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

[E25280]

Wouldn't that go both ways, though? And if you look at what happens all around you and even just in game (I ALWAYS get killed with just one ping!!), bad memories stick out in the mind more than good ones.

Not when you are trying to create an avoidance behavior.  Intermittant Reinforcement happens in reward situations.

100% negative reinforcement -- every time I touch another plane, I die -- I try to avoid 100% of the time to avoid the pain (collision).

Intermittant reinforcement of a reward -- I just flew through a guy, and it was SO FRIGGIN EASY TO HIT FROM 2 FEET AWAY, and I got the kill!!!  WOOT WOOT!! -- This causes the behavior to repeat, even if occasionally the collision would occur, because the reward of an easy kill outweighs the occasional pain of a collision.

And just saw your edit -- yes, getting kills can be addictive. 

[Bronk]

Bubi I rather have penalty the tards for actually trying to ram.  Rather than on the off chance the other guy doesn't see it the tard gets a pass.

[Stiglr]

The point you guys are missing here is that it is PERCEPTION that is misleading you. Often you can misjudge what you see. And, not to put too fine a point on it, what your screen shows you is not necessarily the reality as judged by the FE.

Still, no matter if you can trust what you see or not ... a result of a plane being involved in a collision, by dint of ONE plane suffering from it, being ZERO damage? By definition completely unrealistic. Having a consistent result, whether or not that suffers from lag... that, I think is preferable.

I suppose there's no way to know both ways unless there's a controlled experiment... but I think those who think suddenly there'll be NO collisions happening, but lots of flythroughs... they're making as much of a guess as I am when I say I think there'll be MORE collisions and NO flythroughs.

Nobody is arguing that if what you SEE (not what the FE computes) is a collision, you won't take damage.

But I am definitely arguing that I've seen a miss and still had a wing come off. I've had planes warp backward into me and then float off with no damage. Any of you who say you've never seen that are simply lying.

Don't shoot the messenger, just argue your point.

Oh, and by the way... intentional rams DID occur, no matter what you may think about the wrongness or rightness of it. The Russians did it, the Germans did it, the Japanese certainly did it.

[Bronk]

But I am definitely arguing that I've seen a miss and still had a wing come off. I've had planes warp backward into me and then float off with no damage. Any of you who say you've never seen that are simply lying.

BS post a film. Ohh wait you don't play.

Edit:

The point you guys are missing here is that it is PERCEPTION that is misleading you. Often you can misjudge what you see. And, not to put too fine a point on it, what your screen shows you is not necessarily the reality as judged by the FE
.

What your front end detects and what you see is virtually identical.
Give me a sec and I'lll find the corroborating post from a real programmer. Not one who plays one on the internet.

Edit 2: Ahh yes from a real game programer. From what the front end detects and records and what you see.

wrag: Your assessment is inncorect.  The difference between AH film play back and what was displayed originally is so small (talking an inch or 2) that for all intensive purposes they are the same.

HiTech

Huhh imagine that.

[Lusche]

All our "what you see " actually refers to the FE. So it's not a perception thing.

And again: Flying guns blazing through an opponent without any "collision" is more realistic and is better for gameplay than having to watch where you are flying to avoid a collision?

I suppose there's no way to know both ways unless there's a controlled experiment... but I think those who think suddenly there'll be NO collisions happening, but lots of flythroughs... they're making as much of a guess as I am when I say I think there'll be MORE collisions and NO flythroughs.

I have conducted controlled experiments, and so did other players. Also if one understands that "lag" is no freak accident or sign of a bad connection, but an inherent "feature" of internet communications, he will know that disparity between the frontends are common.

[E25280]

Still, no matter if you can trust what you see or not ... a result of a plane being involved in a collision, by dint of ONE plane suffering from it, being ZERO damage? By definition completely unrealistic. Having a consistent result, whether or not that suffers from lag... that, I think is preferable.

The result is absolutely consistent.  If I touch another plane, I take collision damage.  If I don't touch the other plane, I won't take collision damage.  I still do not see what the problem is.

I suppose there's no way to know both ways unless there's a controlled experiment... but I think those who think suddenly there'll be NO collisions happening, but lots of flythroughs... they're making as much of a guess as I am when I say I think there'll be MORE collisions and NO flythroughs.

Yeah, it isn't like the game designer has any experience in flight sims and knows from experience which way works best. 

But I am definitely arguing that I've seen a miss and still had a wing come off. I've had planes warp backward into me and then float off with no damage. Any of you who say you've never seen that are simply lying.

Actually, you are lying.  You said in the other thread you don't even play the game.

I won't even get into the idiocy of the perk concept (the rich getting richer, the highest scoring pilots getting even greater weaponry and technology to feast on the others below him in ability...)

As you say, no, I don't play the game. Sorry I was misinformed.

[Strip]

BS post a film. Ohh wait you don't play.

Edit:What your front end detects and what you see is virtually identical.
Give me a sec and I'lll find the corroborating post from a real programmer. Not one who plays one on the internet.

I have missed planes by feet and still gotten a collision message, no I don't care to look through hundreds of films either.

But I have no reason to lie so take it for what its worth....

Strip

[E25280]

I have missed planes by feet and still gotten a collision message, no I don't care to look through hundreds of films either.

But I have no reason to lie so take it for what its worth....

Strip

If it showed the collision message on your film, then you didn't collide.  Only the white "XXX has collided with you" will show on film.  The orange system messages, of which "you have collided" is one, do not appear on the film viewer.

[Stiglr]

Exactly, Strip.

Also, note this "explanation" from that lag article Bronk posted up:

While it may be frustrating to watch the other guy fly away while you tumble to the ground with damage from a collision, it beats the alternative of you tumbling to the ground when you know for a fact that you were not part of a collision.

Here's the FACT: you DON'T "know for a fact" that you were or were not part of a collision. The FE determines that after the lag effect is in play. It's all perception. Now, again, that sucks but that's the way it is.

My problem is not with the fault, or even the perception (just like the gunnery explanation, which also sometimes "sucks"). My problem is simply that the OUTCOME, for both players can be that a plane can take damage from a collision the other plane was not in. That cannot be reality.

[Stiglr]

E25280 wrote:

If it showed the collision message on your film, then you didn't collide. [/i]

Not necessarily. If it showed the collision message on your film, then the FE has judged you didn't collide. Don't confuse perception with a system decision.

And before anyone starts tossing accusations, I'm definitely not a HO artist. I wait til I'm behind the wingline before I hose away. And I do make an honest attempt to break off a gunpass... that is, I don't ever AIM for a flythrough 

[Bronk]

I have missed planes by feet and still gotten a collision message, no I don't care to look through hundreds of films either.

But I have no reason to lie so take it for what its worth....

Strip

You have made statement back it up with some evidence.
Edit.
Whoops sorry strip. Vitriol was not meant for you.

[Strip]

I am fully aware how the film viewer works, my comment stands....

I have taken collision damage while completely missing the enemy aircraft yet still receiving the "You have collided with XXX" message. I have also died by flying too close (but missing by inches and feet at times) many different structures in the game, cursing up a storm afterward when I can see air. Is it a positional error due to the film viewer mechanics, possibly, however I have watched TrackIr/Fraps film and seen the same thing before. It may be rare but you can take damage while completely avoiding some objects.  Once  I took an engine hit in a Me-262 at 300 mph while surviving to finish a race on one engine, something that should have been impossible.

Strip

[E25280]

Here's the FACT: you DON'T "know for a fact" that you were or were not part of a collision. The FE determines that after the lag effect is in play. It's all perception. Now, again, that sucks but that's the way it is.

Utter BS.  Look at figure B in Bronk's post on the first page again.  That is taken from the film of the plane in front.  I can say FOR A FACT that he DID NOT COLLIDE.

My problem is not with the fault, or even the perception (just like the gunnery explanation, which also sometimes "sucks"). My problem is simply that the OUTCOME, for both players can be that a plane can take damage from a collision the other plane was not in. That cannot be reality.

The outcome for each player depends on his reality.  Why is this a bad thing?  Why should the pink spit in Bronk's first picture be allowed to get off scott free when HIS PLANE HIT ANOTHER PLANE?  He shouldn't -- he should suffer the consequences.

[E25280]

I am fully aware how the film viewer works, my comment stands....

I have taken collision damage while completely missing the enemy aircraft yet still receiving the "You have collided with XXX" message. I have also died by flying too close (but missing by inches and feet at times) many different structures in the game, cursing up a storm afterward when I can see air. Is it a positional error due to the film viewer mechanics, possibly, however I have watched TrackIr/Fraps film and seen the same thing before. It may be rare but you can take damage while completely avoiding some objects.  Once  I took an engine hit in a Me-262 at 300 mph while surviving to finish a race on one engine, something that should have been impossible.

Strip

There is no "you have collided with XXXX" message.  It only says "you have collided" in orange if you actually collided.  If you are seeing a name, in white, that player collided with you.

I believe you are simply mistaken.  Please post film if you have it.  I am sure HTC would love to see evidence (as would I) if you are claiming his coding is faulty.

[Strip]

Fixed....

No worries....

Did it occur to you I have better things to do with my time than search hundreds of films looking for a 1 in 50 event anyway? Besides not saving many collisions anyway because I usually dont care to watch them afterward?

Strip