Mid-air collisions

[Karnak]

Originally posted by dedalos
Where is the 250ms coming from then?  Unless you are talking about processing time at the server being so small that it does not effect lag.  The server is sending every 250ms right?

No.

Lag is not fixed at 250ms, it is entirely based on the two player's combined lag.  If I were playing with somebody who had an identical connection to myself I would typically have 140-160ms of lag.  If I were playing with somebody from Australia it would be more like 500-750ms of lag.

Data flows through the internet at 40-60% of the speed of light.  That is where it comes from.

[hitech]

The rate at which packets are sent has nothing to do with lag. In close range planes are updated 4 times a second.

HiTech

[Spatula]

Originally posted by Karnak
If I were playing with somebody from Australia it would be more like 500-750ms of lag.
 

Its not that much from Aussie. Im from NZ, which should be similar if not slightly worse for packet latency, and i get 240-260 ms pings on DSL. Dialup would be closer to 350 or so.

[dedalos]

Originally posted by hitech
The rate at which packets are sent has nothing to do with lag. In close range planes are updated 4 times a second.

HiTech

Cool, thats what I thought.

Thank you

[dedalos]

Originally posted by Karnak
No.

Lag is not fixed at 250ms, it is entirely based on the two player's combined lag.  If I were playing with somebody who had an identical connection to myself I would typically have 140-160ms of lag.  If I were playing with somebody from Australia it would be more like 500-750ms of lag.

Data flows through the internet at 40-60% of the speed of light.  That is where it comes from.

I think you are missing the point here.  I refer to lag as the how old the information you are seeing is.  It is at minimum 250ms old + your ping time.  I think HT designed it this way so that it is an even playing field for people with modems, DSL, Europe, US, etc.

You are talking about ping times.

[hitech]

You mis understand, 0 ping time - 0 lag, not min 250 ms

[baine1]

Originally posted by Lusche
The contrary is right: The current collision model is as easy as one can ever be. Collision on your screen - you take damage. Simple & as fair as any collision model can get. Most people actually understand it quite easily how & why it works. The long and repetitve collision threads do only happen because some people just do not get it for various reasons, more often than not because they do not want to.

And do you REALLY think that a "both go down" would be easier to explain:



Now how would you explain to that P-47 driver that he went down due to a collision????

Post a film of two planes head-oning _ the more common of the collision scenarios and the one that prompts a lot of these threads _ and then the question becomes how do you explain that both planes did not go down or at least take damage?
(and yes, I do think that a "both go down" explanation would be easier to explain. Three simple words instead of lenghty posts, accompanied by films and diagrams, trying to explain something that - given the number of repetitive posts on this board on the subject - is either poorly understood or considered unfair by quite a number of players. )

[baine1]

Originally posted by Ghastly
What's that sound???  Oh, I know.  It's the wind whistling through the ghost town of an arena that has only a single player in it - because everyone else gave up in disgust because they would dump their whole ammo load into other aircraft and it would fly away untouched (because they couldn't guess how far they had to shoot in front of where they see it on their screen to cause the bullets to intersect with the other guys plane on his screen) and because in Baines world, colliding with another aircraft is the only way to kill it.

Sarcasm is easy, but it doesn't answer the question, which is: Does the same logic apply to bullet damage as it does to collision damage? I don't know the answer and was hoping for a real explanation.
If it is the same in both cases, cool.
If not, why is one model OK for shooting but not for collisions? Either pilots are only responsible for damage that their computer sees, or they are not.
And if it is fair in one case, it is fair in both. If, however, it is unfair in one case, then it's unfair in both.
That seems about as simple as can be.

[Lusche]

Originally posted by baine1
and yes, I do think that a "both go down" explanation would be easier to explain. Three simple words instead of lenghty posts, accompanied by films and diagrams, trying to explain something that - given the number of repetitive posts on this board on the subject - is either poorly understood or considered unfair by quite a number of players.

You are wrong. Plain & simply wrong.

"Collission on YOUR screen = you take damage" is alot easier to grasp and to explain than "Yes, there was no collision on your side but his HIS screen, so you died".
It's much less rationale, even posting pics wouldn't help people understand.
And more important, it would be LESS fair: You can't dodge rams anymore. If "both go down" it would be first time that rams actualy would unfailingly work. Especially as the rammed player doesn't have a chance to doge a ram he never saw...

Originally posted by baine1
If not, why is one model OK for shooting but not for collisions?

Because they are different things...

If I would have to hit my enemy on HIS FE, this game wouldn't work anymore. I couldn't hit nobody, you couldn't hit me.

[hitech]

Yes bullets work the same way and are collided only 1 one  computer.