Talk about that AI

These games were cheating. AI wouldn't use same physics as you do.
AC isn't. Physics are the same for everyone as @Minolin said.


Στάλθηκε από το m2 note μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk

 

I think that's an entirely fair observation, liakjim.

However, just like you don't want to be confronted in a tactical shooter by AI that can headshot you from a greater distance with an AK than a spec ops sniper could in real life with a Barrett, I would really like not to be racing against automatons, regardless of the integrity of the physics. Again, I acknowledge that fallibility and unpredictability are probably the most difficult things to code into AI in any game genre. Totally fair point, though.

 

Yes, but is this the right method to use to create interesting and exciting races against the AI? I would argue that it isn't the physics that's important. It's the behaviour that counts, and this is (presumably) the most difficult part to simulate.

 

A problem is that the AI is too slow for the fast driver´s laptimes even this way, having it making mistakes would turn out a lot slower even. Getting it to drive faster in general would be the tough point without having them crash at the fast corners. And another big issue I see is the AI having only one line for Abarth 595s to SF-15T, between 14°C fog and 36°C optimum. One line where all cars have to be fast and safe. The margin for errors to be safe (Without them spinning and clearing the grid, etc. too often) is narrow or non existant, I think.

A theoretical solution could be having different lines for different car classes, but that would be a lot of lines for a lot of tracks. Creating them is one part, testing them is something totally different, with all the different car combinations, etc (You´d have to test the GT line with GT3s alone, with GT2s alone, with mixed grids, including or excluding difficult cars, different weather and track conditions, resulting in gazillions of hours of testing).

 

Fastest AI should not make mistakes (fastest in quali for example) but be consistent as 100% AI is now. The grid shouldn't be of clones of certain % but variety. And then AIs who finish worst in quali, are also less consistent and insecure drivers. So that winning is always hard. For me bigger problem is that AI doesn't attack and be aggressive enough, they don't overtake enough. It makes sense to use optimal lines, but not if there is slower guy blocking that line

 

Yeah, that´s a sensible alternative. In a way that´s what the CM randomness achieves. The attacking is interesting. I found that the AI works quite nice around me, but hardly attacks each other (Have the machines sworn against humankind allready?). For example in a recent race I had some nice back and forth battles with the AI, different car, GT3 grid at Zandvoort. I went wide in the left hander before the hairpin, touched the grass and he pushed all the inside to get past me in the hairpin, had to open up. Caught him again in the next lap, outbraked him at T1. Another things is with spinouts, if I spin out, the AI drop their speed and pass close but safe. Might be coincidence, but if one of them bugs out, I´ve seen more traffic pile ups.

 

I wonder if there are any randomization and probability algorithms built into AC. When I made scenarios for the great tank simulator Steel Beasts the thing that made its great mission editor almost human in its behavior and responses to player input was a random number generator that could be used by either the developers or a mission designer to simulate inconsistencies. A tank platoon might take one of three available routes from point A to point B and because this "choice" was governed by numerical probabilities generated by an algorithm, the player had to plan his counter-recon carefully to cover all possibilities. This seems to be a general principle of AI in games: you cannot replicate the complexity of human choice, which is infinite, but you can simulate it via all sorts of interlocking numerical probabilities attached to a chain of events and conditions.

Obviously if this were over-applied to a racing simulator you would get canned or scripted AI, which nobody wants but I do not understand why it is so hard to introduce variance, randomization and probability into AC's AI just to brighten it up and "humanize" it. It's already got all the pace and the physics under the hood, but racing is not all about pace. Even at the highest level, and more so lower down, it's also about being able to take advantage of small errors, even .5 second per-lap errors, committed by the opponent in front of you.

 

IIRC Stefano said somewhere sometime that randomization and mistakes are in the pipeline, but he needs first to figure out how to make AI crash-safe.

I think it's really difficult to make an AI that works in every case (especially in cases where you want an aggressive AI, but without them making contact with the player).

 

Regarding the "exact same physics" claim that a few have made here; it's not strictly true... The AI use the same underlying physics as the player, but also use grip hacks and stability control...

 

Our brain has some sort of stability control (or do you slam on the gas pedal on corner exit), so that's kind of normal.

As for the "grip hacks", the only thing I know about is that the AI has increased grip in certain out-of-control situations, but that should not affect them most of the time. Are there any other hacks?

 

Weird, my AI seems to be already random and making mistakes too.

 

They have a grip multiplier for the tires (which is often at 120%)... So they have 20% more grip than the player (at all times). And the stability control is the same as in the assists menu, meaning that it's a force applied to the car ("the hand of god" if you will) that realigns it, it's not realistic and isn't the throttle modulation you mention, they already have that (and can do it much more precisely than any human).

 

Something's iffy, if they have 20% more grip all the time, shouldn't they accelerate faster than the player in straights and be able to take corners faster??

 

Not if they corner under the limit of the tire and the car...if you want you can have the AI set to brake far later than possible with the player car (just by the grip mult and brake hint in the ai.ini physics file - same functionality on mod cars)...you can check all of this by enabling AI ingame (on your own car) and then shutting it off again. You won't have FFB but the tires will be noticeably grippier (at least at the front, unsure if it changes rear grip as well, never looked very far into it besides what I've mentioned).

 

They don't know they have it, so they pick the acceleration that puts them at 100% of real tire grip (or at lower AI settings, 96% of grip or w/e). The extra margin just means that if something happens they don't predict (bumps in the track, whatever) they're less likely to lose time than if they'd actually gone past the grip limit and needed to correct.

Anyway in any car short of the 917/30 most acceleration is not on the limit of tire grip, it's down to how much horsepower the car has.


I don't think it's true that it's on the entire circuit anyway, my understanding was it's for corner approach only, so they can brake harder without screwing up much (they still have the random overshoots).

 

Are you sure that's how AI settings work, IIRC it affects only braking right now (but might be my memory playing tricks on me).

It also seems to me that it was in some cases only, but again, my memory...

 

Why? The Ai drive like A Train!

 

Oh, acceleration in a physics sense, change in velocity in any direction.

 

I agree the AI in AC sucks. They are unable to overtake slower cars, drive like a train and quite often hit you in the back.