Collision modeling

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Slash27
When should I take damage? When I collide or when Im collided with?

Define precisely what you mean by "When I collide" and "When I am collided with".  I suspect you are working under a real world mindset such as determining who collided with whom and is at fault in an auto accident.  What we are talking about is strictly from a networked computer program's perpective.

To answer your question, you should take damage whenever a collision happens on your FE.  It doesn't matter who's nose is pointing which way.  If the collision happens on your FE you are the one doing the colliding.

[Slash27]

Originally posted by Karnak
Define precisely what you mean by "When I collide" and "When I am collided with".  I suspect you are working under a real world mindset such as determining who collided with whom and is at fault in an auto accident.  What we are talking about is strictly from a networked computer program's perpective.

To answer your question, you should take damage whenever a collision happens on your FE.  It doesn't matter who's nose is pointing which way.  If the collision happens on your FE you are the one doing the colliding.

 


No, Im working under a AH world mindset. I understand the if the collision happens on my 'FE' Im the one that collided. I want to know why I take damage if the other guy hit me. The only reason he would get the "You have collided" message is if he hit me on his 'FE' correct? The why do I sometimes take damage, and sometimes I dont. And Im not buying the "he may have shot" you on every incident. Ive been playing for over 4 years, I know when Ive been shot.

[2bighorn]

What I'm trying to say is that single AC collisions are very unreal and that is somehow killing immersion.

No mather how brilliant current technical implementation of collision model is, fair or unfair, it is very gamey solution.

Just imagine, you collided with... err... what? Something what wasn't there? Or was it?

There should be cutoff distance for collision where both planes take damage no mather the individual FE. For the sake of more believable realism, if nothing else.

Same with the collision messages. It should be enough to say: Collision!

Why simple if it can be complicated, right?

[Karnak]

Slash27,

That message means his avatar on your FE collided with your avatar on your FE.  It is to make it clear what happened to you.  It does not mean his avatar collided with your avatar on his FE.


2bighorn,

We are having a fundamental disagreement then.  I disagree that being detroyed when I didn't collide with anything is more realistic.  Further I disagree that you should be able to ram me and destroy me when I have no way of even knowing I should try to dodge.  That is sooooooo exploitable it isn't even funny.

[Slash27]

Originally posted by Karnak
Slash27,

That message means his avatar on your FE collided with your avatar on your FE.  It is to make it clear what happened to you.  It does not mean his avatar collided with your avatar on his FE.

Ok then, does he get the same message? If mine says "Karnak collided with you" and I take no damage, does yours say "You have collided"?

[Karnak]

Hmmm.  I am not sure.  I think we need HiTech to clarify all the messages and what they mean.  There is a degree of abiguity here.

[2bighorn]

Originally posted by Karnak
Further I disagree that you should be able to ram me and destroy me when I have no way of even knowing I should try to dodge.

But hit detection works that way. Sometimes one FE has shot solution and on the other side it appears it doesn't.
And not many are complaining about, because it's close enough to real stuff.
On the other side, one plane collisions aren't even remotely close. So we got some space-time continuum solution in the best startrek fashion.

If collision model can't be made real enough, then get rid of it completely and nobody will cry about.

[g00b]

If you ram someone on your FE it says "you have collided" the other person gets a "XXX has collided with you" message. That's it.

2bighorn you have not proposed any other solution other than to turn off collisions. That would be even more gamey than the current situation. I think the current method is the best possible implementation.

g00b

[Slash27]

Originally posted by g00b
If you ram someone on your FE it says "you have collided" the other person gets a "XXX has collided with you" message. That's it.

g00b

Thats fine if I have indeed rammed the guy. But if on sortie #1, Karnak and I merge, and on his 'FE' he collides with me . I get the " Karnak has collided with you" he gets "you have collided". He takes damage and loses parts and crashes. On sortie #2 we merge, on my 'FE' Karnak hits me  and we again get the same  messages, only this time I take damage. Now Im sitting here going "wtf, he hit me and I get damage?!?!?!?" There is the immpression in the community by alot of players that if you are the one that gets rammed you dont take damage. Or atleast there was. Now many dont know what the hell is going on because some times they get rammed and take damage and sometimes they dont. Maybe it should be adjusted to where if the collision happens on the the other guys 'FE' the other player shouldnt get a message at all. I think the would ease alot of the confusion.

[Tilt]

Originally posted by Slash27
Ok then, does he get the same message? If mine says "Karnak collided with you" and I take no damage, does yours say "You have collided"?

No he does not get the same message.......

Yes if your FE says "karnak has collided with you", Karnaks FE should say "you have collided".

HT above stated that currently the frequency of the message is damped to one per mission which he says he plans to change.

I think it may help folk if the message explains who the victim of the collision was (who incurred damage).......

"Karnak has collision damage" and on his FE "You have collision damage" or some such wording..........

[Tilt]

Originally posted by 2bighorn
But hit detection works that way. Sometimes one FE has shot solution and on the other side it appears it doesn't.

On the other side, one plane collisions aren't even remotely close. So we got some space-time continuum solution in the best startrek fashion.

If collision model can't be made real enough, then get rid of it completely and nobody will cry about.

The collision model is the most real one of the two! ....if you collide you get damage.................if you dont collide you dont get damage. Its really very simple!

So for collision its What You See Is What You Get.

For bullet strikes its What He Sees Is What You Get.

So from the victims perspective he suffers damage from a collision he saw happen and also suffers damage from bullets he did not see strike his plane.

Which is the most unreal?

Whilst the two are determined differently they both deal with the problem of positional offset due to delay in the optimum way. In the fairest way IMO.

[hitech]

g00b is correct in his assesment of the messages.

It is realy simple, what you SEE is what you get.


The hole point of the messages is so people would know if they had been collided with, or had been shot.

If you do not see the message "you have collided" , then you were shot.

The complant about not understanding is what the messages were ment for people to understand.

HiTech

[toadkill]

jes HiTech your such a troller, i might have to report you to the HTC people

























































no im not a retard, its a joke.

[Kurt]

Originally posted by hitech
Thanks for calling us stupid Kurt.

HiTech

WOW!  Sorry HT, I had no idea thats how you were doing it... I thought it was well accepted that was never done in online gaming because of the hacking threats.

I really didn't mean any offense, I had no idea AH worked that way.  

I don't claim to be a flightsim programmer (although I am a programmer professionally - I work on secure systems, so maybe i'm just being paranoid..), so I'll defer on this.. If I had a better way I'd have my own flightsim.  

Anyhow, much of the reading I've done into online gaming supports the idea of clients reporting only that they have issued the shot, the server then determines the hit or miss based on comparing that to the relative position of the opponent from the server's point of view).  However, I can understand that this would be tricky to impliment when you've got opponents moving at relative closure rates that sometimes exceed 1000mph...

None-the-less...If the projectile code exisits in the client then you risk tampering.

For instance, I have always wondered if some people might have figured out a way to enable the training arena red bomb cross (the one that shows where exactly the bomb is going to hit) in the MA... This would explain some dive bombers who never miss.  And now, it seems that maybe someone could do that based on the knowledge that the decision is in the client FE?

[Karnak]

Boy, I've collided more in this thread than I have in AH in the last two years.


2bighorn,

Sorry, but that doesn't fly.  You can easily believe that you just misjudged his firing solution and accept the results.  There is no way to accept that I am flying along and the guy who dives through a spot 200 yards behind me has collided with me and killed me.  That breaks immersion too much.

Further, as I have said in this thread already and many before it, that leaves open a massive exploit and if you think that people who happily dive-bomb in Lancs and kamikaze in P-51 won't be able to do the simple math that a mutual kill cost them one minute and me ten minutes is a ten to one win on their part you're in a utopia.