Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: justIN on November 08, 2009, 11:39:51 PM
-
Why is it when ywo planes collied one plane seem's to fly away unscaved?If two planes collied shouldn't they both die,unlikely if two planes in real life collieded that :airplane: only one would die. :airplane: :airplane:
-
Why is it when two planes collide one plane seems to fly away unscathed?If two planes collide shouldn't they both die,unlikely if two planes in real life collided that :airplane: only one would die. :airplane: :airplane:
fixed
-
http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/lag/lag.htm
Long story short, only the person who "sees" the collision is registered as collided. For example, if on your screen you collided with somebody, then you get the broken airplane. If they didn't see you collide on their screen, they fly away. Only fair way to do it.
-
(http://www.iwannapet.com/collie.jpg)
Now you been collied for real, squeak.
-
:lol
-
Why is it when ywo planes collied one plane seem's to fly away unscaved?If two planes collied shouldn't they both die,unlikely if two planes in real life collieded that :airplane: only one would die. :airplane: :airplane:
your talking about AH2, right? not real life?
-
only the person who "sees" the collision is registered as collided.
It has always interested me, this explanation. I dont understand why two players can shoot at each other at "approximately" the same time and both players registers hits, yet if they collide in an "approximate" manner only one takes damage. I just cant help but think that the coding on this subject is inferior when compared to the coding that transmits damage from weapons.
But hey, I do not care. Collisions for me are rare anyway.
-
It has always interested me, this explanation. I dont understand why two players can shoot at each other at "approximately" the same time and both players registers hits, yet if they collide in an "approximate" manner only one takes damage. I just cant help but think that the coding on this subject is inferior when compared to the coding that transmits damage from weapons.
But hey, I do not care. Collisions for me are rare anyway.
The firing player is the one that determines whether the shot impacts, the results are then transmitted to the receiving end (at least how I understand it). That way intardnet lag doesn't keep someone from hitting their target if they are de-sync'd.
For collisions, the player that sees the collision has the effect, because it is unfair to punish the player doing everything right in avoiding but intardnet lag puts them in a dangerous position in the OTHER player's viewpoint.
-
I "collided" with a Mosquito after separating its engines and wings in meh 163. I did not get the kill even though it was in pieces when I hit it.
Infidelz.
-
I "collided" with a Mosquito after separating its engines and wings in meh 163. I did not get the kill even though it was in pieces when I hit it.
Infidelz.
He was still in the cockpit when you ran into him... you go poof.
-
Yeager, best explanation I can give you sir.
Imagine, for the purposes of explanation, that when you are in a 1vs 1 with an enemy plane.
That there are in fact 4 aircraft. Everything is run on your computer that has to do with you.
Ie Shooting, collisions etc. Same is true on his.
So its like the "Real you" pulling a towed target that looks like you. (he just sees the target, can't see you)
And the real him, pulling a target that looks like him. (you just see the target, you can't see him.
If you get guns on him, and "see" hits, it sends the data in a packet to his computer and his plane takes appropriate damage.
Now in a collision one side can run into the other guys target, ie the game detects that the 2 of you are in the same space. But on the other side lag makes things look slightly different. So on HIS end, he avoids the collision. He misses, the game does not detect both of you in the same space.
So you see it really does not matter who "ran" into who.
If you get a collision, you caused it, directly or indirectly.
There is virtually no way to "ram" someone where you won't take more damage than the person your trying to hit.
In order to truly do so would be like trying to run into him with your towed target. But because of lag you never know how long the rope towing it is! You would have to be out in front of him, swinging around hoping that he'll run into you.
And if he sees it, he'll probably try to miss it, or shoot it.
Many people have said they have done it, but no one has of yet ever submitted film proving a ram like this.
So, there is no ram.
If you collided, you take the damage.
If he didn't, he doesn't.
Its not real world where both planes fall, and it never will be.
Until we can have truly lag less internet, with zero ping and no packet loss.
Collisions will have to be modeled the way they are.
All you have to do is miss the collision on your end, and don't worry about what he see's on his.
Well, that and stay out of his guns of course. :)
Which is the real cause of most guys who end up in the tower cursing collisions.
-
I need more stuff to hit!
ADD BIRDS!
(http://blogs.nwf.org/.a/6a00d8341ca02253ef0120a556cde1970c-320wi)
-
http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/lag/lag.htm
Long story short, only the person who "sees" the collision is registered as collided. For example, if on your screen you collided with somebody, then you get the broken airplane. If they didn't see you collide on their screen, they fly away. Only fair way to do it.
I don't think it is a matter of a screen seeing a collision. As it was explained to me in a thread about 2 years ago, its a matter of the modeling engine determining whether or not it was one player or another who took the collision. As to where the modeling engine resides and it's input originate from is still a mystery to me.
Some have said that it is the client that provides the input and the server renders a decision and others have said that its all client and the server only renders decisions made by the client. Still a mystery as far as I'm concerned.
However, after almost 3 years of playing this game, collisions are rare for me and the only time I seem to collide is when I do something stupid. In other words, most of the time, collisions occur for me when its my own dang fault.
A few rules I live by to avoid collision:
1. SA
2. Refer to 1
3. Never, ever take a HO unless you are willing to accept its outcome and not whine on 200 (and remember that a front aspect deflection shot is not a HO).
S1n1ster
-
(http://www.iwannapet.com/collie.jpg)
Now you been collied for real, squeak.
You sure? Seems more like an example of Sheltied.
-
I don't think it is a matter of a screen seeing a collision.
Yes, it is.
As it was explained to me in a thread about 2 years ago, its a matter of the modeling engine determining whether or not it was one player or another who took the collision.
No it isn't.
ome have said that it is the client that provides the input and the server renders a decision and others have said that its all client and the server only renders decisions made by the client. Still a mystery as far as I'm concerned.
The server has nothing to do with that. He's just relaying information between your and your enemy's computer. There is not determination who "initiated" the collision, who's fault it was etc.
It's really that simple:
Collision on your screen: You take damage ("You have collided" message)
Collision on his screen: He takes damage ("XYZ has collided with you" message)
See Ghosth's explanation above, or the article about lag on the Trainer Corps website.
-
I NEVER worry about collisions anymore - I applied and was granted (for a small monthly fee) the HTC Flight Collision Avoidance Package - lets YOU fly away undamaged.
Also sends you a Get Well card should you fall ill and arranges for a maid to do your laundry on weekends.
Well worth the $$.
For those who can't afford it I'd suggest pillows..lots n lotsa pillows!!
....cheers eh! :D
-
No, this is the best system eva!!! If you colide, it is because of your bad <insert anything here>
To prove it, get in a fast plane, pick up some speed (the faster the better) and keep diving in front of bombers or anything slower. When they collide with you, send them a PM stating that it is their fault since you did not see a collision on your end. Ask them to get a better SA, better hardware, and come to the BBS so they can understand how collisions work and why they are needed so mach in a game where spits and LA5s will ask for a HO shot from a 110 :aok
I would turn them off, they don't seem to stop anyone from flying through you guns blazing any way. They do have the ability to stop a good fight though.
-
The same weirdness happens with weapon damage but no one runs in here and screams about it. How many times have you been "shot down" by a guy who "on your screen had NO shooting solution" but on his you were a big target.
-
The same weirdness happens with weapon damage but no one runs in here and screams about it. How many times have you been "shot down" by a guy who "on your screen had NO shooting solution" but on his you were a big target.
:aok
-
How many times have you been "shot down" by a guy who "on your screen had NO shooting solution" but on his you were a big target.
You're trying to say that it should not work that way?
-
You're trying to say that it should not work that way?
Why? Would that help you make an argument? lol. Are you saying that I should be able to take you out simply by flying fast across your nose? Is that how is should work?
It is what it is, and probably cant be fixed due to the 1000s of reasons stated in the 1000s of threads about the subject. What can be fixed is to stop pretending that what we have works and it is not broken, figure out what the reasons for having the broken future are, and if the positives are more than the negatives we should keep it. If not, turn it off.
I guess, if I saw any benefit from it I would not be making these comments. So, what does the collision mechanism we have today provide us with? As I said, it does not seem to stop anyone from flying through you guns blazing so I would be looking for a different reason.
-
I think most of us realise why it has to work that way, its still annoying though when you're working the angles, denying firing solutions with some finesse but still get shot :(
-
Why? Would that help you make an argument? lol. Are you saying that I should be able to take you out simply by flying fast across your nose? Is that how is should work?
It is what it is, and probably cant be fixed due to the 1000s of reasons stated in the 1000s of threads about the subject. What can be fixed is to stop pretending that what we have works and it is not broken, figure out what the reasons for having the broken future are, and if the positives are more than the negatives we should keep it. If not, turn it off.
I guess, if I saw any benefit from it I would not be making these comments. So, what does the collision mechanism we have today provide us with? As I said, it does not seem to stop anyone from flying through you guns blazing so I would be looking for a different reason.
See the part I quoted from you. It wasn't about the collision model, and thus my question wasn't either.
-
I remember learning about net-lag in the '90s when I first tried flight sims online. It was one of the most highly emphasized concepts for learning what's what. These days it seems like many don't even suspect that playing a game with someone thousands of miles away might have irreparable consequences for the participants' relative points of view.
-
It wasn't about the collision model, and thus my question wasn't either.
but collisions and off-angle shots both result from the way the game coad handles latency, different symptoms, same cause.
-
but collisions and off-angle shots both result from the way the game coad handles latency, different symptoms, same cause.
I know that.
-
I know that.
I know you do, and since you could not provide any argument to the collisions question, you went for the easy pickings in the shooting comment. Same cause, but one of the problems we can do with out. So, do you think there is any benefit of having collisions on?
-
:rolleyes:
I was just asking a simple question, because I'm not sure if I understood correctly what you were trying to say with that analogy. And because I do not like to base my arguments on assumptions what someone else might have meant, I just dared to ask a simple question to better understand your thoughts...
-
:rolleyes:
I was just asking a simple question, because I'm not sure if I understood correctly what you were trying to say with that analogy. And because I do not like to base my arguments on assumptions what someone else might have meant, I just dared to ask a simple question to better understand your thoughts...
So, do you think there is a benefit from them being on? Just a simple question.
-
Yes.
Now could you answer mine? :)
-
Yes.
Now could you answer mine? :)
I figured, now you know why I responded the way I did. You guys are very quick to show films and diagrams and explain how stupid the players are for not getting it, but cannot provide a reason for having a future that does nothing for the players. I can't remember of one time that this thing protected me from someone.
I ll keep making people explode this way and then tell them it is their fault because their SA sucks lol :rofl
-
I figured, now you know why I responded the way I did.
No I don't. I was just asking for some clarification because I'm not sure if I understood you correctly, see my message above.
And instead of giving me an answer you are just dodging around having a lot of assumptions about my "true" motifs.
What exactly makes it so difficult to you to actually answer my question?
-
I figured, now you know why I responded the way I did. You guys are very quick to show films and diagrams and explain how stupid the players are for not getting it, but cannot provide a reason for having a future that does nothing for the players. I can't remember of one time that this thing protected me from someone.
You don't know what you are talking about because you don't try to think about consequences, instead you just mock and "LOL" crap.
If there were no collisions in AH it would grossly distort the tactics, far beyond the current distortion, as compared to real world tactics. It is very, very easy to get a gun solution when you can fire from 10 ft away as you fly through your target and having no collisions, or even just collisions only when both FEs detect a collision, would push this as the most desirable attack. Maneuvers would be based on setting up the flight through your opponent so that you could get the kill from ranges at which you literally cannot miss. Every time somebody did not fly through you on their FE, guns blazing, the current system protected you.
-
(http://www.iwannapet.com/collie.jpg)
Now you been collied for real, squeak.
Without a doubt, Hub had the best response to the OP.
-
Boxboy, you know that legend on passenger side mirrors? "Objects in mirror may be closer than they appear"
Well because of lag, your enemy may be farther around the curve than he appears.
So even though from your end it looks like he's has not gotten far enough around to get a shot.
On his end he very well could have a shot.
As Lusche said, read the article on net lag on the trainers site.
http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/lag/lag.htm
The same weirdness happens with weapon damage but no one runs in here and screams about it. How many times have you been "shot down" by a guy who "on your screen had NO shooting solution" but on his you were a big target.
-
You don't know what you are talking about because you don't try to think about consequences, instead you just mock and "LOL" crap.
If there were no collisions in AH it would grossly distort the tactics, far beyond the current distortion, as compared to real world tactics. It is very, very easy to get a gun solution when you can fire from 10 ft away as you fly through your target and having no collisions, or even just collisions only when both FEs detect a collision, would push this as the most desirable attack. Maneuvers would be based on setting up the flight through your opponent so that you could get the kill from ranges at which you literally cannot miss. Every time somebody did not fly through you on their FE, guns blazing, the current system protected you.
The only problem with that is that it really does not stop anyone from doing what you described. If they are not afraid to get shot in the face, they are not afraid of maybe colliding in the process of getting shot in the face. So, as I am sure you were able to read in my post, other than this benefit, what else do collisions provide us with and is the small percentage of the time that it supposedly helped me worth blowing up every time a BnZ attempt failed and the other plane just flew in front of me (just an example)?
-
What exactly makes it so difficult to you to actually answer my question?
Nothing, I thought I did
-
The only problem with that is that it really does not stop anyone from doing what you described. If they are not afraid to get shot in the face, they are not afraid of maybe colliding in the process of getting shot in the face. So, as I am sure you were able to read in my post, other than this benefit, what else do collisions provide us with and is the small percentage of the time that it supposedly helped me worth blowing up every time a BnZ attempt failed and the other plane just flew in front of me (just an example)?
Um, what of the danger of flying through someone else's plane from *behind*? I.E, they are very close to overshooting, but can afford to shoot until the distance is 0 feet? Would greatly increse the difficulty of forcing anyone to overshoot.
-
Yeager, best explanation I can give you sir.
Imagine, for the purposes of explanation, that when you are in a 1vs 1 with an enemy plane.
That there are in fact 4 aircraft. Everything is run on your computer that has to do with you.
Ie Shooting, collisions etc. Same is true on his.
So its like the "Real you" pulling a towed target that looks like you. (he just sees the target, can't see you)
And the real him, pulling a target that looks like him. (you just see the target, you can't see him.
If you get guns on him, and "see" hits, it sends the data in a packet to his computer and his plane takes appropriate damage.
Now in a collision one side can run into the other guys target, ie the game detects that the 2 of you are in the same space. But on the other side lag makes things look slightly different. So on HIS end, he avoids the collision. He misses, the game does not detect both of you in the same space.
So you see it really does not matter who "ran" into who.
If you get a collision, you caused it, directly or indirectly.
There is virtually no way to "ram" someone where you won't take more damage than the person your trying to hit.
In order to truly do so would be like trying to run into him with your towed target. But because of lag you never know how long the rope towing it is! You would have to be out in front of him, swinging around hoping that he'll run into you.
And if he sees it, he'll probably try to miss it, or shoot it.
Many people have said they have done it, but no one has of yet ever submitted film proving a ram like this.
So, there is no ram.
If you collided, you take the damage.
If he didn't, he doesn't.
Its not real world where both planes fall, and it never will be.
Until we can have truly lag less internet, with zero ping and no packet loss.
Collisions will have to be modeled the way they are.
All you have to do is miss the collision on your end, and don't worry about what he see's on his.
Well, that and stay out of his guns of course. :)
Which is the real cause of most guys who end up in the tower cursing collisions.
I honestly understand this explanation.
But, it does not agree with the facts. A plane coming from underneath another, colliding, will come through unscathed 9 out of 10 times. Your explanation does not account for that.
-
Why is it when ywo planes collied one plane seem's to fly away unscaved?If two planes collied shouldn't they both die,unlikely if two planes in real life collieded that :airplane: only one would die. :airplane: :airplane:
I didn't know Collies flew.
-
The only problem with that is that it really does not stop anyone from doing what you described. If they are not afraid to get shot in the face, they are not afraid of maybe colliding in the process of getting shot in the face. So, as I am sure you were able to read in my post, other than this benefit, what else do collisions provide us with and is the small percentage of the time that it supposedly helped me worth blowing up every time a BnZ attempt failed and the other plane just flew in front of me (just an example)?
You are wrong and need to think more. Stop thinking in stereotypes and exaggerating some behaviors to be the norm.
I don't feel like explaining to you all the ways in which this would be abused that is not currently abused.
-
I didn't know Collies flew.
Don't be silly,only Beagles fly.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_m6eUDyRpAhQ/RY24yuyHS1I/AAAAAAAAAAY/E4hSlBf2e6I/s320/SnoopyFightingRedBaron.jpg)
-
I honestly understand this explanation.
But, it does not agree with the facts. A plane coming from underneath another, colliding, will come through unscathed 9 out of 10 times. Your explanation does not account for that.
Mine does. He is clear in his FE but you get rewarded with a collision. Its ok, its a safe way to take out bombers. Just tell them it was their SA being bad.
-
You are wrong and need to think more. Stop thinking in stereotypes and exaggerating some behaviors to be the norm.
I don't feel like explaining to you all the ways in which this would be abused that is not currently abused.
Well, I made my point and explained it. You on the other hand is refusing to state any explanations. Claiming you don't feel like explaining all the ways it can be abused is kind of lame dont you think? Just state a couple. It would have taken less effort than your post.
BTW, you are probably right, it could be abused like everything else. If you bother to read my posts you will see that I said we need to compare the benefits it provides with the negatives and take it from there. Very simple question really but 0 answers so far from the people with the videos and the diagrams. I guess if we cant make a nube feel stupid we don't respond lol.
We don't get to decide anyway. HT does. We can just talk about it.
-
The benefit:
It promotes realistic maneuvering tactics.
The disadvantage:
Some people will whine.
-
Mine does. He is clear in his FE but you get rewarded with a collision. Its ok, its a safe way to take out bombers. Just tell them it was their SA being bad.
I say BS.
I have yet to get a "You have collided" message where I didn't see a collision where I "physically" ran into the other plane.
So, either you are
A: flying within their envelope in "the internet ether" but not yours, and they physically "see" a collision with their plane...
Or
B: You're shooting them as you blow through, doing catastrophic damage anyway, and incidentally collide anyway.
I'm still convinced 98% of "collision deaths" are actually due to gunfire anyhow.
wrongway
-
I say BS.
I have yet to get a "You have collided" message where I didn't see a collision where I "physically" ran into the other plane.
So, either you are
A: flying within their envelope in "the internet ether" but not yours, and they physically "see" a collision with their plane...
Or
B: You're shooting them as you blow through, doing catastrophic damage anyway, and incidentally collide anyway.
I'm still convinced 98% of "collision deaths" are actually due to gunfire anyhow.
wrongway
lol, just try it. Find a nice formation of buffs, dive in from behind get under them and pull up trying to pass as close to their nose as possible. Then come back and call bs
In either case, BS or not, do you think it is really preventing people from flying through you? That is my only argument anyway. I don't think the fear of colliding stops the guys who are not afraid to take a 30mm in the face.
-
Mine does. He is clear in his FE but you get rewarded with a collision. Its ok, its a safe way to take out bombers. Just tell them it was their SA being bad.
This is udder and complete BS. Can it happen yes, can it be repeated nope. Along with if you could fly your plane that accurately , it is easier to just shoot them.
But I know you would much prefer coming up from the bottom and then shooting as you fly threw the bomber, that is a MUUUUCH HARDER waay to kill a bomber :rolleyes:
HiTech
-
This is udder and complete BS. Can it happen yes, can it be repeated nope. Along with if you could fly your plane that accurately , it is easier to just shoot them.
But I know you would much prefer coming up from the bottom and then shooting as you fly threw the bomber, that is a MUUUUCH HARDER waay to kill a bomber :rolleyes:
HiTech
Lol, comon now, we both know I don't do that. I can do it to prove a point (and repeat it easily) but I don't play like that. If you think having collisions on stops players from flying into you guns blazing then fine, you are right to have them on. That is not what I see though. Again, if some one is not afraid of two 30mm and 4 20mm of a 110 and is willing to go for it, do you realy think he is woried about colliding?
-
Lol, comon now, we both know I don't do that. I can do it to prove a point (and repeat it easily) but I don't play like that. If you think having collisions on stops players from flying into you guns blazing then fine, you are right to have them on. That is not what I see though. Again, if some one is not afraid of two 30mm and 4 20mm of a 110 and is willing to go for it, do you realy think he is woried about colliding?
You need to stop and think rather than just repeat exaggerated crap about behavior in the MA. Sure, it is trendy to claim everybody just HOs and flies through the enemy, but it is also not true.
Most people don't HO as a first option, and even people who do almost all try to avoid an actual collision.
Nobody, literally, nobody does what hitech described.
-
Actually, Dedalos does fly like that.
-
just a real noobish question to ask,but shoot, I'll do it anyway -
does internet connection speed have any impact on the odds of surviving a collision?
-
maybe i dont understand what im seeing how is it that a guy that dives on me guns blazing he rams me in the process I get a "you have collided message" and he fly's away. In a real world he would did also If the puter know that I collided It has to know what I collided with I think both should get a collided message and die. That wouldbe realistic. as for the other senerios I don't know.
I know I may have died due to guns blazing. I dont care about me dieing. What conserns me is the other plane flying away with no damage. He cause the collision whether or not i die. In this case he sould die also. and should get the message. YOU are a ace pilot..... :x J/K
-
just a real noobish question to ask,but shoot, I'll do it anyway -
does internet connection speed have any impact on the odds of surviving a collision?
No, it does not.
maybe i dont understand what im seeing how is it that a guy that dives on me guns blazing he rams me in the process I get a "you have collided message" and he fly's away. In a real world he would did also If the puter know that I collided It has to know what I collided with I think both should get a collided message and die. That wouldbe realistic. as for the other senerios I don't know.
I know I may have died due to guns blazing. I dont care about me dieing. What conserns me is the other plane flying away with no damage. He cause the collision whether or not i die. In this case he sould die also. and should get the message. YOU are a ace pilot..... :x J/K
You're right, you don't understand. You are trying to assign an "at fault" state like in an auto accident. It doesn't work this way, all that matters who who's FE detects a collision. On his FE he may have clearly dived past you, raking you with his fire, and passed 50 yards behind you.
-
This is udder and complete BS. Can it happen yes, can it be repeated nope. Along with if you could fly your plane that accurately , it is easier to just shoot them.
But I know you would much prefer coming up from the bottom and then shooting as you fly threw the bomber, that is a MUUUUCH HARDER waay to kill a bomber :rolleyes:
HiTech
I've actually got a 'You have Collided' message when I attacked an A20 in my 109K4. I dove on his upper 8 o clock and shot him up left engine to right wing tip, and collided my right wing off. I was not in shrapnel range and my right wing coming off was impossible from my attack angle. I saved the film and when I went to watch it, it was a 1 second film, no idea what happened. So I guess my story isn't worth much. :lol
This is the only time I've ever been completely befuddled by a collision though.
-
maybe i dont understand what im seeing how is it that a guy that dives on me guns blazing he rams me in the process I get a "you have collided message" and he fly's away. In a real world he would did also If the puter know that I collided It has to know what I collided with I think both should get a collided message and die. That wouldbe realistic.
Because in real life there is only 1 reality. Same thing happens for both planes.
In game there are two realities. What happens on two player'S screens can and will be differing fom each other:
(http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/1364/rammyfegg1.jpg)
Pony pilot's point of view
and this
(http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/8728/ramotherfexg7.jpg)
is what the P-47 player saw on his screen.
The reasons for that difference are explained in aforementioned article on the Trainer Corps website.
-
I've always felt that if both sides see a collision then it should be registered as such.
And of only 1 side sees it then it shouldnt be registered as a collision for either.It would solve alot of the complaints
You would still see people avoiding a collision because of the risk of one.
Thats just my opinion
-
I've always felt that if both sides see a collision then it should be registered as such.
And of only 1 side sees it then it shouldnt be registered as a collision for either.It would solve alot of the complaints
You would still see people avoiding a collision because of the risk of one.
In that case I would have an advantage above US players, because I know I would rarely get a collision at all when flying guns blazing through an enemy bomber.
US players would have a considerable higher risk of getting one.
So the current "what you see is what you get" is the most fair solution.
-
I've always felt that if both sides see a collision then it should be registered as such.
And of only 1 side sees it then it shouldnt be registered as a collision for either.It would solve alot of the complaints
You would still see people avoiding a collision because of the risk of one.
Thats just my opinion
May as well just take collisions out in that case. It amounts to essentially the same thing.
-
May as well just take collisions out in that case. It amounts to essentially the same thing.
I've had plenty of collisions where we both collided. Not nearlyas many as only one side or the other have. But certainly enough to say it happens.
But if for some technical reason what Lusche says is true. Then I would have to concur. Not being my area of expertise. All I can do is offer an opinion based on what I experience.
-
I've had plenty of collisions where we both collided. Not nearlyas many as only one side or the other have. But certainly enough to say it happens.
It does, but there are kinds of attacks were it is far less likely and you would be able to safely pass through the enemy aircraft 99% of the time.
But if for some technical reason what Lusche says is true. Then I would have to concur. Not being my area of expertise. All I can do is offer an opinion based on what I experience.
What Lusche said is true. The higher the ping time between players, the less chance of both detecting a collision. It would be safe for you to dive through his bombers too, but more Americans play than anybody else, so our odds would be least favorable.
-
It does, but there are kinds of attacks were it is far less likely and you would be able to safely pass through the enemy aircraft 99% of the time.
What Lusche said is true. The higher the ping time between players, the less chance of both detecting a collision. It would be safe for you to dive through his bombers too, but more Americans play than anybody else, so our odds would be least favorable.
Allow me to elaborate:
If you only get a collision result if both collide on their screens, a collision occurs only when there is only a small difference between both "realities".
The amount of difference is a result of lag. Or more precicely: Total lag, which is more or less the sum of both players lag.
A simplified example:
Assume US players have 30ms lag, European players 150ms lag.
So if two US players fight, total lag = 60ms. Reltaive small difference between Front Ends, high risk of mutual collision
If one US player fights one European, total lag = 180ms. Much bigger difference, much smaller risk of mutual collision.
Two European players: Total Lag = 300ms
Very big difference between both Front Ends. Very small risk of mutual collision.
Now note that only a US player would have at one point a high collision risk - when he's fighting a countryman. A Euro player does not have the same risk, as in all of his fights there will be a relatively high total lag.
-
Snailman, I've lost track of how many times I've seen you explain net lag. Why do you keep at it? :joystick:
-
Snailman, I've lost track of how many times I've seen you explain net lag. Why do you keep at it? :joystick:
Because he thinks that the guys who haven't read through all the info so far will magically read the newest explanation. :lol
Hey, can't hurt can it? :joystick:
-
Lol, comon now, we both know I don't do that. I can do it to prove a point (and repeat it easily) but I don't play like that. If you think having collisions on stops players from flying into you guns blazing then fine, you are right to have them on. That is not what I see though. Again, if some one is not afraid of two 30mm and 4 20mm of a 110 and is willing to go for it, do you realy think he is woried about colliding?
Ahem, consider the possibility of forcing players to try and avoid collides from angles OTHER than the head-on.
-
Boxboy, you know that legend on passenger side mirrors? "Objects in mirror may be closer than they appear"
Well because of lag, your enemy may be farther around the curve than he appears.
So even though from your end it looks like he's has not gotten far enough around to get a shot.
On his end he very well could have a shot.
As Lusche said, read the article on net lag on the trainers site.
http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/lag/lag.htm
?????? I KNOW that I was simply pointing out that lag causes some problems in online gaming, and in this game one event gets whined about and one does not
-
If he truly flew away without damage, he didn't cause the collision, you did!
Because if he truly flew away without damage, a collision did not happen on his end.
Only YOU can cause or prevent a collision. Fly to miss and you will miss.
maybe i dont understand what im seeing how is it that a guy that dives on me guns blazing he rams me in the process I get a "you have collided message" and he fly's away. In a real world he would did also If the puter know that I collided It has to know what I collided with I think both should get a collided message and die. That wouldbe realistic. as for the other senerios I don't know.
I know I may have died due to guns blazing. I dont care about me dieing. What conserns me is the other plane flying away with no damage. He cause the collision whether or not i die. In this case he sould die also. and should get the message. YOU are a ace pilot..... :x J/K
-
maybe i dont understand what im seeing how is it that a guy that dives on me guns blazing he rams me in the process I get a "you have collided message" and he fly's away. In a real world he would did also If the puter know that I collided It has to know what I collided with I think both should get a collided message and die. That wouldbe realistic. as for the other senerios I don't know.
I know I may have died due to guns blazing. I dont care about me dieing. What conserns me is the other plane flying away with no damage. He cause the collision whether or not i die. In this case he sould die also. and should get the message. YOU are a ace pilot..... :x J/K
Even though it appears to be his fault, he actually doesn't ram you on his end and it's just bad luck that you received a collision. It's hard to blame somebody for a collision that they don't see. All you can really do is try to avoid a collision at all costs. There's a good chance too that by avoiding the collision, your opponent was unable to and he'll get the collision message.
-
I thought this was a thread about collies
(http://puppydogweb.com/gallery/collies/collie_weis.jpg)
-
May as well just take collisions out in that case. It amounts to essentially the same thing.
Ahhh, so we agree? lol. Really Karnak, I never said any of the crap you claim I said. I did not say everyone goes through you guns blazing and that every one tries to HO. I said that the ones that do, are not really worried about the collision.
On the pics provided by the snail, what was the benefit provided by the collision model? A guy that never saw his attacker ends up in the tower instead of having a chance to do what he paid his 15$ for. What exactly was achieved by that collision and what was the benefit provided to the game play and the two players involved?
Ohh, try to calm down and read before responding please :rofl
-
I've found it all works out in the wash. Folks tend to remember collisions when they go down. The others times when they keep flying it goes right out the window. Hence the "I always go to tower in a collision" claim.
-
On the pics provided by the snail, what was the benefit provided by the collision model? A guy that never saw his attacker ends up in the tower instead of having a chance to do what he paid his 15$ for.
:huh
The P-47 (that never saw his attacker) did fly away unscathed. The P-51 that ran into it from behind went down.
-
If he truly flew away without damage, he didn't cause the collision, you did!
Because if he truly flew away without damage, a collision did not happen on his end.
Only YOU can cause or prevent a collision. Fly to miss and you will miss.
How can I "cause" a collision when I am fighting another con He comes up from behind me and hits me. Seeing it happen on my end and Causeing it are two different things.
-
I figured, now you know why I responded the way I did. You guys are very quick to show films and diagrams and explain how stupid the players are for not getting it, but cannot provide a reason for having a future that does nothing for the players. I can't remember of one time that this thing protected me from someone.
I understand the situation you propose and why that is an 'unfair collision", but I think it would be far worse if A plane could fly through another when firing at it. Killin bombers would become very easy if you didn't need to avoid the formation when attacking. I've had to change tactics when attacking bombers. The slow overtake from behind will almost sertainly get you killed if the gunner can shoot at all. So Now I climb past and slash through and past them at high speed to make myself a harder target to hit for the gunners. If there were no collisions, I could attack from the side and pass through all three while firing and kill them all with one pass. That seems like a worse problem fo rthe game than the type of collisions you describe.
would have to agree with Karnak on this one :aok
-
:huh
The P-47 (that never saw his attacker) did fly away unscathed. The P-51 that ran into it from behind went down.
Ouch, I thought it was the 47 that went down
-
I understand the situation you propose and why that is an 'unfair collision", but I think it would be far worse if A plane could fly through another when firing at it. Killin bombers would become very easy if you didn't need to avoid the formation when attacking. I've had to change tactics when attacking bombers. The slow overtake from behind will almost sertainly get you killed if the gunner can shoot at all. So Now I climb past and slash through and past them at high speed to make myself a harder target to hit for the gunners. If there were no collisions, I could attack from the side and pass through all three while firing and kill them all with one pass. That seems like a worse problem fo rthe game than the type of collisions you describe.
would have to agree with Karnak on this one :aok
agreed on the bombers and the flying through firing. However, keep in mind that if you shoot from too close and collisions are off, kill shooter from your own fire will get you. I just don't think having them on does anything for the game.
-
agreed on the bombers and the flying through firing. However, keep in mind that if you shoot from too close and collisions are off, kill shooter from your own fire will get you. I just don't think having them on does anything for the game.
That is only true of explosive rounds as it isn't kill shooter getting you, it is the explosions from your cannon shells. You could fly through with .50 cals blazing the whole way and never get hurt. With cannon birds you'd need to stop firing just before you reached the bomber.
Keep in mind as well, that the same things can be done to fighters, just at a bit more difficulty due to size and maneuvering.
-
:huh
The P-47 (that never saw his attacker) did fly away unscathed. The P-51 that ran into it from behind went down.
Ouch, I thought it was the 47 that went down
And hence it is obvious why people must keep explaining, because if you really did understand the problem, there would be no doubt in your mind who suffered the collision. Unless of course you thought that both planes were flying backwards.
HiTech
-
Ouch, I thought it was the 47 that went down
And hence it is obvious why people must keep explaining, because if you really did understand the problem, there would be no doubt in your mind who suffered the collision. Unless of course you thought that both planes were flying backwards.
HiTech
Ahhh yeah, I make one mistake and everything I said becomes wrong lol :aok. What makes you think I don't understand the problem? I just don't think collisions buy us anything.
-
How can I "cause" a collision when I am fighting another con He comes up from behind me and hits me. Seeing it happen on my end and Causeing it are two different things.
The aircraft performing the offensive move 'causes' the collision, whether it be on his end, or your end. But it's not his fault if only you see it. It becomes luck when two aircraft maneuver so close to one another on which is going to see a collision. The only way to counter it is by seeing it coming and avoiding it.
-
Allow me to elaborate:
If you only get a collision result if both collide on their screens, a collision occurs only when there is only a small difference between both "realities".
The amount of difference is a result of lag. Or more precicely: Total lag, which is more or less the sum of both players lag.
A simplified example:
Assume US players have 30ms lag, European players 150ms lag.
So if two US players fight, total lag = 60ms. Reltaive small difference between Front Ends, high risk of mutual collision
If one US player fights one European, total lag = 180ms. Much bigger difference, much smaller risk of mutual collision.
Two European players: Total Lag = 300ms
Very big difference between both Front Ends. Very small risk of mutual collision.
Now note that only a US player would have at one point a high collision risk - when he's fighting a countryman. A Euro player does not have the same risk, as in all of his fights there will be a relatively high total lag.
Ok. Makes sense now. I knew it had something to do with lag. But didnt know the lag times could be so great a difference.
OK Someone commandeer teh intardnet and fix that.
Just boot any non players off ;)
-
What makes you think I don't understand the problem? I just don't think collisions buy us anything.
The fact that you don't think they buy us anything tells me you don't understand the problem.
-
What makes you think I don't understand the problem?
Because if you understand lag, then you would have known that when in a tail chase , it is impossible for the front person to collide do to lag.
I just don't think collisions buy us anything.
agreed on the bombers and the flying through firing.
And now you are contradicting yourself. Because you have already agreed that sno collisions would create a problem of firing as you go threw bombers. But you say it does not does contribute anything good.
HiTech
HiTech
-
Ok ill just go fly. I don't understand nor do I have to, to enjoy the game. :salute all
-
Because if you understand lag, then you would have known that when in a tail chase , it is impossible for the front person to collide do to lag.
And now you are contradicting yourself. Because you have already agreed that sno collisions would create a problem of firing as you go threw bombers. But you say it does not does contribute anything good.
HiTech
HiTech
lol, I just took a quick look at the images thinking it was a case of the BnZer flying under the plane and then pulling up causing the 47 to go down (that could happen right?). I can teach you a few things on net-lag if you like (15 years of writing and designing trading software have given me a little more experience than just pulsing every 250ms lol) . This is not about net lag. It is about do we need this future or not. If you or others think we do, it does not mean that the people that think the opposite have a luck of understanding of net lag. I understand it is your decision, and if the answer is it stays on because that is how you want it, then I have no argument. If the argument is that it stays on because it is good for the game then I 'd like to hear what that is.
I am not contradicting my self at all. If you read my posts you will see why I think it does not add anything. I ll write it one more time though. The reason it does not is because the guys that are not afraid to meet your guns head on, are not afraid about a collision anyway. Nothing is absolute, I know, so it may be helping bombers in some situations. However, it creates problems on others (like after you kill the lead bomber or if you fly across someones nose). That is why I said we need to weigh the positives and negatives of this future.
See, the understanding of net lag is irrelevant to this conversation and it is only used to discredit and disregard opinions of people that don't see value in that future.
-
lol, I just took a quick look at the images thinking it was a case of the BnZer flying under the plane and then pulling up causing the 47 to go down (that could happen right?). I can teach you a few things on net-lag if you like (15 years of writing and designing trading software have given me a little more experience than just pulsing every 250ms lol) . This is not about net lag. It is about do we need this future or not. If you or others think we do, it does not mean that the people that think the opposite have a luck of understanding of net lag. I understand it is your decision, and if the answer is it stays on because that is how you want it, then I have no argument. If the argument is that it stays on because it is good for the game then I 'd like to hear what that is.
I am not contradicting my self at all. If you read my posts you will see why I think it does not add anything. I ll write it one more time though. The reason it does not is because the guys that are not afraid to meet your guns head on, are not afraid about a collision anyway. Nothing is absolute, I know, so it may be helping bombers in some situations. However, it creates problems on others (like after you kill the lead bomber or if you fly across someones nose). That is why I said we need to weigh the positives and negatives of this future.
See, the understanding of net lag is irrelevant to this conversation and it is only used to discredit and disregard opinions of people that don't see value in that future.
The attempts to explain lag are to address the idea that Single-Plane collisions are an injustice created by choice by HiTech. That lag 'exists' is not the explanation or the answer, but rather what choices HiTech has made to include a collition model that is as fair as possible. Is the amount of "un-fairness" remaining in how HiTech models collisions worse than not having collisions at all?
Let's examine some alternatives...
It's true that if your FE desides you collided, it could send a hit packet to the opponents front end that damages his plane too. But I think most feel that more un-fair to the pilot that never saw a collision, and more confusing.
Current scenario:
I see a collison. My plane is broken. Hey wait...how come his plane isn't broken...that's not fair!
Alternate Scenario:
I don't see a collision. My Plane is Broken. What the Hell?!! I never hit anything!! That's Bull Blah blah blah blah.
Alternate Scenario 2:
Planes Fly through each other. Every HO is blamed on the fact that there are no collisions. The ACM is this game is completely different from real life because there's no collisions. This game is no real. Blah Blah blah
I vote for the current scenario.
there may be others that are better...perhaps you can post and discuss.
-
The attempts to explain lag are to address the idea that Single-Plane collisions are an injustice created by choice by HiTech. That lag 'exists' is not the explanation or the answer, but rather what choices HiTech has made to include a collition model that is as fair as possible. Is the amount of "un-fairness" remaining in how HiTech models collisions worse than not having collisions at all?
Let's examine some alternatives...
It's true that if your FE desides you collided, it could send a hit packet to the opponents front end that damages his plane too. But I think most feel that more un-fair to the pilot that never saw a collision, and more confusing.
Current scenario:
I see a collison. My plane is broken. Hey wait...how come his plane isn't broken...that's not fair!
Alternate Scenario:
I don't see a collision. My Plane is Broken. What the Hell?!! I never hit anything!! That's Bull Blah blah blah blah.
Alternate Scenario 2:
Planes Fly through each other. Every HO is blamed on the fact that there are no collisions. The ACM is this game is completely different from real life because there's no collisions. This game is no real. Blah Blah blah
I vote for the current scenario.
there may be others that are better...perhaps you can post and discuss.
Scenario 3:
I am in a fight with someone else, p51 dives in for the kill, overshoots, I get collision message even though I never saw the guy coming and he did manage to avoid me. I understand that my FE did see the collision and it was me the person that didn't because I was bz dealing with another threat, but what was the benefit provided to game play from that?
Scenario 4:
I am in a bomber, guy makes an intentional pass in front of my nose. I explode, he flies away laughing. Benefit to the game play?
Unfortunately, I don't have a better solution other than to turn them off. Again, I base my opinion in 6 years of playing this game. From my experience, it does not prevent people from flying through you anyway. I am not saying that everyone does that. The people that don't do it are not doing it because of the way they choose to play the game (looking for a realistic experience, dog fights, furballing, winning the war, survivalists, playing for score, etc). Those guys would not do it anyway (collisions or not)
Really, all we accomplish with collisions on is that instead if flying through you, the guy has to fly in front of you.
-
Scenario 3:
I am in a fight with someone else, p51 dives in for the kill, overshoots, I get collision message even though I never saw the guy coming and he did manage to avoid me. I understand that my FE did see the collision and it was me the person that didn't because I was bz dealing with another threat, but what was the benefit provided to game play from that?
You saw the guy coming. You saw the guy collide with you. Problem? On his front end, he didn't see himself collide with anything.
Scenario 4:
I am in a bomber, guy makes an intentional pass in front of my nose. I explode, he flies away laughing. Benefit to the game play?
He probably shot you in the cockpit. You saw him collide with you as well. Problem?
[/quote]
wrongway
-
You saw the guy coming. You saw the guy collide with you. Problem? On his front end, he didn't see himself collide with anything.
He probably shot you in the cockpit. You saw him collide with you as well. Problem?
wrongway
That is what I said on the first point. What was the benefit we all got out of that?
On the second, he did not shoot me. He intentionally caused a collision. Benefit to game play? Problem? Yeah, what is a formation of bombers supposed to do about it? I can demonstrate if you like.
But, I can see it is pointless to continue arguing.
-
there are really only 3 options for modelling collisions:
1. No collisions
Pros: no more moaning from people who dont understand the concept of latency or of the dual FE required to deal with this inevitable consequence of network gaming.
Cons: removes a critical element of simulating RL dogfighting, allows tactics which would be impossible in RL, promotes more sustained HOing as there is no need to break before collision.
2. Any collision effects both aircraft
Pros: no more moaning from people who dont understand the concept of latency or of the dual FE required to deal with this inevitable consequence of network gaming.
Cons: you could fly a perfect angles dogfight only to be taken out by a collision with an aircraft 100yds away from you, through no fault of your own.
3. Collision only effects aircraft if it happens on their FE (as now)
Pros: each individual is responsible for collisions due to their own aircraft, or preferably, for avoiding them.
Cons: moaning from people who dont understand the concept of latency or of the dual FE required to deal with this inevitable consequence of network gaming.
the only real problem with the current model is that many people dont understand how the model works.
-
Some of the benefits of the system are outweighed by the clueless dolts- HO collisions still occur, with both planes being destroyed, even if only one goes down due to the collie of death, and one to guns. But, at the same time, the guys who fly with no regard for anything are more likely kill themselves than their intended target- I've gotten lucky many times this way. You probably all have- ever gone AFK and come back to two kills while you were on autoclimb? That's the collision model doing something useful.
Bombers... I don't think I need to repeat my feelings on formations as they are modeled. I would wager that bombers cause more collisions than they fall victim to. I don't care about any disadvantages that may result where formations are concerned.
I like the current setup- although it can be extremely frustrating. I've attempted to force collisions on a number of occasions, and while I won't claim that it's easy to replicate, it is not impossible. It does require a great deal of luck, and is fruitless more often than not. I don't think it can be abused, unless you have a stable connection, and are fighting the same people, with stable connections, and the ping times of all involved would have to remain the same. That just doesn't strike me as something that happens regularly in the MA. In the DA, maybe, but chances are if you're in there fighting the same guy repeatedly, you're not looking to call in the collie of death to get a kill.
Some of you are just being argumentative- I've known dedalos for a while, and he's not an unintelligent guy. Yeah, his typing sucks (hey, he writes coad. You know how those guys are... ), but he's not stupid. Just incredibly stubborn.
-
On the second, he did not shoot me. He intentionally caused a collision. Benefit to game play? Problem? Yeah, what is a formation of bombers supposed to do about it? I can demonstrate if you like.
But, I can see it is pointless to continue arguing.
Intentionally causing a collision is one of the hardest thing in AH. It's much, much more difficult than actually shooting down the bomber. Because you have to guess where both your and his plane are located on HIS front end. You don't now the total lag, so you don't know the positions. To shoot down your opponent you need to simply hit your enemy on your screen.
The drawback of removing collisions from AH (intentional fly-troughs with guns blazing) are far worse than the rare, unintentional collisions that can happen now.
-
Intentionally causing a collision is one of the hardest thing in AH. It's much, much more difficult than actually shooting down the bomber. Because you have to guess where both your and his plane are located on HIS front end. You don't now the total lag, so you don't know the positions.
I have argued this point time and again. You may know your front end, but your opponent's front end position is a crapshoot. There is no way for anyone to accurately guesstimate or know the 2 front end positions in the time available to setup an intentional ram. It is impossible to intentionally ram an opponent. IMPOSSIBLE.
-
It is difficult, but it is by no means impossible.
-
It is difficult, but it is by no means impossible.
I say extremely difficult at best. As you said, 99 times out of 100 it will be a fruitless endeavour. Just too many variables involved, and with no guarantees that the variables are not going to change as you are trying to set up your "intentional ram".
-
You said IMPOSSIBLE. Repeatedly. It's not impossible AT ALL. I did not say 99 out of 100 times, either. You don't have any way of knowing the exact odds, and I don't pretend to either. I would guess 90%, tops, but it's merely a guess. If we all had similar ping times, and stable connections, I think it would become a significant issue.
-
Just incredibly stubborn.
Only going to get worse now that I moved to Texas lol.
-
Your all wrong.... collisions are all controlled by the future. In the future a collisionater is developed that controls all future craft from collisions and actually is so powerful as to control past collisions to an extent. All collisions or non-collisions are therefor completely controlled by this future machine.
:old:
-
You said IMPOSSIBLE. Repeatedly. It's not impossible AT ALL. I did not say 99 out of 100 times, either. You don't have any way of knowing the exact odds, and I don't pretend to either. I would guess 90%, tops, but it's merely a guess. If we all had similar ping times, and stable connections, I think it would become a significant issue.
I bet Lusche could calculate it. I think I could. I'm wondering if I want to take the time :aok
-
Your all wrong.... collisions are all controlled by the future. In the future a collisionater is developed that controls all future craft from collisions and actually is so powerful as to control past collisions to an extent. All collisions or non-collisions are therefor completely controlled by this future machine.
:old:
:aok :lol :lol
-
I bet Lusche could calculate it. I think I could. I'm wondering if I want to take the time :aok
You can't because there is no way to tell what the total ping time is. You can't see your opponent's ping and have no idea where he is in reality.
-
You can't because there is no way to tell what the total ping time is. You can't see your opponent's ping and have no idea where he is in reality.
Lets see, plane going at 300mph that means,
300 x 5,280 = 1,584,000 feet/hour = 26,400 feet/minute = 440 feet/second = 0.44 feet/millisecond
Server, last I checked, was sending updates every 250ms (not sure about FE though and cant check since I am at work). Assuming that it only sends out the latest and greatest positions, pick a number bellow 250ms. Would you agree that is a fair statement? So,with a ping of 250ms the other guy will be between 0 and 110 feet off of where you see him. Given the size of planes or even better bombers, all it will take is a couple of attempts at 40 and 80 feet maybe. I'd say average difficulty but no where near impossible. If the same 250 applies to the FEs then you may be looking at double those distances but that would be the max.
The point is, you don't need to know the calculations above (and they may be off) or the exact ping times. You just have to make a couple of passes at close range.
-
I've bingoed ammo and rammed bombers on purpose to keep them from dropping on a CV and actually pulled it off, yeah it killed me but it got the bomber as well so it's definately something you can do. Do these 'who sees the ram first' rules apply to rear end collisions or just head ons?
-
I've bingoed ammo and rammed bombers on purpose to keep them from dropping on a CV and actually pulled it off, yeah it killed me but it got the bomber as well so it's definately something you can do. Do these 'who sees the ram first' rules apply to rear end collisions or just head ons?
Yes, but you may end up being the only one seeing the collision.
-
Fly with a bud and go spinner to spinner headon no firing. When I tried this some of the time we both died, some of the time 1 died, but the other got some light damage. We even tried having one at the last second yank his stick to avoid. Most times when this was done, the yanker didnt die, even though to both people it looked like a collision should have occured. Try it and see what you get.
-
You can't because there is no way to tell what the total ping time is. You can't see your opponent's ping and have no idea where he is in reality.
Obviously this can be calculated as function of Ping, relative airspeed, and angle of attack. You just put in the relevant ranges for the parameters. You're not and Engineer are you? ;)
See Dedelos' note above for one example in the design space. a table could easily be generated for the entire (relevant) design space
-
Obviously this can be calculated as function of Ping, relative airspeed, and angle of attack. You just put in the relevant ranges for the parameters. You're not and Engineer are you? ;)
Tell me how you propose to get the ping time of the other player in question in such a manner that it is still relevant to the task at hand? I fully understand how to calculate it if you have all the data, the issue is that you will never have all the data.
-
Fly with a bud and go spinner to spinner headon no firing. When I tried this some of the time we both died, some of the time 1 died, but the other got some light damage. We even tried having one at the last second yank his stick to avoid. Most times when this was done, the yanker didnt die, even though to both people it looked like a collision should have occured. Try it and see what you get.
I hope you have those on film. You can't really trust what you think you see at the time of the collision.
-
the issue is that you will never have all the data.
Quoted for truth.
It seems that we have the "it can be done with no real calculations involved other than a knee-jerk reaction at the right moment" crowd, and the "it's impossible because you cannot get access to the variables required to work out the math" crowd. I would like to see someone with actual hard testing and hard data to back up the claim that it is possible. I do not think anyone can. :aok
-
So one possible scenario based on this collision model...
A P47d40 rams an A6m and the A6m not only survives, but gets the kill and takes no damage.
That's realism fellers.
-
I would like to see someone with actual hard testing and hard data to back up the claim that it is possible. I do not think anyone can. :aok
It's possible, just not in any manner that is useful in game. It's quite easy to get the difference between the velocity vectors in the film viewer. One can also record the ping (I think?) using an in game tool. Not sure on the last one, I haven't paid much attention to my ping as I'm in TX :D.
Inside the game, it's nearly impossible to properly judge the angles and speeds, so you could not grab the inputs.
-
So one possible scenario based on this collision model...
A P47d40 rams an A6m and the A6m not only survives, but gets the kill and takes no damage.
That's realism fellers.
Yes. The problem is that there's no other way to deal with the netlag that's fair without removing collisions completely. If YOU avoid the collision on YOUR screen, then why should you be punished because the other guy collided with you? After all, you can only maneuver based on what you see.
-
That's true, frustrating, but I can understand it. I just feel like there's an exploit in there somewhere, I can't explain it or understand it, I'm not internet saavy at all, but when two planes come that close to colliding, why not bring them both down? Eventually it seems like it would make all of us more careful about avoiding the situation to begin with IMO.
-Twitchy
-
but when two planes come that close to colliding, why not bring them both down?
Because one didn't.
-
I can't explain it or understand it
-Twitchy
Twit-chy,
Zactly. That's what I'm trying to tell you in the other thread. You never will. Stop trying. K? :aok
Bless your heart.
-
Because one didn't.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but a collision is two planes, if one didn't collide, then a collision didn't happen and nobody should hit the deck. If a collision did happen then both planes should eat dirt, I'm just not understanding the lag thing I guess, but something ain't right about it.
Hey Sunbat, wow man, I'm a big fan of yours. Every reply I garner for you is a feather in my cap man, by all means keep talking. You make me feel all squishy inside.
-
Twitchy, it's been explained before earlier in the thread. As far as exploits - it's possible but not practical or desirable to exploit it as one cannot reliably estimate or guess the netlag of one's opponent. It's often easier to actually gun your opponent down than it is to try to make him collide with you.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but a collision is two planes, if one didn't collide, then a collision didn't happen and nobody should hit the deck. If a collision did happen then both planes should eat dirt, I'm just not understanding the lag thing I guess, but something ain't right about it.
Bless your heart.
-
Bless your heart.
What's that on my ankle... oh gross sunbat.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but a collision is two planes, if one didn't collide, then a collision didn't happen and nobody should hit the deck. If a collision did happen then both planes should eat dirt, I'm just not understanding the lag thing I guess, but something ain't right about it.
Hey Sunbat, wow man, I'm a big fan of yours. Every reply I garner for you is a feather in my cap man, by all means keep talking. You make me feel all squishy inside.
And if 2 collide they do take damage.
However...
If you hit me on your screen and I don't see it on mine... I'm suppose to take damage?
Sorry , I don't think so.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but a collision is two planes, if one didn't collide, then a collision didn't happen and nobody should hit the deck. If a collision did happen then both planes should eat dirt, I'm just not understanding the lag thing I guess, but something ain't right about it.
Hey Sunbat, wow man, I'm a big fan of yours. Every reply I garner for you is a feather in my cap man, by all means keep talking. You make me feel all squishy inside.
So you'd prefer having your right wing torn off when a plane buzzes by you 200 yds off your right wing? Phantom collisions, that sounds a lot more desirable... :rolleyes:
-
I would like to see someone with actual hard testing and hard data to back up the claim that it is possible. I do not think anyone can. :aok
I thought I did that
-
So you'd prefer having your right wing torn off when a plane buzzes by you 200 yds off your right wing? Phantom collisions, that sounds a lot more desirable... :rolleyes:
Yeah that's what I'm saying grizz... :huh
-
Eventually it seems like it would make all of us more careful about avoiding the situation to begin with IMO.
-Twitchy
Because the situation you are asking people to avoid is that of getting within 100 yards, 200 to be safe, of each other. It isn't practical, and it would be grossly abused.
You take off from your base and fly for 10 minutes to reach and attack mine. I see you coming on DAR and take off. 1 minute after I take off, I intentionally ram you, though to you it looks like I passed 75 yards behind you, and kill you. You just spent 10 minutes to my 1 minute, a massive win for my side in terms of expended effort.
I thought I did that
Sorry, no. You try what you described in the game and you'll be shot down by the bombers. Much easier to shoot them down.
-
Sorry, no. You try what you described in the game and you'll be shot down by the bombers. Much easier to shoot them down.
And hub called me stubborn lol.
-
...to you it looks like I passed 75 yards behind you
That's what I'm not getting, why are you 75 yards behind me on mine and colliding on yours to begin with? If we collide on either of them, then we collided, right? Is there that much of a difference, and why do I get the feeling my gunnery, or lack thereof, is affected here as well somehow? I'm not a physist obviously, but it seems to me that this would give an advantage to a slower connection then?
I'm honestly not trying to argue, I just don't get the lag thing I think.
-
That's what I'm not getting, why are you 75 yards behind me on mine and colliding on yours to begin with?
Because signals need time to travel from your to my computer.
-
That's what I'm not getting ... etc
http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/lag/lag.htm (http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/lag/lag.htm)
-
That's what I'm not getting, why are you 75 yards behind me on mine and colliding on yours to begin with? If we collide on either of them, then we collided, right? Is there that much of a difference, and why do I get the feeling my gunnery, or lack thereof, is affected here as well somehow? I'm not a physist obviously, but it seems to me that this would give an advantage to a slower connection then?
I'm honestly not trying to argue, I just don't get the lag thing I think.
What you see on your computer at the same time I'm looking at mine is NOT the same thing. Due to lag, it could easily be half a second apart. So while you see you P47 crashing into my zero, I have half a second to roll out of the way and avoid the collision. You go down, and I fly away with the kill. If you "force" both planes to go down I'm being penalized for good flying and avoiding your P47 :huh
-
That's what I'm not getting, why are you 75 yards behind me on mine and colliding on yours to begin with? If we collide on either of them, then we collided, right? Is there that much of a difference, and why do I get the feeling my gunnery, or lack thereof, is affected here as well somehow? I'm not a physist obviously, but it seems to me that this would give an advantage to a slower connection then?
I'm honestly not trying to argue, I just don't get the lag thing I think.
The reason is that it takes time to transmit data across the internet. Data moves through the internet, generally, at 40-60% the speed of light so the further you are from your opponent and the HTC servers the greater the delay in your computer being told what they other player is doing. The term "ping time" is the number of milliseconds it takes for data to reach its destination, this is displayed on the screen where you choose your arena. If you have a ping time of 100 and I have a ping time of 150, that means that there is a quarter second delay between me making a move and the image of my plane making that move on your system. In effect, everything you see happened a brief time before your computer displayed it. In a quarter of a second at 450mph you will travel 55 yards.
-
http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/lag/lag.htm (http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/lag/lag.htm)
That really helped, thanks for posting that.
That said though, it would be great IMO to see nobody get a kill out of the deal, or just get rid of collisions all together.
-
That really helped, thanks for posting that.
That was one of the first things being posted in this thread...message #3... ;)
-
That said though, it would be great IMO to see nobody get a kill out of the deal, or just get rid of collisions all together.
That would create other, equally gamey, issues.
Until we get FTL communications (good luck with that) what we have is the best solution.
-
That was one of the first things being posted in this thread...message #3... ;)
Yeah I'm almost done with Tolstoy's War and Peace, so I'll get to it. :lol
-
That really helped, thanks for posting that.
That said though, it would be great IMO to see nobody get a kill out of the deal, or just get rid of collisions all together.
It's not that hard to avoid collisions, pass on the HO shots and get better gun solutions. That's not very difficult in a Spit16 either.
-
The reason is that it takes time to transmit data across the internet. Data moves through the internet, generally, at 40-60% the speed of light so the further you are from your opponent and the HTC servers the greater the delay in your computer being told what they other player is doing. The term "ping time" is the number of milliseconds it takes for data to reach its destination, this is displayed on the screen where you choose your arena. If you have a ping time of 100 and I have a ping time of 150, that means that there is a quarter second delay between me making a move and the image of my plane making that move on your system. In effect, everything you see happened a brief time before your computer displayed it. In a quarter of a second at 450mph you will travel 55 yards.
not to be argumentative, but I believe your percentage is wrong, you say "data moves through the internet generally at 40-60% of the speed of light" for some reason I think that is way off, the speed of light is (without googling it) some where past the 660,000 miles a second.
well I was wrong 186,000 miles a second, still way beyond the data traveling through the internet, at 40-60%, say 50% that's 93,000 miles a second, I wish the internet was that fast, Lag would be a thing of the past.
the earth's circumference is 24,901.55 miles at the equator(yes Google) it would take about 3.7 seconds to go around the world once, traveling at half the speed of light, yes this would be a good thing :aok well good in the since that lag would be gone.
-
Yeah that's what I'm saying grizz... :huh
You said if two planes come close to one another and one sees the collisions, both should go down. So if a player in Europe you are fighting against crashes into you on his end, and you are 200yds off him on your end, you want both planes to go down. So in essence, you would prefer to die to phantom collisions. Did I misunderstand your intentions? Perhaps you are still confused on how it works.
-
not to be argumentative, but I believe your percentage is wrong, you say "data moves through the internet generally at 40-60% of the speed of light" for some reason I think that is way off, the speed of light is (without googling it) some where past the 660,000 miles a second.
well I was wrong 186,000 miles a second, still way beyond the data traveling through the internet, at 40-60%, say 50% that's 93,000 miles a second, I wish the internet was that fast, Lag would be a thing of the past.
the earth's circumference is 24,901.55 miles at the equator(yes Google) it would take about 3.7 seconds to go around the world once, traveling at half the speed of light, yes this would be a good thing :aok well good in the since that lag would be gone.
I pulled the 40-60% from a tech article I read some time ago. I didn't do any calculations myself.
-
The distance from Dallas to London is about 5000 miles.
The latency at the speed of light would be 0.032 seconds. That is 32 milliseconds.
Given that Euro latencies are (anecdotally from this thread) approximately 300 ms, then Internet data travels at around 1/10 the speed of light at least in the realm of HTC.
-
the earth's circumference is 24,901.55 miles at the equator(yes Google) it would take about 3.7 seconds to go around the world once, traveling at half the speed of light, yes this would be a good thing :aok well good in the since that lag would be gone.
You would get disconnected if you had a 3.7 second latency. That's insane
-
You would get disconnected if you had a 3.7 second latency. That's insane
He screwed up his calculation. The latency using half the speed of light is 0.267 seconds. 267 milliseconds.
Edit: NASA actually has to deal with insane latencies in controlling its satellites. It's 180 or so light-seconds to Mars.
-
If you get a collision, you caused it, directly or indirectly.
There is virtually no way to "ram" someone where you won't take more damage than the person your trying to hit.
So....guy fly's in behind me....I am flying straight and level....he hits me....but I die...because...somehow...."I" caused it?
Nope...not buying in on that is "the best" model theory.
I have been rammed whily flying level bombers.....the guy diving in hits me with A6m....bang....I die....he flies away.
How did "I" cause that?
-
So....guy fly's in behind me....I am flying straight and level....he hits me....but I die...because...somehow...."I" caused it?
Nope...not buying in on that is "the best" model theory.
I have been rammed whily flying level bombers.....the guy diving in hits me with A6m....bang....I die....he flies away.
How did "I" cause that?
You didn't cause it, but your failing to avoid it is the 'indirect causation' that ghosth refers to.
-
So....guy fly's in behind me....I am flying straight and level....he hits me....but I die...because...somehow...."I" caused it?
Nope...not buying in on that is "the best" model theory.
I have been rammed whily flying level bombers.....the guy diving in hits me with A6m....bang....I die....he flies away.
How did "I" cause that?
By not taking action to avoid it.
-
By not taking action to avoid it.
I agree, he failed miserably to avoid it and his SA needs some TA time. It would have been so easy to maneuver the buffs out of the way especially while he is in a gunner position. People come in here and whine for no reason :O
Thats like saying that if you get into a car accident it is your fault no matter what, simply because you could not avoid it. Lets say you were crossing at a green light and you got t-boned by a mad Chicago cab driver :lol. What was there to do to avoid it?
-
Cmon he cant kick a little rudder, chop throttle while in a gunner position?
Also accidents happen sometimes through no fault of your own. Get over it and move on, its not like you were run down by a mad Chicago cab driver. No need to come to the bbs and whine about it ... is there?
:neener:
-
Cmon he cant kick a little rudder, chop throttle while in a gunner position?
Also accidents happen sometimes through no fault of your own. Get over it and move on, its not like you were run down by a mad Chicago cab driver. No need to come to the bbs and whine about it ... is there?
:neener:
ahhh, you are right, but if you read the posts, it would appear that that is not the case in this game. It is always your fault and you are a whiner if you say anything about it
-
It is always your fault and you are a whiner if you say anything about it
At long last you finally understand.
HiTech
-
At long last you finally understand.
HiTech
And with that, I do believe that this thread is over... :rofl
-
Huh.Go figure. From the topic I thought this was about Collies.
-
Engrish is overrated.
-
He screwed up his calculation. The latency using half the speed of light is 0.267 seconds. 267 milliseconds.
Edit: NASA actually has to deal with insane latencies in controlling its satellites. It's 180 or so light-seconds to Mars.
The distance from Dallas to London is about 5000 miles.
The latency at the speed of light would be 0.032 seconds. That is 32 milliseconds.
Given that Euro latencies are (anecdotally from this thread) approximately 300 ms, then Internet data travels at around 1/10 the speed of light at least in the realm of HTC.
is it me or is your calculations wrong?
you say in top quote latency at half the speed of light is 267 ms
second quote you say latency at the speed of light is 32 ms
I am no mathematics expert by any stretch of the imagination, but something don't add up:headscratch:
-
Given that Euro latencies are (anecdotally from this thread) approximately 300 ms
Mine is ~160ms
-
Mine is ~160ms
Gone from 130ms in 2006 to 200ms at present time :cry
-
Want an easy way to see the difference that lag can cause?
Next time your in fairly good formation, ask your buddy, wingman, whoever is with you on vox what distance he see's your icon at from him. Compare it to what you see his at.
9 out of 10 there will be a significant difference in the range between yours and his.
Do this every day for a week and you'll see a significant "flux" or range in days.
More so prime time and on weekends than the relatively quiet daytime hours.
But don't take my word for it. :)
Lag happens, Collisions happen, asking for both sides to take damage will never work until we have totally lag free networks.
-
Twitchy, it's been explained before earlier in the thread. As far as exploits - it's possible but not practical or desirable to exploit it as one cannot reliably estimate or guess the netlag of one's opponent. It's often easier to actually gun your opponent down than it is to try to make him collide with you.
As I proposed, you don't have to know the exact net lag for every plane you want to ram. Lag is never Zero and seldom as high as two sec. Assume a normal distribution between them, and you can determine the average or 50-ith percentile lag. Now based on relative speeds between your plane 200mph-400mph and the bomber 280-220 mph you can calculate the 1 person collision window. This would mean a pilot could dive past the nose of bomber between [example] 0.5 and 1.5 plan lengths and get a single plane collision on the bomber not the fighter 60%, 70% or what ever percent of the time. That is how you do it with out knowing the exact lag of the plane you are
I don't advocate that this is a smart or even effective practice. The engineer in me realized that this was not IMPOSSIBLE or nearly impossible to calculate or execute for that matter and I wanted to share how.
-
is it me or is your calculations wrong?
you say in top quote latency at half the speed of light is 267 ms
second quote you say latency at the speed of light is 32 ms
I am no mathematics expert by any stretch of the imagination, but something don't add up:headscratch:
My top quote was calculating around the whole world at half speed.
The second is from Dallas to London (which is about 1/5 of the circumference of the globe and thus 1/5 of the time) at the full speed of light (which is twice as fast, and thus 1/2 as long).
I calculated it as a comparison to see how our real latencies stack up against theoretical "half the speed of light" which someone mentioned earlier. From that, clearly our achieved speeds are around around 1/10-1/20 the speed of light.
Trust me, there's no way you're getting 3.7s out of around the world at half the speed of light. Something you did was wrong. And no, it does not take a mathematics expert. Just punch in (24000/186000 * 1/2) into Google.
-
As I proposed, you don't have to know the exact net lag for every plane you want to ram. Lag is never Zero and seldom as high as two sec. Assume a normal distribution between them, and you can determine the average or 50-ith percentile lag. Now based on relative speeds between your plane 200mph-400mph and the bomber 280-220 mph you can calculate the 1 person collision window. This would mean a pilot could dive past the nose of bomber between [example] 0.5 and 1.5 plan lengths and get a single plane collision on the bomber not the fighter 60%, 70% or what ever percent of the time. That is how you do it with out knowing the exact lag of the plane you are
Suppose we have a netlag that averages 0.2 seconds. That's pretty high. In 0.2s, our fighter plane dives at 300 mph and travels a distance of 26 meters. That's VERY close to the nose of the bomber, seems to me it's just as easy to RAM it.
Now, netlag can be as low as roundtrip of 0.05s (Dallas to Dallas) and as high say 0.5s. That gives you a range of 6.7-67 meters. Considering the average plane has about a 50 ft wingspan and therefore about a 50 ft length, one plane length is about 15 meters. So in our range of variance, we could fit about 4 plane lengths in. Ok, so your argument is that it's probably normally distributed about 0.1s or so with a StDev of about 0.05s which translates to 13 meters +/- 7 meters. So yes in most of the cases you could pass about 13 meters in front of the bomber (that's one plane length) and reliably reproduce this.
Variables wise it looks like you're right. Supposing you could actually fly that well, you could reproduce this reliably for a majority of the cases. But given our imperfect flying and lead adjustment skills, it's just as likely that the pilot rams the bomber for real and dies. If I could aim that well, it's far easier to just shoot the bomber.
-
If I could aim that well, it's far easier to just shoot the bomber.
:aok
-
Want an easy way to see the difference that lag can cause?
Next time your in fairly good formation, ask your buddy, wingman, whoever is with you on vox what distance he see's your icon at from him. Compare it to what you see his at.
9 out of 10 there will be a significant difference in the range between yours and his.
Do this every day for a week and you'll see a significant "flux" or range in days.
More so prime time and on weekends than the relatively quiet daytime hours.
But don't take my word for it. :)
Lag happens, Collisions happen, asking for both sides to take damage will never work until we have totally lag free networks.
i've noticed that when i'm talking to someone, when i release my ptt button, if the other person responds quickly enough, i hear me on his speakers. this seems like almost a full second after i've said what i'm now hearing through his vox.
-
i've noticed that when i'm talking to someone, when i release my ptt button, if the other person responds quickly enough, i hear me on his speakers. this seems like almost a full second after i've said what i'm now hearing through his vox.
I think we have a built in VOX delay. Tune to yourself, for example, and try it.
-
As I proposed, you don't have to know the exact net lag for every plane you want to ram. Lag is never Zero and seldom as high as two sec. Assume a normal distribution between them, and you can determine the average or 50-ith percentile lag. Now based on relative speeds between your plane 200mph-400mph and the bomber 280-220 mph you can calculate the 1 person collision window. This would mean a pilot could dive past the nose of bomber between [example] 0.5 and 1.5 plan lengths and get a single plane collision on the bomber not the fighter 60%, 70% or what ever percent of the time. That is how you do it with out knowing the exact lag of the plane you are
I don't advocate that this is a smart or even effective practice. The engineer in me realized that this was not IMPOSSIBLE or nearly impossible to calculate or execute for that matter and I wanted to share how.
Why do you even try? :lol Numbers and facts mean nothing to these guys. Funny how two guys run a couple of numbers and come up with the same conclusions.
-
Funny how two guys run a couple of numbers and come up with the same conclusions.
That's the point of running numbers. To see who's right. If both people are right.. well so be it.
-
i've noticed that when i'm talking to someone, when i release my ptt button, if the other person responds quickly enough, i hear me on his speakers. this seems like almost a full second after i've said what i'm now hearing through his vox.
Same here..... I also noted how great I sound :P
-
Suppose we have a netlag that averages 0.2 seconds. That's pretty high. In 0.2s, our fighter plane dives at 300 mph and travels a distance of 26 meters. That's VERY close to the nose of the bomber, seems to me it's just as easy to RAM it.
Now, netlag can be as low as roundtrip of 0.05s (Dallas to Dallas) and as high say 0.5s. That gives you a range of 6.7-67 meters. Considering the average plane has about a 50 ft wingspan and therefore about a 50 ft length, one plane length is about 15 meters. So in our range of variance, we could fit about 4 plane lengths in. Ok, so your argument is that it's probably normally distributed about 0.1s or so with a StDev of about 0.05s which translates to 13 meters +/- 7 meters. So yes in most of the cases you could pass about 13 meters in front of the bomber (that's one plane length) and reliably reproduce this.
Variables wise it looks like you're right. Supposing you could actually fly that well, you could reproduce this reliably for a majority of the cases. But given our imperfect flying and lead adjustment skills, it's just as likely that the pilot rams the bomber for real and dies. If I could aim that well, it's far easier to just shoot the bomber.
You are only displacing the aircraft on one axis though. It is in a three dimensional space and could easily be to one side of where you think it is.
Can it be done? Yes, I've done it in a C-47 when I had no other option. Is it smart? No, odds are you'll just get yourself killed while passing back and forth in front of all of the bomber's, or fighter's, guns.
-
You are only displacing the aircraft on one axis though. It is in a three dimensional space and could easily be to one side of where you think it is.
It's just a first approximation, an order of magnitude calculation.
Can it be done? Yes, I've done it in a C-47 when I had no other option. Is it smart? No, odds are you'll just get yourself killed while passing back and forth in front of all of the bomber's, or fighter's, guns.
See later in my post. I say the same thing. Add to that the fact that we are dealing with a 3 dimensional space, and the volume you have to aim your aircraft into is so small that it's much easier to just shoot.
-
My top quote was calculating around the whole world at half speed.
The second is from Dallas to London (which is about 1/5 of the circumference of the globe and thus 1/5 of the time) at the full speed of light (which is twice as fast, and thus 1/2 as long).
I calculated it as a comparison to see how our real latencies stack up against theoretical "half the speed of light" which someone mentioned earlier. From that, clearly our achieved speeds are around around 1/10-1/20 the speed of light.
Trust me, there's no way you're getting 3.7s out of around the world at half the speed of light. Something you did was wrong. And no, it does not take a mathematics expert. Just punch in (24000/186000 * 1/2) into Google.
There was a simple error a few pages back I wanted to correct. The Speed of light 186,000 miles/sec was divided by the half of the circumference of the earth to get 3.7sec. But this should have been the circumference divided by the speed of light. So 3.7sec is really .27sec or 270 millisec. 3.7 would be the number of times light would travel around the earth per second.
-
Isn't dimensional analysis wonderful? :joystick:
-
There was a simple error a few pages back I wanted to correct. The Speed of light 186,000 miles/sec was divided by the half of the circumference of the earth to get 3.7sec. But this should have been the circumference divided by the speed of light. So 3.7sec is really .27sec or 270 millisec. 3.7 would be the number of times light would travel around the earth per second.
alright now you gave me a headache, im just gonna stick to art :D
but seriously I must have not explained myself properly I was just saying it would take 3.7 seconds to get around the world once traveling at the speed of light. but now I am totally confused and forget what we were talking about :headscratch:
did you know that light drops down to around 140,000 miles a second in water :P
and it would take 1.3 seconds to get to the moon at the speed of light?
here is a question for you guys, How fast is the speed of thought? and if you could travel at the speed of thought were would you go?
-
How fast is the speed of thought? and if you could travel at the speed of thought were would you go?
Im thinking about that one,but after years of flying sims online Ive come to the conclusion that doo doo hapens.I dont even get bent over it. Thats just retarded to do so. If your always on the wrong end of collisions your connection is obviously not up to par.
-
but seriously I must have not explained myself properly I was just saying it would take 3.7 seconds to get around the world once traveling at the speed of light. but now I am totally confused and forget what we were talking about :headscratch:
Vinkman's saying you calculated it backwards. Instead of dividing the circumference by the speed of light, you divided the speed of light by the circumference.
It's 0.27 seconds per trip which translates to 3.7 trips per second. I don't really feel like explaining dimensional analysis, but if you need to know how it works, google that term.
-
Yes, it is.
No it isn't.
The server has nothing to do with that. He's just relaying information between your and your enemy's computer. There is not determination who "initiated" the collision, who's fault it was etc.
It's really that simple:
Collision on your screen: You take damage ("You have collided" message)
Collision on his screen: He takes damage ("XYZ has collided with you" message)
See Ghosth's explanation above, or the article about lag on the Trainer Corps website.
So Lusche, by what you are saying, if I simply "look away" during an imminent collision, I will not take the collision? Seems really easy to gain the system if that is the case. Nothing personal but seems like there are a lot of experts on this thread speaking from a position of authority. How many of us actually has seen the collision modeling code or spoke to a person who actually developed and maintains that code?
Some day, whenever I have the time, I'd like to set up an experiment where I would capture some packets while doing a series of collisions to see what exactly is going on. Somewhere in the payload of one of those packets, in the Hex, there's gonna be something sent about a collisions. I guess the only way this would really pay off is if the other player I'm colliding with is running PCap as well.
-
So Lusche, by what you are saying, if I simply "look away" during an imminent collision,
How would you do that?
How many of us actually has seen the collision modeling code or spoke to a person who actually developed and maintains that code?
The one who developed & maintians that code has already posted in this thread :)
-
So Lusche, by what you are saying, if I simply "look away" during an imminent collision, I will not take the collision? Seems really easy to gain the system if that is the case. Nothing personal but seems like there are a lot of experts on this thread speaking from a position of authority. How many of us actually has seen the collision modeling code or spoke to a person who actually developed and maintains that code?
Some day, whenever I have the time, I'd like to set up an experiment where I would capture some packets while doing a series of collisions to see what exactly is going on. Somewhere in the payload of one of those packets, in the Hex, there's gonna be something sent about a collisions. I guess the only way this would really pay off is if the other player I'm colliding with is running PCap as well.
He doesn't mean that it is visually rendered on your screen. Your FE (Front End) is tracking everything that is happening around you, but it only renders the stuff you can see. If your FE detects that there is a collision it applies the damage it calculates. It doesn't matter if it is in the viewable area it is rendering or if it is in the unseen area that it is tracking in memory.
-
alright now you gave me a headache, im just gonna stick to art :D
here is a question for you guys, How fast is the speed of thought?
I HAD READ a study somewhere...when we were running the camaro more often than we do now.
i think it was something like 2 tenths of a second for your brain to realize that the light is lit, and 2 tenths for your body to react. so 4 tenths total.
that's why we tend to say "if you see green, you just lost."
after reading that, i started using the last yellow as my "go light". my reaction times dropped from embarrassingly horrible, to frighteningly quick.
in fact, i have a pic somewhere....i may already have posted in here somewhere....me launching the car, with the last yellow still fading, as the green's comin' lit. :D
-
after reading that, i started using the last yellow as my "go light". my reaction times dropped from embarrassingly horrible, to frighteningly quick.
in fact, i have a pic somewhere....i may already have posted in here somewhere....me launching the car, with the last yellow still fading, as the green's comin' lit. :D
LOL offtopic but...
over here in TX (and at least in California as well) the stop light goes straight from Red to Green when it's letting you go.
Of course when it's telling you to stop, it's red-yellow-green.
-
LOL offtopic but...
over here in TX (and at least in California as well) the stop light goes straight from Red to Green when it's letting you go.
Of course when it's telling you to stop, it's red-yellow-green.
Ummm.... I think he was talking about drag racing... In which case, there are yellow lights on the tree before the green.
-
well he did say "off topic" lol
-
LOL offtopic but...
over here in TX (and at least in California as well) the stop light goes straight from Red to Green when it's letting you go.
Of course when it's telling you to stop, it's red-yellow-green.
i probably should've clarified.....i was talking about on the drag strip. :banana:
-
well he did say "off topic" lol
oooo...i know i was off topic....just that "speed of thought" line got me...... :aok
-
Woops. My bad. Yeah, anticipation is a key component of doing anything in truly "real time". That's why bands have a count in ;).
"Work by Andersen, the James G. Boswell Professor of Neuroscience at Caltech, and his colleagues Grant Mulliken of MIT and Sam Musallam of McGill University, offers the first neural evidence that voluntary limb movements are guided by our brain's prediction of what will happen an instant into the future."
http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13158
LOL now I've really gone off the deep end of hijacking.
-
oooo...i know i was off topic....just that "speed of thought" line got me...... :aok
I knew thats what you were talking about :D
and you got what I was saying.
-
Isn't dimensional analysis wonderful? :joystick:
Always run the equation on the units! Learned that one in the school early on. If you and up with s/m for velocity, you made a boo boo. :aok
-
I knew thats what you were talking about :D
and you got what I was saying.
yea...frightening, ain't it? found the pic i was referencing too.......
(http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa135/1LTCAP/AVIATION032.jpg)
note that both the yellow, and green lights are lit.
that run if i recall...and i do, as i remember thinking i screwed the pooch when i let loose on the transbrake.....was a .001. :D :O :airplane:
-
yea...frightening, ain't it? found the pic i was referencing too.......
(http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa135/1LTCAP/AVIATION032.jpg)
note that both the yellow, and green lights are lit.
that run if i recall...and i do, as i remember thinking i screwed the pooch when i let loose on the transbrake.....was a .001. :D :O :airplane:
Nice!! although I am a huge Mopar fan, I only got to do that kind of stuff on the streets :D back in my younger days, in a 73 challenger, but that would NOT pull the wheels off the ground, it had a 340 with 289 gears in it, 150 on the highway, but off the line it suked.
-
Nice!! although I am a huge Mopar fan, I only got to do that kind of stuff on the streets :D back in my younger days, in a 73 challenger, but that would NOT pull the wheels off the ground, it had a 340 with 289 gears in it, 150 on the highway, but off the line it suked.
i love the challengers.....only mopar i like better, is the 68-69 chargers.
most crs sucked in the 70's. they were overweight, and underpowered, as we started adding emissions controls.
speaking of wheels off....this was my every day street driver, till a lady in a saturn ho'd and then ramed me.
(http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa135/1LTCAP/ippie1.jpg)
-
What's with the fog lights on in broad daylight on a track? Do they knock a few tenths off for poser shots and a mullet?
-
What's with the fog lights on in broad daylight on a track? Do they knock a few tenths off for poser shots and a mullet?
nah. i wired the switch seperate from the headlights. i used to run them all the time as daytime running lights.
i wired the fog lights on my dakota the same way.
the only time the fog lights got turned off on the mustang was at night if i was driving fast. it drew less attention without them.
and at 12.20's at around 117mph, in a full weight mustang, getting over 20 mpg, driven every single day as you see it in the picture there.......didn't need to knock any time off. :D :neener:
-
If you're a car guy (and you certainly seem to be), you know all that DRL nonsense. It's just for looks, admit it.
-
If you're a car guy (and you certainly seem to be), you know all that DRL nonsense. It's just for looks, admit it.
actually, i don't believe that DRL's are useless.
BTW....my AC was on during most passes if the weather was warm enough to warrant it. :aok
-
Those dang collies..!
Shedding hair everywhere...!