Collision Model

[Zoney]

Chaser, on the assumption that the game is limited by the available technology, what we currently have may be the best that we might hope for and may result from time to time in you not receiving what you perceive as a fair deal.

Simplified: Some days your the bug, somedays you are the windshield.

I noticed you have 140 fighter kills this month and 918 tank kills.  If I may suggest, try flying a bit more often, improve your skills, expand your SA and you may find it unneccessary to focus on the one thing that has put another death on your score when there is so much more to improve and focus on.

[guncrasher]

You are not punished as long as you do not run into planes on your front end.

not really accurate.  a guy coming from behind me while afk or thru no fault of my own will cause a collision that only will be seen on my end.

i did not cause the collision and yet I'm the only one taking damage.  even when both detect a collision more often than not only one plane goes down.


semp

[Wiley]

Semp-  You're suggesting they change the collision model because of the multitude of times you have been rammed while afk?

<img src=notsureifserious.jpg>

Wiley.

[E25280]

not really accurate.  a guy coming from behind me while afk or thru no fault of my own will cause a collision that only will be seen on my end.

i did not cause the collision and yet I'm the only one taking damage.  even when both detect a collision more often than not only one plane goes down.


semp

1) There is no "fault."  There either is, or is not, a collision on your computer.  If there is, you take damage.  If there is not, you do not take damage.  Simple and fair.

Same goes for the other guy.  There either is, or is not, a collision on his computer.  If there is, he takes damage.  If there is not, he does not take damage.  Simple and fair.

The two statements are separate but equal.  They are separate because you are playing in two different realities, separated by milliseconds of internet latency.  They are equal because both get what they see in their reality.

2) Even in a mutual collision, the reality is still different.  If his wing goes through your pilot, why shouldn't your pilot die and kill your cartoon aircraft?  Obvious answer is, your pilot should die and so your plane being killed is absolutely logical.  

If in his reality his aileron nicked your vertical stabilizer, why should he lose more than his aileron?  Obvious answer is, he shouldn't lose anything more than his aileron, and so surviving the collision is absolutely logical.

[Zoney]

1) There is no "fault."  There either is, or is not, a collision on your computer.  If there is, you take damage.  If there is not, you do not take damage.  Simple and fair.

Same goes for the other guy.  There either is, or is not, a collision on his computer.  If there is, he takes damage.  If there is not, he does not take damage.  Simple and fair.

The two statements are separate but equal.  They are separate because you are playing in two different realities, separated by milliseconds of internet latency.  They are equal because both get what they see in their reality.

2) Even in a mutual collision, the reality is still different.  If his wing goes through your pilot, why shouldn't your pilot die and kill your cartoon aircraft?  Obvious answer is, your pilot should die and so your plane being killed is absolutely logical.  

If in his reality his aileron nicked your vertical stabilizer, why should he lose more than his aileron?  Obvious answer is, he shouldn't lose anything more than his aileron, and so surviving the collision is absolutely logical.

You bastages that use logic supporting your arguments are pathetic.  You make me sick!  Didn't your parents teach you anything?  Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

[RTHolmes]

not really accurate.  a guy coming from behind me while afk or thru no fault of my own will cause a collision that only will be seen on my end.

i did not cause the collision and yet I'm the only one taking damage.  even when both detect a collision more often than not only one plane goes down.

thats why you should always fly with a wingman. that way you have someone to blame

[caldera]

1) There is no "fault."  There either is, or is not, a collision on your computer.  If there is, you take damage.  If there is not, you do not take damage.  Simple and fair.

Same goes for the other guy.  There either is, or is not, a collision on his computer.  If there is, he takes damage.  If there is not, he does not take damage.  Simple and fair.

The two statements are separate but equal.  They are separate because you are playing in two different realities, separated by milliseconds of internet latency.  They are equal because both get what they see in their reality.

2) Even in a mutual collision, the reality is still different.  If his wing goes through your pilot, why shouldn't your pilot die and kill your cartoon aircraft?  Obvious answer is, your pilot should die and so your plane being killed is absolutely logical.  

If in his reality his aileron nicked your vertical stabilizer, why should he lose more than his aileron?  Obvious answer is, he shouldn't lose anything more than his aileron, and so surviving the collision is absolutely logical. 

This post should be featured in a "Explaining the Collision Model" sticky at the top of this forum.

[The Fugitive]

not really accurate.  a guy coming from behind me while afk or thru no fault of my own will cause a collision that only will be seen on my end.

i did not cause the collision and yet I'm the only one taking damage.  even when both detect a collision more often than not only one plane goes down.


semp

of course it was your fault, your SA is always your responsibility.   

[Rolex]

not really accurate.  a guy coming from behind me while afk or thru no fault of my own will cause a collision that only will be seen on my end. (my emphasis added.)

The other guy would get a collision message. If he didn't, then it would be a bug.

In real life, you'd both take damage in that situation, wouldn't you? Collision modeling in AH is good, considering the constraints of the Internet and fairness to players and game play. If you don't think that, then you probably haven't thought about it deeply enough.

If you have an idea to improve the model, you can post it. Hitech and his band of merry men would adopt it if it's truly an improvement.

[Crash Orange]

so yea lemme try to follow you I'm flyin mindin my own business dude misjudges his speed and that's my fault.....

But he didn't misjudge his speed. He judged it correctly, or else he would have hit you.

What you fail to appreciate is that he can't know or predict exactly what you see on your front end. All he can know is what he sees on his front end. On his front end, he made an aggressive and accurate pass and did not collide with you. From his perspective, the fact that there was a collision on your end was a pure accident over which he had no control.

and that's my fault.....

Try to understand this. THERE IS NO FAULT. Physics does not know any concept of "fault". The game models this. If you collide, you will take damage. You do not take damage because someone thinks you ought to be punished for your bad judgment, you take damage as an inevitable result of having collided, no matter whose fault it was or how blameless or reckless you were leading up to the collision. That's how the real world works, and that's how the game works. The only difference is that in the game, due to limitations of technology, the guy flying the other plane is in a slightly different world than you are. There's no way around that until someone invents a net connection with zero lag.

(Also, I think the current method is the best incentive for good and accurate game play. If you have both players take damage if either collides, you will punish aggressive but skillful flying and push players toward overly conservative flying. If you have neither player take damage unless both collide, as others have pointed out, you'll have players deliberately ramming others from behind hoping the collision won't occur on the other guy's end and they'll get the kill with a zero-range shot. Historically, collision was a major factor and pushing to the edge of it to get  close-range shot was a calculated risk. Pilots who pushed it too far died, and those who didn't push it close enough had a tough time getting kills. That's how it is with the current game model.)

[FiLtH]

 Id rather they just turn it off in the MA. Whats the downside? We might get HO'd more? How is that possible? Atleast they wouldnt be TRYING to crash into you as well. Leave it on in the DA and SEA. The worst is getting run into from behide and it says you collided but hes ok. Not a fan.

 Also Ive often seen prop to prop collisions where one guy comes out ok and asked the guy "Did that look like we collided prop to prop?' and he said ya. Just too weird to be useful. Too inconsistant.

[BaldEagl]

For those who think the collision model is perfect I totally understand how the collision thing works but it's very unfortunate that the person with the better computer/connection always gets the worst of it.  In a co-collision I'm always the one to die.  I'm never the one to score the kill.  My computer and connection mean my FE registers immediately and I lose every time or at least 98% of the time.

Taking it to an extreme I lose 98% of the time if the other player rams me from behind.  It's only because my FE sees it first.

I wish that part of the collision model could be fixed.  The only work around is to play on a crappy PC or with a crappy connection.

BTW, when I had a crappy PC/connection I won those more often than not.

[guncrasher]

of course it was your fault, your SA is always your responsibility.   

I'll try to watch the computer better when I am afk.

The other guy would get a collision message. If he didn't, then it would be a bug.

In real life, you'd both take damage in that situation, wouldn't you? Collision modeling in AH is good, considering the constraints of the Internet and fairness to players and game play. If you don't think that, then you probably haven't thought about it deeply enough.

If you have an idea to improve the model, you can post it. Hitech and his band of merry men would adopt it if it's truly an improvement.

yeah I do have a better idea, if both collide they both go down, like it normally happens in real life.  the way it happens in ah is normally 1 airplane will fly away with little to no damage the other one goes down.  this is the part that really gets people upset.

I can understand a big airplane like a bomber sometimes surviving a collision, it did happen and there's even 1 or two bombers that landed with a fighter stuck in the middle of the fuselage.  but fighters surviving the collision model as it is in ah when it indicates both collided, not very realistic.

again the main beef with almost everybody is when both show a collision and most of the time one flies away with little to no damage while the other goes down.

semp

[icepac]

I lose collisions when a light fighter hit's my tank.

[hitech]

For those who think the collision model is perfect I totally understand how the collision thing works but it's very unfortunate that the person with the better computer/connection always gets the worst of it.  In a co-collision I'm always the one to die.  I'm never the one to score the kill.  My computer and connection mean my FE registers immediately and I lose every time or at least 98% of the time.

Taking it to an extreme I lose 98% of the time if the other player rams me from behind.  It's only because my FE sees it first.

I wish that part of the collision model could be fixed.  The only work around is to play on a crappy PC or with a crappy connection.

BTW, when I had a crappy PC/connection I won those more often than not.

Obviously you do NOT understand how it works.

Your close but not exact.

this statement

In a co-collision I'm always the one to die.

You do not understand or are deliberately misrepresenting the situation.

Who dies has nothing to do with lag. Weather you die or not has nothing to do with connect speeds but rather what your client sees.

So under your assumption of a co-collision who dies is simply based on what part of your plane hits the other guy.

The 2nd part who is awarded the kill , you are correct. But even though you were not awarded the kill, the other guy still dies.

This also assumes you were both not previously shot by someone else. Because if someone collides,dies, and was shot by someone else before the collision. You also would not be awarded the kill no matter what your ping times are.

HiTech