Aces High Bulletin Board
Help and Support Forums => Aces High Bug Reports => Topic started by: dtango on August 14, 2004, 04:30:50 PM
-
Has it been over-tweaked?
Snapshots from 1 film loop of a squaddie in a P-51. The La-7 is clearly above and to the P-51's left.
(http://www.thetongsweb.net/AH/col1.jpg)
(http://www.thetongsweb.net/AH/col2.jpg)
(http://www.thetongsweb.net/AH/col3.jpg)
(http://www.thetongsweb.net/AH/col4.jpg)
(http://www.thetongsweb.net/AH/col5.jpg)
Thanks for looking at it.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Just played for 2 hours and all of my deaths were due to collisions. I'm use to the original collision model. This one made me have to log. Please patch ASAP. Thanks.
-
They'll figure it out and fix it. The hit collision formula or "bubble" in AH1 was the best I've ever seen.
It will be fixed.
-
I love proof!:aok
-
Hey,
That's a nice collection of parts hangin' there in mid-air.
Great example of the near pass collision.
-
Really strong wake turbulence????:eek:
RHIN0
-
Yep...A squad mate tonight was having to same problem.
Remove the Mid airs all together. They are not necessary :)
Id rather have them completly removed than to deal with the ever lasting question as to wether there was a collision or not. Then listen to the lame Lag excuse. Just remove them and the question is gone forever.
-
Another "collision" tonight for me caught on tape. Here are the pics.
(http://www.thetongsweb.net/AH/colb1.jpg)
(http://www.thetongsweb.net/AH/colb2.jpg)
(http://www.thetongsweb.net/AH/colb3.jpg)
(http://www.thetongsweb.net/AH/colb4.jpg)
(http://www.thetongsweb.net/AH/colb5.jpg)
(http://www.thetongsweb.net/AH/colb6.jpg)
(http://www.thetongsweb.net/AH/colb7.jpg)
From the snapshots in this one looks like about a 15-20 ft separation that still registered as a collision.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Without collisions the no-talent pilots will just fly through enemy planes with guns blazing. At least with collisions they can only do that once per flight.
MRPLUTO
-
Yes, but we would prefer that the planes actually collide in the collision :).
-
Yes, but we would prefer that the planes actually collide in the collision .
:lol
Really? ;)
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Originally posted by dtango
Has it been over-tweaked?
Snapshots from 1 film loop of a squaddie in a P-51. The La-7 is clearly above and to the P-51's left.
Thanks for looking at it.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
I feel your pain on collisions Tango , I am struggling to fly a sortie without colliding. I never realised how close I came to other planes.
I've filmed most of them and they all close , but clear misses. It's hard to adjust when it's kind of an automatic reflex thing - like a guns pass that you have been doing for ages, with a certain timing - and now you collide.
I'm sure they'll work it out , hopefully :)
-
I had another incident tonight exactly like the first one indicated in this post. Dredlock and myself got into a rolling scissors and the system said we collided. I reviewed the film and again there was plenty of clearance and absolutely no visual indication in the film that we collided. Dredlock said exactly the same thing about his FE. He never indicated we collided either.
This game is about hit and miss. If you miss well then someone lives if you hit then someone dies. Not if you miss you die and if you hit you die. If my bullet misses by a fraction of an inch it doesn't mean I get the hit anyway. I missed and tough luck. So why does it have to be the opposite when it comes to collisions? When I get a chance I'll extract the frames and post them here.
-
Originally posted by dtango
Another "collision" tonight for me caught on tape. Here are the pics.
(http://www.thetongsweb.net/AH/colb1.jpg)
(http://www.thetongsweb.net/AH/colb2.jpg)
(http://www.thetongsweb.net/AH/colb3.jpg)
(http://www.thetongsweb.net/AH/colb4.jpg)
(http://www.thetongsweb.net/AH/colb5.jpg)
(http://www.thetongsweb.net/AH/colb6.jpg)
(http://www.thetongsweb.net/AH/colb7.jpg)
From the snapshots in this one looks like about a 15-20 ft separation that still registered as a collision.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
this one is a joke especially because :
A) you missed by 15ft
B) the Hog is undamaged yet your plane disintegrates
i thought i was colliding too much today and supposed that my judgement was waining. glad to see i still got it and its the model that sucks .
nice evidence for HTC to look at
batfink
-
Out of about 10 hops last night, I died from colliding with planes I shot down at least 5 times. Even more absurd is the fact that you blow a plane into little pieces, and HE gets credit for killing YOU.
You know, over the past two weeks I've struggled more than enough with problems that were apparently related to my previous install of AH II. I finally deleted AH II for the third time and redownloaded a fresh version and installed it yesterday, and the game seemed fine to me. Until every other kill I got killed me as well and gave credit to my opponent.
If this (the new collision model) is an improvement, I'll pass on any further improvements. I always thought it was incredibly stupid for the server to award a kill to a dead plane as opposed to the guy that killed it, but now to have every other kill result in a collision that kills you and gives credit to the plane you just shot down takes the cake.
-
Just a quick question and a point of curiosity.
The P51 is still firing away at something even though the film shows the F4U is belly-2-belly with it. Did the P51 still see the F4U as in front of it even though the film shows differently ?
It appears that lag plays some part in this. If frames 3, 4, 5 and 6 are the closest point of contact behind the F4U, then the collision bubble is quite large (at least with regard to the planes - not quite as large if you consider the prop diameters of both planes). But due to lag, the P51 is still firing at his target directly in front of him. Could the P51 have accidentally rammed him on his FE ?
Anyway, by the time it registers as a collision, the FE starts showing the P51 breaking up sometime between frames 6 and 7 - but the F4U never had the encounter so he flies away undamaged.
Is there anyway that this snip of film can be posted ? I would love to look at it.
-
Turn off collisions HTC, or fix it. And please, don't make the customers wait two weeks for the next major patch while their frustration grows. That last patch to the collision model was a classic case of fixing what wasn't broken.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Yes, but we would prefer that the planes actually collide in the collision :).
What urchin said.
-
Originally posted by dtango
Another "collision" tonight for me caught on tape. Here are the pics.
(http://www.thetongsweb.net/AH/colb1.jpg)
(http://www.thetongsweb.net/AH/colb2.jpg)
(http://www.thetongsweb.net/AH/colb3.jpg)
(http://www.thetongsweb.net/AH/colb4.jpg)
(http://www.thetongsweb.net/AH/colb5.jpg)
(http://www.thetongsweb.net/AH/colb6.jpg)
(http://www.thetongsweb.net/AH/colb7.jpg)
From the snapshots in this one looks like about a 15-20 ft separation that still registered as a collision.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
If this is taken from the film of the Mustang pilot, it completely eliminates the supposition that the Mustang disintegrated because the Mustang pilots F/E saw a collision, and the Corsair pilot did not disintegrate because his F/E saw no collision. This is the problem I've always seen with the AH collision model in every form it has taken. And I still think the idea of a "single plane collision" is pure Bravo Sierra. Either TWO planes COLLIDED or TWO planes DID NOT .
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Turn off collisions HTC, or fix it. And please, don't make the customers wait two weeks for the next major patch while their frustration grows. That last patch to the collision model was a classic case of fixing what wasn't broken.
My regards,
Widewing
No more calls please, we have a winner.
-
Virgil et al. , for god's sake, could you please read this (http://www.rdrop.com/users/hoofj/netlag.htm)?!
It's old of course, but the basics are still the same.
Note: I agree that there seems to be something wrong with collision in patch 8.
-
Originally posted by lucull
Virgil et al. , for god's sake, could you please read this (http://www.rdrop.com/users/hoofj/netlag.htm)?!
It's old of course, but the basics are still the same.
Note: I agree that there seems to be something wrong with collision in patch 8.
Excellent link on the effects of Net Lag...especially the relevant section on collision.
-
Originally posted by Mugzeee
Yep...A squad mate tonight was having to same problem.
Remove the Mid airs all together. They are not necessary :)
Id rather have them completly removed than to deal with the ever lasting question as to wether there was a collision or not. Then listen to the lame Lag excuse. Just remove them and the question is gone forever.
You must have a very good connect :D
Mine is 37333 dialup and lag is definetly playing a part during some fights. :(
No cable or DSL available where I am :(
I keep checking :(
Got planes jumping over a 100 ft. at times :(
Happens sometimes when I'm close and fire and plane jumps away as my bullets leave the barrel. My tracers pass through the empty space. :(
This collision stuff suggest to me that the bubble was extended trying to find out why it wasn't working and then the real reason was found and fixed but the bubble was inadvertantly never reduced?
-
Hyrax:
The film loop was taken from me in the P-51. My FE registered the collision. The frames you see are the closest I got. The guns are still blazing because it was a high speed pass and the F4U was rolling away pretty quickly. The F4U didn't lose any parts and was maneuvering for a shot after I lost my parts.
I'd be happy to post the film clip after I chop it up so that we can see just the interesting pieces of the film in question.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Originally posted by lucull
Virgil et al. , for god's sake, could you please read this (http://www.rdrop.com/users/hoofj/netlag.htm)?!
It's old of course, but the basics are still the same.
Note: I agree that there seems to be something wrong with collision in patch 8.
Look lucull, I've read it several times, and I do understand it. Still, one plane can't collide, it takes two. One plane won't get away with no damage, and to penalize one plane for lag and not the other is absurd. That notion is a joke. You cannot collide with empty air space. Oh, and lose the "for god's sake" Bravo Sierra histrionics too, okay?
-
Found the bug.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech
Found the bug.
HiTech
did he have a name and a 15ft forcefield around him?
-
Originally posted by hitech
Found the bug.
HiTech
Thank you.
-
Thanks for the quick reply HT..
-
Thanks for reply Hitech. I hope the patch is out soon. :)
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Look lucull, I've read it several times, and I do understand it. Still, one plane can't collide, it takes two. One plane won't get away with no damage, and to penalize one plane for lag and not the other is absurd. That notion is a joke. You cannot collide with empty air space. Oh, and lose the "for god's sake" Bravo Sierra histrionics too, okay?
Hof's article still explanes it pretty good, but if you still demand that both get the penality arguing that it takes two to collide, than it's totally clear that you don't understand the article and the effects of netlag or you are simply ignoring reality. :rolleyes:
However, understanding the effects of netlag makes your demand absolutly senseless. ;)
Note: 1. netlag does not imperativly include that >= 1 has a high ping.
2. even with yourself and your opponent connected directly to the server, you would still see a difference on both FEs due to the server process time (this diffenrence would be really small, but still a difference).
-
Very cool. Something didn't seem right today.
-
Originally posted by lucull
Hof's article still explanes it pretty good, but if you still demand that both get the penality arguing that it takes two to collide, than it's totally clear that you don't understand the article and the effects of netlag or you are simply ignoring reality. :rolleyes:
However, understanding the effects of netlag makes your demand absolutly senseless. ;)
Note: 1. netlag does not imperativly include that >= 1 has a high ping.
2. even with yourself and your opponent connected directly to the server, you would still see a difference on both FEs due to the server process time (this diffenrence would be really small, but still a difference).
You really have no idea what I understand. Don't assume that you do. There are several things that one plane can do to FORCE a collision that he will not suffer from. Further, you still have the issue of hitting debris and giving the dead plane credit for a kill. I fully understand net lag, and the fact that it has an effect on collisions and maneuvers. I also understand that the collision model has been goofy and buggy all along, and that the bug made it worse.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
There are several things that one plane can do to FORCE a collision that he will not suffer from.
Please explain that to me, because it contradicts this:
The responsibility of avoiding collisions rests completely on your shoulders, if you want to live. If the other guy wants to live, he is completely responsible for dodging a collision, not you.
Further, you still have the issue of hitting debris and giving the dead plane credit for a kill.
This has been added in Patch 8 primary. I agree, that this is frustrating, but isn't it real? You never flew Il-2 Forgotten Battles, right?
I fully understand net lag, and the fact that it has an effect on collisions and maneuvers. I also understand that the collision model has been goofy and buggy all along, and that the bug made it worse.
So, you still demand that both get damage, if only one collides with the other on his FE?
-
HT thanks for looking at it! :)
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
if you are talking about "real", then no, one plane can not collide with itself, it takes two. if you are talking about real in the virtual world... well thats another story. but i did think that AH2 was all about "realism", so both should go down................
and the bug has been found, yippppeeeee ty HT!!
~S~
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Still, one plane can't collide, it takes two.
IRL there is a single reality. In a distributed game there are many unsynchronized versions of the same database. The goal of having a collision on one FE strictly imply the same collision on another FE is impossible--the information on the other planes movements simply does not have a chance of arriving. This is a situation where we cannot simulate reality. Thus we have to look for other solutions and judge them based on how well they work.
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
One plane won't get away with no damage, and to penalize one plane for lag and not the other is absurd.
Both planes are penalized equally for net lag. The slower connection is the limiting factor for both planes.
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
That notion is a joke. You cannot collide with empty air space.
And you won't--at least when HTC fixes the bug where the collide bubbles are too big or whatever. The underlying philosophy is still correct: you only collide if your FE thinks you collided. Doesn't mean the other guy necessarily collided with you.
-
Hey, whatever you think. If you think the notion that one plane can collide with nothing, then enjoy the outstanding stupidity of that notion. I lived with it before, I'll live with it now. It does not make it right, it just makes it the current status quo.
If you must rationalize the current collision model by saying "you collided with him because you saw it, but because he didn't see it he didn't collide with you", then you can accept the absurd idea of a one plane collision, just don't expect everyone else to. That's a lot like the idea that you see a hundred and fifty hit sprites on the plane you are shooting at, but if he doesn't see them, it's okay for him to keep right on flying undamaged. That one is pretty stupid as well.
Oh, and by the way, the incredibly stupid situation where you kill a plane (as in blow it to hundreds of small pieces) from 200-400 out and you are then not only killed by the debris, but the dead pilot gets credit for killing you, and you get no credit for killing him, existed in AH I. That is not at all new, nor is it a function of the current bug. What it is, is a function of the current stupid idea that you can collide with a plane and it kills you but not him. Now, given that it is a function of the collision model, go right ahead and reconcile the fact that a dead pilot and plane not only kills the pilot and plane that killed them, but also gets credit for a victory. Pure Bravo Sierra.
-
The "reality" in AH is your FE.
As some people don't seam to read the article, here the passage about collision:
Because of net lag and the way the system works, no two FE's see two plane's position in the same place. You can guarantee, unless the other guy is totally still (and so are you) that where he is on his FE is different from where you see him, and vice versa. Thus, if you fly into the other guy so that your FE sees both planes in the same place (collision), the other guys FE might not see this. In fact, the other guy's FE might never see your plane get anywhere near his plane. This is why decisions on collision are made by the FE. If your FE sees a collision, you die. If his FE sees a collision he dies. Your FE seeing a collision does not affect whether the other guy dies and vice versa. *His* FE must see the collision for him to die, and *your * FE must see the collision for you to die. The reason that the system does not kill both if one FE detects the collision is that there is no way to predict what the other guys' FE sees. If it were set up so that both planes were killed if one FE saw a collision, you could die from a collision you never saw. For example, take the classic headon situation. You pull up at range 5, just to be safe. You pull up so hard, you don't come within 200 yards of the other guy from your FE. Remember that 200 yards is two football fields in distance. He barrels right in on his FE into your image (which due to net lag is still headed right to him), without ever jinking. His FE detects a collision. Therefore he dies. With a both-die rule, you would also die, even though you did everything in your power to avoid the collision and didn't come anywhere near his plane on your FE. This is why both planes do not die, as it is simply unfair (and would give dweebs an easy way to ram-kill people, which would make Warbirds no fun to fly *real* quick). The way it is done now (with your FE deciding if you live based on your "perspective" of the world) is a necessary evil of Net Lag, even though in "real life", a collision would most likely destroy both planes.
The responsibility of avoiding collisions rests completely on your shoulders, if you want to live. If the other guy wants to live, he is completely responsible for dodging a collision, not you.
Read, understand and accept it or simply keep on ignoring and whining. :)
If you would at least understand it, you would realize how senseless your demand of punishing both is.
Note: wreckage and debris collsions are something else, which I'm not talking about.
-
Exactly how hard is it for you to grasp the simple concept that I understand the position but I DO NOT AGREE WITH IT? It seems that you are the one who lacks the understanding that just because you think something should work the way you want it to, it does not follow that everyone agrees with you. Can you not grasp this concept? Is that reality entirely beyond your ability to understand? Are you really that dense? I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOUR POSITION. Got it? I hope that was plain enough for you to understand.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
If you must rationalize the current collision model by saying "you collided with him because you saw it, but because he didn't see it he didn't collide with you", then you can accept the absurd idea of a one plane collision, just don't expect everyone else to. That's a lot like the idea that you see a hundred and fifty hit sprites on the plane you are shooting at, but if he doesn't see them, it's okay for him to keep right on flying undamaged. That one is pretty stupid as well.
Actually, it's not the same. In fact the stupidity you are describing with the hit sprites is exactly the stupidity that you are advocating by not accepting the idea of "each FE collides for itself only."
Given the fact that there is net lag, *all* possible methods of collision (including no collisions at all) lead to a BS situation. There's nothing you can do to get around that. If you can figure out a no-BS method, you get a cookie from HTC. Therefore you have to choose based on fairness and gameplay.
You have four possible choices:
1) No collisions.
2) Only one FE colliding --> both planes collide.
3) Only one FE avoiding --> both planes avoid.
4) Each FE determines collision for itself.
(1) means people have no incentive to avoid a collision. (2) and (3) create a prisoner's dilemma, and the worst outcome prevails. With (2) you encourage ramming and the guy who avoids is punished. With (3) you discourage avoidance, and the dweeb who stays on target without avoiding is rewarded. (4) is uniquely fair. Each player can see for himself how to avoid, ramming is discouraged, and avoidance is encouraged. It is the best solution for the conditions we have.
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Oh, and by the way, the incredibly stupid situation where you kill a plane (as in blow it to hundreds of small pieces) from 200-400 out and you are then not only killed by the debris, but the dead pilot gets credit for killing you, and you get no credit for killing him, existed in AH I. That is not at all new, nor is it a function of the current bug.
True.
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
What it is, is a function of the current stupid idea that you can collide with a plane and it kills you but not him.
False. It is orthogonal. Options (2) and (3) also create this situation. The piece of debris is already disconnected, thus your colliding with it cannot possibly effect him no matter what method you use to determine collision.
Furthermore, they can solve this problem by simply not scoring a debris kill as a kill by the guy to whom the debris belongs. The kill is unscored to anyone, or it is scored to the guy who pinged you before.
-
That's a lot like the idea that you see a hundred and fifty hit sprites on the plane you are shooting at, but if he doesn't see them, it's okay for him to keep right on flying undamaged. That one is pretty stupid as well.
No, if you turn it around, just like it is handled in AH, it's following exactly the same principle. Hits are only detected on your FE, because only you know where the objects (planes etc.) are in your "reality"/FE. Would you like to be hit from bullets that miss on your opponents FE? You see, if you can imagine yourself to be a bullet, you have the same with collisions. :)
-
Awesome job HT. By the way.. I kind of like the idea of hitting debris... is it possible to make it so you can be damaged by debris without keeping the 50 foot "ram bubbles"?
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Exactly how hard is it for you to grasp the simple concept that I understand the position but I DO NOT AGREE WITH IT? It seems that you are the one who lacks the understanding that just because you think something should work the way you want it to, it does not follow that everyone agrees with you. Can you not grasp this concept? Is that reality entirely beyond your ability to understand? Are you really that dense? I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOUR POSITION. Got it? I hope that was plain enough for you to understand.
Netlag is an unavoidable fact. (I did not invent it. :D) Denying facts makes you an ignorant. Propagating something against better knowledge makes you an ignorant abuser.
Hopefully this thread showed the less ignorant people the stupidity of the "punish-both-in-collision" demand and how fair the AH collision handling is.
-
Originally posted by dtango
Hyrax:
The film loop was taken from me in the P-51. My FE registered the collision. The frames you see are the closest I got. The guns are still blazing because it was a high speed pass and the F4U was rolling away pretty quickly. The F4U didn't lose any parts and was maneuvering for a shot after I lost my parts.412th FS Braunco Mustangs
Reading down the thread, looks like HT found the bug... great job on the film evidence...thanks.
-
Originally posted by lucull
Netlag is an unavoidable fact. (I did not invent it. :D) Denying facts makes you an ignorant. Propagating something against better knowledge makes you an ignorant abuser.
Hopefully this thread showed the less ignorant people the stupidity of the "punish-both-in-collision" demand and how fair the AH collision handling is.
No where in this or any other thread did I deny the existence of lag. And it is obvious that you didn't invent it.
Calling people names makes you much less than worth listening to. Continuing to do so shows both your level of intelligence and your level of class.
I'm so very glad you decided to make personal insults. I certainly appreciate your attitude. You have after all shown exactly what type of person you really are. Thanks for exhibiting your true nature. Oh, and the name calling REALLY builds a great base for your argument. Have a nice day.
-
Just so I understand this virgil:
You want to be flowing a plane by 100 yards and colide with it is that what you are saying?
HiTech
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Exactly how hard is it for you to grasp the simple concept that I understand the position but I DO NOT AGREE WITH IT? It seems that you are the one who lacks the understanding that just because you think something should work the way you want it to, it does not follow that everyone agrees with you. Can you not grasp this concept? Is that reality entirely beyond your ability to understand? Are you really that dense? I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOUR POSITION. Got it? I hope that was plain enough for you to understand.
There have been on-line games where both die in a colllsion - a WW1 game comes to mind , think it was Flying Circus.
There was constant moaning about who rammed who on the channel 1 radio. (think it had friendly collisions too which made things even worse)
With Hitech's method at least you know that in 99% of cases you were responsible for the collision - your FE saw a collision.
As someone else did a good job of outlining, it's the best of the 4 possible alternatives
-
Originally posted by hitech
Found the bug.
HiTech
Thanks for the quick attention to this one HT , it was a pain in the ass.
-
I am sure deep down everyone understands the enourmous task you all do at HTC.
Thanks for not losing heart with the screamming dung hurling masses. ;)
Dan.
-
Thanks again HT, you da man!
-
Originally posted by hitech
Just so I understand this virgil:
You want to be flowing a plane by 100 yards and colide with it is that what you are saying?
HiTech
Did I say that? Not anywhere I can see. I made two complaints about the system:
1. I don't like "one plane collisions", they defy logic in my view. Either both planes hit or neither does. I understand the logic that you and others use to base it on, but I see too many other problems with it. It's just my personal preference the collisions damage both planes with no credit for that damage or death to either. I do not want collisions turned off, that does not work.
2. I don't like blowing a plane up and being killed by the debris, and the plane I blew up getting credit for killing me. I don't mind getting killed by debris that much, but I do mind someone else getting the credit for killing me. This is a function of the logic behind the current collision model (without the current bug problem) and it is wrong.
To further add to this, I would not have a problem with friendly collisions in the air. It might solve some of the issues with idiots diving in and cutting people off in a fight and causing them to die by killshooter.
One more thing, I have been following a plane by 200 and had a collision, he warped forward and then backward, and I hit him, I died, he flew off. I've also been closing rapidly on planes and had them chop throttle, cause a collision, been killed by it, and they flew off. So their defense of gaming the collision model got them a kill when they should have been dead either way.
-
Did I say that? Not anywhere I can see. I made two complaints about the system
Yes you did say that.
If you must rationalize the current collision model by saying "you collided with him because you saw it, but because he didn't see it he didn't collide with you", then you can accept the absurd idea of a one plane collision, just don't expect everyone else to. That's a lot like the idea that you see a hundred and fifty hit sprites on the plane you are shooting at, but if he doesn't see them, it's okay for him to keep right on flying undamaged. That one is pretty stupid as well.
The out come of what you are asking for would generate what I described. You can flame the idea, but it seems to me even thow you claim to understand the technical issues involved with lag and multiple clients that you don't.
You seem to not understand that there realy is not 1 reality.
I don't like blowing a plane up and being killed by the debris
I don't either, and I do not blieve debri damages you but I will double check.
Added to post:
Went and double checked, and you can not collide with debri.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
1. I don't like "one plane collisions", they defy logic in my view. Either both planes hit or neither does. I understand the logic that you and others use to base it on, but I see too many other problems with it. It's just my personal preference the collisions damage both planes with no credit for that damage or death to either. I do not want collisions turned off, that does not work.
Do you realize the *fact* that your preference will cause ramming to be a sure-fire killing method? That people will ram a lot more often, and kill you with it more often? Are you OK with that?
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
2. I don't like blowing a plane up and being killed by the debris, and the plane I blew up getting credit for killing me. I don't mind getting killed by debris that much, but I do mind someone else getting the credit for killing me. This is a function of the logic behind the current collision model (without the current bug problem) and it is wrong.
I've already explained to you why this last sentence is factually wrong. You seem intent on closing your ears and yelling loudly.
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
One more thing, I have been following a plane by 200 and had a collision, he warped forward and then backward, and I hit him, I died, he flew off.
An anomaly. This is an occasional thing. Don't change the system for the exception. Be a man, bite the bullet, and move on.
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I've also been closing rapidly on planes and had them chop throttle, cause a collision, been killed by it, and they flew off. So their defense of gaming the collision model got them a kill when they should have been dead either way.
This was *your* fault, not his. He was pulling a legitimate reverse, and instead of dealing with this properly with a scissors or an extension, you decided to ram him. Therefore, this is the proper outcome, and the existing collision model worked perfectly.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Awesome job HT. By the way.. I kind of like the idea of hitting debris... is it possible to make it so you can be damaged by debris without keeping the 50 foot "ram bubbles"?
While this is a realistic idea. With the Proxy kill thingy like it is. It is my opinion that this isnt and shouldnt be a logical option.
-
Originally posted by phookat
Do you realize the *fact* that your preference will cause ramming to be a sure-fire killing method? That people will ram a lot more often, and kill you with it more often? Are you OK with that?
How so? If no kills or points are awarded for collision kills (I think there shouldnt be) Then why would players bother to Ram?
-
Originally posted by Mugzeee
How so? If no kills or points are awarded for collision kills (I think there shouldnt be) Then why would players bother to Ram?
Because if someone thinks they're losing, they may very well prefer to take the other guy down with him. Especially if they have a sure-fire way of doing so--which they do not with the current collision model.
-
Originally posted by Mugzeee
While this is a realistic idea. With the Proxy kill thingy like it is. It is my opinion that this isnt and shouldnt be a logical option.
The "proxy kill by debris" thing is theoretically independent of the collision model (and practiacally as well I'd think).
-
I still don't understand why people have such a tough time with this concept.. if you see the other plane go through your plane... YOU rammed HIM, not the other way around. On the other guys FE he could have pulled up and missed you by 50 feet, you decided not to dodge him.
-
What if you decide to pull up or out and he decides to do the same and the lag decides that you are still the one to see it and you die and he gets the kill? I have had this happen on several occasions. Its the Proxy kill/crash kill that bothers ppl. Not the fact that Midair’s are possible. An accidental kill shouldn’t be awarded nor should any points whatsoever be awarded for such occurrences.
-
This thread on Net Lag and Collisions gives me the same headache that General Relativity's "Nothing goes faster than the speed of light, not even information" gave me.
The difference being, replace "Nothing goes faster than he speed of light" with "Nothing goes faster than the speed of the Net"
For instance, both create problems defining "the past" as in things that "Have Happened". In GR we end up breaking "the past" into two flavors, the past that has happened and we know about (effective past), and the past that has happened and we don't know about because the information has yet to arrive. Net lag appears to cause this same effect.
Also, even defining two events happening at the same time becomes problematic. Its is entirely possible for three people to report two events happening in three different orders:
Dude #1 can say "Event A & B happened at the same time"
Dude #2 can say "Event A happened first, then B"
Dude #3 can say "Event B happened first, then A"
The worst part, all three are correctly reporting what they observed. To absolutely fry your brain, try and figure out what "really" happened. After much sweat and tears, the conclusion is "it depends on your frame of reference". In the case of Aces High, 'frames of reference' work out to My net lag + Your Net lag + everyone else's net lag.
Where I'm going with all of this is, because of net lag, NO two persons will record the exact same series of events. The result is, two pilots can record two DIFFERENT series of events. One pilot can film a collision, another can film the same event and prove that they DID NOT collide. Neither is wrong, conversely neither is right.
So, I offer a mighty to HiTech and crew for making all of this net lag transparent (for the most part)! Obviously HTC does a lot of work in the 4th dimension (time). :)
-
Originally posted by Mugzeee
How so? If no kills or points are awarded for collision kills (I think there shouldnt be) Then why would players bother to Ram?
A) Because it took him 30 seconds to reach you and your 10 minutes to reach his base. That is a net gain of 9.5 minutes of effort for his side. At a ratio like that five defenders can completely stop fifty attackers.
B) Because your plane cost 70 perk points and his cost none, therefore he can cost you those points at no cost to himself.
JCLerch,
Actually it is:
Event A happened
Event B didn't happen
-
Originally posted by phookat
Because if someone thinks they're losing, they may very well prefer to take the other guy down with him. Especially if they have a sure-fire way of doing so--which they do not with the current collision model.
Nor would they with collisions off.
The HO argument isn’t valid nor is it a real factor. In an HO situation any player accept the newest of the new know they need to avoid the bullets to avoid dying. The collision isn’t the deciding factor that determines if a player wants to avoid dying or take a chance at playing chicken. In HOs its the Lead that kills and its the Lead that we try to avoid.
Not that i think Collisions aren’t a realistic feature. I just find them a unnecessary subject for confusion and argument. And not needed for good game play.
With collisions off...The relative factors of HO or anything else for that matter are just as level a playing field as the current Collision model.
Like saying that he rammed you.
What...is your joystick broke? You couldnt or didnt avoid it?
Again....remove collisions and avoid these rediculas discussions and for some remove the confusion.
-
There are 2 ways to die in a HO:
1. from your opponents bullets
2. from your opponoents plane itself
If you eliminate 2.) you make dieing in HO less likely or better, increase it's survivability, which results in even more people using it.
Midair collisions are something real. One big reason for friendly collisions off, is the problem you would have with spawning. (I saw whole squads die on spawnpoints in events, because the CM forgot to turn off friendly collisions.
What if you decide to pull up or out and he decides to do the same and the lag decides that you are still the one to see it and you die and he gets the kill? I have had this happen on several occasions.
It is impossible to know what anybody else sees on his FE other than yours. Therefor it's wrong to say, that someone can force you to a collision. It is always on yourself to dodge.
If you accept this and don't think about what other people see (which is impossible to determine), you won't get any headaches. :)
-
Originally posted by Urchin
I still don't understand why people have such a tough time with this concept.. if you see the other plane go through your plane... YOU rammed HIM, not the other way around. On the other guys FE he could have pulled up and missed you by 50 feet, you decided not to dodge him.
This could be solved, but would take the cooperation from both parties invovled. Both would need to have film running and both would have to view each others films and/or post them for others to see. For example, you go head on and you see his canopy become part of your canopy, well, obviously this looks like a collision and for the most part, only 1 flys away (and with a kill credited to boot). After reviewing both films can you really say "Your FE was the one that saw the collision, not his". So what if both films show a collision and one fly's away with no damage? Both saw a collision, but only 1 FE saw it?? Would this raise the question of how a server problem could be at fault or maybe it's just a down right faulty collision model? Or would the "it was your FE" statement still be said??
Guess we could find out and I'll try this with anyone that would like to see how this would turn out. Of course with my luck, if I actually tried to collide on purpose, I'd miss completely. Catch me in MA sometime and we can take it to DA and see what happens. (Not a dual, an experiment).
AWwsky
Take-off is optional...As a matter of fact, so is landing!!!!
-
JCLerch: I have often thought of the simalarities between Net programing and General realitivity.
They are the same consept.
In coding multiple time references it becomes problimatic just to pick varible names that describe the different points of reference.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by AWwsky
So what if both films show a collision and one fly's away with no damage
This shouldn't ever happen. If your front end detects a collision you are damaged.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by AWwsky
Would this raise the question of how a server problem could be at fault or maybe it's just a down right faulty collision model? Or would the "it was your FE" statement still be said??
The AH server does not decide wether or not you have a collision, because your FE displays every object for you, but everything you see on your FE is only "real" for you and impossible to determine for anybody else, which includes the server. And that's the reason why collisions and hits are only detected on your FE and sent to the server.
-
Originally posted by Mugzeee
What if you decide to pull up or out and he decides to do the same and the lag decides that you are still the one to see it and you die and he gets the kill?
Once again...if you died and he didn't, then he dogded properly according to what he saw and you didn't according to what you saw. This is the only fair way.
Now on the orthogonal issue of "who gets the kill", I think I'm going to slightly change my mind, and say that the other guy should get the kill anyway. I think this should be treated the same as augering. If you auger with someone closeby, he gets the kill and rightfully so. If you ping someone with one 303 and he augers, you get the kill. Same should apply to collisions. The reason I say this is that it discourages the dweebery of ramming to kill *yourself* even if you don't kill the other guy--just to avoid the other guy getting the kill.
-
Originally posted by Mugzeee
Nor would they with collisions off.
The HO argument isn’t valid nor is it a real factor. In an HO situation any player accept the newest of the new know they need to avoid the bullets to avoid dying. The collision isn’t the deciding factor that determines if a player wants to avoid dying or take a chance at playing chicken. In HOs its the Lead that kills and its the Lead that we try to avoid.
Not that i think Collisions aren’t a realistic feature. I just find them a unnecessary subject for confusion and argument. And not needed for good game play.
With collisions off...The relative factors of HO or anything else for that matter are just as level a playing field as the current Collision model.
I disagree. The need to avoid a collision is a fundamental factor that needs to be incorporated into whatever manuvers that you decide to make. This is not limited to HOs. Mr. Hilts provides a good example of this. Why do a scissors at all when you don't have to worry about colliding. And the success of an HO is more likely if the HOer doesn't have to worry about a collision. Doesn't even cross his mind, all the focus is on the target in the gunsight.
It changes the way the game is played.
-
Originally posted by AWwsky
After reviewing both films can you really say "Your FE was the one that saw the collision, not his". So what if both films show a collision and one fly's away with no damage? Both saw a collision, but only 1 FE saw it?? Would this raise the question of how a server problem could be at fault or maybe it's just a down right faulty collision model? Or would the "it was your FE" statement still be said??
No. This would be a bug. It would have to be fixed. A bug does not indicate whether the collision approach is good or not.
Originally posted by AWwsky
Guess we could find out and I'll try this with anyone that would like to see how this would turn out. Of course with my luck, if I actually tried to collide on purpose, I'd miss completely. Catch me in MA sometime and we can take it to DA and see what happens. (Not a dual, an experiment).
Several people have posted pics of collisions, in this thread. The bug is the other way around at the moment. The collision bubble is too big, not too small.
-
collisions are a bad time to have a good connection :)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
collisions are a bad time to have a good connection :)
How so? Your connection makes no difference.
-
Karnak: Your conection has no effect on if you have a collision.
But in the rare case where both planes do collide and the collision causes a instant death to both planes. The slower connection will be awared the kill becase the faster connects collision arives at the server first. This is a very rare event.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech
JCLerch: I have often thought of the simalarities between Net programing and General realitivity.
They are the same concept.
In coding multiple time references it becomes problimatic just to pick varible names that describe the different points of reference.
HiTech
Well Jeez Hitech, It should be super easy to program a quantum singularity and tear the time space continuim to record events before they happen. Thus eliminating net lag and the questions of who hit who first. :)
Meanwhile, back on planet Earth...
-
HiTech,
Yeah, I considered that, but it is so rare as to mostly be a non-issue, so I didn't mention it.
What many people seem to believe is that there is a collision on both FEs and the slower connection wins, and it works that way every time. I know that when I played WarBirds I thought this. It wasn't until later that the light, belatedly, came on and I understood why it has to be the way that it is.
-
Things i and others have seen in AH1/2 with collisions.
ive flown directly through planes with no damage to either plane.
had a plane pass me on 1 side and lose wing to collision on
opposite side.
visually SEEN enemy plane fly past me , clearly missing
and yet get handed damage from collisions.
passing a enemy 200 yards away lose parts to collision.
well cant use film for evidence, HT says it doesnt show whole
picture :/
also been called a liar for above stuff, even though i and others
have witnessed it.
so its pointless to post about collision, it is what it is, and HT wants it that way.
whels
-
Originally posted by Karnak
HiTech,
Yeah, I considered that, but it is so rare as to mostly be a non-issue, so I didn't mention it.
What many people seem to believe is that there is a collision on both FEs and the slower connection wins, and it works that way every time. I know that when I played WarBirds I thought this. It wasn't until later that the light, belatedly, came on and I understood why it has to be the way that it is.
still havent been told how i can shoot/bomb said enemy con and hit/do damage/kill it with bullets/bombs where i SEE it on my FE.
yet its not there when a collsion occurs. if net lag is so bad that
i cant collide and do damage to both planes then i shouldnt
be able to shoot/bomb it either.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
HiTech,
Yeah, I considered that, but it is so rare as to mostly be a non-issue, so I didn't mention it.
What many people seem to believe is that there is a collision on both FEs and the slower connection wins, and it works that way every time. I know that when I played WarBirds I thought this. It wasn't until later that the light, belatedly, came on and I understood why it has to be the way that it is.
I believe the slower connection usually wins a collision, many times flying away unscathed
I have come out the loser on too many to think otherwise as I do not think many have a better conn to AH than I average
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I believe the slower connection usually wins a collision, many times flying away unscathed
I have come out the loser on too many to think otherwise as I do not think many have a better conn to AH than I average
yep Eagler,
2 guys went to the DA to test it. they BOTh flew level and straight
at each other, went through each other. 7 of the 10 crosses
1 plane damaged 1 not. plane with better con damaged each time.
-
Eagler,
The vast majority of the time the collision only occurs on one system and in that case it really doesn't matter how fast or slow the connection is.
For the connection speed to matter the collision must happen on both systems, and given the common several hundred feet difference in position on the two FEs you can imagine that doesn't happen all that often.
-
Originally posted by whels
still havent been told how i can shoot/bomb said enemy con and hit/do damage/kill it with bullets/bombs where i SEE it on my FE.
yet its not there when a collsion occurs. if net lag is so bad that
i cant collide and do damage to both planes then i shouldnt
be able to shoot/bomb it either.
Your reasoning is flawed because we don't care about the damage done *to* your bullet, but we do care about the damage done to your plane and the other plane. You are trying to treat both cases the same, when they shouldn't be.
Re-read the above posts to see why the compromise solution we have now is the best possible.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I believe the slower connection usually wins a collision, many times flying away unscathed
I have come out the loser on too many to think otherwise as I do not think many have a better conn to AH than I average
You are coming to a conclusion without controlling all the variables. If you are colliding so often, it is far more likely that your flying style causes you to unintentionally ram other planes.
The collision method that I think HTC is using does not reward or punish based on connection speed, by design. If you collided, your FE saw the collision--regardless of your net speed. And that's it. If the other guy is warping on your FE, then you are probably warping on the other guy's FE and both are equally affected by the warping as far as collisions go.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Eagler,
The vast majority of the time the collision only occurs on one system and in that case it really doesn't matter how fast or slow the connection is.
For the connection speed to matter the collision must happen on both systems, and given the common several hundred feet difference in position on the two FEs you can imagine that doesn't happen all that often.
Good point, but I'm not sure if it is correct. Whel's experiments indicate that this is the case, but I still think a pure FE-based detection mechanism should not be affected by network connections on either side. Perhaps HTC is doing more than just that--a reality check on the server-side to prevent cheating, perhaps.
-
Originally posted by phookat
Good point, but I'm not sure if it is correct. Whel's experiments indicate that this is the case, but I still think a pure FE-based detection mechanism should not be affected by network connections on either side. Perhaps HTC is doing more than just that--a reality check on the server-side to prevent cheating, perhaps.
the 1 collision i hate the worst is, the warping bomber AI drones
-
Originally posted by hitech
Yes you did say that.
The out come of what you are asking for would generate what I described. You can flame the idea, but it seems to me even thow you claim to understand the technical issues involved with lag and multiple clients that you don't.
You seem to not understand that there realy is not 1 reality.
I don't either, and I do not blieve debri damages you but I will double check.
Added to post:
Went and double checked, and you can not collide with debri.
HiTech
Nothing personal Hitech, but I have been killed at least 30 times by debris from planes I've shot down. This goes way back to AH I, not just the 5 times it happened in AH II Saturday night, which I understand you've found a bug to explain.
Look, I'm being nice here, I don't appreciate being told I don't understand a concept when I do. You have no more idea what I understand than lucull does. Believe me, I understand net lag, it ain't a difficult concept. Just because I don't agree with your solution to the problem does not mean I don't understand. A little respect as opposed to a condescending attitude would go a long way. To decide a person is ignorant just because they don't agree with your solution to a problem is more than just a little arrogant.
There is no other explanation for seeing your opponent explode in front of you (he's dead, he didn't kill you), at 5K feet of altitude ( you did not hit the ground), with no other plane even on dar in the sector (there was no one else to kill you), and suddenly being in the tower, with no credit for the kill, and a message saying you have been kill %^&* shot you down (this means someone killed you, it was not AI AAA). If there was nothing else around to kill you, then debris killed you.
If you kill your opponent, evidenced by him exploding, and you don't hit the ground, you have not been shot by anyone, and you haven't been damaged by anything, but you instantly go to the tower, with a message you've been shot down, by the guy you just killed, there's a problem. It's either a flaw in your collision model, or a really nasty bug.
Look, it's your world, I just rent a small piece of it @ $15 a month. I understand your positions, and I understand why you prefer the collision model as it is. That does not mean I am forced to agree that it is as it should be, nor does it mean I have to like it. I don't really care to argue about it. I can live with it, whether I agree with it or not.
-
Virgil: When I take the time to go look at code to make sure that debri can not kill you. And it realy is a simple deal to check if it could posibly collide.
And I tell you that you can not collide with it. I expect to be trusted on my statement.
There are lots of other posibilities for what you described. But the one posibibilty that is absoluty not posible is that the debrie killed you.
In the last patch there was a big typo on collisions that cause you to hit the aircraft at great distances. Until that patch is released I have turned collisions off.
Now belive me or not, it is up to you .But do not spread the rumor that debrie causes collision because it dosn't.
Whels:
Net lag does not effect weather collisions happen or not. No more than lag effects weather bullets hit or not. Varible lag can cause warping and effect collisions and bullets because you see the plane jump more. But if you collide or your bullets collide has nothing to do with lag.
HiTech
-
Read the whole thread - my head hurts, especialy after Lerches explanation.
I believe HT when he says debris cannot kill you, yet cannot understand how if you take a guys wing off it is possible to still collide with said wing. Or is the floating wing is not considered debris, therefore you are in effect colliding with the other aircraft?
Am I to understand collisions are now back off again pending new patch?
Thanks
-
Yes Kev.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
I believe HT when he says debris cannot kill you, yet cannot understand how if you take a guys wing off it is possible to still collide with said wing. Or is the floating wing is not considered debris, therefore you are in effect colliding with the other aircraft
No, you have it right, debris are no longer attached to the pilot. The parts still attatched to the pilot are the ones to worry about. I cant count the times ive shot a wing off a slower plane only to smacked by the remaining wing spinning over as I pass by.
Now if your only talking about the current patch before it was disabled. Whatever the typo/bug was it caused it to at least appear that debris was doing damage.
-
Thanks for at least turning collisions off until your fix can be implemented.
-
Thanks for answers / explanations guys.