Collision Model

[RTHolmes]

I come to this discussion late and admit ignorance to the content of the entire thread, but there are a couple of things that I wish to add in my good friend Des' defence.  

.etc.

this just confuses the issue because bullet damage works differently from collision damage.

with bullets, the damage to the other guy from your bullets depends on what happens on your FE, then his FE is notified of his damage.

with collisions, damage to the other guy is purely based on what happens on his FE.

[FLS]

...

Yes, the only way that I can receive damage from an aircraft past me and facing away with out rear guns HAS TO BE LAG. 

You are correct about that but it is irrelevant to the collision model and lag has nothing to do with where you aim to shoot the aircraft you see on your computer. What you mentioned correctly is simply that once you hit somebody on your computer, that hit information has to travel to their computer and the lag can be very obvious then. The related issue for lag is that the bandit behind you is closer to you on his computer than he appears to be on yours. This is the only time you have to consider lag. When you are judging how much trouble you are in from the bandit who almost has guns on you, he's in a better position on his computer then he seems to be on yours.

[grizz441]

The only way lag can be to blame in a collision is if the enemy warps/skips into you, aka, The Joeblack Maneuver.

[FLS]

Aren't warps from packet loss?

[Babalonian]

do impart your knowledge on how to kill the other guy without intersecting the other party...

Basic Aerial Combat Maneuvers.

There's a clinic for it.


To start with: knowing your opponent is going to do everything and anything within their control to put their guns on you and squeeze the trigger, and in direct corresponding reaction to your movements, hands you control of the fight and gives you the advantage of deciding where and what the fight is going to do.

[Dead Man Flying]

If you close to 100 in an online aircraft game your too close.

In a close scissors fight, 100 is pretty common.  I just looked at film of a fight between myself and a 109, and our ranges varied from 6 (!) to 110 for most of the engagement, hovering mostly around 50-60.  That's not uncommon.

[Ack-Ack]

If you close to 100 in an online aircraft game your too close.

In a close scissors fight, 100 is pretty common.  I just looked at film of a fight between myself and a 109, and our ranges varied from 6 (!) to 110 for most of the engagement, hovering mostly around 50-60.  That's not uncommon.

I think Mols and I were about 3ft apart in this part of the fight.



ack-ack

[Changeup]

Other side of the coin:

white "XYZ has collided with you" and goes down. You fly away undamaged.....

Discuss.



wrongway

Why am I always XYZ and never the "ewe" that flies away undamaged"?

[Hopper]

Do you have a reasoning behind that?  It honestly just looks like you want to blame the other pilot, regardless of the situation.


It especially looks that way because in these instances I could have easily not been in a collision at all, where you were.  How could it be my fault if I didn't collide?

The one thing I do see though is that you don't want to necessarily blame the guy who gets hit, but blame the guy who rammed into the other guy.  Do you base this on who you think got in the way?  In other words, it's not your fault you hit the other guy, because he got in your way?

In all of those cases where you stated it was my fault, your propeller hit me (essentially, you rammed me).  But you consider yourself faultless?    

Do you take that a step further, and say that the guy who flies into you isn't at fault, because you may have gotten in his way?

What criteria do you use to place blame?  Is it a simple "formula" that could be coded?  Or does it require a judge/jury to weigh out each scenario?

Yeah I stated my reasoning in the post above and I stated that in my response to you, the person at higher rate of speed.  So yes it could easily be coded.  But I haven't had time to go ram people in the lake yet to make sure of my theory.  Think of it like a working hypothesis, just need to build the data.

[Hopper]

I can see how a lot of folks think it is out of their control, since they have no control over a fight, because they have not spent the time to learn exactly what is going on in a fight.  The more you engage in close combat, aka, in the dueling arena with other like-minded individuals, you can easily predict how the fight is going to develop and where these toon planes are going to intersect, and thus consequently, avoid it.  If you are too lazy/indifferent to go the extra mile to become better, then you will simply be a victim of the collision scenarios that randomly develop on their own, since you are doing nothing to prevent them from happening.

my 2 cents.

sure in a 1v1, but thats not realistic in the MA for me

[MK-84]

sure in a 1v1, but thats not realistic in the MA for me

Actually I would have thought the exact opposite.  Since  a1v1 is generally considered to be "equal status" at the beginning of the fight.

[mtnman]

Yeah I stated my reasoning in the post above and I stated that in my response to you, the person at higher rate of speed.  So yes it could easily be coded.  But I haven't had time to go ram people in the lake yet to make sure of my theory.  Think of it like a working hypothesis, just need to build the data.

So, I guess I should give you some test time before explaining why speed alone isn't a valid criteria?

There are a couple of obvious reasons that come to mind immediately, that I think would render much effort towards data-gathering a waste of time.  Then again, gathering your own data would probably be the easiest way for you to understand why it wouldn't be a "fair" criteria to use in an effort to assign "fault".

[FLS]

The notion of fault is irrelevant to the collision model. The collision model simply detects if there is a collision on the player's computer. Assigning fault to the player who didn't have a collision and punishing that player with collision damage is ludicrous. If there is a collision on both computers then both players are affected. It's the best system for dealing with internet lag but it's not a system designed to assuage player egos.

[MK-84]

The notion of fault is irrelevant to the collision model. The collision model simply detects if there is a collision on the player's computer. Assigning fault to the player who didn't have a collision and punishing that player with collision damage is ludicrous. If there is a collision on both computers then both players are affected. It's the best system for dealing with internet lag but it's not a system designed to assuage player egos.

So if I'm flying a plane and I collide with another plane it's my fault?

But if another plane collides withe me, but I can't see that, it's their fault?

And if we bother see ourselves hitting each other it's both our fault?

Brilliant!!!  Here's a cookie

p.s. thank gawd someone gets it.

[grizz441]

sure in a 1v1, but thats not realistic in the MA for me

Well, in a multiplane engagement, the probability of getting in a collision naturally increases just as the chance of getting shot down increases.  You are ultimately in control of where your plane goes, but even if you enable perfect ACM against 3-4 bogeys, you will still die a high percentage of the time because ultimately it is out of your control.  There is an element of luck.  Same goes with collisions in a multiplane environment.  That's not the game's fault, imo.

<edit> It's equivalent to saying that ACM's are bogus because I employed them perfectly against 3 cons and still died.