First spotted by Hackadayan industrious robot builder, Kamal Carter, has created a physical aimbot which will visually scan a computer screen and then physically move a mouse to click on targets, and it’s good enough that it can outperform some Valorant pros in aim training software. Or couldbefore his brief shot at esports fame was snuffed out.
Aimbotting is more typically accomplished through software, removing our unreliable meat-space reflexes from the equation so we can click heads with ruthless machine precision. It’s a big bugbear of competitive FPS games, with its alleged use by opponents second only to FPS players’ own teammates as the most cited reason for losing a match. Cheating software can be a real problem, widespread enough that developers invest in anti-cheat solutions or expensive legal campaigns against their creators to preserve the competitive integrity of their games.
To make his physical aimbot, Carter designed a chassis with four omni-directional wheels designed to fit around a wireless mouse. This box takes instructions from a program that can analyze visual data, allowing the physical aimbot to react to on-screen events as a human would.
Carter tested the device on an aiming training program called Aim Lab which provides an objective measure of its effectiveness, as well as separate targets in a sparse environment to calibrate the program. After more than two months of work, Carter got the aimbot to quickly and smoothly track targets without overshooting.
An average Joe can expect an Aim Lab score of 40-50,000, while professional FPS gamers can get one in the 80-90,000 range. Carter managed to achieve a high Aim Lab score of 118,494 with the robot. He hoped to further develop the small FPS terminator and potentially challenge Valorant pro tenz’s Aim Lab high score, which was 138,944 when the video was made and has since grown to 146,902.
Unfortunately, the little robot aimed too hard and one of its motors failed, momentarily ending Carter’s quest. In his own words: “In this battle between robots and humans, humans ended up winning.”
Still, it makes for a great story, and there’s just something admirably whimsical about deliberately taking the hard route on something so easily accomplished in software. Paying $30 a month for a computer program that probably mines bitcoin in the background is one thing, but going to the trouble of months of work to create a literal robot to play games for you? It’s art.