Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Steve on July 18, 2008, 01:16:33 AM
-
The worse aspect of an otherwise wonderful game. A tempy jams on the brakes in front of me, causes the collision, I go down... he flies off unscathed. Hitech, fix the code. If I take damage, he has to take damage, dammit. :mad:
-
If I take damage, he has to take damage, dammit. :mad:
I'd have to agree with that. :uhoh
-
<insert beating dead horse image here>
-
<insert beating dead horse image here>
Make it a dead pony.
-
After so many years in game you should know that this isn't fixable and indeed works as intended. ;)
Hitech, fix the code. If I take damage, he has to take damage, dammit. :mad:
You are aware that this would of course also work the other way? An enemy plane passing you at a distance of 100 yards, and you suddenly go down because of a collision that never happened on your screen? - That's exactly what you would get with "both take damage"
My old pictures. Both showing the exact the same moment, taken from each players screen:
P-51 Player's View.
(http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/2236/rammyfeve9.jpg)
P-47 Player's View.
(http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/9027/ramotherfeen9.jpg)
Collision happened only on P-51 player's screen. Only Pony took damage. Fair deal.
No one came ever up with a better solution for the fact that internet data travel & processing is not instant.
-
So, its the P-47 that has the bad connection?? Alright! That means I don't have to waorry about hitting planes dur to lag on my end! :D
-
So, its the P-47 that has the bad connection?? Alright! That means I don't have to waorry about hitting planes dur to lag on my end! :D
:D
But as there are few popular misconceptions about that stuff, let's pretend you were serious ;) :
Both players had stable connections, pings were ~150ms.
And there is always a difference between two player's "realities" (=what they see on their respective screens). It can be larger or smaller than that you can see in the pics above, but it's depending on both players connections. And no, a low ping does neither helps you in collisions, nor does it put you ad a disadvantage.
-
Steve, as said above it's the internet that's sucking. You can just ignore what the other guy may or may not see.. Just worry about what's on your screen. :)
-
get a wingman on vox fly right alongside him and then ask him how far he sees you away.
I've been parked on his wing for him to say im at 50-60.
Therein lies your answer even playing from the same country when you throw in japanese, australian players there will be an even bigger gap.
I agree it is annoying as hell when they fly off undamaged.
-
<insert beating dead horse image here>
Request granted :aok
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/BeatDeadHorse.gif)
But yes, it sucks...........
-
No way around the collision model. As much as we revile it. One thing I'd like to see fixed however is to make the game unable to blame a bomber for a collision when a fighter is IB in its rear quarters at high speed. Thats just silly, to give the bomber the collide when a 163 runs into its tail at 500 mph.
-
No way around the collision model. As much as we revile it. One thing I'd like to see fixed however is to make the game unable to blame a bomber for a collision when a fighter is IB in its rear quarters at high speed. Thats just silly, to give the bomber the collide when a 163 runs into its tail at 500 mph.
personally, i don't hate it anymore.
i just be sure to stay far enough away that a collision won't happen.
as for giving the buffs gettng hit....whenever i've been flying buffs, i've never taken damage from a collision in a buff. i have, however been awarded numerous kills from guys hitting me though. :D
-
http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/lag/lag.htm
-
No way around the collision model. As much as we revile it. One thing I'd like to see fixed however is to make the game unable to blame a bomber for a collision when a fighter is IB in its rear quarters at high speed. Thats just silly, to give the bomber the collide when a 163 runs into its tail at 500 mph.
You fail to understand collisions in AH and continue to insist on seeing them as you see real life traffic collisions, with an "at fault" person. The sooner you disabuse yourself of this the sooner you'll understand why a great many of us not only don't revile the collision model, but agree whole heartedly with HiTech that it is the best possible solution given how the internet works.
-
I suffered two collisions last night. Both my fault. I was in a P-47D-25 and bounced a Zero. I blew off his tail, he flipped up right into my path.. Bad luck...
Second one was with an F4U. I bounced him with a Mustang, blasted off a wing and the Corsair snap-rolled into me, doing extensive damage. Having a pair of 1k bombs, I was unable to completely evade the demolished F4U. I later augered that same P-51 dive bombing GVs while missing an elevator (I was also missing a flap, oil cooler and radiator from the collision). I had five fighter kills and a Panzer when I plowed up the ground. Again, my fault for diving too fast with a missing elevator. Stupid is as stupid does, I guess.
These things are annoying, but it's best to chuckle at them and go get another aircraft.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Well, based on Lusche's presentation what lag is, wouldn't this be a viable solution to this problem:
Player A : P-51
Player B : P-47
Right now, it works kinda like this:
Player A's front end sees a collision and then goes "boom". Player B's frontend does not see a collision
and he flies on without any damage. Player A is rather upset because only he dies in clear collision, but the other guy does not. Player B just wonders where the guy on his six has dissapeared - or not.
Now, why not make it work like this: "Lag Check"
Player A's front end sees a collision. Player A's frontend sends a request to player B's fronted, asking if it has also seen a collision at that certain timecode. If B's frontend answers "yes", both recieve the appropriate damage. If it says no, than its clear that it is lag, and neither recieve any damage. In that situation player A would see a collision but he would continue his flight, being aware that the "Lag Check" prevented his death. Player B would not notice anything special at all.
Should not be too hard to implement, since information exchage between frontends happens all the time.
And this should also only increase the data transfer by a very little amount, since these checks only need to be performed at closest distances.
-
Well, based on Lusche's presentation what lag is, wouldn't this be a viable solution to this problem:
Player A : P-51
Player B : P-47
Right now, it works kinda like this:
Player A's front end sees a collision and then goes "boom". Player B's frontend does not see a collision
and he flies on without any damage. Player A is rather upset because only he dies in clear collision, but the other guy does not. Player B just wonders where the guy on his six has dissapeared - or not.
Now, why not make it work like this: "Lag Check"
Player A's front end sees a collision. Player A's frontend sends a request to player B's fronted, asking if it has also seen a collision at that certain timecode. If B's frontend answers "yes", both recieve the appropriate damage.
In other words, when there's a collision on both players screen, both take damage. And guess what... that's already happening :)
Not by communication between the two front ends but by the very simple method of "collision on your screen - you take damage"
If it says no, than its clear that it is lag, and neither receive any damage. In that situation player A would see a collision but he would continue his flight, being aware that the "Lag Check" prevented his death. Player B would not notice anything special at all.
And this is where I think most people are using the word "lag" wrongly.
"Lag" is what makes planes jump all over the screen, because of lost and/or greatly delayed packets.
The difference you see in these two pictures is NOT the result of lag. It's the result of latency. Every player has it, it's inherent to the internet. Just the amount is varying.
If you know say "a collision damage shouldn't happen if theres not a collision on both screens at the same time" amounts to basically switching the collisions off.
Look at the pictures again. If your proposal would be implemented the P-51 player would take no damage, even though he deliberately did fly into his enemy on his screen.
The result on gameplay would be quite ugly: No big risk anymore to fly guns blazing through you opponent, especially when your enemy is in bombers.
It all comes down to having basically just three options
A- Nobody gets damaged.
Fly guns blazing through your enemies. No worries about collisions.
b- Both get damaged all the time.
Explode while your enemy is passing you at 100yd. Ramming your opponent now works all the time. Dodging a ram is next to impossible, 'cause you don't know what's happening on your enemies screen
C - If you get get a collision on your screen, you get damage. Checked on every computer.
A compromise. Not a perfect solution, but the best possible way to cope with the underlying and unchangeable problem of latency (After finally getting a clue about how all this is working, I actually thought "Now this is a clever solution, boy!" :D)
Bad things can and will happen here too but much less frequent than with option B, and with much less detrimental impact on gameplay than option A.
-
Lets see, we have a bunch of under aged, and/or inebriated, unlicensed pilots, roaring around with no traffic lights, and they don't even signal when they are going to turn.
...I think a few collisions are likely to occur.
Drive safe everybody! :aok
-
The worse aspect of an otherwise wonderful game. A tempy jams on the brakes in front of me, causes the collision, I go down... he flies off unscathed. Hitech, fix the code. If I take damage, he has to take damage, dammit. :mad:
Steve...... Steve ......Steve If it was me in the temp you would have just shot the crud out of me how come u give this guy a break :devil
-
DAMN IT !!!!! :furious :furious :furious
Lusche is stealing my fun. ;)
-
And this is where I think most people are using the word "lag" wrongly.
"Lag" is what makes planes jump all over the screen, because of lost and/or greatly delayed packets.
The difference you see in these two pictures is NOT the result of lag. It's the result of latency. Every player has it, it's inherent to the internet.
Sorry Lusche, but here you're wrong. Lost packets are completely different issue, packets can get dropped, no matter latency (lag).
Lag is just term for latency.
-
Sorry Lusche, but here you're wrong. Lost packets are completely different issue, packets can get dropped, no matter latency (lag).
Lag is just term for latency.
In computing and especially computer networks, lag (slang) is a symptom where the result of an action appears later than expected. While different kinds of latency are well defined technical terms, lag is the symptom, not the cause.
Latency is the time taken for a packet of data to be sent from onetime for encoding the packet for transmission and transmitting it, the time for that serial data to traverse the network equipment between the nodes, and the time to get the data off the circuit. This is also known as "one-way latency". A minimum bound on latency is determined by the distance between communicating devices and the speed at which the signal propagates in the circuits (typically 70-95% of the speed of light). Actual latency is much higher, due to packet processing in networking equipment, and other traffic.
While strictly every packet experiences lag, the term lag is used to refer to delays noticeable to the user.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lag
-
Which says what I said. Lag=latency=delay
-
Which says what I said. Lag=latency=delay
Ehmm... maybe my english isn't good enough.. but I read from it a differentiation between "ordinary" latency and the phenomenom called "lag" (slang). ;)
And note the very last sentcence: "While strictly every packet experiences lag, the term lag is used to refer to delays noticeable to the user."
But if you know say "splitting hairs"... I can't deny it :D
-
tom-A-to
tom-ahhh-to
:D
-
what you talking bout Dicho..we all know its To-mate-er
-
Ehmm... maybe my english isn't good enough.. but I read from it a differentiation between "ordinary" latency and the phenomenom called "lag" (slang). ;)
And note the very last sentcence: "While strictly every packet experiences lag, the term lag is used to refer to delays noticeable to the user."
But if you know say "splitting hairs"... I can't deny it :D
Well, article is not well written and jumps between the various terms (lag, latency, delay) meaning the same.
But yeah, all it matters in AH is total lag (or latency, or delay).
It also does not matter which term is used, as long as you are consistent in usage.
-
I hope you all realize, that somewhere out there, Sudz has just killed a kitten :eek:
-
Maybe people should listen more to what the instructors teach about "defensive driving" in driving schools.
As it is, the only instance when a collision happens in AH, is when it happens on your FE. So, all you have to do, is to take precautions to avoid it from happening in the first place. If one jumps into combat at such close distances with the enemy that collision becomes a threatening possibility, then it is entirely one's own fault when it does actually happen.
There's a reason why WW2 pilots were instructed to maintain decorum - especially concerning combat distances during dogfights. Collisions were a real threat, and took the life of many people, as it happened both between friendlies and enemies alike. For some reason people conveniently fail to understand that assesing the dangers of collision and its possibility, is as much a "skill" as it is to engage in tight dogfights at such close distances.
So a collision happened - too bad. No one to blame but oneself - nobody forced anyone to approach in a dangerous HO merge, or, engage in such a dangerous knife fight at close quarters.
-
what you talking bout Dicho..we all know its To-mate-er
:rofl :rofl
Indeed
-
Maybe people should listen more to what the instructors teach about "defensive driving" in driving schools.
Word.
I do occasionally die by collisions. 90% of them are clearly my own fault (mostly running into buffs). 10% are of "shithappens" kind during a tight dogfight.
But still that's happening only every few days, even though I play a few hours daily.
And then I see the some (and always the same) guys complaining several times per day about collisions & rams. But of course it can't be their fault... impossible! :rolleyes:
-
Wonder how much whining we would hear if damage was accurate and happened to both aircraft. Imagine the noobs sawing off your tail if the tables were turned and you were defensive. :rofl
"My tail was sawed off and all he lost was a prop. WHINE"
-
See Rules #6, #5
-
Word.
I do occasionally die by collisions. 90% of them are clearly my own fault (mostly running into buffs). 10% are of "poophappens" kind during a tight dogfight.
But still that's happening only every few days, even though I play a few hours daily.
And then I see the some (and always the same) guys complaining several times per day about collisions & rams. But of course it can't be their fault... impossible! :rolleyes:
anyone notice anything in lusches post above here?he dies occasionally. BUT....he doesn't complain. it's part of air combat.
don;t fly right up your targets ass, and you won't take a collision.
simple. problem solved. i need a beer now :aok :noid
-
The worse aspect of an otherwise wonderful game. A tempy jams on the brakes in front of me, causes the collision, I go down... he flies off unscathed. Hitech, fix the code. If I take damage, he has to take damage, dammit. :mad:
Are you serious Steve?
If collisions weren't modeled so that the guy who rammed from behind took the damage, there would be people flying right THROUGH your position shooting, indifferent or even trying to cause a collision, rammers trying to get at buffs or goons when they had no ammo, etc. Alot of overshooting as we know it wouldn't work. "jamming on the brakes" as you call it was done and does work because NOBODY wanted a collision 99% of the time when their life was on the line.
It can seem unfair sometimes, but when you think out all the implications, HTC's way is the best way.
This is the reason why I think we can never go with the option of turning collides off either.
-
Are you serious Steve?
rammers trying to get at buffs
.
This is the reason why I think we can never go with the option of turning collides off either.
YA KNOW WHen i was still really new, i tried that?? i ran outta ammo, and thought.....wtf......ain't no friggin way he's goin home!!!!!
so i lined up real nice and pretty, wep, shallow dive, right into his midsection. and i landed in the tower :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl. worse yet, he DID in fact go home, and thanked me for the free kill on 200
-
It can seem unfair sometimes, but when you think out all the implications, HTC's way is the best way.
No it isn't.
-
No it isn't.
Then, what is it?
-
Then, what is it?
If one FE determines a collision, query the other to see how close it was. Average it out... if it doesn't average to a collision on both FE's, no collision. Calculation wouldn't take any longer than computiong bullet travel. Both planes must either take or not take damage. No other way makes sense.
-
Then we end up with Kamikaze aircraft. :noid
-
If one FE determines a collision, query the other to see how close it was. Average it out...
In other words no collision on both FE's, no damage? If yes... I wouldn't play the horrible game resulting from it.
-
There's only one thing worse than collisions.
Not having them.
-
That still would mean you could still take damage from a collision that never happened on your screen? For example because your dodged it?
I'm pretty sure no one would complain about taking damage that way ;)
The only thing that makes sense is for both planes to take damage or neither take damage.
-
What would 200 look like if someone was landing 6+- kills and was taken out by Kamikaze :O
-
What would 200 look like if someone was landing 6+- kills and was taken out by Kamikaze :O
I fail to understand how this would create a bunch of kamikaze pilots since you can already deliberately ram planes. All you have to do is make sure their FE see a collision too. It's quite simple. Your argument is wrong.
-
The only thing that makes sense is for both planes to take damage or neither take damage.
(ah, quoted me while I was correcting my post)
Actually it doesn't make any sense at all. I real world it would, but not with the techical limitations of internet.
As I stated before:
- Nobody taking damage will result in people just flying gunz blazing through each other
- Both taking damage.. I'm pretty sure nobody would complain about taking dmaage from an enemy rammer he clearly dodged on his screen ;)
See again the screenshots I posted... explain to the P47 pilot why he should have taken damage.
HTC solution is brilliant and as perfect as it can get, until the internet gets faster than light :aok
I fail to understand how this would create a bunch of kamikaze pilots since you can already deliberately ram planes. All you have to do is make sure their FE see a collision too. It's quite simple. Your argument is wrong.
And how do you do that? You don't know what's happening on their FE. You can guess, you can try but you will mostly fail.
"Both damage" would be a guaranteed succes when trying to ram. And worse, with current CM I can doge your ram attempt, because what i see is what i get. With "Both Damage" the rammer has every advantage.
-
(ah, quoted me while I was correcting my post)
Actually it doesn't make any sense at all. I real world it would, but not with the techical limitations of internet.
As I stated before:
- Nobody taking damage will result in people just flying gunz blazing through each other
-
uhh, you didn't read or comprehend what I said about computing collisions. I NEVER said they should be off.
-
uhh, you didn't read or comprehend what I said about computing collisions. I NEVER said they should be off.
You should reread my posting. I'm talking not onyl about nobody damage, I discuss both "alternatives".
-
You should reread my posting. I'm talking not onyl about nobody damage, I discuss both "alternatives".
Well your guns blazing text has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Nothing.
-
If one FE determines a collision, query the other to see how close it was. Average it out... if it doesn't average to a collision on both FE's, no collision. Calculation wouldn't take any longer than computiong bullet travel. Both planes must either take or not take damage. No other way makes sense.
What would be acceptable average distance for both parties to take damage?
-
Well your guns blazing text has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Nothing.
:rofl
I'm not solemny talking to and about you. While I do adress your "fix" I also take the liberty to discuss the other frequently proposed "alternative" (no damage). Yes, two different variants covered in one posting.
-
What would be acceptable average distance for both parties to take damage?
Now we're getting somewhere! Good question. I think you'd have to know more than what I know as far as average latency, typical distance differences in both FE's, etc.
-
:rofl
I'm not solemny talking to and about you. While I do adress your "fix" I also take the liberty to discuss the other frequently proposed "alternative" (no damage). Yes, two different things variants coveredin one posting.
Oh, so you were hijacking... carry on. :)
-
Oh, so you were hijacking... carry on. :)
Nope. I was straight on topic "Collisions".
-
Nope. I was straight on topic "Collisions".
I'm done with you.
-
I'm done with you.
:rofl
-
What would be acceptable average distance for both parties to take damage?
ok.........
in the arenas, sooo many people game the game.
that is what will cause the problems if everyone in a collision takes damage. think about it.
if valdals knows for fact that if he rams me, regardless of what i'm in, and that i'll take damage, then he's going to try like all hell to hit me. even if he knows that he'll take damage too, what if i'm shot up enough that his collision with me creates enough damage for my wing to come off?
as it is now, for the most part, you hit them, you take damage. THAT is a good incentive to fight, rather than ram.
if the modeling were to be changed, all you'd get would be rmtards. look at base defense. they'd come up, ram ya, doing enough damage that you're outta the fight. it'll take you 10 minutes to get back to the fight. all he has to do is to re-up.
see the point? it may not be perfect. it may not always work well. but it is actually the best solution to this problem.
it's REALLY not that hard to avoid hitting your intended victem. on occasion you'll get hit, but it's still just a game.
i actually think it should go a step farther, and friendly collisions should be turned on too. that would prevent you having 3-6 bogies on our direct six as you try to get outta dodge.
-
ok.........
.
if the modeling were to be changed, all you'd get would be rmtards.
Where can I get a crystal ball so I can know the future as well?
-
All that matters is what you see on your computer. If there's contact, there should be a collision.
Your front-end shows you a scene from the virtual world. It sends that slice of life across the ether to HTC's servers, where it gets sent back through the ether to everyone else's front-end who is within a preset distance to where you would have any influence in their little slice of life. Their front-end processes that info and determines where you were at the time your front-end sent the info. Then, their front-end has to do the reverse for you to see where they were. The two scenes will never be exactly in sync because we live in a physical universe and there are certain fundamental laws of physics that prevent the type of interaction you wish for. All this has been excellently pointed out numerous times (even with pictures for the ones who can't read well) in this thread.
Geez, it's a game...get over it.
-
i actually think it should go a step farther, and friendly collisions should be turned on too. that would prevent you having 3-6 bogies on our direct six as you try to get outta dodge.
Apart from the obvious spawning problem, that would create the same havoc as if you turn killshooter of.
I don't like you? I'm gonna ram you when you are returning to base with a few kills under your belt.
And you would have to keep a very wary eye on every friendly pliot around - he could be new (hello number dude) or just bad enough at the stick so that he suddenly turns into a big danger for you.
-
it's REALLY not that hard to avoid hitting your intended victem. on occasion you'll get hit, but it's still just a game.
Then it wouldn't be hard to avoid ace pilots either. Or HOers for that matter.
-
we live in a physical universe and there are certain fundamental laws of physics that prevent the type of interaction you wish for.
There is no fundamental law pf physics that is preventing the type of interaction I wish for.... not a single one.
-
And in that reality long long ago the standard tactic was hold triger down and fly threw the other plane.
The next effect was head ons increased drasticly.
The next step was to lower lethality and probabilty of hits when shooting in head ons.
And people did complain. And some disliked stuff so much they went on to create there own flight sims. And as that new company was disccusing collisions the CFO of that company had tried differnet froms of proccsing collisions. 1 side collides both do. 1 side only colides neither do. (He had already played a game with no collisions) And found those 2 new options again completly lacking. And then one day a player named caligula came up with the idea of one way collisions. The CEO that company almost imediatly agreed that cal's way was the only way collisions could be done.
And hence online collisions were born over 10 years ago. So exatly how is your "Opionion" created, have you actualy tried a creating a flight sim with all different option. Have you realy evaluated /tested/ seen the outcome of the different options?
-
Then it wouldn't be hard to avoid ace pilots either. Or HOers for that matter.
exactly!! :aok
-
So exatly how is your "Opionion" created, have you actualy tried a creating a flight sim with all different option. Have you realy evaluated /tested/ seen the outcome of the different options?
A burglar enters your house and shoots you in the stomach. You crawl to the phone and dial 911. The ambulance crew is having a cup of coffee. Should they finish their coffee or should they come right away? I bet you have an opinion.
So exactly how is your "opinion" created? Have you actually tried starting an ambulance company that allows both options? Have you really evaluated/tested/ seen the outcome of the different options?
-
A burglar enters your house and shoots you in the stomach. You crawl to the phone and dial 911. The ambulance crew is having a cup of coffee. Should they finish their coffee or should they come right away? I bet you have an opinion.
So exactly how is your "opinion" created? Have you actually tried starting an ambulance company that allows both options? Have you really evaluated/tested/ seen the outcome of the different options?
:O :huh :huh :huh
-
You fail to understand collisions in AH and continue to insist on seeing them as you see real life traffic collisions, with an "at fault" person. The sooner you disabuse yourself of this the sooner you'll understand why a great many of us not only don't revile the collision model, but agree whole heartedly with HiTech that it is the best possible solution given how the internet works.
Thanks for telling me what "I see" and what I think. No really...thanks.
I dont see them as "real life traffic collisions" and I dont see an "at fault person". When have I said that?
Or maybe I really do "see it that way" in my subconcious and needed a complete stranger on an internet chat room, named Karnak, to see thru my delusions and put me on the path to truth. Its possible.
Traffic collision or not they can just write the code to disable the model when a front end of a fighter makes contact with the rear end of a bomber. The code is written to let airplanes fly thru each other on runways right? So whats the problem?
Regardless of lag and the virtual world the fighter is still flying towards the bomber at high speed, and the bomber is flying away from it. Thats the reality on everyones computer regardless of the lag.
-
A burglar enters your house and shoots you in the stomach. You crawl to the phone and dial 911. The ambulance crew is having a cup of coffee. Should they finish their coffee or should they come right away? I bet you have an opinion.
So exactly how is your "opinion" created? Have you actually tried starting an ambulance company that allows both options? Have you really evaluated/tested/ seen the outcome of the different options?
Umm . . . Steve . . . Lusche just quoted Hitech. I am fairly certain HiTech did, in fact, create a game where he has tried and tested a lot of alternate collision models and decided on the best one.
Don't hit the other plane, you don't collide. Very simple answer, and the best one.
-
Umm . . . Steve . . . Lusche just quoted Hitech. I am fairly certain HiTech did, in fact, create a game where he has tried and tested a lot of alternate collision models and decided on the best one.
Don't hit the other plane, you don't collide. Very simple answer, and the best one.
Your answer has nothing to do with the original post; it's condescending and silly.
You also didn't get the point of my post about the ambulance company so I'll explain it to you. One can have an opinion about an ambulance company without ever having started one. One can have an opinion about game mechanics without ever having designed one. Is this clear enough for you? :rolleyes:
-
I propose a 2k radius hit bubble around us, and whenever anyone enters this, they collide. This would hit two birds with one stone. It would stop collisions, and those nancy boy furballers, thus giving us war winners more resources.
This is a great idea.
-
<insert beating dead horse image here>
(http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh18/stan0420/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg)
ack-ack
-
Your answer has nothing to do with the original post; it's condescending and silly.
You also didn't get the point of my post about the ambulance company so I'll explain it to you. One can have an opinion about an ambulance company without ever having started one. One can have an opinion about game mechanics without ever having designed one. Is this clear enough for you? :rolleyes:
OK, so I was mistaken that you thought Lusche was the one arguing with your opinion.
Instead you have decided to attack HiTech's experience / knowledge about what works and what doesn't head-on.
Good luck with that.
-
All you have to do is make sure their FE see a collision too. It's quite simple.
Their front end shows my vertical stab connecting with their left elevator. Their front end shows my rudder connecting with their horizontal stabilizer.
We both show collisions.
What damage do we take?
Or do we only count collisions when both front ends see the same collision? <-- this will rarely happen.
-
If one FE determines a collision, query the other to see how close it was. Average it out... if it doesn't average to a collision on both FE's, no collision. Calculation wouldn't take any longer than computiong bullet travel. Both planes must either take or not take damage. No other way makes sense.
Look at the pictures Steve. If your FE see's us as colliding, and mine sees us as 60 yards apart, how is it fair that we both die? Or what about 30? And what about guys from Japan and NZ, who at times have as much as a second or more of latency so that they would be as many as several hundred yards apart on one of their FE's when the other registers the collision?
It wouldn't work. There is too much variance in latency. As a result of your "bubble", you'd die randomly from a collision that you didn't even have at times, and yet get away scott free with flying into a plane deliberately at others.
<S>
-
OK, so I was mistaken that you thought Lusche was the one arguing with your opinion.
Instead you have decided to attack HiTech's experience / knowledge about what works and what doesn't head-on.
Good luck with that.
I'll make one more effort with you before writing you off as unable to communicate effectively. My point was to show that one does not have to design a game to have opinions about how things work in it. That's it. If you don't get this, there is no point in attempting to communicate with you any further.
-
Look at the pictures Steve. If your FE see's us as colliding, and mine sees us as 60 yards apart, how is it fair that we both die?
<S>
Well that's where a reasonable distance would have to be established. Like your point, how is it fair if a guy with a good conn shows a collision on his FE due to a guy with a bad conn, then the guy with the bad conn wanders off on his merry way?
-
I'll make one more effort with you before writing you off as unable to communicate effectively. My point was to show that one does not have to design a game to have opinions about how things work in it. That's it. If you don't get this, there is no point in attempting to communicate with you any further.
And my point is that it might be my opinion that a hydrogen bomb would never work, but I would be just as wrong as you are.
The current collision model works just fine.
But since you believe yourself to be such an effective communicator, please explain the logic behind your assertion that someone who keeps his airplane from touching the enemy's airplane should be forced to take damage anyway.
-
But since you believe yourself to be such an effective communicator, please explain the logic behind your assertion that someone who keeps his airplane from touching the enemy's airplane should be forced to take damage anyway.
That's already happening
-
It isn't.
If there is no collision on your screen, you don't get any damage from it. And the only message you will see is "XXX has collided with you".
If I manage to dodge the enemy, I do not take damage from any collision on his screen. I might be shot by him though ;)
again a HT quote:
The proccessing of a collision is realy simple. It is as simple as the following.
if( UserHasCollided())
{
print("You have collided");
SendMessageToOtherUser("Docc has collided with you");
ApplyDamageToPlane();
}
It apears one place only in the code. And it is aboslutly inposible to take damage from a collision with out having the message "You have collided"
Lag and graphics have absolutly no bering on this simple fact. You can not collide with out that message.
So there for if you took damage and did not have that message, there are only 2 other posiblities I can think of.
1. You were shot.
2. You overstresed the plane.
HiTech
-
It isn't.
If there is no collision on your screen, you don't get any damage from it. And the only message you will see is "XXX has collided with you".
If I manage to dodge the enemy, I do not take damage from any collision on his screen. I might be shot by him though ;)
again a HT quote:
it is
-
That's already happening
No, it isn't.
If I keep my plane from touching the other plane, I will not collide, and I will not take damage from it, regardless of whether he collided on his computer or not.
If, however, I let my plane touch the other plane, I will collide, regardless of whether he does also or not.
-
it is
No, it's inpossible.
:D
Quote from: hitech on May 04, 2006, 11:50:38 AM
The proccessing of a collision is realy simple. It is as simple as the following.
if( UserHasCollided())
{
print("You have collided");
SendMessageToOtherUser("Docc has collided with you");
ApplyDamageToPlane();
}
It apears one place only in the code. And it is aboslutly inposible to take damage from a collision with out having the message "You have collided"
Lag and graphics have absolutly no bering on this simple fact. You can not collide with out that message.
So there for if you took damage and did not have that message, there are only 2 other posiblities I can think of.
1. You were shot.
2. You overstresed the plane.
HiTech
If you don't allow your pixels to contact someone else's pixels, you will not get any peanutbutter in your chocolate.
-
Ahh the collision whine. It's the gift that keeps on giving.
Remember folks you will never ever see film where the whiner gets "XXX has collided with you" and takes damage.
All you'll get from the whiner is something like this.
it is
Nothing to back it up just :cry :cry :cry.
-
This thread needs more levity. Soo I lifted this from a previous collision whine thread.
Thanks Fbplmmr :aok
i absolutely love these collision threads!!
player A :- this game needs an apple.
bronk : <holds up an apple> look an apple!
player A: that is not an apple!
bronk : why yes it is an apple <shows a picture of the apple in encyclopedia >
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
Still makes me chuckle. :lol
-
Your answer has nothing to do with the original post; it's condescending and silly.
You also didn't get the point of my post about the ambulance company so I'll explain it to you. One can have an opinion about an ambulance company without ever having started one. One can have an opinion about game mechanics without ever having designed one. Is this clear enough for you? :rolleyes:
your point about the ambulance company is moot.
this is agame. hitech has to find somehting that is some semblance of fair for everyone all around the world. it is hitech's world in the arenas, and we choose to participate, by paying for the service.
the ambulance crew on the other hand isreal life. they cater only to sick/injured parties. you don't get to choose when or why you'll be in their world.
as has been said before in this silly thread......see and avoid. simple huh?
as bad as my gunnery sucks, i still stay far enough away that i don't generally ram my victems.
just exactly why are you so concerned about it anyway? it's a free airplane with free gas, and free flying/fighting.
you go down from ramming someone, just re-up.
-
I'll make one more effort with you before writing you off as unable to communicate effectively. My point was to show that one does not have to design a game to have opinions about how things work in it. That's it. If you don't get this, there is no point in attempting to communicate with you any further.
no one was telling you that ou couldn't have an opinion. they/we were only trying to explain why what you were suggesting would not work.
-
When you are maneuvering alot in close proximity to others maneuvering alot...... it's going to happen. I imagine that collissiion damages average out over a set period. If your plane loses parts... heck you get a new one, FREE!
-
no one was telling you that ou couldn't have an opinion. they/we were only trying to explain why what you were suggesting would not work.
You have no idea what I'm suggesting. I really haven't discussed it yet. Everyone is in such a hurry to insult me for disliking the current model and that's fine. I understand the need for people like Bronk to plant his head between Dale's buttocks as deeply as he can... I don't agree with it, but I understand his need.
In some ways it's a dead horse in that it probably will not change. That doesn't mean we all have to like it.
-
After so many years in game you should know that this isn't fixable and indeed works as intended. ;)
You are aware that this would of course also work the other way? An enemy plane passing you at a distance of 100 yards, and you suddenly go down because of a collision that never happened on your screen? - That's exactly what you would get with "both take damage"
My old pictures. Both showing the exact the same moment, taken from each players screen:
P-51 Player's View.
(http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/2236/rammyfeve9.jpg)
P-47 Player's View.
(http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/9027/ramotherfeen9.jpg)
Collision happened only on P-51 player's screen. Only Pony took damage. Fair deal.
No one came ever up with a better solution for the fact that internet data travel & processing is not instant.
Lusche excuse me here maybe i'm being ultra stupid. but........the timings on the films are different, so how is it exactly the same time.?
-
You have no idea what I'm suggesting. I really haven't discussed it yet. Everyone is in such a hurry to insult me for disliking the current model and that's fine. I understand the need for people like Bronk to plant his head between Dale's buttocks as deeply as he can... I don't agree with it, but I understand his need.
In some ways it's a dead horse in that it probably will not change. That doesn't mean we all have to like it.
And yet still no film?
-
Lusche excuse me here maybe i'm being ultra stupid. but........the timings on the films are different, so how is it exactly the same time.?
Cut-n-paste for teh slooowww types.
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:
Look it over and let it sink in.
2 different films of the same collision. You will have 2 different times stamps on the moment of impact.
-
Lusche excuse me here maybe i'm being ultra stupid. but........the timings on the films are different, so how is it exactly the same time.?
It's exactly the moment when the Pony impacts on the P47. You could notice it on the 47 players film by sudden appearance of smoke from the Pony as well as seeing the "XXX has collided with you message"
Strictly speaking the timing isn't different, just the locations. The time display in the film viewer of course doesn't match because the two players didn't start to film at the same moment.
-
You have no idea what I'm suggesting. I really haven't discussed it yet.
And here I thought you were the expert communicator in here. :D
You said:
If one FE determines a collision, query the other to see how close it was. Average it out... if it doesn't average to a collision on both FE's, no collision. Calculation wouldn't take any longer than computiong bullet travel. Both planes must either take or not take damage. No other way makes sense.
It sure sounds like you either want to have the front plane in bronk's first picture to take damage because the "average distance" was close enough, or you want the back plane in bronk's second picture to get off scott-free, even though he clearly collided with the other plane -- neither of which makes any sense.
-
And here I thought you were the expert communicator in here. :D
You said: It sure sounds like you either want to have the front plane in bronk's first picture to take damage because the "average distance" was close enough, or you want the back plane in bronk's second picture to get off scott-free, even though he clearly collided with the other plane -- neither of which makes any sense.
I briefly mentioned it but didn't bother going into detail because griefers like you wouldn't read it anyway. You think it makes sense that when two planes collide only one should take damage. Then you try to tell me what does and does not make sense. There's no discussing with you and your ilk. There's arguing and ignoring, nothing in between.
-
I briefly mentioned it but didn't bother going into detail because griefers like you wouldn't read it anyway. You think it makes sense that when two planes collide only one should take damage. Then you try to tell me what does and does not make sense. There's no discussing with you and your ilk. There's arguing and ignoring, nothing in between.
steve,
you're right. i don't know exactly what our idea is.
but for just a second, try to imagine this. i'm assuming you may have collided with someone, and went in, whlst he continued on his merry way.
picture that you've just gotten out of a furball, and are low fuel and ammo, with a pilot wound. you're in a good turner, so you're not that fast. here comes a guy in a spit16 chasin ya down, you jink and avoid his shots, but he's just finished his ammo on you. now he's pissed cause he didn't kill ya, and you can go home. so he decides to kamakazi you. now you've just lost a good 5 kill run. and why? all because this guy decided you shouldn't be able to go land your kills.
if people KNOW for fact that you are going to take damage along with them, they will exploit that. i think this is a part of why it is left as it is. none of us like rammers or getting rammed. most of ud just deal with it.
also.......why don't you put in here exactly what your idea is? it may help.
-
steve,
you're right. i don't know exactly what our idea is.
but for just a second, try to imagine this. i'm assuming you may have collided with someone, and went in, whlst he continued on his merry way.
picture that you've just gotten out of a furball, and are low fuel and ammo, with a pilot wound. you're in a good turner, so you're not that fast. here comes a guy in a spit16 chasin ya down, you jink and avoid his shots, but he's just finished his ammo on you. now he's pissed cause he didn't kill ya, and you can go home. so he decides to kamakazi you. now you've just lost a good 5 kill run. and why? all because this guy decided you shouldn't be able to go land your kills.
if people KNOW for fact that you are going to take damage along with them, they will exploit that. i think this is a part of why it is left as it is. none of us like rammers or getting rammed. most of ud just deal with it.
also.......why don't you put in here exactly what your idea is? it may help.
You can already ram people.
-
You can already ram people.
I thought i had mentioned before about the guy that rammed me 3 times in one run. i was flying EW, in JU88's, and this guy comers along, dives on me, i'm shooting at him, but not seeing as many hits as i'd like.....well, he passes on my aircrafts right side, and i get a message in orangs, saying XXX has collided with you. he went down. he reupped, and caught me, and did the same thing. twice more. after the third hit, he apologized to me, telling me that he was learning the aircraft. i took ZERO damage from his collisions. none. nada. zilch. zippo. and i was watching him the whole time. on the one occasion, i though i was going to take damage as it looked to me like he flew through my wing, but i didn.t
to ram someone and make them take damage, you have to time it so their fe sees it the same as yours i think.
either way, it isn't really broken, so it doesn't need fixen.
BTW..i went back and read your original post......most likely, he was trying to avoid you shooting him down, and in the process bled off speed. if you had better control of your aircraft at the time, ou might've missed him.
i did the same diving a p40 on lancs..i got so fast, that when i tried pulling out, i couldn't. i took my own wing off on them.
-
either way, it isn't really broken, so it doesn't need fixen.
We simply have a difference of opinion. Because I think it needs fixing, I'm a whiner.
-
We simply have a difference of opinion. Because I think it needs fixing, I'm a whiner.
whelp,
not that it matters to you, but i don't view you as a whiner.......and i don't think i called you that in any of my other posts, did i? if i did, i do apologize for that.
-
I briefly mentioned it but didn't bother going into detail because griefers like you wouldn't read it anyway. You think it makes sense that when two planes collide only one should take damage. Then you try to tell me what does and does not make sense. There's no discussing with you and your ilk. There's arguing and ignoring, nothing in between.
Actually, it is you and "your ilk" that refuses to see that it is NOT always two planes colliding that continue arguing and ignoring. Despite the best efforts of people like Bronk and Lusche (who both posted pictures for cripes sake), you choose to remain ignorant of how the collision model works, and attack anyone who tries to explain it to you rather than try to learn. The fact people who understand the model keep trying to explain it isn't griefing, it is hoping against hope you and those like you may finally get it.
You still haven't answered the basic questions:
1) Why should the front plane in Bronk's first picture take damage? After all, he did not collide. That is exactly what his computer saw -- a plane well behind him, pulling up, and missing him by a wide margin. No collision, no damage. All is right with the world.
2) Why should the rear plane in Bronk's second picture NOT take damage? After all, he DID collide. That is exactly what his computer saw -- he pulled up, and the front of his plane hit the enemy plane. So, he DID collide, and took damage. All is right with the world.
If you have no problem with the front plane taking no damage and the rear plane taking damage, then you have no problem with the current collision model, and you are arguing without a point.
If you do have a problem with that situation, then you haven't articulated why, nor how your "opinion" of how things should work would make things better.
-
Actually, it is you and "your ilk" that refuses to see that it is NOT always two planes colliding that continue arguing and ignoring. Despite the best efforts of people like Bronk and Lusche (who both posted pictures for cripes sake), you choose to remain ignorant of how the collision model works, and attack anyone who tries to explain it to you rather than try to learn. The fact people who understand the model keep trying to explain it isn't griefing, it is hoping against hope you and those like you may finally get it.
You still haven't answered the basic questions:
1) Why should the front plane in Bronk's first picture take damage? After all, he did not collide. That is exactly what his computer saw -- a plane well behind him, pulling up, and missing him by a wide margin. No collision, no damage. All is right with the world.
2) Why should the rear plane in Bronk's second picture NOT take damage? After all, he DID collide. That is exactly what his computer saw -- he pulled up, and the front of his plane hit the enemy plane. So, he DID collide, and took damage. All is right with the world.
If you have no problem with the front plane taking no damage and the rear plane taking damage, then you have no problem with the current collision model, and you are arguing without a point.
If you do have a problem with that situation, then you haven't articulated why, nor how your "opinion" of how things should work would make things better.
umm you have once again foolishly and incorrectly assumed things. I know how the collision model works. I don't like it. Get it? I have a problem with only one plane taking damage, since the damaged plane had to hit something .
This was Bronk's first effort here in this thread: Ahh the collision whine.
I haven't read anything he posted beyond that sentence, nor am I interested.
-
umm you have once again foolishly and incorrectly assumed things. I know how the collision model works. I don't like it. Get it? I have a problem with only one plane taking damage, since the damaged plane had to hit something .
The last sentence is proving again that in fact you did not understand the collision model at al, or at least ignore an important part of it: The fact that you have to cope with two independent, differing realities in this game.
If you run into me on your FE you are indeed running into something. You ran into the representation of my plane on your screen. But you may not have rammed me on my screen.. so why should I go down?
A simple straight question: Assume you are the P-47 in this picture. You see at the bottom the "Lusche has collided with you!" Note the distance between the planes. The 47 did fly unharmed away from this collision. Question: What would you say if you (the P47) would now explode without enemy fire? ()
(http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/9027/ramotherfeen9.jpg)
-
The last sentence is proving again that in fact you did not udnertsand the collision model at all.
Wrong. If I hit something, it must take damage.
-
umm you have once again foolishly and incorrectly assumed things. I know how the collision model works. I don't like it. Get it? I have a problem with only one plane taking damage, since the damaged plane had to hit something .
This was Bronk's first effort here in this thread:
I haven't read anything he posted beyond that sentence, nor am I interested.
Truth be told this was.
DAMN IT !!!!! :furious :furious :furious
Lusche is stealing my fun. ;)
Thanks for playing. :aok
-
Wrong. If I hit something, it must take damage.
I would like you to answer my question.
-
I would like you to answer my question.
He cant answer truthfully because it doesn't revolve around HIM.
-
umm you have once again foolishly and incorrectly assumed things. I know how the collision model works. I don't like it. Get it? I have a problem with only one plane taking damage, since the damaged plane had to hit something .
This was Bronk's first effort here in this thread:
I haven't read anything he posted beyond that sentence, nor am I interested.
but only on your screen. that's part of what they're trin to tell ya.
-
The worse aspect of an otherwise wonderful game. A tempy jams on the brakes in front of me, causes the collision, I go down... he flies off unscathed. Hitech, fix the code. If I take damage, he has to take damage, dammit. :mad:
Yep... both should take the damage and to #$%^ with all the bs (repeat B. S.) about lag and front ends and blah blah ad nauseum, period. Happens far too frequently that the one causing the collision fly's away unscathed which is the point (as opposed to collisions in general). Heck, make it so NEITHER pilot gets the kill while your at it.
I'd much rather smack another plane and know he's got damage too than otherwise... and ya, 90% of the time it's avoidable. The point is who gets the kill and gets to keep going when they do NOT deserve it.
Make it so or take collisions away all together and we can go back to fighting without worrying about some dork slamming on the brakes (which I doubt was the typical WWII fighter pilots primary method of responding to an attack), you know... like in AW (as bad as that was, it was better than this)
-
Yep... both should take the damage and to #$%^ with all the bs (repeat B. S.) about lag and front ends and blah blah ad nauseum, period. Happens far too frequently that the one causing the collision fly's away unscathed which is the point (as opposed to collisions in general).
Film? Ohh wait I forgot collision whine rule #1. Never post film to back up whine.
-
Yep... both should take the damage and to #$%^ with all the bs (repeat B. S.) about lag and front ends and blah blah ad nauseum, period. Happens far too frequently that the one causing the collision fly's away unscathed which is the point (as opposed to collisions in general). Heck, make it so NEITHER pilot gets the kill while your at it.
I'd much rather smack another plane and know he's got damage too than otherwise... and ya, 90% of the time it's avoidable. The point is who gets the kill and gets to keep going when they do NOT deserve it.
Make it so or take collisions away all together and we can go back to fighting without worrying about some dork slamming on the brakes (which I doubt was the typical WWII fighter pilots primary method of responding to an attack), you know... like in AW (as bad as that was, it was better than this)
wait a minute?? how does pilot A NOT deserve a kill on you if you hit him? he was in a fight with you, and if you augered, he'd get the kill on ya too.
it is still simple.....allow enough room. if you're in a furball, it's gonna happen. the planes, gas, ammo, and paint jobs are free, so who really cares?
if you hit the guy while jumping him, then you were not in control of your aircraft...
-
umm you have once again foolishly and incorrectly assumed things. I know how the collision model works. I don't like it. Get it? I have a problem with only one plane taking damage, since the damaged plane had to hit something .
This was Bronk's first effort here in this thread:
I haven't read anything he posted beyond that sentence, nor am I interested.
You refuse to answer any basic questions, and instead continue to attack and/or deflect, proving that you do NOT understand the collision model, and furthermore, are too closed minded to care to understand it, despite anyone's efforts.
I think that pretty much defines a whine. Congratulations.
But, please, continue to close your eyes and say "nyah nyah nyah I see nothing." Your inability to react maturely or intelligently has become quite entertaining.
-
You refuse to answer any basic questions,
I'm not refusing to answer any questions. I understand how the collision model, I just don't think it's the best way. Why does this make me a whiner?
People are still entitled to opinions, aren't they? Am I a whiner because my opinion differs from yours?
-
but only on your screen. that's part of what they're trin to tell ya.
Cap, you are trying to define the current collision model. I understand the difference between the two Fe's and only one might show a collisoin.... etc.
-
I try it again:
(http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/9027/ramotherfeen9.jpg)
You are the P47, I'm the ramming P51. Picture shows moment of collision from your point of view. (See "Lusche has collided with you" at bottom)
When you could change our current collision model: Should your plane (the 47) take damage from this?
-
I try it again:
(http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/9027/ramotherfeen9.jpg)
You are the P47, I'm the ramming P51. Picture shows moment of collision from your point of view. (See "Lusche has collided with you" at bottom)
When you could change our current collision model: Should your plane (the 47) take damage from this?
Nope, not in the situation you describe. "Why?" you ask. Simply because STEVE is flying the p-47 anyone else must take damage.
-
I try it again:
(http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/9027/ramotherfeen9.jpg)
You are the P47, I'm the ramming P51. Picture shows moment of collision from your point of view. (See "Lusche has collided with you" at bottom)
When you could change our current collision model: Should your plane (the 47) take damage from this?
OK, here's how I feel it should work, and I will answer your question herein, then your gang can go about belittling me for having a different view.
Each plane has a bubble around it, determined by something like average distance between what two typical FE's see a plane's position is. For this discussion, let's say this bubble is 20 feet. Let's call it a bubble of latency.
In your scenario, the 51 reached a distance on it's FE of say.. -1' from the 47. in other words, the 51 actually intruded on the 47 by one foot. Only if one FE shows an actual collision should the following occur:
The 51's FE then querys the 47's FE and asks what distance it sees. If the 47 doesn't see the 51 intruding at least half way into it's latency bubble, in this case 10 feet, no collision takes place. If the 47 sees the 51 more than half way into its latency bubble a collision occurs. I think that if one plane takes damage from a collision, the other plane must as well. That's it. I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm just giving my opinion. If that makes me a whiner, so be it.
-
If that makes me a whiner, so be it.
Acceptance is the first step. :aok
-
Cap, you are trying to define the current collision model. I understand the difference between the two Fe's and only one might show a collisoin.... etc.
right......i understand that, but if i remember for a few pages back, you suggest that your computer basicly ask my computer if it saw a collision too. am i understanding that right? if not, then they ask each other how close we were on my screen.
but even if we collided, and on my screen you were 50 yards behind me as you passed at the time your machine saw you fly through my wing, how is it right that i take damage too? i think it's really rare that we'll both have the same sight picture at the same time.
i also think that even if you hit me, and take damage, my plane will take damage too....if my machine sees you and i collide.
i understand you'd like to improve the game, but in all seriousness, and with the way people "game" the game, anything else would probably only result in more problems than there are now.
-
Ok, after keeping tabs on this thread I will take a stab at it.
In a One on One fight, there are FOUR planes.
The two that you see and the two that you opponent sees.
To both, the fight is slightly different.
Duel someone and both film the fight, and you will see this.
If you hit them, you take damage. If you don't, you won't.
When you collide with someone and they fly off undamaged it is because THEY did not hit you. They did not "collide with you" and fly off undamged. They never hit you in the first place.
Repeat: They Never Hit You.
The thought of taking damage when you DO NOT HIT THEM is rediculous. Hit bubble? That is crazy talk. If you give that even the slightest bit of thought, you will see just what a horrible idea it is. The way it works now if fine. Actually, it's durn near perfect.
Quit flying into them and you will not have any problems.
-
Ok, after keeping tabs on this thread I will take a stab at it.
Repeat: They Never Hit You.
Then I never hit them... it takes two objects to have a collision. repeat: it takes two objects to have a collision.
-
Then I never hit them... it takes two objects to have a collision. repeat: it takes two objects to have a collision.
One object collided with a representation of the other object...not the object itself...think of it as a duplicate plane being towed behind the other players plane. You see the plane being towed and that is what you hit.
-
One object collided with a representation of the other object...not the object itself...think of it as a duplicate plane being towed behind the other players plane. You see the plane being towed and that is what you hit.
:huh
-
The 51's FE then querys the 47's FE and asks what distance it sees. If the 47 doesn't see the 51 intruding at least half way into it's latency bubble, in this case 10 feet, no collision takes place. If the 47 sees the 51 more than half way into its latency bubble a collision occurs. I think that if one plane takes damage from a collision, the other plane must as well. That's it. I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm just giving my opinion. If that makes me a whiner, so be it.
Ok.
That means we have two possible outcomes in this event depending on how big the "latency bubbles" are supposed to be.
I tried to make two very quick illustrations. No complains about quality are allowed ;)
(http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/6209/caseamd4.jpg)
Obviously the requirements for a collsions would not be met. The Pony would continue to fly unharmed despite having flyown right into the P47's tail
(http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/2236/rammyfeve9.jpg)
That would mean I could fly guns blazing through my enemies. Particulary helpful when attacking buffs ;)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now with larger "latency bubbles"
(http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/3271/caseboi5.jpg)
The collision requirement is met. Your P47 takes damage from a ram that never happened on your side!
For no obvious reason? Can you imagine the storm of complains? Would you really like to go down that way? How would explain other victims whey they took damage from a collision that never happened on their side?
-
:huh
This was exact my expression when i heard that the first time. Until I understood the "different realites".. then it suddenly went "ahhhhh :O :aok"
:D
If it's of any help: Here you can download both player's films from which my screenshots are. See the differences in whats happening on both screens!
http://www.mediafire.com/?vgxoiygthky
-
Until I understood the "different realites"..
Parallel universe slightly offset in time and space...
-
Ok.
That means we have two possible outcomes in this event depending on how big the "latency bubbles" are supposed to be.
I tried to make two very quick illustrations. No complains about quality are allowed ;)
(http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/6209/caseamd4.jpg)
Obviously the requirements for a collsions would not be met. The Pony would continue to fly unharmed despite having flyown right into the P47's tail
(http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/2236/rammyfeve9.jpg)
That would mean I could fly guns blazing through my enemies. Particulary helpful when attacking buffs ;)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now with larger "latency bubbles"
(http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/3271/caseboi5.jpg)
The collision requirement is met. Your P47 takes damage from a ram that never happened on your side!
For no obvious reason? Can you imagine the storm of complains? Would you really like to go down that way? How would explain other victims whey they took damage from a collision that never happened on their side?
Sometimes collsions happen and you die thru no fault of your own now. I've been scissored into(haven't we all?), the guy turn into me.. so not my fault... I don't see how there would be anymore complaining than there already is.
The latency bubble requirement would only be fulfilled if one FE registered an actual collision.
-
This was exact my expression when i heard that the first time. Until I understood the "different realites"..
I understand the collsion model as it works in its' current incarnation, with the differing perspectives of the FE's.. I get it. I just do not agree with how collisions are handled. By definition, it takes two or more objects to collide. If there is a collision, both objects must be affected.
As it stands, we are basically ignoring newton's third law.
-
Sometimes collsions happen and you die thru no fault of your own now. I've been scissored into, the guy turn into me.. so not my fault... I don't see how there would be anymore complaining.
Yes. But now the collsion has to take place on your FE. That makes it easier to understand why you are taking damage.
But more important: You do have a chance to dodge. If you manage to turn away from the incoming rammer, you don't get hit!
If we would implement the hit bubbles you could dodge your enemy, make him pass you at 50y distance.. and still get a "collision". That's defenitely less fair.
And rammers would have a far better chance to actually hurt you:
Current CM: If I would try to ram you, I would have to cause a collision on your FE. The problem is just that I don't know what's happening on your screen. A deliberate ram is possible but very tricky
Latency Bubble CM: It's sufficient when I just ram you an my FE. It doesn't matter if you successfully dodged - the rammers FE decides about YOUR damage.
If the hit bubble wasn't big enough, thus resulting in no collision my ram attempt would have no detrimental effect on me, despite flyin through your plane on my FE. Try again Lusche!
As it stands, we are basically ignoring newton's third law.
Newtons third law is fine for a world with only 1 reality ;)
-
Yes. But now the collsion has to take place on your FE. That makes it easier to understand why you are taking damage.
But more important: You do have a chance to dodge. If you manage to turn away from the incoming rammer, you don't get hit!
If we would implement the hit bubbles you could dodge your enemy, make him pass you at 50y distance.. and still get a "collision". That's defenitely less fair.
I recognize your points. I am still of the opinion that if one plane gets damaged, they both do. It doesn't seem logical to me otherwise.
-
not going to get real big into this conversation here because it has been hashed out countless times but........
The only alternative to the collision model we have now is to hand out collisions to people that never happened on their end. In other words person A and person B are in a fight. Person A's computer sees a collision he gets damage and his computer says the collision happened, now Person B's computer saw no collision therefore he never had a chance to avoid it, but since Person A had damage then Person B should receive damage too? That definitely does not sounds fair and I would have big issues with that.
Latency bubble or not why should I be punished for not avoiding a collision that was not going to happen on my computer?
-
This is not adding anything new to this topic, but as you can't watch both .ahf films I posted above (http://www.mediafire.com/?vgxoiygthky 130k ZIP)
at the same time, I just made a quick WMV movie where I mixed both films into one by tricky editing :D
http://www.mediafire.com/?doynhxrgljy 3MB only
-
The only alternative to the collision model we have now is to hand out collisions to people that never happened on their end.
It is not the only alternative. No collisions at all is also alternative...
PS
I'm not saying which way is better
-
It is not the only alternative. No collisions at all is also alternative...
PS
I'm not saying which way is better
Ok you got me there. That was my bad. But I think most of us don't want that either. I know I don't.
By the way nice job with the movie Lusche.
-
This is not adding anything new to this topic, but as you can't watch both .ahf films I posted above (http://www.mediafire.com/?vgxoiygthky 130k ZIP)
at the same time, I just made a quick WMV movie where I mixed both films into one by tricky editing :D
http://www.mediafire.com/?doynhxrgljy 3MB only
Lusche, excellent job with the "tricky editing"! :aok
That film needs to be stickied and posted on the help page.
Great work!
-
get a wingman on vox fly right alongside him and then ask him how far he sees you away.
I've been parked on his wing for him to say im at 50-60.
Therein lies your answer even playing from the same country when you throw in japanese, australian players there will be an even bigger gap.
I agree it is annoying as hell when they fly off undamaged.
I must say that I notice quite a few people getting a collision message on me and going down when they was no contact on my end. They were close to me but there was still no contact on my screen.
It has actually worked in my favour quite a few times. It's not something you can really plan, it just happens sometimes.
Now, with regards to the subject topic....The fact of the matter is that if you collide with an object on your screen, you take damage. Deal with it. Do you think collisions always resulted in BOTH aircraft going down? They didn't. Do you think that if it's not your fault that a collision happens on your end that you shouldn't go down? You should, watermelon happens. HTC has come up with a very functional system.
Basically, it's just this simple:
If you don't want collision damage don't fly close to enemy aircraft. If you chose to get in close you run the risk of taking damage.
I go down to collisions all the time because I like to get in very close. More often than not the other guy takes either little or no damage at all. Sometimes we both go down in smoking heaps. No complaints here.
-
If you don't collide with the other guys plane on your screen you don't take any damage. So, I see no problem. Just worry about yourself and you're fine. I've found that this attitude actually has seemed to result in more instances where the enemy takes damage and I don't- funny how things turn out.
This is simply the best way it could work. Once you accept that and decide to just live with it you'll be much better off.
-
Lusche, excellent job with the "tricky editing"! :aok
That film needs to be stickied and posted on the help page.
Great work!
Lol, thank you. But that was a very quick shot at it. I will make a better quality one with a better camera angle tomorrow. And an animated GIF :)
-
Basically, it's just this simple:
If you don't want collision damage don't fly close to enemy aircraft. If you chose to get in close you run the risk of taking damage.
This is the typical and canned irrelevence I've come to expect from many. You really don't have anything to say except to be critical of others opinions.. why post at all?
-
Latency bubble or not why should I be punished for not avoiding a collision that was not going to happen on my computer?
Fair enough. Why should I be punished for collisions that others created but don't suffer damage from?
-
Can you imagine all the nimrods that would be flying around trying to collide with you if they knew you would suffer damage it they saw a collision on their F/E?
shamus
-
Can you imagine all the nimrods that would be flying around trying to collide with you if they knew you would suffer damage it they saw a collision on their F/E?
shamus
Interestingly enough, I don't think there'd be that many and no-one can show that there would be.
-
Fair enough. Why should I be punished for collisions that others created but don't suffer damage from?
If you don't touch their plane, you won't take damage. It's really that simple.
If they didn't take damage they obviously didn't touch your plane on their FE.
-
Interestingly enough, I don't think there'd be that many and no-one can show that there would be.
Nor can you show there wouldn't be.
-
Fair enough. Why should I be punished for collisions that others created but don't suffer damage from?
But they didn't "cause" the collision -- they missed you.
You want them punished because you failed to get out of the way. I don't think that is fair at all.
-
Nor can you show there wouldn't be.
I haven't made the claim there wouldn't be. Whereas some have claimed there would be, with no evidence whatsoever.
-
I haven't made the claim there wouldn't be. Whereas some have claimed there would be, with no evidence whatsoever.
Who?
-
Players HO, players vulch, players pick, players do suicide runs on ords & CV's. The overwhelming majority of them does all of it. They use any method available to "hurt" the enemy, regardless of cost.
Now give them the opportunity to cause additional damage with a guaranteed successfully ram that the enemy can't even dodge - There is no reason to assume they would abstain from using this "tool". Especially those who we use to call n00bs, who are unable to kill the enemy by means of ACM and proper shooting.
Introducing a ram you can hardly dodge because you don't see it is a rather bizarre way to improve gameplay. It creates a lot of problems and solves none.
Dear jury, I rest my case.
May this thread happily chug along, but the Snailman is now gone! :aok
-
Ok, I just read this whole thing for the first time, and I must say, Steve's stubbornness is driving me crazy. I just can't figure out what is so hard to understand here. I really can't. I don't see why people keep trying to explain it to him, your obviously are not going to get through to him if you haven't by now. Hes not changing his opinion. No offense to you Steve, but I think you are completely wrong on this.
-
Ok, I just read this whole thing for the first time, and I must say, Steve's stubbornness is driving me crazy. I just can't figure out what is so hard to understand here. I really can't. I don't see why people keep trying to explain it to him, your obviously are not going to get through to him if you haven't by now. Hes not changing his opinion. No offense to you Steve, but I think you are completely wrong on this.
No offense taken, Mike. What is it you think I don't understand?
-
Who?
cap1 and at least one other
if the modeling were to be changed, all you'd get would be rmtards.
-
Then I never hit them... it takes two objects to have a collision. repeat: it takes two objects to have a collision.
you just hit the nail on the head! it takes TWO objects to collide.
but there's FOUR aircraft in a 1-1 fight. there's 2 on your puter, and 2 on the other guys.
YOU hit on YOUR computer. no contact ever happened on the other guys puter.
-
Sometimes collsions happen and you die thru no fault of your own now. I've been scissored into(haven't we all?), the guy turn into me.. so not my fault... I don't see how there would be anymore complaining than there already is.
The latency bubble requirement would only be fulfilled if one FE registered an actual collision.
because again, it happened on YOUR machine. chances are good he mised you by pretty much on his machine
-
I understand the collsion model as it works in its' current incarnation, with the differing perspectives of the FE's.. I get it. I just do not agree with how collisions are handled. By definition, it takes two or more objects to collide. If there is a collision, both objects must be affected.
As it stands, we are basically ignoring newton's third law.
but go back to lusches pics, and imagine you're in that p47. the way you want it to happen, he'd have taken damage too. but would you like to take damage from a plane that you see at over 100 yards away?
-
Fair enough. Why should I be punished for collisions that others created but don't suffer damage from?
Uhhhh, because YOU crashed into them? The collision was your fault because you hit him. Do you actually think that the Typhoon was seeing what you saw and thought "hey, I can't shake this guy, I'll just slow down and get in his way so he crashes into me"? You do understand that on HIS computer screen he was probably trying to force an overshoot on an aircraft that was still over 200 yards away?
This is the typical and canned irrelevence I've come to expect from many. You really don't have anything to say except to be critical of others opinions.. why post at all?
Because your opinion is a demand 'to fix the code' when your 'problem' has nothing to do with code at all.
It has been explained with pictures and slabs of text not only Snailman but others too many times. The problem is not something HTC can 'fix', the internet is beyond their control.
Not only are you beating a dead and flogged horse, you're doing it in a 'pissy because I didn't get what I wanted' manner.
I'm critical of your opinion because it is either uniformed or willfully ignorant. If the former is the case my post was attempt to correct that and if it is the latter my criticism was well deserved.
When you started a topic with the words you used surely you expected no less than criticism? Temper tantrums don't inspire understanding.
-
It is not the only alternative. No collisions at all is also alternative...
PS
I'm not saying which way is better
no collisions at all??? baaaaaad idea......it would become ace pilot central out there....
-
no collisions at all??? baaaaaad idea......it would become ace pilot central out there....
I completely agree. :aok
-
Fair enough. Why should I be punished for collisions that others created but don't suffer damage from?
if you're referencing the original post with the tempest, it was actually your fault. you were too close to him. you were going too fast to avoid him.
-
Interestingly enough, I don't think there'd be that many and no-one can show that there would be.
we have cable pullers. we have people in here who fly certian types of missions only to pretect score.....game the game. there were people that did the big h to the game...and they got caught and banned......people divebomb in lancs, dogfight in b25's.
there's plenty to show that people would indeed do that
-
we have cable pullers. we have people in here who fly certian types of missions only to pretect score.....game the game. there were people that did the big h to the game...and they got caught and banned......people divebomb in lancs, dogfight in b25's.
there's plenty to show that people would indeed do that
No offense but that's purely speculation. You simply don't know.
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
if you're referencing the original post with the tempest, it was actually your fault. you were too close to him. you were going too fast to avoid him.
I wasn't, but you're right that was my fault. However, I believe my system is better, simply based on that if I hit something, it will be damaged as well as I. I think both partiesd should take damage if teh formula I suggested indicates there was a collision. Otherwise, neither party takes damage.
-
you just hit the nail on the head! it takes TWO objects to collide.
but there's FOUR aircraft in a 1-1 fight. there's 2 on your puter, and 2 on the other guys.
YOU hit on YOUR computer. no contact ever happened on the other guys puter.
So, from 4 aircraft and two pilots ( :huh ) involved in mid air collision 1 got damaged? Now I get it :D
-
So, from 4 aircraft and two pilots ( :huh ) involved in mid air collision 1 got damaged? Now I get it :D
Ya, your fighter on his FE keeps flying and fighting. :aok
-
See Rule #7
-
steve,
The problem is that you are deliberately not making obvious behavior predictions in an attempt to be neutral.
The fact is we know people game games. They do it all the time, in reality and on computers.
If you give players that are inclined to use every tool they have to win, why wouldn't PlayerX up a Spitfire Mk XVI and ram PlayerY's Bf110G-2 when he knows he will be back in the same place in 30 seconds but it will take PlayerY 10-15 minutes to get back into the same place? That is a 20-30 times value on player time.
And your suggestion would make it impossible for PlayerY to dodge. Even if he did dodge successfully, "PlayerX" gets the same survival benefit from PlayerY's dodging efforts and gets to try again and again and again until he is successful.
Trying to pretend that we don't know how a tool will be used when we do know it is just sticking our heads in the sand.
EDIT:
And keep in mind that PlayerX will be firing while flying through PlayerY's Bf110G-2 each pass, so if the shooting doesn't do it the collision will. PlayerX can't very well miss while he flies through PlayerY's Bf110G-2 can he?
-
Steve you're ticked off now that someone can ram you on your screen and not pay any penalty because they flew past cleanly on their end. Would you be any less irritated if, out of the blue, you took damage for a ram that happened on someone else's end, but never came close on your screen?
-
I wasn't, but you're right that was my fault. However, I believe my system is better, simply based on that if I hit something, it will be damaged as well as I. I think both partiesd should take damage if teh formula I suggested indicates there was a collision. Otherwise, neither party takes damage.
i understand what you're trying to say, i REALLY do..........
but on the tempests computer you were probably still a couple hundred yards away. if he'd have taken damage from another aircraft that far away, he'd have been as pissed as you are right now.
put yourself in the tempest.......taking damage from a diving pony that to YOUR view passed 200 yards behind you?
you suddenly get the XXX has collided with you message, and your elevator fsalls off. is that fair/? would you not be screaming foul? i know i would......among others i think.......
-
One thing about you proposal, Steve. With your proposed "bubble", we would now have to not only avoid hitting other planes on our end but have to avoid them by some distance in order to not get a collision. If we avoid but are still within the average distance you propose we would still get damage due to a collision. Is this fair?
-
So, from 4 aircraft and two pilots ( :huh ) involved in mid air collision 1 got damaged? Now I get it :D
nope.....only ONE pilot involved.......that is steve hitting his computers representation of the tempest. on the tempest pilots computer that collision never happened.....so only the ONE pilot in the collision takes damage.
in a perfect world, steve would be right. this isn't a perfect world. it does however work fine though.
-
One thing about you proposal, Steve. With your proposed "bubble", we would now have to not only avoid hitting other planes on our end but have to avoid them by some distance in order to not get a collision.
This is incorrect. The bubble would only be queried if one FE registered an actual collision of the planes proper.
-
One thing about you proposal, Steve. With your proposed "bubble", we would now have to not only avoid hitting other planes on our end but have to avoid them by some distance in order to not get a collision. If we avoid but are still within the average distance you propose we would still get damage due to a collision. Is this fair?
but what almost everyone seems to be missing is that there is nooooo need to be that close. i once dove a p40 at a set of buffs......i was anxious for the kill, and had never flown the p40 before(or since). i dove it like it was a spitfire or a p38. well, i got really close, waited waay too long to pull out....i rammed them and took my own wing off. i wnet down obvioulsy. wasn't anyones fault but my own.
that seems almost the case that started this thread. steve was diving on a tempest, probably thinking ""easy kill"", the temp saw him, and tried to force an overshoot. on the temps screen, he was probably a couple hundred yards behind........steve hit him on his screen, and went in, the temp pilot was probably goin nuts looking around the sky for him.
but what if steve hadn't gotten so over-anxious/? what if he had controlled his speed better? he'd have been able to pull out or roll to the side, and maintain the temps 6 easily.
no offense, but this is no ones fault but your own dude.......
in a 1-1 fight, maintain distance, and you're good to go....
BTW lusche.......great job on the films........
-
nope.....only ONE pilot involved.......
:huh
One pilot? So who's flying Tempest?
-
:huh
One pilot? So who's flying Tempest?
the tempest pilot NEVER SAW THE COLLISION ON HIS MACHINE.
steve hit HIS COMPUTERS REPRENSETATION OF THE TEMPEST.
so there was only one pilot.
had both machines seen the collision, then they BOTH would have taken damage.
-
See Rule #7
-
I'm really confused now.
the tempest pilot NEVER SAW THE COLLISION ON HIS MACHINE.
Did he die immediately in collision or what? I mean, when collision happens you hear sounds too. Isn't that enough evidence that collision happened? And why the pilot determines the collision? Shouldn't that be decided by game's code?
steve hit HIS COMPUTERS REPRENSETATION OF THE TEMPEST.
So it's faulty computer's fault after all and not Steve's. Why is he punished?
so there was only one pilot.
Who in the hell was piloting other three planes?
had both machines seen the collision, then they BOTH would have taken damage.
I don't quite get that part yet. So it doesn't really matter if Tempest pilot saw it, machine has to see it? Are we talking planes or computers now?
-
You fail to understand collisions in AH and continue to insist on seeing them as you see real life traffic collisions, with an "at fault" person. The sooner you disabuse yourself of this the sooner you'll understand why a great many of us not only don't revile the collision model, but agree whole heartedly with HiTech that it is the best possible solution given how the internet works.
Isn't that exactly what a *collision* is Karnak?
1. a violent crash between moving objects
That is a definition of the word collision. When we hear the term collision we think of things such as traffic accidents. How many traffic accidents have you seen where one car drives off unscathed? I'm sure it happens occasionally but much more often both vehicles see visible damage and in many cases both vehicles are completely destroyed.
I understand how/why the collision system in AH works the way it does. I used to hold Steve's view on the collision system as well, I hated it simply because there was no damage to both aircraft. (See collision definition) Then one day I realized that this collision model that we have now, would still work even if the internet got fast enough that we could see things in game in real time. In other words, if the internet got fast enough, when a collision happened in AH both players would see it and both would take damage.
-
I'm really confused now.
Did he die immediately in collision or what? I mean, when collision happens you hear sounds too. Isn't that enough evidence that collision happened? And why the pilot determines the collision? Shouldn't that be decided by game's code?
So it's faulty computer's fault after all and not Steve's. Why is he punished?
Who in the hell was piloting other three planes?
I don't quite get that part yet. So it doesn't really matter if Tempest pilot saw it, machine has to see it? Are we talking planes or computers now?
:rofl :rofl :rofl
you're a funny guy!!! :rofl :rofl :aok
-
I don't quite get that part yet. So it doesn't really matter if Tempest pilot saw it, machine has to see it? Are we talking planes or computers now?
the computers....at least from what i can understand of it,........
say for instance you're in the UK. you're fighting soneone that lives in texas.........your information will take longer to get to and from the host computers than mine will. because of this, we'll never ever see the exact same thing.
i think
-
I'm really confused now.
Did he die immediately in collision or what? I mean, when collision happens you hear sounds too. Isn't that enough evidence that collision happened? And why the pilot determines the collision? Shouldn't that be decided by game's code?
So it's faulty computer's fault after all and not Steve's. Why is he punished?
Who in the hell was piloting other three planes?
I don't quite get that part yet. So it doesn't really matter if Tempest pilot saw it, machine has to see it? Are we talking planes or computers now?
Watch Lusche's film. It shows how the two realities viewed the situation. One of the trailing planes collided (happened to be in Lusche's reality). The other trailing plane did not intersect the leading plane (the leading plane's reality), and therefore the leading plane did not suffer a collision. It is very clear.
-
the computers....at least from what i can understand of it,........
say for instance you're in the UK. you're fighting soneone that lives in texas.........your information will take longer to get to and from the host computers than mine will. because of this, we'll never ever see the exact same thing.
i think
That is true. But get this.....when I used to play two different characters in EverQuest at the same time, each character on a separate computer, but both computers on the same connection and sitting right next to each other....there was a visible difference in the time each computer saw and displayed the same events.
-
That is true. But get this.....when I used to play two different characters in EverQuest at the same time, each character on a separate computer, but both computers on the same connection and sitting right next to each other....there was a visible difference in the time each computer saw and displayed the same events.
ooo jeeze..now you're confusing me more......
-
Watch Lusche's film. It shows how the two realities viewed the situation. One of the trailing planes collided (happened to be in Lusche's reality). The other trailing plane did not intersect the leading plane (the leading plane's reality), and therefore the leading plane did not suffer a collision.
Ah OK, so how do they shoot each other if they play in different realities?
Oh yeah, how do we communicate now with extra realities? Is it possible to receive the answer even before you asked the question?
Fascinating... :confused:
-
say for instance you're in the UK. you're fighting soneone that lives in texas.........your information will take longer to get to and from the host computers than mine will. because of this, we'll never ever see the exact same thing.
Yeah, Brits were always on the slow side. If we ban the Brits, do we get to see the same thing?
-
Elfie,
No, in AH there is no "at fault". The computers don't care about that at all. The only thing the code is looking for is if a collision happened. In your EQ example, even though the computers are next to each other they are both running their on FE and both communicating with the server independently, and thus events being displayed slightly out of sync, particularly, I bet, for actions of the character on one of the computers showing up on the other.
2BigHorn,
In shooting you are trying to hit the image of the other player's aircraft on your FE. If shooting worked like collisions you'd have to shoot where you thought the other guy was on his FE and mostly just ignore his image on your FE. Would be silly. Collisions and shooting work opposite.
-
Ah OK, so how do they shoot each other if they play in different realities?
Oh yeah, how do we communicate now with extra realities? Is it possible to receive the answer even before you asked the question?
Fascinating... :confused:
You shoot you see hit sprites. That is sent to you opponent his front end tabulates damage. His wing falls off. That is sent to you then you see his wing fall off. That's why sometimes you shoot an opponent and he goes poof after you stop firing.
-
No, in AH there is no "at fault". The computers don't care about that at all. The only thing the code is looking for is if a collision happened. In your EQ example, even though the computers are next to each other they are both running their on FE and both communicating with the server independently, and thus events being displayed slightly out of sync, particularly, I bet, for actions of the character on one of the computers showing up on the other.
First, I never said there was an *at fault* in AH.
Second, I know exactly how the *collision* model works in AH. In a 1 vs 1 for example, there aren't just two planes in the fight, there are 4, two on my screen and two on my opponents screen. I only take damage when the game code on MY machine registers a *collision*. My opponent only takes damage when the game code on HIS machine registers a *collision*.
Third, I only used EQ as an example for someone else. That example is to show that it isn't just AH where we never see the same realities at the same times, it's every online game and it doesn't matter if your opponent is in the same room as you playing on your spare comp or is in Australia. It also wasn't just the actions of the two characters that showed visible delays, actions from characters that weren't my own were affected as well. For example, during a raid, the main tank calls assist on a mob, one computer would see that assist call significantly sooner than the other. I know this for a fact because I had audio triggers going off for the assist call (among other things) for both of my machines.
Fourth, I understand why people get confused when we talk about the *collision* model in AH.
People get confused because it isn't like any collision they are familiar with. Like traffic collisions for example. (refer to the definition of collision that I posted earlier) We see a *collision* on our screen and we don't also see what our brains tell us is the results of a normal collision and it causes frustration and confusion for people.
-
In order to take AH to "reality" you'd be talking about something like people flying planes pulling a towed target that looks like the plane he's flying. You can't see the actual plane they are driving. However you can see the "towed" target plane they pull behind them. How long the rope towing the target is directly tied to latency or lag. The target does everything the lead does, when the information arrives.
So you run into a towed target, you take damage. The guy towing the target was not in a collision, so he doesn't take damage. His Target did, but his target doesn't exist on HIS front end, only yours.
Where you see his "towed target" is not where HE is. He's always going to be ahead of it.
How far depends on how much lag. This is why sometimes you take hits when you can see he hasn't come around enough yet for his guns to bear.
Without the "towed target" it would be impossible to shoot anyone down with any lag.
This is why until we have 0 lag internet for everyone collisions MUST be modeled the way they are modeled.
Any other choice leads to chaos and mayham.
Even 10-20 ms of lag would put the plane your shooting at into the future. You'd have to shoot not at where he is but where he would be when the information arrives. Which if it was the same for all of us would potentially be possible. But with the internet we actually have lag varys tremendously and constantly.
-
Well that's where a reasonable distance would have to be established. Like your point, how is it fair if a guy with a good conn shows a collision on his FE due to a guy with a bad conn, then the guy with the bad conn wanders off on his merry way?
Which is something like saying "Someone needs to bell the cat..."
And enabling collisions to damage both aircraft is like enabling killshooter, in the sense that there are those who will grief other players if there is even a possibility that it might work.
The good news is, this is all ground that's been gone over for almost 20 years, and I'm confident that HTC is unlikely to suddenly go senile and change it to a less optimal mechanism.
<S>
-
The good news is, this is all ground that's been gone over for almost 20 years, and I'm confident that HTC is unlikely to suddenly go senile and change it to a less optimal mechanism.
<S>
13 Years ago I wrote the 1 way collision system. Please do not make me feel older than I am.
HiTech
-
13 Years ago I wrote the 1 way collision system. Please do not make me feel older than I am.
HiTech
age is a state of mind.........
me.......i'm 46 goin on 17 :D :aok
-
13 Years ago I wrote the 1 way collision system. Please do not make me feel older than I am.
HiTech
:rofl
-
13 Years ago I wrote the 1 way collision system. Please do not make me feel older than I am.
HiTech
Has it been so long? :O :D
-
In order to take AH to "reality" you'd be talking about something like people flying planes pulling a towed target that looks like the plane he's flying. You can't see the actual plane they are driving. However you can see the "towed" target plane they pull behind them. How long the rope towing the target is directly tied to latency or lag. The target does everything the lead does, when the information arrives.
Thats a really good way to describe how the lag works. 10 - 20ms of total lag (both players lag combined) would be darn close to real time.
-
Elfie 20ms at 300 mph =~ 10 feet.
-
I have suggested to HiTech that we hold up everyone's frame rate until the server could confirm that everyone was seeing the same thing. He seemed reluctant to give it a try, arguing that it may take seconds for confirmation and 1 frame per 3 seconds was ridiculous.
But then I pointed out that there wouldn't be anymore collision threads . . .
:t
-
Elfie 20ms at 300 mph =~ 10 feet.
I usually run 40ms to the AH servers, if someone else is also running 40ms that makes it 80ms delay total so that would only be 40 feet difference?
-
I have suggested to HiTech that we hold up everyone's frame rate until the server could confirm that everyone was seeing the same thing. He seemed reluctant to give it a try, arguing that it may take seconds for confirmation and 1 frame per 3 seconds was ridiculous.
But then I pointed out that there wouldn't be anymore collision threads . . .
:t
:rofl
-
Elfie 20ms at 300 mph =~ 10 feet.
So going by that, if both players have a great connection with a ping of 20ms, what your seeing is 20 feet different of what the other guys sees (20ms from you to server, + 20 ms from server to the other guy)
-
So going by that, if both players have a great connection with a ping of 20ms, what your seeing is 20 feet different of what the other guys sees
(20ms from you to server, + 20 ms from server to the other guy)
Ping measures round trip time
-
What I wonder is when packets get lost, lets say from those 4 updates per seconds one get dropped (warp), is that taken into account, or I still collide no matter what?
-
Then I never hit them... it takes two objects to have a collision. repeat: it takes two objects to have a collision.
Then....
Ok, after keeping tabs on this thread I will take a stab at it.
In a One on One fight, there are FOUR planes.
The two that you see and the two that you opponent sees.
There are TWO planes on each screen. So there are TWO objects colliding on your screen when you take damage in a ram.
Seems pretty cut and dry ;)
-
Then....
There are TWO planes on each screen. So there are TWO objects colliding on your screen when you take damage in a ram.
Seems pretty cut and dry ;)
If there's two objects colliding, two objects should take damage. Seems pretty cut and dried.
-
If there's two objects colliding, two objects should take damage. Seems pretty cut and dried.
I've read the entire thread, I understand the frustration Steve.
Logically, I don't disagree with you entirely.
However, it's very clear to me that the current system is actually MORE fair when latency/lag/whatever is considered. It is also quite clear that the current system is more likely to discourage the kind of kamikaze griefing that many posters have already pointed out.
We saw a page or so ago that Hitech IS actually reading this thread, I applaud that. But, it's clear that so far, your idea hasn't inspired him to change his system. This tells me that either he finds your idea "lacking" in some important way, or he really doesn't care what you or anyone else thinks. A concept that I reject, his participation in this thread seems to be evidence to the contrary.
-
I don't think I've ever been collided with, taking damage or not, and not see both planes hit. But, by the explanations above, on any ram I don't take damage on I should not see me make contact. From my personal experience, this doesn't seem to be the way it happens. :huh
-
If there's two objects colliding, two objects should take damage. Seems pretty cut and dried.
Because of the latency inherent in the internet, that isn't possible at this point in time. I understand wanting both objects to take damage, I want that as well. Fact is, the internet is going to have to increase it's speed before that can happen.
-
If there's two objects colliding, two objects should take damage. Seems pretty cut and dried.
And yet on your opponents screen he was no where near you. Oooops I forgot it's all about you. :aok
Edit: Hey for that mater fly into a tool shed and tell me if that takes damage.
-
How is this possible, and then fly off without damage?
(http://ahdywizjon308.servegame.org:8000/images/whoops_2.JPG)
Is it because my uber spixteen is just so uber it can fly through a disintigrating bomber and come out unscathed? :)
-
How is this possible, and then fly off without damage?
I'm not in this thread anymore, but If i was I would tell you:
I can see on this picture that you don't collide with the bomber itself, but with a shot off wing. Those things are (like the small debris) eyecandy only and do never damage you.
You can only collide with the part that still has the icon (pilot) attached to it.
-
I'm not in this thread anymore, but If i was I would tell you:
I can see on this picture that you don't collide with the bomber itself, but with a shot off wing. Those things are (like the small debris) eyecandy only and do never damage you.
You can only collide with the part that still has the icon (pilot) attached to it.
Rgr that Lusche aka Snailman, that pretty much explains all my collision questions :D lol
You can replace the online AH2 wiki. Im being serious! :salute
-
I'm not in this thread anymore, but If i was I would tell you:
I can see on this picture that you don't collide with the bomber itself, but with a shot off wing. Those things are (like the small debris) eyecandy only and do never damage you.
You can only collide with the part that still has the icon (pilot) attached to it.
Ya, this looks like a debris hit... you get that odd clang sound byte but take no damage. :)
Edit: sometimes that sound catches me off guard and makes me jump in my seat a little.. dunno why, lol.
-
Ya, this looks like a debris hit... you get that odd clang sound byte but take no damage. :)
Edit: sometimes that sound catches me off guard and makes me jump in my seat a little.. dunno why, lol.
hhmm.......meby i shouldn't say this............
shouldn't we take damage from hitting debris? :noid :noid
<<<<<<<<<<waits not for another 20 pages of flaming, realizing that i just took the focus off of steve :noid :rofl
-
hhmm.......meby i shouldn't say this............
shouldn't we take damage from hitting debris? :noid :noid
<<<<<<<<<<waits not for another 20 pages of flaming, realizing that i just took the focus off of steve :noid :rofl
Well, interestingly enough with debris that size, you think you would. I don't mind getting flamed, In an exchange of ideas, there's bound to be people who can't control themselves. :)
I'm just guessing... would tracking/coding multiple pieces of debris be taxing to the server... our PC's?
-
Well, interestingly enough with debris that size, you think you would. I don't mind getting flamed, In an exchange of ideas, there's bound to be people who can't control themselves. :)
I'm just guessing... would tracking/coding multiple pieces of debris be taxing to the server... our PC's?
My guess it that it is already being tracked since it knows to play the sound when you hit debris.
-
My guess it that it is already being tracked since it knows to play the sound when you hit debris.
Touche'!
-
What I wonder is when packets get lost, lets say from those 4 updates per seconds one get dropped (warp), is that taken into account, or I still collide no matter what?
That is what is causing the complains. I keep missing planes clearly. I am close, but a clear miss on my FE and yet, the collision message appears. Either a bug or a micro warp or smoothing coad or what ever it is that is causing it, it does happen! People keep saying that they collide when they clearly missed, and every one tells them that they didn't miss? :rofl
In any case, you have to take into account that the FE and the server transmit every 250ms. Lose a packet and that is half a second or more so really net lag accounts for almost nothing here. The guys that do fight close and slow do know that you get pinged from impossible angles while tracers are missing. That can show you how big the difference is between the two FEs.
-
dedalos: is 100 % incorrect in his evaluation and claims. If you collide, you have hit the other airplane on your computer.
HiTech
-
That is what is causing the complains. I keep missing planes clearly. I am close, but a clear miss on my FE and yet, the collision message appears. Either a bug or a micro warp or smoothing coad or what ever it is that is causing it, it does happen! People keep saying that they collide when they clearly missed, and every one tells them that they didn't miss? :rofl
In any case, you have to take into account that the FE and the server transmit every 250ms. Lose a packet and that is half a second or more so really net lag accounts for almost nothing here. The guys that do fight close and slow do know that you get pinged from impossible angles while tracers are missing. That can show you how big the difference is between the two FEs.
Dedalos, that to me sounds like you might be running with VSync off. Are you? If your system runs too far ahead, what can happen is that you are actually colliding on a frame you never get to see.
(And apologies to Dale for pushing him farther over the hill than he is earlier in the thread :D)
<S>
-
Dedalos, that to me sounds like you might be running with VSync off. Are you? If your system runs too far ahead, what can happen is that you are actually colliding on a frame you never get to see.
I don't believe that game would read position from the screen. It's other way around and graphic tear shouldn't cause collisions and from my experience it does not.
My only beef with collisions is damage model.
-
... I don't believe that game would read position from the screen. ...
It doesn't.
What having Vsync off does is allow the game to render screens faster than the information can be displayed, so what can happen is that events can occur without you being able to see them (As you are still looking at an old frame).
<S>
-
dedalos: is 100 % incorrect in his evaluation and claims. If you collide, you have hit the other airplane on your computer.
HiTech
Very true! I'm just speculating on why sometimes it seems that you collide even after you missed them.
What else am I wrong? The 250ms?
The sometimes impossible angles? Wouldn't that be a result of seeing different things on different FEs?
-
What having Vsync off does is allow the game to render screens faster than the information can be displayed, so what can happen is that events can occur without you being able to see them (As you are still looking at an old frame).
Sorry, you're not looking at the old frame. With vsync off you're looking at the last frame, although sometimes frames overlap in buffer and sometimes incomplete/overlapped frame/frames can be pulled, hence you got some artifacts like tearing, etc.
With double buffering and page flipping sync that problems is pretty much solved and I haven't seen any tearing, shearing in a very very long time.
As for the performance, unless your system can keep up with monitor refresh rate at all times, vsync-on will degrade your overall frame rate due to timing issues.
-
The 250ms?
That's just the rate at which position is updated. Position in between is (my guess) calculated.
The sometimes impossible angles?
Lag...
There's another delay caused by some LCD screens (not to be confused with pixel response time), which also adds to overall lag
(long live CRTs :D )
-
Sorry, you're not looking at the old frame. With vsync off you're looking at the last frame, although sometimes frames overlap in buffer and sometimes incomplete/overlapped frame/frames can be pulled, hence you got some artifacts like tearing, etc.
With double buffering and page flipping sync that problems is pretty much solved and I haven't seen any tearing, shearing in a very very long time.
As for the performance, unless your system can keep up with monitor refresh rate at all times, vsync-on will degrade your overall frame rate due to timing issues.
Believe what you want, Bighorn. In addition to the shearing, tearing and artifacting, one of the other ways that edit-> having VSync off <-edit will affect most 3D games is to allow what's displayed to "lag" behind what the game engine internally "knows" to a varying degree dependent upon the speed of your computer, video subsystem, and the complexity of the algorithm in the game.
Do an Internet search for VSync and mouse lag, PrerenderLimit and/or Render no more than (x) Frames ahead, and specific to flight sims, Vsync and "rubber bullet syndrome".
<S>
-
Believe what you want, Bighorn. In addition to the shearing, tearing and artifacting, one of the other ways that edit-> having VSync off <-edit will affect most 3D games is to allow what's displayed to "lag" behind what the game engine internally "knows" to a varying degree dependent upon the speed of your computer, video subsystem, and the complexity of the algorithm in the game.
"Most" belong to the past. Rarely you'll get any ill effects turning vsync off. If you do, turn it back on. Simple as that.
But if you don't get any ill effects, there's no reason to have it on.
Do an Internet search for VSync and mouse lag, PrerenderLimit and/or Render no more than (x) Frames ahead, and specific to flight sims, Vsync and "rubber bullet syndrome".
Mouse lag is more specific to FPS games, and more often than not is due to interface (PS/2, USB) polling frequency and lack of CPU cycles rather than prerender limit.
-
The collision model is fracked. Yes, it records a collision. It just gives the wrong damage. It records the smaller plane taking catastrophic damage and the larger plane taking 0%. That is my experience 9 out of 10 times. Hit a B-17 with a 109 and the 109 will go down but the B-17 flys away. History proves this differently.
-
The collision model is fracked. Yes, it records a collision. It just gives the wrong damage. It records the smaller plane taking catastrophic damage and the larger plane taking 0%. That is my experience 9 out of 10 times. Hit a B-17 with a 109 and the 109 will go down but the B-17 flys away. History proves this differently.
weird my experience has been the opposite. I have lost many B17's to fighters that have collided with me.
I am just guessing here but I am assuming that in most of the times tha tyou are talking about you are in the 109 and your computer shows collision on your monitor. Which means that your opponent most likely did not see the collision on his machine due to lag.
Collision damage is only dished out to the player's plane that had it show on their computer.
-
The collision model is fracked. Yes, it records a collision. It just gives the wrong damage. It records the smaller plane taking catastrophic damage and the larger plane taking 0%. That is my experience 9 out of 10 times. Hit a B-17 with a 109 and the 109 will go down but the B-17 flys away. History proves this differently.
Think you might want to look at the pictures posted in this thread. Then reassess your complaint.
-
<for Bighorn>
I didn't mean to infer that mouse lag was related to Prerender limit, just that if you searched for both relative to vsync you'd see discussions that would perhaps be illuminating regarding gaming.
And actually, I believe that you have it backwards. Most modern games use triple buffering to decouple the video hardware from the processing loop, and there usually isn't any benefit from turning it off. And when turning it off introduces detection problems, they are often subtle. (i.e. rubber bullet syndrome)
Bottom line is if you are disagreeing that if he is experiencing what appear to be near collisions visually but which his FE records as an actual collision, and he has VSync off, that there is no way he could possibly benefit from turning it back on, then we are going to have to agree to disagree.
I'm fully convinced that the overwhelming weight of general evidence (as well as the specific - where every recommendation I've seen from HTC staff regarding VSync is to turn it on) is that he should turn it on.
<S>
-
And actually, I believe that you have it backwards. Most modern games use triple buffering to decouple the video hardware from the processing loop, and there usually isn't any benefit from turning it off. And when turning it off introduces detection problems, they are often subtle. (i.e. rubber bullet syndrome)
I very much doubt that more than a handful direcX games directly support triple buffering. Besides, triple buffering works well only on fast CPU machines with large amount of Vram.
As far as rubber bullets go, It is possible. Better yet, ask HiTech if this problem actually exist because of Vsync or is it something else like dropped packets.
Bottom line is if you are disagreeing that if he is experiencing what appear to be near collisions visually but which his FE records as an actual collision, and he has VSync off, that there is no way he could possibly benefit from turning it back on, then we are going to have to agree to disagree.
Collision problems are due to displacement lag and/or input lag. If anyone claims it is due to Vsync turned off I wanna see the proof.
I'm fully convinced that the overwhelming weight of general evidence (as well as the specific - where every recommendation I've seen from HTC staff regarding VSync is to turn it on) is that he should turn it on.
As I have said before, if you do not experience any troubles with vsync off, than there is no compelling reason to turn it on.
-
As I have said before, if you do not experience any troubles with vsync off, than there is no compelling reason to turn it on.
I don't see a compelling reason to turn if off!
-
Skuzzy, please lock this thread, it has no purpose.
-
Skuzzy, please lock this thread, it has no purpose.
Just don't read it.
-
As far as rubber bullets go, It is possible. Better yet, ask HiTech if this problem actually exist because of Vsync or is it something else like dropped packets.
I have been hearing about this since I started (I think it is 5 years now). However, I don't remember seeing the official answer on that subject. Lots of 'expert' opinions, but no official answer. I apologize if there was one and I missed it.
-
I have been hearing about this since I started (I think it is 5 years now). However, I don't remember seeing the official answer on that subject. Lots of 'expert' opinions, but no official answer. I apologize if there was one and I missed it.
Do not sweat it dsfire. Sounds like you have vsync enabled which you want in this game. Those people reporting high frame rates maybe running vsync off, in which case, they are more likely to suffer from the "rubber bullet" syndrome.
I would not use AF, as it really does not help much and will blur the text. It is up to you on this.
I run 2XAA @ 1600x1200 on mine. Should be fine.
Yes, vsync enabled is a good thing.
There are a couple of objects in the game which do have somne Z fighting happening and will be corrected in the next patch.
Playing the game with vsync off is not a good idea. It can have detrimental effects on many aspects of the game.
-
I don't see a compelling reason to turn if off!
If your system can always keep up with monitor refresh rate, then by all means keep it on.
If not, than your overall frame rate will drop due to how synchronizing works. Lets say you run monitor at 100 Hz. If your GPU can't quite manage that rate at times it'll drop to 50, instead of maybe 98.
If you are in the midst of large bomber formation and your GPU can draw 49 frames only, your frame rate will drop down to next available rate of 25. at 49 frames, game is still playable, at 25 not so.
On the low end, that's significant difference and compelling enough to turn vsync off, if it doesn't cause any graphic glitches like tearing.
-
2bighorn: You are describing the double buffer sync problem, almost all games including AH have used triple buffering for a long time
-
Ya, this looks like a debris hit... you get that odd clang sound byte but take no damage. :)
Edit: sometimes that sound catches me off guard and makes me jump in my seat a little.. dunno why, lol.
It sounds like a two ton garage door falling free against metal :P
-
The collision model is fracked. Yes, it records a collision. It just gives the wrong damage. It records the smaller plane taking catastrophic damage and the larger plane taking 0%. That is my experience 9 out of 10 times. Hit a B-17 with a 109 and the 109 will go down but the B-17 flys away. History proves this differently.
The model doesn't work in function of impactor or impactee size, it works in function of each players' front end. You get what you see.
The only fault in the collision model is (once again) because of internet lag. It's sometimes possible to fly thru another plane (parts attached to its pilot) somehow, probably because of / thanks to the physics update frequency. It's really rare though. Something like 1/100 or something of that order of magnitude.
-
I have been hearing about this since I started (I think it is 5 years now). However, I don't remember seeing the official answer on that subject. Lots of 'expert' opinions, but no official answer. I apologize if there was one and I missed it.
HiTech did say, that if you register hit or collision on your side, then it did happen. Now, what is registered on your side has to be acknowledged by the server and other party. There are gazillion of things which can happen to packets between two end points.
The usual culprits are BG processes, PF, NAT, Wireless, QOS, asynchronous routes, etc. If I'd had rubber bullets I'd look to net problems firstly and then all others.
IIRC he once said that hits registration goes over TCP/IP rather than UDP, so it shouldn't happen that often.
Also, I have never experienced rubber bullets even though my ISP is RR, I'm behind NAT, hardware and personal firewall, run AV all the times and my Vsync is Off.
-
2bighorn: You are describing the double buffer sync problem, almost all games including AH have used triple buffering for a long time
Cool, didn't know that AH makes use of it.
-
HiTech did say, that if you register hit or collision on your side, then it did happen. Now, what is registered on your side has to be acknowledged by the server and other party. There are gazillion of things which can happen to packets between two end points.
The usual culprits are BG processes, PF, NAT, Wireless, QOS, asynchronous routes, etc. If I'd had rubber bullets I'd look to net problems firstly and then all others.
IIRC he once said that hits registration goes over TCP/IP rather than UDP, so it shouldn't happen that often.
Also, I have never experienced rubber bullets even though my ISP is RR, I'm behind NAT, hardware and personal firewall, run AV all the times and my Vsync is Off.
I knew it! Cheater!!! :P
-
I say since theres no way for HTC to flame both planes for some reason after a midair collision I say the one who gets the "YOU HAVE COLLIDED WITH" on the screen should be the one that goes down. That would at least stop a few of them from flying straight into you like has happened to me multiple times since squeeker season opened.
-
I say since theres no way for HTC to flame both planes for some reason after a midair collision I say the one who gets the "YOU HAVE COLLIDED WITH" on the screen should be the one that goes down. That would at least stop a few of them from flying straight into you like has happened to me multiple times since squeeker season opened.
it already happens like that.
orange message: YOU HAVE COLLIDED WITH XXX= YOU GO DOWN
white message: XXX HAS COLLIDED WITH YOU= HE GOES DOWN
-
any one who flies LA5/7 should get the blame no matter what :D