Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: CASHEW on September 15, 2013, 02:45:38 PM
-
Rammed by a pony and my b17 is totaled but pony is fine and lands? Cmon hitech?! fish the collision modeling! We have wanted it for years.
-
We have wanted it for years.
We did?
Absolutely not :)
Oh, almost forgot that classic:
(http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo237/grizz441/collision1.png)
-
Rammed by a pony and my b17 is totaled but pony is fine and lands? Cmon hitech?! fish the collision modeling! We have wanted it for years.
I'll simplify:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,7209.msg95398.html#msg95398
No matter what we do, collision detection will remain local to your front end. Until latency is not an issue, there isn't a better way.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,6297.msg84330.html#msg84330
If you mean whether they will be determined independently on each FE, the answer is yes. As long as you're having to deal with latency issues, there's no better way to do it IMO.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
I know how collision modeling is suppose to work, but I'm not convinced it's working the way it's intended all the time. I hear collisions work by "If you see it on you end, you get a collision. If you don't, then you don't get one." Yet, I have had several hundred (ok, a little exaggerated) instances where I pass by someone with 300ft or more to spare, no collision seen on my screen, but I get a collision message and lose a wing.
I won't complain because this is game and internet connections are funny, but it does get a little frustrating sometimes when I watch a guy merge 100 indicated icon range away and the game or my internet or whatever it is has decided I have collided with him.
-
Rammed by a pony and my b17 is totaled but pony is fine and lands? Cmon hitech?! fish the collision modeling! We have wanted it for years.
Please don't presume to speak for others.
The only people who want it changed are people who don't understand how and why it works as it does or who aren't imaginative enough to see the abuses that would happen under a different system.
-
I won't complain because this is game and internet connections are funny, but it does get a little frustrating sometimes when I watch a guy merge 100 indicated icon range away and the game or my internet or whatever it is has decided I have collided with him.
You only get a "you have collided" message if you have an actual collision happening. Everythign else would be a bug, and if it happens anywhere as often as you describe, it should be easy for someone to come up with a film of it.
I want to add that reading "XY has collided with you" only accompanied with damage to your plane doesn't mean there was a collision on your screen or that you had damaged by a collision. "XY has collided" means there was a collision on that palyers end, HE took damage from it, and the damage inflicted on you was by gunfire (yes, enemies have the habit of pulling trigger when getting close)
-
best part "did you like the cookie? No? AoM owns you " :rofl :rofl
-
The collision model is BS. And it's fairly easy to game the system against bombers. I have a film somewhere of me taking down a whole formation without ever firing a bullet and without ever getting a collision on my end, but cause the other guy to collide 3 times. I've got stuff spread all over 4 computers so I'll see if I can find it.
-
The collision model is BS. And it's fairly easy to game the system against bombers. I have a film somewhere of me taking down a whole formation without ever firing a bullet and without ever getting a collision on my end, but cause the other guy to collide 3 times. I've got stuff spread all over 4 computers so I'll see if I can find it.
Why didn't he shoot you while you were fiddling around trying to find how much lead you had to use?
If I were in a bomber I'd much rather have the fighter trying to do that than just shooting me with his guns.
-
Why didn't he shoot you while you were fiddling around trying to find how much lead you had to use?
If I were in a bomber I'd much rather have the fighter trying to do that than just shooting me with his guns.
Reminds me of a film I have, where I was diving in on a very low set of bombers. I was about 400 yards behind them when I pulled the trigger, and was going to zoom right below him then pull up and repeat. Well, his rear gunner and my pilot met face to face. It said I collided. Thankfully I was recording (still have the film)! Apparently he lagged back into me, causing the collision. Or I lagged into him? :headscratch:
At the time, I was :furious
Now I just laugh about it :lol
Tinkles
<<S>>
-
I know how collision modeling is suppose to work, but I'm not convinced it's working the way it's intended all the time. I hear collisions work by "If you see it on you end, you get a collision. If you don't, then you don't get one." Yet, I have had several hundred (ok, a little exaggerated) instances where I pass by someone with 300ft or more to spare, no collision seen on my screen, but I get a collision message and lose a wing.
I won't complain because this is game and internet connections are funny, but it does get a little frustrating sometimes when I watch a guy merge 100 indicated icon range away and the game or my internet or whatever it is has decided I have collided with him.
You do understand that the "if you see it" is a bit of a misnomer. What is meant is if your computer sees it.
-
You do understand that the "if you see it" is a bit of a misnomer. What is meant is if your computer sees it.
Then my computer is drunk. :rolleyes:
-
The collision model is BS. And it's fairly easy to game the system against bombers. I have a film somewhere of me taking down a whole formation without ever firing a bullet and without ever getting a collision on my end, but cause the other guy to collide 3 times. I've got stuff spread all over 4 computers so I'll see if I can find it.
One "Lucky" instance you had doesn't speak for the collision model as a whole.
-
collision works the way it's intended and that is to frustrate the crap out of you. I know how it works but I dont have to like it.
btw the better your computer and internet connection is the more likely you are to die first in a collision.
-the slow computers are going <hey we crashed>,
-system no you didnt the other guy had a faster connection and he reported he crashed and died already, since there's nobody else around, you are fine.
-guy with slow computer/connection <wahoo, I fly away in one piece>
semp
-
I had a collision the other night. It was late and beer made me forget who it was. I was in a 38, the other guy was in a Spit. We were both very low. Ended up nose on. We both ducked and met wings level spinner to spinners. We both took damage and were talking about it. I was like - - there see it really does work right! :neener:
-
collision works the way it's intended and that is to frustrate the crap out of you. I know how it works but I dont have to like it.
btw the better your computer and internet connection is the more likely you are to die first in a collision.
-the slow computers are going <hey we crashed>,
-system no you didnt the other guy had a faster connection and he reported he crashed and died already, since there's nobody else around, you are fine.
-guy with slow computer/connection <wahoo, I fly away in one piece>
semp
Obviously you don't.
-
That you say this:
btw the better your computer and internet connection is the more likely you are to die first in a collision.
-the slow computers are going <hey we crashed>,
-system no you didnt the other guy had a faster connection and he reported he crashed and died already, since there's nobody else around, you are fine.
-guy with slow computer/connection <wahoo, I fly away in one piece>
semp
Proves this is not true:
collision works the way it's intended and that is to frustrate the crap out of you. I know how it works but I dont have to like it.
-
Generous consumption of garlic protects you from collisions! :old:
-
Ok, so let's take a look at the various collision schemes.
1) I DEMAND ALL PLANES GO DOWN IF I COLLIDE WITH ONE!!!
Side effect: Now, you avoid the collision with another plane by a good 400 feet, but still blow up because the other player did not avoid the collision. How easy is that to exploit?
2) I DEMAND ALL COLLISIONS BE DISABLED!!!
Side effect: No one bothers avoiding head on's and just blazes away flying through you plane. With no risks, the reward becomes more arcade than sim.
3) I DEMAND THE SERVER TAKE CONTROL OF THE COLLISIONS!!!
Side effect: For a server based collision system to work , the server would also have to take control of all stick inputs so it could accurately position the planes in its memory. To allow the remote players to handle input would cause all matter of inconsistency in when a collision might happen. You might intersect with an object, you might not.
The bottom line is this. The system we use is not perfect but it is the only system which places absolute control of a collision in the player flying his plane. Any other system allows the remote player to have some control over it.
So, how do you fix something and not make it worse? All collision systems have downsides.
-
It's fine. It's always been fine. If a player doesn't want collisions then the player should try to avoid them.
-
That is the entire point of the way we have it set to work. You will never collide, if you avoid it. In any other implementation, that will no longer be true.
-
It seems that more and more the whines here seem to want collisions " dumming down".
Effectively collisions only being valid when both FE's record a collision. Which IMO would reduce all collisions to 10-20% of what they are now as only pure HO's would render them.
-
It seems that more and more the whines here seem to want collisions " dumming down".
Effectively collisions only being valid when both FE's record a collision. Which IMO would reduce all collisions to 10-20% of what they are now as only pure HO's would render them.
Note, it would reduce collisions to near 0% as the odds of both computers detecting a collision, at the same time, would be astronomical.
-
Rammed by a pony and my b17 is totaled but pony is fine and lands? Cmon hitech?! fish the collision modeling! We have wanted it for years.
:cheers: I resent that! All I was trying to do was land on top of your 17, hitch a ride to my base, which u were going to bomb. I was running on fumes. I will approach you a little slower next time. Next time I am in a F6F, I will try to catch low frequency antenna's on top of your 17, with my tail hook! Oh, what the heck, never mind, I see Skuzzy has already answered the post.
-
i must be the one that always has the better connection. i am always the one to die no matter if it is head on or not :bolt:
-
i must be the one that always has the better connection. i am always the one to die no matter if it is head on or not :bolt:
Connection speed is irrelevant. Those who say it matters don't actually understand what they think they understand.
-
It's fine. It's always been fine. If a player doesn't want collisions then the player should try to avoid them.
Nonsense.
My plane should flash and become invincible for one minute, as soon as I eat the gold star...
-
Nonsense.
My plane should flash and become invincible for one minute, as soon as I eat the gold star...
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_leut89oTFl1qf8yek.gif)
-
Karnak is correct. Connection speed is irrelevant. It is simply a matter of your computer detecting your plane intersected something and so it assigns damage accordingly, to your plane only. Each computer in the game takes care of assigning damage to its own plane.
If you die from a collision, it simply means you failed to avoid the collision.
-
Was this what you were trying to do Earl?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp478Tgm5gg
-
The only thing I dont understand about it, and it gets me a little miffed, is when a plane colides with me from my 6 yet he takes no damage and I'm missing half a wing.
-
The only thing I dont understand about it, and it gets me a little miffed, is when a plane colides with me from my 6 yet he takes no damage and I'm missing half a wing.
Because HE, on HIS computer ('screen') doesn't collide at all.
-
The only thing I dont understand about it, and it gets me a little miffed, is when a plane colides with me from my 6 yet he takes no damage and I'm missing half a wing.
He has room in front of him, while you can see he is about ready to hit you, allowing you opportunity to avoid the collision. He has no reason to avoid as he still sees plenty of room between you and him.
-
Statistically speaking then, given enough collisions, you should average winning half the collisions. Right?
-
Two films showing the same collision from each player's point of view, superimposed.
(http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/8585/collision.gif)
Pics from the film: First the moment of collision from the Jug (lead plane)
(http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/8728/ramotherfexg7.jpg)
Same moment from the chasing P-51's point of view
(http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/1364/rammyfegg1.jpg)
Only the Pony took damage. The "both should go down" model would damage the Jug even though there never was any collision on the Jug driver's screen, as you can see in the pics and the film.
-
Statistically speaking then, given enough collisions, you should average winning half the collisions. Right?
Someone who will understand lag and the collision model will never use the term "winnig a collision"
You can win or lsoe a collision. You collide and you take damage, or you don't collide and take none.
-
Lusche, I gotta admit, that was very well done.
I will never poo a chart or graph from you again.
:salute :cheers:
-
Karnak is correct. Connection speed is irrelevant. It is simply a matter of your computer detecting your plane intersected something and so it assigns damage accordingly, to your plane only. Each computer in the game takes care of assigning damage to its own plane.
If you die from a collision, it simply means you failed to avoid the collision.
how do we avoid getting hit from behind when we are in the middle of a furball? or when a fighter dives in and crashes into us when in bombers and he flies away with no damage and a kill :).
the fix the collision threads are just us venting. we know there isnt a perfect way to do it. but it is still frustrating nonetheless.
semp
-
how do we avoid getting hit from behind when we are in the middle of a furball? or when a fighter dives in and crashes into us when in bombers and he flies away with no damage and a kill :).
the fix the collision threads are just us venting. we know there isnt a perfect way to do it. but it is still frustrating nonetheless.
semp
meh
-
Someone who will understand lag and the collision model will never use the term "winning a collision"
You can win or lsoe a collision. You collide and you take damage, or you don't collide and take none.
The point being using the "winning a collision" term or not, since the intersection of the two planes path has an uncontrolled element that grows as the distance between the two planes decreases, the outcomes becomes random.
-
how do we avoid getting hit from behind when we are in the middle of a furball? or when a fighter dives in and crashes into us when in bombers and he flies away with no damage and a kill :).
Better situational awareness.
the fix the collision threads are just us venting. we know there isnt a perfect way to do it. but it is still frustrating nonetheless.
semp
Sadly, not much can be done about this. That said, bombers kill their share of fighters by drones warping and such. The kill on an La-7 I got in the He111 was actually a collision where he was trying to zoom up and shoot me in the belly repeatedly and my BBs were not dissuading him at all, then he tore his wing off colliding with the image of my bomber on his FE. On my FE he came up about 50 yards behind me and suddenly broke into pieces.
-
The point being using the "winning a collision" term or not, since the intersection of the two planes path has an uncontrolled element that grows as the distance between the two planes decreases, the outcomes becomes random.
No. It's not random at all. And again, you can't win a collision. If you collide you take damage. If you don't collide, you don't. Thus, no 'winning' of a collision is possible.
The important detail to understand is that there is no "intersection of the two planes path". There are four planes involved in the AH world.
-
... the outcomes becomes random.
Only a warp may be an element you, personally, have no control over (and never will*).
You have full control of how close you let your aircraft get on your FE, otherwise.
*Remember latency?
-
Better situational awareness.
really? in a bomber you either gun or you fly it not both.
semp
-
really? in a bomber you either gun or you fly it not both.
semp
Read my full post. That was responding to your "in a furball" comment, which presumably meant fighters.
-
Read my full post. That was responding to your "in a furball" comment, which presumably meant fighters.
my bad :salute.
semp
-
my bad :salute.
semp
No problem. I borked the quotes so it wasn't clear.
-
Rant: :bhead :joystick: :furious :headscratch: :noid
<snip>
fixed
-
No. It's not random at all. And again, you can't win a collision. If you collide you take damage. If you don't collide, you don't. Thus, no 'winning' of a collision is possible.
The important detail to understand is that there is no "intersection of the two planes path". There are four planes involved in the AH world.
Winning the collision is when you get the kill and or survive to land. Not sure what problem you have with that.
It has to be random or there would be no complaints. If one player doesn't see the collision then the two players did not have absolute control of the outcome the results become random. The closer you get to the other plane, the less control you have of the outcome.
-
The closer you get to the other plane, the less control you have of the outcome.
You have full control over what happens to you. If you don't collide, if there is no collision on your screen... you do not take any damage from it. This is absolutely not random at all.
"Winning a collision" carries the wrong message as it give people the wrong impression that there is a single world with a single collision that you either can win or lose (probably by " better or worse connection"). Which is, as explained in depth several times, simply not the case.
If you collide, you take damage.
If he collides, he takes damage.
With the current collision model, you are in full control over what happens to you.
Only with "both take damage" and "both should have a collision tot ake damage", results wil be absolutely 'random' to you. In the former case you may suddenly die from a 'collision' that you clearly avoided, in the latter case you can fly through an enemy plane and collide or don't collide - THAT is random
-
Was this what you were trying to do Earl?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp478Tgm5gg
:airplane: Exactly! I even had some "Trojans" with me in case I could entice him to hold still, but he was having none of that.
-
There IS a solution to the collision problem, and it's quite simple.
Open your console.
Type 'tracert hitechcreations.com'
This will give you a list of all the carriers on all the network hops that sit between you and HTC's server. It will also give you the latency (delay) at each hop.
Make a note of all the carriers. For those that aren't obvious, use whois.com to find out they are. Also note the TOTAL latency at each carrier (some carriers will carry several hops). Call this number X.
Write a nice letter to each carrier which says "Dear carrier: I notice that my Aces High packets experience X milliseconds of delay on your network. This unfortunately causes collisions between planes to behave unrealistically. Please immediately reduce your net delay to under 1ms."
It works better if you write BOTH tech support at each carrier, AND the CEO.
Good luck!
Stellar
-
Note, it would reduce collisions to near 0% as the odds of both computers detecting a collision, at the same time, would be astronomical.
You could log this to be sure.....
I am of the opinion that more than 10% of my collisions render both reports