Will we be able to navigate large capital ships by ourselves in X4?

[Ketraar]

Well but you are not. See this argument is being used that you need pilotable capital ships to "fix" bad AI is a bad argument. Given you need AI to pilot ALL THE OTHER ships your not in. So it would best to invest in good AI since THAT would solve it being, well bad as you claim.

You wanting pilotable cap ship for the sake of being able to pilot them has been established and frankly its irrelevant discussion at this point, no one disagrees with it. But the bad AI argument is a bad one and frankly works the opposite way.

MFG

Ketraar

[Alandauron]

@Nikola515, everyone that would prefer to have AI over Capship piloting would also like to have piloting, that has already been established. It has also been established that people shouldn't have to know anything about game development to state that they want something. Also we've established that better fleet management and ship AI pathing is desired by all.

I kinda stopped discussing the point because there's really no disagreement on the fact that we all want many systems to be greatly improved, it's just which ones take priority in our own mind. I'm not gonna change someone else's mind and they're not gonna change mine, so the topic is concluded imo. By all means keep discussing, I just came in to post one last time and take this topic off my watch list.

Can't wait to see what Egosoft does with X4!

[Nikola515]

Well but you are not. See this argument is being used that you need pilotable capital ships to "fix" bad AI is a bad argument. Given you need AI to pilot ALL THE OTHER ships your not in. So it would best to invest in good AI since THAT would solve it being, well bad as you claim.

You wanting pilotable cap ship for the sake of being able to pilot them has been established and frankly its irrelevant discussion at this point, no one disagrees with it. But the bad AI argument is a bad one and frankly works the opposite way.

MFG

Ketraar

The only problem is that we will probably never see better/improved AI. I would be better off piloting my own cap ship than AI. As i said i don't care what other ships do as long as i have control of one that i am in. No matter how good AI getts it will never do what we want especially egos AI that is having trouble doing simple tasks. And just so we understand when i say bad AI im talking about pathfinding and inability to use its weapons properly.

And trust is earned not given for those who trust ego will have super AI in next game Idea of capital ships doing exactly what we want them to do sounds good but with egos track record let's be realistic....

[Ketraar]

You keep missing the point and frankly it starts too look like you do it on purpose. All the stuff about trust also only serves to flourish the amount of letters your post has, since it does not have anything to do with the point that was being made. You assume they cant do a good AI, but then imply they will provide good pilotable ships experience, based on thin air, just to try and validate your, frankly flawed reasoning.

AI is crucial, unlike pilotable cap ships, as its core to ANY play style, this should be simple to understand.

MFG

Ketraar

[Slashman]

AI is crucial, unlike pilotable cap ships, as its core to ANY play style, this should be simple to understand.

MFG

Ketraar

This is indeed the bottom line. My only true worries are that I've heard Bernd state with absolute confidence that they had fixed the AI pathing issues before Rebirth launched.

I really don't want to have to wait for X5/XR3 to maybe get a good flight AI. I'm getting on in years...

[UniTrader]

AI is crucial, unlike pilotable cap ships, as its core to ANY play style, this should be simple to understand.

MFG

Ketraar

This is indeed the bottom line. My only true worries are that I've heard Bernd state with absolute confidence that they had fixed the AI pathing issues before Rebirth launched.

I really don't want to have to wait for X5/XR3 to maybe get a good flight AI. I'm getting on in years...

i still wonder where people get the idea there was anything fixed from X3 to XR - they have no technical relation to each other since XR is a rewrite from scratch.

also you should adjust your scale a bit.. there isnt just a "fixed pathing" switch with the States fixed (white) and not fixed (black), but many, many levels of grey between X3 and perfect pathing.. in XR Big Ships can at least circumnavigate a station exactly in a straigth path to their destination*, and small Ships even fly through the Geometry of it. In X3 they would just fly back and forth till the Station isnt blocking their way anymore.

*it my "fail" if a second Station is in their circumnavigating path

[Slashman]

i still wonder where people get the idea there was anything fixed from X3 to XR - they have no technical relation to each other since XR is a rewrite from scratch.

Those weren't my words. Also, one can have a new game/engine while referencing problems that a previous game presented if they are similar enough. One could easily view the new game/engine in terms of things which are addressed or 'fixed' versus the old one.

[Ketraar]

My only true worries are that I've heard Bernd state with absolute confidence that they had fixed the AI pathing issues before Rebirth launched.

This again. Can we have a link to that info?

Also still waiting on examples for comparison as to what constitutes "fixed" or "good" AI. As it might vary in scope and function depending on who you ask. True AI is not really possible, I think we agree, so there are limitations to be expected, thus a "working" AI is as flavoured as "give me X4" or pizza.

MFG

Ketraar

[Nikola515]

You keep missing the point and frankly it starts too look like you do it on purpose. All the stuff about trust also only serves to flourish the amount of letters your post has, since it does not have anything to do with the point that was being made. You assume they cant do a good AI, but then imply they will provide good pilotable ships experience, based on thin air, just to try and validate your, frankly flawed reasoning.

AI is crucial, unlike pilotable cap ships, as its core to ANY play style, this should be simple to understand.

MFG

Ketraar

Actually i don't think i can take you seriously anymore.... You seem to think that your point is only valid and that nobody else maters. I'm not sure if you really think that or you are simply sucking up to ego do to your title Well anyway good luck dreaming about your perfect game that will probably end up like XR. As for record I do agree with you about AI but I just don't want to put my fate on it for obvious reasons . For those who wont to pilot their ships for what ever reason it should be in game just like in X3 (that is reason why I started playing X3). You might think you know what is better for me but I don't care because I know how I want to play my game. Egosoft should do what they do best and build game that is worth calling X4 in my opinion. X4 should be extension of X3 not XR. If they change name to something else I wouldn't care what they do (because I wouldn't bother buying it).

[Lord Crc]

Also still waiting on examples for comparison as to what constitutes "fixed" or "good" AI.

With regards to pathing, X Rebirth does the absolute bare minimum for the game to function.

Fixed pathing for me would be obstacle avoidance instead of just collision avoidance, that is planning to go around instead of planning to go through then deal with the collisions as they happen. L-class ships also have some pathing bugs which needs to be ironed out, they often fly the weirdest routes.

Good pathing would anticipate moving obstacles, as well as more tactical movement during combat (threat assessment, orientation for maximizing attack etc).

[UniTrader]

Fixed pathing for me would be obstacle avoidance instead of just collision avoidance, that is planning to go around instead of planning to go through then deal with the collisions as they happen. L-class ships also have some pathing bugs which needs to be ironed out, they often fly the weirdest routes.

In fact they do both.. the Former is used to circumnavigate Static Objects, and sometimes has difficulties with 2 Stations too close to each other (the path which circumnavigates the first station leads too close to the second Station, so more waypoints are added, which are closer to the first one again resulting in a bit zigzagging), but ego certainly is on the right track with that.
For Moving Objects the latter is used and, opposed to X3, Ships can and will even Strafe a bit to avoid the other Object. often they have to rotate entirely though..

Good pathing would anticipate moving obstacles,

come back again when you have a handheld quantum computer...

[Ketraar]

@Nikola515
You probably ran out of arguments it seems, all I can read is noise and failed attempts to insult me, by projecting your own insecurities, since I dont suck up to anyone. But its not really surprising as you clearly are incapable of basic rules of debate, here a hint

You seem to think that your point is only valid and that nobody else maters.

When arguing a position, the person making the argument, usually thinks they are right. Its the other persons "job" in that debate to counter that argument, usually using additional information or alternative perspective/insight/details, often based on facts (its a dying trend I know) or just opinion. Simple really.

Fixed pathing for me would be obstacle avoidance instead of just collision avoidance, that is planning to go around instead of planning to go through then deal with the collisions as they happen. L-class ships also have some pathing bugs which needs to be ironed out, they often fly the weirdest routes.

Good pathing would anticipate moving obstacles, as well as more tactical movement during combat (threat assessment, orientation for maximizing attack etc).

I was not clear, the idea is not to state what we would want it to do, we probably already agree what we wish it to perform. Much like with piloting cap ships, we wish it all. The question is, what is doable and someone suggested it to be "easy" and possible, then failed to provide existing examples of it. As with many things, there are limits to what can be done in this universe of finite resources.

MFG

Ketraar

[Nikola515]

I dont suck up to anyone.

Whatever you say

[Lord Crc]

In fact they do both..

I've yet to observe that in XRebirth... I routinely see capships and fighters trying to blast straight through stations. It's clear the pathing is line-of-sight based with collision avoidance, rather than proper obstacle avoidance.

[CBJ]

Enough of the personal bickering. This is not the first time some people have been warned about this. Discuss the subject in hand, not each other, or this thread will be locked.

[Lord Crc]

The question is, what is doable and someone suggested it to be "easy" and possible, then failed to provide existing examples of it. As with many things, there are limits to what can be done in this universe of finite resources.

For collision avoidance around stations, I don't see why using A* with grids around the stations wouldn't work. The A* algorithm is text-book stuff with plenty of available libraries around for "plug and play". For capships it could use coarse-grained grids for the entire zone, for smaller ships it could use line-of-sight until it intersects the extended bounding sphere of the station (bounding sphere + some fixed radius), then switch to a per-station finer-grained grid. Alternatively just project the line-of-sight path onto an oriented bounding ellipse of the station and have the ships follow that.

Quite possible there are better and smarter ways, after all I'm not a game programmer.

[UniTrader]

In fact they do both..

I've yet to observe that in XRebirth... I routinely see capships and fighters trying to blast straight through stations. It's clear the pathing is line-of-sight based with collision avoidance, rather than proper obstacle avoidance.

then our Observations dont match. Not sure about your Observation methods, but had usually dotted the Path the Ship travelled with intangible Objects (placing one object every few seconds on the Ships current Position), and specifically marked the points where the <event_object_arrived_at_waypoint/> is triggered. Usually results in Dots like on a Spline Curve which connects aforementoined waypoints (and these waypoints are placed in such a way that they move the path outside the bounding Box of a Station, or are the final waypoint set in the Navscript itself), except Places where another Ship was nearby - at these places there is a Dent in the Curve


PS forgot to mention: i refer to Capship Movement only. didnt look into small Ships yet, and probably wont for a while.

[Lord Crc]

PS forgot to mention: i refer to Capship Movement only. didnt look into small Ships yet, and probably wont for a while.

Fair enough, I was a bit inaccurate in my initial post, pathing in XR really winds me up

Like you say, capships seem to do simple deformation of a line-of-sight path. This is ok for simple obstacles like a single station with trivial geometry. Not sure if it's just bad bounding boxes or what, but it does manage to do silly stuff with certain stations at times. And it doesn't work well in more complex zones, for example asteroids are just completely neglected.

Smaller ships seems to do no such thing at all, instead relying purely on collision avoidance (once something is immediately in front of the ship, station or otherwise).

[mr.WHO]

Personally I'm content with X-Rebirth pathfinding and colision avoidance with the exeption of asteroid fields and really exotic asteroid like objects (big asteroid/old mines in DeVries, or "Spire like" asteroids in Torride).

Boosting between zone is also god enough with the exeption of Torride where it's often really bizzare - e.g. shp has free linear route to destination, but it choose to boost along some "invisible boosting routes" instead(probably hardcoded into Torride).

[UniTrader]

(probably hardcoded into Torride).

not really hardcoded (this means its programmed in the exe or other binary goo), but yes there are some pre-defined paths there which are preffered over the shortest route - but its actually pretty easy to remove (or change) via Mod