Author Topic: Why the collision model works. (Read 1709 times)

Clifra Jones · « **Reply #30 on:** January 16, 2007, 12:03:46 PM »

Nice try Bronk, but I'm convinced any effort to clearify this issue is a complete waste of time.

The message "You have collided" is all the information they need to know.

Benny Moore · « **Reply #31 on:** January 16, 2007, 12:04:23 PM »

This thread is proof that stupid people don't want to be made un-stupid.

hitech · « **Reply #32 on:** January 16, 2007, 12:39:58 PM »

<-- BaldEagl Look closely to the left of this post. And Sudz is my only other coder.

And BaldEagl, to assure you I know a thing or 2 about latency.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6042477.html

HiTech

Kweassa · « **Reply #33 on:** January 16, 2007, 12:47:03 PM »

Quote

If two planes collide, they both take damage... what does fault have to do with it?

Because, for about the zillionth frustrating time explained, the two planes didn't collide in the other guy's PC. The instance happened only on your PC, so you are the only one who is suffering from it.

BaldEagl · « **Reply #34 on:** January 16, 2007, 12:50:27 PM »

OK, my posts of last night were made in the heat of having just been killed through collisions twice so first my appologies to HT and staff. You've all done a fine job and I know I'm not the only one who appreciates your efforts.

I understand Internet lag. Relative to the collision model it has far greater effect in a HO though than in any other type of collision. It has to given the relative closing speeds.

I stand my my assertion that if your front end hits you will either die or lose your plane. I'm not sure about other parts hitting (wing to wing, etc.).

If a plane, even a bomber, is missing a wing it still has rudder, elevators, one aileron and one flap. If all you have to do is guide it slightly (a few feet) it can be accomplished. Is that what this person did? Probably not but it seemed like it to me at the time. No way to prove it either way. Was flying under a mistake? Evidently yes although I've done it 100's of times successfully.

Was I tailgating the fighters? I was 200 on their sixes both times in a slight turn pulling for lead when they pulled back into my nose. Was it my fault? I suppose you can say that although 200-300 yard close combat is what most of us try to achieve, at least in a furball which was the case both times. Pulling for lead meant I couldn't see them very well under my nose until they pulled across which was too late for me to get out of the way (yes, an unavoidable collision at that point). Did they do it on purpose? No way to tell but I do believe that move can be repeated with the same results in a similar situation.

Anyway, I knew I'd get a rise out of you all. Did the target on my tail get any bigger?

Bronk · « **Reply #35 on:** January 16, 2007, 12:52:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
<-- BaldEagl Look closely to the left of this post. And Sudz is my only other coder.

And BaldEagl, to assure you I know a thing or 2 about latency.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6042477.html

HiTech

That there is a grade A PWN!!!!!!!!1111111111!!!11.

Bronk

Kweassa · « **Reply #36 on:** January 16, 2007, 01:19:50 PM »

Quote

Was I tailgating the fighters? I was 200 on their sixes both times in a slight turn pulling for lead when they pulled back into my nose. Was it my fault? I suppose you can say that although 200-300 yard close combat is what most of us try to achieve, at least in a furball which was the case both times.

And with every fight that puts you so close to the enemy, there is always a danger of a collision happening. So when such a thing happens is it something one should be angry or upset about? Most definately not. One knows the danger of such things. Nobody forced one into that situation.

In that aspect collision is a natural thing to happen. Sooner or later, even to the best of us it will happen. A mistake in judgement... a slip of the stick.. wrong throttle setting.. and then bam! it happens.

And when that happens, I don't know about you, but my reaction sure wouldn't be accusing the other guy that it was intentional... because believe me, I was a dweeb once. Every single one of us was a n00b and dweeb before we learned about the real fun in aerial combat. We've all tried to collide into the other guy in desperation.

Guess what - it doesn't work. If somebody thinks he can do an intentional ramming that damages only my plane and not his, during the heat of comabt where both parties are maneuvering to an extent, I'd like to see him try.

Quote

Pulling for lead meant I couldn't see them very well under my nose until they pulled across which was too late for me to get out of the way (yes, an unavoidable collision at that point).

You could have always delayed the shot and maneuvered some more until you were 100% latched behind his six at a close distance where no amount of maneuvering would immediately direct him outside the perimeters of your gunsight. Instead, you took the opportuntiy to fire a high angle blind-lead shot, which has its own risks.

It wasn't unavoidable,

Quote

Did they do it on purpose? No way to tell but I do believe that move can be repeated with the same results in a similar situation.

So that's settled then.

Come back with film proof.

Mustaine · « **Reply #37 on:** January 16, 2007, 01:22:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
<-- BaldEagl Look closely to the left of this post. And Sudz is my only other coder.

And BaldEagl, to assure you I know a thing or 2 about latency.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6042477.html

HiTech

TOTALLY off topic, sorry, but are you now allowed to speak of that incident regarding this or some other patent from a year or 2 ago? I am hoping all went well for HTC Inc.

mussie · « **Reply #38 on:** January 16, 2007, 01:48:11 PM »

I think I know how to fix this....

Simply remove the collision message from the FE that did not collied....

Is it to simple to be effective... ?

EDIT: Not fix.... More reduce the confusion on the subject

SlapShot · « **Reply #39 on:** January 16, 2007, 01:59:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SteveBailey
If two planes collide, they both take damage... what does fault have to do with it?

This is the fault that I was referring to ...

Quote

Originally posted by SteveBailey
The collision model may be the best it can be under the circumstances but I find fault with the following scenario and it happened to me just tonight.

If two planes collide, they both take damage

So very true ... but in your case ... only one collided ... and it was you that collide with him on your FE.

His FE did not register a collision ... so because you collided with him, he should lose a wing ?

I sure wouldn't like that outcome and I don't think you would either.

SlapShot · « **Reply #40 on:** January 16, 2007, 02:08:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa
Because, for about the zillionth frustrating time explained, the two planes didn't collide in the other guy's PC. The instance happened only on your PC, so you are the only one who is suffering from it.

I know I asked the question, but it was rhetorical.

I clearly understand the collision logic and have no problem with it.

mussie · « **Reply #41 on:** January 16, 2007, 02:08:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SlapShot
and it was you that collide with him on your FE.

By this Slapshot means that on your computer the two planes collided.

it does not matter if it was
- on purpose
(like the time I rammed a buff cause my guns were dry, only new, did not realise that it was pointless)

- by accident
(like the time I dived on a spitty in my P-47 only to compress and clip him)

BaldEagl · « **Reply #42 on:** January 16, 2007, 02:08:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
<-- BaldEagl Look closely to the left of this post. And Sudz is my only other coder.

And BaldEagl, to assure you I know a thing or 2 about latency.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6042477.html

HiTech

HT, I've already appologized, I'll do it again.

Very interesting link BTW. I didn't get a chance to read the whole thing trough but got the gist of it. I'll have a closer look when I'm not at work.

Could you please settle the speculation as to when/how damage occurs absent the lag issue?

Bronk · « **Reply #43 on:** January 16, 2007, 02:12:30 PM »

Damage occurs when your front end detects your AC is in the same space as another. Period, end of story. Nothing to speculate about.

Bronk

BaldEagl · « **Reply #44 on:** January 16, 2007, 02:20:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa
but my reaction sure wouldn't be accusing the other guy that it was intentional...

I never did directly accuse any of these people. Maybe had I done so on 200 I wouldn't have gotten so hot when I opened the BBs and saw this thread but I've only whined on 200 twice in the six years I've been here. I was just so frustrated!

In any case it seems I've suffered from a series of bad judgements.

I'll just shut up and go quietly away now.