Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Rattenkrieg

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Is it really 2 guys developing all of this? Vehicles, animations, UI, textures, sounds, MP infra etc?
  2. Thank you! @37mm Indeed I was able to get the translucent foliage issue to disappear by using the Advanced War Movie shaders, which seem to disable MXAO. One thing that is a bit off-putting is the degree to which metal reflects light to the point where the entire front of an AFV can turn white at certain angles.
  3. Thanks @37mm that makes sense. Could you post your shader preset that you use for the WW2 games?
  4. Any new Reshade presets or tips? I noticed that turning MXAO on makes low walls basically burn through all foliage, creating a series of criss-crossed lines on the screen. Does anyone else see that?
  5. Hello folks - wondering if anyone knows how to increase the draw distance outside of the max settings in the game? Sometimes in other games I have been able to set up config files to override game menu settings, with things such as forcing memory sizes, screen resolutions and draw distances. Thanks!
  6. I couldn't have come up with a better coda. Here are 2 fun little nuggets for the curious. 1) Build your own Terminator Target Acquisition HUD in Microsoft Hololens. 2) Where did that "code" on the original Terminator HUD come from? std::terminate
  7. Ian, but I am discussing AI and DL with you. The Nvidia video and paper are incredible advances that should get game developers very excited. Imagine being able to use a GAN-based SDK from Nvidia to create a photo-realistic WW2 game based on DL from 10,000+ hours (x25fps) of combat footage from WW2 that has been restored by AI to 4K? Imagine being able to train your "pixeltruppen" using Google's (DeepMind) autonomous locomotion framework for rich environments (when it is released)? Just because two people who work in/with AI don't like how the other behaves on a forum doesn't mean there i
  8. I struggle to see the connection between the suggestion they use data and the inference that there is a recycling bin approach to it. I suggest they start gathering gameplay data and analysing it, because they generate an enormous amount of it (every bullet, footstep and click) and have the competitive advantage of H2H and registering what players look at when they replay WEGO over and over. That's valuable. BFC has been around for 24 years is it? I am sure they will want to be around for another 26 at the very least. They could reach out to universities and get interns who love military,
  9. p.s. just in case I am not posting enough Arxiv links to back up my computer generated street cred: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.06601.pdf
  10. The TL;DR version. My original statement above hypothesizes a future in which "vast amounts" of gameplay data and computer vision data derived from actual combat footage are processed by NNs to construct autonomous tactical models. It's a forward looking hypothesis of a direction in which wargaming AI may evolve, and something game developers should be encouraged to explore, because I can guarantee you that a day will come in the not-too-distant future where CGI does not mean models built by people. Having seen a Palantir demo in person (which I am sure naysayers will call a closed-loop hype d
  11. You are an exercise in self-contradiction. I stated that the AI being developed by Palantir as part of their winning DSCG-A bid is "the closest thing I have seen so far" to AI and CV being able to generate autonomous battlefield C&C. You jumped on your high horse and started telling me how wood and trees does not equal forest. You actually state that you have no idea what they are doing but that it is pure bull****. Have you any idea how silly that is? Yet, by your logic, I'm misinformed and hyperbolic? This means you have no idea about - yet simultaneously understand and a
  12. Well @IanL I use it as a litmus test. If you claim that, arguably, the world's leading AI defense contractor is "full of pure bull****" don't you think that a detailed set of reasonings is required to back up that statement? He lists a set of reasons as to why ML is, in general, difficult to apply to the dynamic complexities of combat, however when you make an outlandish claim that the established leader in battlefield AI (just ask Raytheon who lost to them) has completely fooled the Pentagon, that is akin to stating that you know exactly what the Pentagon put out an RFP for, what Palantir dem
  13. It's all well and good to post links to papers (just FYI the majority of the most interesting papers published on AI in 2018-9 are in Mandarin). I'm still waiting for @BletchleyGeek to back up his claim that Palantir ($800 million contract to build a DeepLearning based warfighting system for the US Army) is full of "pure bull****". How anyone can make a ludicrous claim like that and get away with it speaks volumes.
  • Create New...