Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

nkenny

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1275

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by nkenny

  1. Posted

    The effect of weapon on AI accuracy

    by nkenny

    Abstract*
    Testing the effect of weapon on AI accuracy. 

    Introduction
    The weapon an AI soldier is equipped with greatly affects killing power.  Even when the class of weapon is nominally the same, weapon configuration plays enormous part. This is especially evident when similar weapons from different mods are used together.  To explore the effect of weapon on AI killing power I built an experimental suite. 

    Experiment
    The test was conducted while running only CBA, CUP Weapons, RHS Russian Armed Forces and NIArms. The player profile was newly created and no AI skill tweaks were made. 

    Description
    I placed a single shooter on flat terrain, back turned towards a four man group of enemies. The four man team is concealed from the shooter (his back is turned). Each soldier is identically equipped with no body armour or helmet or weapon. 

    After five seconds the shooter is given a weapon and given perfect information about the enemy. This results in him turning and engaging the enemy. The targets are spaced at two meter intervals and the test was run on a 100m and 200m range (normal combat engagement ranges).  Shooter and targets were forced to remain static and remain in a standing position. My point of comparison was the AKM rifle. Ubiquitous in enemy hands and mod packs alike.  I provide data for the modern MX rifle with a HAMR RCO as a frame of reference. 

    The exercise is over once three minutes has passed, the shooter has expended all ammunition, or all targets are dead.  Measurements are printed on screen and recorded on the clipboard. I paste that information into a document. 

    Measurements 
    I ran the exercise six times with each weapon. While not enough for statistical evaluation, I nonetheless deemed it sufficient to get a sense of the performance characteristics of each weapon. 
    - Hits, each bullet that impacts a target.  
    - Shots fired, maximum is 6 magazines: 180 rounds. 
    - Accuracy, hits divided by shots fired. 
    - Time, time in minutes and seconds. 

    Record
    After each round I recorded weapon class name, Accuracy, (hits / shots fired) and time. Each measurement is averaged (in red). 

    Expectations
    Mod configuration will vary somewhat. With CUP weapons being more accurate than RHS counterparts. 

    Data @ 100 Meters

    Spoiler

    // 100M Vanilla
    wpn: arifle_AKM_F - acc: 50 percent (5/10) - time: 00:05
    wpn: arifle_AKM_F - acc: 57 percent (4/7) - time: 00:04
    wpn: arifle_AKM_F - acc: 57 percent (4/7) - time: 00:05
    wpn: arifle_AKM_F - acc: 46 percent (6/13) - time: 00:07
    wpn: arifle_AKM_F - acc: 38 percent (5/13) - time: 00:07
    wpn: arifle_AKM_F - acc: 61 percent (8/13) - time: 00:07
      51% accuracy -- 10.5 shots -- 6 seconds

    // 100M CUP
    wpn: CUP_arifle_AKM - acc: 50 percent (4/8) - time: 00:07
    wpn: CUP_arifle_AKM - acc: 38 percent (5/13) - time: 00:10
    wpn: CUP_arifle_AKM - acc: 50 percent (4/8) - time: 00:06
    wpn: CUP_arifle_AKM - acc: 50 percent (4/8) - time: 00:07
    wpn: CUP_arifle_AKM - acc: 30 percent (4/13) - time: 00:09
    wpn: CUP_arifle_AKM - acc: 41 percent (5/12) - time: 00:08
      43% accuracy -- 10.3 shots -- 8 seconds  

    // 100M RHS 
    wpn: rhs_weap_akm - acc: 27 percent (6/22) - time: 00:11
    wpn: rhs_weap_akm - acc: 19 percent (9/47) - time: 00:28
    wpn: rhs_weap_akm - acc: 12 percent (6/48) - time: 00:29
    wpn: rhs_weap_akm - acc: 14 percent (7/47) - time: 00:29
    wpn: rhs_weap_akm - acc: 25 percent (10/40) - time: 00:26
    wpn: rhs_weap_akm - acc: 12 percent (4/32) - time: 00:21
      18% accuracy -- 39.3 shots -- 24 seconds

    // 100M NIArms
    wpn: hlc_rifle_akm - acc: 40 percent (4/10) - time: 00:06 
    wpn: hlc_rifle_akm - acc: 16 percent (4/24) - time: 00:09
    wpn: hlc_rifle_akm - acc: 40 percent (4/10) - time: 00:06
    wpn: hlc_rifle_akm - acc: 50 percent (4/8) - time: 00:05
    wpn: hlc_rifle_akm - acc: 36 percent (4/11) - time: 00:05
    wpn: hlc_rifle_akm - acc: 23 percent (4/17) - time: 00:08
      34% accuracy -- 13.3 shots -- 6.5 seconds




    Data @ 200 Meters

    Spoiler

    // 200M VANILLA
    wpn: arifle_AKM_F - acc: 9 percent (4/41) - time: 00:47
    wpn: arifle_AKM_F - acc: 27 percent (6/22) - time: 00:23
    wpn: arifle_AKM_F - acc: 15 percent (7/45) - time: 00:49
    wpn: arifle_AKM_F - acc: 14 percent (8/56) - time: 00:59
    wpn: arifle_AKM_F - acc: 14 percent (4/27) - time: 00:28
    wpn: arifle_AKM_F - acc: 10 percent (7/69) - time: 01:17
      15% accuracy -- 13.3 shots -- 47 seconds

    // 200M CUP
    wpn: CUP_arifle_AKM - acc: 13 percent (4/30) - time: 00:31
    wpn: CUP_arifle_AKM - acc: 33 percent (4/12) - time: 00:15
    wpn: CUP_arifle_AKM - acc: 50 percent (4/8) - time: 00:09
    wpn: CUP_arifle_AKM - acc: 23 percent (5/21) - time: 00:22
    wpn: CUP_arifle_AKM - acc: 18 percent (4/22) - time: 00:25
    wpn: CUP_arifle_AKM - acc: 28 percent (7/25) - time: 00:26
      27% accuracy -- 19.6 shots -- 21 seconds

    // 200M RHS
    wpn: rhs_weap_akm - acc: 4 percent (6/131) - time: 01:57  
    wpn: rhs_weap_akm - acc: 3 percent (5/156) - time: 02:05
    wpn: rhs_weap_akm - acc: 8 percent (5/62) - time: 00:50
    wpn: rhs_weap_akm - acc: 5 percent (8/158) - time: 01:51
    wpn: rhs_weap_akm - acc: 5 percent (7/130) - time: 01:46
    wpn: rhs_weap_akm - acc: 2 percent (5/180) - time: 02:36  ** RAN OUT OF AMMO ** 
      4.5% accuracy -- 136 shots -- 111 seconds

    // 200M NIArms
    wpn: hlc_rifle_akm - acc: 60 percent (6/10) - time: 00:12    
    wpn: hlc_rifle_akm - acc: 30 percent (4/13) - time: 00:15
    wpn: hlc_rifle_akm - acc: 38 percent (7/18) - time: 00:22
    wpn: hlc_rifle_akm - acc: 66 percent (6/9) - time: 00:12
    wpn: hlc_rifle_akm - acc: 71 percent (5/7) - time: 00:09
    wpn: hlc_rifle_akm - acc: 77 percent (7/9) - time: 00:12
      57% accuracy -- 11 shots -- 13.6 seconds

    // 200M VANILLA MX with HAMR RCO
    wpn: arifle_MX_Hamr_pointer_F - acc: 40 percent (4/10) - time: 00:12
    wpn: arifle_MX_Hamr_pointer_F - acc: 36 percent (4/11) - time: 00:13
    wpn: arifle_MX_Hamr_pointer_F - acc: 42 percent (6/14) - time: 00:14
    wpn: arifle_MX_Hamr_pointer_F - acc: 31 percent (5/16) - time: 00:17
    wpn: arifle_MX_Hamr_pointer_F - acc: 50 percent (4/8) - time: 00:09
    wpn: arifle_MX_Hamr_pointer_F - acc: 70 percent (7/10) - time: 00:11
      45% accuracy -- 11.5 shots -- 12.6 seconds



    Findings
    @100 Meters
    At close range  the vanilla AKM and CUP AKM are closely matched. With a slight edge to the vanilla gun. RHS weapons are considerably less accurate than all other counterparts and require four times the amount of time and rounds fired for similar effect. The numbers for the NIArms AKM belie their effect on target. Toadie's AK tended to fire in bursts, but with a highly accurate first shot. In effect the gun killed with the first shot, but burned off a few rounds into the air-- wasting time and bullets. 

    @200 Meters
    At mid range the differences between the weapons become evident. CUP weapons are almost twice as effective as their vanilla counterpart. RHS weapons are considerably less accurate than the others. Which is not to say ineffective. Rate of fire is high and spread provides greater coverage-- area of fire-- than the other counterparts. As for NIArms: the rifle comparatively is laser accurate, out shooting all other alternatives. Contrasted to RHS it provides almost eight times more killing potential. It even compares favourably to the vanilla MX with a optic. 

    Conclusion
    Not all AKMs are created equal. The killing potential of each gun varies wildly from mod to mod.  The most deadly close quarters AK is the vanilla, while in most combat ranges, the NIArms gun outperforms all other alternatives. 

     

    One obvious take away is that there are radical differences of capability with two presumably identical weapon systems.  This is one reason why I would advice  consistency in mod sets. Another is that this vast difference in capability need not match the players performance, expectations and experience, with the same weapon system.  In the case of the AKM, I believe most players find them very similar-- aside from minor differences in sight picture and sound.  In fact to test that very thing I used the same suite to record my own times. I won't post the results here, but they were largely similar across mods. 

     

    The test itself remains neutral to the intended design intention of the style of configuration each mod adopts.  The comparable lack of accuracy of RHS weapons need not be read as a flaw.  There are arguments both from the perspective of realism and game play to prefer less accurate weapons. 
    - Firstly, the sort of 'white room' engagement against a non-responsive, non-moving target is hardly applicable. Handling performance on sterile ranges fail to convey the stress of combat shooting. Most studies into the effect of combat on marksmanship show a massive decrease in effective accuracy. RHS weapons simulate combat shooting, rather than target plinking.
    - Secondly, more shots fired and fewer one-shot-kills, is generally good for game play. At 100 meters vanilla, CUP and NIArms equipped soldiers can eliminate an inattentive fire team in less than 10 seconds.  While demanding some caution is good, such a quick end also means a quick end to the session for the player in question. 

    - Thirdly, RHS comes with an entire dimension of weapons. Accuracy comes with modern quality. A RHS M4A1 is more accurate than an AKM. So is a an AK74. See references.

     

    Many communities depress AI accuracy values. The considerable accuracy of CUP and NIArms weapons need not be a flaw. Follow the links in the references and one can see the extreme degradation of accuracy based suppression levels. The considerable default accuracy of vanilla weapons, the presence of multiple stances, all are suggestive of a very specific type of gameplay.  Soldiers should be cautious and reveal their positions only momentary.  Suppressive fire is very effective. It is more important to suppress all dangerous enemies than it is to pursue time consuming killing shots!  When the AI is accused of laser accuracy, it will in some cases be due to failure to adequately suppress-- through fire superiority-- the enemy position. 

     

    Finally, I suspect, particularly in regards to the user made modifications there are considerably differences.  Test are done in different AI setting ecologies-- tweaking AI skill is easily (if somewhat obtusely) done. If I shall brave a conjecture I expect CUP weapons, being added more along open source model will show greater variance in configuration.  NIArms weapons are developed with an eye towards delivering an uncompromising experience for the shooter. The AI comes much later.  All of this means that mod makers and mission designers must pay attention to the source of the weapons given to  the AI. 


    Future tests
    1. The same platform can easily be used to test other weapons or family of weapons
    2. In the future I would like to test ranges out to 300 and 400 meters**

     

    References

    - Original thread on nopryl.no, further numbers, weapons and experiments are here

    - Experimental mission, links to mission for your own testing


    -k 
     

    * Dear mods: Feel free to move this thread. While relevant to mission makers and mod developers equally. It seems sufficiently meta  to concern general players, but it is not pointed enough to belong to the mod discussion forum. 
    ** My initial run with standing RHS weapons yielded one hit across 180 rounds. In other words. If faced by a lone, standing gunman armed with a RHS AKM. At 300+ meters you might as well remain stationary and standing yourself. 

    • Like 16
    • Thanks 3

  3. Posted

    @Chairborne @NeoArmageddon

    Just for the records and the powers that might be. I was poking fun at the apparent inconsistency. I find NeoArmageddon's explanation very fair. And in any case the changes are sensible. If anything it brings the CUP content more in line with ACE2 for Arma2-- which was a wonderful standard. 

     

    The seeming lack of organisational principle does offer a challenge. The tension is well illustrated in Damian90's explication on tank variants. In short: Should CUP attempt to model modern day units and gear OR should CUP attempt to model Arma2's 2009 predictions and particular idiosyncrasies. That question is not for me to settle. Indeed, NeoArmageddon's pragmatical approach is a solution.  I am in any case thankful for the vast amount of work that goes into providing this content. 

     

    -k 

    • Like 1

  5. Posted

    Quote

    Added: Additional olive reskins for NATO Pacific vehicles (work-in-progress)*

    Dear Bohemia developers, 

     

    This is a wonderful inclusion. I love you to death for it. That said. Simple olive drab textures for some few AAF and CSAT assets would radically multiply the potential scenarios mission makers working within the confines of vanilla Arma3 could create. At practically zero cost and effort. 

     

    Kind regards, 

    Devoted fan

    • Like 7

  6. Posted

    On 10/07/2018 at 12:26 AM, MK84 said:


    Another test session done. This time at the start of the game only a few players couldn't hear each other (myself included) but about 2 hours into the session the radios stopped working completely.
    I've uploaded the client and server RPT here:
    https://1drv.ms/f/s!AqUMiHfLAgXYpohNOR44t2k6N080Mw

    also: @magnetar

     

    I wonder if this issue was  resolved. We have in nopryl.no been struggling with a similar experience.  Before I register a GitHub entry, I wonder if there is some easy self-evident fix. 

     

    The problem has been difficult to pin down. Generally our sessions run between 25-35 players. Our server is quite good with a decent connection (hosted and built privately). Every time we think we found it, ACRE functions flawlessly.  Generally breakdown of communications occurs at around the 30-40 minute mark of the mission, though hardly consistently. We have long suspected it is somehow related to respawning, but even that fails to consistently cause issues. It affects all classes of radios. Though helicopters are sometimes suggested as a common denominator (then again helis are in Arma rather prone to crashing).

     

    To give a brief description: The problem appears as one unit suddenly fails to hear radio signals from others. Frequently, that units transmissions are heard by others.   This sometimes causes as a ring-around-the-roasies   hilarity where X can speak to Y but only listen to Z, who in turn can listen  to Y-- but not hear from  X.  In any case. We kinda lucked out last Tuesday and got the event on Twitch and got server logs and I am also  in the process of collecting RPTs from players.  Like I said: before I went through he effort of  a GitHub entry-- I wanted to ask here first. 

     

    -k 

  9. Posted

    I dislike the recent changes in the development version. I get what BI are trying to accomplish and think that with a little refinement the system can be made better overall. In its current state there are problems.

     

    1. My main concern is the lack of feedback in the prone position. @joostsidy writes above that it should be a shame if bipods become a type of 'enchantment'. The lack of feedback for entering bipod mode while prone, particularly with no bipod equipped, makes it just such a hidden accuracy enchantment. Adding an animation state to prone+bipod animations  (though retaining the new torso-pivot) would be necessary to retain immersion. 

     

    2. Removing the ability to deploy weapons without a bipod while prone is a bad idea. To do so would disrupt the  consistency of that core weapon interactivity; weapons should always fundamentally handle the same.

     

    3. The concern that deployment is an enchantment is an analysis that could equally apply to the weapon rested state. There is no interface element, beyond a subtle icon change. Personally I would prefer super-sticky deployment (with clearly indicated animation states) to inconspicuous accuracy increases. Player toggled deployment, even if floaty, is preferable to an indistinct and hidden rested state. 

     

    4. Query: It seems to me that the weapon deployment for crouched/wall animations has changed? If so it feels smoother and an improvement on vanilla. 

     

    -k 

    • Like 3

  11. Posted

    After having played a bit with dynamically attaching Laser Targets to objects (code attached), I wish this interface could be built into the editor and extended.   It would be of tremendous benefit for scenario flow and design  if we could get some DUMMY TARGETS that would trigger certain scenario behaviour.  Better still if these could be dynamically scripted, transformed, moved, and etc.,  via the usual interfaces. 


    The dummies would be super visible (no stealth) and highly lucrative (target priority) 

    Types: 

    Infantry target -- A dummy object which entices the AI to suppress the location
    Vehicle target --  A dummy object which attracts AT weapons and cannonfire  
    Artillery target -- Have nearby artillery dynamically find and hammer this location 
    Laser Designator -- Simply making it an object in the editor. 

     

    The area of use is fairly self explanatory. And even though the effect can be achieved by scripting, this necessitates knowing which AI and vehicles are present.  I would like an in-engine solution which is dynamically accessible to scripters and mission designers. Putting down a vehicle target on an occupied building or bunker network would see AI target said location with AT weapons and cannons.  Effect would be great. 

      

    // Add and paint Target for EAST JET
// version 1.0
// by nkenny

// init
_p = (_this select 0) call bis_fnc_position;
_r = param [1,200];

// position
_p2 = _p getPos [random _r,random 360];

// target
_t = "Sign_Sphere100cm_F" createVehicle _p2; 
_lt = "LaserTargetE" createVehicle (getposatl _t); 
_lt attachTo [_t, [0, 0, 0]];

// eventhandler
_EH = _lt addEventHandler ["IncomingMissile", 
                            {
                              if (var_debug) then {systemchat format ["MISSILE: %1",_this];};
                              [(_this select 0)] spawn {sleep 10; deletevehicle (_this select 0);};
                             }
                          ];


// debug
if (!var_debug) then {_t setObjectTextureGlobal [0, ""];} else {[_t,"Laser Target"] call nk_fnc_DotMarker};

// end
true

     

    • Like 8

  12. Posted

    It came to me that I should, in the manner of the ancients give praise,  set aside a moment to offer praise to this mod package. It has after all featured so prominently in the years of Arma 3 gaming.  So please forgive this act of necromancy, because the reason is one of good will. 

     

    It boggles the mind how important  Killoch's Mulitnational Pack has been for my community. For since it's release it, alongside CBA, have been the only persistent-- thus longest serving-- instances in nopryl.no's  mod milieu. Only with KMNP did the true extension of possible scenarios in Arma3 begin. The modpack came with a generous selection of uniforms and other paraphernalia.  Furthermore it delivered with an increasingly consistent quality. Indeed the very straightforward simplicity of its selection only added to the impact the mod has had on the types of scenarios we play. It has never been a mod overloaded with nonessentials. In combination with vanilla assets it permitted endless combinations and expressions. 

     

    Even today where a veritable plethora of mods extent the envelope of possible scenarios, I find myself returning to KMNP.  Only two weeks ago when we played a winter scenario KMNP assets were again in the fore. Only yesterday when we wore Norwegian uniforms the same was true. This is not to say that other content creators  have not done important work. Alongside with Killoch's has of course been the development, updating, refining of terrains to fit.  But terrains have come and gone. KMNP has remained.  The compactness of its size and richness of content is inspirational. Indeed as a creator playing with unit uniform and weapon selections has been the test lab for many a scenario.  Countless hours gameplay. Endless hours of development. All compounded by the number of players which have worn these trappings.  In fact, here I speak only for myself and our community. I suspect there are others that have enjoyed the same. KMNP has truly been a game changer 

     

    KMNP has been with us for a long time. I find it difficult to imagine Arma3 without it. There are other mods of grander size and scope, of greater realism or higher resolution,  but none have come to match the all-encompassing utility that KMNP has offered. It was at the right time and the right place. It had the right level of quality at just the right weight in megabytes.  

     

    So thank you Killoch and three cheers for KMNP! 

    -k 

    • Like 8

  15. Posted

    On 4. februar 2018 at 2:35 PM, nkenny said:

    Going by the current, rather eclectic selection of vehicles in vanilla ARMA3 my expectations aren't great.  The rule of thumb seems to be that CSAT gets the best, most robust and tactically useful assets. [...] I am afraid we will see some weird hybrid unmanned rocket-turret tank for NATO with some odd glass-cannon weaknesses. Where the CSAT will earn themselves yet another sleek companion to the T-100. [snip]

    Henceforth I shall be known as Nostradamus.


    In other news I am a little disapointed. The Rhino MGS is precisely what I expected, but contrary to what I really feel Bluefor needs.  While I am sympathetic to the interesting gameplay offered by highly mobile glass cannons, a faction already bound together with eclectic hardware could do very well with some robust options.

    The contrast to the T-140 Angara couldn't be greater. Aside from being a T-14 reskin, it's position in gameplay seems to be a better T-100. The command version comes with an autocannon!  Imagine instead a T-72 or T-55. Superficially inferior, but in adding outdated assets the quality of modern (2035) equipment would come into sharper contrast. T-55s or T-72s would also enable familiar scenarios-- where a technological superior, though typically outnumbered, faction attempts kinetic persuasion on another nation.  Reference: every armed conflict where a G20 member has participated since Korea.

    I am very happy with the new launchers and armed soft trucks. And I hope BIS continues to add additional texture options. The MBT-52 KUMA reskinned to NATO livery would silence much of my concerns.

     

    -k

  17. Posted

    Crew jumping out of a burning vehicle ought to be suppressed to hell and back. Possibly the best demonstration of a suppressed state is  found in RHS flashbang grenades.  The flashbang forces the AI into one of a number of animations.  Being animation locked for a short duration neatly and clearly demonstrated that the soldier is incapacitated/suppressed. 

     

    In regards to active suppressive fire. I've been using a system similar, but less clever than shown by @fn_Quiksilver. The change is dramatic.  When the AI engaged in periods of (abstract) area fire it shapes the battlefield and emulated the behaviour of human players. Particularly when vehicles engage in more indiscriminate area fire (with their powerful and accurate weapons) the effect is good.   An 'attackTarget'  command would be very helpful. 

     

    -k 

    • Like 1

  21. Posted

    Like I wrote elsewhere. I hope we could get a proper tank and tracked IFV for NATO. As is I am expecting some weird turret-less stealth-rocket tank hybrid. *sigh*

    Being real. Do not underestimate the gameplay benefit of getting older outdated tanks for factions that already have fairly modern solutions. Older tanks have interesting simulations-capabilities and the ebb and flow of capabilities make for interesting assymetric gameplay.  A modernised T72 for CSAT would be interesting. T55 or T34 for indep (syndicate like forces) too. 

     

    To show off how good an ultra-modern MBT really is. It can be nice to have inferior foes to mess around with. 

    • Like 3

  23. Posted

    TANKs DLC Hopes and expectations

    Bohemia has so far been tight lipped about the features that will make their way into the DLC.  The only thing I have seen is a promise of vehicle interiors, updated handling characteristics and three new MBTs.

     

    Going by the current, rather eclectic selection of vehicles in vanilla ARMA3 my expectations aren't great.  The rule of thumb seems to be that CSAT gets the best, most robust and tactically useful assets. See T-100, BTR-K and MSR-3 Marid in contrast to the NATO selection. In fact, pick any category and the trend repeats itself.  I am afraid we will see some weird hybrid unmanned rocket-turret tank for NATO with some odd glass-cannon weaknesses. Where the CSAT will earn themselves yet another sleek companion to the T-100.

    It is obviously too late, but my hopes are in fact not only concerning tanks. I would like to see NATO get a proper MBT like a Abrams, Challenger or Leclerc -- not some weird tall passenger carrying Merkava ,  without any of the features which makes it such a formidable tank (including a proper 120mm turret). Next I would love to see Bluefor  get a proper tracked IFV: Cv90, Puma or similar. Finally, give us a useful spread of alternate textures for all current assets.  Simple Olive Drab will do wonderfully.  It would increase the types of scenarios where vanilla assets can be used exponentially.

     

    Seems to me that CSAT are currently very well spoken for in terms of armoured assets. As are the AAF. Only NATO (ironically a larger conglomerate of armed forces from many nations) are weirdly limited.

    Thanks for reading

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  24. Posted

    I think the dynamic simulation system is great. The implementation is just what I want and need. The system works flawlessly in single player, but seems to struggle on a dedicated server.  Some questions:

     

    1. Anyone else struggling with dynamic simulation running a dedicated server?

    2.  Specifically with a headless connected

    3. Can civilian faction units be cached?

    4. Is there an easy way to see which units trigger the simulation activation?

     

    -k

×