collision model

[Arlo]

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.

'The player' meaning you. Good luck, Zygote. I actually have confidence that years down the road this thread of yours will make you laugh and all of us will have beers and swap other stories and jokes. 

[Zygote404]

'The player' meaning you. Good luck, Zygote. I actually have confidence that years down the road this thread of yours will make you laugh and all of us will have beers and swap other stories and jokes. 

Kindof like the one where I suggested some GV bases should have the ability to field planes and got flamed / laughed at and then years later they can   <S>

[Skuzzy]

Not trying to be contentious here, but someone claiming their SA is bad and they want the game changed to compensate for it, is not what I would call a solid, logical argument for changing a combat flight sim.

[Zygote404]

Not trying to be contentious here, but someone claiming their SA is bad and they want the game changed to compensate for it, is not what I would call a solid, logical argument for changing a combat flight sim.

Did someone say that though?

[hitech]

Did someone say that though?

You want the sim to detect your SA and change a result of physics based on your SA.

Yep you said that.

I don't really care who was at fault. Your plane collided with another plane, it was in the same place at the same time as another aircraft. And hence your plane should take damage.

Accidents happen.
Deal with it.

HiTech

[Vinkman]

this has been going around and around. How about this...

Yes yes, we all understand the collision how lag affect the what is seen on two different screens.   But that doesn't mean the model had to reflect what is seen. [gunnery model doesn't].

The option that has not been discussed: The collision had to happen on both screens or there is no collision for anyone.
    This ends the one-sided collision, and preserves the "I missed on my screen so I shouldn't get a collision" issue. It also ends the Gamey ability to create a one-sided collision. The side effect is that you might see a collision on your end but NOT get a collision message.

Would anyone really complain about that?  Please discuss. 

[hitech]

The option that has not been discussed: The collision had to happen on both screens or there is no collision for anyone.
    This ends the one-sided collision, and preserves the "I missed on my screen so I shouldn't get a collision" issue. It also ends the Gamey ability to create a one-sided collision. The side effect is that you might see a collision on your end but NOT get a collision message.

G I only thought of that 25 years ago.

What your solution does 2 things bad for game play. And one annoying thing.

First it allows an attacker from the rear to be able to flying right threw another plane while shooting with out having to worry about a collision.

2nd it penalizes some one on a head on from pulling up and not colliding , because it allows the other guy to continue shooting and fly right threw the other plane.

And now because no damage can happen until the host receives and re transmits the collision, there would be a very noticeable lag between the visual collision and taking damage.

HiTech

[Vinkman]

G I only thought of that 25 years ago.

I didn't say no one thought of it, I said it was not discussed in this thread 

What your solution does 2 things bad for game play. And one annoying thing.

First it allows an attacker from the rear to be able to flying right threw another plane while shooting with out having to worry about a collision.

2nd it penalizes some one on a head on from pulling up and not colliding , because it allows the other guy to continue shooting and fly right threw the other plane.

And now because no damage can happen until the host receives and re transmits the collision, there would be a very noticeable lag between the visual collision and taking damage.

HiTech

I see. But wouldn't people flying straight at each other get double collisions?  the lag on the damage a big deal? I see the collide message isn't that lag less than a second?

The off angle flying through a guy while shooting would be weird. If you've been there and done that and think it would be a bigger issue, I believe you. 

[hitech]

The option that has not been discussed:

Did not say in this thread.  Hence my assumption of (at any time).

I see. But wouldn't people flying straight at each other get double collisions?

If both collided yes they would, but I am speaking of how it changes the choices you make on a head on engagement. I.E. how it effects behavior.

At the moment all is in your own hands, you know if you do not collide with the other guy, you do not take damage and hence reap the rewards of that choice.

Under your suggestion.

You know that if you avoid the collision you will not take damage, but also know this allows the other guy to fly right threw you with out taking damage.And hence your choice gives the other guy an advantage. He can now choose to collide or not collide with the same outcome. Do you think that knowledge may change the way you approach head ons?

I believe most people would now make the choice to fly right threw the other person, causing a rise in the number of head on collisions and hence blaming other guy, why didn't you try to avoid. And hence a huge rise in whines.

the lag on the damage a big deal? I see the collide message isn't that lag less than a second?

I said it was annoying. Not a big deal.

HiTech

[Zygote404]

You want the sim to detect your SA and change a result of physics based on your SA.

Yep you said that.

I don't really care who was at fault. Your plane collided with another plane, it was in the same place at the same time as another aircraft. And hence your plane should take damage.

Accidents happen.
Deal with it.

HiTech

No I did not say I wanted the game to do anything.  I said it would probably be better game wise if it did.

Its physically impossible for an object moving in one direction to collide with a faster object moving in the same direction.   Imagine a guy running away from another guy with a gun.  The guy with the gun shoots at the guy running.  Does the bullet collide with the guy running? Yes.  Does the guy running collide with the bullet.  No. 

I think I've had one collision in 3 months I've been playing where a plane hit me from behind.   I don't need to deal with it because its not bothering me, this is merely a discussion.   I thought that was what forums are for?

[hitech]

Its physically impossible for an object moving in one direction to collide with a faster object moving in the same direction.   

I believe you are not using the term collide in it's normal fashion of.

to strike one another or one against the other with a forceful impact; come into violent contact; crash:

I.E. there are always 2 objects in a collision.

You appear to be using the term collide in the manner of a car rear end collision at a stop light, saying only the rear car collided?
Or possibly missing the term CAUSED? If so Caused is assigning fault, as I have said before fault has nothing to do with the collision system, and I have no desire to add fault to the collision system.

Because if the slower object is in front of the faster object , it absolutely can collide as described above.

HiTech

[Lusche]

Often players confuse 'collide with' with 'ram into'.  And subsequently get angry about the "you have collided" message. 

[FLS]

Often players confuse 'collide with' with 'ram into'.  And subsequently get angry about the "you have collided" message. 

They get stuck on "He rammed me and didn't get hurt. It's not fair." If they can't move on from there it doesn't matter how well we explain it.

[puller]

I just read that "when you shoot bullets they collide with the guy running but the guy running doesn't collide with the bullets"

That's the damnedest thing I have ever heard...Because why????

Earth is orbiting in space...An asteroid is on a collision course with Earth...The asteroid collides​ with the earth...The earth collides with the asteroid...They are in the same place at the same time...It is a mutual collision..

.If I shoot at a plane running ...that guy flys into my bullets...My bullets will collide with him at a point in space...It's his responsibility to avoid that collision

Don't want a collision in the game....Don't hit someone

[Wiley]

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.

Wait...  You're actually suggesting the "Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal" collision model, where if you don't see the collision, it is assumed not to have happened?

I... how do... what...

Can we apply the same to gunnery?  It really bugs me when a guy I don't see shoots me.  That's frustrating, and counterproductive.

Wiley.