Collisions

[titanic3]

the how dose battle field 3 do it?

BF3 has a hitbox that is shaped like a soldier, jet or whatever vehicle you're in. When a bullet hits the hitbox, the target takes damage.

When theres lag, the soldier, jet or whatever vehicle does not match up with the hitbox. Therefore, when you shoot at a lagger in Bf3, even though you see your bullets passing through the soldier, jet or vehicle, you are not doing any damage because the hitbox is a few spaces behind, in front or not there at all.

[EVZ]

Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner. This is exactly why we made the current choices for bullet and plane collisions.

And the choices are reasonable ... However, I think the ongoing frustration caused by collisions modelling is readily apparent? The system in use makes LAG into a WEAPON ... that -IS- employed by experienced players who CHOOSE to exploit the GAMEY aspect of collision modeling. While I agree that the distant player, flying blissfully along and bothering no one should NOT suffer for collisions he's not even aware of ... I'd say 99.9% of all collisions take place between opponents involved in CLOSE COMBAT ... not innocents wondering "whatwasthat?" Closing the loophole that allows RAMMING (and surviving) as a viable (if GAMEY) tactic would make AH a LOT more realistic. BOTH partys going down in the event of a collision would undoubtedly diminish the number of collisions taking place dramatically.

[Karnak]

How does it make lag a weapon?

I think you 100% fail to understand how things work.

[Skuzzy]

And the choices are reasonable ... However, I think the ongoing frustration caused by collisions modelling is readily apparent? The system in use makes LAG into a WEAPON ... that -IS- employed by experienced players who CHOOSE to exploit the GAMEY aspect of collision modeling. While I agree that the distant player, flying blissfully along and bothering no one should NOT suffer for collisions he's not even aware of ... I'd say 99.9% of all collisions take place between opponents involved in CLOSE COMBAT ... not innocents wondering "whatwasthat?" Closing the loophole that allows RAMMING (and surviving) as a viable (if GAMEY) tactic would make AH a LOT more realistic. BOTH partys going down in the event of a collision would undoubtedly diminish the number of collisions taking place dramatically.

When both parties do collide, they both go down.

The current system gives you absolute control over your collisions.  Your idea gives control over your collision to the other player.  You just gave the other player the power to force a collision where you go down and there is nothing you can do to avoid it.  How does that make it less frustrating?

By the way, it is not lag that is the issue.  It is time displacement.  The time it takes data to cover the distance between your computer, the server and the other players computer.

[Ack-Ack]

And the choices are reasonable ... However, I think the ongoing frustration caused by collisions modelling is readily apparent? The system in use makes LAG into a WEAPON ... that -IS- employed by experienced players who CHOOSE to exploit the GAMEY aspect of collision modeling. While I agree that the distant player, flying blissfully along and bothering no one should NOT suffer for collisions he's not even aware of ... I'd say 99.9% of all collisions take place between opponents involved in CLOSE COMBAT ... not innocents wondering "whatwasthat?" Closing the loophole that allows RAMMING (and surviving) as a viable (if GAMEY) tactic would make AH a LOT more realistic. BOTH partys going down in the event of a collision would undoubtedly diminish the number of collisions taking place dramatically.

I think you should take some time to learn how the collision model works because it sounds like you really don't have a clue how it works.

ack-ack

[morfiend]

How does it make lag a weapon?

I think you 100% fail to understand how things work.

  Agreed,what most fail to realize is the fact they took damage from bullets fired and not the collision! You may recieve the collision message because your FE saw a collision,the other guys FE didn't so he flies away undamaged as should be.

  Years ago I flew a sim that used a collision model much like players think they want,however I quit because I was tired of colliding with planes infront of me and I wasnt even in guns range!
 You could never tell if you were too close,atleast with AH's collision model it's wysiwig[what you see is what you get! And I for 1 would rather that than exploding to a collision when the other guy is  a couple hundred yards away.



     YMMV.




  

[Wiley]

How does it make lag a weapon?

I think you 100% fail to understand how things work.

Well, I have run into situations at most half a dozen times since I've been here that have allowed me to see a guy about to have a collision with me probably about 3 seconds out.

The reader's digest version is, in a low speed scissors, your plane on his FE is generally dragging a plane length or two behind where you're showing on your FE.  I've seen guys pulling into me, and I could tell by the timing they were about to cut behind me about a plane length or two, and had a split second to think, 'He's probably going to have a collision.  Yup, there he goes.'

I'd love to see the guy that can use it consistently and effectively as a weapon, as I don't think he exists.

Wiley.

[Karnak]

Well, I have run into situations at most half a dozen times since I've been here that have allowed me to see a guy about to have a collision with me probably about 3 seconds out.

The reader's digest version is, in a low speed scissors, your plane on his FE is generally dragging a plane length or two behind where you're showing on your FE.  I've seen guys pulling into me, and I could tell by the timing they were about to cut behind me about a plane length or two, and had a split second to think, 'He's probably going to have a collision.  Yup, there he goes.'

I'd love to see the guy that can use it consistently and effectively as a weapon, as I don't think he exists.

Wiley.

Depends on where you and he are in the world.  If you're in New York and he is in Tokyo, that 2-3 lengths will be more like 4-6 lengths.  If you're in Dallas and he is in Austin, it could well be less than 1 length.

It is much easier to just shoot the guy than to fly in front of him, maybe even in front of his guns, trying to ram him on his FE and not yours.  Somebody trying to use that ramming technique is likely an easy kill due to it.

[Wiley]

It is much easier to just shoot the guy than to fly in front of him, maybe even in front of his guns, trying to ram him on his FE and not yours.  Somebody trying to use that ramming technique is likely an easy kill due to it.

That's my take on it as well, and I personally think the guys that are constantly complaining about it are doing something wrong if they're running into that many aircraft in an evening, but that's just me.

Wiley.

[titanic3]

Im not complaining and I understand the system and all that, but...

I don't get how sometimes, you only lose a single part and the other guy exploded and vice versa.

Just yesterday, I was rammed while in a 262 (I'm not afraid to lose perks), and only lost an aileron while the other guy blew up. How does that work? I was going 500+ and him at 200+, over 700mph in total, how does that not equate into my entire wing ripping off, at the very least? I was pretty amused by it for a few minutes.

[Wiley]

Im not complaining and I understand the system and all that, but...

I don't get how sometimes, you only lose a single part and the other guy exploded and vice versa.

Just yesterday, I was rammed while in a 262 (I'm not afraid to lose perks), and only lost an aileron while the other guy blew up. How does that work? I was going 500+ and him at 200+, over 700mph in total, how does that not equate into my entire wing ripping off, at the very least? I was pretty amused by it for a few minutes.

This post actually touches on something I've noticed now and again when colliding at high speed, that I've wondered if it might be worth changing.

I tend to collide most often at high speed.  Quite often, I will collide with a guy and remove say, an aileron, or an elevator.  The thing that confuses me, I'm not generally (able to be) pulling hard at all in these collisions, I'm usually in compression.  This means the aircraft isn't rolling that fast or changing attitude that fast.  It's basically moving straight.

The part that comes off is on the trailing edge of the wing.  How did it get knocked off, but the rest of the wing stay intact?

I'm assuming it's due to the amount of 'samples' my computer takes looking for collisions.  Basically the wing would have gone through the bandit, and it only registered that the aileron hit the bandit?

It would seem to be a pretty significant improvement if the system did a bit of extrapolation on what actually took the damage based on the angle it came from when it detects the hit.  In other words, if the aircraft hit from the front, if your aileron got knocked off, there's very little possibility the colliding object didn't have to go through the wing to get there.

Or when the code checks for collisions, does it have no access to direction of travel, and it's as though at all times the plane is standing still?

Just a thought.

Wiley.

[FLS]

Just because you both collided doesn't mean you had the same collision. Remember that the degree of position difference ranges from none, you both see the same thing, to no collision at all. Any difference between those extremes can give you different collisions with different damage amounts.

[Wiley]

Just because you both collided doesn't mean you had the same collision. Remember that the degree of position difference ranges from none, you both see the same thing, to no collision at all. Any difference between those extremes can give you different collisions with different damage amounts.

I'm not talking about both sides, I'm only speaking in terms of what my FE saw.

I don't run film often, but most of my collisions are of the making a run on a bomber and having an, 'Oh crap, I'm going way too fast and on a direct collision course with his wing!" variety.

Basically my wingtip goes through some part of his plane, and the control surface gets knocked off, but that's it.  I can only envision one scenario where an aileron would get knocked off and the wing wouldn't be damaged, and that's if the wing goes over the bandit and the aileron is the only thing to touch.  I know I've collided with buffs rolled 90 degrees to their attitude and only taken off an aileron.  I just can't see how that would happen other than what I described above.

Wiley.

[Tec]

And the choices are reasonable ... However, I think the ongoing frustration caused by collisions modelling is readily apparent? The system in use makes LAG into a WEAPON ... that -IS- employed by experienced players who CHOOSE to exploit the GAMEY aspect of collision modeling. While I agree that the distant player, flying blissfully along and bothering no one should NOT suffer for collisions he's not even aware of ... I'd say 99.9% of all collisions take place between opponents involved in CLOSE COMBAT ... not innocents wondering "whatwasthat?" Closing the loophole that allows RAMMING (and surviving) as a viable (if GAMEY) tactic would make AH a LOT more realistic. BOTH partys going down in the event of a collision would undoubtedly diminish the number of collisions taking place dramatically.

Thanks for the laugh.

[olds442]

I have no idea what this is in reference to.  Is that another flight sim?

The problem with trying to compare games starts with this question:  Client based, or Server based?

Of course, the obvious one is you cannot compare a first person shooter to a flight simulator.  Vastly different in all aspects.  That is like asking why a skateboard cannot perform like a Ferrari.

BF3 is client based.