Author Topic: Collision Model Inquiry (Read 1785 times)

eskimo2 · « **Reply #30 on:** October 03, 2001, 03:16:00 PM »

Well said fats.

<S>

Folks who want both guys to die...
Remember, this is not 100% real time.

You are not seeing the same thing!
One person could screw up and collide while the other avoids the collision.

Imagine:
2 planes, 1 going North, the other West.
The Westbound guy misjudges his attack and collides with Mr. Northbound, but, Mr. North bound views it as a miss by 75 feet. Why should Mr. Northbound die? He didn't collide.

In WB, I lost my first 10 kill streak to an unfair collision. I bounced a P-47 with a P-51. I tor him up and then peeled off to avoide the bogus collision model. Even though I missed him by an entire wingspan on my FE, we collided.

I see no problem with only one person dying in a collision. I would be very ticked, however, if I got killed 300 feet behind an enemy just because they have a lousy connect.

eskimo

milnko · « **Reply #31 on:** October 03, 2001, 04:02:00 PM »

HT,

So with what you've explained in mind...

Wouldn't it be a more fair situation if you set up the awarding of kills like you did in WB? That if both die in HO or collision each person is awarded a kill? Wouldn't that remove any advantage/disadvantage of netlag?

Or do you feel that setup promotes HOs more often?

Maverick · « **Reply #32 on:** October 03, 2001, 04:30:00 PM »

Eskimo,

If one FE sees collision and other doesn't only FAIR thing is for both to die or neither to die. Either the collision happened or it didn't. Totally unfair for one to suffer consequences and other to have no damage at all. That just ain't "real".

Mav

hitech · « **Reply #33 on:** October 03, 2001, 05:20:00 PM »

Maveric: You simply are not looking at the net effect and the use of the term "fair".

It comes down to what is the least bad effect.

Neather die.
This would cause collision only to happen in head ons only. Even then one guy could fly threw the other plane, the other guy breaks off to avoid the collision. The guy who flew threw the plane and acted totaly unrealistic gets the advantage because he gets to keep fireing all the way. In the end this would promote flying threw the other guy in a Head On because worst case is you would both die. Best case is you get more hits on other guy do to not breaking off.

In every other angle attack the 2 planes will never both collide. Bombers would suffer the most from this because people comming in from above would dive right threw the buff firing all the time and suffer no consiquences.

Both die.
This would just plane suck. Pickture how mad you will be when you are looking back , a con is 200 yards back and boom, you die from a collision. This is want would happen all the time.

As fare as FAIR goes. The current system is completly fair. It's simple if you hit the other guy you get damaged. If the other guy hits you HE gets damaged. The only thing you are considering not "Fair" realy has nothing to do with fairness, it has everything to do with beeing mad that you screwed up, and think the persone you hit should suffer do to your screw up.

As fare as the lag issue it is very rair that both people collide and are killed in the collison, most offten you end up with missing parts where lag has nothing to do with it.

HiTech

Karnak · « **Reply #34 on:** October 03, 2001, 05:20:00 PM »

Maverick,

I disagree.

The only fair thing to due is to award the pilot who avoided the collision and punish the pilot who did not.

If I avoid your P-51 in my Typhoon and you collide with my Typhoon, how is it fair if I die? How is it fair if you don't?

Quote

From one of my really old posts on this subject:
If both aircraft were destroyed when a collision occurred people would use this to their advantage. If it takes the attacker 10 minutes to get to your base and you 30 seconds to takeoff and collide with him you can be back where you were 30 seconds later but it will take your enemy 10 minutes to regain what he lost from you colliding with him in a way he could not avoid. After all, on his FE you flew across his flight path 300 yards behind him, why should he have dodged?
On the other hand, if there has to be a collision on both FEs in order to for a collision to occur, then people will simply fly straight through their targets,firing all the way (hitting from 10 feet out is easy), without worrying about colliding. After all,I know that the B-17 I am diving on is, on my target's FE, 150 yards ahead of where it is on my FE. I know there won't be a collision, but I will definitely nail him with by guns as I fly through the image of his B-17.

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

hblair · « **Reply #35 on:** October 03, 2001, 05:23:00 PM »

Sounds great HT.

Now, don't let these dewdz keep you from coding.

Back to work!

eskimo2 · « **Reply #36 on:** October 03, 2001, 05:55:00 PM »

Mav,
So if I am putting along in my Tempest on autopilot, with a bad connect, and you make a nice bounce in a 202, but hold your fire till 100 or so where you know your guns can actually do something (you only have 50 rounds left because you have already made 5 kills on this sortie

), and you smack into me just as you open fire (at 100), your OK with you dying in a collision because my FE read you as being much closer? Is that really fair?
Are you are willing to die at any moment that you get within D=150 of any enemy plane because they might have a bad connect? That's what will happen! You will never know when you are about to collide and most people will break off fast closing attacks at 200 in fear of colliding with a ghost!

Until we all have ping times of 10, we all must accept that there is not 1 time related reality in this or any online sim... There are as many realities as there are players.

Fair, is when I make an effort on my perspective and FE to avoid a collision by 100 or even 5 feet, I do not collide. And, when part of my plane, from my perspective and FE, hits another plane, from my perspective and FE, I collide.

12 of my squad members live in Colorado Springs. We regularly make 2 to 12 person conference calls and fly together (and use the phone as a radio). When in formation, 3 people can have completely different perspectives and ranges on squad-mates in a formation. We talk about this often. I may read Jarbo at 125 behind me, but his FE may tell him that he is only 50 behind me. We typically have a separation difference of 35 to 75. And, we are not all that far from Texas.
Now when Fariz in Azubakstan (Spelling... sorry), exchanges fire with Mitsu in Japan, imagine what kind of lag they may experience!
You know those impossible shots that some folks make? The ones where you are getting hit and it looks as if the enemy plane is not even pointing at you? That's because HIS FE shows a firing solution! Should that shot not count because your FE didn't agree?
I bounced a guy (from Japan) once and was shooting him up at close range (about 100), then I started hearing pings. He was shooting me up too. From his FE, I overshot and was now in front!

My point is that weird things must happen in this game to compensate for net-lag!
One-man collisions stand out because they are one of the most apparent and non realistic results of compensations for dealing with net-lag. Most of the other effects of net-lag do not stand out and we can almost believe that everything is realtime

As odd as it sounds, having sometimes only one plane collide is much more realistic and fair than enabling collisions with unseen ghosts.

IMO, mandatory dual collisions would ruin dogfighting in AH

eskimo

Sorry, when I started my responce, Mav was the last post on this thread...

[ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: eskimo2 ]

DanielMcIntyre · « **Reply #37 on:** October 04, 2001, 01:48:00 AM »

errr I have to disagree with you pro-1kill collision guys.

I was flying a Typhoon in MA today, HO'ed a Spitfire (capera), collided and died. I asked if capera had seen the collision, capera replied he had a wheel imprint on his forehead.

So obviously, my FE and his FE both saw the collision but only I died from it? This is what is unfair about collisions. He got the kill. I died?

I think the fairest way of modeling collisions would be if both FE's see the collision, then both planes should die. No kill should be awarded to anyone unless enough damage was done prior to the collision to a plane to render it unflyable.

Just my opinion thou

fats · « **Reply #38 on:** October 04, 2001, 05:28:00 AM »

--- Apar1 ---
Your explanation makes sense, you react to what you see, but couldn't that situation lead to advantages in the rest of that fight?
--- end ---

Such is the nature of internet playing. Neither player sees the same thing. Unfortunately there is no way around it, with out making the game unplayable.

Most obvious case where lot of lag between two players gives advantage to someone is a tail-end-chase. It doesn't matter which one of the players is lagging, or if both are. It matters what their combined ping time is. A chasing B. A will always see B closer in his front view than what B sees A in his rear view. That means A is within guns range before B 'knows' it. This is the reason why you are adviced to break at ~900yds and not at 600yds when most people will be able to start scoring solid hits. Try it sometime with a mate. This is the 'obejcts are closer than what they appear in the mirror' of internet gaming. Well it applied to AW which had a mirrored rear view.

As an another note, Quake3 server has an option to synchronize all players with the highest ping player in the game. Everything you do is checked with the server first, then applied. This type of play would be fine with pings around 10ms, but then again the other method would provide just as reliable results in this scenario. How this applies to AH?

This type of setup would mean your controls would lag behind by the highest ping in the game. Someone from Planet Pluto with 500ms ping plays on the same arena with you, your aileron/elevator/rudder/throttle/flaps react to input you gave 0.5 seconds ago. That renders any accurate physics modelling of these WWII planes useless.

--- Apar1 ---
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?
--- end ---

It's common ACM when bounced to turn into the attacker - real life and online gaming. The difference with these is that in online gaming you _cannot_ force the attacker to collide with you in any predictable manner due to varying ammounts of lag between the you two. So I still maintain that the 1-sided collision implementation AH has works like expected 99.9% times.

I agree it totally sucks to collide when someone f.ex. warps from one location to another in nanosecond and there is no way you could have avoided it. But you must accept some bad things to be able to play with players all around the world most of the time in playable conditions.

// fats

fats · « **Reply #39 on:** October 04, 2001, 05:29:00 AM »

Oh and someone should make a FAQ about collisions and their modelling. These queries pop up every now and then in various games that model 1-sided collisions.

// fats

hitech · « **Reply #40 on:** October 04, 2001, 07:28:00 AM »

Zygote did he die, or at least take damage, with what you discribe both planes should have had damage.

HiTEch

Creamo · « **Reply #41 on:** October 04, 2001, 07:35:00 AM »

Morning HT.

I'll bribe ya to take Zygoat face value and release 1.80.

Thats a bet.

Apar1 · « **Reply #42 on:** October 04, 2001, 08:51:00 AM »

Thx again fats, S!

P.S. U flying under the handle fats in AH?

SKurj · « **Reply #43 on:** October 04, 2001, 09:08:00 AM »

He did go down HT just after Zyg did. I was in the arena at the time.

SKurj

Maverick · « **Reply #44 on:** October 04, 2001, 01:22:00 PM »

First off.

Collisions are not a big deal to me inspite of what anyone inferred from my previous post. I was posting my opinion on the topic.

My opinion is based on, GASP, reality. In real life when 2 aircraft collide they BOTH get damage. Doesn't matter who was at fault, was looking in the right direction or gaming the game. They both suffer consequences of the collision. That is the premise for my posts on this situation. If one FE "sees" a collision and damages or kills a plane both participants should suffer. It either happened or it didn't.

Dropping kills in a collision or awarding the kill to both is "fair". In any event there were cases of ramming of aircraft in combat. Quite a few were actually intentional, particularly over Japan.

Mav