About Animator handling

Scott Hong

New member
When implementing Animator in the Behavior Designer way, there is a problem that the tree becomes very complicated, so Opsive gave us some references.
However, it seems that Opsive should provide some examples, not a references.

MecWarriors' way has a problem that the speed of NavMeshAgent is applied as the Animator speed. Unity's way behaves very strange when the NavMeshAgent speed is less than 3. A* I couldn't even find out where the example is.

I don't know if Opsive has not aware of this problem and presented it as a reference, or whether it is trying to get rid of it as a reference because there is no solution?
I believe that a clear solution will be the Opsive's example, not a reference.

Please show and confirm that Behavior Designer can be applied to real projects, not just idea products using Behavior Tree.
 
Behavior Designer definitely can be and has been applied to released projects :)


The Animator is outside the scope of Behavior Designer. The Animator requirements for each project will be different. Some won't need animation, some will use an Animator, some will use Kinematica, etc. The solutions described in the animation documentation page are just example solutions and you'll likely need to extend to fit your own structure and is independent of the behavior tree.
 
Obviously, no matter how complex the Behavior Tree gets, I can apply it to my project, but are you saying that I should implement it this complicated way?
Why is the Animator out of the scope? Behavior Designer is absolutely correspond with it. If so, why did Opsive include such references in the manual?
On the other hand, do you think that the reference presented by Opsive is appropriate to solve the problem of the Tree becoming complicated?

EDIT:
I expected a responsible response from Opsive, not an evasive response. I asked a way to solve the problem of Behavior Designer, but you suggest me to buy another asset and refer to it??
 
Your implementation really depends on your own project. For the Ultimate Character Controller our implementation is different from the solutions in the documentation just because the controller has a different structure. The behavior tree for the Ultimate Character Controller (and the Deatmathch AI Kit) is then separate and independent of the Animator.

An animator is out of the scope because the goal of Behavior Designer is to provide a great behavior tree implementation, not one that includes all of the features that you'll need for your AI. Providing an Animator that you have to use would actually be a disservice. What works for the Ultimate Character Controller may not work for your game. It's similar to health - Behavior Designer doesn't include any health because each project will be different in what it needs. Some won't even need health, similar to how some don't need animation.
 
Top