Collisions

[Skuzzy]

Nothing random about -if you crash him, you will die-

Don't make the mistake of thinking the general population at AH is represented here ... There are a LOT of players UNHAPPY with the collision model, most of them just aren't interested in dealing with the "party line" types that frequent the forum and attempt to make life miserable for anyone that doesn't KA ... My perception is that the "Vast Majority" don't understand the present collision model and once it's explained ... THEY STILL DON'T LIKE IT ... Planes do not fly away from Mid-Air Collisions in the real world, is what THEY understand.

If you crash, you die is exactly how it works now.

People who have no idea how and why the collision modeling works can be frustrated.  Experience shows that if a player comes to grip with why and how the system works, they are fine with it as they understand there is no better alternative.

Not precisely, but it can be approximated (ask Skuzzy) ... AND it's not really necessary to KNOW that ... Collisions (on both ends) aren't HARD to avoid when you REALLY WANT TO.

Uh, no, you cannot approximate it.  In order to do so, you would need to know the physical location of the other player, his Internet connection quality, the Internet quality between him and the servers and your Internet quality between you and the servers.

The 'quality' of the Internet connection constantly changes.  Just as an example.  At 400MPH, there can be as much as a 58 foot distance displacement for every 0.1 second of time differential between you, the servers and the other player.  You also have no idea what direction the displacement is.

By the time you figure it all out, the information is invalid.

Your Screen says you were ...

The screen says what happened.  If you collided with someone, you take damage and you get a message about colliding with someone.  If the other player collided with you, you do not take damage, but he does and you get a message he collided with you.  If you both collide with each other, you both get a message about being damaged and you both take damage.

This all happens on the respective desktops.  Under complete control of each user, where it should be.

Obviously, I disagree ... This might be Mr. Spock's thought process, or a computers decision ... But humans have this little gut monkey that's REALLY nervous and starts screaming -YOU WILL DIE - YOU WILL DIE- and just won't shut up ... (even in a computer game). We all (mentally healthy anyway) try and keep that monkey QUIET.
Please note : I said early on that the present collision model was REASONABLE and I DO understand why it was adopted ... But it isn't popular, and the idea that BOTH PLANES Crash -is- the general perception of the result of a mid-air.

People get irritated because they did not avoid the collision and the other player did.  They get irritated because they refuse to accept the current system is the best compromise of all systems.

The only players who would be happy with what you propose are the ones who cannot avoid collisions or want to use collisions to thier benefit.  The players, who in earnest do everything they can to avoid a collision, would leave the game with your system.  Who could blame them?

[Shuffler]

As soon as Hitech can find a way to eliminate internet lag, I agree this would be a great idea.  Until then, what we have is the best collision system available.

He needs to get with the inventor of the net... that gore guy

[Brownien]

Then if the collision is not deadly for both pilots, then why not throw the remaining, or both aircraft into a spin? the force of the impact of two aircraft impacting at 300+ mph will most deffinitly throw even the heaviest aircraft into some sort of high speed stall.

[Skuzzy]

Then if the collision is not deadly for both pilots, then why not throw the remaining, or both aircraft into a spin? the force of the impact of two aircraft impacting at 300+ mph will most deffinitly throw even the heaviest aircraft into some sort of high speed stall.

If both planes collide, both take damage.

If only one plane collides, then it takes damage and the other one does not.

You first have to wrap your brain around the fact that EVERY computer playing the game, at any given time, has a slightly different representation of where everyone is in the game.  Until you can get that, nothing anyone can say will make any sense.

[kvuo75]

it amazes me in every collision thread how even after it's explained hundreds of times, people still don't get it. 

[Wiley]

it amazes me in every collision thread how even after it's explained hundreds of times, people still don't get it. 

I don't see how it can get any clearer than Lusche's gif.  About the only thing I think might make it clearer would be to have the two videos side by side to clearly show the two different POV's.  It just seems some people can't get past the 'It didn't happen on the other computer' hump.

I also don't understand the thought process that leads to the viewpoint that random collisions when you get remotely close to another aircraft would be preferable to what you see is what you get.  If there's one thing people in online games cannot stand, it's dying to something they have no chance to see or avoid.

Wiley.

[Skuzzy]

it amazes me in every collision thread how even after it's explained hundreds of times, people still don't get it.  

I think a lot of people get so vested in defending thier own ideas they do not know how to gracefully back out of the discussion.

Most people I see seem to be a little frustrated and/or angry over the fact they did not avoid a collision and it made them even angrier to see the other guy fly off because he did avoid the collision.

Regardless of the reasons why, I am obliged to try and find a way to help them understand how and why it works the way it does.  I feel very fortunate there are many players who do get it and are more than willing to go the extra mile to help others understand it.

[EVZ]

I think a lot of people get so vested in defending thier own ideas they do not know how to gracefully back out of the discussion.

That works on both sides of an argument doesn't it ... and no one has as much vested here as AH ...

Most people I see seem to be a little frustrated and/or angry over the fact they did not avoid a collision and it made them even angrier to see the other guy fly off because he did avoid the collision.

It may seem that way from YOUR point of view ... Most of THOSE people DO NOT consider the collision to be a result of THEIR FAILURE ... and suggesting that to them, as you do, immediately creates a confrontation ... some people will submit (fighter pilots are real submissive types aren't they?), some will reluctantly accept it and RESENT IT henceforth, Some will aggressively oppose you. So, you may FAIL 2/3 of the time. The manner in which this bunch of synchophants in the forum TRY to reinforce your point of view probably drives more people AWAY than it converts. I've mentioned Lusche's film to a couple of old hands who understand very well how collisions work and ... lets just say they are NOT impressed. It certainly DOES illustrate the concept ... but it seems to invoke more suspicion than understanding.

Regardless of the reasons why, I am obliged to try and find a way to help them understand how and why it works the way it does.  I feel very fortunate there are many players who do get it and are more than willing to go the extra mile to help others understand it.

I think you do a very good job of explaining it ...  and it's NOT that hard to comprehend. I don't think people fail to understand so much as they REFUSE TO ACCEPT. You're never going to convince people that vinegar tastes good and they are never going to LIKE it ...

[EVZ]

Uh, no, you cannot approximate it.  In order to do so, you would need to know the physical location of the other player, his Internet connection quality, the Internet quality between him and the servers and your Internet quality between you and the servers.

Sure you can - Average Ping Rates (both players), Between Low and High rates, you have a rough approximation.

The 'quality' of the Internet connection constantly changes.

But generally remains within a given RANGE in the short term needed for approximation.
 

They get irritated because they refuse to accept the current system is the best compromise of all systems.

And that = Unhappy Customers ... not a good way to get rich ...

[Rino]

     I think skuzzy has been very patient in explaining the reasoning of the collision model.  It's also evident that some people don't listen
but continue to argue about a dead issue.  Forget the clue rake, we need a clue hammer 

[EVZ]

It's also evident that some people don't listen but continue to argue about a dead issue.  Forget the clue rake, we need a clue hammer

The 1k+ readers of this topic seem to disagree. Skuzzy can lock the topic anytime he feels it's a dead issue ... Some one will just start it again in a week or two ... which should tell you something ...

[FLS]

    I think skuzzy has been very patient in explaining the reasoning of the collision model.  It's also evident that some people don't listen
but continue to argue about a dead issue.  Forget the clue rake, we need a clue hammer  

The weakness of the purely verbal argument dressed up as logical discourse won't be improved by clues. It's hard to see another viewpoint when you're dazzled by your own brilliance.    

Most of us started out young and foolish.  

[Karnak]

Every collision I have ever had in AH I consider to be either my fault or no fault.  The vast majority of them were my fault.  Not once have I had a collision where I thought it was the other guy's fault or that the other guy was trying to ram me.

Don't try to speak for other people, EVZ.

[Brownien]

sooo a one plane collision is like the sound of one hand clapping?

[FLS]

sooo a one plane collision is like the sound of one hand clapping?

Which part of the simple explanation don't you get? Is it the part where 2 aircraft collide or the part where no aircraft collide?