Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Bronk on December 30, 2006, 07:32:28 PM
-
See Rule #5, #4
-
:rofl
I'll see if I can have a talk with poor Rifle. It looks like he has some collision-confusion. I will try to explain to him how the model works. :aok
-
Personally I think the Ram model should be turned off.
Its too inconsistant
Or it should aat the very least be modeled in a way that it only registers if the collision is seen on both ends.
I know where he's comming from. Been there myself a few times.
and a bunch of times the other day when "I collided" 3 flights in a row
Now on my end two of those times the opposing pilot slammed into me on my end.
That is what he is talking about.
But 1 other times and same thing happened last week I "Collided" with a plane I didnt even see that climbed up and hit me from below
I've had other times when I thought I should have had a collision based on what I saw and didnt.
IMO I like the idea of collisions. But if it cant be more consistant They shouldnt have it. or better yet as I stated before.
Have it so you only get a collision if it registers as one on both ends
-
Collision model works as intended and is consistant.
Look at any film. If your plane touches any enemy ac at any time YOU did the hitting.
Why should the other guy take damage if he avoided it?
Bronk
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Its too inconsistant . . . Now on my end two of those times the opposing pilot slammed into me on my end. . . .
Nothing inconsistent about it. You saw the opposing pilot hit you. Therefore, you collided and took damage.
From their perspective, they did not hit your airplane. Therefore, they did not collide.
There is no "who hit who" decision that goes on in the programming. The mistaken belief that there is this decision process is the source of many people's confusion. Rather, your computer is deciding if you occupy the same space as another aircraft. If it decides you do, you collide. Period.
The other guy has a slightly different perspective on the world due to internet lag. So, just because you see him fly right through your airplane (or rather, your computer does), does not mean that he (or his computer) saw the same thing.
That is, "The opposing pilot slammed into me on my end", and finishing the statement, he did not slam into you on his end. Therefore he did not collide, but you did. Nothing inconsistent.
-
Collision model is perfect the way it is. Internet lag is forcing the current solution.
Two popular "alternatives":
Turning it off:
Nobody would care about acm or shooting skills anymore. Just fly gunblazing INTO any enemy con. If you think you are alredy seeing lots HOs you would be surprised. Especially buffs would suffer a lot. Fly through them, shoot last seconds.
Both die:
Well, ramming would actually work now. You allready know suicide divebombers, now you will get to know suicide rammers who will almost almost succede in bringing you down (And no, they donīt do it now!). And imagine your of "fun" if you suddenly die from collision when you never got closer than 400 yds to the other plane :rolleyes:
-
did that ram have a HEMI?
-
Originally posted by doobs
did that ram have a HEMI?
Nope he was in one of them Italian jobs. :D
Bronk
-
Nice ram, Bronk.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Nice ram, Bronk.
Wow. There IS no copyright on ignorance, is there.
For those who collide on purpose, they take their chances. For those who collide on accident, look at the streets of your own town and decide.
That is the sole reason I work for an insurance company.
ROX
-
Rox its ok benny was just playing. He wanted to get some friendly fights in his H2H room.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Collision model works as intended and is consistant.
Look at any film. If your plane touches any enemy ac at any time YOU did the hitting.
Why should the other guy take damage if he avoided it?
Bronk
And If I did nothing to ram him yet he runs into me anyway.
Such as from underneith where I cant even see he baztard
How is that consistant?
And he didnt avoid it. it just didnt register on his end.
Sorry but I've seen alot of instances where I just tooling along and someone slams into me without even attempting to avoid a collision or my doing anything and I end up with the collision hit
I have also seen instances where I thought we shoudl have collided yet it registered him hitting me and my getting nothing
Argue it all you want but its not consistant. Nor is it fair.
Should be set up to only register a collision if both ends see it or it shouldnt be in there at all
-
Originally posted by Lusche
Collision model is perfect the way it is. Internet lag is forcing the current solution.
Two popular "alternatives":
Turning it off:
Nobody would care about acm or shooting skills anymore. Just fly gunblazing INTO any enemy con. If you think you are alredy seeing lots HOs you would be surprised. Especially buffs would suffer a lot. Fly through them, shoot last seconds.
Both die:
Well, ramming would actually work now. You allready know suicide divebombers, now you will get to know suicide rammers who will almost almost succede in bringing you down (And no, they donīt do it now!). And imagine your of "fun" if you suddenly die from collision when you never got closer than 400 yds to the other plane :rolleyes:
3rd option. only have a collision when BOTH ends see it
Would be the same way Bullets work now No?
Both ends have to see the bullets from one plane collide witht he other to register a hit
-
Due to internet lag, from what I understand it is impossible for both pilots to see the same thing at the same time. When you see the other pilot, you aren't actually seeing where he is, but where he was a moment ago. If you see a collision, he likely won't, as he has already flown through that point while it was unoccupied by you. He likely see's you miss by several hundred feet. Since he saw a miss, but you saw a collision, you take the damage.
The plane you see is really more of a "shadow" so to speak. Almost like a banner of a plane dragged behind the plane. You never really see him, but rather his bannor. You manuever against his "bannor", and shoot at his "bannor", not actually at him. So if you fly into what you see as "him", he see's you fly through the space behind him. He see's that he has successfully avoided colliding, and is rewarded for that by taking no damage.
The spacing between the other plane and his "bannor" would vary depending on lag, speed, and angle. You would see the least space between the other plane and his "bannor" if you where flying the same speed as him, and going the same direction. However, if you where flying directly nose-nose, you should see the greatest distance between the other plane and the "bannor".
Bullet hits are not modeled to require both pilots to see hits for the "shot" plane to take damage. Only the "shooter" needs to see his bullets hit the other plane for damage to be awarded. Basically the opposite of how collision damage is awarded.
Remember, it is impossible for you to see the actual other plane. You are shooting at his shadow. Hit his shadow, and he will take hits, even if he thinks/sees you shoot behind him. If it were required that we both see hits or collisions for damage to be awarded, we would NEVER be able to hit each other. Sometimes both planes will "see" a collision. Both take damage then. Even then, though, if you see a collision that should damage his nose, he'll likely see damage against his tail from his view. Or a different part of his plane. NOT the same thing you see.
Maybe this is not what you would consider "ideal", but it is the only way to make a game like this work. Is it consistent? Yes. Our computers are not making random choices as to when damage is awarded, and to whom. They are following rules based on programing. If you see your bullets hit him, he takes damage. If you see a collision, you take damage.
Basically, when shooting at the other guy, be happy that when you see hits against him, he takes damage. Because in actuality, you missed by shooting behind him. And when it comes to collisions, simply avoid hitting the other plane. You only take collision damage when your computer sees it, so it's your fault. Even if you see the other plane hit you.
MtnMan
-
Quick def. of "see"
When they say you SAW the ram on your front end, that in no way means you as the pilot SAW it (i.e. he was under you and hit you, but was out of your visiaul sight being the pilot).
Rather, if your computer (your Front End or F.E.) registers your plane and another touching, it SEE's a collision. If you SEE a collision means if your computer, or FE see's it.
I had a huge argument w/ a guy who thought you could just look away and not take damage (i.e. he would look back on his 6 right b4 impact and was upset he took damage because he didn't "see" it) That's like saying the nme's bullets won't hurt you if you are not looking at 'em.
I actually had another total idiot the other day on range telling everybody that the collision depended on the plane because some were tougher than others,so they won't take damage in a ram.
(sigh)
-
Origionaly posted by DREDIOCK
only have a collision when BOTH ends see it
IMO I like the idea of collisions. But if it cant be more consistant They shouldnt have it. or better yet as I stated before.
How is that conistent? You would sometimes fly through your enemy if they didnt see you, and vice versa.
HTCs' system works.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
If your plane touches any enemy ac at any time YOU did the hitting.
Why should the other guy take damage if he avoided it?
Bronk
This is not an accurate statement.
Here's why:
I'm flying along straight and level and you come in from my side. I do nothing and you fly into me from my 5 o'clock position and pull up at the last second. On my front end I see you hit me, on yours you do not. So I get the "I have collided" message and you get the one stating I collided with you.
In this simple example I did not do the hitting as you stated. My front end only saw the planes touch. This does not mean that I did the hitting.
This is not a gripe about the collision model, just pointing out that it's not as you say it is.
-
Why should the other guy take damage if he avoided it?
====
How the heck are you supposed to have a mid air collision bewteen two planes if only one plane is involved in the collision? this feature needs work HT.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Why should the other guy take damage if he avoided it?
====
How the heck are you supposed to have a mid air collision bewteen two planes if only one plane is involved in the collision? this feature needs work HT.
You asking me?
-
Originally posted by Donzo
This is not an accurate statement.
Here's why:
I'm flying along straight and level and you come in from my side. I do nothing and you fly into me from my 5 o'clock position and pull up at the last second. On my front end I see you hit me, on yours you do not. So I get the "I have collided" message and you get the one stating I collided with you.
In this simple example I did not do the hitting as you stated. My front end only saw the planes touch. This does not mean that I did the hitting.
This is not a gripe about the collision model, just pointing out that it's not as you say it is.
In this simple example you hit him. Your front end only saw the planes touch. And it DOES mean you did the hitting.
Originally posted by Yeager
Why should the other guy take damage if he avoided it?
====
How the heck are you supposed to have a mid air collision bewteen two planes if only one plane is involved in the collision? this feature needs work HT.
Actually, two planes WERE involved in the collision. The two on your Front End.
You see two planes, and the guy you are in a fight with also sees two planes. So in a 1 on 1 fight, there are really 4 planes involved. The 2 on your end, and the 2 on theirs.
-
so then..... when I shoot a guy down, only the plane I shot down on my end actually gets shot down? wtf over?
-
SkyRock<-----owns Lute, Bronk, and Yeager!:aok
-
yet again gents I will point you to this
(http://members.optusnet.com.au/vstrom/FE%20Difference.jpg)
(Correct me if I am wrong HT) In the above the Red pilot is responsible for the impact even though the blue pilot flew into his flight path...
and to clarify Its not the pilot who SAW the collision
It is the client machine (your or the other guys pc) that DETECTS the collision...
you dont have to see youself hit the guy below you for it to happen on your PC....
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Wow, this is like high schoolers arguing about quantum physics. Understand the problem before you start complaining about the solution.
Are you saying that I have it wrong Benny ?
-
Wow, this is like high schoolers arguing about quantum physics. Understand the problem before you start complaining about the solution.
Let me put it this way. Instead of "you are responsible for the collision," a better phrasing would be, "had what occurred on your front end happened in reality, you would have collided." Does that make sense? Moreover, had what occurred on the other guy's front end happened in reality, he would not have collided.
"Seeing" and "responsibility" really have nothing to do with it. It's not an attempt at dealing justice of some sort, it's simply simulating what would happen under the circumstances each pilot sees as accurately as possible. It is physically impossible, at least with today's technology, to perfectly simulate a two-player collision over the Internet. Having it so that what happened on each front end happens on that front end is the best compromise by far. The only viable alternative is no collisions, which is a lot more unrealistic.
The argument I seem to be hearing is, "If it comes from underneath, there's nothing I can do to avoid it. Therefore I shouldn't be 'punished' by a collision when the other guy isn't." Well, if it came from underneath in a real aircraft, there's nothing you can do to avoid it, but you're still going to collide. The only difference in the simulator is that the other guy goes unscathed because, on his front end, he did not collide.
In summary, in a perfect world the result of an online collision would be both planes being damaged. This is impossible. The next best thing is having only the aircraft which would have been damaged in reality, given the circumstances occuring on his front end, actually be damaged in the simulator.
-
Originally posted by mussie
Are you saying that I have it wrong Benny ?
No; I am sorry. I was not addressing you. There was a bit of difficulty involving an accidental incomplete post. I'm deleting it now, leaving the full one, which is pretty redundant because it's already been explained by quite a few people. Maybe if enough people rephrase it ...
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
No; I am sorry. I was not addressing you. There was a bit of difficulty involving an accidental incomplete post. I'm deleting it now, leaving the full one, which is pretty redundant because it's already been explained by quite a few people. Maybe if enough people rephrase it ...
CC on that Benny... For a sec there I thought I might have it wrong...
I had issues posting also, strange that...
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
The argument I seem to be hearing is, "If it comes from underneath, there's nothing I can do to avoid it. Therefore I shouldn't be 'punished' by a collision when the other guy isn't." Well, if it came from underneath in a real aircraft, there's nothing you can do to avoid it, but you're still going to collide. The only difference in the simulator is that the other guy goes unscathed because, on his front end, he did not collide.
MANY months ago, I dove on a spit from REAL high in my P-47...
I realised that I was going WAY to fast and started to pull up...
I got a collieded message, I knew that I had hit the poor soul from above...
I did not "see" it. but if we had external view on fighters I would have seen the collision.
On my FE I hit him... No let me put it this way On my PC a collision occoured....
-
Heres a novel idea.
Drop the "Collision message" altogether.
I know it was HTC's intention to answer the collision question via the message.
But it obviously doesn't make any difference as far as argument is concerned.
Now we have the "collision" message as (Proof) which only fuels the fire of the constant arguing about it.
It was a much happier place when a player complained about a collision and the community tried to explain it on Ch 200 for 3 mins and finally it just faded away.
Ever notice how the arguing lasts longer now than it did before the "Collision" message was added?"
-
I don't care if it LOOKS like he flew into you. Because on his end it will probably look like he was 100-400 away. What people have to realize when I say if you see it you collied it means if your front end sees it.
People its not a hard concept. You are flying to what you see and your opponent is flying to what he sees. They are 2 slightly different things.
The thing is it is very difficult to want to collide . The only way it might be possible is nose to nose and the 2 parties DON'T turn at all.
I'll give you a great example.
3 nights ago AKDog and I went nose to nose. Him in a 262 me in a 163.
He fired first hit me and I started to lose control . Due to the high closure speed he couldn't get out of the way in time. We both got the "you have collided with xxx" We both had a good laugh over it and went on having fun.
My problem is people who don't get it when they do the ram and think its the other guys fault. If you get the orange text well guess what you did the hitting.
I don't care what it looked like ,where the other guy was ,or what angle he came in from. YOU should have gotten more separation. Guess what the other guy did and didn't see it, or YOU would have gotten white text "XXX HAS COLLIDED WITH YOU.".
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Yeager
so then..... when I shoot a guy down, only the plane I shot down on my end actually gets shot down? wtf over?
When you shoot an nme your FrontEnd registers that you shot 'em, sends it to the HTC server, which decides, yes, indeed you did hit them, send's that info back to your FE and your NME's FE, and voila, a kill has been recorded.
or something similar to this anyway.
The only thing you have to worry about RE:collisions is that if you took damage, it's because you friggin' hit them.
If you don't want to get damage from a collision, don't hit them.
The fault is yours. If you are not in controll of your plane enough to avoid hitting the bad guys, you really need to re-think your flight tactics. Smaking the planes together is generally a bad thing.
It happens, sure. I've done the dive down on a buff, get going to fast, fully compress, and smacked into 'em. I don't get mad 'cause it was my own dumb fault I hit 'em.
(same rule applies to getting caught low/slow otd surrounded by nme. I dont' get mad at the 4 lala's, 3 niki's, and 17 spit16's that just ganged me. Was my own dumb fault I was in that position in the 1st place)
-
Originally posted by WMLute
The only thing you have to worry about RE:collisions is that if you took damage, it's because you friggin' hit them.
Lute... I think that ppl need to understand that you friggin' hit them means your plane and his plane collided on your pc... as such you are responsible for the collision.
I think most ppl think you friggin' hit them means that they flew their plane into the NME's plane...
-
Originally posted by mussie
Lute... I think that ppl need to understand that you friggin' hit them means your plane and his plane collided on your pc... as such you are responsible for the collision.
I think most ppl think you friggin' hit them means that they flew their plane into the NME's plane...
Translation: JOO DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH SEPARATION. Please re-plane and try not to get so close. Thank you.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by mussie
Lute... I think that ppl need to understand that you friggin' hit them means your plane and his plane collided on your pc... as such you are responsible for the collision.
I think most ppl think you friggin' hit them means that they flew their plane into the NME's plane...
I was going to suggest something like this as well.
The issue is something of internet lag or timing.
Just because a collision occurs...it doesn't mean that is was intended or could have even been avoided in most cases.
We all have been there and know exactly what i am refering to.
You think your just going to miss the NME plane and kaloka...you collide.
Its just that some guys like to cry foul via open channel when ever they take damage from a collision.
As far as i am concerned, the A-Hole starting an argument on ch 200 over a collision is a bigger jerk than either of the two involved in said collision.:aok
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
And If I did nothing to ram him yet he runs into me anyway.
Such as from underneith where I cant even see he baztard
How is that consistant?
Dred its not what you see but what your front end sees. If your front end detects 2 planes occupying the same space *BAM* you collided . Due to the constraints of near light speed connection . On his pc he sees it differently. Why should he take damage for not colliding.
And he didnt avoid it. it just didnt register on his end.
Umm yes he did or you would have got "xxx has collided with you" Remember he is flying to what he sees. Why should his front end register a collision if it didn't detect one.:huh
Sorry but I've seen alot of instances where I just tooling along and someone slams into me without even attempting to avoid a collision or my doing anything and I end up with the collision hit
Your still going by what you see and not by what his front end sees. On his front end he avoided it and guess what no collision for him.
I have also seen instances where I thought we shoudl have collided yet it registered him hitting me and my getting nothing
Do you have film? Because if you do I'll bet 1 months of AH you didn't touch on your film.
Argue it all you want but its not consistant. Nor is it fair.
Thats because you can't grasp the fact that there are separate realities in game. The one you see and the one your opponent sees. Once you realize this, not only is it fair it is absolutely consistent.
Should be set up to only register a collision if both ends see it or it shouldnt be in there at all
Will only happen on rare cases like i posted up on previous post .
So you want to have a safety net because you get to close to other AC?
Once again model works great for the confines of near light speed connections.
For faster connections seek Lt. commander Montgomery Scott. He might be working on faster than light internet connections . :D
Bronk
-
No amount of fact or explanation will ever convince people that the collision model works consistently, or correctly, or that they fail to understand how it works. How many times has it been explained, and yet here we are again.
I do agree that the collision message needs to go away. That probably results in more text channel pursefights than the collision itself.
-
my favorite of the (cough, working) collision moDel, is im in a GV and plane straffs me. I get the you have collided withmessage LOL. Im not moving yet i did the colliding righttttttttttttt its not broke.
-
Yup, some will never get it.
You and you alone are responsible for ensuring your craft does not come into contact with solid objects, make all attempts to dodge both bullets and airplanes.
For whels.. you know net lag can case some odd occurences, but it's the best solution there is. The day the speed of light is raised, that won't happen anymore :)
-
Originally posted by Booz
Yup, some will never get it.
You and you alone are responsible for ensuring your craft does not come into contact with solid objects, make all attempts to dodge both bullets and airplanes.
For whels.. you know net lag can case some odd occurences, but it's the best solution there is. The day the speed of light is raised, that won't happen anymore :)
from the collisions i have had happen, the collision model at best is
inconsistant.
i have personally had:
planes pass on 1 side of my plane and i get collision damage on opposite side. (no guns fired by either of us).
i visually see our planes miss clearly, still get collision ( not barely miss but by a good bit)
ive flown through planes dead center on my FE and got NO damage, yet they blew up.
the 1 collision i hate is the drone AI buffs insta warp into position or they start thier move take over lead position.
-
Post film, or I call BS.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Post film, or I call BS.
Bronk
:rolleyes: :rofl
Who actually cares if Bronk calls BS?:lol
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
3rd option. only have a collision when BOTH ends see it
Would be the same way Bullets work now No?
Both ends have to see the bullets from one plane collide witht he other to register a hit
You would hardly ever see collisions for your 3rd way and HO's would be increased in the MA tenfold.................
also Bullets only have to register as hits in the FE of the guy firing them and the hit packets have to make it to the server and then to the guy who got hit.
-
Originally posted by whels
my favorite of the (cough, working) collision moDel, is im in a GV and plane straffs me. I get the you have collided withmessage LOL. Im not moving yet i did the colliding righttttttttttttt its not broke.
Sounds perfect to me.........the guy obviously collided with you...........and because you were not moving your FE saw it too so you got a collided message saying you have collided with him.......................
or are you suggesting he did not suffer collision................
I agree that the messages could be clearer................
Simply "You have suffered a collision" when your FE sees it and "goober has suffered a collision" when his FE sees a collision with you.
-
Originally posted by whels
from the collisions i have had happen, the collision model at best is
inconsistant.
i have personally had:
1)planes pass on 1 side of my plane and i get collision damage on opposite side. (no guns fired by either of us).
2)i visually see our planes miss clearly, still get collision ( not barely miss but by a good bit)
3)ive flown through planes dead center on my FE and got NO damage, yet they blew up.
4)the 1 collision i hate is the drone AI buffs insta warp into position or they start thier move take over lead position.
IMO
1) I would suspect this is more a problem, with the damage model pertaining to collision than collision its self. Like some times a guy plum on your 6 shoots your engine out...........
2) Lag
3) Lag
4) Yup that is annoying...but its not the collision model ............its the formation drone modelling IMO
-
Originally posted by Tilt
You would hardly ever see collisions for your 3rd way and HO's would be increased in the MA tenfold.................
Based on what I see as the norm in the MA.
I highly doubt its even possible to have 10 times the amount of HOs without having at least a 9 times player increase in the arena
-
The collision model and the lag it has to deal with has the same result when you are fighting 1v1 and the nmy AC comes at you from the front, other than HO, and you see you avoided his shots, by plenty, but low and behold, you are getting shot to H and back. You see yourself as well clear, yet you die or get hit. Reason, probably same as with a collision, he sees hits, and you in his sights, and you do not.
Things happen, but I am sure they tend to even out.
-
The collision model is very consistent on my FE.
I always lose.
Always.
Never have I survived.
Ever.
No joke....I get the
You have collided with XXXXXXX
XXXXX has collided with you.
I spin to the earth.
XXXXXX flies on like nothing happend.
So for consistancy....it is 100%.
Softail.
-
Originally posted by WMLute
Quick def. of "see"
When they say you SAW the ram on your front end, (sigh)
Most in here see a EWE on their front end.
-
Originally posted by Softail
The collision model is very consistent on my FE.
I always lose.
Always.
Never have I survived.
Ever.
No joke....I get the
You have collided with XXXXXXX
XXXXX has collided with you.
I spin to the earth.
XXXXXX flies on like nothing happend.
So for consistancy....it is 100%.
Softail.
Yeh, me too. I thought it was a conspiracy, then realized it is only Lord Krishna working to level my karma. Some day, when my karma is in balance, I will start surviving collisions.
I know this to be true.
-
why would i get the collide message if i am upping on a runway and a vulcher rams me?
-
Because on his front end he probable just went past you when you spawned.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Donzo
This is not an accurate statement.
Here's why:
I'm flying along straight and level and you come in from my side. I do nothing and you fly into me from my 5 o'clock position and pull up at the last second. On my front end I see you hit me, on yours you do not. So I get the "I have collided" message and you get the one stating I collided with you.
In this simple example I did not do the hitting as you stated. My front end only saw the planes touch. This does not mean that I did the hitting.
This is not a gripe about the collision model, just pointing out that it's not as you say it is.
Its not about who DID something.... its not about whos the "active" and whos the "inactive" part of a ram. Its not:
Its about whos FE registers two planes in the same spot at the same time.... nothing more and nothing less then that. (which might not even be 100% consistant with what actually displays on your monitor either).
-
Somebody had great description of whats going on with the damage model.
I cant find it so I'll try to remember it as best as possible.
Imagine your AC in game is towing a copy behind it. This copy is what everyone else can see. Depending on connection speed the tow line can grow or shrink .
Thats why we have odd occurrences in game .
Things like GV colliding with AC , parked or taxiing ac hitting ones in flight.
The ac in the above made his run and had already passed on his front end.
On the the targets front end it looks like he dives and runs into you.
Now my question is. Do you want to have an attacker take damage for making his run and not running into his target?
Think about it you make a low lvl pass and 200-400 out you get message you have collided. You check film and you can't see in it anywhere from external .
You think you guys are complaining about the collision model now. Just imagine it if it depended on what the other guy can see.
Things like "WTF I cant find anywhere on film where I touch enemy AC and I collide. The collision model is porked.".
For the just turn it off crowd . Think how buffers will feel when fighters fly through em with guns blazing away.
For the make both sides have to see it for assigning collision damage.
Its already there, only it's rare . Usually in head ons when neither turn as they hit .
The collision model is the best compromise on reality. Especially when lag is factored in.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Schatzi
(which might not even be 100% consistant with what actually displays on your monitor either).
Shatzi it is 100% consistent with what the front end sees. In every film I have seen posted about collisions the planes touch on external view.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Shatzi it is 100% consistent with what the front end sees. In every film I have seen posted about collisions the planes touch on external view.
Bronk
Film viewer is not consistent with what you see/saw in the game Bronk! The film viewer reconstructs the visual from the recorded data on the front end (since the collision that happened where recorded on the FE, they are visible in the viewer) - that doesnt mean that you neccessarily saw the same picture while happening in the game.
-
Ahh ok .
So its the best representation of what the front end had seen .
Thanks for the info.
Do you think that it's not the best representation of what actually happened though ?
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Ahh ok .
So its the best representation of what the front end had seen .
Thanks for the info.
Do you think that it's not the best representation of what actually happened though ?
Bronk
Depends on how you define "what actually happened" - ever film a perfect CV landing in the game only to notice the CV being 400 yards off the port side in the film?
-
Originally posted by Schatzi
Its not about who DID something.... its not about whos the "active" and whos the "inactive" part of a ram. Its not:
Its about whos FE registers two planes in the same spot at the same time.... nothing more and nothing less then that. (which might not even be 100% consistant with what actually displays on your monitor either).
Well said Shatzi.
Thats exactly what i was tryin to get at.
Its not a "Blame" thing. Its a message that a collision has occured.
Thats why i think the Collision Message is missleading and fuel for argument and should be removed.
That is also why i think any comment that intends blame to another player whereas a collision is concerned is total stupididy.
Anyone that has played long enough to have been in only a few collisions knows it's very difficult to avoid at times and near impossible to predict.
I think the claims of "Intentional Rams" is WAAAAYYYY Out of proportion.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Ahh ok .
So its the best representation of what the front end had seen .
Thanks for the info.
Do you think that it's not the best representation of what actually happened though ?
Bronk
This might not be the most accurate description, but I have always thought of it as an "internal system lag" that layers on top of the internet lag.
That is, what my PC's CPU thinks happens is the "reality" -- and there is a small but present lag between what the CPU thinks happens and what the video card displays through the monitor. If nothing else, it is the difference between the thousands of decisions per second in the CPU and the lousy 25 frames per second my video card/monitor displays.
So to Schatzi's point, my CPU can register a collision and my monitor did not quite keep up to "show" it happen at a closing speed of 600 mph.
-
Originally posted by Mugzeee
I think the claims of "Intentional Rams" is WAAAAYYYY Out of proportion.
Agree 100% with this.
My original complaint was not about being hit. It was about someone hitting me then telling me I hit them.
I know they happen and couldn't care less about it.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Schatzi
Depends on how you define "what actually happened" - ever film a perfect CV landing in the game only to notice the CV being 400 yards off the port side in the film?
I haven't seen that one yet.
Seen the ones were people spawning in mid air though.
Just thought it was either a bug or a lag issue.
Once again good info to think about .
Thanks.
Bronk
-
There is something particularly wierd about cv locations..............
In one scenario beta we filmed 163's flying into cv to simulate Kamikazi attacks..........
reviewing the film the 163's were hitting the sea all over the show some seemingly hundreds of yards from the actual CV's location..........however they all swore they were hitting it or only narrowly missing.............
-
Originally posted by Softail
The collision model is very consistent on my FE.
I always lose.
Always.
Never have I survived.
Ever.
No joke....I get the
You have collided with XXXXXXX
XXXXX has collided with you.
I spin to the earth.
XXXXXX flies on like nothing happend.
So for consistancy....it is 100%.
Softail.
Same for me. Just means that we have a better, faster internet connection. QoS rocks! :aok
Although, to be fair, I have seen one or two other aircraft go down too, after the collision.
-
Originally posted by Mugzeee
Well said Shatzi.
Thats exactly what i was tryin to get at.
Its not a "Blame" thing. Its a message that a collision has occured.
Thats why i think the Collision Message is missleading and fuel for argument and should be removed.
That is also why i think any comment that intends blame to another player whereas a collision is concerned is total stupididy.
Anyone that has played long enough to have been in only a few collisions knows it's very difficult to avoid at times and near impossible to predict.
I think the claims of "Intentional Rams" is WAAAAYYYY Out of proportion.
HiTech added the messages so people would know what the respective FEs saw. There were too many complains about "he rammed me and I went down".... message was to show IF someone really rammed you (on his FE): ie "XXX has collided with you".... or if your FE was the one that showed collision ("You have collided").
But i guess a human (especially an online gamer) cant be happy without something to complain about. :D
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Would be the same way Bullets work now No?
Both ends have to see the bullets from one plane collide witht he other to register a hit
I believe only the shooter has to see bullets hit.
-
Originally posted by Schatzi
HiTech added the messages so people would know what the respective FEs saw. There were too many complains about "he rammed me and I went down".... message was to show IF someone really rammed you (on his FE): ie "XXX has collided with you".... or if your FE was the one that showed collision ("You have collided").
It's from an example like this that most of the confusion comes I think.
The old way using this example:
I'm flying along and I look back and see someone fly into me.
Result: I take damage.
System message: None
Response: "he rammed me and I went down"
The new way using this example:
I'm flying along and I look back and see someone fly into me.
Result: I take damage.
System message: "You have collided"
Response: "he rammed me and I went down"
I think people get confused on the perception side of things. Yes, in this example it was my FE that "saw" the collision. Therefore I get the "You have collided" message. What I saw with my eyes was somene ramming into me (let's say I "saw" it too late to do anything about it).
I think people are looking at situations like this and wondering why they are taking damage when they saw someone ram into them. From their perspective they did nothing wrong...they were on the receiving end of a collision.
Once again, I understand how the system works and I am not whining about it. Just trying to shed some light on the topic in the hopes that people will finally get it. :)
-
Originally posted by Donzo
It's from an example like this that most of the confusion comes I think.
The old way using this example:
I'm flying along and I look back and see someone fly into me.
Result: I take damage.
System message: None
Response: "he rammed me and I went down"
The new way using this example:
I'm flying along and I look back and see someone fly into me.
Result: I take damage.
System message: "You have collided"
Response: "he rammed me and I went down"
I think people get confused on the perception side of things. Yes, in this example it was my FE that "saw" the collision. Therefore I get the "You have collided" message. What I saw with my eyes was somene ramming into me (let's say I "saw" it too late to do anything about it).
I think people are looking at situations like this and wondering why they are taking damage when they saw someone ram into them. From their perspective they did nothing wrong...they were on the receiving end of a collision.
Once again, I understand how the system works and I am not whining about it. Just trying to shed some light on the topic in the hopes that people will finally get it. :)
Or maybe more to the point,
They feel like they are being blamed for the collision when they were not on the aggressive end or the initiator of the incident?
-
Originally posted by Mugzeee
Or maybe more to the point,
They feel like they are being blamed for the collision when they were not on the aggressive end or the initiator of the incident?
Yep.
-
If collisions are a problem then so is your gunnery. :D
-
Originally posted by MacGlide
If collisions are a problem then so is your gunnery. :D
hehehe There is a lota truth to whatcha speekin
-
Why do we still have these threads... :huh
-
Originally posted by Mugzeee
Or maybe more to the point,
They feel like they are being blamed for the collision when they were not on the aggressive end or the initiator of the incident?
Vudak: untill people finally understand that its not a matter of "blame".
-
Had a real interesting one last night. A P-51B was behind me spraying at 200 yds or less, I chopped throttle and dropped a couple notches of flaps and he hit me. I got the "You have collided" and then the "So and So has collided" Then I got the "You have killed so and so" and when I hit the ground "So and So has killed you".
How I collided when he was behind me, and I did not change my vector other than what slight nose up the popping of the flaps induced is beyond my understanding of the physics of the collision model. :rolleyes:
-
I like to think of the lag & differences in the front end like this. Ever been on a cruiser & watched people launch off of the CV 1/2 mile away from where you see the CV to be? They are just sitting in the middle of the ocean & start taxiing away hovering 50 feet off the water.
Just the other night I had a guy yelling at me to get my gear up; on his front end I was clear of the CV & flying, on my front end I was still running down the deck with my tail wheel still in contact with it.
It's pretty much the same deal with collisions, you aren't actually seeing with your own two eyes what the PC's on your end & his end are seeing (calculating) Let's not forget that that image you are watching isn't really there. It's just a bunch of ones & zeros floating through the ether at just under the speed of light. It doesn't take long for all those ones & zeros to make the entire trip, but long enough to make the collision model the best a person can do to make it fair. If your PC says your ride & someone else's ride occupied the same space at the same time it's a collision & fault (damage) is assigned by or because of whichever PC saw (calculated) it.
-
Perhaps the message should be
"A collision with (insert CPID #1 here) has been detected on this AH client" <-- for the guy... /gal ( sorry schatzi) who's FE detected the collision.
"A collision has been detected on the AH client of (insert CPID #2 here)" <-- for the guy... /gal (sorry schatzi) who's FE did not detect the collision.
-
Or
(insert CPID #1 here) and (insert CPID #2 here) have collided.
That would get rid of the blame game.
-
Originally posted by Schatzi
Vudak: untill people finally understand that its not a matter of "blame".
Exactly.
And the compelling desire to make a blame issue out of frustration is the fuel that feeds the fire.
It ranks right up there with the Check six issue.
Its all about trying to lay blame to someone else in both of those cases.
Granted the RAM issue is a little different the need to lay blame for ones demise is the driving factor.
-
BOTH planes should show damage from a collision. As it is now, you have a 50/50 chance of getting away clean from a collision. It just depends on the connection speed. Guys with broadband are ramming away while the guys on dialup (me) are constantly being rammed out of the air. :furious