Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Hoarach on June 03, 2006, 10:07:13 PM
-
Yes this topic has been brought up many times but tonight was just a nerve wrecking. Almost every other flight tonight I was dieing to a ram. I had guys pulling into me to ram me and I die and they fly off no damage. I didnt win one ram to add to that and I was trying to avoid them. I had to have recieved at least 15 rams tonight.
Alone tonight I was in a 38J and for 3 flights I got rammed by a zeke. I was trying to avoid it and each time a zeke pulls into me for the ram. What happens, zekes fly off like nothing happened and I died.
Flew a hog as well and what did I lose a ram to, a nik. These jap palnes if rammed should easily be taken apart as they are made of wood and not as strong as the american metal planes.
This ram model needs some serious fixing. 38 being one of the biggest fighters in the game should not be losing rams to these tiny planes. Was just neverwrecking tonight how almost every other flight I died to a ram. It wouldnt matter so much if the other pilot died as well but flying off with no damage as nothing happened and getting a free kill is irritating. :furious :mad: :furious :mad:
-
Someone mark the calendar - Hoarach and I agree on something. :D
But yeah ... it's getting absurd out there. I had a Spit16 pull up into my D-Hog last week and take me out and he flew away unscathed. Sir Isaac must be rolling over in his grave.
-
The alternatives are worse.
At least when you get a collision, you know that your FE saw a collision. If I start dying because my FR didn' t see a collision , but the other guy's did , I'd be more pissed off.
Current method is the best within the limitations of internet lag.
-
it does seem a bit off when they pull into your belly and then it says you collided with them and then take the loss of a wing or something, but they can fly off undamaged. the only problem with the ram model is that it does not hurt both planes. other than that the ram model is perfect..............
-
Originally posted by yayyyy
it does seem a bit off when they pull into your belly and then it says you collided with them and then take the loss of a wing or something, but they can fly off undamaged. the only problem with the ram model is that it does not hurt both planes. other than that the ram model is perfect..............
So you'd be happy to die every time a guy collides with you, even if your FE showed him missing you by 50 feet ?
HTC would need a bigger mail server to recieve all the films with people whining about how the plane clearly missed, and they shouldn have collided.
-
From what I understand, If a plane gets away from a ram undamaged, it's because on his computer he didn't touch you, but on yours he did.
Here's an example.
I was in a 1 on 1 with Jensk, him in a 109 and me in an LA.
He had a ton of al on me and I was trying to draw him in real close before forcing the overshoot to get him to burn off some of his E with some hard fast moves to try and get a snap.
First 3 times we did this, nothing, and he was losing E each time and it was getting to the stage where I was almost matching his E.
4th bounce coming in, I leave my evade to the last possible second, watch out of my left forward view as he goes shooting by and all of a sudden, parts are dropping off his plane and smoke is pouring out of his engine.
No noise in my cockpit, no damage to my airframe. On my screen, we came real close but did not touch.
On his screen though, we did touch, so while my computer is sending information to his saying my plane is undamaged, his is saying to mine, his plane is screwed.
The collision model works fine, it's the Internet that is screwed and until connections are faster than lightspeed, it will remain screwed.
-
OK, I can buy the "your FE sees the ram so you get damaged" thing.
But how would you explain a headon ram? Wouldn't the other guy's FE
see the ram as well? Or does the initial rammer vaporize in the second
or so delay between connections?
-
how bout when you get the message "xxx collided with you" and you lose parts? he flies off....:furious happened many a time now and down right irritating. I got rammed tonight twice in same flight...first time i got no message, lost an engine tho, he didnt fire....2nd time i got both messages and vaporized...he flew on. both were la5ns to a 38. lovely.
-
well there are other options.....
no damage unless both FE's show a collision.....
no damage unless guns are being used/hot....(we can't have people flying through people shooting)
Or no damage unless you've been makeing large movements with your plane.....
Personaly I'd rather see planes flying through each other on one FE than the current code.
I don't enjoy it much when I'm in the middle of a nice fight and the con D50-100 off me dies because lag shows me "pull into him", I get the kill.... but no thrill.
And I don't enjoy it when I die ethier..... But don't say there are no choices.... This is just the choice HTC made.
-
Originally posted by Rino
OK, I can buy the "your FE sees the ram so you get damaged" thing.
But how would you explain a headon ram? Wouldn't the other guy's FE
see the ram as well? Or does the initial rammer vaporize in the second
or so delay between connections?
Explain a HO ram where one dies ? It means one guy dodged. If you're getting collisions from HO's the solution is actually pretty simple.
-
If you received damage and received only "XXX has collided with you", he shot you and took damage for colliding with you.
If you received damage and received only "you have collided" = you rammed him.
If you see both messages, he sees both messages, and you both take damage.
Not every collision results in instantaneous death, or catastrophic destruction on the plane who sees the collision.
No one has yet come up with a better idea that addresses all of the issues, and until someone does (or fiber replaces all electrical connectors in PCs and telecomm gear), no one is likely too.
-
i WAS ON DEFAULT CLIMB went to get a soda came back and was toppling to ground the message said bj2229 u have collided with. Point in fact he swooped down in a P-47 and rammed me from behind yet i was default climbing out?
We both chuclked about it however i cant see how i collided with him when he dived on me and was afk.,
He took no damage and i was a smoldering torch.
I cant figure this collision model at all
-
I might be guessing here, but maybe Net Lag(tm)?
different connection speeds... different perceptions on who is where when.
Well, that's my guess anyway.
Regards,
-
yep ram model is broken ...
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/301_1149232202_ahssassistant.jpg)
its true i got chi to rearend me and he flew away unhurt .. so whats up with that ... i dont want to hear lag either ... if it was me doing the rearend collision id be dead ... its a different issue then netlag ...
-
If you can reliably repeat it... then film it multiple times and submit it to Pyro?
Regards,
-
AH ram model is a compromise one has to learn to live with.
A plane on his owner FE is always a little forward of where it looks to everyone else. In addition, AH does extrapulation of plane movement according to the last data recieved (I think HT said it is second order, meaning constant acceleration).
The result of which is:
1. if you want someone to ram you, you need to fly close and infront of his nose - not into him. This means that in scissors rams almost always only one FE will detect a collision.
2. Jinks jerks and quicks direction of movement in your plane show on your FE before they show on every body elses. Then the net is updated and your shdow plane on the net catches up with your FE. This means that on HO, when you pull hard and out of the way in the last second, your "internet shadow" plane will still be going forward for a split second on every body elses FE - and ram the other guy.
The latter is also the reason that 190s look like flopping fish. They roll and jink quicker than the net can respond. The delay between packets means that the extrapulation is off (not a constant acceleration) and the plane jumps to its new position/orientation.
If I understand it correctly that is...
Bozon
-
Well the way I understand it. Is that with HO's or even someone running into your tail Net lag still plays a major part of the Ram Model.
Even when you set up a situation where both of you know the ram is going to happen, IE the HO. Even a distance of a single yard will make the difference in who gets the collision.
So if You and your Target are both HO'ing, and your FE reports that your 50 yards away, and his reports 51 yards away, You are the one to get the Colide message. At least that is my understanding but Im just a newb just passing my 3rd month on here. and I could be totally off base. But I think thats how it works.
So.... If you Try to avoid a collision, And the other person pulls up into you, chances are, He seen you as free and clear.. But your FE decided otherwise.
-
Hoarach your connection looked clean to me. Nice meeting you by the way.
What was obvious was how our guys were going about the headon and that is what was causing you trouble. I was listening to it all and know what they were doing. They just wanted you dead end of story. Once you turn ho they wont turn until you explode or they beam into the tower so you can expect the ram if you dont pull off.
I dont believe the ram model is broken.
-
Originally posted by Chalenge
I dont believe the ram model is broken.
its not totally broken .. its just wrong .. its either a hardware/ping/routor/packet
kinda thing .
-
There are a few instances where someone can induce a collision, but saying the system currently in place is broken is misleading. Unless everybody has fiber, and communications technology makes a lightyear leap forward, having a game tell you when 2 people are occupying the same space at the same point in time on someone's FE is the best anyone can hope for.
If anyone has a better solution, let's see it.
-
Funny thing is:
"I was trying to avoid it and each time A ZEKE PULLED INTO ME for the ram. What happens, zekes fly off like nothing happened and I died."
" had a Spit16 PULL UP INTO my D-Hog last week and take me out and he flew away unscathed."
"Point in fact he swooped down in a P-47 and RAMMED ME from behind yet I was default climbing out?"
Key thing being - all of the eny planes that "hit" you, didn't see the hit....you saw the collision happen and shoud take penalty for it.
HT posted a very nice thread explaining it using the basis of your plane is actually towing a "target". And if you run into "someones "target" or they hit your your - then a collision is detected....If both "targets" hit each other - then both parties take damage. Do a search for it. ;)
-
We had a great system 10 years ago in AW. Hardly anyone complained about it.
-
ok, maybe if i type slower :rolleyes: you guys will be able to read it...:lol
just last night, la5n collided with me, I got the "xxx has collided with you"....he got the "you have collided"...he didnt fire. I lost an engine, he lost nothing.
he said sorry on 200 that he pulled up and i was "just there"...he didnt have time to pull trigger.
Its not the first time this has happened to me. I will admit, its not every time...but it has happened more frequently than I like :)
this was not a HO pass, he was traveling at 90 degree angle to me...i was chasing somebody and he was doing evasives from somebody else.
Ive had it happen when going HO though...his guns dont show any muzzle bursts...so I can only guess he was firing as he was passing thru me and I couldnt see it, but they at times take no damage.
Ive had people ask me if I took damage from the collision...when I never got a collision message. They got the "KillnU has collided with you" and I get no message what so ever and never appear to collide with them on my end.
-
Why Can't Both Planes Die. I would be mad from the RAM but not as Mad if I knew he died also.:cry :furious :aok :rofl
Crims
479th Raiders FG
-
Originally posted by Souless
i WAS ON DEFAULT CLIMB went to get a soda came back and was toppling to ground the message said bj2229 u have collided with. Point in fact he swooped down in a P-47 and rammed me from behind yet i was default climbing out?
We both chuclked about it however i cant see how i collided with him when he dived on me and was afk.,
He took no damage and i was a smoldering torch.
I cant figure this collision model at all
LOL I remember that, I swooped in about 550 and couldn't quite pull up...I was thinking ya scratched my wing or somethin:)
-
Just turn collisions OFF problem solved. You get some new ones that you won't like tho :)
-
the collision model is broke and has been for while.
ive personally have seen/had happen the following.
plane pass to 1 of my plane, lose opposite side wing. no one fired.
plane visually passed missing me on MY FE.
ive passed right through middle of buffs and i take no damage, they blow up.
enemy fighter and belly to belly as we pass, visually missing as we pull opposite directions and i take damage from collision.
just many instances of enemy plane visually passing me clear of me
and i take collision damage.
but ive said all this before and been called a liar by HT so, it never will be looked into or fixed since HE says its fine and wont be changed.
no matter what we put forth.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
But yeah ... it's getting absurd out there.
Yep... but the AH cod's say that's as good as it gets.
Tumor
-
Turning off collisions with the current ez-mode HO shots and HT's art department will need to change the logo to use a Medievil font as the game will descend into perpetual jousting.
I agree the network is probably the problem, but I'm pretty firmly convinced from observation that at least some of the Gamers have learned how to optimize the collision model and/or network impact on it.
Mutual destruction collisions will no doubt result in more whines as folks who've been getting away with inducing collisions would have to pay for it. The end result, though, would be that everyone would have to be at least a little careful about not running into each other. Which may actually help the HO'ing situation.
And those who subscribe to the entropy theory may simply point out that if the n00b gamers have learned to induce collisions then the oldsters should too.
-
lf the ram model is so obviously broken, and so many of you know it, how about some film for the rest of us who remain skeptical?
I know this is a hot topic, but after all the stuff that's been posted, and how HT's explained it, it seems to work exactly as it's supposed to, and I've yet to personally see film showing a definitive problem.
-
Originally posted by Hamish
If you can reliably repeat it... then film it multiple times and submit it to Pyro?
Regards,
I remember reading somewhere, in a previous thread, that the film isn't a hundred percent accurate in recording where each plane is at any given time, part of the smoothing process IIRC, so its not likely to be much use.
Personally I regard rams in much the same way I regard getting lit up by planes who categorically didn't have any solution as they passed by - all part of the nets rich tapestry.
-
I do believe if an air to air collision has occured BOTH planes MUST take damage
-
**** no. I do not want to do die to rams that people like you can't or won't avoid, especially if it doesn't happen on my FE.
-
I want to see a film where someone flies through a bomber and has no damage. Not from the bombers POV but from the guy that flies through the bomber. Then we know its broke until then it isnt broke.
-
Somewhere in Texas HTC are rolling their eyes and sighing. Use the search feature.
-
Collisions did happen in the real world..everyone knows that. But I tend to believe that if you collided with another plane in the real world..no matter what kind of plane it was..you would both be hurting in some fashion or another.
Maybe that's what needs to happen?
:confused:
-
Originally posted by Bingo73
Collisions did happen in the real world..everyone knows that. But I tend to believe that if you collided with another plane in the real world..no matter what kind of plane it was..you would both be hurting in some fashion or another.
Maybe that's what needs to happen?
:confused:
So instead of SOMETIMES (rarely? never?) going down when clueless dolts deliberatly ram you, you want ALWAYS to go down?
Imagine the whines on all channles...and gameplay will improve considerable, too! :rolleyes:
-
or maybe if they realize that they will go down as well 100% of the time, they will be more careful when in close? then again maybe not. who knows.
-
Originally posted by SunKing
Somewhere in Texas HTC are rolling their eyes and sighing. Use the search feature.
I'm sure they are.
But look at the bigger picture. First folks are complaining about getting HO'd all the time. The response is usually of the nature of "HO's can be avoided." Now experienced players keep getting run into by, I'm assuming, dweebs who then fly away undamaged. Not once in a while, but flight after flight. What's the answer to this: "Avoid getting run into"??
Come on. So, what's the bubble that someone has to fly around to prevent his FE from saying he flew into someone he didn't? Meanwhile, the dweeb who'll gladly take a 50-50 chance of "winning" by HO and ram can just bore in without a care in the world. That seems kind of bass-ackwards.
I think rear-quarter collisions have a chance of survival. But a HO collision, with two pretty heavy pieces of machinery even touching at 500+ mph closure rates, I'd say odds of survival are low. Just hitting a bird at those speeds will take out something.
-
Originally posted by Souless
[ [/B]
I do believe if an air to air collision has occured BOTH planes MUST take damage
Agreed. If 1 plane hits another they both should take damage no matter what. Screw the Intardnet connects / packet loss ect. Both should take damage:cry :furious:mad::lol
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
**** no. I do not want to do die to rams that people like you can't or won't avoid, especially if it doesn't happen on my FE.
IMHO all HT has to do is take away the system notifying you have been collided with. If my front end didn't see it I don't care about it. If damage was taken from gunfire just play the hit sounds.
The only person who needs to know a collision has taken place is the person who did the hitting.
Think of the cut down in the whine.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Wax
I do believe if an air to air collision has occured BOTH planes MUST take damage
Agreed. If 1 plane hits another they both should take damage no matter what. Screw the Intardnet connects / packet loss ect. Both should take damage:cry :furious:mad::lol
I agree with that, but it's just not gonna happen. HiTech has decided this is how he wants to do collisions and it's not gonna change. Kinda like a permanent squelch list......not gonna happen even though virtually every other online game has some sort of permanent ignore or squelch feature. Heck we even get a permanent ignore feature on this BBS but he wont give us one in the game. :rofl
-
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAH!
Idiots. All of you!
Well, many of you.
You are all to fixated on who's nose was pointed where and that has nothing to do with who collided with who!
So what if you are AFK and the P-47 dove on you. You still collided with him because you did not avoid the collision. On his FE there was no collision, hence the way it works.
The A6M in the OP's post did not pull up into his belly. The A6M pulled up to climb/change directiion/dodge an attack/set up an attack/something, but he could not pull up into the P-38's belly because he had no way of knowing where the P-38 was in relation to his A6M on the P-38 driver's FE.
All that determines if you, me, anybody collides is if our FE detects a collision between our aircraft and another aircraft. It has nothing to do with anybody esle's FE. Nothing.
-
Turn off collisions and randomize HO hits.
-
Originally posted by Redd
So you'd be happy to die every time a guy collides with you, even if your FE showed him missing you by 50 feet ?
HTC would need a bigger mail server to recieve all the films with people whining about how the plane clearly missed, and they shouldn have collided.
no i was definately being sarcastic. i am never happy with the ram model really
-
I've been parked on the runway and 'collided' with a vulcher on 'my FE' .... he of course flew away unharmed....
This is the unfairness people are talking about....
I gave a few options, Guess noone read them .. or just dismissed them out of hand.
You could have planes take no damage unless seen on BOTH FE's and you'd need to add ... if only on one FE and that guys is fireing ... he needs to die ... to keep people from flying through planes shooting.
The other alternative is don't count a ram on someone's FE who hasn't been makeing large movements.
Don't say it's the only or best option.... it's just the one HTC chose... and proably the simplest, so if simplest is best maybe.
Like I said before I'd rather see planes flying through each other (with cold guns) than the current model.
-
Originally posted by BigR
Turn off collisions and randomize HO hits.
And add rear deflector shields.
Some threads for you people to browse
1 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=172837&referrerid=3787)
2 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=89987&referrerid=3787)
3 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=51789&referrerid=3787)
serioulsy though, you guys are beating a dead horse. Read those threads and Hitech responses.
-
Through my twisted little perspective I've observed three things which indicate the whole collision deal needs some rethinking:
(1) The number of collisions that occur in the MA seems to be rising.
(2) The number of times I hear on vox: "I'm gonna ram him" is also rising.
(3) The number of collisions which have outcomes which defy physics (no doubt thanks to Al Gore's Internet) is getting high enough to also defy random probability.
The number of players in the MA has risen in the last few months, but 3 or 4 months ago I could go weeks without anyone running into me. Now it happens several times a night. And there aren't 3 or 4 times as many players as before. Likewise the comms are a constant stream of "He ran into me" too. So something has changed, if not with the code, certainly with behavior.
Point (3) basically means that the manner in which some of these collisions occur is really starting to look intentional. So even if the code is working I'm starting to believe some subset of players have found a way to game it.
-
hmm, once again i find myself gravitating towards dok's pov.....should i be worried?:eek: :) ( p.s, thanks for taking down that 190 the other night, was missing both ailerons and rtb)
i like the idea that both planes would take damage from a HO only if both FE's saw a collision. then again i don't coad. if this collision is the best we can get, then fine, but no reason not to discuss it. if feels like dead horse is being beat, then no need to continue to read and post:)
vast
-
Here we go again.
When someone provides HTC with the answer to eliminating lag on the internet (making HT and company bazillionaires, btw, even if the money is split `tween them and the genius who provided the solution), then the ability to code collisions accurately without relying on the solution of relegating the damage to the player who opted not to avoid the collision, as reported back to HT's server via that player's FE, will become a practical undertaking. At least as far as this non-coder understands. ;)
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
(1) The number of collisions that occur in the MA seems to be rising.
The number of players in the MA has risen in the last few months
You swerved into your own answer IMO. Much more data moving from many more computers through the AH "hub" must necessarily mean a slightly longer lead time. In a game as fast as this one, every fraction of a second lost means that "target" on your front end is even farther away than where he is on his front end, and where you perceived him before when there were not so many on.
200 players on, planes are relatively close to where they are on their front end. They move, their "shadow" moves at nearly the same time.
600 players on, planes are farther from where they are on their front end. They jink, and it takes longer for your FE to pick it up. He is flying straight on your FE for a slightly longer period of time, and blammo, even though he pulled up, your FE sees him run through your tail. You get a collision message, and he'e like, "but I never touched him!"
< Not directed at anyone in particular >
Like Hubsonfire said, if anyone has film proof you took damage from a collision where you got no message "you have collided", post it. Then everyone will be able to see #1 you are not misreading the message, or #2 your perception is wrong and he WAS firing after all. Until such evidence is posted, we can assume your perception is flawed. Or we could assume you are a liar if you prefer, but I will give the benefit of the doubt on that score. :)
-
Originally posted by BigR
We had a great system 10 years ago in AW. Hardly anyone complained about it.
The good old days, when other things were so bad, no one cared about a small detail like a collision.
(http://webpages.charter.net/davegun/Pics/screen1.jpg)
-
Originally posted by GunnerCAF
The good old days, when other things were so bad, no one cared about a small detail like a collision.
(http://webpages.charter.net/davegun/Pics/screen1.jpg)
WOW:O Im not complaining about my graphics again.
-
Originally posted by GunnerCAF
The good old days, when other things were so bad, no one cared about a small detail like a collision.
(http://webpages.charter.net/davegun/Pics/screen1.jpg)
atleast the trees wont kill the frame rate
-
ROSCOROO! THIS GRAPHIC IS FREAKN HILARIOUS MAN!!! BWAhaahaha!
Not ONE person commented on it, being so whipped up in "Collision Modeling" hysteria.. You gota be kidding me. I LOVE IT!
RV6
Originally posted by Roscoroo
yep ram model is broken ...
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/301_1149232202_ahssassistant.jpg)
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
I've been parked on the runway and 'collided' with a vulcher on 'my FE' .... he of course flew away unharmed....
This is the unfairness people are talking about....
I gave a few options, Guess noone read them .. or just dismissed them out of hand.
You could have planes take no damage unless seen on BOTH FE's and you'd need to add ... if only on one FE and that guys is fireing ... he needs to die ... to keep people from flying through planes shooting.
The other alternative is don't count a ram on someone's FE who hasn't been makeing large movements.
Don't say it's the only or best option.... it's just the one HTC chose... and proably the simplest, so if simplest is best maybe.
Like I said before I'd rather see planes flying through each other (with cold guns) than the current model.
Got a better one -
Sitting stationary in a Panzer.
Spit XVI comes in and starts straffing (from front), of course I'm thinking teehee.
I get a xxxx has collided with you, and lose my fricking engine!!! (from the front).
Of course he flies off unscathed.
-
Do not change the ram model, it is the best compromise in a world with internet lag.
How will you all feel if it is changed so that both planes take damage, and you start getting rammed by people who never get within 200 yards of you on your computer? (That's a rhetorical question, I already know the answer is "whiney")
-
Originally posted by Redd
If I start dying because my FR didn' t see a collision , but the other guy's did , I'd be more pissed off.
That IS what I am seeing in about half of the incidences, the other half is usually a guys spinner boring into my fuselage while I attempt to avoid. Followed by a message that says "player xxx has collided with you while my wingless aircraft spins in and I see him fly off without damage. I understand the compromise and necessities of lag, maybe it because I usually have a ping of under 25ms, but the messages that say THEY hit me, while I take damage and they do not are a serious source of frustration. Judging by this thread and the 124 like it before I am not the only one.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
The end result, though, would be that everyone would have to be at least a little careful about not running into each other. Which may actually help the HO'ing situation.
I'm with you on much of your post Dok, but disagree with the above statement. MOST of those who take every HO shot they see would be quite satisfied with mutual destruction, it gets them closer to the 1:1 k/d than they've ever gotten before.
-
You may have seen it as a spinner through the midwing kind of collision but I bet that's not what happened. Ive got insight on this Id like to share with you. I attack a few bombers from time to time. In fact if I see a bomber an uncontrollable urge builds inside of me and I just cant help myself. Its so bad I will go ahead and apologize to anyone I might get into a fight with and leave suddenly to kill a bomber group 10,000 feet below. I just cant help it I hate enemy bombers so bad. Anyway what has happened from time to time is in those 10,000 foot dives I sometimes compress and sometimes the controls are just too heavy to do much and on a few occasions Ive hit the drones as they slide into lead position or change slot positions. Ive hit props and ball turrets and even the tail-end-charlie gun. Oddly this has in most instances wounded me and caused no other damage to the plane. I cant explain it but thats how it goes. So the next time you get a midair with me know that my hands are shaking because I may not be able to finish the bombers with one hand on a bandage and the other trying to make it home but know that I did shoot you and you are damaged because I did shoot you and not because I was too impatient.
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Redd
If I start dying because my FR didn' t see a collision , but the other guy's did , I'd be more pissed off.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That IS what I am seeing in about half of the incidences, the other half is usually a guys spinner boring into my fuselage while I attempt to avoid. Followed by a message that says "player xxx has collided with you while my wingless aircraft spins.
You have never seen what you describe. If you have not recieved the message "You have collided" Then in no way did you suffer damage from a collision. Therefore you were just shot at close range.
It is realy simple if you avoid a collision you do not take damage.
-
The half where I see his plane hit mine and I die to the collision adhere's to what is described as the effect, but it does not adhere to the "player-1 tried to avoid while player-2 bored in" part.
The part where my FE sees no collision and I get a message in white that says "HE collided with ME" yet I am damaged and he is not is not a figment of my imagination, nor one of all the other players who see the same thing. I'll go dig through some films, cannot do it today though.
-
Edbert1: Read my lips If you do not get the message "You have collided" You did not suffer any damage from a collision. Infact you did not collided. Therefore the most liky probability is you were shot.
As to him being damaged , he is damaged, you just might not see the effect.
HiTech
-
Maybe you should have the FE tell them if they were shot before being rammed....
But only tell them if the hits occour within 1-2 seconds of being rammed...
NooB has collied with you.
NooB has also shot your bellybutton as his rectical was full of your plane 1 second before impact.....
Or you can just get rid of the "You have been collided with" message but keep the "You have collided" message.....
-
Originally posted by hitech
Edbert1: Read my lips If you do not get the message "You have collided" You did not suffer any damage from a collision. Infact you did not collided. Therefore the most liky probability is you were shot.
As to him being damaged , he is damaged, you just might not see the effect.
HiTech
Thank you HiTech but I sometimes wonder why you even bother. This has become like a religion. No amount of facts will change peoples minds regarding their dogmatic believe regarding this issue.
Just to add more facts to the picture. Not that your gonna believe them.
The message "you have collided" is in orange text. What else is in Orange text? Combat Trim Messages, Mode Switching Messages, Head Position Saved messages. These ALL come from YOUR computer not the host, not the other players compute. What does this mean? that only YOUR computer can detect a collision.
The message "{gameID} collided with you" is in white text. What Else is in white text? Private Messages. The same system that sends a PM sends this message. It comes directly from the other players computer. Your computer did not detect a collision, you do not take damage.
Is it 100% fair? No. Yes a vulcher can fly right over your plane and on his FE he flies over your aircraft but on yours he collides with you. Yes, you can ram a bomber and on the bombers FE a collisions is detects. I've made that mistake myself and sent a "My Bad" to the bomber pilot.
I would wager that 80% of the collisions are failed HOs. So if you don't want to collide DON"T HO.
-
I would agree that a lot of rams are from failed HO attempts, but I get a lot in turn fights as well, normally through losing track of who is where, and clipping someone as I wheel around.
I agree that no amount of statements or coad by HT will lessen the number of posts like this or remarks on 200. People believe what they think they see, no matter what the reality is.
-
I would wager that 80% of the collisions are failed HOs. So if you don't want to collide DON"T HO.
99.9% of the time I see a Collision message is in a turn fight.
Still, BOTH planes should take damage in any collision. If it's not possible to do that, just turn collisions off.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
99.9% of the time I see a Collision message is in a turn fight.
Still, BOTH planes should take damage in any collision. If it's not possible to do that, just turn collisions off.
That stat is for you alone. I'm speaking about the community as a whole and I stand by it.
Let me ask you this. You are in a slow turn fight and make a close pass by your opponent and WHAM you blow up. You did not see a collision in fact you know you were at least 10-15 yard away but in your text buffer is says "a collision has occurred". Would you not be whining a loudly as you are now? I think we all know the answer to this.
The system is the best possible system for this environment. You are responsible for your own aircraft. You are the one who must avoid collisions. Is that always possible? No, but for the most part it is.
-
I've said it before and I will say it again - The only way to fix the ram model is for both planes to take similar damage in a ram - not 1 plane take damaged whilst the other gets away without a scratch.
If 2 planes collided at 150mph in real life - nevermind head on both pilots would be dead and both aircraft in tatters!
-
Originally posted by 5tu4rt
I've said it before and I will say it again - The only way to fix the ram model is for both planes to take similar damage in a ram - not 1 plane take damaged whilst the other gets away without a scratch.
If 2 planes collided at 150mph in real life - nevermind head on both pilots would be dead and both aircraft in tatters!
That breaks it, not fixes it.
Learn to read and comprehend what has been written explaining why it is the way that it is.
-
Dude how about you learn to read and comprehend.
This sim is supposed to be realistic, if two planes collided in real life BOTH would take damage... oh wait sorry you're living in superhero world where you expect your plane to take no damage but the other persons to burst into a ball of flame right ?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but when a collision occurs in real life whether its an aircraft or a car BOTH Parties ultimately take damage.
Hope I've cleared my point up for you there.
Sorry I had to waste 1 ounce of intellectand energy typing this out though, didnt think I'd have to explain such a BASIC and SIMPLE argument.
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
That stat is for you alone. I'm speaking about the community as a whole and I stand by it.
Let me ask you this. You are in a slow turn fight and make a close pass by your opponent and WHAM you blow up. You did not see a collision in fact you know you were at least 10-15 yard away but in your text buffer is says "a collision has occurred". Would you not be whining a loudly as you are now? I think we all know the answer to this.
The system is the best possible system for this environment. You are responsible for your own aircraft. You are the one who must avoid collisions. Is that always possible? No, but for the most part it is.
First of all, I am not whining in this thread, I am participating in a discussion.
2nd, where did I state anything other than my OWN experience with collisions? In no way was I even implying that I was speaking for anyone other than myself.
3rd your opinion on what is the best system for collision modeling is just that....your opinion. Mine just happens to differ from yours.
-
Stuart, do you understand what "lag" is? Once you do, and realize no one sees everybody else in exactly the same position, it's easy to figure out how one person can register a collision, and the guy he rams doesn't see it.
Also, this isn't real life. There is no lag in reality. That is why it takes 2 planes to collide in real life.
It's all pretty simple. If you avoid a collision, you won't get one. If you don't, you might. It works like that for everyone. Accept it until someone can prove otherwise. Every comment of "Well, what I saw was X" is absolutely worthless. If it's broken, let's have some proof already.
-
Thats It...
Next time I get online I am going to:
- Find someone to take to the DA
- Have both of us record the whole frigging session
- purposely cause a bunch of RAMS from different angles
- Post the DAM films to show people what lag does to each persons FE....
-
Originally posted by 5tu4rt
I've said it before and I will say it again - The only way to fix the ram model is for both planes to take similar damage in a ram - not 1 plane take damaged whilst the other gets away without a scratch.
If 2 planes collided at 150mph in real life - nevermind head on both pilots would be dead and both aircraft in tatters!
It would certainly lessen the tendency to turn fight as the chance that an airplane you see 200 feet away could cause you and him to spontaniously explode.
-
I understand perfectly well what LAG is, I am a semi-professional counterstrike player so I understand lag/choke/loss and other associated network deficiences which can cause poor performance or differing result.
The point is HTC have created a collision model which is definately not perfect, I know cos when I still played this game I knew full well there were times when I had collided with someone and saw them go down in flames and vice versa.
As i understand it following a collision both players get a message stating that the collision has occured - then the game works out whos fault it was and that person gets the damage...
Make it so both players get damage - ppl wont be long in learning not to get too close!
-
Note: I've never been in involved in any collision from 200 yards out. and im a euro connecting to a US server so my latency will be higher than most!
-
Originally posted by Elfie
First of all, I am not whining in this thread, I am participating in a discussion.
2nd, where did I state anything other than my OWN experience with collisions? In no way was I even implying that I was speaking for anyone other than myself.
3rd your opinion on what is the best system for collision modeling is just that....your opinion. Mine just happens to differ from yours.
But yours makes absolutly no sense in the context of this game. All it does is show a complete lack of understanding of the "3 sets of reality" that exist in AH. That is the problem with this whole collision discussion. Very few people understand this concept at all.
Reality 1=your computer
Reality 2=server
Reality 3=other guys computer
None of these are the same at any given time.
My opinion is based on facts obtained directly from the game author.
You did not answer my question. Would yuo be OPK wiht takeing damage when you obviously did not collide with another plane?
-
How was the 'ram' model in AHI? I don't remember people complaining about it then. Has it changed, or is it because of the message we get now?
-
As i understand it following a collision both players get a message stating that the collision has occured - then the game works out whos fault it was and that person gets the damage
Your understanding is completly incorect.
1. There is no fault in a collision. You detect/see a collision you take damage. I.E. You fly your plane, you occupy the same space and time with your plane as a plane you see on your screen you take damage.
2. The other player has the exact same rules as you. He occupies the same space at the same time with his plane and any other plane he sees on his computer he takes damage.
3. Damage is termermined by which piece of your plane occupied the same space and time with other planes you see.
4. The other persons collision detection has no effect what so ever on your collision detection.
Lag has nothing to do with this detection prosses. All lag does is makes what each person see's (or more precisly the Time varible of (Space and time)) be bigger , hence the bigger the lag the more different each persons world.
This lag is not just one persons lag but wrather the sum of the 2 computers lag. Hence when any 2 people look at eachother. They are both seeing the same amout of lag.
The only lag effect has nothing to do with dection but can effect kills awarded.
This effect is if both people detect a collision at the same moment in real time. This normaly only happens in a head on. Each person then applies there damage to themselevs and notifies the host. If this damage killed the pilot a kill would be awarded. Since this notification takes time to get to the host. The person with the slowest connect would be awarded a kill. Because as far as the host knows, the person with the slowest connection still is flying a perfectly good airplane.
Now if you realy wish to raise your ping times just so you could be awarded a kill in the case where both of you decided not to avoide the collision in a head on. Go right ahead.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by 5tu4rt
I understand perfectly well what LAG is, I am a semi-professional counterstrike player so I understand lag/choke/loss and other associated network deficiences which can cause poor performance or differing result.
The point is HTC have created a collision model which is definately not perfect, I know cos when I still played this game I knew full well there were times when I had collided with someone and saw them go down in flames and vice versa.
As i understand it following a collision both players get a message stating that the collision has occured - then the game works out whos fault it was and that person gets the damage...
Make it so both players get damage - ppl wont be long in learning not to get too close!
Here is one of the total misconceptions regarding collisions.
THE SERVER DOES NOT MAKE THE DECISION REDARGING COLLISIONS!
That decision is made on your computer and your computer ONLY. The only PC in the entire AH network that registers a collision and inflicts the appropriate damage IS YOURS.
Your computer registers a collision, informs you in your text buffer, send the message {your game ID} has collided with {game ID of player you collided with} to the player you hit over the PM channel. It registers damage to your aircraft, inflicts that damage on you and sends the damage packet to the server to be distributed to other players.
The host server is not involved in the damage model at all other that to send the packet containing your damage so other player see your plane damaged.
Is this really so hard to understand or is it that some of you just don't want to hear the truth.
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
But yours makes absolutly no sense in the context of this game. All it does is show a complete lack of understanding of the "3 sets of reality" that exist in AH. That is the problem with this whole collision discussion. Very few people understand this concept at all.
Reality 1=your computer
Reality 2=server
Reality 3=other guys computer
None of these are the same at any given time.
My opinion is based on facts obtained directly from the game author.
You did not answer my question. Would yuo be OPK wiht takeing damage when you obviously did not collide with another plane?
I understand perfectly the *realities* of this game and how lag affects what each of us see.
The game author has chosen the worst possible solution for the collision model (imo). IF he insists on keeping collisions ON given the 3 realities, then both planes need to take damage. I am under no delusions that HiTech will ever turn collisions off, which given the 3 *realities* would be the most sensible option to take.
To answer your question, I am pretty sure I already have taken damage when I didnt collide on my FE. I cant prove this with films since I dont normally film my sorties. Turning on the film for me is usually a death sentence. :D At no time did I ever get upset about it though. Example: A couple nights ago I dove on a Zero, as he pulled up into me, I passed him canopy to canopy, clearly on my FE I didnt touch him, but I got a collision message saying I had collided with him, and I took damage. Did I get upset? No, it's just another *reality* of this game that we endure.
Another, far older flight sim a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away had collisions turned off because of the 3 *realities* and no one complained. Nor were there threads on their bbs every week about the bogus lack of collisions. Or in the case of AH collision model, the unfairness of only one aircraft taking damage in any collision.
-
Is this really so hard to understand or is it that some of you just don't want to hear the truth.
I understand all of that perfectly. And I think others do as well.
I think the collision model itself is flawed. How can you deal out collision damage to just one player when 2 players will never actually see a collision at the same time?
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Another, far older flight sim a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away had collisions turned off because of the 3 *realities* and no one complained. Nor were there threads on their bbs every week about the bogus lack of collisions. Or in the case of AH collision model, the unfairness of only one aircraft taking damage in any collision.
But there were large problems of jousting without concern for damage. Jousting so bad that head-on gunfire was almost completely nerfed. Jousting so bad that it soon became the perferred method of engagement. We'd fly head on into the enemy in preparation for the immelman, don't worry about collision or gunfire, fly on through him as if he didn't exist. It was so bad that an entire generation of sim pilots thought that flying headon through the enemy was "how" to conduct air combat, an entire generation that today still cries foul at head on fire.
Originally posted by Elfie
I think the collision model itself is flawed. How can you deal out collision damage to just one player when 2 players will never actually see a collision at the same time?
The answer is so simple that it confuses people, keep "your" plane from hitting someone else and *ding* you don't hit anyone else!!
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
THE SERVER DOES NOT MAKE THE DECISION REDARGING COLLISIONS!
That decision is made on your computer and your computer ONLY. The only PC in the entire AH network that registers a collision and inflicts the appropriate damage IS YOURS.
Blame me. I supposed the server into the equation in my version. Actually, I like this even better. :aok
-
Elfie,
No collisions results in people flying through their targets, guns blazing from ranges that they cannot possible miss from. It totally distorts any semblence of WWII air combat tactics as suddenly the best tactics are ones that would quickly kill you in reality.
-
And in that reality long long ago the standard tactic was hold triger down and fly threw the other plane.
The next effect was head ons increased drasticly.
The next step was to lower lethality and probabilty of hits when shooting in head ons.
And people did complain. And some disliked stuff so much they went on to create there own flight sims. And as that new company was disccusing collisions the CFO of that company had tried differnet froms of proccsing collisions. 1 side collides both do. 1 side only colides neither do. (He had already played a game with no collisions) And found those 2 new options again completly lacking. And then one day a player named caligula came up with the idea of one way collisions. The CEO that company almost imediatly agreed that cal's way was the only way collisions could be done.
And hence online collisions were born over 10 years ago. So exatly how is your "Opionion" created, have you actualy tried a creating a flight sim with all different option. Have you realy evaluated /tested/ seen the outcome of the different options?
And do you not agree that when you fly threw a plane you take damage? Or is it that your ego refuses to belive that you screwed up, and damaged your plane, because it realy must have been the other guys fault.
I think the collision model itself is flawed. How can you deal out collision damage to just one player when 2 players will never actually see a collision at the same time?
And under that agument it is imposible to even create a combat flight simulator, because just as with plane collisions, bullets also are not seen in the same place on both front ends, and hence do not collide with the plane on both front ends. So per your agument, all is folly and AH should not have been created.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech
And in that reality long long ago the standard tactic was hold triger down and fly threw the other plane.
The next effect was head ons increased drasticly.
The next step was to lower lethality and probabilty of hits when shooting in head ons.
And people did complain. And some disliked stuff so much they went on to create there own flight sims. And as that new company was disccusing collisions the CFO of that company had tried differnet froms of proccsing collisions. 1 side collides both do. 1 side only colides neither do. (He had already played a game with no collisions) And found those 2 new options again completly lacking. And then one day a player named caligula came up with the idea of one way collisions. The CEO that company almost imediatly agreed that cal's way was the only way collisions could be done.
And hence online collisions were born over 10 years ago. So exatly how is your "Opionion" created, have you actualy tried a creating a flight sim with all different option. Have you realy evaluated /tested/ seen the outcome of the different options?
And do you not agree that when you fly threw a plane you take damage? Or is it that your ego refuses to belive that you screwed up, and damaged your plane, because it realy must have been the other guys fault.
And under that agument it is imposible to even create a combat flight simulator, because just as with plane collisions, bullets also are not seen in the same place on both front ends, and hence do not collide with the plane on both front ends. So per your agument, all is folly and AH should not have been created.
HiTech
PWNED !!!!!!!!!!!
-
Hitech, why in some collisions none takes a damage?
I had few duels with both messages for both players, ie "You have collided" and "GameID has collided..." yet none has taken any damage.
In one fight both of us collided twice and no damage at all.
Is this due to damage resolution?
-
I assume you both checked your damage screens?
HiTech
-
Yes we did.
-
Or is it that your ego refuses to belive that you screwed up, and damaged your plane, because it realy must have been the other guys fault.
That is the core of all these "fix the ram" threads.
What a bunch of wussies ... you collided ... don't worry about the other guy ... your the dolt that collided so suck it up and grab a new plane.
There are so many more important things in life to fret over ... it amazes me to read some of the logic and reactions that some people have to this phenomenon.
-
Jousting so bad that it soon became the perferred method of engagement.
We have many jousters in AH as well. For those, jousting is the preferred method of engagement. /shrug
The only way to stop jousting is to do as AirWarrior did and nerf head on gunfire. (That isnt going to happen here either.)
Personally I dont cry foul when I run into a jouster, I do however, think that jousting is lame. :D
No collisions results in people flying through their targets, guns blazing from ranges that they cannot possible miss from. It totally distorts any semblence of WWII air combat tactics as suddenly the best tactics are ones that would quickly kill you in reality.
I actually try for those *guns blazing from ranges you cant possibly miss from* shots. Of course, you have to be prepared to roll your plane out of the way of the wreckage right after firing your guns at those close ranges or risk running into your target or his large pieces. :D I sometimes still manage to miss from those ranges though. :rofl
Example: The last time OzKansas was up I upped an La-7 to go hunt down a cherry picker La-7 and ran into Urchin. I purposely went for one of those close range shots knowing that 1) if I missed it I was dead due to the impending overshoot, 2) if I dont time it perfectly I am still dead due to a collision. Fortunately for me (unfortunately for Urchin) I didnt miss my shot and I rolled to my right after the shot missing his wreckage as well. :D
Incidently, I never did find that La-7 driver I was looking for heh.
-
Originally posted by hitech
I assume you both checked your damage screens?
HiTech
Is it possible that damage taken from a collision is sublethal for the part damaged?
Ie in a collision you damage the right aileron, but not enough that it falls off (ie still green in damage screen). But it would take less hits for it to come off completely afterwards?
On that regard: would it be doable (without much "coading") to show sublethal damage on the screen in yellow or orange text?
-
Elfie,
No, you don't try to reach those ranges. You just said you have to roll out of the way and at the ranges I am talking about there is no way to do that.
Think less than 10 feet.
Think, "fly my fighter right through the center mass of that B-17 with guns blazing."
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Elfie,
No, you don't try to reach those ranges. You just said you have to roll out of the way and at the ranges I am talking about there is no way to do that.
Think less than 10 feet.
Think, "fly my fighter right through the center mass of that B-17 with guns blazing."
Ok, I cant roll out of the way at 10 feet heh. Otoh, I dont recall seeing alot of that in AW either. Not that close anyways.
Edit* the example with Urchin though, I was close enough for the range indicator to read 0.
-
Originally posted by Booz
But there were large problems of jousting without concern for damage. Jousting so bad that head-on gunfire was almost completely nerfed. Jousting so bad that it soon became the perferred method of engagement. We'd fly head on into the enemy in preparation for the immelman, don't worry about collision or gunfire, fly on through him as if he didn't exist. It was so bad that an entire generation of sim pilots thought that flying headon through the enemy was "how" to conduct air combat, an entire generation that today still cries foul at head on fire.
If i recall correctly, they also lowered down the % of HO shots that actually hit? I flew from AW2 on. I would much rather merge with a guy HO and fly thru them then tango with lower chance of HO, than do what happens now...they fly in HO gunz a blazing (already 50/50 chance of living) then you get collision on one of the ends(another crap shoot to living).
I do understand that it was a RR arena, this is not. But if was a way to make the HO shot a lower % to hit, that would be nice and force people to gain a 6 shot. my piddly thoughts. i may be all wrong anyways. :D
-
And in that reality long long ago the standard tactic was hold triger down and fly threw the other plane.
Some did that, some didnt. Some tryed to conserve ammo some didnt. Just holding the trigger down was a waste of ammo imo (still is).
So exatly how is your "Opionion" created, have you actualy tried a creating a flight sim with all different option. Have you realy evaluated /tested/ seen the outcome of the different options?
I havent created a flight sim, but you already knew that. :) I have however played various flight sims with various ways of dealing with collisions. I have formed my opinion based on my experiences, just as you have formed yours based on your experiences.
And do you not agree that when you fly threw a plane you take damage? Or is it that your ego refuses to belive that you screwed up, and damaged your plane, because it realy must have been the other guys fault.
I do take damage if I fly into another plane. So *should* the other plane. My ego isnt in question here :P Just moments ago I was attacking a B-17 formation with a Tempest, I shot down the first 2, and in my own greed I hit the 3rd with my plane. Did I get mad? Or say it was the other guys fault? Absolutely not. Why? Because I was greedy and paid the price :D
And under that agument it is imposible to even create a combat flight simulator, because just as with plane collisions, bullets also are not seen in the same place on both front ends, and hence do not collide with the plane on both front ends
Thats a point I hadnt thought of. So what else can be done? Would you agree that both planes *should* take damage during a collision? (In a perfact world that is, or in this case a perfect game?)
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Thats a point I hadnt thought of. So what else can be done? Would you agree that both planes *should* take damage during a collision? (In a perfact world that is, or in this case a perfect game?)
No way Elfie.
best example is the classic HO dweeb that fly's at you. You dodge/roll whatever to avoid him - on your FE you miss . He ploughs into you on his FE.
Why should you collide/take damage when you avoided him !
-
:lol HiTech made teh funnay!
I take back most of the things I said about you; you're pretty amusing when you get irritated. :D
-
Why should you collide/take damage when you avoided him !
Because a collision involves 2 planes and not just one? :)
-
Okay, seriously, how many of you guys supporting "both die" have HiTech on your Ignore list? Surely you haven't read any of what he's posted.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Because a collision involves 2 planes and not just one? :)
In AH it involves only one airplane. Sorry, but that is the best way to look at it.
-
I told myself I wasn't going to post in this thread anymore to avoid provoking anyone any further, but...
I am not suggesting we dump the model we have, having only the rammer take damage is the most fair compromise to reality we can have. My only suggestion is that the rammer take catasrophic damage from 99.999% of the rams. I don't see why folks wont admit that with the current model players "see" another plane narrowly miss colliding yet never fire, then get a "xxxx has collided with you" message in white, then have their own plane disintegrate while the person who hit them flies off.
I understand the story, for those who think nobody pays attention to what they write...what really happened was that the other player fired at the last second, but the artwork hadn't updated itself until after the other plane flew past you (according to your FE) and the damage you received was not from the impact but from bullets that you never saw fired from a plane that was not where you thought it was.
It does NOT diminish the fact that the player who collided is flying away from a high speed mid-air crash, even if it means his damage does not show up. I mean, that WAS a midair collision of there right?
I am not questioning the veracity of how the coad works, I am sure it does what Dale it says it does. None of this is meant as an affront to anyone, but a large number of players see the same thing. Perception IS reality on some level. I'd just like for someone to admit that you can be hit by another player at 200-400mph (with differential speeds of 800mph or more in some cases) and he can fly away from the collision, regarless of whether your plane disintegrates or not.
I have seen a significant rise in this effect, maybe once a week or so with the limited flying I do. My guess is that many have figured out that if you bore right into someone as if to ram and fire at the last second they'll blow up and you might get some damage from a ram (of parts?) but they are dead and you have a good chance of landing...at least a better chance of that than if you had tried ACM rather than your newfound ramming technique. Perhaps the host could discount the 1-second of damage preceeding a collision for the rammer?
Anyhow, just rambling here...sorry if I have offended anyone that is never my intent.
-
So wait a second.... during a collision it is possible for both players to take damage ?
-
We should all give up its obvious a high percentage of posters stop reading after the first sentence. :rofl
-
Edbert1: Not 100% sure what your asking, are you asking for everytime your FE detects a collision you take catistrophic damage? If you are it is a very valid proposal. And Im tring to think if the system worked like that at 1 time.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech
Edbert1: Not 100% sure what your asking, are you asking for everytime your FE detects a collision you take catistrophic damage? If you are it is a very valid proposal. And Im tring to think if the system worked like that at 1 time.
Like any other implementation there are drawbacks, but yes, that was what I was suggesting. You may still take damage from APPEARED to be a ram on the other players part but at least he'd spin in wingless as well, might reduce some of the bad feelings if you don't have to watch the other guy RTB while you float down.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Because a collision involves 2 planes and not just one? :)
Let me see if I can help ... I might not have all the details but overall I think it's right.
In our virtual space (Aces Hig), everything object is defined in X Y & Z coordinates, wether they be stationary objects (buildings and terrain) and moving objects (planes, GVs, CV groups).
When you log on you are defined as an object in this virtual space on your FE and it is also reported to the server.
When I log on I am defined as an object in this virtual space on my FE and it is also reported to the server.
Objects that move must report their coordinates to the server, so the server can report the movement of those objects to our FE. Our FE gets these coordinates and object type and renders the image for us.
It is my understanding that moving object coordinates are only reported to our FEs only when we are within a certain distance of the object. This saves serious CPU cycles on the server.
I would surmize that objects that are stationary (positionally static) are not needed to be handled by the server (we all have the same map) and their X Y & Z positions are loaded only when we start up the FE.
So now you and I go to the DA and we lift from opposing fields. As we move, our FE constantly sends our XYZ coordinates to the server and the server sends to our FEs XYZ coordinates of any moving objects withing "reporting" range.
Have you ever noticed that when doing this, you see nothing on the horizon ? ... thats cause you and I have not gotten with the "reporting" range. Once we pass the "reporting" range threshold, all of a sudden a black dot appears.
At this point, the server is now responsible to send my XYZ postions to your FE and it is also responsible to send your XYZ postions to my FE. Our FEs get this information and renders the image for us.
As we approach each other (get closer) the XYZ coordinates are flowing back and forth between you me and the server and our FEs are rendering this as it recieves the info.
Now ... you must keep in mind all the info that is flowing between me and the server and you and the server. With that, take into consideration our ping times, packet loss, burps on the internet, our CPUs, how loaded the server might be, etc.
There is something else that HT adds to the equation (I believe) that has not been discussed. "Smoothing" code. As we get closer to each other, I think that the server expects XYZ coordinates to arrive within a viable timeframe. If it determines that info hasn't arrived in time, HT (the server) tries to smooth out this time loss and probably tries to figure out an intended flight path and transmits this "smoothed" path until it gets the "real" info (XYZ), and then reports that.
Now ... you and I are on a nose to nose merge each going 300 mph with a 600 mph closure. Think how fast that is and how fast XYZ coordinates need to be relayed between you me and the server.
I decide that I am going for the HO and hope that you blow up before we collide and I start shooting at 600 out. You on the other hand decide at 600 out that you are going to pull up hard and avoid the possible HO/collision.
With everything that I explained above ... apply it to this instance at that exact same second.
I go for the HO and my XYZ is reported as we close.
You pull up hard.
If the server hasn't been updated with your XYZ fast enough, my FE smooths your flight path ... RIGHT AT ME ... but you have really pulled up.
In an instant, I collide with you as far as my FE is concerned. MY FE has determined that my XYZ HAS INTERSECTED with your XYZ ... BANG ... I have damage.
You pull above me, avoid the collision, and continue straight up to come over the top and as you look down, I am a falling piece of rubble. Your FE has reported that your XYZ DID NOT INTERSECT with my XYZ ... you fly away unscathed.
So now, at this point, I get on text and call you a ramming ho dweeb ... :D
In this case, just because my FE determined that I collided, would you like to have had some damage applied to you ? ... I don't think so.
It is so important to remember that our FEs are independent/asyncronous processes reporting positions to a server that not only keeps track of you and me, but all the other 400-600 people flying, driving around in this virtual space. Amazing to say the least.
Paramount ... it is each person's FE that decides wether you have collided with an object ... not the server ... the server is only repsonsible to report moving XYZ objects to your FE and your FE makes all the decisions on collisions.
Think about ... the server has to send out all this info, and the info is reported over a communications vehicle which is far from perfect ... the internet. It is a miracle that AH does as well as it does considering all the things that can go wrong with data flowing on the internet.
Like I said above, I might not have explained everything perfectly, but I think that they overall logic applies.
-
I think you got it pretty straight there Slappy, but quite often there's a different outcome to the exact same scenario....
Originally posted by SlapShot
You pull above me, avoid the collision, and continue straight up to come over the top and as you look down, I am a falling piece of rubble. Your FE has reported that your XYZ DID NOT INTERSECT with my XYZ ... you fly away unscathed.
1.) You try to avoid the shot and break away at d200 on your FE.
2.) The other player's FE does not show this the same instant so he fires.
3.) By the time the artwork updates to show him firing he is out of your view.
4.) You zoom over him clearly missing his artwork on your FE.
5.) You get a white message saying he rammed you at the same time his FE sends the packets saying he hit you with guns (since on his FE you had not broken high yet).
6.) So on your FE you broke off and avoided the collision, you get a message that he he rammed you and your plane disintegrates. Sometimes I do see the rammer spin in or even explode, but quite often he leaves with less damage from the ram than I got from the guns he fired at point blank range, from a gun solution that he never could have acheived had he not been trying to ram (or at least not trying to avoid ramming).
See?
-
I don't know if catastrophic damage for any and all collisions is the best answer. Maybe for collisions above a certain speed or rate of closure?
I've had several collisions where I lost tailwheels, rudders, 1 main gear, etc. I wouldn't think those would result in violent crashes, except perhaps at significant speeds. Most of my collisions at high speeds are fatal anyway; I hadn't really given much thought to speed as a factor in the detection/damage process. It's interesting.
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
I think you got it pretty straight there Slappy, but quite often there's a different outcome to the exact same scenario....
1.) You try to avoid the shot and break away at d200 on your FE.
2.) The other player's FE does not show this the same instant so he fires.
3.) By the time the artwork updates to show him firing he is out of your view.
4.) You zoom over him clearly missing his artwork on your FE.
5.) You get a white message saying he rammed you at the same time his FE sends the packets saying he hit you with guns (since on his FE you had not broken high yet).
6.) So on your FE you broke off and avoided the collision, you get a message that he he rammed you and your plane disintegrates. Sometimes I do see the rammer spin in or even explode, but quite often he leaves with less damage from the ram than I got from the guns he fired at point blank range, from a gun solution that he never could have acheived had he not been trying to ram (or at least not trying to avoid ramming).
See?
Yup ... I see ... I was only trying to cover the "collision" aspect ... I know that the bullet aspect plays the same logic pool ... just didn't want to add more to the equation and make it more confusing.
Any moving object within AH plays in this logic pool ... I believe.
-
FWIW ...
I think the current system of handling pure collision detection works as well as any we've seen in 20 years, probably better, given what the 'Net can be like.
Judging "intent" - as in who intended to ram who - is impossible. And whatever metrics HT put in to do so could be gamed just as the current code is being gamed.
What I think has people concerned is that it's so dependent on what a player sees on his FE, which opens the possibility for another player - by gaming the system and playing the lag - to induce a collision whereby he takes you out and flys away undamaged. Enough people are seeing this - especially lately - that the thread keeps recurring.
The solution which, to me anyway, seems like it'd remove this factor would be for both FE's to agree on a collision before applying damage. And, if they did: catastrophic damage is meted out based on the parameters HT uses now. So if Player A's FE says he collided with Player B, he sends a packet to the host saying so - maybe with plane type and speed data too. The host then waits a second for Player B's FE to send a matching packet. If it shows up - the host sends back a packet saying they both go boom - or crunch - or whatever. If it don't show up, call it a "near miss." I'd rather wait a second to find out I a collision is fatal than have immediate feedback that's in error. My guess is that for most cases the collision would be confirmed by the other FE and host before the collision sound finished playing.
This solution, of course, requires changes to both client and host. So it's not the easiest way to go. But as the player count keeps rising this problem is only going to get worse.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
FWIW ...
....snip.....
My guess is that for most cases the collision would be confirmed by the other FE and host before the collision sound finished playing.
...snip....
Not sure if theis would work, Dok. I'm not a tech guy at all, but it seems to me that the temporal shift between the "realities" of 2 separate systems will almost NEVER allow both sides to see the same collision -- with the exception of the very difficult to achieve double head on collsion.
Any other situation will have the opponent aircraft, say, 1/4 to 1/2 sec "off" its position on the host machine, which translates into 125-250 feet linear displacement. (That's because I'm REAL TIME for my plane on my machine, but the opponent is separated in time by net lag; on his machine, the situaion is reversed) Thats equivalent to 3-5 wingspans of the P-51! Chances of both computers showing collision is gunna be essentially zero, which is far to "gamey" IMHO. There ought to be a consequence for cutting it too close.
In fact, the (essentially) 100% solution to the collision "problem" is simple -- just fly the plane as if you are afraid of colliding. Dont get close to ramming, and try to avoid other people's near missses.
It works. For the past 6 months, I've only collided when I knew I cut it too close. Dont cut it close, you dont collide. No coding needed, no delay for the patch.
Or as somebody once said in one of these threads: If it hurts when you poke yourself in the eye with a stick, stop poking yourself in the eye!
-
Originally posted by Karnak
In AH it involves only one airplane. Sorry, but that is the best way to look at it.
A collision is impossible if only one plane is involved.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
It works. For the past 6 months, I've only collided when I knew I cut it too close. Dont cut it close, you dont collide. No coding needed, no delay for the patch.
Or as somebody once said in one of these threads: If it hurts when you poke yourself in the eye with a stick, stop poking yourself in the eye!
I haven't seen people complain about taking damage when they collide with another, most complaints I see are when the other player rams them and they take damage. Dale explained "the guy was firing while he rammed you" so your damage is not from the collision but from the bullets.
Maybe if the host can discount damage from guns from an intentional ram (which most player beleive occurs), say for ~500ms prior to a collision, then the perception of taking damage while being rammed would diminish. Again, just an out-loud thought.
-
Dok ... what you propose would render the situation where someone has definately flown THRU another plane ... and while waiting for lag to catch up on the server ... he continues thinking that all is OK ... then with the other plane out of sight ... his wing falls off ... which will generate a WTF !!!
HT is between a rock and a hard place on this and no matter what solution is used ... there will always and forever be those who just don't understand it and will scream bloody murder and WTF.
So ...I see no reason why HT would want to re-invent another solution when the final product will always be the same.
I hate these ramming threads, and try to avoid them, but eventually I participate inorder to try and explain it, so that it can be understood, and hopefully some will understand and learn to enjoy the game for what it is.
I think that HT should create a word doc that explains, in layman's terms, exactly what happens and why it happens. Then, everytime one of these threads pops its head up ... cut & paste it into the thread.
The more that understand ... the less noise that is generated.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Originally posted by Karnak
In AH it involves only one airplane. Sorry, but that is the best way to look at it.
A collision is impossible if only one plane is involved. [/B]
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD..... :furious
How about looking at it this way
In AH it involves only one FE.
FE = Your computer, the PC you use to connect to the AH server
In a Ram there is your FE and the other guys FE
99.99% of the time, the collision will only occour on one of the Two FE's involved.....
http://members.optusnet.com.au/vstrom/FE%20Difference.jpg (http://members.optusnet.com.au/vstrom/FE%20Difference.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Elfie
A collision is impossible if only one plane is involved.
I guess you chose to not read my long-winded response to you .
I tried. :(
-
Originally posted by Simaril
...
In fact, the (essentially) 100% solution to the collision "problem" is simple -- just fly the plane as if you are afraid of colliding. Dont get close to ramming, and try to avoid other people's near missses.
...
So, in other words, bring the whole game down to the level of people who "win" by ramming and HO'ing. Force the people who know what they're doing to go out of their way to avoid the dweebish tactics of those who don't. That may indeed be "the answer" but it don't sound like much fun.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Dok ... what you propose would render the situation where someone has definately flown THRU another plane ... and while waiting for lag to catch up on the server ... he continues thinking that all is OK ... then with the other plane out of sight ... his wing falls off ... which will generate a WTF !!!
HT is between a rock and a hard place on this and no matter what solution is used ... there will always and forever be those who just don't understand it and will scream bloody murder and WTF.
...
The more that understand ... the less noise that is generated.
What I propose was a 1-second window for a collision response.
I agree it's a situation with few viable solutions for HT. I wouldn't even be adding to the din were it not for the way I see ramming increasing in the MA. That, to me, is a bad trend.
The more than understand the inner workings of the system, the more that will try to game it. I know it's a cynical view.
-
Actually I find it a bit more immersive. Those are large chunks of metal flying around near me, and if I clip one I'm going to get a world of hurt. Fortuantely its a great big sky, adn it doesnt take much to keep out of its way -- just think of the imaginary bubble defining its possible (or if I'm feeling bold) its likely position as I come near, and dont enter that space.
The approach adds adrenaline to those times you figuratively yell "Banzai" and fly through what you *HOPE* will be post explosion debris before you get there....
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
So, in other words, bring the whole game down to the level of people who "win" by ramming and HO'ing. Force the people who know what they're doing to go out of their way to avoid the dweebish tactics of those who don't. That may indeed be "the answer" but it don't sound like much fun.
Well ... I always anticipate the HO ... so pre-merge, I cause as much offset as possible causing them to have to really work hard to come nose in. While they are doing that, I am pulling lead turn.
This gets me thru and by %99.9999 of HOs. If they stick around, they are dead within 1 turn and at the most 2 turns.
I love to see someone trying to HO ... at that point, I know it's total pwnage at that point.
Ramming ... well I have to admit that I have been involved in more rams this year than all other years combined. But I have to say, I do like to get as close to my enemy as possible on the merge because it's important for the first merge as far as I am concerned ... YMMV. So, since I choose to walk this line, I am willing to accept the occasional ram and live with it. I could care less what his plane looks like after a ram ... I made the choice ... I can live with outcome.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
What I propose was a 1-second window for a collision response.
I agree it's a situation with few viable solutions for HT. I wouldn't even be adding to the din were it not for the way I see ramming increasing in the MA. That, to me, is a bad trend.
The more than understand the inner workings of the system, the more that will try to game it. I know it's a cynical view.
I hear ya Dok ... but how far does a plane travel in 1 sec at 300+ mph ? ... WTF will still be the result.
If the data arrives at 1.001 seconds ... is it ignored ?
So the glass is always half-empty for you ? ... :D
-
Slapshot, while I already understand what you took the time to explain, I do appreciate your effort to explain w/o being an arse and flaming. :) (Dont think I didnt see you get on text calling me a HO dweeb though :D)
Maybe I just havent been communicating very well here. I think there has to be a better way to do collisions. Maybe Edbert is onto something with his post. I dont know how to write coad nor have I ever been involved in designing a game. Maybe HiTech can look into Edberts suggestion?
HiTech, from your response to me, you sounded irritated. (I could be wrong on this since it is so difficult to tell intent/emotion from mere text). However, if that was the case, my apologies as my posts were not intended to irritate anyone. I actually meant to say this in my response to your post but it slipped my mind, for that I apologize as well.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
I guess you chose to not read my long-winded response to you .
I tried. :(
I actually posted that before I read your response :D
-
So? can we remove the messages so everyone can go back to crying about being HOed?
-
Let me try to explain what I meant by:
A collision is impossible if only one plane is involved.
On my FE I have to hit an enemy plane or vehicle for a collision to occur. Or, an enemy has to hit my plane on HIS FE for a collision to occur. When a collision occurs, I expect BOTH aircraft/vehicles to take damage. Anything less is kinda gamey is it not?
I do understand that the collision model we currently have may be our best option atm due to the limitations of technology. We also may have to wait for technology to advance further so that collisions can be done in a more realistic manner. Otoh I dont think we should stop looking for a better way to do collisions.
Ten or so years ago a player named Caligula came up with the idea for our current collision model. Who knows....maybe another player will come up with a new idea for a collision model that will work even better? Or maybe an idea will surface and HiTech will be able to modify the idea a bit and make it work? Just never know. :)
-
Yeah, Slap, I should probably get out of 190's and Pony's and start using the HO-bag's tactics against them more. Not meant to sound snide ... just I really love the 190, but turn-fighting of any sort ain't exactly it's forte - especially against La7's and Spit16's.
-
The approach adds adrenaline to those times you figuratively yell "Banzai" and fly through what you *HOPE* will be post explosion debris before you get there....
I have destroyed more Tempests doing just that. Fire those 4 Hizookas *knowing* you have a 99% chance of exploding the enemy........then the enemy, while still taking catastrophic damage.....DOESNT explode!! :rofl
*edit* Btw Simaril, I was a member of the 4th Tactical Fighter Wing in the mid '80s. The 4th TFW is the direct descendants of the 4th FG. :) I didnt get to fly the planes though, I was just a bomb loader. :D
-
It takes two for a collision.
Both planes should take damage.
With exception of bullets being fired, I find it hard to believe that when two planes cross (+) & slap wings that one would fly away.
Last week me and a plane were acm'n and we came back at each other, I was banked vertical, and he was horizontal. Neither of us fired our wings crossed only, I flew away and he died that seems that would not happen in actual events. We should of both been pistol fighting the whole way down.
Two planes hitting each other no matter what speed or angle should send them both to the ground. Unless you want to get into metalergy and the thousands of different scenarios of wing v.s. tail, wing v.s prop, tail v.s. tail, wing v.s. body, etc.........
Although it's probably happened before due to probability, there is video to support the theory that when planes collide they both go down. Do a search on google of plane to plane crashes, 95% of the video you will find both planes blow to pieces and the pilots are lucky if they can bail out. I could not find one where one plane disentigrates and the other fly's away unscathed.
I realize most of those films are not old school prop planes, and going 200-600 miles per hour faster. But consider car wrecks going 80 miles per hour, can they run into one another and drive away.
More times then not they both go to the junkyard.
If collisions more times than resulted in both going down, it would probably reduce the blatant HO's.
JMFJ
-
Two planes hitting each other no matter what speed or angle should send them both to the ground.
Key word in that sentence is [bold]should[/bold].
The vast majority of the time that is exactly what should happen. I did see an F4-D Phantom II from the Michigan ANG that actually survived a mid-air collision with a private jet. The Phantom limped home missing its starboard wing all the way to the inboard pylon. The private jet was not so lucky however.
-
Originally posted by JMFJ
It takes two for a collision.
Both planes should take damage.
With exception of bullets being fired, I find it hard to believe that when two planes cross (+) & slap wings that one would fly away.
Last week me and a plane were acm'n and we came back at each other, I was banked vertical, and he was horizontal. Neither of us fired our wings crossed only, I flew away and he died that seems that would not happen in actual events. We should of both been pistol fighting the whole way down.
Two planes hitting each other no matter what speed or angle should send them both to the ground. Unless you want to get into metalergy and the thousands of different scenarios of wing v.s. tail, wing v.s prop, tail v.s. tail, wing v.s. body, etc.........
Although it's probably happened before due to probability, there is video to support the theory that when planes collide they both go down. Do a search on google of plane to plane crashes, 95% of the video you will find both planes blow to pieces and the pilots are lucky if they can bail out. I could not find one where one plane disentigrates and the other fly's away unscathed.
I realize most of those films are not old school prop planes, and going 200-600 miles per hour faster. But consider car wrecks going 80 miles per hour, can they run into one another and drive away.
More times then not they both go to the junkyard.
JMFJ
I guess you decided to skip past my wall of text.
You are trying to apply real life physics and real time circumstances to a non-real life virtual world that will never be able to simulate real life physics and real time circumstances ... at least in my lifetime.
-
You're confusing reality with the computer game on your desktop.
Time passes as electrons run the internet -- and at simulated speeds of 300mph (or closure rate of 600 mph with nose to nose) you'll see 200-500 FOOT differences in aircraft positions between the 2 computers involved in the 1/4-1/2 sec lag.
JMFJ, you are therefore saying that YOU would rather take damage when soem dweeb hits you on his front end, even though you've managed to get FIVE HUNDRED FEET AWAY by flying well on your front end?
Is that really what you want? You want to take damage when you are far away, adn you've done everything right?
Not me.
The alternative is the current system, where at least you have some control over what happens -- dont get close and you dont hit them.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Yeah, Slap, I should probably get out of 190's and Pony's and start using the HO-bag's tactics against them more. Not meant to sound snide ... just I really love the 190, but turn-fighting of any sort ain't exactly it's forte - especially against La7's and Spit16's.
I apply the same tatics when flying a pony ... I very rarely fly German Iron ... but it should still work the same. A lead turn in any plane is always a good thing.
-
You are trying to apply real life physics and real time circumstances to a non-real life virtual world that will never be able to simulate real life physics and real time circumstances ... at least in my lifetime.
Keep the faith Slapshot, at the rate technology is improving you just might see a virtual world that can simulate real life physics and real time circumstances. :)
-
Dok: I have written the system you proposed back in 94. Out come is only on a direct head on would both people show a collision. You can test this now by seeing how often you see a double collision I.E. you get both messages.
So now lets assume we just take that as a fact, what would the out come of this implemtation be, You wish less head ons. But by implementing this system the chances of taking damage when you fly threw a plane are greatly reduced. Hence you will continue and press the head on more than you would now. 2ndly you are acctuly penalizing the guy who breaks off to avoid the collision, because If he avoides it, it allows the other player to fly right threw him. So net affect head on pass becomes a better option.
You would never have a collision when diving in on a bomber and could always just keep shooting as you flew right threw him.
If you are experincing more collisions from head ons then you used to, it isn't the arena or other players that changed,or players gaming the game, but wrather you are pushing the edge to close. Kev just did some testing where both people are trying to collide, and found out it wasn't as simple as he thought.
Finaly for collision to occure 2 planes do collide now. What you are asking and what breaks the logic down is you think 2 people is the same as 2 planes , it isn't. And it still all comes down to, I do not belive I screwed up, it must have been the other guys fault,he should be punished.
HiTech
Ooops on sudz's computer.
-
Originally posted by -sudz-
You can test this now by seeing how often you see a double collision I.E. you get both messages.
Here's a screenie of a double collision, I started the film after the fact, it shows my plane with both horizontals and rudder missing (funny how I lose my tail in a HO) spinning in and the other player RTBing with a smoking engine. His E-state must have been quite high because at the start of the film he was almost 5K above me.
(http://www.edbert.net/images/MOL/collision.jpg)
FWIW I have no problem with taking catastrophic damage when I collide, I just expect the other guy to when he does.
-
Originally posted by -sudz-
...snip....
And it still all comes down to, I do not belive I screwed up, it must have been the other guys fault,he should be punished.
HiTech
Ooops on sudz's computer.
That IS the tradition of US tort system, isnt it? I guess folks are just exporting the attitude to their games....
-
Originally posted by -sudz-
Dok: I have written the system you proposed back in 94. Out come is only on a direct head on would both people show a collision. You can test this now by seeing how often you see a double collision I.E. you get both messages.
...
OK ... fair enough, HT.
But I don't see how having both FE's report collisions would result in the bomber situation you site, though. Someone running into a bomber flying straight and level should register on both FE's, no? I mean, in that case both planes are more or less projectiles - one going slow and level, the other fast and oblique. Detecting where they merge should be one of the easier cases I'd think. But if testing has shown otherwise, I'll back off.
And the players have changed, HT. You hear it on the vox - six months ago I don't recall ever hearing someone say they were going to deliberately ram another plane. Now I hear it at least once or twice a night. Maybe it's just the hours I fly, but it has changed.
(Dang ... I hadn't heard Cal's name mentioned in years.)
-
Originally posted by Simaril
You're confusing reality with the computer game on your desktop.
Time passes as electrons run the internet -- and at simulated speeds of 300mph (or closure rate of 600 mph with nose to nose) you'll see 200-500 FOOT differences in aircraft positions between the 2 computers involved in the 1/4-1/2 sec lag.
JMFJ, you are therefore saying that YOU would rather take damage when soem dweeb hits you on his front end, even though you've managed to get FIVE HUNDRED FEET AWAY by flying well on your front end?
Is that really what you want? You want to take damage when you are far away, adn you've done everything right?
Not me.
The alternative is the current system, where at least you have some control over what happens -- dont get close and you dont hit them.
My example offers the same result, don't get close and you won't both go down.
To date I've never had a collision occur from a plane that was 500 away (that doesn't meen that I don't think they occur), I would rather have us both go down. Whether the guys is a dweeb or not, is irrelevant. Statistics show that majority of air collisions result in both planes going down, so why not in a video game (designed to be as realistic as virtually possible) would statistics not prevail as the DEFAULT result.
I'm not expecting HTC to discern all of the "what if" scenarios, I'm stating if a collision occurs either both planes should stay up, or both go down would be a more fair way of dealing with it than who ever has the best/worste frame rate. In a virtual world where unreliable conectivity is a major factor it seems statistics should be the final say not who hit who first, cause you can't control the truth of who did really hit who first.
I realize this is not probably the most popular opinion amongst the majority of posters on this forum cause for the most part, most of the posters on this forum are your experienced sticks, and don't play for fun but to win the dog fight. Note the quote "some dweeb collides with you" is a prime example of you don't want to be punished because someone lacking in ability or conectivity should be able to affect your game. The fact remains whether you hit him, or he hits you, a collision (by definition two objects in motion hitting one another) occured. The result should be consistent with practical results. Trying to doctor the code to match random events gives random results, which is what we got now. Which appears that no one including HITECH is COMPLETELY satisfied with.
Trying to dictate collision results based on who is at fault (whether that be "a ramming player" or "bad connectivity") is like changing the HO coding so bullets shot from HO angles have no affect. It takes away from why we all play this game over other games, cause it is suppose to be the most REALISTIC WW2 flight sim available on the market to date. Otherwise why not let all of the planes drop flaps at all speeds?, or carry unrealistic levels of ord?, why not put cannon rounds on a f4u-1d?. Because it's not in line with what history shows was a realistic truth of what it was.
It would be nice if peoples suggestions wouldn't be caked with personal gain incentives, most suggestions seem to be full of things that benefit that particular players abilities or lack there of.
Oppinions should not come out of both sides of your mouth. Supporting realism when it's a change in your favor, but not supporting it when it's not in your favor.
I'M NOT POINTING AT YOU SIMARIL, just noting some of these players posts sit on both sides of the fence, depending on whether they gain an advantage by the change or not. Take note my suggestions are apples for apples, If I get a spankin so should you, cause in the end it does take two.
JMFJ
-
if when he collides "RAM" the game for 3 minutes didn't you fly...then the pilots would think it 2 times before of to collide:p
-
Originally posted by JMFJ
My example offers the same result, don't get close and you won't both go down.
To date I've never had a collision occur from a plane that was 500 away (that doesn't meen that I don't think they occur), I would rather have us both go down. Whether the guys is a dweeb or not, is irrelevant. Statistics show that majority of air collisions result in both planes going down, so why not in a video game (designed to be as realistic as virtually possible) would statistics not prevail as the DEFAULT result.
I'm not expecting HTC to discern all of the "what if" scenarios, I'm stating if a collision occurs either both planes should stay up, or both go down would be a more fair way of dealing with it than who ever has the best/worste frame rate. In a virtual world where unreliable conectivity is a major factor it seems statistics should be the final say not who hit who first, cause you can't control the truth of who did really hit who first.
I realize this is not probably the most popular opinion amongst the majority of posters on this forum cause for the most part, most of the posters on this forum are your experienced sticks, and don't play for fun but to win the dog fight. Note the quote "some dweeb collides with you" is a prime example of you don't want to be punished because someone lacking in ability or conectivity should be able to affect your game. The fact remains whether you hit him, or he hits you, a collision (by definition two objects in motion hitting one another) occured. The result should be consistent with practical results. Trying to doctor the code to match random events gives random results, which is what we got now. Which appears that no one including HITECH is COMPLETELY satisfied with.
Trying to dictate collision results based on who is at fault (whether that be "a ramming player" or "bad connectivity") is like changing the HO coding so bullets shot from HO angles have no affect. It takes away from why we all play this game over other games, cause it is suppose to be the most REALISTIC WW2 flight sim available on the market to date. Otherwise why not let all of the planes drop flaps at all speeds?, or carry unrealistic levels of ord?, why not put cannon rounds on a f4u-1d?. Because it's not in line with what history shows was a realistic truth of what it was.
It would be nice if peoples suggestions wouldn't be caked with personal gain incentives, most suggestions seem to be full of things that benefit that particular players abilities or lack there of.
Oppinions should not come out of both sides of your mouth. Supporting realism when it's a change in your favor, but not supporting it when it's not in your favor.
I'M NOT POINTING AT YOU SIMARIL, just noting some of these players posts sit on both sides of the fence, depending on whether they gain an advantage by the change or not. Take note my suggestions are apples for apples, If I get a spankin so should you, cause in the end it does take two.
JMFJ
I guess you really don't understand what has been written and explained in detail ... or maybe you don't have the capacity to understand what has been explained.
Most angst and anguish that comes from collisions is due to the fact that most don't really understand what takes place to bring this virtual world forward to the masses in a best case scenario ... hence the creation of these collision threads.
To insinuate that some are trying to change the collision coad to suit their flying style is insulting to say the least, and then to try and lay it on experienced sticks is even more insulting. Experienced sticks have dealt with this for quite some time, and if they didn't deal with it, then they wouldn't be experienced sticks ... they would have quit long ago.
-
Both PCs don't see the same thing at that same time. Period. Ever. Forget reality, forget realism. The game isn't written to be "the most realistic sim". That is only you saying that. Both players don't see the collision, so determining, randomly, as you are suggesting JMJF, that one computer is the correct reality, and the other isn't, and destroying both planes after spinning the bottle, would only worsen the situation. With no consistency, the ram model would only infuriate those of us who understand and accept the current model.
Taking both planes down if one registers a collision is a horrible idea, whether you understand how the current setup works or not.
Also, regarding all the "induced" collisions. I seriously doubt most noobs understand how collisions work in here, and probably have many of the same misconceptions that many of you have. I've heard a lot of things called out on vox and typed; this doesn't mean any of them were successfully executed.
If you think it's really a simple matter to consistently induce collisions, I urge you to try it. My personal experience is that it's easier to induce a mutual HO collision. I've only managed 2 or 3 intentional collisions, and it's impossible to say 2 of those were due to my skillful flying. The first victim was Wadke, and while I think I have it on film, I don't have his perspective.
-
As I said before just turn collisions off and the problem is solved as to collisions, but you will NOT like what comes AFTER they are turned off.
I get frustrated when I collide but in ALMOST all cases it was really my own fault, on the rare occasion that the ACM sucked me into one that I could not avoid well watermelon happens.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
On my FE I have to hit an enemy plane or vehicle for a collision to occur. Or, an enemy has to hit my plane on HIS FE for a collision to occur. When a collision occurs, I expect BOTH aircraft/vehicles to take damage. Anything less is kinda gamey is it not?
No, gamey is when Elfie passes straight down at d400 in front of me, and suddenly my tail falls off because of it.
Originally posted by Edbert1
FWIW I have no problem with taking catastrophic damage when I collide, I just expect the other guy to when he does.
Two problems with what you say. First, "where" you collide, i.e. the part of your airplane that collides, should absolutely make a difference as to how much damage you take. Suppose your front end felt a minor collision of your wingtip scraping his verticle stablizer or some other minor scrape. Meanwhile on his front end his nose cone appeared to go right through your fuselage. He disintegrates, as it should be given "his" collision, while you fly away with paint scratches, as it should be given "your" collision. Why would you want your minor scrape to be equally catastrophic?
The second problem is, even given "real life" collisions, damage is not necessarily equal anyway. Consider the following . . .
From May 2006 issue of World War II Magazine:
Article "Typhoon Strikes", an interview with Harry Hardy, a Canadian WWII pilot with more than 100 attack sorties. Bold mine.
WWII: You were posted to No. 61 Operational Training Unit at Rednal, England . . .
Hardy: . . . Nothing spectacular happened there, except I had a midair collision and lost a Spitfire.
WWII: What happened?
Hardy: We were practicing dogfighting. One guy would take the lead and the other would follow. You were expected to do everything you could to shake your opponent, and he was supposed to hang on. On this particular occasion I was out in front and being chased. In an effort to break away, I whipped my Spitfire into a tight turn and dropped a little flap to tighten up the turn. He wasn't watching and flew right into me. My Spitfire exploded. His was still flyable so he got it down. I was just left there in the seat and there was no Spitfire. I got rid of the seat and opened my parachute. I remember how quiet it was going down. There was fog on the ground. I went down through it and landed in a farmer's field. I wasn't hurt at all. They put the two of us in a hospital and checked us all over. They endorsed my logbook and said it was partially my fault.
IMHO, nothing wrong with the collision model. Slapshot's "wall of text" is the most thourough explanation I have seen so far, and Edbert1's post right after explains the common misperceptions. Should be made a sticky on the Forum and sent as required reading to all new subscribers. After that, applying a few brain cells is all that is required to understand it. Judging by a few posts afterward, I guess whining is just easier for some people than logic.
-
Unfortunately, we don't know the exact situation in which one plane disintegrates, and the other flies home. While it's an interesting story, it doesn't help us much with sorting out which cartoon plane goes home and which doesn't. I would still tend to think that relative speeds should be a factor, possibly more than they are now, in determining the severity of the damage, but I think Ed does make some interesting points. At the same time, I don't want to suddenly explode for slashing his wingtip with my own.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
I guess you really don't understand what has been written and explained in detail ... or maybe you don't have the capacity to understand what has been explained.
Most angst and anguish that comes from collisions is due to the fact that most don't really understand what takes place to bring this virtual world forward to the masses in a best case scenario ... hence the creation of these collision threads.
To insinuate that some are trying to change the collision coad to suit their flying style is insulting to say the least, and then to try and lay it on experienced sticks is even more insulting. Experienced sticks have dealt with this for quite some time, and if they didn't deal with it, then they wouldn't be experienced sticks ... they would have quit long ago.
LOL:rofl
-
Well, there's a useful post offering all sorts of interesting insight and technical knowledge.
Campers = wasted carbon.
-
Originally posted by JMFJ
To date I've never had a collision occur from a plane that was 500 away ...snip....
JMFJ
Yes, you have. It just didnt look that way on your machine.
You do not understand the software at all.
OK, let me try to say this simply. The game is not played on the server. There is no central processor that decides where planes "really" are. The server is a results clearing house, thats it.
The game is played on each subscribers computer -- 500 in arena, 500 computers processing the game. The computers are far apart, so net lag means that my plane on YOUR computer is IN A DIFFERENT PLACE than it is on my computer. Let me say that again, because your rather condescending megapost shows complete ignorance of that fact -- my plane on YOUR computer is IN A DIFFERENT PLACE than it is on my computer.
The "500 feet" I referred to is NOT how it looks on your computer -- Its the DIFFERENCE between where your computer thinks our planes are, and where my computer thinks our planes are. So no matter what it looks like on your computer, it looks different on my computer. If I register a collision from hitting your 6, you may show me 300 feet behind you.
SO I repeat, do you want to die because I hit you from behind, even though you didnt come anywhere near me?
P.S. The "some dweeb collides with you" comment was intended as a humorous sop to your position, nothing more. You woudl have understood that if you knew me -- and my MANY help-the-new-guys posts -- at all.
You should be very careful when you assign motives to individuals, and especially to groups. There is much you do not perceive in the world, young paduan.
-
I vote for Ed. A head on colision should not result in the loss of my rudder or give me a PW :D
Remove the messages so we can go back to complaining about HOs please.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Well, there's a useful post offering all sorts of interesting insight and technical knowledge.
Campers = wasted carbon.
Way to get back to what you do best hub, flamin posts.
:rofl
Who was campin last night? Hmmmmmmmmmmm
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
Here's a screenie of a double collision, I started the film after the fact, it shows my plane with both horizontals and rudder missing (funny how I lose my tail in a HO) spinning in and the other player RTBing with a smoking engine. His E-state must have been quite high because at the start of the film he was almost 5K above me.
FWIW I have no problem with taking catastrophic damage when I collide, I just expect the other guy to when he does.
It does make sense.
1. On your PC the enemy made contact with the tail of your aircraft with his nose. Yo take damage to your tail.
2. The enemy's PC detects a collision to his nose from a very fragile part of your aircraft, your tail. He only take engine damage.
This is a rare occurrence where both FEs see the collision quite similarly.
Another Hugh misconception here is that every collision results in catastrophic damage. They do not.
-
Originally posted by JMFJ
...
It would be nice if peoples suggestions wouldn't be caked with personal gain incentives, most suggestions seem to be full of things that benefit that particular players abilities or lack there of.
...
Oh is that why I'm spending time trying to figure this out?
What a rancid load of crap.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
You do not understand the software at all.
I don't think I ever stated I had a full grasp of the software of this product.
Keep in mind i'm not trying to suggest software capabilities, what is or is not. I'm suggesting outcome concepts, i'm just saying if the truth of the matter is when collisions occur it is usually mass damage to both parties involved so why not in the game.
If something can't be implemented to be a fair/logical outcome, then it would be better if it was never implemented at all. If plane location is random computer to computer it seems that the collision model no matter how it is set up will be based on chaos theory. So maybe it would be best to be removed until something that was more predictable was in place.
Besides it's rare to have a collision, more times than not it usually involves me participating in a head on balls to the wall guns blazin HO, or when I come in with way to much E on a set of bombers and don't pull out in time. I've only had it happen once in a turnfight of which case I died, and herblife lived.
Question: If your plane isn't where my computer says it is, should my bullets also not do damage? Seems that would also be in the same realm of debate. Whether it's my plane hitting your plane, or my bullets hitting your plane. If your not really there, well it probably shouldn't do any damage.
JMFJ
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Oh is that why I'm spending time trying to figure this out?
What a rancid load of crap.
Did I point that finger at you, or do you just have a guilty concience.
Besides what have you figured out?
JMFJ
-
The facts are that not only COLLISIONS but in fact ALL things "hit" are detected on your FE.
How many times have you been shot down by a guy who on your FE had no solution??? Well on HIS FE he had a solution and send a hit packet to the host who then applied damage to you. I never see any whinning about this.
I find it kind of unusual for folks to accept the "facts" except when comes to collisions. I have been playing these games since 1989 or so and "warp" has always been some kind of factor, I think Dale has come up with the best "smoothing " code in the business but like all things it is not perfect.
As far as I can see the choice on collisions is simple either it's ON as is or it's OFF period.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Because a collision involves 2 planes and not just one? :)
Actually if a collision is registered on both FEs it involves 4 planes but I'm not going to explain it.
-
Originally posted by JMFJ
...snip...
If something can't be implemented to be a fair/logical outcome, then it would be better if it was never implemented at all. If plane location is random computer to computer it seems that the collision model no matter how it is set up will be based on chaos theory. So maybe it would be best to be removed until something that was more predictable was in place.
...snip....
Please read the entire post. It explains how the system works. It isnt hard, it is 100% predictable, it is thoroughly fair, and it isnt based on chaos theory.
What happens on my computer -- whether its bullets or collisions -- gets reported to the server. The server spreads teh info to anyone who needs it, like my target. Resolutions like kills or damage are applied to my target when the info reaches his computer.
Thats it.
Now, if you're paying attention, you might have realized that there is a very simple, non-chaotic way to avoid collisionis: DON'T COLLIDE If you dont get close enough on your computer to hit someone on your computer, you wont collide.
Period.
End of concept, nothing more to explain. NO chaos, no secondary goal, no self serving, entirely fair. Your collisions are 100% your fault (except for the unfortunate situation when a fighter hits a bomber on the bomber's computer).
IN fact, I've let you in on the almost 100% effective system for not colliding, and that was downright selfless of me
Originally posted by JMFJ
Question: If your plane isn't where my computer says it is, should my bullets also not do damage? Seems that would also be in the same realm of debate. Whether it's my plane hitting your plane, or my bullets hitting your plane. If your not really there, well it probably shouldn't do any damage.
JMFJ
See above. It all happens on your computer, and gets reported to the server.
If you really want to understand, the answers are simple, and obvious from the many posts in this thread. Just read them and think about it.
-
You don't have to get snippy (pun intended) I asked these questions nicely.
What does FE Mean?
I did state that when I collided I felt like it was my own fault, no need to continue that angle we agree. Anytime I collide whether I die or they do I still know it was my own damn fault for getting that close to the plane or involving myself in a ho in the first place.
P.S. A good jedi master does not talk down to his padywon, unless you are trying to train me for the dark side. hehehe. hmmmmm....................... i would make a good darth vader.
JMFJ
-
Originally posted by JMFJ
You don't have to get snippy (pun intended) I asked these questions nicely.
What does FE Mean?
Front End, acronym for your Computer (the server is the back end).
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
Front End, acronym for your Computer (the server is the back end).
Thank you Cliffra Jones
I will as requested reread the entire post, and see if I can't re-educate myself.
JMFJ
-
No, gamey is when Elfie passes straight down at d400 in front of me, and suddenly my tail falls off because of it.
Eh?
-
Originally posted by JMFJ
Did I point that finger at you, or do you just have a guilty concience.
Besides what have you figured out?
IntardNet 101 technique don't fly well in this BBS. The "I wasn't speaking about anyone specific" backpeddle is a 10 yard penalty. Play on.
-
Originally posted by JMFJ
You don't have to get snippy (pun intended) I asked these questions nicely.
JMFJ
Sorry that I came on too strong....was frankly a bit irritated when you said:
Originally posted by JMFJ
It would be nice if peoples suggestions wouldn't be caked with personal gain incentives, most suggestions seem to be full of things that benefit that particular players abilities or lack there of.
Oppinions should not come out of both sides of your mouth. Supporting realism when it's a change in your favor, but not supporting it when it's not in your favor.
Having reread your entire post (irony noted: I am eating Crow Pie), I see that the quoted paragraphs (that I read completely the first time) sounded more aggressive than the rest of your post.
Apology extended for any offense incurred.
Simaril
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
Actually if a collision is registered on both FEs it involves 4 planes but I'm not going to explain it.
No need to explain it. If for example there are 5 planes in a dogfight including mine. I effectively have 5 planes of me. One on my FE and one on each of the other 4 FE's. None of them are in the exact same place in the exact same time frame.
I did explain what I meant by the post you quoted in another post. ;)
I understand all of this Clifra. There just has to be a better way is all I'm trying to say. That better way just hasnt been found yet.
-
Originally posted by JMFJ
I did state that when I collided I felt like it was my own fault, no need to continue that angle we agree. Anytime I collide whether I die or they do I still know it was my own damn fault for getting that close to the plane or involving myself in a ho in the first place.
Agreed, drop the "it's your fault" stuff already, that is NOT what we are discussing here.
Cliff, please explain how a HO mutual collision (the screenshot I posted) with a combined ramming speed of ~800mph would not be catastrophic. I understand two planes traveling in the same direction, one rolling for an overshoot could have non-catastrophic damage applied. But in those instances it is not seen or registered as a mutual collision, only the HO does that and the speed differential would be catasrophic to aluminum airframes or human occupants.
Also, if his engine hit both of my horizontals and my rudder how was my fuse not impacted or either of his wings? I'm not being snide I'm confused by what his FE reported. Since his engine is what was damaged it must have been applied by my FE, so if any part of my plane hit his spinner that reciprocating damage would have been applied by my FE? Okay...NOW I am getting a headache...can my FE apply damage to my plane based upon what it "sees"?
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
IntardNet 101 technique don't fly well in this BBS. The "I wasn't speaking about anyone specific" backpeddle is a 10 yard penalty. Play on.
I wish to challenge that flag/penalty call. I didn't want to point fingers at specific people cause I didn't want to change the topic of the thread. If I did we would be arguing about that rather than "constructively" discussing what we are now.
Silmaril
Sorry for the different emotions in my post I'm bi-polar, hehehe.
JMFJ
-
OT: bi-polar? Is that like a frigid lesbian or a gay polar bear? :D
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
OT: bi-polar? Is that like a frigid lesbian or a gay polar bear? :D
:lol
-
Originally posted by JMFJ
I don't think I ever stated I had a full grasp of the software of this product.
Keep in mind i'm not trying to suggest software capabilities, what is or is not. I'm suggesting outcome concepts, i'm just saying if the truth of the matter is when collisions occur it is usually mass damage to both parties involved so why not in the game.
If something can't be implemented to be a fair/logical outcome, then it would be better if it was never implemented at all. If plane location is random computer to computer it seems that the collision model no matter how it is set up will be based on chaos theory. So maybe it would be best to be removed until something that was more predictable was in place.
Besides it's rare to have a collision, more times than not it usually involves me participating in a head on balls to the wall guns blazin HO, or when I come in with way to much E on a set of bombers and don't pull out in time. I've only had it happen once in a turnfight of which case I died, and herblife lived.
Question: If your plane isn't where my computer says it is, should my bullets also not do damage? Seems that would also be in the same realm of debate. Whether it's my plane hitting your plane, or my bullets hitting your plane. If your not really there, well it probably shouldn't do any damage.
JMFJ
You obviously dont understand what you are suggesting would work to everyones disadvantage. If you dont ram a plane you wont get hurt except by bullets. It really is that simple. What you are asking for is no collisions which would bring out goofier flying than we have now and its already very goofy. Id rather that the goofiest guys get pointed out with little white messages like we have now. In the rare instances where good sticks ram someone you just have to shrug and admit he couldnt have meant to do that and move on. Just think of a jeep inside your tiger and then supplant gvs for planes and youll get the idea. No thanks.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
OT: bi-polar? Is that like a frigid lesbian or a gay polar bear? :D
see rule #................... hehehehe
Comon now skuzzy I have important emails you're suppose to be answering.
JMFJ
-
I wish to challenge that flag/penalty call. I didn't want to point fingers at specific people cause I didn't want to change the topic of the thread.
There would be no flag/penalty if you had just left the below out of your post. No you did not name specific people, but your insinuation was pointing the finger at anyone who had been actively participating in this thread prior to your contribution and could have resulted in changing the topic of the thread sans names.
Bottom line ... it was uneeded.
Originally posted by JMFJ
...
It would be nice if peoples suggestions wouldn't be caked with personal gain incentives, most suggestions seem to be full of things that benefit that particular players abilities or lack there of.
Oppinions should not come out of both sides of your mouth. Supporting realism when it's a change in your favor, but not supporting it when it's not in your favor.
I'M NOT POINTING AT YOU SIMARIL, just noting some of these players posts sit on both sides of the fence, depending on whether they gain an advantage by the change or not.
...
JMFJ
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
I wish to challenge that flag/penalty call. I didn't want to point fingers at specific people cause I didn't want to change the topic of the thread.
There would be no flag/penalty if you had just left the below out of your post. No you did not name specific people, but your insinuation was pointing the finger at anyone who had been actively participating in this thread prior to your contribution and could have resulted in changing the topic of the thread sans names.
Bottom line ... it was uneeded.
LOL:rofl
-
Play stands as called on the field.
JMFJ is charged with a time-out.
4th and 20.
-
JMFJ<------ in the huddle.
Okay guys we're gonna go for a fake punt. hehehehe
Go long cause uncle rico's got a gun.
JMFJ
-
I've been with AH since it's inception. In all that time I have "won" a collision exactly twice.
I have NEVER witnessed huge space differences between aircraft during any collision, regardless of who collided with whom (theoretically, this would show depending on how the FE registers which person hit which).
Any change to the model, be it to turn off collisions completely, or have both aircraft die would be a boon for me and I'm all for it. At least this way, I either don't die because someone rams me, or he dies as well. I'm sick of "my" FE seeing something everyone else's apparently doesn't, especially when it wasn't me doing the ramming.
Turn it off, or have both aircraft take damage any time a collision is registered, regardless of which FE sees it.
-
You don't "win" collisions. If you fly into another players plane, you take damage. If you don't, you don't take damage. If another player flies his plane into you, he takes damage. If he doesn't, he doesn't take damage.
If you didn't ram, and took damage, you were shot. There is no ramming without taking damage, and there is no taking damage from being rammed.
If anyone knows more about the collision model code than HT, I urge you to step forward and set him straight. Otherwise, this is how it works, and I suggest you accept it, even if you don't understand it.
-
to my opinion it is right who affirm:
1) the position in the space is given by famous Cartesian coordinates on the plain X,Y more in the space Z.//
2( to the Cartesian coordinates we have to add factor time T that moves the point according to a speed V
3( the point of meeting of the players is the site of the server which he has rented a certain bandwidth to allow JxN players to frequent the site./
4) the speed of the packets (IP) is not equal for all (ping) therefore if a p-layer fas a tallping her pc elaborates the frame 1/1bis/1tris..exc. while what has lower elaborates the frame 1-2-3 ..exc.-(to parity of pc).-
Everything this us traslated in differente position in the space therefore when you have in the gunsight the target if you are not lined up on the same straight line you shoot in the void.-
The phenomenon is underlined when you shoot in defection.- The slowest will have to anticipate the hit of very comparison to the fastest to center the target.-( I alwais write of speed of ping).-
This also explain because the collisio happenthat is the player sees the target where in effects is not.-- We are writing of thousanths of seconds that transated: (VxT) - (VxT)= quite a lot space if we consider the high speeds of the targets.-
Excuse my bad English.- Ciao from Viator.-
-
I had an interesting experience last night. Bishops rooks and knights were all fighting over A5 and there were a lot of planes in the area. While I was diving through a huge horde to clear my wingman I see a P38 in a ninety degree bank and coming at me. I pulled up briefly and got the message XXXXXXX has collided with you. Sure enough the P38 falls in pieces I am not damaged and I get no kill (I didnt shoot him).
I think its working as expected.:aok