Is the fix out yet?

I blew up the tank with the satchel and killed all remaining enemies, but still fail.

The ending is "You did not follow orders."

Funny you should post this. I was able to shoot a man in the groin last night with no result. I was using the bullet-tracing script too.

I think the devs should carry out a comprehensive review to ensure that there are no gamebreaking hit detection bugs. I've heard multiple reports of bullets passing through people, but of course no one can prove it.

MRAPs should survive small arms, hits to the fuel tank, and RPG impacts should give the occupants a chance to survive. And their RCWS is invulnerable.

So we've got it all backwards.

Honestly, what's the point?

The GAU-8 doesn't do anything noticeable to the velocity of an A-10.

The PCML is based on the MBT-NLAW, which is a top-attack weapon which is expected to one-shot all known armored vehicles.

I played ArmA 2 with a laptop that was well below minimum reqs and ACE 2's armor system worked FINE. Just FINE.

You can't even use a single, one-time script to remove ammo? Possibly the simplest, least taxing function you could possibly conceive of in a videogame? WTF?! What do they think their missions are made out of?

ShackTac uses ACE's scripted systems in games with 200 players, it's stress-tested out the ass.

Sorry, but fuck whoever made that decision.

This is actually almost exactly how it already works. Shots damage component hitboxes after penetrating armor. Take out the hull damage, and this ticket is finished.

What we're missing is crew damage based on the probabilistic threat of spall, shock, heat, light, fragments.

That requires scripted solutions, which BIS is too candy ass to use, even though it works perfectly in ACE.

So that also rules out ERA (hurray for WWII tech in 2035!), HEAT vs KE differences, LOA and angle of incidence simulation (partially), etc.

Leaves and twigs won't detonate an AT warhead. Neither is guidance that important at that point, even if you lose contact with the seeker.

At most, there should be a probability of losing the missile. Hit a solid branch and the game handles it normally.

2. Should loose some precision of enemy position after stance change

Disagree.

They shouldn't lose any precision just because of stance change. That's not fair. I don't suddenly forget my target's position when I drop to one knee, never haven taken my eyes of it.

Stance isn't the issue here. LoS is. If there's no LoS, the AI should aim at an inaccurate area target, not a point target.

As for the ticks, isn't it safe to assume that we are just seeing the interval at which the AI share information? Obviously the hive mind has to be removed or tweaked down to human levels.

Ah, now we understand each other.

However, I don't know why you are describing these position updates as 'ticks' of information when they are simply radio contact reports received from the teammate.

The main thing for me is that the engine is NOT 'cheating' by providing the AI with magical information. It's just that position information shared between AI in groups is WAY too accurate. The team mate spotter should indeed be transmitting the target's location (he does this for the player even, on the map and win on-screen engagement cues), but AI should not be able to engage based on this information. (Although in an ideal game, the AI would instruct teammates to engage obstacles that enemies were hiding directly behind, as this would revolutionize vehicle gameplay.)

So what does this mean?

It means that this last issue is actually a duplicate of a ticket that already exists, for a bug BIS believed already fixed.

Dslyecxi is wrong to call this an excellent report, because it lacks a central, serious bug. Instead, we have ended up discussing a wide variety of poorly-configured elements.

I recommend we delete this ticket, keep all the excellent repro missions and videos, and replace it with a series of concrete recommendations. Or really, like you pointed out, kju's ticket is ideal and still relevant.

"The issue is not about the AI firing through bushes. It has to do with them retaining a full '4' knowsAbout value for targets they cannot see, and using that information to make precision shots. They are not 'remembering' where their target is. They know exactly where it is even after losing line of sight to the target."

You have not proven this. The AI simply *remember* (I completely agree that this is unfair as currently implemented). I have tested this in A2, OA and A3, and specially for this ticket, and so far empirical evidence and Occam's Razor is on my side. I will continue doing my best to find otherwise and resolve the discrepancy in the ticket, but that' how it stands for now. The AI remember you last observed position with perfect accuracy, but they are oblivious to movements made after LoS is lost.

"No, it does not, because the cause is exactly the same and it is the same bug. Because the AI has knowsAbout = 4 for the target even after proning behind the bush, they know that it is dead. knowsAbout = 4 means that they have total information about the target -- position, movement, life state, class, weapons."

This just isn't true in my experience. I almost wish the community had never discovered KnowsAbout, because nobody understands it, and BIS doesn't bother talking about because it is a deceptive mess.

It has been exhaustively proven that if you run behind cover, the AI will lose knowledge of your exact position and begin predictive tracking. This is the easiest thing to test in the world, and nigh irrefutable. Despite this, KnowsAbout remains at 4. The maximum value does not necessarily denote full knowledge, it is simply a measure of their certainty that you exist as a threat. Complaining about changes in this imaginary number is meaningless. Only the results of the number matter. I highly recommend that you download a script that displays the perceived position of an AI unit's target. I will link you one, and in return try this repro to see if it differs from my own.

Food for thought: what happens if the target goes prone a split second after the AI? I bet you anything that all those bullets fly harmlessly overhead.

To reiterate: If the bush in your repro was located 2m in front of the (moving) target, the behavior would be completely correct: Shooting with a high degree of certainty at the bush (this doesn't happen, because of a separate issue that handicaps the AI).

A good workaround would be prohibiting the AI from shooting through nearby objects unless the target is within normal footstep hearing range (20m or so). However, if a target runs behind a tree canopy equidistant between target and shooter, the AI should hose down that tree based on predictive tracking.

Your video doesn't prove anything about maximum knowledge of movement, just of position. It's clear that the AI retain full knowledge of the *position* of the enemy as originally spotted, and fire perfectly at it through bushes. This is your bug. You haven't demonstrated that there is unfair knowledge about prior movement of targets hidden by bushes. In addition, we need to make sure that the AI retains the ability to fire through bushes at suitable times. I kill people through foliage all the time.

If you were to duck behind cover while the AI was firing at you through the bush, they would be none the wiser. They DO switch to predictive behavior, as you can see in the video, with them tracking a target with perceived--not actual--movement.

"What should happen is that the AI should lose knowledge of the enemy target's position and movement as soon as they lose line of sight, and instead they should switch to their 'predictive' tracking. The AI routines need to check before every shot if they have a true line of sight to the enemy."

Absolutely not! The AI should have a memory, you know. I don't forget where the enemy is because a bus passes between us, like in the movies. The AI should retain full knowledge of the enemy's position, but they should not be able shoot at it with a high degree of accuracy over long ranges. The basic behavior is correct and human, but the precision is ridiculous.

Furthermore, AI NEED to be able to shoot through bushes and trees at perceived positions and area suppression targets. Players do this every day, but the AI are still hesitant to do so and it gets them killed unfairly--by us.

As for the rate of fire issue, there is no problem with a steady pace. As a human, I assess my impacts while continuing to shoot, so as not to give the enemy a breathing space.

Furthermore, the AI knowing that an unseen enemy has died is an issue that deserves its own ticket.

And also, does anyone remember that 'AI should not fire on units observed only b group members' ticket? Maybe this isn't actually fixed.

I would re-write the expected behavior as follows:
'AI should be unable to deliver precision fire on enemy positions that are not in their line of sight. Although firing through objects on targets that were observed earlier IS valid behavior, there should be a serious penalty in accuracy, turning the point target into an area target, whose size is based on range.

Lastly, error is introduced in your videos by the bushes and grass. We don't know exactly what the viewblock models look like. We need to find ourselves someone who can put a LoS script in the mission.

Completely false: no attempt at proof: worthless ticket

HE is perfect for destroying helicopters. What do you think they load AA guns and missiles with?

The problem is that a sabot is just 30mm (ish) wide. The game handles it as one big bullet, whereas it should be treating it as a cloud of spall and heat. Penetration is simply insufficient for modeling crew damage.

Evidence needed

200m should do it. Looks like a non-universal bug.

I just witnessed this bug in a procedurally generated mission that probably used waypoints created by script.

Kylania, if you used that mission from your forum post, try a longer waypoint without Cycle.

Confirmed ONLY with Safe and Limited, and with a single soldier, not a group.

Maybe people will post missions when the bugtracker allows attaching raw PBOs and SQMs. Making us compress 50kb into 35kb files is just silly.

Anyways, plenty of tickets have been accepted with just videos.

/rantdone

I suggest amending this ticket to "AI is alerted immediately when a friendly unit it knowsabout is killed."

Also, the expected behavior should be that the AI is alerted after a suitable delay.

This is probably a legacy issue. APCs loved to suddenly hold fire in ArmA 2.

I apologize for the duplicates. This useless piece of software was rejecting my repro mission attachments and I was unaware that it was actually creating tickets. Please refer to the most recently-created ticket and delete this one.

Here is an image of the issue. This occurs after a single gunshot that does not strike near the enemy AI. No other audio or visual cues are given to the player's position (I moved aside the concrete wall).

In this image the AI is now fully convinced of the player's true position. He is within what might be called peripheral vision, but I believe that at such distances it is highly inappropriate to allow the AI to acquire targets with peripheral vision. They should need to look directly at the target and search with their eyes.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=173436858

If you move the player slightly close to the enemy in the repro, and don't walk anywhere (just move the concrete barrier aside), you can even get the enemy to spot you before he BEGINS to turn. That's truly eyes in the back of his head, far beyond any possible arc of peripheral vision.

The repro mission can be downloaded here: http://wikisend.com/download/335764/AIsenses.Stratis.rar

This message brought to you by Devheaven's incalculable superiority.

Please do not respond to this ticket unless you are going to be on topic. This is a place to discuss a single, highly specific, isolated bug, not to air general discontent.

Furthermore, if you switch the dev branch, I think you will find that the AI is now hilariously inaccurate. I'm talking getting 1 hit per full magazine at 200m...

Furthermore, the driver should be able to turn out when the gunner and commander are buttoned up. This is a major problem with vehicle teamwork.

Crew should be able to turn out in any combination.

Furthermore, AI commanders should order entire fireteams to engage. If there is no intact fireteam structure, no less than 1/3 of the total group should be sent off in groups.

This is a terrible ticket. Who votes for this crap and buries responsible feedback?

This is indeed a hearing issue that kicks in at very short ranges.

The AI do not have X-Ray vision and do not shoot through walls. Do not spam the bugtracker with misinformation.

Furthermore, I can spot AI from over 1km and hit them from 200m at night, so why is it cheating when they do it?

There is no X-ray vision unless proven otherwise. The AI enter alarm state when it sees its comrades dying, and suppressed weapons are still loud enough to be heard.

I've seen this on stone Altis farmhouses.