Collisions

[EVZ]

See rule #4

[RTHolmes]

I'm still waiting to see film of this mythical intentional one-sided collision.

3 or more examples with the same pilots in the same session please, just to show it can be done intentionally and consistently.


edit: we'll need the the films from both FEs obviously, just to confirm it was one-sided.

[EVZ]

A collision was detected in the following instance. You said no to that question.

So please elaborate.

-NO- is about as elaborate as it gets ... That is NOT what I was suggesting ... There is NO consideration of -who did what- required. A collision involves TWO pilots who have accepted the risk that they -WILL- crash if they collide. Nobody flys away ... VERY SIMPLE

[RTHolmes]

if your aircraft collides with another aircraft, you take damage.
if another aircraft collides with your aircraft, he takes damage.

which bit of that dont you like?

[Skuzzy]

-NO- is about as elaborate as it gets ... That is NOT what I was suggesting ... There is NO consideration of -who did what- required. A collision involves TWO pilots who have accepted the risk that they -WILL- crash if they collide. Nobody flys away ... VERY SIMPLE

You do understand and accept that for the two players they both are in different places on each others screens?

In order to do what you want, you are penalizing the player who manages to avoid a collision because the other player did not.  Yes, that is exactly what happens in the game because the two planes are NOT in the same places on both screens.

The other sceanario is as Karnak said.  You only want collisions to occur when BOTH computers have detected a collision.  Might as well turn off collisions then.  Given the fact that the planes on each compter are in different locations on each computer, the odds of a collision occuring on both is nearly improbable.  This would encourage reckless flight, whereas the current system encourages and respects anyone who manages to avoid a collision.

[grizz441]

Deleted for quote of a rule #4 violation

[LCADolby]

Since a particular bug (that I had on youtube film) has been fixed, I have barely had any collisions.  

Now all we need to work on; is a world on fibre optic and not copper wire. Even then, I'm not sure that we will be satisfied with the speed of light.

[ink]

You do understand and accept that for the two players they both are in different places on each others screens?

In order to do what you want, you are penalizing the player who manages to avoid a collision because the other player did not.  Yes, that is exactly what happens in the game because the two planes are NOT in the same places on both screens.

The other sceanario is as Karnak said.  You only want collisions to occur when BOTH computers have detected a collision.  Might as well turn off collisions then.  Given the fact that the planes on each compter are in different locations on each computer, the odds of a collision occuring on both is nearly improbable.  This would encourage reckless flight, whereas the current system encourages and respects anyone who manages to avoid a collision.

you have far more patience then I  

[Skuzzy]

Since a particular bug (that I had on youtube film) has been fixed, I have barely had any collisions.  

Now all we need to work on; is a world on fibre optic and not copper wire. Even then, I'm not sure that we will be satisfied with the speed of light.

Even then the issue still exists.

You could do a very elaborate server driven flight model where all inputs are buffered and then time to each computer is measured and only when that maxium time has elapsed, send the flight positioning information to all at one time with a time to display delta between each data packet.

Your controls would be horrible.  Move the stick, wait a second for the results.  Rinse and repeat.  Not acceptable either.

[LCADolby]

Eeek! There are worms in this can!

[Karnak]

-NO- is about as elaborate as it gets ... That is NOT what I was suggesting ... There is NO consideration of -who did what- required. A collision involves TWO pilots who have accepted the risk that they -WILL- crash if they collide. Nobody flys away ... VERY SIMPLE

So, if you are attacking a base and some guy decides to ram you, even though on your FE you are 200ft away from him and don't even think you need to dodge, you are fine with going down?  Really?  You think this wouldn't be massively abused?  You think that complaints about ramming would go down?  After all, the defender is back up where he was in 60 seconds whereas the attacker will take 300 to 600 seconds to get back to were he was.  That is a pretty good ratio for the defender, no?

Try to actually think about what people are saying and think about the consequences of your ideas beyond your ideal "everything will be just perfect" initial thought.  Try to find flaws in your ideas as well.

[ImADot]

EVZ,

Made-up numbers here for illustration:

My front-end has my position at 200,6000,1845 and your position at 200,6050,1850 in the x,y,z world; close, but not close enough that my front-end detects a collision with your aircraft.

Your front-end has your position at 200,6010,1840 and my position at 200,6010,1835 in the x,y,z world; close enough that your front-end detects a collision with my aircraft.

You see the message that you have collided with me.
I see the message that you have collided with me.
Nowhere is there a message saying I have collided with you - because on my front-end there was no collision.

Why do you insist that I should also take damage?

It is a cold, hard fact that each player is playing against what their own front-end is showing them. If I hit you with bullets on my front-end, your front-end is updated with that data and you see/hear hits even if on your front-end you see an impossible angle for hits. Same goes for collisions. If I collide with you on my front-end but to your front-end there was no collision, I take damage because it happened on my computer. You are informed that I collided with you and you continue to fly away unharmed, because on your computer there was no collision.

[RTHolmes]

Now all we need to work on; is a world on fibre optic and not copper wire. Even then, I'm not sure that we will be satisfied with the speed of light.

strangely, fibre is generally slower than copper cable. you do get a whole lot more bandwidth in the same size bundle though.

[hitech]

strangely, fibre is generally slower than copper cable. you do get a whole lot more bandwidth in the same size bundle though.

unshielded copper conductor range 95 to 97% that of the speed of light in vacuum.

Speed of light in glass about 66% speed of light in vacuum.

HiTech

[EVZ]

You do understand and accept that for the two players they both are in different places on each others screens? In order to do what you want, you are penalizing the player who manages to avoid collision because the other player did not.

I would penalise that player for participating in, and possibly CAUSING (intentionally or not) -A- collision ... He put himself INTO that position and accepted the known risk ... a collision occurs ... he goes down too.

If you want to postulate he was BEING rammed, maybe trying to avoid, and NOT making a CHOICE to participate ... it's also really simple ... He FAILED.

SOMEBODY is always going to complain ... I can't eliminate that ... But MY WAY does eliminate the GAMEY use of this factor as a weapon and DISCOURAGES any behavior that LEADS to collisions. It's also (IMHO) more realistic.