Einzelnen Beitrag anzeigen
Alt 02.04.2010, 12:39   #36 (permalink)
Cyborg11
500 Beiträge1000 Beiträge2.500 Beiträge
 
Benutzerbild von Cyborg11
 
Registriert seit: 26.03.2008
Beiträge: 2.822
Standard

Passt hier eigentlich perfekt rein:
Zitat von Myke Beitrag anzeigen

Well, you might think the thread title is BS. Fair enough. I don't want to state the ArmA 2 AI as perfect or flawless and it surely needs still a lot of attemption by the developers.

But still, the ArmA 2 AI is far better than some might think.

Let us first see what aspects the AI has to fulfill.

  • Navigate free in unknown terrain
  • Have situational awareness
  • Make decision based on the actual situation
  • Use advanced tactics which suits the situation
  • Ability to handle different weapon systems and vehicles

First point: navigate in unknown terrain.
You may say, Chernarus and Utes shouldn't be necessarly unkown terrain. So far so right. But still wrong. ArmA 2 is a pretty open architecture which allows creating and importing your own terrain. For the game developers and therefor for the AI this is unknown terrain but the AI must be able to handle it.
In a lot of other games, the AI already know the terrain, mostly done by pre-setting AI path to the terrain itself. Only very few games allow importing own terrain data so this case can be left out when developing AI.
Try it yourself: plan a path from Berezino (NE) to Kamenka (SW) without using the coast route.
Resulting out of this huge area and the limitless freedom to move raises a sheer endless amount of possible wrong decisions. You note them as bugs and for sure those has to be eliminated. But still, for a AI this is a impressing capability to find it's way.

Next point: situational awareness.
Something pretty simple for us. We look around and we see immediately where we a re and what happens. For a AI this is much harder. They don't have eyes and ears like we do. The AI routine has to gather infos out of the running game code and weigh the importance of each bit on info. There the accuracy of code often interferes with what realistically would be possible. Data gathered are accurate and have to be unsharpened by special routines. Sometimes this works too perfect, another times not. Depending on the situation we state the AI is cheating or acting dumb.
Balancing on the razors edge this is, getting a routine that works accurate enough for not being dumb but inaccurate to some point to be believable.

This leads to point 3: making decisions based on the situation.
As you and i often make decisions based on our intuition, AI doesn't have intuition. AI has bits and bytes and a huge amount of digital data. Making a decision out of this bunch is a huge mathematical process with a lots of variables and unknowns. If we would have to make the same sort of decisions based on the same variables and unknowns without using our intuition, already a simple decision like "taking left or right road" would probably take hours.

Point 4: Using advanced tactics.
Based on the above, you get an idea what it takes to lead a group of AI through a battle. The situation is changing every second and therefor the tactics has to be adapted. This may lead to problems that in one second the AI decides to run left, in the next second to run right and one second later runnin left......you see where this leads. Sure, we shouldn't just accept this behaviour and ask for fix but keep in mind what the AI already is capable to handle.

Last point: using different weapons and vehicles.
Here all comes together. Pathfinding, situational awareness, tactical decisions and so on. Sometimes the AI makes wrong decisions. Also here we feel the lack of intuition. Data has to be sorted and weighted and based on that, decisions has to be made. Do i switch to RPG or do i keep the AK? Sometimes the taken decisions are obviously wrong. Also a result of code which should the AI make more human. Not that this was intentional, just these codes leading to wrong decision.


Final word: some forget that every little action has to be programmed. Let me give you an example. Let's assume we sit face to face and i tell you "the next hour i'll just do what you say, not more and not less". You'll probably start to smile, awaiting an upcoming hour full of fun for you, already planning what stupid things you'll let me do.
But instead, after a very few minutes i'll probably fall down, dead. Why? Because you'll probably forgot to tell me to breath in....and breath out....and breath in........you get the point.


So again, i'm not saying that the AI is perfect. Some points definately need improvements, no doubt. But still, i think the AI already is amazing, measured on what she has to deliver.
Quelle: A hooray for the AI - Bohemia Interactive Forums



Achja und auch noch was interessantes zur KI:
Zitat von Sith Beitrag anzeigen

Zitat von Heatseeker Beitrag anzeigen

The a.i. itself is very good but the instructions are not ideal.. and make it seem worse than it actually is.
A.i. lacks team cohesion and tactics, the engagement routine is the same old flashpoint.

This is not true. ArmA2's AI squads are using an actual "buddy system" during combat movement. One unit moves, while his buddy provides cover. It's quite a big step up from OFP, where Engage orders would indeed be executed by single units. And as shown on the previous page, they also take kill zones into consideration a whole lot more. Have a good look at a squad's movement patterns when they make contact. A good giveaway is the "Go, I'll cover!" messages you're probably quite familiar with
Quelle: Bohemia Interactive Forums - View Single Post - A hooray for the AI
Cyborg11 ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten