quote:Original post by Geta

If you are interested in the discussion on standards in AI interfaces, here is a link to a
round table I participated in at GDC 2002. Its the closest thing to a formal attempt to
determine standards that could be usefull to achieving these libraries.

http://www.ai-center.com/extern/gameaisig/gdc-2002-roundtable.html

Eric

As Eric says this was a good roundtable (I was also lucky enough to be there), but I thought it highlighted one of the most significant things impeding the development of a standardized AI interface.

Towards the end of the roundtable we tried to come up with a simple sample definition of "a path", something that a pathfinder algorithm or library might return. We immediately got bogged down in what we actually meant when we said "a path". Was it

• An array of waypoints identifying where a unit should move from frame to frame? second to second? update to update?



• A list of velocity vectors, magnitudes, and times a unit might use to move? In what units?



• A simple structure containing the direction and velocity to "move next", and a time at which the unit should check in with the pathfinder again?

Etc., etc. We didn''t even get in to whether or not the pathfinder should handle terrain or leave that to the unit, tactical pathfinding in which you''re trying to hide or balance hiding with speed, etc.

There are a lot of utterly valid ways to build a path, and modifying your personal pathfinder to meet the needs of the particular game you''re working on is one way to gain back CPU.

It struck me that until we can even agree on the definition of the problem, we''re going to have a hard time developing a standardized interface. Perhaps AI hardware, should it ever become available, will help matters in a de-facto manner (similar to Direct3D) if enough developers use it.




Ferretman

ferretman@gameai.com
www.gameai.com
From the High, Cold, Snowy Mountains of Colorado

quote:Original post by Timkin
Kylotan makes good points.

The other thing to consider is this... put the chicken before the egg... if there were a standard library available that did the job efficiently, more and more professional developers would use it and the interface would/may become a standard. Mainly because it cuts down production time/testing time on their own code. Middleware for AI makes a lot of sense, particularly for the low level ''grunt'' tasks of AI programming: pathfinding, scripting engines, FSMs, etc. If these tasks take only a small fraction of the development time then more time is available to creating more interesting higher level AI. The AI Software Engineer then gets more time to work with the game designers and spends less time working with the coders in the trenches, resulting in better games (IMHO).

Just another two cents worth (sheesh, so that''s why my bank balance is low!!!)

Timkin

A good point. That''s basically how Direct3D got popular and it may take exactly this kind of thing for any kind of AI middleware to catch on. The problem is that they''ve got to prove their worth first, and that will take time. Physics middleware has led the way somewhat, but that''s also a nasty problem filled with equations and calculus--few developers like that stuff!




Ferretman

ferretman@gameai.com
www.gameai.com
From the High, Cold, Snowy Mountains of Colorado