Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Busher on January 08, 2013, 06:19:18 PM
-
Really want a collision model that kills both and no one gets a kill.
Getting rammed and watching your opponent fly away undamaged is probably the most unrealistic model in the game.
-
Invent a new type of internet connection that totally eliminates lag and you will get you wish fulfilled.
Unless then, there is no way to make it happen without making things much worse.
-
Really want a collision model that kills both and no one gets a kill.
Getting rammed and watching your opponent fly away undamaged is probably the most unrealistic model in the game.
How do you know the other guy was undamaged? The answer is you really don't know. Also, it's also clear that you don't understand how the collision model works, if you did then you really wouldn't want the collision model you're wishing for.
ack-ack
-
As Lusche and Ack-Ack said, until you understand how and why the collision model works as it does you are really not in a position to makes requests about it.
We would all like an Internet that allowed computers to communicate instantly and with no delays, but sadly that is impossible to achieve with current scientific and engineering knowledge.
Until that time, likely never to happen, what you see is what you get is the best that can be done. Hence the guy who you see a collision with and take damage from is not damaged as his system saw a 25 yard gap between the two of you at the nearest approach.
-
I am curious...(slightly off topic, but still lag/collisions) I play World of Tanks as well, and I've been told the reason we cannot have collisions in tanks in AH is because of internet lag as well... well...how does World of Tanks do it then??? Collisions are always fair, and obviously hitting each other, with heavier tank usually disabling the smaller tank or something, etc. So why can't we?
I'm not saying 'aaarg, they're so much better blah blah blah' I'm just curious how they do it when we can't :headscratch:
:salute
-
I am curious...(slightly off topic, but still lag/collisions) I play World of Tanks as well, and I've been told the reason we cannot have collisions in tanks in AH is because of internet lag as well... well...how does World of Tanks do it then??? Collisions are always fair, and obviously hitting each other, with heavier tank usually disabling the smaller tank or something, etc. So why can't we?
I'm not saying 'aaarg, they're so much better blah blah blah' I'm just curious how they do it when we can't :headscratch:
:salute
in a recent thread
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,343172.msg4534944.html#msg4534944
WOT entire world is less then 1 square mile. And has a fog visibility distance of less the 1000 yards.
If you equate this to AH , you would not be able to see the end of a runway on takeoff.
AH map sizes are over 250,000 square miles with a visibility distance of about 18 miles.
i'd also think tanks move considerably slower than planes plays into it.
-
in a recent thread
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,343172.msg4534944.html#msg4534944
i'd also think tanks move considerably slower than planes plays into it.
Ah, I figured it might have something to do with that, thanks :aok
:salute
-
Would there be a downside to having collisions occur only if both front ends see a collision? If so, what would it be?
I understand how it works. :)
-
Would there be a downside to having collisions occur only if both front ends see a collision? If so, what would it be?
I understand how it works. :)
Yes, there would be. Unlike the current model, players with a higher lag would profit from it as they would have a much lower probability to be in a collision at all.
To illustrate (with numbers made up on the fly, just to show the principle)
Player A: Ping/Lag 30
Player B: Ping/Lag 30
Player C: Ping/Lag 300
Player A and Player B are about to collide. Total lag is very small, so collision is seen on both FE's - CRASH
Player A and Player C are about to collide. Total lag is quite high, so collision is NOT seen on both FE's - wuuush, no crash
Player A and B have a high chance of being part in collisions, player C does not. This is unfair and has a big impact on flying tactics - player C can fly through enemy planes guns blazing with low risk, 'great' for killing bombers.
-
Really want a collision model that kills both and no one gets a kill.
Getting rammed and watching your opponent fly away undamaged is probably the most unrealistic model in the game.
Every player that has a collision on their PC gets damaged.
-
Great gohgillymohgilly! How many times do we need to revisit this? <face palm>
-
Yes, there would be. Unlike the current model, players with a higher lag would profit from it as they would have a much lower probability to be in a collision at all.
To illustrate (with numbers made up on the fly, just to show the principle)
Player A: Ping/Lag 30
Player B: Ping/Lag 30
Player C: Ping/Lag 300
Player A and Player B are about to collide. Total lag is very small, so collision is seen on both FE's - CRASH
Player A and Player C are about to collide. Total lag is quite high, so collision is NOT seen on both FE's - wuuush, no crash
Player A and B have a high chance of being part in collisions, player C does not. This is unfair and has a big impact on flying tactics - player C can fly through enemy planes guns blazing with low risk, 'great' for killing bombers.
That makes sense. HTC would need to penalize those with high latency in order to make it somewhat fair for collisions, and it's not worth it.
-
Salomonic solution of lag problem.
AH evaluates the lag parameter, LP, between two players.
If between 2 players there is a collision and LP si small then both died, else they both survive. :old:
:salute
-
Player D collides with one lancaster of a formation on each gunnery pass.
Three passes made.
Player D flys off undamaged.
-
alright, fair enough.
So, If due to internet lag, collisions cannot be applied equitably, why have them? make them the same as flying through a friendly.
-
alright, fair enough.
So, If due to internet lag, collisions cannot be applied equitably, why have them? make them the same as flying through a friendly.
No one said collisions can not be applied equitably. Right now is the most equitable way I can think of. If YOU collide with an enemy plane, YOU take damage. If ANYONE collides with an enemy plane they take damage. 100% equitable, everyone has the same rules regardless of lag.
HiTech
-
Yes, there would be. Unlike the current model, players with a higher lag would profit from it as they would have a much lower probability to be in a collision at all.
To illustrate (with numbers made up on the fly, just to show the principle)
Player A: Ping/Lag 30
Player B: Ping/Lag 30
Player C: Ping/Lag 300
Player A and Player B are about to collide. Total lag is very small, so collision is seen on both FE's - CRASH
Player A and Player C are about to collide. Total lag is quite high, so collision is NOT seen on both FE's - wuuush, no crash
Player A and B have a high chance of being part in collisions, player C does not. This is unfair and has a big impact on flying tactics - player C can fly through enemy planes guns blazing with low risk, 'great' for killing bombers.
Are you making this point backwards? What you discribe in all cases is the way it is now. Player C yanks the stick into me and collides with me and my plane comes apart. I get a collision meassage saying "I hit so and so" and he flies off with no damage. I realize player C missed me on his screen. The complaint is that Player A did not initiate a move that caused a colision, nor could he avoid it. Same for a bandit zooming your 6 oclock and crashing through you, you get a collide and crash and he flies off with no damage.
I think the OP, would like it changed to where if the front end recognizes a collision, both planes get a collide. You computer knows what two parts of the planes collided on your front end, so that info could be sent through the server to the other plane and he could be damaged too. Of course the down side of that would be the guy who didn't hit someone on his screen got an "unfair" collision message.
So both situatiions are "unfair". Those in support of the current system feel that it's more "unfair" to give a collision message to a plane that never saw a collision, than it is to give one to a plane that did see a collision, but the collision ends up one sided.
I've only played long enough to play under the current system. I accept it as good compromise.
-
No one said collisions can not be applied equitably. Right now is the most equitable way I can think of. If YOU collide with an enemy plane, YOU take damage. If ANYONE collides with an enemy plane they take damage. 100% equitable, everyone has the same rules regardless of lag.
HiTech
What he is saying, it's all up to you! If you AVOID the collision YOU won't take damage. It is that simple. Don't worry about the other guy, which you have no control over, just worry about YOU.
-
Are you making this point backwards? What you discribe in all cases is the way it is now.
Absolutely not. What I described is "either both have collision, or none at all". The current model is entirely different, one can have a collision while the other player does not. What you see is what you get.
-
What he is saying, it's all up to you! If you AVOID the collision YOU won't take damage. It is that simple. Don't worry about the other guy, which you have no control over, just worry about YOU.
But it's not all up to you, that's his complaint. Players are frustrated because they want a model that determines "fault". In frustration they want Both, like no fault car insurance. :salute
-
But it's not all up to you, that's his complaint. Players are frustrated because they want a model that determines "fault". In frustration they want Both, like no fault car insurance. :salute
Explain how it is NOT all up to you. If you don't collide you don't take damage. Thats it.
-
Absolutely not. What I described is "either both have collision, or none at all". The current model is entirely different, one can have a collision while the other player does not. What you see is what you get.
You are correct. I read it wrong. I thought he was asking for both sides to get a collision when anyone gets a collision. Then I miss read your description as describing that same thing. Youand the OP describe A vs C as Player C passes through Player A. Which would only happen when there wsa lag diferential. And would not happen when there wasn't.
I agree that would be worse. :salute
-
Explain how it is NOT all up to you. If you don't collide you don't take damage. Thats it.
Because you are defining "up to you" meaning "your computer sees a collision." Others define "up to you" as fault. If yo are flying along in a buff and a 262 makes a 600mph pass at you and rams you, and your buff's wing breaks off and down you go, and the 262 flies off unscathed. Was it "up to you"?
-
Vinkman,
Players don't yank themselves into you. They make a move that looks safe on their FE that causes a dangerous situation on your FE. You are responsible for not putting yourself in a position where you cannot avoid being hit if the con makes certain maneuvers. There is no practical reason in AH to try to maneuver for a collision with an enemy aircraft with unknowable lag separation when you can just shoot him eith your guns.
-
Vinkman,
Players don't yank themselves into you. They make a move that looks safe on their FE that causes a dangerous situation on your FE. You are responsible for not putting yourself in a position where you cannot avoid being hit if the con makes certain maneuvers. There is no practical reason in AH to try to maneuver for a collision with an enemy aircraft with unknowable lag separation when you can just shoot him eith your guns.
I know. I didn't say players are purposely trying to hit you. See above post about 262 ramming a bomber. :salute
-
The current implementation certainly is genious in its sense of elegence; but like mentioned, at this time it doesn't properly convey circumstances which would lead to an appropriate outcome in certain aircraft (like accidentally ramming a bomber with a 163 or a 262).
Maybe greater position resolution is required for aircraft within 1k?
-
I know. I didn't say players are purposely trying to hit you. See above post about 262 ramming a bomber. :salute
Unfortunately there isn't really a fix for that.
-
"Really want a collision model that kills both and no one gets a kill."
:aok :aok :aok
-C+
-
"You have collided" "Handle has collided with you"
Player- Player was in the enemy's grill Player missed the enemy by 20 yards
Enemy- Enemy was in the player's grill Enemy missed the player by 20 yards
Of course, what really throws a monkey wrench into things and gets people angry, is when the damage seems to be awarded to the player not at fault. (i.e. I got the "player has collided with you message", but I'm the one who is missing a wing?!?!). This could possibly be explained as the two involved in the collision were firing at one another and though the player felt the enemy plane missed the ram, the bullets didn't.
-
Because you are defining "up to you" meaning "your computer sees a collision." Others define "up to you" as fault. If yo are flying along in a buff and a 262 makes a 600mph pass at you and rams you, and your buff's wing breaks off and down you go, and the 262 flies off unscathed. Was it "up to you"?
Sure it was, you could have maneuvered, or shot him down. You fail at both, you SHOULD lose a wing at the least.
-
Ugh, again? :bhead Maybe HTC should make a sticky and post it atop the wishlist forum. :rolleyes:
Its either what we got, or you start losing parts because the enemy plane you see 800 yards away managed to hit you on his end. Does that sound better? :ahand
-
I collided with a P-47 in my A6M3 (both our faults, I should flipped my wing up) but we collided leading wing edge to leading wing edge... he sliced my wing off and kept going... plane weight and composition wise, I found it quite satisfying that the Jug won... the guy apologized too, but I told him it was epic... a Jug SHOULD shank a Zekes wing in that situation.
-
I collided with a P-47 in my A6M3 (both our faults, I should flipped my wing up) but we collided leading wing edge to leading wing edge... he sliced my wing off and kept going... plane weight and composition wise, I found it quite satisfying that the Jug won... the guy apologized too, but I told him it was epic... a Jug SHOULD shank a Zekes wing in that situation.
Did you see both host messages? "You collided with ..." and "... collided with you"? Only if you see both messages does it mean both game front-ends saw the collision (and you both would get damage). If you see only one or the other, that means only one game front-end saw a collision and only one plane would take damage.
-
I collided with a P-47 in my A6M3 (both our faults, I should flipped my wing up) but we collided leading wing edge to leading wing edge... he sliced my wing off and kept going... plane weight and composition wise, I found it quite satisfying that the Jug won... the guy apologized too, but I told him it was epic... a Jug SHOULD shank a Zekes wing in that situation.
Should such a collision have occurred in reality both aircraft would lose their wings. The A6M's spar was quite strong.
That said, in the game the collision probably didn't happen at all on the P-47's FE and thus it properly didn't take damage.
-
All this coffufle about lag is meant for an era of the 56k modem, The collision model was good for its time but it is dated and not kept pace with lag reduction through ISP's and faster connections. If you want a proper collision model look to Rise of Flight and ask how do they do it?
-
Sure it was, you could have maneuvered, or shot him down. You fail at both, you SHOULD lose a wing at the least.
:rofl
-
All this coffufle about lag is meant for an era of the 56k modem, The collision model was good for its time but it is dated and not kept pace with lag reduction through ISP's and faster connections. If you want a proper collision model look to Rise of Flight and ask how do they do it?
You have no idea what you are talking about. 56k modem or fiberoptics makes little difference. Even if data traveled at the speed of light through the internet it would still be too slow so the 40% or so of the speed of light that it actually flows at is far, far too slow.
-
... If you want a proper collision model look to Rise of Flight and ask how do they do it?
Making multiplayer that sucks so most people play offline against AI? I don't think that would work here.
-
Making multiplayer that sucks so most people play offline against AI? I don't think that would work here.
(http://www.homerunhitmaker.com/images/Home-Run-Real-Estate-Investing1.jpg)
-
Explain how it is NOT all up to you. If you don't collide you don't take damage. Thats it.
I'm ok with the current collision model. I did have a head on collision last week that made me go hmm.
I was chasing a P-51 with a slightly lower and slower Yak-9U. I was running low on gas so revved back to the
fight. Said 51 proceeded to man up and tried to snipe me No big, I'll just make a quartering pass and let him
run home.
Imagine my surprise when he starts hosing at 1,000 out :lol I see him pass about 100 yards off my right wing.
No pings from his burst, but I get the you have collided message. Ny netstat was flatline, but I was the only one
who collided apparently. So I guess the only one who collided must mean that my right wing disappeared instantly
so as to not damage the 51.
-
I'm ok with the current collision model. I did have a head on collision last week that made me go hmm.
I was chasing a P-51 with a slightly lower and slower Yak-9U. I was running low on gas so revved back to the
fight. Said 51 proceeded to man up and tried to snipe me No big, I'll just make a quartering pass and let him
run home.
Imagine my surprise when he starts hosing at 1,000 out :lol I see him pass about 100 yards off my right wing.
No pings from his burst, but I get the you have collided message. Ny netstat was flatline, but I was the only one
who collided apparently. So I guess the only one who collided must mean that my right wing disappeared instantly
so as to not damage the 51.
Sounds more like you got the "he has collided with you" message from hitting you on his PC. You can't get collision damage from 100 yards away but if you lost your wing he probably shot it off prior to colliding with you. Film would clear it up.
-
Weldone karnak you have managed to show your small minded approach by completely missing the point of lag and programing. Latency is a time measure between two points of a system. Programmed delay is still latency. If you want to talk about bandwidth then I am quite happy to teach you about that also.
Fact: the latency built into aces high is there to stop the jumping of ac around. It was introduced at a time when most people connecting were doing so on analogue modems. The world has moved on and so shohld htc in the way that they manage lag (latency).
If you have nothing constructive to add karnak don't add anything. If you want a free month then I am sure htc will give you one if you continue to kiss bellybutton your way through 2013.
-
Weldone karnak you have managed to show your small minded approach by completely missing the point of lag and programing. Latency is a time measure between two points of a system. Programmed delay is still latency. If you want to talk about bandwidth then I am quite happy to teach you about that also.
Fact: the latency built into aces high is there to stop the jumping of ac around. It was introduced at a time when most people connecting were doing so on analogue modems. The world has moved on and so shohld htc in the way that they manage lag (latency).
If you have nothing constructive to add karnak don't add anything. If you want a free month then I am sure htc will give you one if you continue to kiss bellybutton your way through 2013.
Well thank you for pointing all that out. I'm glad you are so well versed in the workings of HTC's network and server configurations. I'm sure your a great help to Skuzzy in maintaining the systems we have all come to enjoy. Thanks again! :rolleyes:
-
all these lag problems will go away as soon as everyone has a fiber optic, directly to the HTC server, bypassing all routers. right? :D
-
And fugitive gives us another head in thd sand response to a reasonable question regarding why can the colljsion system not be revisited. How is that ford model t of a car working for you fugitive.? :bhead
-
And fugitive gives us another head in thd sand response to a reasonable question regarding why can the colljsion system not be revisited. How is that ford model t of a car working for you fugitive.? :bhead
OK I'll spell it out for you, maybe you haven't had that first cup of coffee yet.
I don't think you work for HTC, so how would you possibly know what systems they are using and how they are configured? You don't, so basically your talking out your arse. They may have already changed how the latency is set up, or they have left it the same due to the fact that not everyone has cable or DSL. I'm sure there are still people playing on the old modems as that is all they have. Heck there are people playing on Sat systems because they haven't any wires in their neighborhood.
When you have worked for HTC for a bit, give us a yell and let us know what they can do to better provide services to their customers. Until then, I'll take it on faith that they are doing the best they can for their customers.
-
because there are so many different connections to the game ie modem, satellite, cable, fiber, i would have to agree with fugitive, that it is what it is. you're assuming everyone has moved away from modems, but thats just not the case. there will always be lag, be it by a bad router or a bad connection to the router or any of a number of different scenarios. they can revisit it, but it probably wont change. its your basic networking 101. my company has over 400 servers in my building and sometimes theres lag from 1 end the building to the other. now take HTC and their servers, you have people from one end of the world to the other. lag will always be an issue. issues such as 100 full verse auto negotiate. some people use 100half. so many variations.
they are doing the best they can, given the tools at hand. maybe if you knew more about networking and the issues associated with it, you wouldnt be so quick to assume they need to fix something.
-
all these lag problems will go away as soon as everyone has a fiber optic, directly to the HTC server, bypassing all routers. right? :D
No, fiber optic isn't fast enough.
We'd need quantum entanglement based communications to eliminate lag, and that is highly unlikely to ever happen.
-
We'd need quantum entanglement based communications to eliminate lag
The cables behind my desk are very much entangled all the time, is that a first step in reducing lag?
-
Vox, you pretty much missed the mark by a wide margin. Just FYI.
-
Hey, hey, hey,
What do you think about my new 'rule' about collision model ?
:salute
-
Hey, hey, hey,
What do you think about my new 'rule' about collision model ?
:salute
If the lag was small enough where it would not matter, then the current system will already produce the same results because both front ends would detect a collision.
HiTech
-
Oh FFS, I wish I had never brought it up :mad:
Another 5 years off this forum ahead.
-
"If the lag was small enough where it would not matter, then the current system will already produce the same results because both front ends would detect a collision.
HiTech"
Yes, of course. But when lag is not small enough, can it be disabled?
:salute
-
"If the lag was small enough where it would not matter, then the current system will already produce the same results because both front ends would detect a collision.
HiTech"
Yes, of course. But when lag is not small enough, can it be disabled?
:salute
No. The lag is almost never small enough, particularly for people playing from Europe, Japan, Australia or other distant locations. This would create a massive distortion in air combat tactics where flying through your opponent guns blazing becomes a good idea. That is a very bad distortion to encourage.
-
Are you saying that if lag has too much then a good solution could be that guns have no effect?
:salute
-
Are you saying that if lag has too much then a good solution could be that guns have no effect?
:salute
No. I am saying the best solution is the one that HiTech already created.