Mid-air collision bug?

[hitech]

Just so I understand this virgil:

You want to be flowing a plane by 100 yards and colide with it is that what you are saying?


HiTech

[Redd]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Exactly how hard is it for you to grasp the simple concept that I understand the position but I DO NOT AGREE WITH IT? It seems that you are the one who lacks the understanding that just because you think something should work the way you want it to, it does not follow that everyone agrees with you. Can you not grasp this concept? Is that reality entirely beyond your ability to understand? Are you really that dense? I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOUR POSITION. Got it? I hope that was plain enough for you to understand.

There have been on-line games where both die in a colllsion  - a WW1 game comes to mind , think it was Flying Circus.

There was constant moaning about who rammed who on the channel 1 radio.   (think it had friendly collisions too which made things even worse)

With Hitech's method at least you know  that in 99% of cases you  were responsible for the collision - your FE saw a collision.

As someone else did a good job of outlining, it's the best of the 4 possible alternatives

[Redd]

Originally posted by hitech
Found the bug.

HiTech

Thanks for the quick attention to this one HT  , it was a pain in the ass.

[2Hawks]

I am sure deep down everyone understands the enourmous task you all do at HTC.

Thanks for not losing heart with the screamming dung hurling masses.

Dan.

[DipStick]

Thanks again HT, you da man!

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by hitech
Just so I understand this virgil:

You want to be flowing a plane by 100 yards and colide with it is that what you are saying?


HiTech

Did I say that? Not anywhere I can see. I made two complaints about the system:

1. I don't like "one plane collisions", they defy logic in my view. Either both planes hit or neither does. I understand the logic that you and others use to base it on, but I see too many other problems with it. It's just my personal preference the collisions damage both planes with no credit for that damage or death to either. I do not want collisions turned off, that does not work.

2. I don't like blowing a plane up and being killed by the debris, and the plane I blew up getting credit for killing me. I don't mind getting killed by debris that much, but I do mind someone else getting the credit for killing me. This is a function of the logic behind the current collision model (without the current bug problem) and it is wrong.

To further add to this, I would not have a problem with friendly collisions in the air. It might solve some of the issues with idiots diving in and cutting people off in a fight and causing them to die by killshooter.

One more thing, I have been following a plane by 200 and had a collision, he warped forward and then backward, and I hit him, I died, he flew off. I've also been closing rapidly on planes and had them chop throttle, cause a collision, been killed by it, and they flew off. So their defense of gaming the collision model got them a kill when they should have been dead either way.

[hitech]

Did I say that? Not anywhere I can see. I made two complaints about the system

Yes you did say that.

If you must rationalize the current collision model by saying "you collided with him because you saw it, but because he didn't see it he didn't collide with you", then you can accept the absurd idea of a one plane collision, just don't expect everyone else to. That's a lot like the idea that you see a hundred and fifty hit sprites on the plane you are shooting at, but if he doesn't see them, it's okay for him to keep right on flying undamaged. That one is pretty stupid as well.

The out come of what you are asking for would generate what I described. You can flame the idea, but it seems to me even thow you claim to understand the technical issues involved with lag and multiple clients that you don't.

You seem to not understand that there realy is not 1 reality.

I don't like blowing a plane up and being killed by the debris

I don't either, and I do not blieve debri damages you but I will double check.


Added to post:
Went and double checked, and you can not collide with debri.


HiTech

[phookat]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
1. I don't like "one plane collisions", they defy logic in my view. Either both planes hit or neither does. I understand the logic that you and others use to base it on, but I see too many other problems with it. It's just my personal preference the collisions damage both planes with no credit for that damage or death to either. I do not want collisions turned off, that does not work.

Do you realize the *fact* that your preference will cause ramming to be a sure-fire killing method?  That people will ram a lot more often, and kill you with it more often?  Are you OK with that?

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
2. I don't like blowing a plane up and being killed by the debris, and the plane I blew up getting credit for killing me. I don't mind getting killed by debris that much, but I do mind someone else getting the credit for killing me. This is a function of the logic behind the current collision model (without the current bug problem) and it is wrong.

I've already explained to you why this last sentence is factually wrong.  You seem intent on closing your ears and yelling loudly.

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
One more thing, I have been following a plane by 200 and had a collision, he warped forward and then backward, and I hit him, I died, he flew off.

An anomaly.  This is an occasional thing.  Don't change the system for the exception.  Be a man, bite the bullet, and move on.

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I've also been closing rapidly on planes and had them chop throttle, cause a collision, been killed by it, and they flew off. So their defense of gaming the collision model got them a kill when they should have been dead either way.

This was *your* fault, not his.  He was pulling a legitimate reverse, and instead of dealing with this properly with a scissors or an extension, you decided to ram him.  Therefore, this is the proper outcome, and the existing collision model worked perfectly.

[Mugzeee]

Originally posted by Urchin
Awesome job HT.  By the way.. I kind of like the idea of hitting debris... is it possible to make it so you can be damaged by debris without keeping the 50 foot "ram bubbles"?

While this is a realistic idea. With the Proxy kill thingy like it is. It is my opinion that this isnt and shouldnt be a logical option.

[Mugzeee]

Originally posted by phookat
Do you realize the *fact* that your preference will cause ramming to be a sure-fire killing method?  That people will ram a lot more often, and kill you with it more often?  Are you OK with that?

How so? If no kills or points are awarded for collision kills (I think there shouldnt be) Then why would players bother to Ram?

[phookat]

Originally posted by Mugzeee
How so? If no kills or points are awarded for collision kills (I think there shouldnt be) Then why would players bother to Ram?

Because if someone thinks they're losing, they may very well prefer to take the other guy down with him.  Especially if they have a sure-fire way of doing so--which they do not with the current collision model.

[phookat]

Originally posted by Mugzeee
While this is a realistic idea. With the Proxy kill thingy like it is. It is my opinion that this isnt and shouldnt be a logical option.

The "proxy kill by debris" thing is theoretically independent of the collision model (and practiacally as well I'd think).

[Urchin]

I still don't understand why people have such a tough time with this concept.. if you see the other plane go through your plane... YOU rammed HIM, not the other way around.  On the other guys FE he could have pulled up and missed you by 50 feet, you decided not to dodge him.

[Mugzeee]

What if you decide to pull up or out and he decides to do the same and the lag decides that you are still the one to see it and you die and he gets the kill? I have had this happen on several occasions. Its the Proxy kill/crash kill that bothers ppl. Not the fact that Midair’s are possible. An accidental kill shouldn’t be awarded nor should any points whatsoever be awarded for such occurrences.

[JCLerch]

This thread on Net Lag and Collisions gives me the same headache that General Relativity's "Nothing goes faster than the speed of light, not even information" gave me.

The difference being, replace "Nothing goes faster than he speed of light" with "Nothing goes faster than the speed of the Net"

For instance, both create problems defining "the past" as in things that "Have Happened".   In GR we end up breaking "the past" into two flavors, the past that has happened and we know about (effective past), and the past that has happened and we don't know about because the information has yet to arrive.   Net lag appears to cause this same effect.

Also, even defining two events happening at the same time becomes problematic.  Its is entirely possible for three people to report two events happening in three different orders:

Dude #1 can say "Event A & B happened at the same time"
Dude #2 can say "Event A happened first, then B"
Dude #3 can say "Event B happened first, then A"

The worst part, all three are correctly reporting what they observed.  To absolutely fry your brain, try and figure out what "really" happened.  After much sweat and tears, the conclusion is "it depends on your frame of reference".  In the case of Aces High, 'frames of reference' work out to My net lag + Your Net lag + everyone else's net lag.

Where I'm going with all of this is, because of net lag, NO two persons will record the exact same series of events.  The result is, two pilots can record two DIFFERENT series of events.  One pilot can film a collision, another can film the same event and prove that they DID NOT collide.  Neither is wrong, conversely neither is right.

So, I offer a mighty to HiTech and crew for making all of this net lag transparent (for the most part)! Obviously HTC does a lot of work in the 4th dimension (time).