Author Topic: Collision modeling (Read 6151 times)

pigface · « **Reply #45 on:** November 06, 2005, 10:48:53 PM »

Thanks for the reply Simaril,

Although I agree with you, "if people think they are using collsions "as a weapon" they are fooling themselves". I approach this subject as a simple simulator of a real flight model. And yes, I did read the lengthy thread. It is all very interesting, and I added my opinion is all. What computer the collision happens on, time lapses, and all that is besides the point from my prospective.

Quote

Current system: I die, you get what amounts to a proxy.
Pig system: we both die, and you get punished even though you made a move that burned me.

I would have to go with the Pig system. Not because it is fair, or because it would be named after me

, but, if we were in a WWII battle, flying planes and I pull a bonehead move, you run your plane into mine, we would still die. It does not matter how many pelts I had gathered, rank or anything, rather on just flying. It would then benifit both to attempt to avoid colisions. Just today, for example, it happened all too fast but a guy I was fighting, I was tailing and, as I was overtaking him, he turned into me from below. Colision. I died, he lived. He want on to crash into yet another guy, both of us died. He was in an LA7, I was in a much bigger, stronger F6, the other guy was in a NIK, yet he "bumper cars" us both out of the sky. However can someone hit two planes, with a nose prop, and survive? I did get retribution, eventually, but that would just not be possible in real life, that, I know for a fact, this is not fair. So, I vote for the Pig sytem.

How it is reported, or viewed is a totally different issue, and a distant second.

Tarmac · « **Reply #46 on:** November 07, 2005, 02:13:08 AM »

Jebus, do you tards even read the thread before you post? It's been explained 10 times right here, a few times by the guy who made the freaking game, and you're still saying the same damn thing -- "If one plane takes damage, both should!!!"

The collision model is exactly as it should be. I'm no programmer, but even I can understand how it works.

Karnak · « **Reply #47 on:** November 07, 2005, 02:27:57 AM »

pigface,

You don't understand what you incorrectly term "timelapses".

Latency does not just cause a delay in what we see, but we all end up seeing the same thing at slightly different times.

Latency causes us to all see slightly different things. Two aircraft can, without any manuevering at all from first sighting, fly straight and level, one exactly east and one exactly west and on one FE they collide and on the other FE they pass 15 yards from eachother. The second FE will never show the collision.

Intense manuvering only makes this more dramatic.

As to your claim that raming people who don't even have a chance to know that they should dodge would not be exploited if neither got a kill, well, your looking at it as a utopia. What would happen, in this game of kamikaze P-51s and Typhoons, is that Bob would gladly crash into Charlie because it took Charlie 10 minutes to get there and Bob only 30 seconds. That is a 20 fold gain in time efficency for Bob's side.

No colisions results on other highly distorted and gamey actions, such as flying through other aircraft firing your guns from ranges that cannot possibly miss.

The solution used in AH is the only viable solution unless somebody figures out how to do instant communications between computers. As it is the .6 to .8c that data travels over the net limits us to this fudged system giving us the best available results, though still flawed.

Mr No Name · « **Reply #48 on:** November 07, 2005, 03:14:01 AM »

something has changed with it in the last couple of months, there is a problem with it, everyone in my squad and many on range channel talk about it constantly

hitech · « **Reply #49 on:** November 07, 2005, 11:33:06 AM »

Nothing has changed with the collision code in the last 1.5 years.

The only thing we have added is to simply put in 2 text messages.

HiTech

toadkill · « **Reply #50 on:** November 07, 2005, 11:49:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
Basically if you have a low latency your hosed, just about any collision will result in you taking damage.

once again the cheap bastages with 56-kbps get the advantage, another example. WARPING ALL OVER THE ****ing place!!!!!

Simaril · « **Reply #51 on:** November 07, 2005, 12:09:58 PM »

Sigh.

Some people just refuse to get it.

Low latency is not a collsions advantage, despite the popular wisdom on your squad channel. Do a search.

Karnak · « **Reply #52 on:** November 07, 2005, 12:19:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by toadkill
once again the cheap bastages with 56-kbps get the advantage, another example. WARPING ALL OVER THE ****ing place!!!!!

Except it doesn't work that way at all.

If he sees a collision on his FE he takes the damage, not you. It doesn't matter what his ping time is at all.

Tilt · « **Reply #53 on:** November 07, 2005, 12:32:18 PM »

Its WYSIWYG

Its WHSIWHG

It aint MAD

It aint WYSIWHG

It aint WHSIWYG

BluKitty · « **Reply #54 on:** November 07, 2005, 01:21:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Except it doesn't work that way at all.

If he sees a collision on his FE he takes the damage, not you. It doesn't matter what his ping time is at all.

I disagree because they can warp though you, and warp into your path..... that is where low-speed vs high-speed really matters..... and upstream is almost always slower than downstream for home users..... this is true with dial-up..... 33.6 was max upstream last time i used dial-up years ago (that's with v.90/56k downstream) lower bandwidth means more time to update, and typicaly higher ping, and less packets means more chance of you loseing vital UDP packets.... if you send out more(high bandwidth) ... if some gets lost in transmission there is less of an impact.

so I disagree.

___________________

does AH use any kind of anti-lag? how much time do they use if they do 500ms? 250ms? I'm guessing from the 'what you see is what you get' that there is not anti-lag as I understand it. But might be a bad idea for a sim.

Running some game servers in the past, anti-lag helped alot (FPS not sim tho)

Also I wonder if there's any thoughts for the future ... IPv6 is still not used really, I think it offers more QoS options..... and OSPF works decently .... but we aren't all arriveing at HTC at the speed of light from our homes. There is still room for improvment before we actually hit the speed of light barrier.

Karnak · « **Reply #55 on:** November 07, 2005, 01:39:48 PM »

Well, though I don't play much any more my experience in playing AH for about five years on DSL with sub 100ms ping times disagrees with you. I can recall many times where the enemy warped out of a gun solution, but I cannot recall a single instance of the enemy warping through me and killing me.

I have seen some really bad and persistant warping on the part of high latency players though, so bad they were pretty much impossible to kill.

Last time I checked, last week, my ping time to the AH server was 62ms, I have 160k/sec down and 40k/sec up.

hitech · « **Reply #56 on:** November 07, 2005, 02:26:59 PM »

Quote

I disagree because they can warp though you, and warp into your path..... that is where low-speed vs high-speed really matters

Connection speed has nothing to do with warps. Let me put it a different way.

It has bubkiss. noda, not even a small jitter would it cause.

Infact running at 28k with no compresion on your modem would be better for smoth play then a lot of cable connects.

What DOES Matter is how much the lag varies from one packet to the next.

This is typicly caused by your position on earth, who your provider is, what routers you must go threw, but the first hop hop of your connection has very little to do with warps.

Or as it applies to AH, if your netstatus top line is flat, it makes no diffence what you connection speed is.

HiTech

Furball · « **Reply #57 on:** November 07, 2005, 02:33:47 PM »

hitech, my ping is locked on 150, despite upgrading from 1mbs to 2mbs cable.. even since you switched servers.

is this just based on the routers my connection has to go though?

Karnak · « **Reply #58 on:** November 07, 2005, 02:42:40 PM »

Furball,

My SBC/Yahoo DSL service in the Bay Area jumped from 72ms pings to 150ms pings after they moved the servers. I just switched to Speakeasy DSL and my pings are now 62ms to the AH server.

I don't think you'll see a significant decrease in ping times unless you switch ISPs.

Tilt · « **Reply #59 on:** November 07, 2005, 02:44:07 PM »

What surprises me is folk seem to except the gunnery implications of lag ............

On our FE's

We get shot down by folk who are apparantly firing at some spot behind us

We suffer collision when we run into folk..............

Which is the wierdest of the two?

Warpage to one side I control whether I collide or not......the risk is mine.

Yet I have no control over the the varing lengths of string between my apparant location and my apparant location on some other FE. Which means that if I want to cut a merge fine a big lag may give the oncoming straffer the shot because on his FE I jinked too late!