Author Topic: Collisions (Read 7305 times)

Lusche · « **Reply #135 on:** March 13, 2007, 01:01:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by jaxxo
When i flew on sattelite connection I won about 90 percent of all my collisions without taking any damage. /B]

You did fly away unharmed when getting the "YOU have collided" message 90% of the time? Show us the films...

Till that day I say: Complete nonsense!

And once again: The lag is the combined TOTAL lag of both you and your opponent. As the HTC server does not decide anything, you gain or lose nothing from having a bigger lag. If I have a lag of 80 and you have one of 500, the total lag is 580 and it's the same for both of us, and we both have to deal with it's implications in exactly the same way.

Gunthr · « **Reply #136 on:** March 13, 2007, 01:23:02 PM »

I was accused of ramming. Is there such a thing - where your opponant is damaged but you are not? I was flying an A6M2 against a Hurri. we had what looked like a close call on my end. I received a message; "CoorsLT collided with you." or some such. He went down, I got a kill.

He re-upped, and flew back to me and said, "Here I come, just don't ram me this time."

This irked me because a) it implies that I intentionally hit his airplane with mine, which I did not, and b) I didn't hit his plane AT ALL from what I saw on my end.

This is not the first time I've heard this accusation bandied about the arenas.

The only manuver anything like this that I've seen is the case where one aircraft gets ahead of another and chops throttle and dirties up causing the following enemy to collide with the one in front, taking damage while the one in front dives away unhurt.

Simaril · « **Reply #137 on:** March 13, 2007, 02:36:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Connery
...
My point is in flight if there was an air to air collision there would be 2 parties involved....

snip

Jaxxo, you voiced similar concerns. I can see where you guys are coming from, but consider these points:

1) In an AH collision, two "bodies" ARE involved. One is your plane, and the other is a game generated image of an aircraft, whose AI is being provided by an opponent human hundreds of miles away

The entire game you play is on YOUR computer, and YOU are in control of events.

Now, on YOUR computer, when YOU collide you have done so by hitting the plane YOU see on your front end. That is your "reality", and the outcomes you see are entirely determined by what happens on your machine. And yes, when you collide you have done so by hitting another object. Two planes have collided.

2) Due to distances involved, we can't have both front ends see the same thing. The question is -- how can we best deal with this reality, with least impact on game play, realism, and fun?

A)Both planes die. For reasons outlined well above, this would truly suck. Your death would be determined by the behavior of others, for one thing. Even if you played the situation exactly right, and say were lining up for the kill shot, the enemy could kamikaze and make sure you went with him. It MIGHT be realistic if we had only one life, and their was a cost to dying, but it wouldnt be fun at all. {b]net effect[/b] - worsened gameplay, with punishment inflicted on those with ACM and gmaeplay rewards for dweeby behavior.

B) Neither plane dies. SOunds attractive at first, but the gameplay effects would be horrendous. Since there'd be no penalty for colliding, unrealistic flight paths would be positivelyh rewarded. You think HO's are bad now? What do you think theyd be like if you couldnt hit the other plane at all? The game would be dramatically more arcade like, and less realistic, because the disincentive for getting too close would be gone.

C) Only the collider takes damage That's what we have now.

Of those 3 choices, I like what we have the best, by far. (Almost) all collisions are under my control -- what I do determines if I hit or not. Yeah, I can be an innocent bomber and find an enemy zooming into me -- like that didnt happen in real life?

In general though, iits simple: if I don't allow enough safe distance for the other idiots on the road to do their stupid stuff, then I risk colliding. If I do, then I'm fine.

Can you honestly say that the alternatives would give players incentives to play better than th current system?

Simaril · « **Reply #138 on:** March 13, 2007, 02:43:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunthr
I was accused of ramming. Is there such a thing - where your opponant is damaged but you are not? I was flying an A6M2 against a Hurri. we had what looked like a close call on my end. I received a message; "CoorsLT collided with you." or some such. He went down, I got a kill.
....

A while back, a couple vets went to DA to try this -- "Make me run into you, force me to RAM."

Turns out its impossible, unless you're flying pure 180 degree courses.

So, if someone collides with you, it was entirely his fault. Period.

Bronk · « **Reply #139 on:** March 13, 2007, 03:18:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Connery
Bronk I do understand totally how it works. Thanks thought for the pictures.

My point is in flight if there was an air to air collision there would be 2 parties involved.

In game this obviously cannot be simulated due many variables including connection speed etc. Therefore why bother using a collision model in the first place ??

Why do we wave a collision model ?

So you can't fly though a plane firing guns.

How would you feel if you were a buff driver?
I could take a 262 fly 500 mph slash attacks through your buffs, without a care of running into them.
No worries of convergence , don't have to lead the target. Just wait till I'm inside and squeeze the trigger.

That's just the beginning of the chaos that would ensue.

Bronk

ozrocker · « **Reply #140 on:** March 13, 2007, 04:05:24 PM »

I've been in a few collision. Both of us turning, flapping, throttling our arses off. Both pilots make turn- collision message.
I've been run into on purpose, when a base was being taken, the defender was out of bullets, so he crashed into me for defense of the base.

It happened in reality, it's also part of the game.

Oz

E25280 · « **Reply #141 on:** March 13, 2007, 04:06:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by jaxxo
"The whole "both should take damage if one sees it" people show me that they don't understand how colllisions work in AH. If HTC did that (shudder) it would be utter chaos."

I think the biggest problem is the collision model itself...not that people cant understand it. The fact that you defenders of it "get it" is meaningless...its garbage. When i flew on sattelite connection I won about 90 percent of all my collisions without taking any damage. This pretty much gave me alot of freedom in my ACM"S knowing that i would rarely lose a collision.

No, I still don't think you are quite grasping it. With a crappy connection, where you view yourself and where others view you are farther apart than those with faster connections. HiTech once described it as each plane dragging a target on a rope. You see your own plane, but everyone else's targets. They see your target, not your actual plane. The length of the rope is determined by the combined lag / ping time. So a crappy connection means a longer rope. A faster connection time means a shorter rope.

What this means is, mutual collisions are more difficult one player has a large lag time. If both players have short lag times, mutual collisions are more likely.

Your perception of "winning" 90% of the collisions just means you were keeping your distance from their target (as you should), and they did not. So you were getting the "opponent has collided with you" message, they were taking damage. Your PC did not perceive the collision, so you did not collide, and did not take damage.

If you really are trying to claim you were actually flying through enemy planes without taking damage, then, sorry, I have to be with Lusche and Bronk and say, post a film and prove it. Otherwise I have to say your perception was wrong.

Connery · « **Reply #142 on:** March 13, 2007, 04:38:09 PM »

I have already made my feelings clear on the subject, as I said I don't really have a problem per say with the collision model.

I am just bringing up arguments which I feel are valid.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion you know.

For me this thread is closed

TinmanX · « **Reply #143 on:** March 14, 2007, 01:55:03 AM »

I spent an hour or so in the DA with Kev many months ago, we were trying to ram each other. It's really, really hard to deliberately ram someone. Anyone who says "You rammed me on purpose" is a fool. Sure it's annoying and a sad way to end a flight but accidents happen.

Bronk · « **Reply #144 on:** March 14, 2007, 08:09:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Connery
I have already made my feelings clear on the subject, as I said I don't really have a problem per say with the collision model.

I am just bringing up arguments which I feel are valid.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion you know.

For me this thread is closed

IMO
Basing your opinion on feeling, rather than a logical solution to a problem is silly.

You do have a problem with the collision model.
You want the AC you run into on your front end to take damage.
Even if on his he avoided and was not near you.

Why can't people get it, each person has their own little reality of AH.
You have to fight to what is presented to you.

Due to the speed constraints of electronic signals, I can't fight to what you see.

Bronk

Cyg · « **Reply #145 on:** March 14, 2007, 10:16:52 AM »

Just curious...does the "Ammunition Collision" model work the same way?

hubsonfire · « **Reply #146 on:** March 14, 2007, 10:30:48 AM »

Do you mean the gunnery model?

Bronk · « **Reply #147 on:** March 14, 2007, 11:09:31 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Cyg
Just curious...does the "Ammunition Collision" model work the same way?

IIRC
If you get hit sprites on an AC. That info is sent to the enemy. His front end then determines damage. Say damage is the equivalent of his wing being shot off.
The enemy's wing falls off on his front end, that info is sent to you.
Your front end then displays his wing falling away.

Taking damage from a collision is all done on your front end.
You collide.
Damage is tabulated.
Your wing falls off
PM is sent to the person you collided with.
He watches your wing fall off.

Bronk

Bucky73 · « **Reply #148 on:** March 14, 2007, 11:30:51 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by TinmanX
I spent an hour or so in the DA with Kev many months ago, we were trying to ram each other. It's really, really hard to deliberately ram someone. Anyone who says "You rammed me on purpose" is a fool. Sure it's annoying and a sad way to end a flight but accidents happen.

Very true....If someone can steer their "plane" into yours then they sure as hell can get their gunsites on you.

If someone says "you rammed me"....Consider it a compliment because it is extremely hard to ram on purpose.

hubsonfire · « **Reply #149 on:** March 14, 2007, 12:02:24 PM »

It seems to be a lot easier to just shoot the other guy. I wind up in a lot of collisions (poor SA, drunk, HOing noobs in a furball, etc etc), and it doesn't seem all that easy to induce one and fly off without getting shot in the process (or colliding on your FE). I think all that "he rammed me on purpose" stuff is easily attributed to people misunderstanding the messages.