Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Coronado on March 10, 2007, 10:40:07 AM
-
fix yur WEETODD collision model,, any way you can pull up my personal stats on collisions??? really curious about my survival percentage.. i'm guessing 7 percent.... here's an idea.. since it isnt fair for everyone "depending on connection".(i don't buy the "depends on plane/ speed/ angle") just turn it off.
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Was just about time for another collision whine.
Ever think that it's possible you screwed up and not the other guy?
No, that would be impossible.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Bronk
-
Coronado's right, this is BS1!!1!! I want to fly through the other guy's plane without being damaged. Since I can't, it's BS!. FIX THIS CRAP!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:
-
bronk were you saying that the white collisoin message means he collided with you? If so i was in a 262 and a guy rammed me. :xxxxx has collided with you: and i go down.
-
Film?
Oh wait there never is.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by 68slayr
bronk were you saying that the white collisoin message means he collided with you? If so i was in a 262 and a guy rammed me. :xxxxx has collided with you: and i go down.
If you didn't get the orange message, you got shot.
-
Originally posted by 68slayr
bronk were you saying that the white collisoin message means he collided with you? If so i was in a 262 and a guy rammed me. :xxxxx has collided with you: and i go down.
So, he shot you from 3 inches away before he collided. You took no damage from the collision unless you got an orange "you have collided" message.
-
Being a Trainer, I do most of my flying in the Training Arena. You encounter few red icon fighters in the TA.
Since friendly collisions are turned off, you tend to fly very close to someone you are training or dueling with. Sometimes, flying right through them.
When I do get into one of the MAs, I have a tendency to fly very close to the enemy. Sometimes, too close and suffer a collision. It's my fault and I accept the result. After a few sorties, I've re-oriented my thinking and I keep a reasonable distance.
You can whine all you want, but the fact remains that the vast majority of air to air collisions where only you suffer damage are your fault.
Change your habits, improve your skills and you will see collisions virtually disappear.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Coronado
"depending on connection".(i don't buy the "depends on plane/ speed/ angle")
The AH collision model has absolutely nothing to do with either your "connection" or "plane/speed/angle".
Nothing.
Nada.
Zip.
Whom ever told you that needs to be smacked, teased, and in the future ignored as they obviously do not have a clue.
The Search Button on the forum is your friend. There have been entirely too many threads explaining how it works already. Do a quick search for "collision".
Bottom line would be for you to quit hitting them. If you hit them, you take damage. That is how it works. So you can't "win" a collision ever. You hit 'em, you gonna get damaged. Period.
(in the distance I think I can hear the sound of Pyro's head smacking over and over against his desk)
-
Actually, It would be nice if collisions were changed to where both aircraft went down. It might make everyone try a little harder to avoid them.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Actually, It would be nice if collisions were changed to where both aircraft went down. It might make everyone try a little harder to avoid them.
LMFAO
If you don't run into them you don't take damage.
What you want is... I see it about to happen and avoid it. But still take damage
Get your head right what you see IS exactly what you get.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Actually, It would be nice if collisions were changed to where both aircraft went down. It might make everyone try a little harder to avoid them.
Wouldn't work like you seem to think.
Would you really like to see a enemy pass you 200ft away and you suddenly blow up because on HIS FE there was a collision? No chance to evade collisions that way...
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Actually, It would be nice if collisions were changed to where both aircraft went down. It might make everyone try a little harder to avoid them.
Due to internet lag if HTC did this you would have enemy planes 1k away "ram" you and you would go down.
I for one don't wanna die to a collision I never saw, let alone with a plane that's 1k out.
No, that would not be "nice" at all.
(beat me to it lusche)
-
Change your habits, improve your skills and you will see collisions virtually disappear.
WORD OF WISDOM !!! ... no truer words have been spoken.
If YOU collide and suffer damage ... you have no one to blame but yourself.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Film?
Oh wait there never is.
Bronk
Bronk ... I have to commend you for keep fighting the fight. :aok
-
Slappy, it's my personal windmill.:D
Tangle's external from his front end the moment of impact.
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n277/1bronk1/Tanglesview.jpg)
Same basic angle external, tangle's view from my front end moment of impact.
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n277/1bronk1/myview.jpg)
How would you feel taking damage looking at your film and seeing tangles front end view, hmmmmmm?
I know I'd be pretty POed.
Bronk
Edit: This also works nicely for the "none should take damage" people.
Yea I should be able to put the nose of my ac through another.:furious :furious :furious :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Hey Karnak! Are you happy? :lol
btw, i dont surprised with collision topics pops all over forum every few weeks, but ppl who explain again and again why it works this way, amazing me :eek:
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by Coronado
See Rule #4
Priceless absolutely priceless.
There is no winning/losing a collision, you towering genius.
Collisions are detected on YOUR front end period.
You try an occupy the same space as another ac on your front end, you go poof.
Guess pictures with descriptions are not enough.
Look at the first pic, that's probably close to what the other guy seen. Due to non faster than light internet.
The second is what it looks like when you fail to avoid running into the other guy on your front end.
Anyone speak towering genius???? Anyone???
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Coronado
Im normally save this for the MA,, but Bronk, yur an idiot ....it's not that fact that i collide, it's the fact that i lose over 90 percent,, as for the other gut "going down"..i usually either look back to see him doing a victory roll or climbing out.. no parts missing.
Because HE did not collide with you. On HIS screen he passed you at some distance. Why should he go down?
there is no winning / losing a collision
You collide on your screen: you get damage
Your enemy collides with you on his screen: he gets damage.
Straight. Simple. Fair.
-
MOMMY!!!! MAKE THE BAD MAN STOP!!!!
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
MOMMY!!!! MAKE THE BAD MAN STOP!!!!
:rofl :D
-
:lol
-
The collision model may need adjusting if anything about that should be changed is one thing. Once you shoot down a plane what is left of them should not take you out. Now I already can hear the comment well in real life or other flight sim you die do to this agruement coming up. Adjust that and the tweak the collision model a little and were good to go. DO with away with it NAH keep it around. But it does need to be tweaked to many noobs are using it to get kills.
As far as both people dieing lets not open that can of worms, please. They do that then the forums will be filled with such and such rams just to get kills or the newest dweeb tactic.
-
wow...
I am not sure this can possibly be explained better than with pictures.
I sure will try once more.
In a 1 on 1 dogfight, there are actually 4 planes.
2 on your Front End (FrontEnd=you computer basically)
2 on your opponents Front End.
Because of internet lag, what you and your opponent see are slightly different things.
(fight someone, both film it, and watch the films)
On YOUR Front End both planes can collide, like you saw in the picture Bronk posted. The 2 planes on your FE rammed.
On your OPPONENTS Front End they did not collide, like you saw in the picture Bronk posted. The 2 planes on their FE missed.
In case you didn't understand, the pictures posted by bronk were from the same fight, but two diff. films. One from each pilot's Front End.
Just because on YOUR Front End you saw a collision, that does not mean your opponent saw one, just like in the pictures Bronk posted.
Your Front End = planes collide
Opponents Front End = planes miss by 100 feet.
So as you see, there is no "winning" of a collisions.
IF YOU HIT THEM, YOU WILL TAKE DAMAGE.
IF YOU DO NOT HIT THEM, YOU WILL NOT TAKE DAMAGE.
The only way to "win" a collision is to not collide.
If the plane you colllided with fly's off undamged, that's because THEY didn't see a collision. They avoided it. You didn't. THIER Front End didn't "see" a collision, only yours did.
The only way to "win" a collision is to not collide.
Quit flying into enemy planes.
-
See Rule #4
I always wanted to do that.
-
(http://www.rockpapersaddam.com/thepainting/ohjesus.jpg)
Oh god what now?
-
Originally posted by Dichotomy
Oh god what now?
(http://www.danacountryman.com/CoverArt%20Photos/A1LimboParty.jpg)
-
I love women that are flexible
-
I love hotdogs
-
Please fix the collision modeling! No way in HE!! a N1K can turn and smack head on into a F4U and fly away with out a scratch. Not to mention get 2 more kills after said collision.:mad:
-
So Bronk...
Did you hear the Cowboys resigned a big fat guy for 2 years and 7 mil?
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v626/krisman/beating_2Da_2Ddead_2Dhorse.gif)
Yeah...
-
No way in HE!! a N1K can turn and smack head on into a F4U and fly away with out a scratch
Well, according to your quote, this must not have happened then. What's your point?
-
(http://spams-ukwildcatbasketball.com/deadhorse.mbe.gif)
-
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c122/tonyhood/BeatDeadHorse.gif)
-
(http://www.mykaussie.com/images/deadhorse.jpg)
-
Originally posted by PuckIt
(http://www.mykaussie.com/images/deadhorse.jpg)
BEST ONE:lol
-
*saved and uploaded :)
-
What we have now is half of a collision model. One day someone will come up with a workable idea and then we won't have these threads anymore. :)
-
Originally posted by Warchief
The collision model may need adjusting ..blah..blah..incorrect... blah..blah...But it does need to be tweaked to many noobs are using it to get kills.
Too many noobs can't avoid running their planes into solid objects
-
:noid
even funnier when ppl manage to crash their planes into my tank(they think it does damage?:rofl
-
Originally posted by SuperDud
I love hotdogs
:huh
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
MOMMY!!!! MAKE THE BAD MAN STOP!!!!
And you all thought I was joking about Sudz in the story.....
-
looks like the HTC staff is going nuts over this collision idea :rolleyes:
-
Oooh, nice. :aok
-
Elfie you won't see that day until we have an internet that runs at light speed.
Fact remains it is the way it is, its the best solution possible. Any other alternatives either undo collisions entirely (Can you say gamey?) Or punishes people who shouldn't be punished. ( avoided the collision, was 200 clear on his FE when WHAM, back to tower)
Only you can prevent collisions.
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
Elfie you won't see that day until we have an internet that runs at light speed.
Fact remains it is the way it is, its the best solution possible. Any other alternatives either undo collisions entirely (Can you say gamey?) Or punishes people who shouldn't be punished. ( avoided the collision, was 200 clear on his FE when WHAM, back to tower)
Only you can prevent collisions.
What we have for a collision model is also gamey. We don't play a boxed sim, yet that is exactly how the collision model is treated.
Otoh, there was a time when the collision model that we use now.....didn't exist, not until someone came up with the idea. Someday, someone WILL come up with a workable solution. :)
-
Like I said a couple of weeks ago.
these biweekly arguements hardly make the collision model worth having
-
This is the workable solution, whether you guys can figure out how it works or not.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
This is the workable solution, whether you guys can figure out how it works or not.
This is the workable solution for now. I understand perfectly how the system currently works. :)
-
Originally posted by Elfie
This is the workable solution for now. I understand perfectly how the system currently works. :)
Well then, tell all how you would make it work.
Please, enlighten all with your wisdom.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Well then, tell all how you would make it work.
Please, enlighten all with your wisdom.
Bronk
It won't be me that comes up with a different solution that's for sure. I'm not smart enough with computers to do so. :D That is why I said in a previous post *someone*....and....*someone*....someday....WILL come up with a workable solution. :)
-
Originally posted by Elfie
This is the workable solution for now. I understand perfectly how the system currently works. :)
Your comment that it's half a collision model proves that you do not. The limitation is the telecommunications infrastructure, and the hardware which composes it. Until computers can transfer and process information at the speed of light, 100% realistic collision modelling is not possible.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Your comment that it's half a collision model proves that you do not.
Yup
Bronk
Edit: Hub it would have to be FASTER than light.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Your comment that it's half a collision model proves that you do not. The limitation is the telecommunications infrastructure, and the hardware which composes it. Until computers can transfer and process information at the speed of light, 100% realistic collision modelling is not possible.
Your comment only proves that you don't understand what I am thinking. And with you, it's absolutely pointless to try to discuss it. :)
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Your comment only proves that you don't understand what I am thinking. And with you, it's absolutely pointless to try to discuss it. :)
What you want is the ability to run into an AC and do damage.
Now I understand.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk
What you want is the ability to run into an AC and do damage.
Now I understand.
Bronk
Now you are assuming :)
-
Then tell us what you want . You say it's only "half modeled".
The only conclusion I can come up with is you wish for the other guy to take damage also.
If warp speed internet were available you could ram to your hearts content.
Till then fly to what you see and I'll do the same.
Bronk
-
Till then fly to what you see and I'll do the same.
That's exactly what I do now.
I'm not going to go into more detail. Why? Because that's exactly what you want so you can flame. :)
*edit* oops, messed up on the quote.
-
i absolutely love these collision threads!!
player A :- this game needs an apple.
bronk : look an apple!
player A: that is not an apple!
bronk : why yes it is an apple
player A: I see no apple there!
player B : well actually it is indeed an apple
player A : i see no apple
bronk : take a picture and you will see an apple
player A: there will be no apple there ..and further more I refuse to take any pictures
the creator of the world: it is an apple ..and here is why....
player A : there is no apple but other people use the apple unfairly against me ..if it did exist
-
Do as I think, not as I say.
-
Originally posted by FBplmmr
i absolutely love these collision threads!!
player A :- this game needs an apple.
bronk : look an apple!
player A: that is not an apple!
bronk : why yes it is an apple
player A: I see no apple there!
player B : well actually it is indeed an apple
player A : i see no apple
bronk : take a picture and you will see an apple
player A: there will be no apple there ..and further more I refuse to take any pictures
the creator of the world: it is an apple ..and here is why....
player A : there is no apple but other people use the apple unfairly against me ..if it did exist
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Thanks I needed a good laugh.
Bronk
-
Since not one collision whiner has ever understood or accepted the explanations given them, regardless of the frequency of attempts, I assume that anyone who whines about the collisions is incapable of comprehending the phenomenon. Therefore, I think it a reasonable recommendation that we all cease trying to make them understand and simply mock them for their unintelligence.
-
:rolleyes: im not sure a jeep would win if it rammed a B-17 going down the runway at 100Mph:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Since not one collision whiner has ever understood or accepted the explanations given them, regardless of the frequency of attempts, I assume that anyone who whines about the collisions is incapable of comprehending the phenomenon. Therefore, I think it a reasonable recommendation that we all cease trying to make them understand and simply mock them for their unintelligence.
Not true. I both understand how they work and accept the explanations.
I only see how having them as they are now creating more problems and arguements then having them is worth
-
Originally posted by FBplmmr
i absolutely love these collision threads!!
player A :- this game needs an apple.
bronk : look an apple!
player A: that is not an apple!
bronk : why yes it is an apple
player A: I see no apple there!
player B : well actually it is indeed an apple
player A : i see no apple
bronk : take a picture and you will see an apple
player A: there will be no apple there ..and further more I refuse to take any pictures
the creator of the world: it is an apple ..and here is why....
player A : there is no apple but other people use the apple unfairly against me ..if it did exist
So accurate . . . :rofl
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Not true. I both understand how they work and accept the explanations.
I only see how having them as they are now creating more problems and arguements then having them is worth
I see no problem having it.
You fly into my plane and go poof..... no problem.
You come to the boards and whine about it ... again no problem.
It's great entertainment either way.
:D
Bronk
-
Exactly, they only make problems for those too stupid to understand both their perceived problem and simple explanations of it as well. Really, I'm a slow learner myself but Bronk's descriptions are so good that my six year old nephew could comprehend them quite easily.
-
LOL .what what i'm hearing is "yes, it's whacked and yes it makes sense" all in one breath *scratches head* all i need to see.. still not perfectly clear why i "lose" 90% of collisions. Seems to me if HT sees a collision by my plane..it would see it on the other.. as for the examples shown... wouldnt both planes likely go down?? lost tail... busted prop.
just thinkin ..let the horse lie..it'll never expain the percentage.
all,thx for the imput!
-
In those pics I see the two planes show different ranges from eachother. At impact one is 64 one is 66. Could that affect the outcome?
-
Collisions happen. Just up another pretend plane and get on with it.
I collided today. Lost every part of my plane. The other guy just flew off. It sucked and I was annoyed for a whole 10 seconds. My squadies listened to my verbal diatribe patiently but what am I going to do? Obviously we came nowhere near each other on his screen otherwise he woulda been down so me whinging about it woulda just looked dumb.
I have never connected with a plane on my screen and not taken damage.
I have never not connected with a plane on my screen and taken damage.
That's personal experience though.
If you're losing 90% of collisions, you're obviously connecting on your screen and therefore it can only be your fault.
-
Seems to me if HT sees a collision by my plane..
HTC servers don't see any collisions, only us players do. Collision detection only happens on your FE (front end). Thats why you *lose collisions* because the other player's FE didn't detect a collision. This is also why it has nothing to do with how good/bad your connection is in regards to whether or not you actually collide with another plane.
Hope that made sense to you. :)
-
well.. i'm a T n B'er collisions happen more often than your 20k cherry pickers..much more often...and even some head on collisions,,i guess my complaint is the percentage i dont survive,,again.,, can't be fixed ,so let it lie.
-
Therefore, I think it a reasonable recommendation that we all cease trying to make them understand and simply mock them for their unintelligence.
Only problem with that is......it's a violation of rule #4. :D
-
Originally posted by Coronado
well.. i'm a T n B'er collisions happen more often than your 20k cherry pickers.
If you only knew how often we 20k cherrypickers collide because we botch our "approach" (= mindless dive onto a low E target) ... :D
-
Originally posted by Lusche
If you only knew how often we 20k cherrypickers collide because we botch our "approach" (= mindless dive onto a low E target) ... :D
I've never done that....no...not me!! :D
-
"Plane A:I hit something..sending data"
"plane B: i didnt hit anything..sending data"
"server: player A: your dead...player B: you are clear,have a nice day"
Such is life.
Like said before..everything collision wise is on YOUR side.
if you hit someone it was because you hit them,period.
the ONLY time i had a collision i couldnt understand is when the other player was warping and i ran into his plane as he warped back in front of me.
again,even tho it was due to lag and situation,the fact still is that I "me,myself" HIT..him.
period.
The situation may change,but the fact is..if you collide..its because you did it.
The REASON the other player doesnt go down in flames is how right would it be if someone hit YOU, and YOU had to suffer because your SIDE said you missed, but his side said you hit.
Then the server would have to get and send a "hey, he realy did hit you,sorry..death for you"
Now imagine makeing a merge and thinking you survived..only about 2-3 seconds later your plane flips out and starts brakeing up.
This is the best way EVER possible.
and ultamitly is like a coin toss for fairness, its ither one guy messes up and bolth die because of it, or bolth mess up and bolth die.
that is fair to me.
because every time i have fell down dead due to a collision it was totaly avoidable.
have a p51 run up your tailpipe and watch the dude go down in flames,while MOST of the time you only suffer minor damage if any "and thats WHEN your side agrees with you geting hit"
heck the way i see it, i LOVE this system vs. flying on for a few more miliseconds before haveing some OTHER guys computer DESIDE my life is prime for the takeing because some one else goofed up and hit ME, da heck with that.
Thats as lame man term as i can get it.
Some things are server side,and some are client "you" side.
so its a toss up of whos data is sayin' what first.
back in the old days when net code first started coming out,you could shoot like 5 rounds into someone with a lower ping and because his* computer said he shot first,the death "packet" would automaticly be sent to you.
Imagine shooting a plane or hiting a plane only to have it fly off because HIS computer said he killed you first,or was not even close enough to you to collide.
talk about fealin' raped.
In all reality you should be thanking HTC,5 years ago such tech was unheard of and impossible.
HTC, you do your best and those who know what the best is,you are it.
-
explain the percentage
i am dead serios when i say 90%
-
Originally posted by Coronado
explain the percentage
i am dead serios when i say 90%
you are joking right?
If you hit them you will get damaged 100% of the time. I guess you are saying that 10% of the time you only suffer some damage and can still keep flying.
You hit them, 100% of the time you get damage.
There is no "winning" to it.
What are you havin' problems "getting"?
I'll will try one last time. (I love my sig's)
Once I was flying around and an enemy plane zipped by me a good hundred feet or so away.
From what I saw they were not even close to me. It wasn't a near miss, or any such thing. We were fairly far apart from each other on my Front End.
As they flew past I saw a SYSTEM:so and so has collided with you message.
Lookin' back I see said plane floppin' down to the earth with only one wing.
THAT was a collision I "won".
Why did I "win"? Because I never hit them.
On THEIR computer they saw their plane smack into mine, suffered damage (lost wing) and died.
They "lost" the collision (that I never saw)
The only way to "win" is to not hit them like I did. I was never even close to hitting them from my perspective. BUT on the other guys computer we smacked into each other, they lost a wing and died. So they saw us hit, and me fly off undamaged. I saw us fly by each other. THEY SHOULD get damaged. They hit me. I should not get damaged, we never hit.
So when you ram into somebody (100% damage always, quit flying into 'em) and they fly off apparently undamaged, it's because from what they saw, your planes never made contact. They didn't "win" the collision and you "lost", they never collided with you in the 1st place.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Your comment that it's half a collision model proves that you do not. The limitation is the telecommunications infrastructure, and the hardware which composes it. Until computers can transfer and process information at the speed of light, 100% realistic collision modelling is not possible.
The speed of light is too slow. We need it to be faster than the speed of light for it to work on both ends.
Think of it this way, it is at 40-60% of the speed of light right now. If we take it to 100% that still leaves significant lag between, say, somebody in Isreal and somebody in Texas.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The speed of light is too slow. We need it to be faster than the speed of light for it to work on both ends.
Think of it this way, it is at 40-60% of the speed of light right now. If we take it to 100% that still leaves significant lag between, say, somebody in Isreal and somebody in Texas.
They did indeed break the speed of light (http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2000/07/20/speedlight000720.html#skip300x250)
They were able to get a pulse of light to travel 2-300 times faster than the speed of light. (the pulse of light has no mass they said, so this doesn't disprove Einstein, just proves that you can make something w/o mass travel faster than light)
My 1st thought was about them figurin' out how this might apply to the Aces High Collision Model.
(ok not really, but I found this quite cool)
-
These frikkin scientists has nothing sacred. They ever created light pulse with negative speed :O
http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=2544
-
Originally posted by Coronado
explain the percentage
i am dead serios when i say 90%
you tell me
if you collide with a plane you collide with a plane ..if you dont you wont "loose"
(http://www.angustheitchap.com/Angus/Images/crosseyed.jpg)
-
I think everyone can agree on this I hope. Very few like the collision model but is better then what we had or it could be worse.
The only thing I have noticed as far as collisions go. If you get rammed by a vet you know most of the time it is not on purpose and it just happens due to numerous reasons. Most of the collisions I have noticed come from noobs. I say some they are just trying there up most to get the kill. While others seem to thinking about gaming the game to get to the top spot.
Noobs getting High Rank is great and for some it is well heard. But mostly ranking and scoring are overrated.
-
Originally posted by Coronado
explain the percentage
i am dead serios when i say 90%
I can explain :
boolean collisionDetector:: asColided(void){
// Before entering the complex collision computation do a little optimisation trick
if (getUserName() == "Coronado"){
return TRUE;
}
// hush hush code deleted
}
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
In those pics I see the two planes show different ranges from eachother. At impact one is 64 one is 66. Could that affect the outcome?
No.
Only thing that effects collisions is what your front end detects.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Not true. I both understand how they work and accept the explanations.
I only see how having them as they are now creating more problems and arguements then having them is worth
Don't know how you can say that ... we have never had it the "other" way, so there is no way that you can quantify what the response would be if the "other" way was turned on.
Personally, I think if it was the "other" way ... those whines would drown out the current volume of "collision" whines.
-
Originally posted by Coronado
LOL .what what i'm hearing is "yes, it's whacked and yes it makes sense" all in one breath *scratches head* [ all i need to see.. still not perfectly clear why i "lose" 90% of collisions.
The collision model makes perfect sense. If you run into an ac you lose 100% period.
Seems to me if HT sees a collision by my plane..it would see it on the other.. as for the examples shown... wouldnt both planes likely go down?? lost tail... busted prop.
just thinkin ..let the horse lie..it'll never expain the percentage.
Collisions are detected on your pc. HTC server is nothing more than an information hub. Your pc detects a collision ,you go pooof. That information is sent to the server. The sever then sends the info to your opponent. All that takes time thats why there is lag and we all see a slightly different view.
all,thx for the imput!
Originally posted by Coronado
well.. i'm a T n B'er collisions happen more often than your 20k cherry pickers..much more often...and even some head on collisions,,i guess my complaint is the percentage i dont survive,,again.,, can't be fixed ,so let it lie.
Don't hit them you wont collide. You just need to adjust you habits a bit.
There is nothing that needs fixing .
Originally posted by Coronado
explain the percentage
i am dead serios when i say 90%
Because 90% of the time when you fly into the other ac you do fatal damage.
The other 10% you do minor damage and fly away.
There is no winning or losing. When your pc detects a collision it assigns damage according to what part of your ac touched.
Once again look at the pictures posted. Due to lag the other guy can be quite a ways away from you. It's your job to fly to what you see.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Warchief
I think everyone can agree on this I hope. Very few like the collision model but is better then what we had or it could be worse.
I like the collision model. But I took the time to figure out how it works.
It's a very simple solution for the lag issue.
The only 2 conditions could be taken as "unfair".
Orange text on spawning AC.
Again I still understand how it looks from the other guys .
GV collisions.
Same circumstance as above.
Maybe ht could throw out all collision detections that occur on the ground?
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Wes14
:noid
even funnier when ppl manage to crash their planes into my tank(they think it does damage?:rofl
2 days ago I was in a panzer, and some guy in an La5 spots me coming towards their base. So, he strafes me.... nice straight line, and I plastered him with my BB gun. He flies straight into the hull to give me the kill.
So he ups again...IN AN LA5. After one pass dropping his itty bitty bombs, which miss horribly, he...he strafes me.... nice straight line, and I plastered him with my BB gun. He flies straight into the hull to give me the kill.
Some guys just dont learn from experience
-
Unless you have reactions much faster than my own, if the hardware in the PCs is also functioning at the speed of light, the delays involved of transmitting at only the speed of light won't be significant. Of course, it won't be real time, technically, and someone will probably still whine, but it won't tax my brain trying to think about it.
Coronado, keep in mind, it doesn't matter what part of the plane you hit the other guy with, you will get the same collision message. I've had collisions where I've lost only a tailwheel, and others where I simply explode on impact (from slamming directly into a fuselage or taking a wing in the face). So, you aren't winning any collisions, you're just not taking fatal damage in all of them.
-
Originally posted by WMLute
You hit 'em, you gonna get damaged. Period.
Uh no....You don't get damaged "Period". I've had collisions that took me down and i've had some that don't do a lick of damage.
Once i even remember hitting a b24 with my pony (on accident of course) and it took his wing off and I went undamaged.
I think if they are gonna have a collision model then BOTH "planes" should go down.
-
Originally posted by Bucky73
Uh no....You don't get damaged "Period". I've had collisions that took me down and i've had some that don't do a lick of damage.
Once i even remember hitting a b24 with my pony (on accident of course) and it took his wing off and I went undamaged.
I think if they are gonna have a collision model then BOTH "planes" should go down.
Film?
Ohh wait yet again I forget .
They never ever do.
Bronk
-
Bronk....Go watch cartoons or something
Grown ups are trying to have a conversation here.:D
-
90% of all collisions happen in this forum and they ARE avoidable.
-
Originally posted by Bucky73
I think if they are gonna have a collision model then BOTH "planes" should go down.
Well, in this case enjoy going down from collsion when I pass you at a distance of 500ft or even more. You surely won`t whine then, won`t you?
:D
-
Originally posted by Lusche
Well, in this case enjoy going down from collsion when I pass you at a distance of 500ft or even more. You surely won`t whine then, won`t you?
:D
I've been playing 2 years and haven't had that happen and if its happening to you then you might want to get a better connection.
I don't mind going down from a collision....as you should if there is a collision but, as i stated before I don't think EITHER should survive it. :D
-
Originally posted by Bucky73
I've been playing 2 years and haven't had that happen and if its happening to you then you might want to get a better connection.
I don't mind going down from a collision....as you should if there is a collision but, as i stated before I don't think EITHER should survive it. :D
You just don`t understand. The case is described will happen WHEN you get your wish of "both should die".
In this case you would see cons fly at a distance and you will die because on their FE there was a collsion.
-
I think most people don't like collisions. It's easier to blame the "model." The model is, if you don't hit anyone, you don't collide.
I am not sure that everyone realizes the importance of collisions in simulating air combat. If collisions were turned off, there is nothing stopping any dweeb from just flying at you and firing as they fly through your plane. The second is the HO. The risk of a head on shot is collision.
Anyone who has been playing multi-player air combat before AH will know the ways they would compensate for no collisions. Each compensation takes you a bit further away from the goal of simulating real air combat.
One more reality problem with simulated air combat is simulated death. It doesn't hurt, and gets you a new plane faster. Not the same penalty as real life. The unwanted delay between the players view on their monitor is actual helping this problem. Suppose I got mad at some player who was better then me, and I devoted the night to crashing into him. As it works now, it would only kill me, and most likely give my nemisis kills for my death.
Gunner
-
:huh
-
Originally posted by Bucky73
Uh no....You don't get damaged "Period". I've had collisions that took me down and i've had some that don't do a lick of damage.
Once i even remember hitting a b24 with my pony (on accident of course) and it took his wing off and I went undamaged.
I think if they are gonna have a collision model then BOTH "planes" should go down.
You don't seem to be distinguishing between the orange "you have collided" message and the white "so-and-so has collided with you." Orange - you collided in your PC world, therefore you took damage. White - so-and-so collided in his PC world, and he took damage.
The amount of damage depends solely on what the PC decides occupied teh same space with an object. If it was your wing, your wing comes off. If it was your tailwheel, the tailwheel comes off. The former would be catastrophic/fatal damage. The latter would be "flying off scott free" insofar as collisions go. But notice "scott free" really isn't - it is merely non-fatal.
-
Ok so then tell me again how your connection would have no effect(as Lute promises) on how your computer "decides" what occupied what at a certain time. If you have a warpy laggy connection then aren't you gonna "win" (for lack of a better word) more collisions?
I'm not tryin' to be a wizeprettythang here either.....I'm curious:D
-
Originally posted by Bucky73
Ok so then tell me again how your connection would have no effect(as Lute promises) on how your computer "decides" what occupied what at a certain time. If you have a warpy laggy connection then aren't you gonna "win" (for lack of a better word) more collisions?
I'm not tryin' to be a wizeprettythang here either.....I'm curious:D
Get rid of that "win" word... It seems you are still not grasping that there are TWO relalities in this game:
- One on your opponents computer
- One on yours
How much these "realities" differ depends on the combined lag of both participants. (And don't confuse lag & warping - Everybody has lag, but not everybody is warping. Warping occurs not because of lag but because the connection is unstable).
If I have a bigger lag, the combined total lag is bigger too, so it does affect both you and me in exactly the same way.
How much these realities differ is depending of that total lag.
If, in the reality on YOUR computer, a collision occurs, you take damage. It's very simple, your computer has not do "decide" anything, especially not "who's fault" it was or other misconceptions.
If, in the reality on MINE computer, a collision occurs, you take damage.
-
i was flying last night and i was doing a b24 run on there HQ sense it was real close, dropped my eggs and was RTB when i spoted a 262 comming in on me very fast.
now this is the point where i usually get shot down but for some god saken reason i shot the 262 down with my belly guns as he flew under me, i think to myself WOW i got lucky for once and a 262 to boot so i continued to fly home, when im almost home i see a 163 bearing down on me so i'm thinking well im toast now sense the 262 got my engines smoking.
He made his first pass and he killed one of my drones on his second pass i pinged him then got the "insert name here" has collided with you. then i see you have shot "insert name here down" he took enough of my wing off to where i ended up crashing. dont get me wrong here im not mad at the collision after all its a game, but i was curious as to how many perks i would have gotten if i would of landed and not crashed, guess i'll never know but it was fun never the less just the first time i have ever shot down a 262 and a 163 before:D
-
Originally posted by Bucky73
Ok so then tell me again how your connection would have no effect(as Lute promises) on how your computer "decides" what occupied what at a certain time. If you have a warpy laggy connection then aren't you gonna "win" (for lack of a better word) more collisions?
I'm not tryin' to be a wizeprettythang here either.....I'm curious:D
Take a look at the pictures Bronk posted near the beginning of this thread. They are essentially at the same moment of "game time", and you see the difference in perception between Bronk's "reality" on his PC and his opponent's "reality". Bronk's "reality" shows the collision. Bronk takes damage. The opponent's "reality" does not show a collision. In fact, they are separated by a good margin. The opponent therefore did not collide, and does NOT take damage.
The difference in space is caused by internet lag.
-
Thanks guys, It's starting to make sense to me now. Thanks for the help:aok
I'm not exactly what you would call a computer whiz:D
-
Originally posted by Bucky73
Ok so then tell me again how your connection would have no effect(as Lute promises) on how your computer "decides" what occupied what at a certain time. If you have a warpy laggy connection then aren't you gonna "win" (for lack of a better word) more collisions?
I'm not tryin' to be a wizeprettythang here either.....I'm curious:D
ok, I just deleted my huge arse post.
looks like you are "getting" it now.
-
Originally posted by Bucky73
Thanks guys, It's starting to make sense to me now. Thanks for the help:aok
I'm not exactly what you would call a computer whiz:D
Glad the adults dumbed it down enough for you.
:rofl :rofl
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bucky73
Ok so then tell me again how your connection would have no effect(as Lute promises) on how your computer "decides" what occupied what at a certain time. If you have a warpy laggy connection then aren't you gonna "win" (for lack of a better word) more collisions?
I'm not tryin' to be a wizeprettythang here either.....I'm curious:D
Maybe this will help.
You are playing the game on your computer. The other guy is playing the game on his computer. There are no other players around. The entire game resides on your system.
What the HTC servers are doing is relaying relative locations and identities of other players/planes so that your computer can assemble the data correctly giving you opponents to play against.
As you come up against another player, the other players computer transmits locational data to the HTC servers which, in turn relay that data to you and others. Your computer is simultaneously transmitting data to the HTC servers which is forwarded to the other player(s).
Because of internet lag, the time it takes to relay that information differs slightly between you and the other player. In addition, HiTech has developed a "smoothing program" that minimizes time variences between information packets coming into your system which gives you smooth, rather than choppy gameplay (information tranfer rates across the Internet vary from moment to moment).
All the while this is happening, you are flying on your computer in real time with no delay/lag as is your opponent.
When you see a collision on your screen he may not as the information being transmitted to him may be faster or slower, therefore he sees a near miss, not a collision. You are reacting to the information transmitted to you (collision) while he is reacting to the information sent to him (which results in a near miss).
Because you collided, you suffer the damage. Because he didn't, he doesn't get damage.
In essence you are both chasing each others tails (meaning like the tails on a comet) because by the time the information on your position is transmitted to your opponent, you've already moved forward and vice versa. The length of your "comet tails" is dependent on your connections and on the Internet as a whole.
I hope I got that mostly correct.
-
ok .. sounds like we got it all cleared up now...
meet back here in a couple of weeks?;)
I'm late for the bi weekly hotard, spitladweeb, base stealing, uber ack, change the arena back, and he hurt my feelings on 200 thread.
-
Boy Bronk,
You sure are a funny....Impressive how you can come in here and make a smart *** post on about any topic. If your trying to be cute....it's not working so you can save it.:D
Don't even bother posting another one of your great comebacks either because you are on my squelch list.:aok
-
I find it funny , I'm the guy who takes the time to round up a willing participant.
Upload both film (previous threads) and screen shots (this thread).
I then am told to let the adults talk?!!??!
But when I make my own smart remark, I'm the bad guy for it?
Mehh.. as long as people start getting it, I guess it's all good.
Bronk
-
and still Ive never heard a good answer to how my straight and level buffs get hit by a dora thats way out of control and i get the "u have collided" message along with all the damage as he flys away...
If this is possible than it IS possible to intentionally ram without taking any damage...NO?
I dont see how my end could see anything but him ramming me if ive been on auto for 5 minutes cruising level... and if thats the case than lag seems to hold a major adv/disadv for one of the players.
just sayin
-
jaxxo,
You rammed the front of his Fw190D-9 with the side of your B-24. Don't do that.
Your error is you are trying to assign fault to something that there is no fault for.
All that is happening is that the collision happened on your FE. On his FE he probably passed a few hundred feet in front of your B-24s.
-
Jaxxo on his front end it probably looked like he dove past.
In order for a person to intentionally collide. They would have to put their ac in a point in space that's equal to your lag time and his.
Think about that for a sec. We all have a different lag time. This depends on how far we are form HTC
In order for a player to intentionally collied they would need.
1. Knowledge of who the target is.
2. what their targets ping time is
3. what their own ping time is
4 what speed the enemy ac is
With all that info they would then have to figure out how physically far ahead from whats displayed.
How far does an ac travel at x speed at y delay ?
Then fly to that point in space ahead of the displayed ac.
Ohh and hope they don't turn.
Yea intentional ramming sound very ez to do.
Bronk
-
Jaxxo, that exact same thing happend to me on Sunday night in the HARM mission. I was flying straight and level and all of a sudden I lose a wing and one of my bombers is down and a 190 flies away underneath me unscathed. Got a "You have collided" and so and so has shot you down. Only reason it bothered me was because that plane had ammo left in the tailgun :mad:
-
OK, I've explained this as well as I can understand it above but, I still have a couple of questions.
Question 1: Tonight I did a little off-line test. I flew up and hit one of the drones wing to wing intentionally. I lost half a wing, the drone flew on without any damage. Off-line there is no Internet lag. Shouldn't we both have suffered damage? You can't use the he sees she sees theory to explain that as it's all on my FE. Something's still amiss.
Question 2: Lets say you're flying in combat against another plane and and you're on his six firing. You hit. You see sprites, he hears hits and takes damage. If all of the above is true, why dont you sometimes see sprites while he doesn't hear any hits and thus takes no damage... Never mind, I figured that one out on my own while typing it. I see sprites, transmit the data and he goes down but still hears the final hits after he's already in the tower. If thats the case why don't they program it to make sure you hear all of the hits before towering out though?
-
Originally posted by BaldEagl
OK, I've explained this as well as I can understand it above but, I still have a couple of questions.
Question 1: Tonight I did a little off-line test. I flew up and hit one of the drones wing to wing intentionally. I lost half a wing, the drone flew on without any damage. Off-line there is no Internet lag. Shouldn't we both have suffered damage? You can't use the he sees she sees theory to explain that as it's all on my FE. Something's still amiss.
Off-line drones also fly around with nothing left but the cockpit and on fire.
Don't think you can use them for testing.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by BaldEagl
OK, I've explained this as well as I can understand it above but, I still have a couple of questions.
Question 2: Lets say you're flying in combat against another plane and and you're on his six firing. You hit. You see sprites, he hears hits and takes damage. If all of the above is true, why dont you sometimes see sprites while he doesn't hear any hits and thus takes no damage... Never mind, I figured that one out on my own while typing it. I see sprites, transmit the data and he goes down but still hears the final hits after he's already in the tower. If thats the case why don't they program it to make sure you hear all of the hits before towering out though?
One thing I have seen is I would light up my opponent, and litterally SEE their tail end fall off. I would fly off, look back and they have their tail end and are still flying.
Hmmm....
I assumed my FE sent "blew nme tail off" info to the HTC server, which then sent it to my opponents FE, and their FE sent back "no you didn't, just an elevator" to the HTC server, which then sent "t'was just a flesh wound" back to my FE or some such thing.
I'm just postulating though. I could be wrong here.
-
Originally posted by BaldEagl
OK, I've explained this as well as I can understand it above but, I still have a couple of questions.
Question 2: Lets say you're flying in combat against another plane and and you're on his six firing. You hit. You see sprites, he hears hits and takes damage. If all of the above is true, why dont you sometimes see sprites while he doesn't hear any hits and thus takes no damage... Never mind, I figured that one out on my own while typing it. I see sprites, transmit the data and he goes down but still hears the final hits after he's already in the tower. If thats the case why don't they program it to make sure you hear all of the hits before towering out though?
In theory, you should hear those hits. Something about people complaining about not hearing the round that killed them, resulted in having to hear the round(s) that killed you, after you're dead. If you're really laggy, you'll have the pleasant experience of being killed again when you reup.
-
Originally posted by WMLute
One thing I have seen is I would light up my opponent, and litterally SEE their tail end fall off. I would fly off, look back and they have their tail end and are still flying.
Hmmm....
I assumed my FE sent "blew nme tail off" info to the HTC server, which then sent it to my opponents FE, and their FE sent back "no you didn't, just an elevator" to the HTC server, which then sent "t'was just a flesh wound" back to my FE or some such thing.
I'm just postulating though. I could be wrong here.
My experience has always been just the opposite . . . For example, I will light a guy up as he crosses my path, and it looks as if it didn't do anything. Then suddenly (or should I say "finally") after about a quarter second, his tail falls off. It took that quarter second for my PC to transmit to his that I hit him, his PC to say, "ok, my tail is now gone" and transmit that fact back to me, and then for my PC to display that received information visually.
I have never witnessed a plane 'regrow parts' as you describe, only the delay in losing them.
-
Its "possible" that when you shot, the packet that tells the other guy "hey your tail is shot off" got lost someplace in transit.
In that case, since he never received the information, he didn't lose anything.
From what I've seen in some 6 years of flying AH thats almost always a case of packet loss someplace. Then again sometimes the packet arrives late, and about the time your going at him again he goes BANG and blows up.
Causing me to swear as I wasted precious ammo on an already dead plane.
On a positive note, I caught a show on tv where they were testing a new laser transmision method from space. They said when it was working right you could download the entire library of congress in seconds. Hundreds of times faster than anything wired or fiberoptic. Bad news was that of course in bad weather, clouds data could be lost, scrambled, or no connection available.
-
I will post the same reply to this thread as I always have done.
Definition
an accident resulting from violent impact of a moving object; "three passengers were killed in the collision"; "the collision of the two ships resulted in a serious oil spill"
If a collision occurs BOTH PARTIES should take EQUAL Damage.
That way there can be no whining, cos we all know it takes TWO to tango.
-
Originally posted by 5tu4rt
I will post the same reply to this thread as I always have done.
Definition
an accident resulting from violent impact of a moving object; "three passengers were killed in the collision"; "the collision of the two ships resulted in a serious oil spill"
If a collision occurs BOTH PARTIES should take EQUAL Damage.
That way there can be no whining, cos we all know it takes TWO to tango.
And we all know you did not understand how & why the things work the way they do...
It does NOT take TWO. Like several people explained several times:
You can avoid the collsion on your FE, while on my FE we collide. Your really want to go down even though you were able to dodge my ram on your computer????
EDIT: Yes I know, it`s futile... this whole thread is stuffed with explanations, vids and screenshots.. and still kids refuse to read & think about it, close their eyes, stomp their feet and yell "But I don`t want it that way!!!"
-
I am not a kid by any means and I knew someone would post that kind of reply, I'm glad you did.
The fact that there is latency at 1 persons Front End and not the others is an argument in iteself why the whole collision thing should be ditched.
Next time you post a reply try not to lower youself to personal attacks, it just takes weight from your argument.
Secondly: Last time i looked it did take 2 "bodies" to collide. Otherwise theres no collision. Now I'm just being pedantic. Hope it satisfies your need to flame me more.
Thanks
-
Originally posted by 5tu4rt
I am not a kid by any means and I knew you or someone similar would post this, I'm glad you did.
The fact that there is latency at 1 persons Front End and not the others is an argument in iteself why the whole collision thing should be ditched.
Misconception. Everybody has latency. Always. It`s simply the time a packet of data needs to travel fom A to B.
And perhaps you want to take the time to answer my question from above:
"You can avoid the collsion on your FE, while on my FE we collide. Your really want to go down even though you were able to dodge my ram on your computer????"
-
Most probably he want to fly right through enemy plane just because other pilot turn away and dont collided. Will never happen, fortunately.
-
*Reposted because some people probably skipped past.
5tu4rt this is the best I can due to visualize total lag times.
Tangle's external from his front end the moment of impact.
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n277/1bronk1/Tanglesview.jpg)
Same basic angle external, tangle's view from my front end moment of impact.
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n277/1bronk1/myview.jpg)
How would you feel taking damage looking at your film and seeing tangles front end view, hmmmmmm?
I know I'd be pretty POed.
This also works nicely for the "none should take damage" people.
Yea I should be able to put the nose of my ac through another.:furious :furious :furious :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
In AH only takes 1 to collide.
Bronk
Edit: Everyone has a lag time. Electronic signals take time to travel a set distance. That's what lag is. Total lag is between you htc and your opponent/s.
-
I've been paying particular attention to these collision threads, and until now, I didnt clearly understand them. Now I get it. It makes sense, thanks to Bronk for the pics, they are what cleared everything up.
In my own words:
If my computer sees a collision, I die (or suffer damage).
If my opponents computere sees a collision, he dies (or takes damage).
If both computers see a collision both parties take damage (or die).
-
Originally posted by Coshy
I've been paying particular attention to these collision threads, and until now, I didnt clearly understand them. Now I get it. It makes sense, thanks to Bronk for the pics, they are what cleared everything up.
In my own words:
If my computer sees a collision, I die (or suffer damage).
If my opponents computere sees a collision, he dies (or takes damage).
If both computers see a collision both parties take damage (or die).
:aok
Exactly. What I think confuses some is when you don't see a collisions, and the opponent does, and vs. versa.
The whole "both should take damage if one sees it" people show me that they don't understand how colllisions work in AH. If HTC did that (shudder) it would be utter chaos.
A pilot on a sattellite connection would fly by you 2K out and you will suddenly explode from the collision "they" saw.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
*Reposted because some people probably skipped past.
........
Bronk, that post is definitely sticky material. Maybe even included with the next game update.
Every new collision thread should be immediately locked with a link to this post. (Along with a picture of Betsy)
-
Bronk I do understand totally how it works. Thanks thought for the pictures.
My point is in flight if there was an air to air collision there would be 2 parties involved.
In game this obviously cannot be simulated due many variables including connection speed etc. Therefore why bother using a collision model in the first place ??
I seem to recall part of the whole collision thing when it was first introduced was to try to reduce the amount of HO'ing or at least that was how it was perceived by some players. In actual fact I'm not sure there has been any reduction in HO'ing.
With regards to the collision model I am totally fine with it, I understand its principle perfectly and how it is modelled. I am just trying to see things out of the box with regards to this particular question.
Thanks for all the pictures and input and clearly it will help people understand.
Finally Lusche you need to make your arguments a little less personal, and with regards to me going down if I don't see a RAM on my front end buy you hit me on your Front End. I can't say this any simpler, by definition a collision involves 2 bodies 2 parties whatever you want to call it, if that cannot be simulated then don't try to simulate it.
On a last note. Bronk or some senior guy/poster would it be possible to test the collision model under LAN conditions? I'm just curious about how it would perform under LAN settings rather than over the net.
Just a thought :)
-
"The whole "both should take damage if one sees it" people show me that they don't understand how colllisions work in AH. If HTC did that (shudder) it would be utter chaos."
I think the biggest problem is the collision model itself...not that people cant understand it. The fact that you defenders of it "get it" is meaningless...its garbage. When i flew on sattelite connection I won about 90 percent of all my collisions without taking any damage. This pretty much gave me alot of freedom in my ACM"S knowing that i would rarely lose a collision.
-
"by definition a collision involves 2 bodies 2 parties whatever you want to call it, if that cannot be simulated then don't try to simulate it."
Amen brother!!!!!!!!
:aok
-
Originally posted by jaxxo
When i flew on sattelite connection I won about 90 percent of all my collisions without taking any damage. /B]
You did fly away unharmed when getting the "YOU have collided" message 90% of the time? Show us the films...
Till that day I say: Complete nonsense!
And once again: The lag is the combined TOTAL lag of both you and your opponent. As the HTC server does not decide anything, you gain or lose nothing from having a bigger lag. If I have a lag of 80 and you have one of 500, the total lag is 580 and it's the same for both of us, and we both have to deal with it's implications in exactly the same way.
-
I was accused of ramming. Is there such a thing - where your opponant is damaged but you are not? I was flying an A6M2 against a Hurri. we had what looked like a close call on my end. I received a message; "CoorsLT collided with you." or some such. He went down, I got a kill.
He re-upped, and flew back to me and said, "Here I come, just don't ram me this time."
This irked me because a) it implies that I intentionally hit his airplane with mine, which I did not, and b) I didn't hit his plane AT ALL from what I saw on my end.
This is not the first time I've heard this accusation bandied about the arenas.
The only manuver anything like this that I've seen is the case where one aircraft gets ahead of another and chops throttle and dirties up causing the following enemy to collide with the one in front, taking damage while the one in front dives away unhurt.
-
Originally posted by Connery
...
My point is in flight if there was an air to air collision there would be 2 parties involved....
snip
Jaxxo, you voiced similar concerns. I can see where you guys are coming from, but consider these points:
1) In an AH collision, two "bodies" ARE involved. One is your plane, and the other is a game generated image of an aircraft, whose AI is being provided by an opponent human hundreds of miles away
The entire game you play is on YOUR computer, and YOU are in control of events.
Now, on YOUR computer, when YOU collide you have done so by hitting the plane YOU see on your front end. That is your "reality", and the outcomes you see are entirely determined by what happens on your machine. And yes, when you collide you have done so by hitting another object. Two planes have collided.
2) Due to distances involved, we can't have both front ends see the same thing. The question is -- how can we best deal with this reality, with least impact on game play, realism, and fun?
A)Both planes die. For reasons outlined well above, this would truly suck. Your death would be determined by the behavior of others, for one thing. Even if you played the situation exactly right, and say were lining up for the kill shot, the enemy could kamikaze and make sure you went with him. It MIGHT be realistic if we had only one life, and their was a cost to dying, but it wouldnt be fun at all. {b]net effect[/b] - worsened gameplay, with punishment inflicted on those with ACM and gmaeplay rewards for dweeby behavior.
B) Neither plane dies. SOunds attractive at first, but the gameplay effects would be horrendous. Since there'd be no penalty for colliding, unrealistic flight paths would be positivelyh rewarded. You think HO's are bad now? What do you think theyd be like if you couldnt hit the other plane at all? The game would be dramatically more arcade like, and less realistic, because the disincentive for getting too close would be gone.
C) Only the collider takes damage That's what we have now.
Of those 3 choices, I like what we have the best, by far. (Almost) all collisions are under my control -- what I do determines if I hit or not. Yeah, I can be an innocent bomber and find an enemy zooming into me -- like that didnt happen in real life?
In general though, iits simple: if I don't allow enough safe distance for the other idiots on the road to do their stupid stuff, then I risk colliding. If I do, then I'm fine.
Can you honestly say that the alternatives would give players incentives to play better than th current system?
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
I was accused of ramming. Is there such a thing - where your opponant is damaged but you are not? I was flying an A6M2 against a Hurri. we had what looked like a close call on my end. I received a message; "CoorsLT collided with you." or some such. He went down, I got a kill.
....
A while back, a couple vets went to DA to try this -- "Make me run into you, force me to RAM."
Turns out its impossible, unless you're flying pure 180 degree courses.
So, if someone collides with you, it was entirely his fault. Period.
-
Originally posted by Connery
Bronk I do understand totally how it works. Thanks thought for the pictures.
My point is in flight if there was an air to air collision there would be 2 parties involved.
In game this obviously cannot be simulated due many variables including connection speed etc. Therefore why bother using a collision model in the first place ??
Why do we wave a collision model ?
So you can't fly though a plane firing guns.
How would you feel if you were a buff driver?
I could take a 262 fly 500 mph slash attacks through your buffs, without a care of running into them.
No worries of convergence , don't have to lead the target. Just wait till I'm inside and squeeze the trigger.
That's just the beginning of the chaos that would ensue.
Bronk
-
I've been in a few collision. Both of us turning, flapping, throttling our arses off. Both pilots make turn- collision message.
I've been run into on purpose, when a base was being taken, the defender was out of bullets, so he crashed into me for defense of the base.
It happened in reality, it's also part of the game.
Oz
-
Originally posted by jaxxo
"The whole "both should take damage if one sees it" people show me that they don't understand how colllisions work in AH. If HTC did that (shudder) it would be utter chaos."
I think the biggest problem is the collision model itself...not that people cant understand it. The fact that you defenders of it "get it" is meaningless...its garbage. When i flew on sattelite connection I won about 90 percent of all my collisions without taking any damage. This pretty much gave me alot of freedom in my ACM"S knowing that i would rarely lose a collision.
No, I still don't think you are quite grasping it. With a crappy connection, where you view yourself and where others view you are farther apart than those with faster connections. HiTech once described it as each plane dragging a target on a rope. You see your own plane, but everyone else's targets. They see your target, not your actual plane. The length of the rope is determined by the combined lag / ping time. So a crappy connection means a longer rope. A faster connection time means a shorter rope.
What this means is, mutual collisions are more difficult one player has a large lag time. If both players have short lag times, mutual collisions are more likely.
Your perception of "winning" 90% of the collisions just means you were keeping your distance from their target (as you should), and they did not. So you were getting the "opponent has collided with you" message, they were taking damage. Your PC did not perceive the collision, so you did not collide, and did not take damage.
If you really are trying to claim you were actually flying through enemy planes without taking damage, then, sorry, I have to be with Lusche and Bronk and say, post a film and prove it. Otherwise I have to say your perception was wrong.
-
I have already made my feelings clear on the subject, as I said I don't really have a problem per say with the collision model.
I am just bringing up arguments which I feel are valid.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion you know.
For me this thread is closed
-
I spent an hour or so in the DA with Kev many months ago, we were trying to ram each other. It's really, really hard to deliberately ram someone. Anyone who says "You rammed me on purpose" is a fool. Sure it's annoying and a sad way to end a flight but accidents happen.
-
Originally posted by Connery
I have already made my feelings clear on the subject, as I said I don't really have a problem per say with the collision model.
I am just bringing up arguments which I feel are valid.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion you know.
For me this thread is closed
IMO
Basing your opinion on feeling, rather than a logical solution to a problem is silly.
You do have a problem with the collision model.
You want the AC you run into on your front end to take damage.
Even if on his he avoided and was not near you.
Why can't people get it, each person has their own little reality of AH.
You have to fight to what is presented to you.
Due to the speed constraints of electronic signals, I can't fight to what you see.
Bronk
-
Just curious...does the "Ammunition Collision" model work the same way?
-
Do you mean the gunnery model?
-
Originally posted by Cyg
Just curious...does the "Ammunition Collision" model work the same way?
IIRC
If you get hit sprites on an AC. That info is sent to the enemy. His front end then determines damage. Say damage is the equivalent of his wing being shot off.
The enemy's wing falls off on his front end, that info is sent to you.
Your front end then displays his wing falling away.
Taking damage from a collision is all done on your front end.
You collide.
Damage is tabulated.
Your wing falls off
PM is sent to the person you collided with.
He watches your wing fall off.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by TinmanX
I spent an hour or so in the DA with Kev many months ago, we were trying to ram each other. It's really, really hard to deliberately ram someone. Anyone who says "You rammed me on purpose" is a fool. Sure it's annoying and a sad way to end a flight but accidents happen.
Very true....If someone can steer their "plane" into yours then they sure as hell can get their gunsites on you.:aok
If someone says "you rammed me"....Consider it a compliment because it is extremely hard to ram on purpose.:D
-
It seems to be a lot easier to just shoot the other guy. I wind up in a lot of collisions (poor SA, drunk, HOing noobs in a furball, etc etc), and it doesn't seem all that easy to induce one and fly off without getting shot in the process (or colliding on your FE). I think all that "he rammed me on purpose" stuff is easily attributed to people misunderstanding the messages.
-
Hadn't thought about any of this at all until the other night when I was rammed, got the message "so and so collided with you" in white. I lost a wing, he was undamaged and flew away.
I assumed the collider got the damage but it wasn't that case.
I could care less in the end because i always get a new plane, but it went against what I understood as to how things worked.
I did not see his guns firing so I don't believe he shot my wing off in the process of the ram.
-
I can see how its confusing when the message in white says that someone else has collided with your plane implying the ram was not your fault but you seem to take all the damage not them.
Change the messages to "A Collision Has Occurred" dont try and explain who collided with who and the arguments are over.
Just a thought
-
Originally posted by Bronk
IMO
Basing your opinion on feeling, rather than a logical solution to a problem is silly.
Bronk
Bronk you are taking things too literally.....perhaps something is lost in the translation, when someone here says they are making their feelings clear it means the same as expressing their views.
Hope that clears things up.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Hadn't thought about any of this at all until the other night when I was rammed, got the message "so and so collided with you" in white. I lost a wing, he was undamaged and flew away.
I assumed the collider got the damage but it wasn't that case.
I could care less in the end because i always get a new plane, but it went against what I understood as to how things worked.
I did not see his guns firing so I don't believe he shot my wing off in the process of the ram.
Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean he wasn't firing.
I've been shot down by planes that passed my me a half second before. . . "Whew, he missed. HEY!!!"
And don't think that a collision must be fatal. He flew away, but I guarantee he wasn't undamaged if he collided. The damage may have been too minor for you to see (see tailwheel example), but he took damage nonetheless.
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl all those pictures of beating dead horses
-
See Rule #10