pd3

I'm already taking note of a few points which I believe to be inaccurate. I believe this to be complete misconception, the overwhelming majority of people I know who retain an interest in warfare regardless of the era seem to possess a more technical interest in "how warfare is waged technically, via equipment/ordnance, and how it is applied strategically and tactically".This passage is also interesting as it continues to beg the question with regard to presuming a "propagandist" motivation to warfare-themed games The explanation for this is of course simple, the american military is one of the most active and technologically advanced forces in the world, it is as a faction the one that factors in most plausibly with regard to the simulation of potential world conflicts, it has nothing to do with propagandizing or promoting a given ideology, the motivation is about creating a plausible setting using political entities that would most likely be involved, as you see, the focus is on achieving a level of technical and geopolitical, strategic and tactical accuracy.The following paragraphs seem to attempt to passively conflate actual military interest in simulation with commercial-grade products and some level of ideological cross-pollination. America's army being a very notable and obvious exception. This is what addons are for, this tacit observational argument is in line with 'Skeez out of nowhere turning her attention to Arma and indicting the game for not having female avatars, she has also stated things in the past such as that the social content of games matters more than mechanics.This is why people such as this should have ZERO say over how time and resources are dedicated to such games, Arma is ostensibly nothing but mechanics, and as we're seeing presently, it takes a lot of time and therefore money to get things right, and to even redress mistakes that have been made in the past. When you know that somebody else will cater to a very very very niche audience that encompasses less than five people in 100, you know that company time is better served fine-tuning the game mechanics than trying to cater to a proportionately small demographic based on precisely the same sort of reasoning aesthetic championed by 'Skeez, that is that the social and political implications of a game's content matter more than its function. I would respectfully state. No it doesn't. I would also contend that the people who should have the most influence over such a game as this are people who care about aspects critical to its function. My girlfriend plays Arma with me, she's never complained about a lack of female avatars, likely because she cares more about the functional nature of the game over how it massages her perception of herself. This is not the explicit function of such a game as much as progressives may want to shoehorn the notion that somehow everyone who plays simulator type games are "playing pretend" or engaging in co-opting some kind of heroism fetish. It is impossible to marginalize that particular observation/concern as it has been already championed by the most prominent and boisterous and incidentally more clueless critics of anything that does not serve their interests politically. Their argument is that if they themselves are self admittedly venal in their political motives, then everyone must be so to an equal degree, they cannot be viewed as the cultural aggressors, even though they are. This is why they resort to trying to play semantic games and goldbricking their moral status and trying to portray others as being coarse, uneducated and in need of moderating influences to curtail their "problematic" influences. Oh come on, implying that wasn't and still isn't very mutual between each political solitude, nice neutral language there. This is a perception interpreted entirely by the author themselves, I can already see the lack of objectivity increasing. The setting and context is pure utility as, again NATO and U.S military actions and assets are some of the most universally and most easily associated with given a western gaming audience. The author keeps saying it and I'm not seeing it. War and conflict are a highly relativistic force, that's one thing you learn about any sort of conflict especially if it becomes violent, at some point the parties involved become so invested that the only thing that matters is prevailing, the political context is often lost in the thick of actual combat. This is and always has been the allegorical truth promoted by BI even since the old days of Operation Flashpoint, as every time one died, you would see a quote from a famous individual effectively pointing out the morally relativistic nature of warfare and conflict. The fact that you are placed into the perspective of a given character fighting for a faction that is the most easy to identify with is IMO principally a marketing issue, it's purely incidental. You cannot have a game like this without a certain level of occlusion of perspective given the nature of the simulation, you as the player may come to realizations external to the characters in the game, however it makes for an awkward product if there is some repeated attempts at maintaining a greater objective context instead of simply playing from the perspective from a given side. I really dislike the attempts to claim that somehow there is a deliberate attempt at reinforcing some level of morality or propagandized values when this series has more prominently than others tried to highlight the trivial side of warfare and deaths that occur within it. What precisely is the point of highlighting this as if to imply somehow it's an extraneous component that anyone with a shred of common sense understands to be endemic to combat environments throughout history? The game strives to in some capacity and I would say rather objectively - convey the nature and atmosphere of combat for the sake of authenticity. Thank DiGRA for that, exclusively. As it has revealed itself to be an utterly venal entity that is openly hostile to the continued existence of both the present culture surrounding games as a whole and their development. Academia has now irrevocably been tarred with a brush that merits distrust and skepticism when it comes to uninitiated academics prodding and probing, especially when they either consciously or unconsciously carry their biases with them when doing research. Okay, although much of what Arma attempts to do is simply recreate historical or at least somewhat reasonably accurate hypothetical situations, which makes me wonder why you're associating the paragraph mentioned below with the game as if there is some amount of deliberate intent thereof. Wow, that is one of the most pretentious and euphemistic ways of claiming Arma 3 promotes in any way shape or form some degree of cultural discrimination or stereotyping. Literally none of that is present and actively espoused in the game, if you have that preconception coming into an experience such as this game, this game is not going to change it, or is it's job to do so. I also don't believe it will take somebody who is of an undecided opinion of a given demographic and somehow decide as a result of playing, decide that it's a complete and objective source of cultural guidance. The series has always did what it said on the tin: To insert the player into the gritty, often violent and unpleasant and philistine nature of international conflict. Never have I seen any objective endorsements of any particular way of thinking, that is 100% the byproduct of how somebody decides to interpret the experience. Arma and it's predecessors did not intend to inform the player on anything except possibly that war and the deaths within it trivialize life in a rather dehumanizing way. This an immutable consequence of living in the "real world", and since Arma attempts to simulate this aspect of the world in which we live, I'm not sure I really like the implications that the author is making about the social impact the game has, or the responsibility of authors to engage in some gaming-variant of Lysenkoism. Ohh, and here we go, the bias crosses the threshold of obviousness like the frothy head on a pint of lager over the rim of a glass. "problematic?"To whom? To whose political interest does this pose a problem? Certainly not intelligent people who are able to discern that observing a composite of what happens in the real world is not explicitly reinforcing it. Honestly, I didn't think I'd get only halfway into this before the venal progressive nonsense started to bleed through but I suppose I should have expected nothing less. It appears to me that the author is using their own biased political sensibilities as a metric to analyse an aspect of culture and technology that does not serve the author's preferred socio-political morality and beliefs.

>claiming GG was about misogyny. Dude, please.

The problem is Arma 3 is probably as far as a community goes a nigh-impossible nut to crack when it comes to trying to slip garbage progressive narratives into the game or the community. The players care about mechanics and flow of gameplay, little else, progressives have been trying to "test the fence" as it were trying to gain leverage on this game and the community and it just isn't happening, so of course they're going to attempt every conceivable angle to rationalize a given narrative with the hopes of it paying off in the future. Passive academic analysis is one of the least forceful vectors by which to attempt this.

This will pretty much kill my ability to continue playing arma. If they get rid of legacy versions I may as well uninstall.

Minor nitpick, but heavy things and inertia usually result in "more" sway because they're heavier and if exposed to greater centrifugal force (swinging one's perspective), then it's going to move more in that respect. You have to understand that technically the player can move their perspective with the mouse faster than an actual human can turn, so there does have to be some way of redressing this so that players aren't whipping their perspective around like it's counterstrike.

I'm not sure why they thought this was a good idea, much less some of the other very radical alterations to the game. Either way, I'm rocking legacy, because I want nothing to do with all of this business breaking the game that I've come to enjoy for something I don't believe most people wanted.

So I'm assuming this update won't be avoidable and it's going to pretty much break everything I've customized for the game? Is there any way around this? I really just can't stand "out of the box Arma", no offence, but it takes me a while to customize the game to my liking and an update like this is just going to cock everything up and create a lot of work if there are fundamental incompatibilities.

Is there any stop-gap means to receive mission assignments from different locations as it seems only one ops desk is usable per mission?

Is this something the scripting language facilitates? I'd like a set of script commands to run only if the player possesses a specific item in their inventory, in my particular case a piece of worn equipment.

Any possibility for camo variants on CSAT suits?

Is it my imagination or did somebody actually make some sort of recreation of one of the classic doom levels for Arma 3? I could have sworn I had come across it via the Steam Workshop and I can't seem to find it anymore. Did anyone else know of/see this? Is it gone now? Was I imagining it?

I don't necessarily think that's the case, basically from what I've seen is that the way "prediction" coupled with other forms of data acquisition for the AI (such as "hearing" very very well) basically gives the AI the appearance of precognition. I'll explain as I respond to points. I actually have created a workaround for that which seems to work. I would love know if min/maxGunTurnAI works with infantry, it definitely seems as if modifying min/maxHeadTurnAI does. I don't know about Arma 3 AI, however the ARMA 2 AI practically had 180 degree "perfect" vision in which if you ran at a right angle to an AI at a moderate distance (50m), they would immediately detect you as an enemy. Basically I occluded the head turn angle so that it's not as if they're part owl-kin and can detect players as readily from steep angles at or beyond the periphery of their vision. It makes having an advantage when you intercept AI at a 90 degree angle a lot more meaningful. I would also love to know if maxTurnAngularVelocity applies to AI turning, I can't really seem to discern any difference from what I've done. are you saying that the hypothesis is flawed or that AI prediction is flawed? I would absolutely say that in such cases it seems to be as I mentioned a combination of what the AI can "hear", and how prediction seems to work. If you want a better example, the YQ mod has a good feature that is good for interpreting what the AI seems to perceive. I actually created a custom player character whose audible variable has been knocked down significantly and the AI's ability to "predict" has been considerably diminished outside a given range. Basically how it seems to work is that the AI will go into a state of "predicting" the way another AI or player went based on the direction they were last moving when they saw them, the rest is basically mediated by how well they can hear, which I now more than ever believe is a resounding "far too well". I won't be able to get any sort of capture unit at-present, but once I can I will definitely give it a go. I believe I have used it, and yes it is interesting, and honestly a lot of these results seem difficult to duplicate in a non-squad based mission setting. Not sure why, but just tossing down editor units seem to behave differently than trigger spawned squads. I also agree with adding a human element to the AI, one thing that kind of irks me is how there is zero recollection time when suddenly coming face to face with an enemy. If you look at some combat footage from WWII and other conflicts, hell, even recollections from former soldiers, there are times where they will find themselves suddenly in front of enemy combatants at close range and it takes a second to process exactly what the hell they're seeing, it's kind of like an "Oh shit" - moment. There's actually a video of a now-deceased marine William Wold, recounting and incident in Iraq, where a fellow squadmate froze in disbelief when they encountered a platoon of insurgents at reasonably close range, it's not an uncommon phenomena and would likely take considerable discipline and training to counteract. But with the AI it's literally like "I see part of his shoulder, ENEMY CONFIRMED, *BRRRRRRRRRRRT*" - in a fraction of a second. Granted I know there are times where the AI can bumble around and not seem to perceive the player in a competent way, but in nearly all mutual, spontaneous head-on encounters at close range where the AI does not know exactly where I am, it's as if they were expecting me, when in fact they just have ridiculously fast reflexes and nothing inhibiting their ability to quickly and accurately draw a bead. There's no simulated human error except a few random number thresholds it seems. This is the best way I can describe what I've seen the AI do. http://i.imgur.com/r0dFOwo.png Now, it was an incident in which I first encountered the AI on the right side of the drawing, fire was very briefly exchanged, however I knew if I stopped as I was the one moving into the AI's field of vision, I was likely going to be hit first. So I moved to the left along the wall, quietly. This is basically where the AI's ability to predict movement comes in, however instead of giving chase, what the AI did was inexplicably predict that I was going to come up from the other side in spite of not being able to hear me beyond a certain distance, for all it knows I could have moved left and then moved anywhere else. What's even more screwed up, is I watched the AI move to it's secondary position and then WALK BACK to it's primary position after I had changed direction mid-route and moved back toward the original point of contact. I did this without actually exposing myself, I literally just moved 3/4 of the way and then turned around, again moving quietly, not running. They seem to passively "know" how to mitigate tactical approaches without them actually having any reasonable basis as to what exactly the player might do. Since I have screwed around with the audible cfgVehicles variable, it seems as if that phenomena has been diminished considerably, lending a lot to my hypothesis that the AI can hear unreasonably well.

Unless there are specific properties about A3 buildings that work to occlude sound that I'm not aware of, or some other influence that the AI are subject to, then it shouldn't matter. It's not an issue of avoiding the AI, it's how they engage and maneuver at intermediate/close range. I swear the AI can hear footfalls far too easily and if I cut the soundhearing variable down any further it will impair their ability to hear gunfire, otherwise I'd slash it to the point where they can no longer predict my movements from a reasonable range. I've observed too many instances where the AI puts itself conveniently where it needs to be to mitigate an alternative approach by the player once the primary vector of approach has had it's viability exhausted, when there's just simply no way the AI should be able to clearly determine that due to what should amount to a lack of information on its part. I've never seen it make an error in such cases, it always magically knows EXACTLY where to be so that it is never vulnerable but effectively situated. They're not like people, they're like sentient killer robots. Your approach has to be "over engineered" by a factor far greater than it would be if you were even playing against another human because that's how dead on the money they are. The effect seems to be diminished as you get out to 70 to 100 plus meters, at which point I've seen many AI blunder about not realizing they're about to get mowed down. There is no such thing as "getting the drop" on the ai at close to intermediate ranges in most cases unless they're in an obviously compromised situation such as prone and turned away from you. I blame "combat" or "red" mode or whatever it is. Once they've become alerted, they seem to become hypersensitive and seem to have a very convenient sense of what the player might do without having any reasonable justification for it. The AI does strange things as if it has precognition of when a player's tactical advantage has expired in a given place and automatically predicts the next location (among many) that they player could strike from again, effectively mitigating it's effectiveness. What's worse, is I've actually observed a few times now the AI reverse it's maneuver when I've quietly tried to fake them out, and returned back to the position I originally fought from. It's like they're taunting the player, as if they're privy to knowledge that you aren't. Maybe this is a feature of ported maps, but I would like to know what makes standard A3 architecture so unique. The weird thing is, they magically end up in the most strategically advantageous positions, and still "play dumb", it just so happens they can turn and aim very quickly so unless you're going to lob grenades around corners constantly, you're still in for a tough time. That is to say, they don't always seem aware of why they're where they are. They won't always be looking in the direction of the approach the player will take, they simply manage to be exactly where they need to be to magically establish a superior position from another point of attack. It doesn't matter if you dip out of a range that the player might be able to hear the AI from, it's very bizarre, and quite honestly annoying.

How do you define "good". Good as in, "they're very skillful", or good as in "they're convincing as simulated humans"? I'm presently rather annoyed by how much individual AI seem to "know" about the player as if somehow there is some commander with a drone feeding them moves and essentially metagaming as opposed to behaving like human beings. It's like they can sense what the player is doing and do the exact thing at the exact moment that yields the best result when it simply shouldn't happen. Especially at intermediate ranges, it's as if the AI just retains far too much info about what the player is doing, whether it's by hearing or some other means, I still blame "combat" or "red" mode, or whatever it's called. You literally have to play against them like they're deathmatch bots and I absolutely hate it. I don't want metagaming AI, I want AI the simulate the behavior and perceptions of people occluded by a combat environment.

I was a bit skeptical over the new release and what it would bring, since the dev team took cues from the end user community with regard to optimizations and memory allocators, the game has really opened up to somebody on a lower/mid range machine. There have been a few aberrations along the way. 1.52 as-yet has provided some of the greatest optimizations for smooth gameplay I've experienced, overall my framerates aren't massively higher, but the smoothness of gameplay, especially in dense CQB environments has become much more fluid and therefore playable. There are fewer blips of latency and performance reduction so there's overall more continuity to the gameplay from phase to phase, whether it's traversing terrain, or being in the thick of combat. This IMO is FAR more important than the occasionally higher framerates I'd get when very little was going on in some of the older versions. Additionally scripts in general seem to load much faster, meaning a good quantity of the gameplay-improving end user made enhancements don't pose as much resource overhead. I have yet to see a downside to this release, thanks for putting in the work dev team.

I've been making custom sound composites for weapons for a while now and I've noticed that weird "pop" everyone's been talking about. I thought for a while there was something wrong with my firing sounds and I was wracking my brain trying to figure out how it might be, and then I realized that it is the BI-created soundtails that appear to be the culprit. I'm not sure if the issue has been addressed, however those tails under the path "A3\Sounds_F\arsenal\weapons\Pistols\4-Five\4-Five_tail_xxxxxx" are all in need of some fixing, I just did a test and it has a very noticeable "pop" sound at the end of any firing sound wherein these tails are used. According to a video made by M3G4G0TH, it's a pretty simple fix. If you have the slightest bit of OCD hearing a stacatto of them can be like scraping on a chalk board. EDIT, nevermind apparently it's on the docket, so that's great to hear.

It would be nice to see some of these buildings put into a low-fi terrain that runs better on lower spec machines. I really liked the Australia territory, but my system at present just doesn't have the juice to do anything meaningful with it. This may just be the excuse I need to mess around with world editing again, who knows.

Back when we were using custom memory allocators and some of the other end-user performance enhancements I actually did get some pretty decent framerates, however a lot more has been added to the game since then, it's constantly changing. I will say this, my perception of performance may in fact have to do somewhat with the fact that I run CBA RC 6. I just tried 7 and for some reason Dragonfyre ran like absolute garbage and I detected worse overall performance, I don't know why that would be, but I can often tell how well the game runs based on how well the scripts from DF avoid lagging.

Does anyone know if there exists mod for AI movement (footfalls, etc) that is not part of a larger compilation? I find the footfalls to be much too quiet and not really at all representative of how loud things are when people are actually running at full speed.

Considering I am only ever playing one monster scenario of my creating, I can say that the consistency of conditions is very high. I will continue playing it until I complete it, it's extremely hard, especially with super rigged AI that seem to know way more than they should half the time. I've just noticed a slight back-and-forth when it comes to performance throughout the versions from the late 1.30s onward. Post 1.52 I noticed scripts loaded faster, combat in tight areas with a number of AI became smoother, not necessarily higher on-average FPS, but it was definitely more stable when things get hectic, and that pretty much means everything when you're potentially surrounded in a MOUT-type environment, you can't afford to have a blip of lag otherwise you could be killed instead of your target. Generally my system (which isn't by any means high-end anymore), can take quite a few more entities in field before performance starts to dip, considerably more just prior to the update especially.

Well my system just doesn't have the juice to run a capture and remain playable, nor do I have a capture card/drive, although I probably should get one at some point. However, I just so happened to encounter another situation in which the AI blatantly shot through a completely obscuring part of a legacy Arma structure. I have a recreation for context, although I don't really expect anything to be done about it, you can choose to disbelieve me if you wish, but it literally just happened a few mins ago, this was the most blatant case of it happening yet. Playing a scenario I shot at a CQB module-created AI entity on top of the building as-recreated here. I was also receiving fire from elsewhere so I abandoned the building and moved to re-engage my target from another angle, undetected. http://i.imgur.com/vkWYPHG.jpg This picture illustrates the path I took, additionally, from the vantage point of the AI, you will note that it does not have a line of sight for anywhere except the mezzanine-thing from where I originally engaged the AI. http://i.imgur.com/k9RJ4Mf.jpg http://i.imgur.com/jkMex2o.jpg The above-screenshot is a behind-perspective shot of where the AI was engaged, and where they were firing from. The screenshot below from the perspective of the camera (not the AI) was where I was standing roughly when I was detected and shot at. It was once again with a Zafir, and I could see green tracers traveling through the floor on the top portion of the building at an angle similar to the picture above. http://i.imgur.com/DNUoBU5.jpg There was literally no way they could have had a legitimate line of sight on their target, this is also a very new phenomenon, as of 1.52. Whereas I've been using ALIVE for quite some time now without incident, nor have ALIVE for some time either. Just some food for thought, and for other A3 players out there to put it into perspective if they've experienced a similar incident.

I'll have to look into this, perhaps this was contributing to my issues in some of the missions I play, there are many a moment where you're quickly changing your viewing angle whilst not moving around, and if that happens to cause problems then no wonder the AI could easily figure out where I was. Never really thought of it as a possibility. Considering the distance at which the AI is triggered, I would suspect it's a very likely candidate. I apologize for making another post, I thought as with the old forum, that it would simply append to my existing post.

Down as far as 0.0045 for educational purposes, which is pretty much as good as being deaf, it's even worse than being inside of a vehicle, that was more or less the bottom range of my testing. But I find their "combat" echolocation abilities only start to drop off at around 0.2, and that's having the ability to pop up somewhere whilst AI occupying a building shoot at you, and then being able to move through side streets at a distance without them knowing exactly where you are and exactly where you'll pop up. 0.5 seems all too sensitive, time and again in the scenarios I run they can easily predict where one would re-appear from beyond a range that I could hear from, it's as good in many cases as them never having lost sight of you. Also to Greenfist, a lot of these issues seem to be compounded when in a combat type scenario involving a multitude of units. I use ALIVE for the CQB module, I don't know if in that mode it explicitly modifies the AI, but many of the situations I've gotten myself into, it's extremely difficult to lose the lock of the AI without taking exaggerated measures to lose them. In previous times they've literally homed-in on me through a sea of buildings after trying to lose them after an initial encounter. Secondly, I have no idea if legacy Arma objects behave the same way that A3 objects do. I do a lot of scenarios with Avgani and Fallujah, so whether that makes a difference or not I cannot say. I'm suspicious as to whether, or more likely in my mind - how much of a increase the AI gets to certain abilities when they've entered combat/red mode. It also seems to be much worse if the AI is working in concert with other AI. I've been spotted, and then retreated to a block of buildings with narrow, heavily obscured walkways in which the AI seem to have a great aptitude in worming their way around and inevitably finding my exact position whilst not actually being able to see me after the first encounter and then my subsequent disappearance. This is without my sprinting, or fighting from said position so as to create a lot of noise. I guess the only advice I could give is that I believe that footfalls coming from the same side should be just as relevant and competing for AI attention as would those of the players. It does seem as if footfalls seem to carry a signature that screams "this is not one of our guys", which gives the AI an unfair edge in an environment crowded by other AI.

The AI is pretty good when they are unaffected by the ridiculous stat buffs associated with being in "red" or "combat" mode whichever does it. The AI would be great if a few key issues were redressed. - peripheral vision is not as reliable as direct linear vision - no more CIWS reaction times/speeds - no more buffs to hearing/perception when in combat mode that give the AI psychic/echolocation powers when they perceive things in circumstances where it would be simply impossible for players to do so with any level of reliability. It seems as if the more "pissed off" the AI gets when they can't find you, the more heightened their sensory powers seem to be, I've played around with single AI and it seems less-bad even despite the obvious gripes associated with "combat" mode. However when you're in a situation where the AI is looking for you and you've killed multiples of their side, it seems as if it gets to a point where the game just "throws them a bone" and reveals you under circumstances where it just shouldn't be possible considering their reactions. This also really really screws the player in close quarter combat situations. I've stood adjacent (out of sight) from doorways whilst the AI stood inside of it, and I took a slight step near the doorway, not exposing myself, and the AI fired in the direction of where I was through the wall. When you're pretty deep into a scenario and you know that the odds are stacked that ridiculously against you, it's kind of an enjoyment killer. Given that AI had never even seen me, I can't replicate it under single AI circumstances for some reason, but this has happened multiple times now in scenarios using large number of AI be it involving doorways or corners of buildings where the player is masked, makes a movement, and the AI automatically knows where they are even though they haven't seen them. I suspect the perceptive abilities of the AI are increased by a factor that makes all other modes they could be in seem badly skewed by comparison in certain conditions, and whatever those conditions are, those buffs to said abilities need to be decreased, I would say easily by half or more.

So after doing some more testing, I've come to the conclusion that Arma 3 also suffers from the same issues that Arma 2 had with regard to how the AI "hears", and how that translates into what each AI knows about what's going on in their environment. In the days when I played A2 a lot, I became quite annoyed with the fact that slightly outside the range that players can hear footfalls, the AI could seem to constantly predict where the player would come from if a detour behind cover and obstacles was taken at a certain distance. I made certain to ensure that the AI I placed was near a range of structures or obstacles that would prevent the AI from visually seeing me, but also I meticulously tested the range at which other players/AI's footsteps would fade out of audible range. I devised a test in which I would alert the AI from one vantage point, and then take a detour back behind and through obstacles that had been determined to be out of player-audible range. Every single time without fail, the AI would be facing me no matter where I would emerge from. That is, until I kicked their SensitivityEar value down a few notches, and then all of a sudden their magical "echolocation" powers suddenly vanished. I decided after a few blatantly unfair deaths, and questionable close-calls on my Avgani CQB scenario to whip up a similar config mod that changed the sensitivityEar value for an AI character that I had also created. I suddenly noticed that even at distances that would be WELL out of audible range for players hearing other AI, that the AI seemed less certain, and less able to predict where the player was. What's more, I no longer had problems with the AI magically popping up and shooting me after laying down on top of a structure as if they had X-ray vision. What's more, the AI does not seem to be constrained by sounds being dampened or entirely muted by moving behind obstacles which seems to have an impact on the player's total hearing range. All of those factors don't really add up to a fair fight against the AI. Normally if it were a human player, you might have an idea of where somebody is if you hear them rustling around, but in the case of the AI, it is less like hearing and more like echolocation, as I mentioned, it was as if the AI was locked on to you before they even popped up to shoot, not exactly fair. Now post-modification, there are far more chaotic moments in which the AI might have an idea that "I'm around", but don't exactly know where I am. A subsidiary benefit to this is that now when I get the drop on AI or they're surprised at close range, they don't usually whip their axis at lightning fast speed and shoot me before I can pull a shot off. Basically, the AI's ability to hear things is in my personal opinion, OP as hell. I think the AI's ability to hear things at close to intermediate range needs to be nerfed, however maintaining the AI's ability to perceive things like gunfire and explosions at a distance, but that's just my 0.02.