collision model

[Devil 505]

Lets try this:

If you are the attacking plane and you dive past an enemy at a close distance but did not collide with him on your screen - should you explode because it was a collision on your enemy's screen?

That is what you are asking for.

[Arlo]

.... since you have no situational awareness of directly behind you.

You could just leave the ''... of directly behind you." part off that.

[Arlo]

When a mechanic exists that annoys a player but has no other real purpose why leave it in.

You not understanding a mechanic of the game doesn't make its only purpose to annoy you.

[Zygote404]

Lets try this:

If you are the attacking plane and you dive past an enemy at a close distance but did not collide with him on your screen - should you explode because it was a collision on your enemy's screen?

That is what you are asking for.

Not saying that at all.  I'm saying the guy that was dived on that can't see behind his plane and didn't cause a collision and could not have seen a collision either, should not die either.   In that situation IMO it'd be better for game play reasons to not flag any collision. 

The reason for that is simple - its pointless and serves only to annoy a subscriber to kill them in those circumstances.  The other reason for that is you could theoretically up a Arado or a Mossie bomber and fly around almost colliding with peoples 6's and be able to shoot them down with collisions.

[Arlo]

In that situation IMO it'd be better for game play reasons to not flag any collision. 

Someone once said something like that could be easy to code with an 'if this than that' code.

I asked for more details like 'if what then what?'

I suspect its not as easy as coding 'if player a has no SA ('can't' see behind him) and player b is diving at a speed faster than player a is traveling then player a receives no collision damage.

Well, of course, the game has no idea of either players situation awareness.

So that can't be coded.

What about speed and position?

If player b is behind player a and traveling faster than he is then player a receives no collision damage?

What if player a actually does have effective situational awareness and chops throttle as player b saddles up - forcing a rear end collision?

Well ..... that doesn't work.

No collisions ever?

Player b dives through you, guns blazing and player a is shot down (player b zooms through without a scratch.

Hmmmmm ....

Either player registers a collision and both planes are wrecked?

Player a actually had effective SA and dodged his plane at the last possible second ... on his end .... but .... down he goes because player b's front end saw a collision.

Help us out here. Provide a solution to your problem.

[Zygote404]

Someone once said something like that could be easy to code with an 'if this than that' code.

I asked for more details like 'if what then what?'

I suspect its not as easy as coding 'if player a has no SA ('can't' see behind him) and player b is diving at a speed faster than player a is traveling then player a receives no collision damage.

(1) Well, of course, the game has no idea of either players situation awareness.

So that can't be coded.

What about speed and position?

(2) If player b is behind player a and traveling faster than he is then player a receives no collision damage?

What if player a actually does have effective situational awareness and chops throttle as player b saddles up - forcing a rear end collision?

Well ..... that doesn't work.

No collisions ever?

(3) Player b dives through you, guns blazing and player a is shot down (player b zooms through without a scratch.

Hmmmmm ....

Either player registers a collision and both planes are wrecked?

Player a actually had effective SA and dodged his plane at the last possible second ... on his end .... but .... down he goes because player b's front end saw a collision.

Help us out here. Provide a solution to your problem.

Its not that difficult in fact. 

(1) the game has an exquisite idea of your SA, which is why if a part of your plane is blocking an enemy it doesn't show a red icon.

(2) If player a is behind player b and player b cannot see player a and player a does not collide with player b but on player b's client player a collides with player b then no collision

(3) if player a dives through player b's plane (2) is no satisfied since player a collides with player b.  If on player b's client player b does not collide with player b then player b doesn't collide obviously, if however in diving through player b's plane player b's client detects a collision player be dies (both collide).

The only time player b doesn't collide is where player a doesn't collide but on player b's client there is a clip of player a colliding and player b cannot witness the collision - direct 6 collision.

The main purpose being to acknowledge its impossible to collide with something your directly moving away from.  Any collision of something your moving directly away from is a collision of the object moving towards you.   

[FLS]

you guys are incorrigible.  I wasn't in reverse when I COLLIDED WITH THE F4U THAT WAS SCREAMING IN BEHIND ME, I will just take the honor of having the fastest internet and monitor and can near see in to the future just cant see the plane I am about to hit.
all day I hear it in the ma all day, I just seem to be the only one that brings it to the forums.

since its all my fault and I seem to ram every plane (EVEN FROM THE REAR) ill digress.

please lock this as its no longer helpful.

thanks

I'm sorry. I should have told you to reread Hitech and Skuzzy, not the whole thread. 

It's not your fault. You are fixated on unimportant details that prevent you from understanding what we're trying to tell you.

There is nothing about your computer or connection that causes you to have more collisions.

The F4u that hit you from behind caused your collision. You didn't see him coming and couldn't get out of the way. In real life that would not prevent the collision. In Aces High it doesn't prevent the collision. The collision occurred on your PC and that is why you were damaged. A tragic occurrence which is not your fault. You don't have to see it or cause it. You just have to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

If the F4u that hit you on your PC did not collide with you on their PC, then they did not have a collision. Since they did not have a collision on their PC they didn't get damaged. Since there was no collision on their PC they are not at fault on their PC.

In real life those two things cannot both be true at the same time. In Aces High it can happen a lot. It's the internet, it brings us together in the arena but there's a cost.

Some people think a different solution would be better but most of us disagree and think the current solution is genius.

With more experience you'll collide less. Look where you want to go not at what you don't want to hit and check 6 often.   

[Arlo]

Its not that difficult in fact. 

(1) the game has an exquisite idea of your SA, which is why if a part of your plane is blocking an enemy it doesn't show a red icon.

(2) If player a is behind player b and player b cannot see player a and player a does not collide with player b but on player b's client player a collides with player b then no collision

(3) if player a dives through player b's plane (2) is no satisfied since player a collides with player b.  If on player b's client player b does not collide with player b then player b doesn't collide obviously, if however in diving through player b's plane player b's client detects a collision player be dies (both collide).

The only time player b doesn't collide is where player a doesn't collide but on player b's client there is a clip of player a colliding and player b cannot witness the collision - direct 6 collision.

The main purpose being to acknowledge its impossible to collide with something your directly moving away from.  Any collision of something your moving directly away from is a collision of the object moving towards you.

1) You're confused about what situational awareness means. It's never meant a blind spot to your field of view. If it was as simplistic as that you'd be confused every time an enemy plane passed you then saddled.

2) Since you think the game equates having an enemy plane on your dead six with 'unavoidable lack of SA' then I guess actually having SA and chopping throttle to force a 'pass through' is a fair result, what with your claim of an unfair situation created by having a front end collision model?

3) " If on player b's client player b does not collide with player b then player b doesn't collide obviously, if however in diving through player b's plane player b's client detects a collision player be dies (both collide)." I really don't think I confused you. I was very careful. I think you're confusing you. Please take the advantage of a Mulligan, in this case.

4) "The main purpose being to acknowledge its impossible to collide with something your directly moving away from." And this is where you deviate from simple physics (and the unavoidable reality of lag, for that matter). Moving in the same direction does not equate to 'moving away.' Rear end collisions happen the same way in the air as on the ground. If the plane behind you is travelling at 400 mph and you are travelling at less than 400 mph and neither of you turn then you both collide. If he turns at the last tenth of a second and misses you by mere inches on his front end .... and your SA tells you to fly straight and steady at cruise speed .... you may be the only plane that suffers damage. If the other player decides to ram your tail and you suddenly hear his engine and turn at the last second ... he may see that his plane collided where your front end shows you barely dodged .... his plane, alone, takes damage.

Avoid hubris. Embrace logic. We are all actually on your side (the best possible solution). You just refuse to accept that, it seems.

(Please, don't confuse 'front end' with what you're currently viewing. It's what your PC sees - which can be more than you see.)

 

[FLS]

Its not that difficult in fact. 

(1) the game has an exquisite idea of your SA, which is why if a part of your plane is blocking an enemy it doesn't show a red icon.

(2) If player a is behind player b and player b cannot see player a and player a does not collide with player b but on player b's client player a collides with player b then no collision

(3) if player a dives through player b's plane (2) is no satisfied since player a collides with player b.  If on player b's client player b does not collide with player b then player b doesn't collide obviously, if however in diving through player b's plane player b's client detects a collision player be dies (both collide).

The only time player b doesn't collide is where player a doesn't collide but on player b's client there is a clip of player a colliding and player b cannot witness the collision - direct 6 collision.

The main purpose being to acknowledge its impossible to collide with something your directly moving away from.  Any collision of something your moving directly away from is a collision of the object moving towards you.

Collisions with bullets are handled the same as collisions with aircraft. So if you don't see someone shoot you, you won't get shot.   

[Arlo]

I ..... don't have the best SA in AH. But I still know what it is. I'm tempted to start an SA thread. Wait, even better, I'm tempted to revive an SA thread (you know more than one already exists). That way the author of the original thread would be held to task on his .... score.

My short take, however:

SA is more than seeing an enemy plane. It's a combination of dar bar, radar, deduction (whether radar is up or not). 'I don't see him in front of me, beside me, below me - when I dip alternating wings, above me ... yet there's enemy dar bar. If he sees me where would he likely be? Have I flown straight on auto pilot too long?'

How about in a furball? Well, effective SA is akin to telepathic intuition there. Sure, you see the guy you're chasing (fixated on?), you saw his wingman, who broke right, you saw the entire flight of four when you headed their way, you didn't see the last two friendlies splash, you didn't see three new enemy cons enter the fray (you didn't even notice the dar bar shift as they entered the sector you're in. Kinda hard to notice the guy who dove on your six, has terrible gunnery skills but broke left at the last second.

[Zygote404]

1) You're confused about what situational awareness means. It's never meant a blind spot to your field of view. If it was as simplistic as that you'd be confused every time an enemy plane passed you then saddled.

2) Since you think the game equates having an enemy plane on your dead six with 'unavoidable lack of SA' then I guess actually having SA and chopping throttle to force a 'pass through' is a fair result, what with your claim of an unfair situation created by having a front end collision model?

3) " If on player b's client player A does not collide with player b then player b doesn't collide obviously, if however in diving through player b's plane player b's client detects a collision player b dies (both collide)." I really don't think I confused you. I was very careful. I think you're confusing you. Please take the advantage of a Mulligan, in this case.

4) "The main purpose being to acknowledge its impossible to collide with something your directly moving away from." And this is where you deviate from simple physics (and the unavoidable reality of lag, for that matter). Moving in the same direction does not equate to 'moving away.' Rear end collisions happen the same way in the air as on the ground. If the plane behind you is travelling at 400 mph and you are travelling at less than 400 mph and neither of you turn then you both collide. If he turns at the last tenth of a second and misses you by mere inches on his front end .... and your SA tells you to fly straight and steady at cruise speed .... you may be the only plane that suffers damage. If the other player decides to ram your tail and you suddenly hear his engine and turn at the last second ... he may see that his plane collided where your front end shows you barely dodged .... his plane, alone, takes damage.

Avoid hubris. Embrace logic. We are all actually on your side (the best possible solution). You just refuse to accept that, it seems.

(Please, don't confuse 'front end' with what your currently viewing. It's what your PC sees - which can be more than you see.)

 

(1) SA does not only apply to the entire situation.  SA also applies to portions of a situation.   One could have excellent forward SA and terrible side and aft SA.   

(2) This makes no sense at all.  Strawman argument.

(3) It doesn't take a genius to figure out what I meant. Fixed it for you.

(4) It is impossible to collide with something your moving away from.  If something is moving towards you while your moving away from it, that thing can collide with you, you cannot collide with it unless you reverse direction towards it.   Its a very basic concept.

Collisions with bullets are handled the same as collisions with aircraft. So if you don't see someone shoot you, you won't get shot.   

Yeah no.  We're specifically talking about planes colliding not bullets, you don't get collision message with bullets so clearly even if bullets and planes used the same collision code there is a way to differentiate the different collisions - strawman argument.

Lastly the point i'm making is this - neither player A or player B see's a collision.  Since neither see's a collision then why cause player B to crash?  In a situation where player A doesn't see a collision and player B does, Player A is spared a collision because they didn't see one while player B is damaged or destroyed because he did. 

In this latter situation where player B is rear ended, neither saw a collision, even though player B's client technically did, but it seems counter productive in this situation to flag one since a) its not player b's fault, its player a's, and b) player b had no way to avoid it since he couldn't' see player A in the first place.    Its probably better to allow them to continue fighting their fight, better gameplay, better outcome.

[Arlo]

(1) SA does not only apply to the entire situation.  SA also applies to portions of a situation.   One could have excellent forward SA and terrible side and aft SA.   

(2) This makes no sense at all.  Strawman argument.

(3) It doesn't take a genius to figure out what I meant. Fixed it for you.

(4) It is impossible to collide with something your moving away from.  If something is moving towards you while your moving away from it, that thing can collide with you, you cannot collide with it unless you reverse direction towards it.   Its a very basic concept.
Yeah no.  We're specifically talking about planes colliding not bullets, you don't get collision message with bullets so clearly even if bullets and planes used the same collision code there is a way to differentiate the different collisions - strawman argument.

1) SA always applies to the entire situation. There's no such thing as 'excellent forward SA.'

2) A 'strawman argument' means refuting an argument that was not presented by the opposing side. Your 'solution' to your problem was "If player a is behind player b and player b cannot see player a and player a does not collide with player b but on player b's client player a collides with player b then no collision." I presented a scenario where that can be taken advantage of. You can either prove my scenario false or you can concede a flaw in your 'solution.'

3) You almost fixed it. I'm generous. Take a second shot and then we might discuss the merits and flaws of your claim.

4) Flying in front of does not equate to 'moving away.' Try this .... do you have a couple of matchbox or hot wheels cars? Maybe a couple of lengths of hot wheels track? (If you don't, I understand, those went away years ago back in my youth.) At least visualize. Roll the first car, gently .... on the track. Quickly roll the second car, hard .... on the track. Can you picture the second car ramming into the first? You know ... the first car that was 'moving away?' It wasn't 'moving away' fast enough.

I'm really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by spending all this time and effort explaining that to you. If it goes much further I risk getting rule sanctioned due to possible perception that I'm being intentionally rude or mean to you. Depending on the effort you put into a reply, I may not bother responding. No offense intended.

[Arlo]

Lastly the point i'm making is this - neither player A or player B see's a collision.  Since neither see's a collision then why cause player B to crash?  In a situation where player A doesn't see a collision and player B does, Player A is spared a collision because they didn't see one while player B is damaged or destroyed because he did. 

In this latter situation where player B is rear ended, neither saw a collision, even though player B's client technically did, but it seems counter productive in this situation to flag one since a) its not player b's fault, its player a's, and b) player b had no way to avoid it since he couldn't' see player A in the first place.    Its probably better to allow them to continue fighting their fight, better gameplay, better outcome.

I'm sorry but, again, you're confusing what your computer sees with what you (don't) see.

[FLS]

... you don't get collision message with bullets ....

The holes and damage are absolutely sending a message.

[Zygote404]

I'm sorry but, again, you're confusing what your computer sees with what you (don't) see.

No I'm not.  I'm pointing out that the collision code doesn't necessarily need to be acted upon if the acting upon is detrimental to game play - I think it is in the situation where no one see's a collision in a very specific circumstance and the collision code still activates where it'd probably be better that it didn't for game play purposes.

Obviously its not up to me, or you, its up to HTC but I think frustrating the player is this particular circumstance is probably counter productive.