to be a placebo effect. You have to test it on a completely flat terrain with a near-laboratory conditions. Otherwise many other variables in AI behaviour will affect the results. ---------- Post added at 19:48 ---------- Previous post was at 19:46 ---------- Also notice in the video how they immediately spotted you on the road. That is because grass does not play a role in their LOS check. They are only interested in what terrain type you are on. Even if you was on a road with grass clutter, they would see you clearly. The terrain type would instruct them to see you, basically. (The deviations in spotting on the road are, IMO, caused by bushes, terrain features and that concrete stub near the road.) UPDATE: The grass would have to be rendered as actual objects in order to have a "true" LOS check on a target. It would then work exactly as with buildings and rocks and other objects. But the AI would not be able to cope with it in its current state.

Well written, I understand that. It does not give much sense to me either.

I would love to use it regularly, because it is so comfortable to just subscribe a mod and enjoy without need to use PWS and others.

Yes, it is definitely unfortunate, that player has to do things that AI don't have to. It would be very nice if AI knew how to use the stances the player has now at his disposal. That would be actually AMAZING. ---------- Post added at 18:05 ---------- Previous post was at 17:55 ---------- The invisible targets does not solve the problem of AI spotting you when they should not. The invisible targets just influence the situation that happens after you have been spotted already. The spotting itself would still be problematic.

People who don't recognize features as a proper content are... strange... I would prefer to get only features with each DLC and no new objects at all. I would be more than happy with that. Objects are useless if the gameplay (which is based on features) is not good enough. In other words: would you want to have more quantity of tanks in the game if the tanks behaved as bicycles in the first place? I really don't understand this "content" obsession.

We understand that. No problem. We are just trying to communicate the situation between each member of the community so that they can understand what we are talking about here. ---------- Post added at 17:21 ---------- Previous post was at 17:20 ---------- It is not but it will be.

This is true. That would help but also potentially damage BIS position.

Guys, just don't bring real-life tactics into the discussion as that is not how Arma AI works. AI in Arma is set of artificial compromises that creates a somehow believable experience. Without going into details, research those programmed solutions in the editor with some AI debug scripts and then discuss this topic. Otherwise it will be rather useless. As for the grass, the AI cannot see (has no LOS to) a prone player through grass until the player is detected. The distance from spotter and skill of spotter plays major role in this. After the player is detected, different rules applies. The player has to immediately change his position (even if only for few meters) but he/she has to do it completely undetected because otherwise the AI will never loose track of the player. Once the player is spotted, the grass plays no role whatsoever. The AI have a completely clear LOS on the player in that moment. The next important thing to know is that AI is not affected by chaotic environment. They are not confused by chaotic visuals itself. Number of objects around you and actual colour of your camouflage thus have no meaning at all against AI. I also believe that players silhouette on the horizon has no effect at all, but I have not tested it. The only thing that matters is the LOS from AI to the player at a given time. However, in order to simulate AI LOS you have to put artificial rules into the game. Therefore actual grass composition has no effect for AI LOS. AI is only interested in meeting given conditions. So if the player is prone in grass being undetected, he is undetected only because these (illustrative) conditions are met: player is on a terrain defined as grass = true, player is prone = true, player is not moving = true, player has a clothing with a high enough camo value = true (there is not even a difference between desert and woodland camo), AI skill is not good enough to spot prone player on a grass type terrain on such distance = true... etc. In other words, there is not enough sophistication and conditions in Arma yet to properly simulate AI spotting/visibility etc. Therefore, don't give frustrated players real world advices about tactics if they spotted unbelievable behaviour in a game. UPDATE: One more thing to explain, AI is perfectly able to shoot through grass even if their own view would be completely obscured by grass IRL. They are only interested in target's position from the target's perspective. If the target is marked as visible, they will see the target no matter how tall grass in front of them. Grass in Arma does not behave as objects (bushes, houses, cars, rocks etc.). UPDATE2: I am no expert on AI, so feel free to correct my statements if you know, scientifically, better.

Not just that. The main problem is that you cannot make individual mod sets with the mod folders. You can only make mod sets with the steam workshop items so far.

Those are three things. 3... Half Life 3 con...fi.....r.....m..........

This basically sums the whole thread and the whole problem.

Unfortunately, I doubt the frequency of such cases in the actual gameplay. Fatigue should be more of a factor even in CQB situations. The clunkiness should be felt even after few meters for heavily loaded units. Just like IRL. Heavy loaded units should be slow even when not fatigued because that is how it works in real life. If you have a lot of weight on you, you can be completely fit, but you will still be slow compared to others with light gear. ---------- Post added at 21:42 ---------- Previous post was at 21:41 ---------- Exactly.

Excellent. Thank you for the reply, DnA.

Interesting. The problem I see is that very rarely has anyone in the game a need to run more than 150 m without a single stop. Because the fatigue does not accumulate over the time you play, it has practically non-existing effect on the gameplay. IRL, you would get tired more and more even if you took regular breaks. In Arma, your fatigue gets completely reset after each cooldown. It is basically useless in most gameplay scenarios.

Not everyone is playing MP, you know? :-)