A tweak in pawn logic needed.

[Kangoshi]

A pawn start its way from base to a construction site on the other side of the map at 9 pm half starving. By the time he gets there not only it's "bed time" and he's tired, but also hungry. It builds something (one piece), then eats without a table, then goes back to the base to get rest. You see how it's frustrating to watch? And it's pisses off the pawns.
So, can the game calculate a couple of steps ahead, like if by the time a pawn gets to the object of its mission they will be hungry, maybe go eat first? And if it will be time to go to sleep, then find another work to do, closer to the base?
Needless to say this should not apply to manual commands.
Of course there are many other problems, like why send 20 colonists to build 20 pieces of a wall, when (and if there's time for that) one pawn can handle it?

[vzoxz0]

This is more a problem with AI in general than it is with the game -- the computation time required for your proposed algorithm is much, much higher than for what's being used now.

[dragonalumni]

This is more a problem with AI in general than it is with the game -- the computation time required for your proposed algorithm is much, much higher than for what's being used now.

Really? seems rather straight forward..

if(calculate_time_required(distance ( current_location, waypoint_location )) +time > time_for_sleeping )   
    initiate_sleeping_routine;
if(calculate_time_required(distance ( current_location, waypoint_location )) +time > time_for_next_meal )   
    initiate_mealtime_routine;



------------
I also suggested a small tweak to logic that seems as straight forward as water, but got no response.


if(pawn_is_delivering_item && (pawn_destination(check_zone_ID) == pawn_location(check_zone_ID)  ))
    if(current_pawn_location_has_no_items)
     {
        drop_inventory;
        start_next_task;
    }


(Pawns have always choose to walk over empty spots in a delivery zone, often heading to the back of a zone area to drop something while passing empty spots that just make no sense that they don't choose to leave the item at, some function checks.. that must exist already.. if called would solve this problem..)

[vzoxz0]

I recommend you look at the decompiled code, specifically Verse.AI -- Classes of interest might be .PawnPath, .PathFinder, .PathGrid, .PawnPathUtility

If you still think this would be easy and cheap after looking at that code, I suggest you mail the (real) changes to Tynan and wait for your credit in the game.

[dragonalumni]

This is more a problem with AI in general than it is with the game.
..
"Look at the real game code"

Well, it seems that you saying this is actually a problem with the game because the AI (logic) is straight up simple.

[vzoxz0]

I look forward to you explaining how multiple pawns doing multiple job-checks all of which calculate a distance that used to be done once ends up not costing computing time.

[dragonalumni]

I look forward to you explaining why Santa Claus isn't a byproduct of the Easter bunny.

Because that's about as close as one thing is to the other. You said the AI (not the game) made it difficult to do, later you said the code is spaghetti. I'm willing to accept and believe the code is spaghetti but the functions I'm talking about, like computing the time needed to go from A to Z, shouldn't require a super computer, nor is an impossible logic task.

[vzoxz0]

I never said anything about spaghetti code, but what can I expect from someone who isn't educated/a professional in CS/SE besides straw-men and nonsense.

Which of these statements do you fundamentally disagree with? You can choose any combination including none.

Pathfinding is computationally expensive.

Doing pathfinding much more often is much more computationally expensive

The algorithm you propose requires doing pathfinding much more often than the one that is currently in use

If you can concretely answer that question maybe we'll get somewhere.

[dragonalumni]

I look forward to you explaining how multiple pawns doing multiple job-checks all of which calculate a distance that used to be done once ends up not costing computing time.

For someone claiming to be an edumakated coder, you are quite foolish to suggest or assume that any suggested change/improvement should cost nothing and go on to ridicule someone because because it will cost some time to process an additional instruction at which point you seem to assume such a change is impossible.  An edumakated coder doesn't consider if an instruction is going to cost something, they EVALUATE it for worth, demanding that a change cost nothing or expecting someone to argue that it doesn't is "nonsense".

Yes, I'm not familiar with Rimworld (code), but if there is nothing like a function to start_next_task_because_this_old_shit_is_finished_now that is a pity because that is the only time that a pawn should logically decide if heading out across the map is a good idea or not, that isn't going to burn your cpu core into dust, so yes, I think it's worth the cost.

This is more a problem with AI in general than it is with the game -- the computation time required for your proposed algorithm is much, much higher than for what's being used now.

What I hear you saying is the code can't handle it.

The only thing you need to take forward is this. Pawns do some really really stupid shit, and the code should be improved to the point where such obviously stupid shit doesn't exist in the final game. People who say "it can't be done" or "it will cost something" shouldn't be on a high horse or make excuses for it, especially a gifted coder such as yourself.

[Kangoshi]

Guys, chillax, for god's sake.
Let Tynan do his work if he decides, that it's needed or not.

[vzoxz0]

I look forward to you explaining how multiple pawns doing multiple job-checks all of which calculate a distance that used to be done once ends up not costing computing time.

For someone claiming to be an edumakated coder, you are quite foolish to suggest or assume that any suggested change/improvement should cost nothing and go on to ridicule someone because because it will cost some time to process an additional instruction at which point you seem to assume such a change is impossible.  An edumakated coder doesn't consider if an instruction is going to cost something, they EVALUATE it for worth, demanding that a change cost nothing or expecting someone to argue that it doesn't is "nonsense".

Yes, I'm not familiar with Rimworld, but if there is nothing like a function to start_next_task_because_this_old_shit_is_finished_now that is a pity because that is the only time that a pawn should logically decide if heading out across the map is a good idea or not, that isn't going to burn your cpu core into dust, so yes, I think it's worth the cost.

This is more a problem with AI in general than it is with the game -- the computation time required for your proposed algorithm is much, much higher than for what's being used now.

What I hear you saying is the code can't handle it.

The only thing you need to take forward is this. Pawns do some really really stupid shit, and the code should be improved to the point where such obviously stupid shit doesn't exist in the final game. People who say "it can't be done" or "it will cost something" shouldn't be on a high horse or make excuses for it, especially a gifted coder such as yourself.

I never said the code couldn't do this. It can. It just isn't, because pathfinding is expensive.

The limitation to software is almost never "code", it is logic.

You couldn't even answer the one question I asked you, so I'm done talking to you. Some people's opinions can't be swayed by facts or logic and you are one of those people.

[dragonalumni]

The limitation to software is almost never "code", it is logic.

I believe when you are trying to code this is the case.

[vzoxz0]

The limitation to software is almost never "code", it is logic.

I believe when you are trying to code this is the case.

There's a certain amount of irony in that you think that's an insult. Not even good at trolling.

[dragonalumni]

I'm done talking to you
..
"oh wait no I'm not"

I'll assume you code just like you communicate.

[Ramsis]

The fighting is going to stop here folks or I'm going to be forced to settle it in a way that none of us really want it to be settled... in an administrative meeting regarding how we can further settle this like gentlefolks....

No but seriously, chill.