Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: TEShaw on September 15, 2008, 03:36:11 PM
-
...but I think Warbirds had a better collision model. Or, I'm delirious.
One had the sense that if you tried to avoid the collision, then you not get collision head.
But, who knows.
-
I suppose that's the beauty of HTC's modeling... you only take it if you see it.
be nice if they added a collision sound(have one??)/forcefeedback effect, because what i think gets most of us is there's no visceral feedback we had a collision other than the msg bar.
-
I'm delirious
ding ding ding ding......you win a (http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa223/Skyrock67/cookie.jpg) :aok
-
hate it.
-
hate it.
STEVE !
-
I never bothered asking but wouldn't it be possible to send a messages from computer to computer in order to recognize a collision and have both aircraft actually collide? I.e. If the collision is seen on screen A but not on screen B, computer A could send a message to computer B stating that a collision has occurred. Moments later, computer B's plane receives damage as well. Sure it's lagged, but I think it would better than no collisions at all.
-
It would fix the issue, but it would be unrealistic. For example: A plane rammed the very tip of your wing killing the pilot of the plane that rammed you. Since he died in the collision you died also. Is this fair?
-
STEVE !
At least I was brief. Heheheh.
-
I never bothered asking but wouldn't it be possible to send a messages from computer to computer in order to recognize a collision and have both aircraft actually collide? I.e. If the collision is seen on screen A but not on screen B, computer A could send a message to computer B stating that a collision has occurred. Moments later, computer B's plane receives damage as well.
Which would mean plane B will get collision damage even when on his screen plane A missed him by 100 feet. And that would then happen constantly. And no, it doesn't happen right now. ;)
-
Frankly, trying to do anything on the Internet that has demanding real-time requirements is a little crazy. I'm always amazed that it works as well as it does. Has anyone heard anything recently on the "priority service" discussions that were floating around a few years ago?
-
90% of collisions are caused by HO attempts. It's the ones where you don't even see the guy you hit that are lame.
-
At least I was brief. Heheheh.
:aok
-
...but I think Warbirds had a better collision model. Or, I'm delirious.
One had the sense that if you tried to avoid the collision, then you not get collision head.
But, who knows.
there's only one thing that is wrong with AH. that would be us.
all of us find SOMETHING to complain about, no matter what the other guy does, or no matter what HTC does.
-
real simple dont come close enough for a collision
-
Which would mean plane B will get collision damage even when on his screen plane A missed him by 100 feet. And that would then happen constantly. And no, it doesn't happen right now. ;)
FUNNY......
i was flying ground support the other night trying to capture a61 or one of them. most of the defenders were ramming or ho'ing.
hagendaz tried to ho me, i sideslipped under him. it looked like he would've taken off my hand if i could've put it outside the cockpit. i got the white "hagendaz has collided with you" message. took 0 damage. i was spit5, him zeke. suprisingly, he survived with only a black smoke trail. nk tried to finish him, he tried to ho him too....i took his wing off that time.
seeing as he went OVER my aircraft in that situation, i'd have been pissed had i took damage from that.
sooo...like i said before...the only thing wrong is us.
live with it. stay away from the other big things with wings, and you won't collide. :aok
-
real simple dont come close enough for a collision
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
what he said
-
Maybe if you stop correcting people's grammar and watch your screen. Then you might be able to avoid afew! :noid
-
Which would mean plane B will get collision damage even when on his screen plane A missed him by 100 feet. And that would then happen constantly. And no, it doesn't happen right now. ;)
What he said.
-
Maybe if you stop correcting people's grammar and watch your screen. Then you might be able to avoid afew! :noid
who're you referencing there?
-
Too bad they can't just shrink the contact areas somehow. Like if the props touch,both blow, if not then its not a collision. I'd hope the connections would allow that. Ive only seen one collision that I was part of...that said the other guy collided but not me, that looked like I shouldnt have collided. All others, even though I didnt take damage, I should have.
-
Too bad they can't just shrink the contact areas somehow. Like if the props touch,both blow, if not then its not a collision. I'd hope the connections would allow that. Ive only seen one collision that I was part of...that said the other guy collided but not me, that looked like I shouldnt have collided. All others, even though I didnt take damage, I should have.
i had 2 tonight again. both tried to ho me. i didn't dodge as i was in a kinda pisy mood, so i threw it back at em. one was a zeke vs my spit9, he lost, and collided with me...i took no damage, although important parts fel off of his ride. the other was a hurri.....i dunno which one, but same..he lost, i got the white message again, and he lost an engine.
i normally don't like to be that close, but i wans't in a mood to dodge them.
-
Maybe more folks should be respecting the space between yourself and your opponent, rather than saying "f*** it" while holding down the trigger and kinda half hoping you dont collide.
The trouble with both HOs (12 to 12 real ones), and collisions is the fact we know we only pay a penalty in "game terms", nobody really dies, or gets captured, or has to bail out over the ocean with little chance of rescue, so we act like its not that big a deal (which I guess....it isnt).
Moral of the story, if you think your too close, you are, if you want to press the attack on a a/c that is only 20 feet away, scissoring hard, you are asking for trouble, wether the collision model is "100 percent" fair, or not.
-
I don't know about AW, but in the old versions of WB there was no survival after a collision. You just died no matter what: BOOM, you're in the tower. AH is a big improvement.
-
I don't know about AW, but in the old versions of WB there was no survival after a collision. You just died no matter what: BOOM, you're in the tower. AH is a big improvement.
Not to mention "collision bubble" WB had :rolleyes:
-
I don't know about AW, but in the old versions of WB there was no survival after a collision. You just died no matter what: BOOM, you're in the tower. AH is a big improvement.
I would much rather it worked like that. Any FE sees a collision and your back in the tower. I don't mind collisions so much because they happen occasionally. What makes me mad is when my plane loses an entire wing and the other guy loses 1/2 an elevator and flies away. The only exceptions should be fighter vs bomber. The fighter should go back to the hangar and the bomber should take minor damage IMO.
One more thing. How the heck does a collision result in an oil leak and no other damage? Still haven't figured that out.
-
I would much rather it worked like that. Any FE sees a collision and your back in the tower. I don't mind collisions so much because they happen occasionally. What makes me mad is when my plane loses an entire wing and the other guy loses 1/2 an elevator and flies away. The only exceptions should be fighter vs bomber. The fighter should go back to the hangar and the bomber should take minor damage IMO.
One more thing. How the heck does a collision result in an oil leak and no other damage? Still haven't figured that out.
WELL, IF YOUR WING GOES through his horizontal stabalizer, and only takes off part of it, you think he deserves to go down too? because you got too close to him as he was evading you? :rolleyes:
and before you say it./.......NO it is NOT always both going down in rl
-
I would much rather it worked like that. Any FE sees a collision and your back in the tower.
I'm absolutely convinced people like you would be the first to complain again and even more when going down from a collision that never happened on your screen :)
(http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/2236/rammyfeve9.jpg)
(http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/9027/ramotherfeen9.jpg)
Both pics were taken at the exact same moment. Tell the P-47 pilot why he should go down - his screenshot is the lower one (note the "Lusche has collided" with you message) :)
-
Which would mean plane B will get collision damage even when on his screen plane A missed him by 100 feet. And that would then happen constantly. And no, it doesn't happen right now. ;)
is this possible, I mean are our connections sooo bad that we constantly see other aircraft 100 plus feet behind/ahead of where they "really" are??? and if so what determines' where they "really" are since it is my understanding that it is all on OUR frontends??
-
and if so what determines' where they "really" are
Combined Lag
-
Nice sig, 2bighorn :rofl :aok
-
Combined Lag
sounds good, now what machine calulates the "combined lag" the server?? or is it each individual computer?
and if so how does my computer "know" what the other guys lag is?? If it is the server then some of the collision model is server side correct?
-
sounds good, now what machine calulates the "combined lag" the server?? or is it each individual computer?
and if so how does my computer "know" what the other guys lag is?? If it is the server then some of the collision model is server side correct?
Server has no say in collisions at all.
And total lag isn't computed in any way. It's just the simple fact that signals have to travel from your computer to the other player ones (via server) and of course from him to you. Both travel times combined are "total lag"
And this signal trave time is responsible for both of you having different "realities" on your screens all the time.
-
sounds good, now what machine calulates the "combined lag" the server?? or is it each individual computer?
and if so how does my computer "know" what the other guys lag is?? If it is the server then some of the collision model is server side correct?
Lets say somebody's is closing on your six. Other guy is flying at 400mph and you at 200mph. He closes down down to 20yds of your six. His machine sends position to the server. Lets say that takes 100ms. Server sends that data to you. Lets say that takes 100ms too.
When you receive position of him being 20yds of your six flying at 400mph, 200ms have passed meanwhile and he's actually 20yds closer then you'd see him ie colliding with you unless he'd avoid you.
-
Server has no say in collisions at all.
And total lag isn't computed in any way. It's just the simple fact that signals have to travel from your computer to the other player ones (via server) and of course from him to you. Both travel times combined are "total lag"
And this signal trave time is responsible for both of you having different "realities" on your screens all the time.
Well you seem to be saying two different things, as I see it the only things in common are the SERVER both computers are connected to it (even tho the the game is on each frontend) so because of this "difference" in times out and back each player gets a different reality it seems to me if I see a collison on "my" frontend I should see his plane plummet on "my" frontend. The truth is there is NO good way to do collisions due the lag time involved with our current technology, which is why I say they should be turned off (but I can live with what we have since I in no way believe they will be turned off).
-
is this possible, I mean are our connections sooo bad that we constantly see other aircraft 100 plus feet behind/ahead of where they "really" are??? and if so what determines' where they "really" are since it is my understanding that it is all on OUR frontends??
100 MPH = 146 FPS, You do the math of 100 MS pings and 300 MPH.
-
Lets say somebody's is closing on your six. Other guy is flying at 400mph and you at 200mph. He closes down down to 20yds of your six. His machine sends position to the server. Lets say that takes 100ms. Server sends that data to you. Lets say that takes 100ms too.
When you receive position of him being 20yds of your six flying at 400mph, 200ms have passed meanwhile and he's actually 20yds closer then you'd see him ie colliding with you unless he'd avoid you.
Thanks, as I stated above it all comes down to the common denominator the time to the SERVER and back on each machine.
-
Well you seem to be saying two different things, as I see it the only things in common are the SERVER both computers are connected to it (even tho the the game is on each frontend) so because of this "difference" in times out and back each player gets a different reality it seems to me if I see a collison on "my" frontend I should see his plane plummet on "my" frontend. The truth is there is NO good way to do collisions due the lag time involved with our current technology, which is why I say they should be turned off (but I can live with what we have since I in no way believe they will be turned off).
Well, the current collision model is indeed a compromise, but the best one possible.
Turning collisions off entirely would have ugly side effects. For example there would be no need to set up any buff attacks, as you could just fly through them guns blazing from any angle without any risk.
The way it is now, every player is basically responsoble for what is happening on his side, which is the most fair solution to the problem.
Sometimes you simply have no luck, but (as mentioned before in this thread): If a player is getting killed by collisions constantly, he should review his way of flying. ;)
Thanks, as I stated above it all comes down to the common denominator the time to the SERVER and back on each machine.
Yes...but added together. My position in the game is computed on my computer, then goes to the server (my "lag") which relays it to your computer (your "lag") where it is displayed on your screen with a delay resulting from both legs of the complete way the signals had to travel.
-
100 MPH = 146 FPS, You do the math of 100 MS pings and 300 MPH.
??? so its like a movie the object "moves" 146 frames in a second at the speed of 100 MPH.
so 146,000 frames x 100 x 300 mph gets me what? the number of frames the object has moved?
we know the time it took was 100ms for the "ping" and his might be more or less depending on his ping
but I am not sure what your getting at other than the answer to my first post is yes and here is why.
-
??? so its like a movie the object "moves" 146 frames in a second at the speed of 100 MPH.
so 146,000 frames x 100 x 300 mph gets me what? the number of frames the object has moved?
we know the time it took was 100ms for the "ping" and his might be more or less depending on his ping
but I am not sure what your getting at other than the answer to my first post is yes and here is why.
In this case fps=feet per second, not frames ;)
-
??? so its like a movie the object "moves" 146 frames in a second at the speed of 100 MPH.
so 146,000 frames x 100 x 300 mph gets me what? the number of frames the object has moved?
we know the time it took was 100ms for the "ping" and his might be more or less depending on his ping
but I am not sure what your getting at other than the answer to my first post is yes and here is why.
As Lusche said, FPS = frames per second or at 300mph and 100ms lag makes for 44 feet difference
-
In this case fps=feet per second, not frames ;)
:lol oops I got hung up in computer land. Ok so now 146,000 feet x 3 x 100 give me the feet traveled in a 100ms ping. Sheez this exercise shows how much you buy for .50 a day :rolleyes:
-
Server has no say in collisions at all.
And total lag isn't computed in any way. It's just the simple fact that signals have to travel from your computer to the other player ones (via server) and of course from him to you. Both travel times combined are "total lag"
And this signal trave time is responsible for both of you having different "realities" on your screens all the time.
YAKNOW.........
it seems to me that you find yourself explaining this about every 2 weeks to a month.
i'm glad ya keep trying, because that's why i think i understand how they work a lil better now than i used to. but it is kind of ridiculous that it has to keep comming up. it also seems that it's the people that think ALL aircraft in a collision should go down, when the fact is that they don't. and when the fact may be that it happens on their screen, so it's only fair if i suffer too. seems that ho'ers get em alot. seems us turnfighters get em once in awhile. i came sooooo close to hitting another hellkitty last night, that had he let loose a vitual fart, my vitural pilot would've virtually smelled it. :rofl
shortly after that, i did have a ZEKE of all things try to ho my spit9, and like i said in an earlier post, i wasn't in a mood to dodge, so i returned the favor. last second, i stomped the rudder, and pushed the stick foward, watched him go over my head, and got the white message saying "xxx has collided with you". got the same thing from the hurri right after he went in.
fact is, if you don't try to ho, don't get so damd close that you can count the rivits, and fight a bit smarter, collisions won't happen.
but now a final question? most that are complaining about the collisions are the same ones that say they don't care about score. the only thing a collision does is end the fight, and hurt your score. so why worry? click the button, and have another airplane, compliments of HTC.
<<S>>
-
Well, the current collision model is indeed a compromise, but the best one possible.
Turning collisions off entirely would have ugly side effects. For example there would be no need to set up any buff attacks, as you could just fly through them guns blazing from any angle without any risk.
wasn't AW3 like that?
-
ding ding ding ding......you win a (http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa223/Skyrock67/cookie.jpg) :aok
Aahhahahahhaha good one SR.