A question about the collision model ?? (no not a gripe)

[SPKmes]

I know,    I know.........but this isn't a gripe.....I don't even know if this is a bugs report forum question but I would just like answer on this (if there is one).....Can settings in the game/arena get set up in the wrong way??   That is, last night I had 2 instances where the collisions seemed to work the wrong way...one happened to me where the con pulled around and as we passed he ended up behind me on my screen and it said I had collided and nothing from the other side. Now I saw him pull around and all but the actual collision on from my point of view came from about a 4 Oclock postion into the side of me....the second I totally botched up an attack from a cons seven/six and totally slammed into him...I however got the message the con had collided with me and nothing about me hitting him....which honestly was strange to me as I had a front end full of 38 tail (those things are huge man)...... 

 between the 2 instances I had re-logged (if you were there you would have all read about it  hahaha...sorry for my lameness guys  <S>) due to seemingly having defrosted peas for ammo and next to no ability.....

So when it happened the first time I put it down to my connection....should have re logged then...it would have saved me much frustration(maybe haha) but the second was after...and was the opposite outcome...sorry I should have kept film but I didn't.

[Ghastly]

You seem to be under a misunderstanding regarding the model.  If the copy of Aces High running on your system determines that your aircraft "intersected" the same space as another players aircraft - then you get the "You collided with XXXX" and they get the "XXXX collided with you".   

Because of the amount of time it takes for the copy of the game running on his system to transmit his position to the server and for the server to send it to your machine, there is a difference between where you each "see" the other's aircraft relative to your own.   In the first instance, even though you think he ran into you (struck you from behind and to the side), as far as the game is concerned, you collided - "fault" doesn't come into play, only the intersection of the game objects.

In the second instance, you must have missed him, even though it was close - whereas on his FE, the intersection of objects did happen.

Make sense?

<S>

[E25280]

I think he is saying he thinks he missed in the first case but got a "you have collided" message anyway, and in the second case definitely "saw" a collision and did not get a "you have collided" message.

Something in the back of my head says this might be a vsync issue, but the back of my head and I have not been on speaking terms lately.  Still, it might be something to check.

[Stiglr]

Makes sense in explaining what does happen.... but I still feel the results (often, one guy flies, one guy dies) are plain wrong. Always have been; and not just in AH but WB as well. IL-2, (online) too.

IF one front-end determines there was a collision, then the sim should enforce the same result on the other(s), EVEN IF THERE'S a lag issue that tells an unwitting participant's FE that he didn't collide. If, as you say, the other, non-colliding guy gets a 'xxx collided with you' message, then the game engine is well aware of both collisions and the disparity. And if any one person involved in the collision "didn't" collide... okay then, the collision shouldn't happen for anyone. As Chick Hearn used to say, "No harm, no foul, no blood, no ambulance."

It would certainly suck... as any collision would... but regardless of "fault", it's ridiculous to have "one-sided" collisions happening. Take 'em both... and both parties will soon learn not to press HOs or get too close during gunnery passes... right now, this misguided notion that one controls his own FE and therefore, the "fault" in the collision, is just not correct.

I've seen instances where lag causes a slower plane to "stutter stop" and an attacking plane collide with it even though he clearly pulled up and away from the target in time. *Klunk* the attacker's wing is gone and the target flies off like nothing happened.

[Bronk]

So tell me stigy. What's to stop me from flying through buffs guns blazing in your "no harm no foul" world?

Figure A.

Why shouldn't the pink spit take damage? Clearly collided.

Figure B.

Same moment in time different front end.

Why should the cammo spit take damage? Clearly he avoided.

[Ack-Ack]

While not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, the collision modeling in AH is a very good game design compromise.  Game design is something Stiglr doesn't understand very well.

ack-ack

[Bronk]

  Game design is something Stiglr doesn't understand very well.

ack-ack

You're kidding?

[Stiglr]

Well, you can look at each of those pictures and draw a different verdict, no?

But, there can only be one outcome in the same persistent world. And, it's not always 'no harm no foul.' Sometimes it's both going boom, and a lot of bad blood... kind of like in real life, huh? Some doofus steers right in front of your car, and you're not doing anything wrong at all. Doesn't matter: you're still just as 'hit' as if you were DWI and swerved into the other car.

The collision either happens or it doesn't. To blindly accept collsions happening to only one object offends my sensibilities, even though we all know that lag, as well as sh*t, happens.  

Now, in application... because a player doesn't know which of those screenies the game will see, and make a judgment based on... it would seem prudent for our pink Spit driver to break off his attack with room to spare. The buff driver doesn't really have much say in the proceedings either way, does he? Well, he could corkscrew... but really, it's all down to what the Spit does.

To directly answer Bronk's question;

What's to stop me from flying through buffs guns blazing in your "no harm no foul" world?

The expectation that more times than not, you BOTH go boom if you press a gunpass inside 50 meters. As it happens now, an inopportune net-burp or bad connection might return the result that the Spit pulls up safely on his front end, but on the bomber's, his tail intersects with the climbing-away attacker, and... the bomber loses the flight surface. That shouldn't be acceptable to either player, either.

[E25280]

Well, you can look at each of those pictures and draw a different verdict, no?

Exactly.  That is why one person collides and one doesn't.  Duh.

[Lusche]

Well, you can look at each of those pictures and draw a different verdict, no?

But, there can only be one outcome in the same persistent world. And, it's not always 'no harm no foul.' Sometimes it's both going boom, and a lot of bad blood... kind of like in real life, huh? Some doofus steers right in front of your car, and you're not doing anything wrong at all. Doesn't matter: you're still just as 'hit' as if you were DWI and swerved into the other car.

The collision either happens or it doesn't. To blindly accept collsions happening to only one object offends my sensibilities, even though we all know that lag, as well as sh*t, happens.  

Now, in application... because a player doesn't know which of those screenies the game will see, and make a judgment based on... it would seem prudent for our pink Spit driver to break off his attack with room to spare. The buff driver doesn't really have much say in the proceedings either way, does he? Well, he could corkscrew... but really, it's all down to what the Spit does.

To directly answer Bronk's question;
The expectation that more times than not, you BOTH go boom if you press a gunpass inside 50 meters.

You would have no problems seeing an enemy plane pass you at 30yds distance, and suddenly you go "boom" because of a collision you did never see, because it never happened on your screen?

[Bronk]

Now, in application... because a player doesn't know which of those screenies the game will see, and make a judgment based on... it would seem prudent for our pink Spit driver to break off his attack with room to spare. The buff driver doesn't really have much say in the proceedings either way, does he? Well, he could corkscrew... but really, it's all down to what the Spit does.

Well If you'd have played the game you'd know. What you see is what you get. Nothing to do what HTC's server see's. I see spit I fly into spit I take damage.

If the Cammo spit was a buff in your no "harm no foul world". I could fly through him guns a blazing with little care of colliding.

Now In HTC's world I actually have to set up a run. You know... pilot stuff, avoid gun fire and running into the AC.

[Motherland]

You would have no problems seeing an enemy plane pass you at 30yds distance, and suddenly you go "boom" because of a collision you did never see, because it never happened on your screen?

What he says is that the computers should check each other and there shouldn't be a collision for either player unless both computers agree on it. Which I don't think would be any worse (nor necessarily any better) than the current system, and would probably result in less whining and confusion.

[Bronk]

For stigy

http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/lag/lag.htm

Read and come back with a better compromise...i doubt you can.

[E25280]

What he says is that the computers should check each other and there shouldn't be a collision for either player unless both computers agree on it. Which I don't think would be any worse (nor necessarily any better) than the current system, and would probably result in less whining and confusion.

I disagree on both points.  It would be worse precisely because there would often-to-usually be no penalty for flying through someone, and the whines would be worse due to the fact that there would be no consistency from the player's perspective on when he would or would not take collision damage.  The current system provides both the appropriate penalty for hitting an object and does so consistently (OP's problem notwithstanding).

[Stiglr]

Thank you, Motherland. Perhaps people might not be resistant to the concept if simply someone else says it.

Meanwhile, lusche wrote:

You would have no problems seeing an enemy plane pass you at 30yds distance, and suddenly you go "boom" because of a collision you did never see, because it never happened on your screen?

That's no more dissatisfying than clearly pulling off of a target with room to spare and going boom.

As I said, due to net lag coloring our "perception" the results are going to suck at times, no question. And it's not going to always seem 'fair'. But... having any plane ever fly away scot-free from a collision... I can't see how that's EVER acceptable.