collied

[dedalos]

I understand the situation you propose and why that is an 'unfair collision", but I think it would be far worse if A plane could fly through another when firing at it. Killin bombers would become very easy if you didn't need to avoid the formation when attacking. I've had to change tactics when attacking bombers. The slow overtake from behind will almost sertainly get you killed if the gunner can shoot at all. So Now I climb past and slash through and past them at high speed to make myself a harder target to hit for the gunners. If there were no collisions, I could attack from the side and pass through all three while firing and kill them all with one pass. That seems like a worse problem fo rthe game than the type of collisions you describe.

would have to agree with Karnak on this one 

 agreed on the bombers and the flying through firing.  However, keep in mind that if you shoot from too close and collisions are off, kill shooter from your own fire will get you.  I just don't think having them on does anything for the game.

[Karnak]

agreed on the bombers and the flying through firing.  However, keep in mind that if you shoot from too close and collisions are off, kill shooter from your own fire will get you.  I just don't think having them on does anything for the game.

That is only true of explosive rounds as it isn't kill shooter getting you, it is the explosions from your cannon shells.  You could fly through with .50 cals blazing the whole way and never get hurt.  With cannon birds you'd need to stop firing just before you reached the bomber.

Keep in mind as well, that the same things can be done to fighters, just at a bit more difficulty due to size and maneuvering.

[hitech]

The P-47 (that never saw his attacker) did fly away unscathed. The P-51 that ran into it from behind went down.

Ouch, I thought it was the 47 that went down

And hence it is obvious why people must keep explaining, because if you really did understand the problem, there would be no doubt in your mind who suffered the collision. Unless of course you thought that both planes were flying backwards.

HiTech

[dedalos]

Ouch, I thought it was the 47 that went down



And hence it is obvious why people must keep explaining, because if you really did understand the problem, there would be no doubt in your mind who suffered the collision. Unless of course you thought that both planes were flying backwards.

HiTech

Ahhh yeah, I make one mistake and everything I said becomes wrong lol  .  What makes you think I don't understand the problem?  I just don't think collisions buy us anything. 

[grizz441]

How can I "cause" a collision when I am fighting another con He comes up from behind me and hits me. Seeing it happen on my end and Causeing it are two different things.

The aircraft performing the offensive move 'causes' the collision, whether it be on his end, or your end.  But it's not his fault if only you see it.  It becomes luck when two aircraft maneuver so close to one another on which is going to see a collision.  The only way to counter it is by seeing it coming and avoiding it.

[DREDIOCK]

Allow me to elaborate:

If you only get a collision result if both collide on their screens, a collision occurs only when there is only a small difference between both "realities".
The amount of difference is a result of lag. Or more precicely: Total lag, which is more or less the sum of both players lag.


A simplified example:

Assume US players have 30ms lag, European players 150ms lag.

So if two US players fight, total lag = 60ms. Reltaive small difference between Front Ends, high risk of mutual collision

If one US player fights one European, total lag = 180ms. Much bigger difference, much smaller risk of mutual collision.

Two European players: Total Lag = 300ms
Very big difference between both Front Ends. Very small risk of mutual collision.

Now note that only a US player would have at one point a high collision risk - when he's fighting a countryman. A Euro player does not have the same risk, as in all of his fights there will be a relatively high total lag.

Ok. Makes sense now. I knew it had something to do with lag. But didnt know the lag times could be so great a difference.



OK Someone commandeer teh intardnet and fix that.

Just boot any non players off 

[Karnak]

What makes you think I don't understand the problem?  I just don't think collisions buy us anything. 

The fact that you don't think they buy us anything tells me you don't understand the problem.

[hitech]

What makes you think I don't understand the problem?

Because if you understand lag, then you would have known that when in a tail chase , it is impossible for the front person to collide do to lag.

I just don't think collisions buy us anything.  

agreed on the bombers and the flying through firing.

And now you are contradicting yourself. Because you have already agreed that sno collisions would create a problem of firing as you go threw bombers. But you say it does not does contribute anything good.

HiTech


HiTech

[Sonicblu]

Ok ill just go fly. I don't understand nor do I have to, to enjoy the game. all

[dedalos]

Because if you understand lag, then you would have known that when in a tail chase , it is impossible for the front person to collide do to lag.

And now you are contradicting yourself. Because you have already agreed that sno collisions would create a problem of firing as you go threw bombers. But you say it does not does contribute anything good.

HiTech


HiTech

lol, I just took a quick look at the images thinking it was a case of the BnZer flying under the plane and then pulling up causing the 47 to go down (that could happen right?).  I can teach you a few things on net-lag if you like (15 years of writing and designing trading software have given me a little more experience than just pulsing every 250ms lol) .  This is not about net lag.  It is about do we need this future or not.  If you or others think we do, it does not mean that the people that think the opposite have a luck of understanding of net lag. I understand it is your decision, and if the answer is it stays on because that is how you want it, then I have no argument.  If the argument is that it stays on because it is good for the game then I 'd like to hear what that is.

I am not contradicting my self at all.  If you read my posts you will see why I think it does not add anything.  I ll write it one more time though.  The reason it does not is because the guys that are not afraid to meet your guns head on, are not afraid about a collision anyway.  Nothing is absolute, I know, so it may be helping bombers in some situations.  However, it creates problems on others (like after you kill the lead bomber or if you fly across someones nose).  That is why I said we need to weigh the positives and negatives of this future.

See, the understanding of net lag is irrelevant to this conversation and it is only used to discredit and disregard opinions of people that don't see value in that future. 

[Vinkman]

lol, I just took a quick look at the images thinking it was a case of the BnZer flying under the plane and then pulling up causing the 47 to go down (that could happen right?).  I can teach you a few things on net-lag if you like (15 years of writing and designing trading software have given me a little more experience than just pulsing every 250ms lol) .  This is not about net lag.  It is about do we need this future or not.  If you or others think we do, it does not mean that the people that think the opposite have a luck of understanding of net lag. I understand it is your decision, and if the answer is it stays on because that is how you want it, then I have no argument.  If the argument is that it stays on because it is good for the game then I 'd like to hear what that is.

I am not contradicting my self at all.  If you read my posts you will see why I think it does not add anything.  I ll write it one more time though.  The reason it does not is because the guys that are not afraid to meet your guns head on, are not afraid about a collision anyway.  Nothing is absolute, I know, so it may be helping bombers in some situations.  However, it creates problems on others (like after you kill the lead bomber or if you fly across someones nose).  That is why I said we need to weigh the positives and negatives of this future.

See, the understanding of net lag is irrelevant to this conversation and it is only used to discredit and disregard opinions of people that don't see value in that future. 

The attempts to explain lag are to address the idea that Single-Plane collisions are an injustice created by choice by HiTech. That lag 'exists' is not the explanation or the answer, but rather what choices HiTech has made to include a collition model that is as fair as possible. Is the amount of "un-fairness" remaining in how HiTech models collisions worse than not having collisions at all?

Let's examine some alternatives...

It's true that if your FE desides you collided, it could send a hit packet to the opponents front end that damages his plane too. But I think most feel that more un-fair to the pilot that never saw a collision, and more confusing.

Current scenario:
I see a collison. My plane is broken. Hey wait...how come his plane isn't broken...that's not fair!

Alternate Scenario:

I don't see a collision. My Plane is Broken. What the Hell?!!  I never hit anything!! That's Bull Blah blah blah blah.

Alternate Scenario 2:

Planes Fly through each other. Every HO is blamed on the fact that there are no collisions. The ACM is this game is completely different from real life because there's no collisions. This game is no real. Blah Blah blah


I vote for the current scenario.

there may be others that are better...perhaps you can post and discuss.

[dedalos]

The attempts to explain lag are to address the idea that Single-Plane collisions are an injustice created by choice by HiTech. That lag 'exists' is not the explanation or the answer, but rather what choices HiTech has made to include a collition model that is as fair as possible. Is the amount of "un-fairness" remaining in how HiTech models collisions worse than not having collisions at all?

Let's examine some alternatives...

It's true that if your FE desides you collided, it could send a hit packet to the opponents front end that damages his plane too. But I think most feel that more un-fair to the pilot that never saw a collision, and more confusing.

Current scenario:
I see a collison. My plane is broken. Hey wait...how come his plane isn't broken...that's not fair!

Alternate Scenario:

I don't see a collision. My Plane is Broken. What the Hell?!!  I never hit anything!! That's Bull Blah blah blah blah.

Alternate Scenario 2:

Planes Fly through each other. Every HO is blamed on the fact that there are no collisions. The ACM is this game is completely different from real life because there's no collisions. This game is no real. Blah Blah blah


I vote for the current scenario.

there may be others that are better...perhaps you can post and discuss.

Scenario 3:
I am in a fight with someone else, p51 dives in for the kill, overshoots, I get collision message even though I never saw the guy coming and he did manage to avoid me.  I understand that my FE did see the collision and it was me the person that didn't because I was bz dealing with another threat, but what was the benefit provided to game play from that?

Scenario 4:
I am in a bomber, guy makes an intentional pass in front of my nose.  I explode, he flies away laughing.  Benefit to the game play?

Unfortunately, I don't have a better solution other than to turn them off.  Again, I base my opinion in 6 years of playing this game.  From my experience, it does not prevent people from flying through you anyway.  I am not saying that everyone does that.  The people that don't do it are not doing it because of the way they choose to play the game (looking for a realistic experience, dog fights, furballing, winning the war, survivalists, playing for score, etc).  Those guys would not do it anyway (collisions or not)

Really, all we accomplish with collisions on is that instead if flying through you, the guy has to fly in front of you.

[AWwrgwy]

Scenario 3:
I am in a fight with someone else, p51 dives in for the kill, overshoots, I get collision message even though I never saw the guy coming and he did manage to avoid me.  I understand that my FE did see the collision and it was me the person that didn't because I was bz dealing with another threat, but what was the benefit provided to game play from that?

You saw the guy coming.  You saw the guy collide with you.  Problem?  On his front end, he didn't see himself collide with anything.

Scenario 4:
I am in a bomber, guy makes an intentional pass in front of my nose.  I explode, he flies away laughing.  Benefit to the game play?

He probably shot you in the cockpit.  You saw him collide with you as well.  Problem?
[/quote]


wrongway

[dedalos]

You saw the guy coming.  You saw the guy collide with you.  Problem?  On his front end, he didn't see himself collide with anything.

He probably shot you in the cockpit.  You saw him collide with you as well.  Problem?



wrongway

That is what I said on the first point.  What was the benefit we all got out of that?

On the second, he did not shoot me.  He intentionally caused a collision.  Benefit to game play?  Problem?  Yeah, what is a formation of bombers supposed to do about it?  I can demonstrate if you like.

But, I can see it is pointless to continue arguing.

[RTHolmes]

there are really only 3 options for modelling collisions:

1. No collisions
Pros: no more moaning from people who dont understand the concept of latency or of the dual FE required to deal with this inevitable consequence of network gaming.
Cons: removes a critical element of simulating RL dogfighting, allows tactics which would be impossible in RL, promotes more sustained HOing as there is no need to break before collision.

2. Any collision effects both aircraft
Pros: no more moaning from people who dont understand the concept of latency or of the dual FE required to deal with this inevitable consequence of network gaming.
Cons: you could fly a perfect angles dogfight only to be taken out by a collision with an aircraft 100yds away from you, through no fault of your own.

3. Collision only effects aircraft if it happens on their FE (as now)
Pros: each individual is responsible for collisions due to their own aircraft, or preferably, for avoiding them.
Cons: moaning from people who dont understand the concept of latency or of the dual FE required to deal with this inevitable consequence of network gaming.

the only real problem with the current model is that many people dont understand how the model works.