Author Topic: collision question (Read 1067 times)

Trip01 · « **on:** September 15, 2007, 08:51:05 AM »

If a collision occurs, how does the game decide who has collided with whom?

I ask this because yesterday I was closing on an nme from his 6 at a high closing speed, opened up, saw a few hits, pulled up hard to avoid the collision and blacked out. I didn't actually see a collision because my screen was black, but apparently I pulled away too late because as the screen came back I got a message 'so-and-so has collided with you'. He died, I suffered no damage.

Considering the nme was totally unaware of what was going on and was not maneuvering this seems a bit harsh on the poor chap. If there was a collision it could only have been my fault. So, what is the criteria the game uses to decide?

Trip

Max · « **Reply #1 on:** September 15, 2007, 08:56:44 AM »

http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24244&highlight=collisions

Lusche · « **Reply #2 on:** September 15, 2007, 08:59:31 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Trip01
If a collision occurs, how does the game decide who has collided with whom?

The game does not decide.

First thing to take into consideration:

Due to lag (data needs some time to travel between your and your enemies computer) there are two realities. One on his and one on your computer. What you see is therefore not exactly what he does see. Plane positions can differ on your and his screen.

So while, for example, on YOUR computer there was a collision, on HIS computer there might not have been one.

So what you see is what you get:
If there is a collision on your screen, you will get damage.
If there is a collision on HIS screen, he will get damage.
If there is a collision on BOTH screens, both get damage.

BTW, there are two popular but really stupid proposals regarding collisions:

1) "Both should get damage! They do in reality!"

That would result in getting damage from a collision from with an enemy that might even have missed you by 200ft on your screen. There would be no way to dodge any ram attempt.

2) "So get rid of collisions anyway!"

Short answer: Just watch where you're flying and you'll be fine.
Long answer: Nobody would have to maneuver anymore. No risk of collsions mean you can fly guns blazing through enemy buffs. Highly detrimental to gameplay.

FBplmmr · « **Reply #3 on:** September 15, 2007, 09:34:47 AM »

The game does not care whose fault it is.

If a palm tree falls on my car while I'm playing the car still takes damage.

Bronk · « **Reply #4 on:** September 15, 2007, 09:37:04 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Trip01
If a collision occurs, how does the game decide who has collided with whom?

I ask this because yesterday I was closing on an nme from his 6 at a high closing speed, opened up, saw a few hits, pulled up hard to avoid the collision and blacked out. I didn't actually see a collision because my screen was black, but apparently I pulled away too late because as the screen came back I got a message 'so-and-so has collided with you'. He died, I suffered no damage.

Considering the nme was totally unaware of what was going on and was not maneuvering this seems a bit harsh on the poor chap. If there was a collision it could only have been my fault. So, what is the criteria the game uses to decide?

Trip

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Quote

Originally posted by Bronk
Slappy, it's my personal windmill.

Tangle's external from his front end the moment of impact.

Same basic angle external, tangle's view from my front end moment of impact.

How would you feel taking damage looking at your film and seeing tangles front end view, hmmmmmm?

I know I'd be pretty POed.

Bronk

Edit: This also works nicely for the "none should take damage" people.

Yea I should be able to put the nose of my ac through another.

Bronk

Jnuk · « **Reply #5 on:** September 15, 2007, 10:07:18 AM »

we should just ask for a sticky of bronks explanation

xtyger · « **Reply #6 on:** September 15, 2007, 11:23:02 AM »

What gets me is when people accuse me of deliberately ramming them. I've never deliberately rammed anyone. Why would I? Seems like 9 times out of 10 I end up the loser in a collision.

Even as mentioned above when the con is 800 to 1000 out, I'll fire a burst as we close and pull up to avoid collision at what I think is 400 to 600m. I still end up colliding, I guess because of the lag.

Yet a few opponents will IM me and say I deliberately rammed them.

I didn't and never have, guys and gals!

BaldEagl · « **Reply #7 on:** September 15, 2007, 11:52:14 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bronk
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Bronk

Hey... I thought you said ONE more time in that other forum.

Bronk · « **Reply #8 on:** September 15, 2007, 12:23:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BaldEagl
Hey... I thought you said ONE more time in that other forum.

It's a conditioned response.

Bronk

Karnak · « **Reply #9 on:** September 15, 2007, 01:08:48 PM »

Trip01, you successfully avoided the collision is why you took no damage. On your FE, by however narrow a margin, you did not collide.

Due to lag, his FE probably saw you pull up too late and as he did not manuever out of the way, collided.

Not your fault, his fault.

E25280 · « **Reply #10 on:** September 15, 2007, 03:58:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bronk
It's a conditioned response.

Bronk

Kind of like Don Quixote and his windmills. . .

Donzo · « **Reply #11 on:** September 15, 2007, 04:53:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bronk
It's a conditioned response.

Bronk

Kinda like "2 weeks"

Trip01 · « **Reply #12 on:** September 15, 2007, 08:17:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Trip01, you successfully avoided the collision is why you took no damage. On your FE, by however narrow a margin, you did not collide.

Due to lag, his FE probably saw you pull up too late and as he did not manuever out of the way, collided.

Not your fault, his fault.

It makes perfect sense that the FE should decide whether there has been a collision from the point of view of that FE. I have no issue with that as a general principal.

However if I'm approaching an nme from his 6 network lag will mean his FE sees me a bit behind where my FE sees me and my FE sees him a bit behind where his FE sees him. In other words my FE should show us being closer together than his does.

Bronk's response actually shows the situation as you would expect: the player in front sees a greater separation than the player behind. But what I described is apparently the opposite. No doubt this observation will elicit another 'grrr'.

I'm not complaining, I'm just curious.

Trip

hubsonfire · « **Reply #13 on:** September 15, 2007, 08:32:40 PM »

Actually what you described was not seeing it due to blackout.

E25280 · « **Reply #14 on:** September 15, 2007, 08:57:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Trip01
Bronk's response actually shows the situation as you would expect: the player in front sees a greater separation than the player behind. But what I described is apparently the opposite.

Not necessarily. You always perceive the other player "behind" where he perceives himself due to lag. In essence (as HiTech once described it), you are seeing a shadow of his plane towed on a rope. The length of that rope is equal to the internet lag he is experiencing.

I believe the missing piece here is that there is a time displacement as well as a spacial displacement. That is, your movements are a perceived a little bit later due to the lag as well.

So, what likely happened is that you pulled up just in the nick of time. But, due to lag, his system perceived you flying in a straight line just a half second longer -- long enough for your "shadow" to hit him.

Aces High Bulletin Board