Collision Model

[AWwrgwy]

I beg to differ....how do you collide sitting stationary and only you got collision msg? lag between computers was the reason.....the problem now is the discrepancies between the time lag between computers, thats why we have so much trouble with this current model which makes it unfair for some. if somehow we made it so that no matter what the lag between computers is or what can you or what you can't see is...we still get the same result for both parties.

He flew away because he did not intersect/collide with anything.

Consider this addressed.

All i have heard from everyone here is that they do not want to change because they if they try to avoid a collision and they still get into accidents its unfair to them.

No. People don't want it to change because they don't want to take damage when there was no collision on their front end

what about people actually trying to collide into you cos they can't fly?

It is nearly impossible to "RAM" someone on purpose:

With the current model you have to correctly guess the right empty place somewhere ahead of the enemy plane, with no actual knowledge how things are really looking on your opponents screen. Thus, a successful ram is quite difficult, it's waaaay les 'efficient' than simply shooting your opponent down.

and some how only you get collision msg? its no longer about what you can see or what you can't see on your FE. cos my collision sitting on runway came from the back of my plane.

Obviously you really, really, really, really still don't understand how things work.


Have you ever taken off from a cv and see someone else taking off from the same cv but over there---->?

Same thing.

You were sitting on the runway.
You were hit by someone from behind who was trying to vultch you. (Were you hit by his bullets too?)
You saw him hit you. Maybe you even saw him fly into the ground.
He saw himself pass over your plane by, lets say, 50 feet.
He did not hit your plane.
You want him to take damage even though he did not "see" himself collide with you.

Now, reverse the situation.

You dive on an unsuspecting, AFK, airplane.
You dive from above, pass 100 feet behind his tail, and continue down under him, eventually auguring.
He came back from making a sandwich just in time to see you dive in and fly right through the tail of his plane, taking off his rudder and left elevator in a collision.

Should you have blown up, saving yourself from a humiliating dirt face plant?




wrongway

[des506]

Have you ever taken off from a cv and see someone else taking off from the same cv but over there---->?

You were sitting on the runway.
You were hit by someone from behind who was trying to vultch you. (Were you hit by his bullets too?)
You saw him hit you. Maybe you even saw him fly into the ground.
He saw himself pass over your plane by, lets say, 50 feet.
He did not hit your plane.
You want him to take damage even though he did not "see" himself collide with you.

Now, reverse the situation.

You dive on an unsuspecting, AFK, airplane.
You dive from above, pass 100 feet behind his tail, and continue down under him, eventually auguring.
He came back from making a sandwich just in time to see you dive in and fly right through the tail of his plane, taking off his rudder and left elevator in a collision.

Should you have blown up, saving yourself from a humiliating dirt face plant?

wrongway

well.. the point here i am making since realism is the key here...DUN FLY SO LOW if not you will get damaged from collisions...you know something is going spawn out on the runway sometime.. and you still wanna fly that low around the area? for your second scenario... DUN FLY SO CLOSE and control your power so you dun collide and damage your own plane... doesn 't that teach people to fly better? shouldn't you have at least a 100m bubble ard your own plane and others to prevent collisions? isn't that being close to realism? instead of having 1 party to suffer the consequences and the other flies away scape free cos he doesn't see it on his FE?

i believe the threshold for discrepancies in distance to target is hard to gauge as skuzzy and the rest have explained... so shouldn't you make compensations to account for that?

i have ever flown against a warping plane while diving down to meet him... and when i finally have a solution to fire... he warps, and i dive away and only i get the collision msg... sure.. its fair for the defender... and the attacker is pissed off in this instance... i can think of other instances where its fair for the attacker but the defenders are pissed off... and you tell me the collision model is awesome and doesn't have to change or tweaked somewhat?

[mtnman]

des, wrongway  is absolutely correct when he states-

Obviously you really, really, really, really still don't understand how things work.

You prove it with these statements and questions-

well.. the point here i am making since realism is the key here...DUN FLY SO LOW if not you will get damaged from collisions...you know something is going spawn out on the runway sometime.. and you still wanna fly that low around the area? for your second scenario... DUN FLY SO CLOSE and control your power so you dun collide and damage your own plane... doesn 't that teach people to fly better? shouldn't you have at least a 100m bubble ard your own plane and others to prevent collisions? isn't that being close to realism? instead of having 1 party to suffer the consequences and the other flies away scape free cos he doesn't see it on his FE?

i believe the threshold for discrepancies in distance to target is hard to gauge as skuzzy and the rest have explained... so shouldn't you make compensations to account for that?

i have ever flown against a warping plane while diving down to meet him... and when i finally have a solution to fire... he warps, and i dive away and only i get the collision msg... sure.. its fair for the defender... and the attacker is pissed off in this instance... i can think of other instances where its fair for the attacker but the defenders are pissed off... and you tell me the collision model is awesome and doesn't have to change or tweaked somewhat?

Do you understand that if the entire arena is empty with only you and one other player in it in a 1v1 fight, there are really 4 airplanes involved?  Not 2?  Start with that.

The answers to all of your questions are already in this (and several other) threads, so I don't think there's any point in repeating the information.  You've either skipped over/missed it, or looked at it without comprehending it.  Either way, to answer your questions you need to understand what's already been posted.  Go back and re-read it.

[Scca]

des, wrongway  is absolutely correct when he states-

You prove it with these statements and questions-

Do you understand that if the entire arena is empty with only you and one other player in it in a 1v1 fight, there are really 4 airplanes involved?  Not 2?  Start with that.

The answers to all of your questions are already in this (and several other) threads, so I don't think there's any point in repeating the information.  You've either skipped over/missed it, or looked at it without comprehending it.  Either way, to answer your questions you need to understand what's already been posted.  Go back and re-read it.

You are wasting your time and feeding the troll.  He gets it, understands it, doesn't like it and won't be happy until collisions are eliminated which is the dumbest most idiotic solution to HIS problem. 

Stop wasting your time.

[grizz441]

i have ever flown against a warping plane while diving down to meet him... and when i finally have a solution to fire... he warps, and i dive away and only i get the collision msg... sure.. its fair for the defender... and the attacker is pissed off in this instance... i can think of other instances where its fair for the attacker but the defenders are pissed off... and you tell me the collision model is awesome and doesn't have to change or tweaked somewhat?

 
:facepalm

[MK-84]

You are wasting your time and feeding the troll.  He gets it, understands it, doesn't like it and won't be happy until collisions are eliminated which is the dumbest most idiotic solution to HIS problem. 

Stop wasting your time.

Probably this ^

Des is either being annoying on purpose, or he is incredibly slow to learn.  I wonder which he will pick

[Ack-Ack]

I want the collider to go down no matter what. 

But if there wasn't a collision on his front end, why should his plane blow up.  I am surprised how many people have a tough time grasping the concept of the collision model in this game when it's rather simple to understand.  Front end sees collision then there is a collision, if the front end doesn't see a collision then there isn't a collision.  How hard is that to understand?

Collisions happen in this game, just as they do in real life.  It sucks when it happens but unlike real life, we do get a shiny new plane for our mistake instead of a grave.

ack-ack

[ink]

But if there wasn't a collision on his front end, why should his plane blow up.  I am surprised how many people have a tough time grasping the concept of the collision model in this game when it's rather simple to understand.  Front end sees collision then there is a collision, if the front end doesn't see a collision then there isn't a collision.  How hard is that to understand?

Collisions happen in this game, just as they do in real life.  It sucks when it happens but unlike real life, we do get a shiny new plane for our mistake instead of a grave.

ack-ack

why are you surprised.....I have not always agreed with you in things you say...but I think your a smart guy and could figure it out....people are just ignorant, I am not surprised at all.

the collision model is about the best we can get....been here since tour 52 and cant say I ever wanted the colision model changed it works great.....I dived down on a AFK missed with my rounds slammed into him with my plane I broke apart and fell away..... he kept flying with no damage.

works just as HTC says.

[morfiend]

well.. the point here i am making since realism is the key here...DUN FLY SO LOW if not you will get damaged from collisions...you know something is going spawn out on the runway sometime.. and you still wanna fly that low around the area? for your second scenario... DUN FLY SO CLOSE and control your power so you dun collide and damage your own plane... doesn 't that teach people to fly better? shouldn't you have at least a 100m bubble ard your own plane and others to prevent collisions? isn't that being close to realism? instead of having 1 party to suffer the consequences and the other flies away scape free cos he doesn't see it on his FE?

i believe the threshold for discrepancies in distance to target is hard to gauge as skuzzy and the rest have explained... so shouldn't you make compensations to account for that?

i have ever flown against a warping plane while diving down to meet him... and when i finally have a solution to fire... he warps, and i dive away and only i get the collision msg... sure.. its fair for the defender... and the attacker is pissed off in this instance... i can think of other instances where its fair for the attacker but the defenders are pissed off... and you tell me the collision model is awesome and doesn't have to change or tweaked somewhat?

  Des,say HTC put in your 100m bubble,how happy would you be to explode when you were 150m away on your end but 99m on the other guys?  You would be towered for no reason whatsoever.

    I flew a sim years ago that use this very principle,some nights when latency was bad you'd explode to a collision before you got to guns range!  This is what caused me to leave that sim,it just wasnt fair to anyone because you could never tell what was a safe range to avoid a collision.

  ymmv.

   

[Hopper]

why are you surprised.....I have not always agreed with you in things you say...but I think your a smart guy and could figure it out....people are just ignorant, I am not surprised at all.

the collision model is about the best we can get....been here since tour 52 and cant say I ever wanted the colision model changed it works great.....I dived down on a AFK missed with my rounds slammed into him with my plane I broke apart and fell away..... he kept flying with no damage.

works just as HTC says.

Use the same scenerio and you end up with oil damage, or a damaged gun.  Which happens.  Why should you be able to fly away from a collision at all?

And AKAK, I understand that in some cases the Collider doesn't see the collision and the collidee see's it, a few seconds later the collider gets a collision message and gets damage.

But it has never happened to me, all collisions that I can remember that I have caused I saw it on my screen.  So that leads me to believe in most cases the collider see's it most of the time, but not alwasy the collidee.  So I still feel the collider who caused the collision is at fault and should go down.  Also I see people apologize on 200 all the time for colliding, they know they did it, whether or not the collidee saw it on their end.  That reinforces my view that the collider see's the collision on their end the majority of the time.

Collider = player causing the collision
Collidee = player receiving the collision

[Beefcake]

I'm going to need more popcorn, this tread is great reading material. 

[Karnak]

Collider = player causing the collision
Collidee = player receiving the collision

This is nonsensical in terms of AH or other computer network environments.  It sounds like you are still locked into a real world mentality and want to assign fault as in an auto accident.  It does not work that way.  All that matters is if your FE detects another object intersecting with your airplane.  It does not matter if it happens in the part of the 3D space being rendered for you to see on your screen or in a part that is not being visibly rendered.  It does not matter which object was moving in which direction or at what speed.  It does not matter what part of which object intersected with the other.

[FLS]

Use the same scenerio and you end up with oil damage, or a damaged gun.  Which happens.  Why should you be able to fly away from a collision at all?

And AKAK, I understand that in some cases the Collider doesn't see the collision and the collidee see's it, a few seconds later the collider gets a collision message and gets damage.

But it has never happened to me, all collisions that I can remember that I have caused I saw it on my screen.  So that leads me to believe in most cases the collider see's it most of the time, but not alwasy the collidee.  So I still feel the collider who caused the collision is at fault and should go down.  Also I see people apologize on 200 all the time for colliding, they know they did it, whether or not the collidee saw it on their end.  That reinforces my view that the collider see's the collision on their end the majority of the time.

Collider = player causing the collision
Collidee = player receiving the collision

Hopper you are considering 2 aircraft on one PC. We have  4 aircraft with 2 aircraft each on 2 PCs. The collider/collidee is not relevant. The issue is that there is a collision on one PC but not on the other PC. On the PC with no collision there is no collider/collidee.

[The Fugitive]

Use the same scenerio and you end up with oil damage, or a damaged gun.  Which happens.  Why should you be able to fly away from a collision at all?

And AKAK, I understand that in some cases the Collider doesn't see the collision and the collidee see's it, a few seconds later the collider gets a collision message and gets damage.

But it has never happened to me, all collisions that I can remember that I have caused I saw it on my screen.  So that leads me to believe in most cases the collider see's it most of the time, but not alwasy the collidee.  So I still feel the collider who caused the collision is at fault and should go down.  Also I see people apologize on 200 all the time for colliding, they know they did it, whether or not the collidee saw it on their end.  That reinforces my view that the collider see's the collision on their end the majority of the time.

Collider = player causing the collision
Collidee = player receiving the collision

Maybe it would be easier to understand if they used the correct words.

If a collision is DETECTED on your computer YOU get damage. At the same time due to differences in time and space due to the nature of the internet the other guys computer DID NOT DETECT a collision and so missed you, so he DOSE NOT receive damage.It is ALL on what YOUR computer DETECTS.

If the other guys computer DETECTS a collision and your computer dose not YOU will NOT get damage.

Easy right?

[Hopper]

I totally understand, but with my experience with collisions in game that I have caused I saw it my computer, I caused the collision my computer detected it, whether or not the other players did is irrelevant to me.  I am trying to assign fault, who caused it.  I want at fault plane to go down.  How to do it I don't know, so the player that detected(collidee) the collision I want to go down because I feel most of the time they are at fault. The only way to make sure that happens is for both to go down, but you guys are swaying me away from my stand on that for the most part.  Understand?  


Edit: I'm not trying to say it doesn't work, look at all my threads my beef is I want the at fault plane to go down.  The collision model works well enough for me to say the guy who detects is the guy at fault, even though I know that is not always the case.

The game would be better for me if both planes went down if a collision is detected by whoever, but the game will probably not be better for most others if that was the case. 

The problem I have is how do you get an oil hit when you collide with someone or a damaged gun?  Just stupid to me, I want them to go down.  Harsher concequences I hope would help with amount collisions.