Author Topic: Mid-air collision bug? (Read 5833 times)

Karnak · « **Reply #60 on:** August 16, 2004, 11:14:50 AM »

Quote

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?

A) Because it took him 30 seconds to reach you and your 10 minutes to reach his base. That is a net gain of 9.5 minutes of effort for his side. At a ratio like that five defenders can completely stop fifty attackers.

B) Because your plane cost 70 perk points and his cost none, therefore he can cost you those points at no cost to himself.

JCLerch,

Actually it is:

Event A happened
Event B didn't happen

Mugzeee · « **Reply #61 on:** August 16, 2004, 11:17:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by phookat
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.

Nor would they with collisions off.
The HO argument isn’t valid nor is it a real factor. In an HO situation any player accept the newest of the new know they need to avoid the bullets to avoid dying. The collision isn’t the deciding factor that determines if a player wants to avoid dying or take a chance at playing chicken. In HOs its the Lead that kills and its the Lead that we try to avoid.
Not that i think Collisions aren’t a realistic feature. I just find them a unnecessary subject for confusion and argument. And not needed for good game play.
With collisions off...The relative factors of HO or anything else for that matter are just as level a playing field as the current Collision model.

Like saying that he rammed you.
What...is your joystick broke? You couldnt or didnt avoid it?
Again....remove collisions and avoid these rediculas discussions and for some remove the confusion.

lucull · « **Reply #62 on:** August 16, 2004, 11:31:03 AM »

There are 2 ways to die in a HO:
1. from your opponents bullets
2. from your opponoents plane itself

If you eliminate 2.) you make dieing in HO less likely or better, increase it's survivability, which results in even more people using it.

Midair collisions are something real. One big reason for friendly collisions off, is the problem you would have with spawning. (I saw whole squads die on spawnpoints in events, because the CM forgot to turn off friendly collisions.

Quote

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.

It is impossible to know what anybody else sees on his FE other than yours. Therefor it's wrong to say, that someone can force you to a collision. It is always on yourself to dodge.
If you accept this and don't think about what other people see (which is impossible to determine), you won't get any headaches.

AWwsky · « **Reply #63 on:** August 16, 2004, 11:51:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by 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.

This could be solved, but would take the cooperation from both parties invovled. Both would need to have film running and both would have to view each others films and/or post them for others to see. For example, you go head on and you see his canopy become part of your canopy, well, obviously this looks like a collision and for the most part, only 1 flys away (and with a kill credited to boot). After reviewing both films can you really say "Your FE was the one that saw the collision, not his". So what if both films show a collision and one fly's away with no damage? Both saw a collision, but only 1 FE saw it?? Would this raise the question of how a server problem could be at fault or maybe it's just a down right faulty collision model? Or would the "it was your FE" statement still be said??

Guess we could find out and I'll try this with anyone that would like to see how this would turn out. Of course with my luck, if I actually tried to collide on purpose, I'd miss completely. Catch me in MA sometime and we can take it to DA and see what happens. (Not a dual, an experiment).

AWwsky

Quote

Take-off is optional...As a matter of fact, so is landing!!!!

hitech · « **Reply #64 on:** August 16, 2004, 11:53:53 AM »

JCLerch: I have often thought of the simalarities between Net programing and General realitivity.

They are the same consept.

In coding multiple time references it becomes problimatic just to pick varible names that describe the different points of reference.

HiTech

hitech · « **Reply #65 on:** August 16, 2004, 11:58:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AWwsky
So what if both films show a collision and one fly's away with no damage

This shouldn't ever happen. If your front end detects a collision you are damaged.

HiTech

lucull · « **Reply #66 on:** August 16, 2004, 12:12:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AWwsky
Would this raise the question of how a server problem could be at fault or maybe it's just a down right faulty collision model? Or would the "it was your FE" statement still be said??

The AH server does not decide wether or not you have a collision, because your FE displays every object for you, but everything you see on your FE is only "real" for you and impossible to determine for anybody else, which includes the server. And that's the reason why collisions and hits are only detected on your FE and sent to the server.

phookat · « **Reply #67 on:** August 16, 2004, 12:36:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 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?

Once again...if you died and he didn't, then he dogded properly according to what he saw and you didn't according to what you saw. This is the only fair way.

Now on the orthogonal issue of "who gets the kill", I think I'm going to slightly change my mind, and say that the other guy should get the kill anyway. I think this should be treated the same as augering. If you auger with someone closeby, he gets the kill and rightfully so. If you ping someone with one 303 and he augers, you get the kill. Same should apply to collisions. The reason I say this is that it discourages the dweebery of ramming to kill *yourself* even if you don't kill the other guy--just to avoid the other guy getting the kill.

phookat · « **Reply #68 on:** August 16, 2004, 12:46:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mugzeee
Nor would they with collisions off.
The HO argument isn’t valid nor is it a real factor. In an HO situation any player accept the newest of the new know they need to avoid the bullets to avoid dying. The collision isn’t the deciding factor that determines if a player wants to avoid dying or take a chance at playing chicken. In HOs its the Lead that kills and its the Lead that we try to avoid.
Not that i think Collisions aren’t a realistic feature. I just find them a unnecessary subject for confusion and argument. And not needed for good game play.
With collisions off...The relative factors of HO or anything else for that matter are just as level a playing field as the current Collision model.

I disagree. The need to avoid a collision is a fundamental factor that needs to be incorporated into whatever manuvers that you decide to make. This is not limited to HOs. Mr. Hilts provides a good example of this. Why do a scissors at all when you don't have to worry about colliding. And the success of an HO is more likely if the HOer doesn't have to worry about a collision. Doesn't even cross his mind, all the focus is on the target in the gunsight.

It changes the way the game is played.

phookat · « **Reply #69 on:** August 16, 2004, 12:51:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AWwsky
After reviewing both films can you really say "Your FE was the one that saw the collision, not his". So what if both films show a collision and one fly's away with no damage? Both saw a collision, but only 1 FE saw it?? Would this raise the question of how a server problem could be at fault or maybe it's just a down right faulty collision model? Or would the "it was your FE" statement still be said??

No. This would be a bug. It would have to be fixed. A bug does not indicate whether the collision approach is good or not.

Quote

Originally posted by AWwsky
Guess we could find out and I'll try this with anyone that would like to see how this would turn out. Of course with my luck, if I actually tried to collide on purpose, I'd miss completely. Catch me in MA sometime and we can take it to DA and see what happens. (Not a dual, an experiment).

Several people have posted pics of collisions, in this thread. The bug is the other way around at the moment. The collision bubble is too big, not too small.

Eagler · « **Reply #70 on:** August 16, 2004, 01:30:29 PM »

collisions are a bad time to have a good connection

Karnak · « **Reply #71 on:** August 16, 2004, 02:11:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
collisions are a bad time to have a good connection

How so? Your connection makes no difference.

hitech · « **Reply #72 on:** August 16, 2004, 03:11:15 PM »

Karnak: Your conection has no effect on if you have a collision.

But in the rare case where both planes do collide and the collision causes a instant death to both planes. The slower connection will be awared the kill becase the faster connects collision arives at the server first. This is a very rare event.

HiTech

2Hawks · « **Reply #73 on:** August 16, 2004, 03:37:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
JCLerch: I have often thought of the simalarities between Net programing and General realitivity.

They are the same concept.

In coding multiple time references it becomes problimatic just to pick varible names that describe the different points of reference.

HiTech

Well Jeez Hitech, It should be super easy to program a quantum singularity and tear the time space continuim to record events before they happen. Thus eliminating net lag and the questions of who hit who first.

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth...

Karnak · « **Reply #74 on:** August 16, 2004, 03:49:39 PM »

HiTech,

Yeah, I considered that, but it is so rare as to mostly be a non-issue, so I didn't mention it.

What many people seem to believe is that there is a collision on both FEs and the slower connection wins, and it works that way every time. I know that when I played WarBirds I thought this. It wasn't until later that the light, belatedly, came on and I understood why it has to be the way that it is.