AI comparison chart on the wiki

[Brumi]

We get questions like 'Which AI should I use?' quite frequently. I think it would be good if there was a comparison of AIs on the wiki, similar to the comparison articles of Wikipedia. I would be willing to do that, but I need some help from you, because if I do it alone, the page will quite much reflect my own opinion rather than an impartial view. And I don't want to hinder the development of possible newcomers, as the comparison wouldn't favor them.

So, my ideas on what should be included:

• General features, like save/load compatibility, etc.
• A chart showing which types of transport are used by the AIs, and what do they transport (passenger/cargo).
• A chart showing compatibility with the most popular NewGRFs (any suggestions on what NewGRF to include?)
• Something about the financial performance and competitiveness
• And of course version information and links to the respective forum threads

My plan is to include all AIs available on Bananas, excluding those which aren't meant for running a company (like TownCars, IdleMore, WmDOT).

So, what are your opinions on this? What should be included?

[Alberth]

I think it is a great idea.

I'd say just go ahead, your initial list looks useful and complete enough for a first setup.
Post the URL here, so others can look at it, and modify/extend.

As for new comers, they can add their own entry, and when a new competition is held, the wiki can be updated to reflect the new results (be sure to mention which results you use in the table to prevent confusion.)

[planetmaker]

I'm not sure a specific NewGRF-compatibility section is needed. That's the prime case where subjective views would come in Rather add a general comments section where issues of any sort could be added, like also preference for terrain, certain settings (acceleration type,...) etc.

[Lord Aro]

I would be for this idea, but i think you should at least mention the 'other' AIs (Idle, etc), just to avoid confusion. Perhaps in another table?

[lawton27]

I would be for this idea, but i think you should at least mention the 'other' AIs (Idle, etc), just to avoid confusion. Perhaps in another table?

column
You could easily add them in the same table but the majority of features would be unavailable, making it clear they are not competitive ai's and possibly a notes column describing what they do.

[Brumi]

I've started the page: http://wiki.openttd.org/Comparison_of_AIs

It took me quite long to figure out how tables and templates work, so I'm taking a break now

So far I'm done with the general information. There are a lot of AIs available, so I think it will be better to discuss the unorthodox AIs in a separate table, so the others won't get too big. Would you put something else to the general information table?

[FooBar]

Would you put something else to the general information table?

What vehicles they use and whether they transport passengers or other cargo.
I would also turn the name into a clickable link rather than the "Thread" column at the end. Saves some space.

[planetmaker]

Indeed. The AI's name could just be linked to the forum thread and the latest version a link to the corresponding bananas entry.

[Brumi]

I added a table comparing the most basic features. (vehicle usage, cargo types)

Something should be added about financial performance and comptetitiveness. I thought about classifying them as 'competitive' or 'casual', but it is a bit ambigious. Or something like 'easy', 'medium', 'hard'?
Of course I will put some links there pointing to AI competition forum threads.

[lawton27]

I probably sound rather picky, but wouldn't it be much better to have those in the same table, why have two tables with exactly the same rows?

[Brumi]

The 'features' table doesn't include some AIs, and I think these tables are a bit more readable if they are kept smaller.
IMHO it depends on what will come later.

[lawton27]

How about split the general information table into competitive and utility AIs and then add relevant feature column to both tables separately that way there is only 2 tables with information and no shared data, whereas the form it is taking so far would have 3 tables with shared name column and the possibility for someone to accidentally repeat more.

[Brumi]

Hmm... That will make more sense

[krinn]

great idea, i think you can just lower to one table and condense the infos on there to get a new column with misc infos (because dropping version & release date not only the infos isn't really of help, it will be a pain to maintain accuracy on your wiki)

And i don't think save/load support is useful too, for example (i have no real example in mind) if X ai don't need to save infos to play with its routes & vehicles (i mean one real smart that can find & use what it have made without hints except ones it can grab from the api). That ai will be playable, even it doesn't support save/load, as it fully recover when loading a game & keep doing its work, player won't be bug by the ai.
The fact idle ai doesn't support save/load is not a problem, the ai is made like that, and save/load won't influence the game. So showing to users the ai doesn't support save/load might imply a lack of feature when the ai just doesn't need it to do its work.

I find important to tell users some ai need specific needs, these needs might block the ai from running, so these should be mention (just like showing AI supporting Road vehicle only, not only tell the user it will add eye candy running that ai with RV but also the ai will not work if the user disable them for ai)

*legend : A-aircraft R-roads... P-passengers, C-Cargo, M-mail... N - none (this will lower entries size, and gave more space to note)
ainame (with link) : vehicle : cargos : note
dictatorai : AR : PC : adaptive to game difficulty
idle : N : N : do nothing, not to be played as opponent
towncars : R : N : eyecandy towns with vehicles running on street, not to be played as opponent.
thatai : ARST : PMC : cannot work without build_on_slopes, cannot work on toyland
thisai: ARST: PMC : cannot work with thatnewgrf, cannot work without
...

[Alberth]

PAXlink AI is listed several times in the Features table, but otherwise looking great!

[Brumi]

I added two additional sections about performance (links to AI testing forum threads) and the 'Other AIs'.

The features table is wide enough now (filling a 1024x768 screen), so merging the two may be a problem. (and then there is the NoAI menu on the right side). Personally I like the current coloured version

And i don't think save/load support is useful too, for example (i have no real example in mind) if X ai don't need to save infos to play with its routes & vehicles (i mean one real smart that can find & use what it have made without hints except ones it can grab from the api). That ai will be playable, even it doesn't support save/load, as it fully recover when loading a game & keep doing its work, player won't be bug by the ai.

Zuu's AIs are examples that don't need to save data, they read it from the map. So they're listed as save/load compatibile, as well as on Bananas. An AI which is not save/load compatibile will not be able to maintain its older routes, like selling unprofitable vehicles, adding new ones, upgrading them, etc.

I agree that a 'notes' column would be useful, and maybe a column which classifies the AIs as competitive/casual, however, the distinction is not too clear. Personally I would list AdmiralAI, AIAI, DictatorAI, NoCAB, OtviAI, Rondje om the kerk and maybe Terron AI as competitive. Your opinions?

NewGRF compatibility should be listed somehow, maybe as an extra column in the features table, where some notes can be made about compatibility. It would be the best if these notes were made by the AI authors themselves, but I'm afraid it's impossible to reach all of them.

because dropping version & release date not only the infos isn't really of help, it will be a pain to maintain accuracy on your wiki

We can delete that table when the information becomes too inaccurate

PAXlink AI is listed several times in the Features table

Not anymore

[planetmaker]

The features table is wide enough now (filling a 1024x768 screen), so merging the two may be a problem. (and then there is the NoAI menu on the right side). Personally I like the current coloured version

The red/green colours will probably be a pain for 10% of the people - but I cannot judge that.

We can delete that table when the information becomes too inaccurate

It will become inaccurate. And it is a duplication of http://bananas.openttd.org/en/ai/ except for the release month. Thus it might be better to just linke the guaranteed up-to-date table of bananas there.

I find it a fantastic idea to actually link the different AI competition threads there; interested people can then really see the whole info available.

[Alberth]

The features table is wide enough now (filling a 1024x768 screen), so merging the two may be a problem.

I see no need to merge the tables, but you may want to consider moving it to the AI-specific section I am going to talk about a bit below

Personally I like the current coloured version

Me too Colour-blind people may however have a different experience.

Zuu's AIs are examples that don't need to save data, they read it from the map. So they're listed as save/load compatibile, as well as on Bananas. An AI which is not save/load compatibile will not be able to maintain its older routes, like selling unprofitable vehicles, adding new ones, upgrading them, etc.

In my view, save/load compability is about being able to continue after loading a save game.

Maintenance is a different aspect of an AI, as it also exists when you never save or load a game.

I agree that a 'notes' column would be useful, and maybe a column which classifies the AIs as competitive/casual, however, the distinction is not too clear. Personally I would list AdmiralAI, AIAI, DictatorAI, NoCAB, OtviAI, Rondje om the kerk and maybe Terron AI as competitive. Your opinions?

Having some 'private' space for a more detailed description/features of an AI could be useful. Wiki-style, that would mean you make a new Wiki page for each AI.
I am not sure how useful that is, I can also imagine a section just below the tables would be sufficient.
A simple solution could be to create a link in the table to another part of the wiki (either a section or a new page). You may also want to move the version information to here. (and as a side note, the version number and the date are sort of the same information, so you could combine them to one entry).

NewGRF compatibility should be listed somehow, maybe as an extra column in the features table, where some notes can be made about compatibility. It would be the best if these notes were made by the AI authors themselves, but I'm afraid it's impossible to reach all of them.

Definitely useful. As for completeness, just do what you know. Others will add/extend, and (unfortunately) some AIs will never get that information. It is nice to be complete, but it is better to have some information than nothing.
Your job imho is to make a good start, finishing it will not happen until NoAI gets removed from the OpenTTD program.

because dropping version & release date not only the infos isn't really of help, it will be a pain to maintain accuracy on your wiki

We can delete that table when the information becomes too inaccurate

I would consider the version information to be a reference of what you documented at the wiki page. It prevents surprises when people use an older or newer version of the AI, and it behaves differently.

Apparently, different people have different ideas about the meaning of the table. You may want to add a sentence about the purpose of the table somewhere to be clear about it.

[planetmaker]

I would consider the version information to be a reference of what you documented at the wiki page.

Good point. But IMHO that is actually one argument more to have these information in ONE table. Updating two tables simultaneously is much more likely to get out of sync than when all info is found in one table

[Brumi]

I added a new column for notes on NewGRF support, please check that information, I only did some very quick tests to check.
I think the features table is big enough now, I think it's OK to have two different tables.

Having separate wiki pages for the AIs is a good idea, maybe I'll start later