Author Topic: Collision Model Change  (Read 12328 times)

Online Wiley

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8363
Re: Collision Model Change
« Reply #165 on: September 21, 2026, 02:03:42 PM »
I think since the net code was optimized for 100's of players it might be able to be tightened up for the current numbers. The question is how much of a rewrite would it be (could changing a few variables do it?) and is it worth the effort.

And also, if that's the direction HT wants to go.  The main question I have for server-authoritative is how many clients can it support, will it create situations where neither FE can see the collision to avoid it, and will it create input lag.

Nobody can answer that definitively here except HT, and I'm fairly sure he's done the math and decided on what we have.  Nothing in these threads would be news to him.

Wiley.
If you think you are having a 1v1 in the Main Arena, your SA has failed you.

JG11

Offline CptTrips

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9971
Re: Collision Model Change
« Reply #166 on: September 21, 2026, 02:08:20 PM »
y'all are making animl look like the reasonable one.

Let's simplify it using that example video.

Collisions are determined locally.  Each client determines their own collisions.

If you are suggesting rewriting Aces High to use an Authoritative Server design, well that is a complete rewrite with all the emergent bugs that might introduce.  Good luck convincing HT to go that way.

Now let's take it from that jug's point of view.

If you try and project a ghost plane across the last known vector to determine collisions, speeds can change, internet lag can fluctuate, the player could have changed directions since the last packet you received.

Some projection was already being applied.  HT had a patent on that.  He understands how that works. 

So the jug was already applying position smoothing from the last packet he saw.  But that still put the other plane ~6 plane lengths behind.

You want to apply a phantom collision only to get the next packet and see the other plane had peeled away?  Or reduced throttle since the last update you received? 

The further out you try and predict\project, the larger your error becomes. 

You predicted a collision out too far based on a straight line assumption and found out in the next packet he did not maintain that straight line in that gap.

It would be hard to undo a collision you predicted and applied before you got the update the other plane swerved away.

And why do you think you have to convince us?  This is not something we are going to vote on.


Now if you want, you can admit that in a peer-calculated collision model, this is the best trade-off you can get without introducing even worse problems.

Instead you can reframe the suggestion to drop the current design and  redesign AH as an authoritative server.  That narrows the discussion and doesn't suggest there is some magic that can be applied to get a better peer-calculated collision model than already exists.  That is a totally different discussion which can be had.

« Last Edit: September 21, 2026, 02:56:35 PM by CptTrips »
Toxic, psychotic, self-aggrandizing drama queens simply aren't worth me spending my time on.

Offline Shane

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8474
Re: Collision Model Change
« Reply #167 on: September 21, 2026, 02:10:06 PM »
it is kind of telling though that a lot of you guys wont even entertain the idea that there just might be a better way.

we understand how it works, but even trying to talk about improvements that might work is met with resistance.

ps: with no corrections these are the distances we are talking about.. (both players roundtrip in ms)

Cruise / Maneuvering Speed (250 mph / ~400 km/h):
Travels 112 ft/s (34.2 m/s)
Distance per 100 ms: 11.2 ft (3.4 m)
Distance per 200 ms: 22.4 ft (6.8 m)

High-Speed Fighter Dive (400 mph / ~640 km/h):
Travels 586 ft/s (178.8 m/s)
Distance per 100 ms: 58.6 ft (17.9 m)
Distance per 200 ms: 117.2 ft (35.8 m)

At 250 mph, the ghost plane lags behind by 11 to 22 ft (3.4 – 6.8 m).

so if i dive on a bomber at 500 mph..
 if i dive 30 feet in front of the bomber's nose on my screen (completely safe pass).

On the bomber's screen, my "ghost plane" is lagging 73–147 feet behind.
 That ghost plane slices directly through the bomber's nose/wing.

seems like a gamey mechanic that should be fixed if possible. would be nice to have a real discussion on what it takes to make an improvement.

there are existing systems that could be implemented to mitigate some of this.

but i think some of you are too old and set in your ways.

i just don't understand why you guys are so against even attempting to come up with alternate options.

y'all are making animl look like the reasonable one.

yes, maths!  I've deliberately done that fly in front of buffs (Ammo? I don't need no steekin' ammo!) thing in the past, sometimes it took multiple tries and sometimes I cut it too close and took damage too.  Much harder to achieve vs a maneuvering target.

And unless I'm mistaken, HT(C) had implemented an additional layer of "smoothing coad" - that "host queue below" the "variance in delay" aka warpies/packet loss top graph of the in-game clipboard "netstat" function.  I do not know how it works, but I can imagine it may take all our connections and finds an average that is reflected in the baseline general latency.  Host queue may just be an indicator of one's own latency, tho'.

I dunno, but I do know it (the latency maths) *is* noticeable when taking damage from another's guns (or airframe) if you're looking.

Surrounded by suck and underwhelmed with mediocrity.
I'm always right, it just takes some poepl longer to come to that realization than others.
I'm not perfect, but I am closer to it than you are.
"...vox populi, vox dei..."  ~Alcuin ca. 798
Truth doesn't need exaggeration.

Offline hazmatt

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2592
Re: Collision Model Change
« Reply #168 on: September 21, 2026, 02:26:33 PM »

If you are suggesting rewriting Aces High to use an Authoritative Server design, well that is a complete rewrite with all the emergent bugs that might introduce.  Good luck convincing HT to go that way.


C'mon man! This horse ain't dead yet! Lets keep beating.

Offline CptTrips

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9971
Re: Collision Model Change
« Reply #169 on: September 21, 2026, 02:42:02 PM »
C'mon man! This horse ain't dead yet! Lets keep beating.
Toxic, psychotic, self-aggrandizing drama queens simply aren't worth me spending my time on.

Offline CptTrips

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9971
Re: Collision Model Change
« Reply #170 on: September 21, 2026, 04:39:04 PM »
Some projection was already being applied.  HT had a patent on that.  He understands how that works. 

So the jug was already applying position smoothing from the last packet he saw.  But that still put the other plane ~6 plane lengths behind.


https://patents.justia.com/patent/6042477

So some projection is already being applied. 

When the next packet arrives, a reconciliation loop interpolates the position over a couple of frames to correct.  That is what causes rubber-banding.

When you guess a position wrong, you can reconcile by warping it to the corrected position.  The further out you projected, the worse the error. 


No matter how you slice it, with all the prediction\reconciliation already being done, the jug still saw the other plane several plane lengths behind him, and from his point of view, there would have been no expectation of a collision and thus no way he could have avoided it.

If you applied an invisible collision to him, that would not have been seen as reasonable from the jugs point of view.

How could he avoid a collision when he sees the other plane several plane lengths away?

No one says it couldn't be physically coded a different way, they are saying that approach would lead to a worse trade-off of outcomes.



Now, we can switch to debating whether a authoritative server design is the answer,
but I don't think that would scale,
I don't think that would be performant,
and I don't see any universe where that level of complete rewrite to such a core part of the software, with all the associated effort and risk would possibly be worth it.

 


« Last Edit: September 21, 2026, 04:53:03 PM by CptTrips »
Toxic, psychotic, self-aggrandizing drama queens simply aren't worth me spending my time on.

Offline CptTrips

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9971
Re: Collision Model Change
« Reply #171 on: September 21, 2026, 05:24:23 PM »
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



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


flippz: There is nothing wrong with the collision model. What you must accept is that the other person did not collide with you. Others can post a more detailed explanation with an animated give. But As he was flying his plane  he saw that he missed you and hence would think it very bad if he took damage.

So you are either asking

A. You intentionally avoid a head on collision, the other plane intentionally rams the plane he sees. And the YOU did even though you missed him.

or
B. You are in a bomber, a fighter dives in guns blazing and continues shooting as he flies right thew you.

Both of these option have far more detrimental effects to game play then the current choice.

HiTech


Consider how much you would like flying in a head on ,missing the other plane by 100 feet, and then being destroyed do to a collision.

HiTech


(Image removed from quote.)

Too close to whine?
The P-51 is about 120 feet away from your Thunderbolt when the collision happens. You will not complain even though you had evaded more than clearly?




Obviously not 100%.
So far so good.
This is where you go wrong.

What you see on your front end is the only determination what happens to YOU. The serve has nothing to do with collisions. The messages you see are brodcast from the front ends not the server.

And again the connection speed has absolutely nothing to do with the determination if you collide or not. If your front end sees/detects your plane touching another plane, your plane will take damage. Your front end then display the message on YOUR screen "You have collided". It also sends a message to the person you collided with saying "BaldEagl has collided with you".


HiTech



I still wonder if you understand the system.
Your statement above still has the thought process "WE" collide. Because it should be stated I collide not WE.

It is not only possible but likely probable that 90% of collisions are the the persons who was damaged in a collision fault.

HiTech



Dedalos, I know how the system works, I know how a collision can be caused in controlled circumstance.  I also know that it is completely irrelevant to game play. But the fact that you COULD cause one is not really the issue.

Do you really think that people flying around trying to cause a collision is a problem in the main arena?


Also discussing the pros and cons, is an impossibility with some one until they understand how the system works.

I am one of the few people who flown all available options regarding collisions with 1 acceptation (no collision, 1 person collides both damaged, 1 person collides no damage, 1 person collides the other one damaged, and also damage only if both collide) I havn't done the 1 person collides only other takes damage)

And if you havn't flown with no collisions and found out how flying threw people completely changes the fight, then it is hard to describe.

1. Bomber attacks are high attacks flying directly threw the bomber.
2. Head on guns blazing fly threw become the norm.

HiTech




No one said collisions can not be applied equitably. Right now is the most equitable way I can think of. If YOU collide with an enemy plane, YOU take damage. If ANYONE collides with an enemy  plane they take damage. 100% equitable, everyone has the same rules regardless of lag.

HiTech




Drum roll please......



…

I have no plans to change anything.

HiTech
« Last Edit: September 21, 2026, 06:19:07 PM by CptTrips »
Toxic, psychotic, self-aggrandizing drama queens simply aren't worth me spending my time on.

Offline hazmatt

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2592
Re: Collision Model Change
« Reply #172 on: September 21, 2026, 06:07:55 PM »
Awe man. Now you ruined all the fun. No more beatin the hoss?

Offline CptTrips

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9971
Re: Collision Model Change
« Reply #173 on: September 21, 2026, 06:16:19 PM »
Awe man. Now you ruined all the fun. No more beatin the hoss?

Never underestimate stupid.

 I bet it still doesn't make a dent.
Toxic, psychotic, self-aggrandizing drama queens simply aren't worth me spending my time on.

Online Devil 505

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9709
Re: Collision Model Change
« Reply #174 on: September 21, 2026, 06:38:17 PM »
Forget a mic drop, that's a damn nuke drop!  :rock
Kommando Nowotny

FlyKommando.com

Offline Animl-AW

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7659
Re: Collision Model Change
« Reply #175 on: September 23, 2026, 10:27:13 AM »
And here the bbs allows a former player criminal to harass customers. This punk should gave been permabanned instantly a ling time ago.

He’s just a punk hiding behind a oc who belongs in AOL Chat.

The fact he is still allowed here proves how in depth  rules and laws are selective.

Trips is garbage head to toe. A troll who would cowrer like a a scared rabbit in person.

He’s just a mouthy coward toxic poison to the bbs

Gutless wunder pc warrior fraud

D have a reflex and rearrange his teeth before I even realized I did it.
You allow ghetto trash here.

Any time you grow some nads you just ring my bell.
Mthis hapoens because a spineless customer destroyer us ALLOWED here.

That emboldens the village idiot to flurish .
« Last Edit: September 23, 2026, 10:31:25 AM by Animl-AW »
AH Tech Hangar
Windows Gaming Tweaks

Offline haggerty

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1294
      • Facebook
Re: Collision Model Change
« Reply #176 on: September 23, 2026, 11:04:14 AM »
ad hominem

Offline Spikes

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16311
    • Twitch: Twitch Feed
i7-12700k | Gigabyte Z690 GAMING X | 64GB G.Skill DDR4 | EVGA 1080ti FTW3 | H150i Capellix

Offline LCADolby

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7954
Re: Collision Model Change
« Reply #178 on: September 23, 2026, 01:03:19 PM »
Stockholm syndrome hasn't affected any of Animls captors  :D
YouTube+Twitch+KICK - 20Dolby10

Offline Animl-AW

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7659
Re: Collision Model Change
« Reply #179 on: September 23, 2026, 01:11:35 PM »
Stockholm syndrome hasn't affected any of Animls captors  :D

RENT FREE
go spoon with CptGacey
AH Tech Hangar
Windows Gaming Tweaks