Collisions

[Babalonian]

Here is an animation someone  (Lusche?) put together. It shows the film OVERLAPPED of a single collision, but the views are from the two different computers.

(Image removed from quote.)

As you can see, the plane that is flying strait and level are both planes overlapping. From one view the pony collides from behind, for the other computers view he didn't even come close.

This is caused by internet lag. It takes time for the data to go from your computer to texas, and then to the other players computer. So things are "off" due to that time difference. To get around this the game is designed to be played on your computer. So what you see is what is happening. So if you collide, you get damage. He may not see a collision, so he shouldn't get damage.

Best rule of thumb, AVOID RUNNING INTO OTHER THINGS. then you can only take damage when his bullets hit you. 

[rpm]

If the system recognizes a collision it recognizes a collision. How does 1 object take damage and the other does not? I understand it take 2 to HO, but both should suffer the consequences of it.

[Lusche]

If the system recognizes a collision it recognizes a collision. How does 1 object take damage and the other does not?

Because of the two realities. Your'S and your opponents, which will differ. See the animation above.

If you sucessfully doge my ram attempt on your screen, why would you still like to blow up?

[manglex1]

With that scenario, you could avoid a collision and then blow up because the other player did not avoid it.  I am certain that would be far worse.

Right now, all players have absolute control over colliding with another player.  Any change, such as the one you want, would take control away from you.

If you avoid the collision, you take no damage.  Right now, your computer assigns the damage to your plane if you intersect another object.

If we could guarantee the position of every object, on every computer was in the exact same 3D location, then the exact thing you want would happen with the existing code in place.  There is no way to absolutely insure the location of moving objects, in 3D space, across the Internet.  It cannot be done as every packet latency changes.

That makes sense skuzzy, I see why that's preferable. I won't push it because frankly, I think what we have now works fine. I was just expressing a thought I had. 

And Coombz, I understand perfectly how it works. Like I stated above and in my post, it was me really just thinking aloud and expressing my thoughts.
 

[Skuzzy]

If the system recognizes a collision it recognizes a collision. How does 1 object take damage and the other does not? I understand it take 2 to HO, but both should suffer the consequences of it.

Because the other object did not collide, on that players computer.  Again, you really want your plane to blow up when you make the effort to avoid the collision, but the other guy did not?  You want to give the other guy that kind of power over you?

The "system" that recognizes an intersection with another object, is YOUR computer.  You did not avoid the collision.  If the other player flies off, it is because he did avoid the collision, on HIS computer.

In an HO, you may see you plane hitting his, but on his computer he was still 500 yards out when you blew up.

Bottomline is this;  Any other solution to the 'collision' model will end up giving power to the other player, over you.  You want grief?  That is exactly what you will get.  Right now, if YOU avoid the collision, YOU will not take damage.  Period.

[Skuzzy]

I wish HiTech would code in an option we could set for players who demand that both planes go down when one collides.  It would be interesting to see how fast those players would come to the board screaming how they avoided the collision yet was blown up anyway.

[Lusche]

I wish HiTech would code in an option we could set for players who demand that both planes go down when one collides.  It would be interesting to see how fast those players would come to the board screaming how they avoided the collision yet was blown up anyway.

 

[Babalonian]

I wish HiTech would code in an option we could set for players who demand that both planes go down when one collides.  It would be interesting to see how fast those players would come to the board screaming how they avoided the collision yet was blown up anyway.

I think it's worththe experiment.

$5 on it making many more players cautious/"timid" to engage in A2A combat unless they have the definitive advantage of controlling the first merge(s).    (my reasoning being co-alt first merges in the MA are already on the rare-ish side due to no shortage of players agressively HOing.)

[morfiend]

I wish HiTech would code in an option we could set for players who demand that both planes go down when one collides.  It would be interesting to see how fast those players would come to the board screaming how they avoided the collision yet was blown up anyway.

   

     Make it so!!






   

[rpm]

Because the other object did not collide, on that players computer.  Again, you really want your plane to blow up when you make the effort to avoid the collision, but the other guy did not?  You want to give the other guy that kind of power over you?

The "system" that recognizes an intersection with another object, is YOUR computer.  You did not avoid the collision.  If the other player flies off, it is because he did avoid the collision, on HIS computer.

In an HO, you may see you plane hitting his, but on his computer he was still 500 yards out when you blew up.

Bottomline is this;  Any other solution to the 'collision' model will end up giving power to the other player, over you.  You want grief?  That is exactly what you will get.  Right now, if YOU avoid the collision, YOU will not take damage.  Period.

I'm not trying to be difficult, honest I'm not. It just doesn't make sense to me that AH can't detect an object as large as an airplane hit another object but it can detect something as small as a bullet hitting the same object. Both cause damage and receive damage (i.e. round ricochet) . I understand one computer reads it and the other doesn't but the server does, right? It reads my bullet hitting what I'm seeing, not something 500yds in a different direction.

It's probably something that couldn't be solved without totally rebuilding the game from scratch, but it is a very confusing and annoying effect as is. As far as turning it into a mutual thing, I'd have no problems as long as both went down. Yeah, it would stink to be rammed out of the air, but that's happening to me already.

I hush up now, just my 2 cents.

[Lusche]

I'm not trying to be difficult, honest I'm not. It just doesn't make sense to me that AH can't detect an object as large as an airplane hit another object

It can and it does. Always. Run into a large object, you will get damage.

What you are asking for is applying collision damage to you when you are NOT hit by an airplane at all.

[The Fugitive]

I'm not trying to be difficult, honest I'm not. It just doesn't make sense to me that AH can't detect an object as large as an airplane hit another object but it can detect something as small as a bullet hitting the same object. Both cause damage and receive damage (i.e. round ricochet) . I understand one computer reads it and the other doesn't but the server does, right? It reads my bullet hitting what I'm seeing, not something 500yds in a different direction.

It's probably something that couldn't be solved without totally rebuilding the game from scratch, but it is a very confusing and annoying effect as is. As far as turning it into a mutual thing, I'd have no problems as long as both went down. Yeah, it would stink to be rammed out of the air, but that's happening to me already.

I hush up now, just my 2 cents.

What your having trouble with is picturing two realities that are happening at the same time. Due to lag between the two computers you can't have it the same at the same time. Bullets happen on your screen just like the collisions do. So this is one reality, and the one you are playing. The same happens on the other guys computer and is the second reality. Bullet counts are tallied from each front end (each computer) because that is the game. You are maneuvering to put bullets in the other guy. Even if your lag is high you hits count. Haven't you ever been fighting a guy and hear rounds hit you, or you get shot out of the sky and you think to yourself "how did that guy shoot me??? He had no shot on me???" That's the lag. The other guy saw a shot on his computer and hit.

They COULD do the same with collisions but they DON'T. The reason is because the lag would put planes in positions that one computer doesn't have a collision but the plane would all of a sudden loose a wing. Now, I don't mind a guy now and then getting hits on me when I think I rolled at the right time because in most cases it takes more than a few, but if my wings started dropping off when I wasn't even close to a guy it would get pretty frustrating pretty quick.

[morfiend]

They COULD do the same with collisions but they DON'T. The reason is because the lag would put planes in positions that one computer doesn't have a collision but the plane would all of a sudden loose a wing. Now, I don't mind a guy now and then getting hits on me when I think I rolled at the right time because in most cases it takes more than a few, but if my wings started dropping off when I wasn't even close to a guy it would get pretty frustrating pretty quick.

  If anyone remembers MSN's "the zone" they use a system just like this!  On some nights when lag was bad you could collide with a player before you were in guns range.

  Talk about frustrating colliding with a player 200 yds infront of you!

  As Skuzzy said I'd like to see HTC implement this for just 1 week,then I'd laugh my butt off at all those whining for it to change to how it is now.


     

[Karnak]

Reading these threads I notice that players, on both sides of the collision modeling argument, seem to generally underestimate the divergence that can happen between the two computers.  50ft is tossed out pretty frequently, but I suspect it is on the low end of the most common divergence.

[Wiley]

Reading these threads I notice that players, on both sides of the collision modeling argument, seem to generally underestimate the divergence that can happen between the two computers.  50ft is tossed out pretty frequently, but I suspect it is on the low end of the most common divergence.

Foe me it's never been an exact distance.  Just a number most can visualize easily as being a noticeble distance away.

Wiley.