gammadust

^^ this. Some observations based on flightradar24 datapoints: - datapoint does not correspond directly to flightradar24 graph (likely to some data smooth interpolation) - some datapoints are out of chronological order (per timestamp, due to multiple reporting stations - anyone with a ADS-B receiver can share flight data) - the graph suggests a gradual climb begining just before 04:12, whereas datapoint only suggest abnormal flight parameters begining at 04:12:57 - data is shared transponder data reflecting same data as flight computer - speed, altitude and vertical speed are air pressure based sensors

i'm less and less qualified to share specific opinions, since there is a long time i don't dive into arma's AI, but 2 notes: - in another thread cosmic10r shared an interesting video, where AI would scan for a threat recently made aware. This is interesting because it hints at the expected human-like behaviour when one does not exacly know where a communicated threat is. One of my earlier issues with AI target sharing was its 1 to 1 precision, not merely the no-delay and range aspects. In the video i can't tell if the lack of precision is due to communication imposed message degradation or the low precision information available to the originator AI. The scaning behaviour, while not new, looks very believable in this context. - i share the opinion that inter-group information sharing should be considered another beast, i'm sceptical on attempts to address it before basic inner-group communication can be found acceptable. Also this is relatively easy to address via mods. Things that i started to look out for regarding target acquisition via communication: - Rate, Accuracy, and Immediacy of Target sharing (ingroup) - Accuracy of prediction routines - Likelyhood of shooting under low expectations of success

That is a big "if". I just think that something being "observed" or not is not sufficient to determine if some system should be modeled or not. Enemy communication is a good example, you won't see or hear them communicate, yet it is quite debatable if a model ignoring communication will present a believable end effect. ALIVE for instance will, for processing budget issues, suspend simulation of AI units, caching them when out of sight of the player(s), still employs a custom outcome simulation of opposing AI encounters likely to happen. If the cpu cycles spent in this simpler simulation are worthy is another issue altogether. In simulation terms, out of observation is not by definition and necessarily unmodeled.

could you develop further that view?

I disagree here, while you're right that arma is not a sidescroller, attempts in machine learning show success with more complexity than that. Reinforcement learning is not necessarily constrained to one reward vector alone (ie. longest distance). It is not the current limited number of states in the environment either anymore, it is the memory of state > action > reward in past experiences too. Machine learning already addresses infinite state environments. I'm leaning towards the latter, in some supervised fashion. Here is what AI should mimic take this positive reward if successful, take this negative reward if failed. I did imagine, i can't wait for it.

But could be. Machine learning could be employed to such low level decision processes too, actually it should be easier to start there, and only then increment upon with higher level features, be them handcrafted by the coder or latent and "discovered" from the training provided. One issue is that the decision space and dimensionality is infinite. We have two possible directions: firstly, we let the AI train randomly and explore that infinite space by itself and it will most definitely diverge from human behaviour since it will figure its own features/decision criteria, secondly we control, as you suggest, the training (the context) we will provide the AI, in the hope that the converging happens around features which are human intelligible. Another issue: AI inputs and outputs, their constraints are slightly different than that which the player deals with (data available and decision vectors respectively). We can't exactly evaluate one to one and gauge the balance between them, unless we impose some evenness. Take enemy identification for instance, the AI is provided an hardcoded threshold of identification based on a set number of variables, players rely on visual perception and a contextually tied, relative importance of on screen information. Take the shooting decision on the other hand, here the AI and the player similarly follow a disparate pattern. Third issue: how to evaluate these gaps if not via the end result? No matter how close we make inputs and outputs similar this will never be sufficient since only a very small difference in inputs will have catastrophically different end results (given current machine learning solutions). Consequently this will require a broad evaluation of competing behaviours. We must use the human behaviour as a "ground truth" instead of the abstract solution figured by the trained AI (despite it likely being more effective if given the training time), in order to serve the players an enjoyable experience. Fourth issue: Arma hides plenty of AI decision processes deep down. To control the process above the behaviour evaluation cannot proceed if there are intervening variables influencing the end result there being no means to observe. The only alternative left is to totaly nullify current AI and build it up from scratch, task which will involve coding the AI and the concurrent systems which are hip-tied to it (ie. animation, communication, etc.) Summary: - Behaviour evaluation - Data collection - Magic - Balanced AI

I remember he provided a version where he merely repeated the modified tile he had worked on through the remaining tile "slots". I quickly tested it and it felt ok, i think there was certain delay when loading the map (M key). In any case, i agree, i would prefer some other solution, his second suggestion looks much more promising.

NordKitchen's method changes satellite texs not mid-range. I think bohemia's reluctance is more related with the huge file size increase then performance or workman hours. If i recall correctly: 1. the performance impact was negligible 2. the tex size increase was from 1024x1024 to 4096x4096 corresponding to ~16x increase in file size, unrealistic, if we halve this effort we won't get such a crisp results as in above examples 3. producing such a satmap by hand is not necessary, one might as well automate the process, do a final manual pass in the seams and bake the result into the satmap His second suggestion is much more interesting, opening up and improving the way actual mid-range textures are used via the "logic map" (ie. multiple tex depending on underlying terrain). Fine examples of the improvement shown with BadBenson's experiments. I did some suggestions on it too (engine/ ).I certainly hope Bohemia is addressing the issue one way of the many available.

Euro Summit Diktat, 12 July 2015 for our reading pleasure.

What have i done? @All (including MistyRonin) I owe apologies to everyone. When i created this thread my objective was to enable a more topical space for us to discuss the ever important Greek issue. I have a strong feelling my last two posts killed that discussion. Quite self-defeating. Just when i was congratulating the thread for its heating up FPDR. It should not matter if some opinions struck some sensitive strings of mine, there is a limit to too personal engagements in a public forum. Some arrogance in me prevented me from taking it to PM, i apologise everyone and specially MistyRonin for that. I'm committed not allowing that happen again. Please, let's resume normal discussion. Now we are indeed in an expectations period, but news should be coming soon.

@MistyRonin It is merely the cronological sequence of your comments, the only exception, explicitely stated so, reveals how much incongruent you proceed in the discussions (you should be proud, we have about three and counting). My supposed faulty logic, "pattern" tailoring, who knows even, extractions out-context, will be up to any bored someone to evaluate, since everything is properly linked, and quoted. Contrary to you, i prefer substantiation at the expense of verbosity, it is a known cost. Shortcuts lead to misunderstandings. And you may correctly assume this is my concern when faced with ignorance/myth based opinions, one learns quite a lot by doing it. Notice it might also benefit you, if you actually envision a carreer/serious hobby in manipulation, knowing where might still get improvements and such. We get to know each other better, don't we? Regarding Syriza* my honest opinion is that they have proved to employ naivety, even since their elections win back in January, and they should have prepared the Greeks better for an EMU exit, the most likely since the begining at the least. But since they arrived where they arrived, i actually think making this Troika face the realities how they are, being joined by many qualified persons to the effect, makes their ongoing effort worthy. It is not only europe's peoples that are awaking, the distant institutions are too! *Ohhh my orthographic dyslexia... still prefer orthographic than substantive type.

Wha... someone is on fire, i leave the thread half a day and it grows like there is no tomorrow. @MistyRonin Re: Official Tsipras stance on reducing/cutting Greece's defence spending. Thank you for the extra sources. No doubt domestically that has made many headlines, i have to wonder why there was so much reluctance in picking that piece of news in the international media. Tsipras backtracking on commitments in previous Greece's proposals definitely look bad to his electorate. Knowing that NATO, IMF and his junior Coalition member blocked/is blocking such a defence expense reduction proposal, this becomes quite a bind! In any case, this brings me disappointment at Tsipras. You, otoh: (if you bare with me a sec)

as of right now there is 9 10 results for that official "Tsipras' office issued a one-sentence statement" with 6 days. is there any possibility to get a second source?

The greek people is ALREADY starving. And it is not because of Tsipras/Syriza, it is because of the Austerity measures! Subject: Poverty and under-nourishment among Greek schoolchildren Question to the European Comission (31 March 2015): Answer (18 June 2015): *[Keep Talking Greece] 12 Februrary 2015 - Poll: 25% of Athens school children going hungry [Ansamed] 6 April 2012 - Crisis: Greece, more than 400,000 children hungry Compare the approaches taken by Greece vs Iceland and the effects on the population at large... According to Eurostat the People at risk of poverty or social exclusion (years 2004 - 2014) Of course, under the European Monetary Union, since the sovereignty on monetary policy has been surrendered by member states, it is the ECB/European Commission that has the statutory responsability to eventually proceed following similar solutions to the crisis as Iceland did. If anything, not accepting austerity measures, Syriza, is avoiding an aggravation of the problem.

@Angela Merkel [The Nation] 7 July 2015 - Austerity Has Failed: An Open Letter From Thomas Piketty [table=width: 60%] [tr] [td] [/td] [/tr] [/table] @Europe [uSA Today] 7 July 2015 - Europe must back away from Greek austerity cliff: Joseph Stiglitz [table=width: 60%] [tr] [td] [/td] [/tr] [/table] @All The overwhelming majority of Greeks and to a lesser extent the remaining european peoples, those not involved in any of the irresponsible banking decisions, have been squeezed out of their precarious conditions of life. They have less and less to loose. The banks and the distant political class, some times deregulating democracies, other times via proven and criminal corruption, are the ones that profited and gained the most. They have everything to loose. The ball is definitely on the Troika's court, either they keep on sowing economic chaos or reconsider, come to their senses and give an already very diminished opportunity to avoid the consequent social chaos.