Wanted: Better Collision detection.

[The Fugitive]

A Mossie and my Ta-152 collided head on and all I lost was my rudder... but that was plenty.

Did the game "say" you collided? If not then the Mossie shot your rudder off as he went by. If it said the Mossie collided with you, the same still holds true, but the Mossie took a lot more damage because he DID collide.

If YOU collide (game says you collided, or you see a collision) you take massive damage. I you dont collide (you didnt get a "you have collided with xxx" message, or you avoid by maneuvering to "miss" the other plane) you ONLY take damage from the other plane if he shot you.

[oTRALFZo]

I am so confused with the collision.

I can account plenty of times that I am in buffs and some fighters take me out by just colliding. Some have even gone with hardly any damage. I know Kenai has done that to me once when I was in my bomb site.

[Lusche]

I am so confused with the collision.

I can account plenty of times that I am in buffs and some fighters take me out by just colliding. Some have even gone with hardly any damage..

Because there was no collision on their computer. Only on yours.
The positions on your computer and on the other players computer are never exact the same. The exact amount of difference is a result of the time the signals need to travel between your both computers. Essentially it's "two realities". So he didn't touch you on his screen, the collision only happened on yours.
You can bet it also happened the other way around before, someone ramming your bomber on his screen with you taking no damage, because on your screen there was no collision. (The collision message would have been "XY has collided with you").


"You have collided" = Collision on your screen
"XY has collided with you" = collision on the other players screen
Both messages: Collision on both computers detected

[Kruel]

I always liked the collision model in AH because you could gamify it to get free kills. It works against all aircraft, but it was easiest to do against bombers.

We did it a lot against the Muppets. Skyyr did it against bombers all the time.

[Wiley]

Lusche, do you still have that animation with the 2 planes superimposed?  That was the best explanation I've ever seen for the way it works.

Wiley.

[CptTrips]

Lusche, do you still have that animation with the 2 planes superimposed?  That was the best explanation I've ever seen for the way it works.

You'd think he'd have a prepared white-paper with infographics by now, with as many times as he has had to try and explain it. 

[Wiley]

You'd think he'd have a prepared white-paper with infographics by now, with as many times as he has had to try and explain it. 

That's what that post basically was.  It was awesome.

Wiley.

[CptTrips]

That's what that post basically was.  It was awesome.

Wiley.

Sounds like it should be a sticky.

[Wiley]

Still can't find the post with the gif, but here is the video it was made from.  I think it was Lusche that originally posted it, I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong with the credit.

https://www.mediafire.com/file/doynhxrgljy/collision.wmv

This is both videos from both front ends overlaid.  The P51 that collides with the P47 saw himself collide as shown, from the P47's perspective, the P51 was in the position a few yards behind him when it went down.

edit:  If you're saying you want both planes to go down, you're asking for the P47 to go down when from his screen, he saw the P51 that far behind him, and collided.

What we've got is not perfect, but what you see is what you get.  IMO that's the best compromise compared to things happening to you that you had no means of seeing or avoiding.

Wiley.

[Eagler]

So if it's based of your view you don't have to worry about a collision unless it's a head to head one..

Most of those are part of the dreaded infamous HO.. ...sometimes the plane parts cause the collision...

Avoid the ho and you avoid the majority of collision issues..

Eagler

[toasted]

I understand how it works, I still feel like there has to be some way to clean it up a bit. I'm really looking for minor improvements more so than a whole collision system rewrite.


what if when two planes got close enough the server kept a short history of there locations. the collisions could then be normalized a bit.

Use a synchronized collision timeline

Each aircraft transmits:

Position
Velocity
Angular velocity
Orientation
Timestamp

The server maintains a short history, perhaps:

250–500 ms

Then collision detection occurs against a server-defined simulation time.

For example:

Server time:       10.000
Collision time:     9.900

Everyone's collision state is evaluated at:

9.900 seconds

This creates a small intentional collision delay, but it means:

Everybody is judged against the same version of reality.

That is far better than:

"Whatever each client happened to see."


i just refuse that  there is no possible better way of doing it, even if it is the best currently.

[Wiley]

I understand how it works, I still feel like there has to be some way to clean it up a bit. I'm really looking for minor improvements more so than a whole collision system rewrite.


what if when two planes got close enough the server kept a short history of there locations. the collisions could then be normalized a bit.

Use a synchronized collision timeline

Each aircraft transmits:

Position
Velocity
Angular velocity
Orientation
Timestamp

The server maintains a short history, perhaps:

250–500 ms

Then collision detection occurs against a server-defined simulation time.

For example:

Server time:       10.000
Collision time:     9.900

Everyone's collision state is evaluated at:

9.900 seconds

This creates a small intentional collision delay, but it means:

Everybody is judged against the same version of reality.

That is far better than:

"Whatever each client happened to see."


i just refuse that  there is no possible better way of doing it, even if it is the best currently.

Why are you guys so dead set on having collisions based on an approximation that will cause an invisible plane cause you damage?

Wiley.

[CptTrips]

Why are you guys so dead set on having collisions based on an approximation that will cause an invisible plane cause you damage?

Because they are mad they tried to ram someone and it didn't work like they expected?

[toasted]

Why are you guys so dead set on having collisions based on an approximation that will cause an invisible plane cause you damage?

Wiley.

Mostly I'm just spitballing something I'd like to see. Maybe I'm wrong and there really is no better way at all to do this. But it doesn't hurt to kick it around. The current system just leaves a bit to be desired for me. It''s the reverse of taking damage from an invisible plane.



ill take a compromise....
really i only actually care vs bombers, i just want to be able to go crashing through one of the drones and take it down. toejam those aren't even player planes anyway. how about just if i crash into a bomber AND its not the only bomber in the flight. then i get to take out the bomber (the dmg is calculated from my pov). the other player loses a bomber, but is still in flight. 


on the other hand im broken, id like to see real collisions between everything. you should be able to collide with a friendly also. but i know that wont happen.

[Wiley]

Mostly I'm just spitballing something I'd like to see. Maybe I'm wrong and there really is no better way at all to do this. But it doesn't hurt to kick it around. The current system just leaves a bit to be desired for me. It''s the reverse of taking damage from an invisible plane.



ill take a compromise....
really i only actually care vs bombers, i just want to be able to go crashing through one of the drones and take it down. toejam those aren't even player planes anyway. how about just if i crash into a bomber AND its not the only bomber in the flight. then i get to take out the bomber (the dmg is calculated from my pov). the other player loses a bomber, but is still in flight.

Fair enough, but you've got an uphill battle then.  It's been a while, but if memory serves HT's not a fan of kamikaze.  It's come up more than once for anti-carrier.

Wiley.