Annoying pathfinding issue still in 1.03

[Thomm]

Originally posted by SlowMotion:

...and also: the more bugs are fixed now, the better things should be when the CMx2 WW2 game arrives.

And they better be better, because the in-house competition (ToW) appears to be picking up some serious speed judging by their latest updates!

Best regards,

Thomm

[SlowMotion]

Things are definitely improving. Sometimes things happen that are a bit frustrating, but now after 1.03 the game is playable IMO.

There are always some game engine limitations, like in CMx1 you could shoot through your own units. Once you know what they are, it's easier to just ignore those. Now we don't quite know which things are bugs . Like how this LOS stuff is supposed to work.

[Dennis50]

They talk about the negative because that's exactly what needs to be fixed so if it needs to be fixed ..how is that counter productive? I have not seen any ranting sort of speak since 1.03 was released. Just constructive chatter more or less.

Regards,

Gunz

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by GunzAbeam:

They talk about the negative because that's exactly what needs to be fixed so if it needs to be fixed ..how is that counter productive? I have not seen any ranting sort of speak since 1.03 was released. Just constructive chatter more or less.

Regards,

Gunz

The Greek Chorus of Doom has been stilled. Now it's more like Alvin and the Chipmonks...

[SgtMuhammed]

I'm just glad that we are talking about more productive issues rather than how BFC sold us out to the ghosts of Command and Conquer.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by GunzAbeam:

They talk about the negative because that's exactly what needs to be fixed so if it needs to be fixed ..how is that counter productive? I have not seen any ranting sort of speak since 1.03 was released. Just constructive chatter more or less.

Regards,

Gunz

Good post Gunz...Keep the bug reports coming. I am hoping for the best myself and I am sure the crew at BFC is working hard on it.

[Darkmath]

I would like too an answer from BFC about this rather intrusive AI pathfinding which could not allow the player to make a simple straight line move in open terrain.

[Renaud]

I'm also tempted to wish that AI pathfinding 'intra-waypoint' be reserved entirely for computer-controlled units or cases where you have plotted a move across impassable terrain (ala cmx1), but i'm as guilty of 'counting the hits' and 'forgetting the misses' as anyone.

In a few cases the intra-waypoint AI works out rather well and makes you feel that an actual soldier is behind the wheel (albeit, a very fallible and poorly trained soldier).

In simple cases of moving units directly across open terrain or along a road there doesn't seem to be any benefit in the random directly changes (particularly regarding infantry teams which tend to bunch up along invisible 45 degree lines, in my testing with the demo at least).

Perhaps the AI pathing could be left in, but tweaked to not intervene in cases of waypoints starting and ending on pavement, or plotted directly across the various flavors of open terrain.

Anywho, enjoying the game immensely.

[Exel]

Originally posted by Renaud:

In a few cases the intra-waypoint AI works out rather well and makes you feel that an actual soldier is behind the wheel (albeit, a very fallible and poorly trained soldier).

Yes, and for some reason the Strykers seem to be the worst in this respect while other vehicles perform a little better on average.

Even so I wish the player would not be stripped from the control of adjusting a units movement path the way one currently is, and that the AI pathfinding would only be used when the player's waypoints need adjusting for obstacles or for proximity of friendly vehicles, and maybe some 'smoothing out' of the turns to make movement look more natural. But the latter should really be only micro-adjustments to the path, not replotting it entirely and skipping entire waypoints while at it.

[Cpl Steiner]

AI pathfinding should only be used when the user provided waypoints pass through physical obstructions. Then and only then. If the user provides a carefully plotted set of waypoints that take the unit around all intervening obstacles, that is exactly what the game should use. In effect, the player has done the AI's work for it. Obviously from a programming point of view it is more complex than this - but the principle remains the same.

As for units moving to the centre of the grid square they occupy at the end of a move and stuff like that, this is just plain silly. If I order a unit to a certain spot the game should at least give me some credit for having considered a few destinations and chosen this as the best one. The argument that the unit must occupy some hidden grid location is frankly ludicrous, even from a programming point of view. The game could just average out all the individual soldier coordinates to arrive at a centre of mass for the unit and then decide which grid square it is treated as occupying. The men don't need to physically move there.

As for men taking action to seek cover etc., I don't see why this can't be made more transparent to the user. This can be achieved by showing the user exactly what path the men will take and where they will end up and then asking the user to confirm the order - with some facility to allow the player to adjust the AI generated waypoints before-hand.

I don't mind abstraction behind the scenes but as others have pointed out, at the moment it is very much not behind the scenes.

If I sound negative, I can only say in my defense that I do not wish CM:SF to be a failed game. It is precisely because I want it to succeed that I write posts like this.

[mazex]

Hmm, I'm really interested in a answer to this one... Steve is usually quick. Has he taken a well deserved break?

/Mazex

[Sgt Joch]

1st campaign mission,1.03, all four Abrams (A,B,C,D)have just passed the breach in the Berm,like so:

-----berm--ABCD--berm-----

I order all four to move forward, the two on the right towards their 2 o'clock, the two on the left towards their 10 o'clock, "quick" about 100 feet, so they wind up like so:

---AB------CD--

--berm----berm---

Three move out and come to a stop about 7-8 seconds later.

the last one, C, instead turns to its 10 o'clock, passes between A and B, tries to swing around the front of B, bounces off B, backs up and ends the turn wedged between A and B with it's ass to the enemy, like so:

---AUB-----D---

--berm----berm---

If BFC can "logically" explain that "result", I am all ears.