23
Crowd Pathfinding andSteering Using Flow Field Tiles
Elijah Emerson

23.1
23.2
23.3
23.4
23.5
23.6
23.7
23.8

Introduction
Motivation
World Layout
The Three Field Types
Path Requests
The Integrator
The Flow Field Cache
Supporting Dynamic
Environments and Queries

23.9 Cost Stamp Support
23.10 Source Cost Data
23.11 Different Movement Types
23.12 Steering with Flow Fields
23.13 Walls and Physics
23.14 Island Fields
23.15 Minimizing CPU Footprint
23.16 Future Work23.17 Conclusion

23.1 Introduction
Crowd pathfinding and steering using flow field tiles is a technique that solves the computational problem of moving hundreds to thousands of individual agents across massive
maps. Through the use of dynamic flow field tiles, a more modern steering pipeline can beachieved with features such as obstacle avoidance, flocking, dynamic formations, crowd
behavior, and support for arbitrary physics forces, all without the heavy CPU burden of
repeatedly rebuilding individual paths for each agent. Furthermore, agents move instantly
despite path complexity, giving AI and players immediate feedback.

23.2 Motivation
While working on Supreme Commander 2, we were given the task of improving movement and pathfinding behavior. As in many games with pathfinding, each unit in Supreme

307

Commander would move along a fixed, one-way A* path. Eventually, units would collidewith other units, especially when they were moving in formation or moving into battle.
When paths cross and units collide, the existing code would stop the units and wait for the
conflict to resolve, rather than rebuilding a new path around the obstacle. This is because
rebuilding a path every time there is a collision turns into a compounding problem, especially in large battles, where the new path will likely lead to a second and third collision,
causing the game to grind to a halt. This behavior repeats across a thousand units, whose
controlling players are all frantically clicking at each other’s units, essentially begging forthem to clash and collide with each other.
To overcome this path rebuilding problem, all movement was engineered to prefer tostay on the same path, resulting in limited physics, formations, AI, hit reaction, and so on.
In this way, the pathfinding was limiting the entire user experience.
Because of Supreme Commander’s one-track pathfinding solution, players would babysit their units as they moved across the map. They would spend their time watching andclicking, watching and clicking, all to help their units cope with the game’s ever changing
obstacles and environment.

23.3 World Layout
In the Supreme Commander 2 engine, the world is broken up into individual sectors containing grid squares, where each grid square is 1 × 1 meter and each sector holds 10 × 10
grid squares. There are also portal windows, where each portal window crosses a sector
boundary. Figure 23.1 shows an example.
In Figure 23.1, sectors are connected through pathable portal windows. Portal ­w indows
begin and end at walls on either side of sector boundaries. There is one portal for eachwindow side, and each portal center is a node in an N-way graph with edges that connect
to pathable, same sector portals.

23.4 The Three Field Types
For each 10 × 10 m grid sector there are three different 10 × 10 m 2D arrays, or fields ofdata, used by this algorithm. These three field types are cost fields, integration fields, andflow fields. Cost fields store predetermined “path cost” values for each grid square and areused as input when building an integration field. Integration fields store integrated “cost togoal” values per grid location and are used as input when building a flow field. Finally, flow
fields contain path goal directions. The following sections go over each field in more detail.
23.4.1 Cost Field
A cost field is an 8-bit field containing cost values in the range 0–255, where 255 is a special
case that is used to represent walls, and 1-254 represent the path cost of traversing thatgrid location. Varying costs can be used to represent slopes or difficult to move throughareas, such as swamps. Cost fields have at least a cost of one for each grid location; if thereis extra cost associated with that location, then it’s added to one.
If a 10 × 10 m sector is clear of all cost, then a global static “clear” cost field filled withones is referenced instead. In this way, you only spend memory on cost fields that contain308

Part III. Movement and Pathfinding

Figure 23.1
An example of the terrain representation used in Supreme Commander 2. Each sector is
10 x 10 grid squares with portals connecting sectors.

unique data. In an RTS game, there are a surprising number of clear sectors. In Supreme
Commander 2, we had roughly 50–70% of the pathable space marked as clear due to widespread areas of open and flat land, lakes, and oceans.
Cost field data was prebuilt by our editor, which converted walls and geometry slope
into cost values. Our design team could also visualize this path cost information, as wellas make changes to it.
23.4.2 Integration Field
The integration field is a 24-bit field where the first 16 bits is the total integrated cost
amount and the second 8 bits are used for integration flags such as “active wave front” and“line of sight.” You can optionally spend more memory for better flow results by using a
32-bit float for your integrated cost making it a 40-bit field.
23.4.3 Flow Field
Flow fields are 8-bit fields with the first four bits used as an index into a direction lookup
table and the second four bits as flags, such as “pathable” and “has line of sight.” The flow
field holds all the primary directions and flags used by the agent’s steering pipeline forsteering around hills and walls to flow toward the path goal.
23. Crowd Pathfinding and Steering Using Flow Field Tiles309

23.5 Path Requests
Once you have a valid goal position and one or more source positions, you can create a pathrequest. The path request will first run A* through the portal node graph. The A* walker
starts at the source position, travels through portal nodes, and ends at the goal, thus producing a linked list of “next” portal nodes. This process continues with the next path request
source, but this time the portal walker runs “merging” A*, in which the walker prefers tostop and point to a previously traveled portal node to “merge” with previous A* results. With
“merging” A* you are more likely to share flow field results and sources are more likely topath closer together, which is the desired behavior when selecting multiple sources to movetoward a single goal.
If your A* path to goal is successful, the next step is to walk through your list of next
portal nodes and submit a flow field request for each one. At this point you’re done withthe path request and, because you’ve only traversed the portal node graph using merging
A*, you’ve used very little CPU.

23.6 The Integrator
We define the integrator as the class responsible for taking a single flow field request and,over one or more ticks, building out a single flow field tile. This is achieved by taking therequest’s cost field data as well as the request’s “initial wave front” as input. The initialwave front is a list of goal locations, each having a predetermined integrated cost value.
The integrator takes the initial wave front and integrates it outward using an Eikonal
equation [Ki Jeong 08]. Visualize the effect of touching still water, creating a rippling wave
moving across the water surface. The Integrator’s active wave front behaves similarly in
how it moves across the pathable surface while setting larger and larger integrated costvalues into the integration field. It repeats this process until the active wave front stops
moving by hitting a wall or the sector’s boarders. To better understand the integration
process, let’s go over the Integrator’s integration steps.
23.6.1 Integration Step 1: Reset the Integration Field
The integrator’s first step is to reset its integration field values and apply the initial goal
wave front. If the requested flow field has the final 1 × 1 goal, then its initial goal wave front
is a single 1 × 1 location with a zero integrated cost value. However, if the flow field request
is from a 10 × 1 or 1 × 10 portal, then there will be ten goal locations with ten ­different
integrated cost goals.
For higher quality flow results you can integrate at least one flow field ahead in the
portal path. Then you can carry over the previously integrated costs as your initial portal
window costs instead of using zeros, effectively making the flow across borders seamless.
This quality improvement comes at a cost of making flow tiles order dependent, and thus
harder to reuse by other path requests.
23.6.2 Integration Step 2: Line Of Sight PassIf we are integrating from the actual path goal, then we first run a line of sight (LOS) pass.
We do this to have the highest quality flow directions near the path goal. When an agent iswithin the LOS it can ignore the Flow field results altogether and just steer toward the exact
310

Part III. Movement and Pathfindinggoal position. Without the LOS pass, you can have diamond-shaped flow directions aroundyour goal due to the integrator only looking at the four up, down, left, and right neighbors.
It’s possible to improve flows around your goal by looking at all eight neighbors during
the cost integration pass, but we wouldn’t recommend it; marking LOS is cheap and when
within the LOS, you get the highest quality path direction possible by ignoring the flow
field altogether.
To integrate LOS you have the initial goal wave front integrate out as you normally
would, but, instead of comparing the cost field neighbor costs to determine the integrated
cost, just increment the wave front cost by one as you move the wave front while flagging
the location as “Has Line of Sight.” Do this until the wave front hits something with any
cost greater than one.
Once we hit something with a cost greater than one, we need to determine if the location is an LOS corner. We do this by looking at the location’s neighbors. If one side has acost greater than one while the other side does not, we have an LOS corner.
For all LOS corners we build out a 2D line starting at the grid square’s outer edge position, in a direction away from the goal. Follow this line across the grid using Bresenham’sline algorithm, flagging each grid location as “Wave Front Blocked” and putting the location in a second active wave front list to be used later, by the cost integration pass. By
marking each location as “Wave Front Blocked” the LOS integration wave front will stopalong the line that marks the edge of what is visible by the goal.
You can bring LOS corner lines across sector borders by carrying over the “Has Line ofSight” and “Wave Front Blocked” flags at portal window locations. Then, when you build
out the neighbor’s integration field, for each portal window location that has the “WaveFront Blocked” flag, consider it an LOS corner to the goal and build out the rest of the line
accordingly. This will make the LOS seamless across sector borders.
Continue moving the LOS pass wave front outward until it stops moving by hitting awall or a location that has the “Wave Front Blocked” flag. Other than the time spent using
Bresenham’s line algorithm, the LOS first pass is very cheap because it does not look atneighboring cost values. The wave front just sets flags and occasionally detects corners anditerates over a line.
Figure 23.2 shows the results of a LOS pass. Each clear white grid square has been
flagged as “Has Line Of Sight.” Each LOS corner has a line where each grid square thatoverlaps that line is flagged as “Wave Front Blocked.”
23.6.3 Integration Step 3: Cost Integration Pass
We are now ready for cost field integration. As with the LOS pass, we start with the active
wave front list. This active wave front comes from the list of “Wave Front Blocked” locations from the previous LOS pass. In this way we only integrate locations that are notvisible from the goal.
We integrate this wave front out until it stops moving by hitting a wall or a sector
border. At each grid location we compute the integrated cost by adding the cheapest cost
field and integrated cost field’s up, down, left, or right neighbors together. Then repeat thisEikonal equation process again and again, moving the wave front outward toward eachlocation’s un-integrated, non-walled neighbors.
During integration, look out for overlapping previously integrated results because of small
cost differences. To fix this costly behavior, make sure your wave front stops when it hits
23. Crowd Pathfinding and Steering Using Flow Field Tiles

311

G

Figure 23.2
The results of an LOS pass.

previously integrated results, unless you really have a significant difference in integrated
costs. If you don’t do this, you risk having wave fronts bounce back and forth, eating up results
when it’s not necessary. In other words, if a different path is slightly cheaper to take, thendon’t bother backtracking across the field just to save that small pathfinding cost difference.
The following is an example of when it’s appropriate to overlap previously integrated
cost results. Imagine a single path that splits into two paths, where each split path leads
to the same goal location. However, one split has a long and costly sand trap, while theother does not. The integration wave front will move away from the goal, split into two,and converge on each other at the beginning of the path. When they meet, the cheaper
wave front will overlap the more expensive wave front’s results and continue to integrate,
backtracking down the expensive path until the cheaper integrated costs do not have asignificant difference with the previously integrated costs. This backtracking behavior will
have the effect of redirecting the flow field directions away from the sand trap and backtoward the cheaper path. This is no different than backtracking in A*; it’s just good to point
this behavior out as it’s more costly when integrating fields.
23.6.4 Integration Step 4: Flow Field Pass
We are now ready to build a flow field from our newly created integration field. This isdone by iterating over each integrated cost location and either writing out the LOS flag orcomparing all eight NW, N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W neighbors to determine the “cheapest”
direction we should take for that location.
312

Part III. Movement and PathfindingClear Tile

G

Figure 23.3
The final flow field directions.

Figure 23.3 shows what the final flow field directions look like. Notice that no work wasdone for locations that have goal LOS or locations within the clear tile. Once the flow fieldis built out we submit it to the flow field cache.

23.7 The Flow Field Cache
The flow field cache contains all of our built flow fields, each with their own unique ID
based on the portal window they take you through. In this way, work can be shared acrosspath requests despite having different goals.
If there is a two-way hallway in your map, the odds are pretty good that multiple paths
will want the same hallway flow field results. A flow field can also be reference tracked sowhen there are no more references to it, it can be discarded or put on a timer to be discarded later. You can also prebuild all flow field permutations and store them on disk sothat you only need to build the flow fields that have custom LOS goal information.

23.8 Supporting Dynamic Environments and Queries
The whole point of inventing this technique was to better handle the dynamic natureof our game environments in real-time. To that end, we built everything with dynamicchange in mind.
We can easily support moving sources by running another “merging” A* across portal
nodes if the agent’s position moves outside the sectors in the planned path.
23. Crowd Pathfinding and Steering Using Flow Field Tiles

313

We support moving goals by rebuilding the goal’s flow field. If the goal crossed a sector
boundary, the path’s portal nodes are rebuilt behind the scenes. Most of the flow fields
requested by the new path will already have been built and will be in the cache, so very few
flow fields need to be rebuilt. Once the new path is ready, the agent will seamlessly switch
over to it from the old path.
We support changing walls and hills by marking the cost field of the sector that contains them and their associated portals as dirty. Then the portal graph is rebuilt for nodes
that are on the borders of the dirty sectors as well as their neighbors. Finally, the paths thatwere affected by those changes are rebuilt.
All of this is done by marking things dirty and rebuilding them based on a priority
queue, where each item in the queue is given a time slice of a fixed number of milliseconds.
This allows us to control what, when, and how rebuilding happens over time.

23.9 Cost Stamp Support
Cost stamps represent a custom set of costs values you can “stamp” into the world.
In Supreme Commander 2, we needed to place buildings down that had custom walls
as well as custom pathable areas. The player can essentially paint whole new pathable­landscapes by using varying sized structures, including 1 × 1 grid walls.
Cost stamps record the original cost field values before replacing them with a new set ofcosts. After placing a cost stamp down, the overlapping sectors would be flagged as dirty
and the dynamic graph and path rebuilding process would take care of everything else.

23.10 Source Cost Data
The map editor would build the cost field data from looking at geometry, placing downwalls and hills where appropriate. We would run a blur pass to add a cost gradient nearwalls to improve flow results when going down hallways and around jagged edges.
All cost data was also shown in the editor so that designers could manually add andremove path cost as they saw fit. This was a huge benefit to the design team as they could
finally control where and how units moved in their maps.

23.11 Different Movement Types
Each agent in the Supreme Commander 2 engine has its own movement type. Eachmovement type has its own cost field data and hence produces its own portal graph.
In this way, a land-only tank would have a different path than a hovercraft that can
travel over lakes and swamps.
The editor would build out the different cost data for each movement type. To support
large units, a special wall cushioning process was run over the map that moved the walls
outward. This had the effect of closing off skinny gaps that are too small for large units
as well as pushing out wall and mountain sides so large units can’t visually overlap themwhen near.
If the user selected units with different movement types, such as a squadron of jets,a few land-only tanks, some hovercraft, and a super large experimental robot, the game

314

Part III. Movement and Pathfinding

would use the “most restrictive movement type” path for all compatible units before­building more paths for the incompatible units.

23.12 Steering with Flow Fields
When agents steer with flow fields, there are some if-else conditions to look out for. For
starters, if the agent doesn’t have a valid flow field, it should steer to the next portal position. Once the agent has a flow field, it should look for an LOS flag to steer to its goal;otherwise, it should use the specified flow field direction.
When an agent is receiving new flow field directions, we recommend storing off a pathdirection vector and blending in new flow directions as you cross grid squares. This has
the effect of smoothing out the flow field directions as the agent traverses the field.

23.13 Walls and Physics
With flow fields, your pathfinding agents can move in any direction without the highexpense of rebuilding their path. Once your agents move in any direction, they are boundto hit a wall or another agent. In the Supreme Commander 2 engine, agents could pusheach other around as well as slide along walls using physics.
Having physics in our game allowed for new game play scenarios such as explosions
that push back units or super large robots that could push back a hundred tanks. We
had a structure that could arbitrarily push or pull units across the map, as well as a large
unit that could suck units into a whirlwind, spinning them around and around until theysmashed together. These new game play scenarios would not have been possible without
the cheaper movement cost associated with using flow field tiles.

23.14 Island Fields
An optional island field type can be implemented containing island IDs, where each island
ID represents a single pathable island. Imagine the different islands of Hawaii: if you areon one island, you can only drive to locations within the same island.
For each sector you store its island ID. If there is more than one island ID in the ­sector,
then the sector has an island field breaking the IDs down to individual grid locations.
With this information you can quickly determine if a path request is valid.
In the Supreme Commander 2 engine, you can move your mouse over any location on
the map and see the mouse icon change from an arrow to a stop sign, indicating that you
cannot reach that location. This feature was implemented by retrieving Island IDs at thesource and destination locations to see if they match.

23.15 Minimizing CPU Footprint
You can enforce low CPU usage by capping the number of tiles or grid squares you commit to per tick. You can also easily spread out integration work across threads because theIntegration Field memory is separate from everything else.

23. Crowd Pathfinding and Steering Using Flow Field Tiles

31523.16 Future Work
The following is a list of ideas to further improve this technique.
Support 3D spaces by connecting portal graph nodes across overlapping sectors.
Pre-process and compress all flow field permutations and stream them from disk.
Add support for arbitrarily sized maps by using a hierarchy of sectors andN-way graphs.
•• Build out the flow field using the GPU instead of the CPU [Ki Jeong 07].
•• Support multiple goals. Multiple goal flow fields are perfect for zombies chasing heroes.
••
••
••

23.17 Conclusion
Our work on Supreme Commander 2 shows that it’s advantageous to move beyond single
path-based solutions and start looking at field-based solutions to support dynamic crowd
pathing and steering in RTS games with hundreds to thousands of agents. In this article,
we demonstrated how to represent and analyze the pathable terrain to generate flow fields
that can drive hundreds of units to a goal. Additionally, we showed that this method iscomputationally cheap, compared with individual unit pathfinding requests, even in theface of dynamic terrain and queries. Hopefully you can benefit from our experience with
the Supreme Commander 2 engine and continue to expand and refine field-based pathfinding in your next game.

References[Ki Jeong 07] W. Ki Jeong and R. Whitaker. “A fast Eikonal equation solver for parallel­systems.” SIAM Conference on Computational Science and Engineering, 2007.
[Ki Jeong 08] W. Ki Jeong and R. Whitaker. “A fast iterative method for Eikonal equations.”
SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 30(5), 2008.

316

Part III. Movement and Pathfinding