Collision Model Inquiry

[Apar1]

A and B start flying towards each other in a HO. At the last second B pulls up, A doesn't because he figures B is chicken and he can plough through. On B's FE B misses A slightly. On A's FE B is still flying _straight_, because the fact that B has pulled up comes 410 units later, and A now collides with B. Before you say A died unjustly for having a better connection, remember A did very well see what was about to happen. A didn't do enough to avoid the collision and died/got damaged justly.

In a realtime scenerio player A would have been alife BECAUSE of the fact he saw B pull away and A decided to fly straight because he would be ok then, hence they wouldn't collide, but in AH with different pings the players A's FE decided he collided despite the fact that players B's FE decided they didn't. That is the whole point (as far as I'm concerned).

If both FE's would be correlated correctly by the HTC server that wouldn't happen. If this correlation would take a reasonable average lag time into account it would rule out (to a certain amount and dependend on the choice for that correlation interval) one players FE detecting collision and the others FE not.

IMHO, if you try to simulate a realtime process you should try to do that as close as possible (all within the limits of computation power, server capacity and internet conection issues ofcourse)

How do you explain the following; I'm trying to B&Z somebody that is lower than me and also has lower E than me by the time I'm getting into gun range. He sees me and decides to pull up. I see that I will collide with him and try to avoid that by pulling to the left or right. Because I'm at a much higher E state than him my turn radius is much bigger than his, i.e. I can't avoid the collision. Now guess what, I die and he didn't, he didn't even damage. This happened to me several times.

Maybe HT can comment on this whole issue.

[ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: Apar1 ]

[fats]

--- Apar1 ---
In a realtime scenerio player A would have been alife BECAUSE of the fact he saw B pull away and A decided to fly straight because he would be ok then, hence they wouldn't collide,
--- end ---

In real time scenario the A pilot reacted to what he saw: he saw B pull to a side and decided he can fly straight to avoid colliding.

In AH scenario the A pilot reacted to what he saw: he saw B fly straight and decided to pull to a side to avoid colliding

Both scenarios result in no collision. If the AH scenario _does_ result in a collision it is pilot A's fault, since he didn't apply correct maneuvering according to the sittuation he saw.

--- Apar1 ---
If this correlation would take a reasonable average lag time into account it would rule out (to a certain amount and dependend on the choice for that correlation interval) one players FE detecting collision and the others FE not.
--- end ---

How would _totally inconcistent_ collision circumstances improve playing or realism? You could never know if flying through an enemy will result in a collision or not. The way it is implemented now gives you consistent parameters for collision: your plane comes in contact with an enemy plane will cause your plane damage.


--- Apar1 ---
How do you explain the following;...
--- end ---

You screwed up. How bad is it to admit that you are the fault in sittuations like this? If you had flown the sittuation correctly you would have left enough room to avoid a break maneuver in any direction - including flying straight.

Now with the system you propose you would never be able to learn what are the safe parameters for a high speed bounce, because there would be no solid parameters to base your learning on. At times you would survive a fly through and at times you wouldn't. And I am 100% sure you wouldn't identify all those times you in fact came in contact with someone this way.


// fats

[Westy MOL]

Just don't collide. It's not as if it occurs ever flight - well, if it does then maybe online flight school time is warranted.      
 AH collisions is one case of the very few times in online gaming where a faster connection hurts the LPB type.

 As for why enemy collisions are on? Well for one it makes the AH virtual pilot fly cautiously so they do not ram thier opponant (or opponants debri). That is more realistic if you think about it. IMO the way AH does it is simply the best to date and you should not be able to fly through your opponant while holding the trigger down shooting at them. If you want an example of a completely bogus setup go fly AW for a week or two.

 As for Apars example as to why the enemy did not suffer damage? It's simple, he rammed the enemy bogy. Sure, in RL there were always two victims in a collisions. Well, this is not real life. This is the internet. With car bombing, pork and auger dweebs, the friendly fire frag fest seen in the TA the other week and other "gameing the game" baloney that occurs online that if mutual destruction occured in collisions there would be a thousand fold increase in ramming. The "win at any cost" type of attitude. If HTC could force us all to be in the military, make us all complete real pilot training, introduce court martialialing for those who do not follow orders and implement permanent death then maybe the human survival instinct would suffice to cut down on  any collision problem. But that will never happene. So in the mean time because some idiot has a problem controlling his "aircraft" and rams me some folks are saying I should "die" too? fediddle off with that. I do not want to be penalised because of someone elses ineptness or bad internet connection.

 Westy

[ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: Westy MOL ]

[Tilt]

Originally posted by aknimitz:
Ok.  I just would like a few things explained/clarified, if possible.  I could have swore today I heard HT say something along the lines of the slower your connection, the more likely you will survive a collision.  Maybe I heard wrong, but I thought I heard this.  If this was said, why is this the case?

Second, why have collisions?  If we are being "realistic" and that was a "realistic" part of fighting, then it certainly seems fair to have friendly collisions on as well.  Perhaps there would be a little less steal killing going on then.

So, I am sure there is a good reason why we have enemy collisions on, but could someone tell me?  

What sparked my frustration is I am flying along fighting a 109 and his engine quits.  I was in a vert scissor and came back down and obviously he was able to come up quicker (albeit briefly).  We collided, and of course, I die.  I ALWAYS, literally ALWAYS lose on collisions.  Then, HE gets the kill!  I put around 50 rounds into him, he none into me.  

In any event, just curious about the collision model.

Nim

It seems that collisions are FE modelled. Therefore the fact that one can collide and the other apparantly not is obviously a lag issue.

The greater the combined lag of the two FE's via the server the greater the error and so the more likey that one survives and the other not.

Am I right in assuming that we do not actually recieve packets at the same lag as we send them

As to whether it favours a faster connect over a slower one (or vice versa) seems to be a function of the angle of attack so to speak.

Head on I guess it would not make much difference.

Nose to tail is the laggier AC behind or in front?

If I fly across the nose of a bomber can I time it so he hits my  lagging self on his FE when on my FE I have passed his line of flight. In this case the larger lag is in my favour.


Tilt

[aknimitz]

Thanks guys, seems to make sense.  And seems to be clear that although it is unfortunate, HTC has the best collision model possible all things considered.  Thanks for the input.

Nim

[fats]

--- tilt ---
As to whether it favours a faster connect over a slower one (or vice versa) seems to be a function of the angle of attack so to speak.
--- end ---

If you think about it, it really doesn't favour either in any major way. High ping and low ping players both play according to what they see.


--- tilt ---
If I fly across the nose of a bomber can I time it so he hits my lagging self on his FE when on my FE I have passed his line of flight. In this case the larger lag is in my favour.
--- end ---
It is possible to fly in such manner, but in any kind of repeated manner I doubt it. Think the sittuation the other way around. You are player with 10 ping, flying accross a bomber's nose ( or even HO ) with 400 ping. On your FE you make a move on the last second ( the point that places you in his flight path ), it still takes 410ms for the lagged bomber to see your plane change flight path. The lag works both ways. Gee - his own lag worked against him.


// fats

[Apar1]

Westy, I'm not even gonna bother commenting on the last paragraph,  

fats:

 

In real time scenario the A pilot reacted to what he saw: he saw B pull to a side and decided he can fly straight to avoid colliding.

In AH scenario the A pilot reacted to what he saw: he saw B fly straight and decided to pull to a side to avoid colliding

Both scenarios result in no collision. If the AH scenario _does_ result in a collision it is pilot A's fault, since he didn't apply correct maneuvering according to the situation he saw.

Your explanation makes sense, you react to what you see, but couldn't that situation lead to advantages in the rest of that fight? I.e. I see player B fly straight where on his end he has turned to (for instance) the left. On what I see (him flying straight) I decide to avoid collision and turn right. Both will end up in crossing scenario or other HO in the next merge.
Now if I would have seen him turn left in time, I prolly would chosen a different maneuver after that first pass (follow his turn and try to get the lead?).
I realise this is highly hypothetical but still. The extreme of this situation is when somebody really lags, where you see him in one place and in a split second he jumps 100's of yards to whatever direction, it is almost impossible to fight that player because you cannot predict his maneuvers.

 

How would _totally inconcistent_ collision circumstances improve playing or realism? You could never know if flying through an enemy will result in a collision or not. The way it is implemented now gives you consistent parameters for collision: your plane comes in contact with an enemy plane will cause your plane damage.

Yes it is consistant but to me it gives the advantage to the player with a bad internet connection.

On the B&Z scenario, yes I screwed up (I do that many times, part of the learning curve) but, would you as player B have tried to turn your plane into the flightpath of a high E approaching enemy (in real life)? And should you as player B not suffer the consequence of that choice?

[hitech]

There is one way it favors a slower connect. If you both collide on your fe's at same time, and both die in the collision. The packet from person with the faster connect arives at the server first therfore the other guy is awared the kill before his packet arives and he dies.


This is what I was refering to online.


HiTech

[hitech]

Yes it is consistant but to me it gives the advantage to the player with a bad internet connection.

Incorect because the lag you see is the sum of both your lags. Therfore you both see eachother with the same amount of lag.


HiTech

[AKSWulfe]

If people with a slower connect always win HOs, why am I always dying from collisions when I've got a 56K?

Oh, that's right.. because it's totally FE dependant.
-SW

[Apar1]

HT,

In a scenario with both planes in a HO, both planes fire at eachother and both planes blow up, is it correct to say that the kill goes to the player with the worsed ping because his "killed message" comes at the server the last?

[ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: Apar1 ]

[hitech]

Aper1: Isn't near that simple. In one specific case that could happen but you also need to consider the lag on sending the damage. The slower connect hits will arive at the server later than the faster connect, so things get very complex as to what the outcome will be.

BTW: Don't plan on much changing in the basic system, typicly the cure is worse than the problem.

HiTech

[Apar1]

Thx for the explanation HT and fats,    

[Am0n]

Apar1,

Ive had that happen to me when i was fighting a bomber, he got my wing and as my air craft flipped over to the right my gun fire ripped his wing off. I died instantly as his wing shattered and we both got credit for killing each other.

Aknimitz-
Friendly collison is a bad idea, no offense. If used responsibly it would add a more realistic effect to the game, you must remeber though it would not be used in that manner. Many players would exploit it and cause all kinds of trouble with it.

[Maverick]

My $.02 on the collision idea.

Friendly collision. I see no need for it in game play adn it would make it hard to get on or off the ground at a congested airport. No I do NOT want some player being a ground controller telling me when I am cleared for takeoff or landing.

Enemy collision. ONLY fair way I see to handle this is to make it a collision for BOTH players. If one FE senses a collision then both go down. It's a nod of the head to the "realism" crowd and promotes fair play.

Mav