Aces High Bulletin Board
Help and Support Forums => Help and Training => Topic started by: NikonGuy on May 15, 2014, 11:52:30 PM
-
Who here thinks the collisions should be made where both planes go down if rammed or accidentally hit by another?
I don't know if its because I am in Australia and ping affects the behaviour of collisions but its certainly is frustrating when time and again I am flying a big heavy plane, get hit by a light/weaker structured plane, i.e. A6m Zero and the zero flies away merrily while my 38 is ripped to pieces.
-
Do you feel your plane should randomly go down without you seeing it touch anything when you pass a few hundred feet from another aircraft?
Wiley.
-
I've always been of the opinion that a collision should only be recorded when both FEs see it.
-
I've always been of the opinion that a collision should only be recorded when both FEs see it.
So you will almost never die and people will just dive right into a buff formation without worry of hitting a Plane?
It will be super easy to kill a bomber, just wait until your 100 out and spray until your nose pops out the other side.
-
No, that is to say that if they collide with you on your computer but not theirs than no. If it worked the way bullets do I thing the outrage would get outrageous.
-
Do you feel your plane should randomly go down without you seeing it touch anything when you pass a few hundred feet from another aircraft?
Wiley.
That's not even remotely what he said.
I TOTALLY AGREE that if there is a COLLISION, despite of aircraft types, weights, speeds, or any other excuse that if two aircraft collide then those aircraft BOTH go down, dead, with NO KILL awarded...regardless of computer speed or internet connection. You collide? YOU LOSE.
Anything less rewards dweebery. Dweebery is what is rewarded as the current "coading".
-
That's not even remotely what he said.
That is EXACTLY what he said.
I'm amazed at how difficult this concept is to grasp for some people, even with Snails excellent gif.
Let me give you guys a hint. If you're in a 1v1 fight, there aren't two planes involved, there are four.
-
:)
-
You collide? YOU LOSE.
And this is exactly how it works. You collide ("You have collided") = damage
You avoid collision (not the above message) = no damage
"XY has collided with you" just affects XY. You only get damaged by a collision if "You have collided".
With "both should go down no matter what", you will get exactly what Wiley said.
If you're in a 1v1 fight, there aren't two planes involved, there are four.
Unfortunately, many who are initially irritated by that concept don't spend a second to think about it, but just chose to ignore it. I guess it would make stompin' off feet so much more difficult ;)
-
Allow me to rephrase (LOTS of this going around).
If there is a collision between two players BOTH players should go down. No if's, no and's, no buts. Collide should = DIE. NO KILL AWARDED.
The current modeling rewards rammers who get a kill for ramming and fly away, or at least get kill credit before they, themselves crash.
In a collision situation....NO KILL should be awarded.
-
What is happening is that those with slower internet connections are being rewarded , because ,iirc, the first computer to report the collision is charged with it and records damage. It doesn't matter who is really responsible, just who reports it first. That rots, because there are those who do use it as a tool. Something needs to be done, and unfortunately the only way is for both planes to go down, whether or not "you see the collision".
It's the fairest way to go about it, IMHO.
-
What is happening is that those with slower internet connections are being rewarded , because ,iirc, the first computer to report the collision is charged with it and records damage. It doesn't matter who is really responsible, just who reports it first. That rots, because there are those who do use it as a tool. Something needs to be done, and unfortunately the only way is for both planes to go down, whether or not "you see the collision".
It's the fairest way to go about it, IMHO.
That is not correct. Your connection is not a factor. You either collide with the other guy on your PC or you don't. The other guy either collides with you on his PC or he doesn't. It doesn't matter who hit who, it only matters if the collision was on your PC, the other PC, or both.
-
I do not want to explode while holding a safe distance to an enemy plane, and I want to explode when my plane collides with an enemy plane. Luckily, that is how AH works for me.
-
Going to try and save Snailman some typing.
A quick walk through history 2000-2014
2000 http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,5126.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,5126.0.html)
2001 http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,24271.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,24271.0.html)
2002 http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,49422.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,49422.0.html)
2003 http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,88226.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,88226.0.html)
2004 http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,105150.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,105150.0.html)
2005 http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,147474.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,147474.0.html)
2006 http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,171149.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,171149.0.html)
2007 http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,219136.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,219136.0.html)
2008 http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,227448.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,227448.0.html)
2009 http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,272013.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,272013.0.html) My favorite :devil
2010 http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,290069.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,290069.0.html)
2011 http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,325218.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,325218.0.html)
2012 http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,342034.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,342034.0.html)
2013 http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,343827.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,343827.0.html)
2014 http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,359677.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,359677.0.html)
-
I do not want to explode while holding a safe distance to an enemy plane, and I want to explode when my plane collides with an enemy plane. Luckily, that is how AH works for me.
Yep, me too :old:
-
That is not correct. Your connection is not a factor. You either collide with the other guy on your PC or you don't. The other guy either collides with you on his PC or he doesn't. It doesn't matter who hit who, it only matters if the collision was on your PC, the other PC, or both.
Your connection and computer speed does have an affect on what you SEE on your screen. The faster the two planes are closing the worse it gets.
This is why some folks have a hard time understanding collisions. It just doesn't look right.
-
:O Another collision thread.
Does sir OP understand the collision model?
Where is Snailman with the .gif?
-
Gotta beat him to it.
(http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/8585/collision.gif)
I have my opinions on the collision model, but while there are 12 knives to the throat of my BBS account I think I'll pass.
-
Allow me to rephrase (LOTS of this going around).
If there is a collision between two players BOTH players should go down. No if's, no and's, no buts. Collide should = DIE. NO KILL AWARDED.
The current modeling rewards rammers who get a kill for ramming and fly away, or at least get kill credit before they, themselves crash.
In a collision situation....NO KILL should be awarded.
Right now, if both players collide, they both take damage. "No if's, no and's, no buts."
The current model does not reward anyone. If you avoid the collision, you fly away. If you do not avoid the collision, you take damage. It really is that simple. No one collides and does not take damage.
Regardless of the manner of death, a kill will be awarded.
-
If there is a collision between two players BOTH players should go down. No if's, no and's, no buts. Collide should = DIE. NO KILL AWARDED.
An actual collision situation, captured at the exact moment of impact, from the P-47 pilot's point of view:
(http://imageshack.com/a/img402/8728/ramotherfexg7.jpg)
See the system message "Lusche (P-51) has collided with you".
The P-47 should go down without any IF, NO. or BUT?
-
It DOES happen although not often. Recently I saw one of my squaddies pull up into an attack. He was going almost verticle upwards, the attacker the same downwards. They met nose on. From my vantage point I saw a poof up and a poof down from the point of "impact". Both collided. Both died as a result.
-
several times ive been collided with, or collided and not hear or see it, but still took damage. its a mystery to me on who goes down as a result and what the parameters are. as far as ive seen, the rammers who have it down to a science can collide into you with the belly of their plane into your canopy or abouts and you take the damage and they fly off. there are a lot of dirty players in AH and the collide model is one tool they use.
-
several times ive been collided with, or collided and not hear or see it, but still took damage. its a mystery to me on who goes down as a result and what the parameters are. as far as ive seen, the rammers who have it down to a science can collide into you with the belly of their plane into your canopy or abouts and you take the damage and they fly off. there are a lot of dirty players in AH and the collide model is one tool they use.
nonsense
there is no way for such a "rammer" to know where his aircraft appears on the other guy's end.
-
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/AH%20motivationals/collisionwhines.jpg~original) (http://s343.photobucket.com/user/caldera_08/media/AH%20motivationals/collisionwhines.jpg.html)
-
nonsense
there is no way for such a "rammer" to know where his aircraft appears on the other guy's end.
One can make a somewhat close guess. I've seen other guys maneuvering, usually at the top of a vertical move, where I've been fairly sure he's about to collide with me as he passes by.
My one quibble with the collision model is sometimes the damage seems odd. Often enough to notice it, I have collided with another aircraft and just lost an aileron. While it might be possible to have that be the only part of the plane that touched him, I have my doubts that was what happened. If Geezer is saying that if you hit the other guy at all it should be catastrophic damage and the plane shouldn't be flyable, I am not entirely opposed to that idea.
Wiley.
-
several times ive been collided with, or collided and not hear or see it, but still took damage. its a mystery to me on who goes down as a result and what the parameters are. as far as ive seen, the rammers who have it down to a science can collide into you with the belly of their plane into your canopy or abouts and you take the damage and they fly off. there are a lot of dirty players in AH and the collide model is one tool they use.
YOUR computer is the one who controls collision detection for YOUR plane. If YOUR computer detects YOUR plane has intersected with another object, then YOUR computer assigns the damage to YOUR plane.
Like someone else has said, it is impossible for anyone to know the exact amount of separation between two planes, in real time.
The amount of damage assigned is based on a lot of variables. Graphically, it is grossly represented, at this time. In other words, you might only have a percentage of damage done to a part, but the part is graphically shown as being completely gone.
-
To those who think that some have collisions down to a science I suggest that you go try to intentionally collide causing damage to the other guy and none to yourself and see how that works out for you, do it five times and look at the numbers.
shamus
-
You been practising? :bolt:
-
YOUR computer is the one who controls collision detection for YOUR plane. If YOUR computer detects YOUR plane has intersected with another object, then YOUR computer assigns the damage to YOUR plane.
Like someone else has said, it is impossible for anyone to know the exact amount of separation between two planes, in real time.
The amount of damage assigned is based on a lot of variables. Graphically, it is grossly represented, at this time. In other words, you might only have a percentage of damage done to a part, but the part is graphically shown as being completely gone.
Just wondering a bit on this. Are you saying the part may take partial damage, but appear gone graphically and still be there and affecting flight? Or are you saying the part may only take partial damage in the collision, but appear gone graphically and will not be there and affecting flight?
Wiley.
-
It does not matter how a part was damaged. It can be gone, graphically, but still be there (virtually) and operating at some percentage level.
Hits on, what appears, invisible still register if that part is still operating at some level.
-
It does not matter how a part was damaged. It can be gone, graphically, but still be there (virtually) and operating at some percentage level.
Hits on, what appears, invisible still register if that part is still operating at some level.
Hmp! Never noticed that. Appreciate the info, Skuzzy. That might explain some of the one winged flying plane comments I hear every once in a while in the arena.
Wiley.
-
A note about people fiddling around to try to finesse a collision. It is much easier to just shoot the enemy, and you have a lower chance of finding yourself in front of his guns.
I am 100% for enemy players trying to save ammo by causing a collision on my end. It will make them easy kills.
-
There r different types of collisions.
If a guy is stupid enough to move too close his propeller from an enemy's tail, then i dont see why the collided guy should be punished by insta-death instead of losing a part of his tail when the noob behind him loses his propeller.
That's not even remotely what he said.
I TOTALLY AGREE that if there is a COLLISION, despite of aircraft types, weights, speeds, or any other excuse that if two aircraft collide then those aircraft BOTH go down, dead, with NO KILL awarded...regardless of computer speed or internet connection. You collide? YOU LOSE.
Anything less rewards dweebery. Dweebery is what is rewarded as the current "coading".
-
Why has no one brought up that all of these problems are due to the way the game is designed/coded (read that as: it could be fixed, if the time was invested)? I hear apologists defending the game and complainers complaining about internet connection, the damage assigned, and who goes down, but why is no one addressing the actual core problem? The model itself.
-
Why has no one brought up that all of these problems are due to the way the game is designed/coded (read that as: it could be fixed, if the time was invested)? I hear apologists defending the game and complainers complaining about internet connection, the damage assigned, and who goes down, but why is no one addressing the actual core problem? The model itself.
The only problem with the collision model is the lack of understanding of how it works by some.
ack-ack
-
Why has no one brought up that all of these problems are due to the way the game is designed/coded (read that as: it could be fixed, if the time was invested)? I hear apologists defending the game and complainers complaining about internet connection, the damage assigned, and who goes down, but why is no one addressing the actual core problem? The model itself.
It boils down to the decisions that were made. It's between the collision model being as-is and having instant input to your plane, or everything being server-side, and having to deal with input lag. They made their choices and it is how it is. I personally prefer having things as responsive as they are and what I see on my end is what I get.
Wiley.
-
You been practising? :bolt:
No but I'm old and got slow reflexes and fly planes that require me to get in real close so I collide a ton!!! :lol
shamus
-
I get it. If my plane and another plane make contact on my screen, I get a "You have collided" and take damage. The other player gets a "AMAX has collided with you". If we made contact on his screen as well, he also gets a "You have collided" and takes damage and I get a "Skyrr has collided with you". If we didn't hit on his screen, he takes no damage and doesn't get a "You have collided", because his reality is that we never made contact.
Either way, he gets the kill message because he pulled the trigger on the merge :D
So, the issue is with the lag. My understanding is that lag is what it is and fixing it isn't a solution. Is there a solution where a different server/client responsibility keeps better track of where both players are and what they see?
-
There r different types of collisions.
If a guy is stupid enough to move too close his propeller from an enemy's tail, then i dont see why the collided guy should be punished by insta-death instead of losing a part of his tail when the noob behind him loses his propeller.
If something like that ever happens you should post the film in the bug forum.
Why has no one brought up that all of these problems are due to the way the game is designed/coded (read that as: it could be fixed, if the time was invested)? I hear apologists defending the game and complainers complaining about internet connection, the damage assigned, and who goes down, but why is no one addressing the actual core problem? The model itself.
The model isn't the problem. The model is the solution to travel time. You don't have a better fix.
-
So, the issue is with the lag. My understanding is that lag is what it is and fixing it isn't a solution. Is there a solution where a different server/client responsibility keeps better track of where both players are and what they see?
I understand your frustration. If we could only get rid of that pesky "speed of light" constant.
Actually I think most of the "Laws Of The Universe" are overmodeled.
-
Why has no one brought up that all of these problems are due to the way the game is designed/coded (read that as: it could be fixed, if the time was invested)? I hear apologists defending the game and complainers complaining about internet connection, the damage assigned, and who goes down, but why is no one addressing the actual core problem? The model itself.
There is no perfect solution to the problem. Every solution has its pros and cons. We think this one is the best solution. It allows YOU to control your fate. It would be awesome if we could just get passed the speed of light and lower the hardware latencies to zero, but I do not see that happening.
No one is apologizing and we are very open about how and why it works the way it does.
If you think you have solved the time displacement issue, we would be happy to hear about it. I really mean that.
I get it. If my plane and another plane make contact on my screen, I get a "You have collided" and take damage. The other player gets a "AMAX has collided with you". If we made contact on his screen as well, he also gets a "You have collided" and takes damage and I get a "Skyrr has collided with you". If we didn't hit on his screen, he takes no damage and doesn't get a "You have collided", because his reality is that we never made contact.
Either way, he gets the kill message because he pulled the trigger on the merge :D
So, the issue is with the lag. My understanding is that lag is what it is and fixing it isn't a solution. Is there a solution where a different server/client responsibility keeps better track of where both players are and what they see?
I want to clear up a few things.
It is not about the "screen". It is about the game detecting some type of intersection with your plane. Using the term "screen" implies you actually see it. You may not see it.
The term "lag" is not correct, in this context. The correct term is "time displacement". The difference in the physical locations on each computer is strictly due to the difference in the aggregate time from one computer to the server to the other computer.
The solution is for every computer to be next to each other using as short a cable as possible, directly to the servers. Then it becomes easy.
-
Skuzzy, thank you very much for taking the time to chime in and clear some of this up.
It is not about the "screen". It is about the game detecting some type of intersection with your plane. Using the term "screen" implies you actually see it. You may not see it.
Ok, quick question about this. Even though I may not see it when in game, I should be able to see it in the recording, correct?
-
Ok, quick question about this. Even though I may not see it when in game, I should be able to see it in the recording, correct?
It will be in the recording, though it might look like it barely misses in the recording as the recording is not exactly like the flight paths in the actual event as I recall.
-
The same basic time problem is what makes stick stirring look worse than it really is in that the time delay in updating the planes position can't keep up the movement making the plane look like it is doing things the flight model should prevent.
-
The same basic time problem is what makes stick stirring look worse than it really is in that the time delay in updating the planes position can't keep up the movement making the plane look like it is doing things the flight model should prevent.
That seems unlikely given that the data stream is generally consistent and the game is coded to avoid warping from controller input.
-
That seems unlikely given that the data stream is generally consistent and the game is coded to avoid warping from controller input.
You are thinking from the stick stir'ers end. My point is what some ones sees on their screen watching a stick stirring.
-
You are thinking from the stick stir'ers end. My point is what some ones sees on their screen watching a stick stirring.
No. I am referring to the data coming from the evasive fighter and displayed on your end. It's consistently delayed. That makes it smooth but in a slightly different map location. You may be thinking of variance where the travel time delay is not the same.
-
Right now, if both players collide, they both take damage. "No if's, no and's, no buts."
The current model does not reward anyone. If you avoid the collision, you fly away. If you do not avoid the collision, you take damage. It really is that simple. No one collides and does not take damage.
Regardless of the manner of death, a kill will be awarded.
I can't agree with this ..
On the very odd occasion I have had people ram me, they fall to the ground in numerous pieces while I have not a single scratch. I don't even get any damage sounds, the only way I know there has been a collision is due to the text buffer telling me.
<S>
-
I can't agree with this ..
On the very odd occasion I have had people ram me, they fall to the ground in numerous pieces while I have not a single scratch. I don't even get any damage sounds, the only way I know there has been a collision is due to the text buffer telling me.
<S>
There are two different text messages. The message you get in the text buffer when you don't get damage is telling you there was a collision on the other PC, "PlayerID collided with you." If you do get damage then message says the collision was on your PC, "You collided with playerID." You will see both messages when a collision is detected on both computers.
-
There are two different text messages. The message you get in the text buffer when you don't get damage is telling you there was a collision on the other PC, "PlayerID collided with you." If you do get damage then message says the collision was on your PC, "You collided with playerID." You will see both messages when a collision is detected on both computers.
Thats what baffles me .. if the other pc had a collision then my pc should get a collision. You can't have a collision with only one object. If two cars on the highway hit head on, its a dual collision, not one guy collides and the other gets nothing. A collision involves two entities, whether thats another plane, another car or a brick wall, yes?
-
Thats what baffles me .. if the other pc had a collision then my pc should get a collision. You can't have a collision with only one object. If two cars on the highway hit head on, its a dual collision, not one guy collides and the other gets nothing. A collision involves two entities, whether thats another plane, another car or a brick wall, yes?
It baffles a lot of people. :D
When you merge with another aircraft your A/C is controlled by you in real time. The bandit was controlled a short time ago. You are seeing where it used to be on the bandit's PC. On the bandit's PC it has already moved. The bandit is in a different location on the other PC. Your A/C is in a different location on the bandit's PC. On your PC you already moved.
So now we have the possibilities of four combinations, since the two entities are repeated on the other PC in different relative positions. Now the four possibilities are no collision, both collide on both PCs, both collide on your PC, or both collide on the bandit's PC. If there is no collision on your PC you don't take damage regardless of what happens on the other PC. If there is a collision on your PC and no collision on the bandit's PC then the bandit flies away on your PC. What you described was a collision on the bandit's PC but not on yours. So the bandit went down for colliding on his PC, and you didn't get damaged because there was no collision on your PC. It's an illusion that we fly in the same arena. We fly in near identical copies and the slight differences in aircraft location are handled by detecting collisions locally. That prevents a situation where you maneuver to miss a collision and get damaged even though you avoided contact.
-
Thats what baffles me .. if the other pc had a collision then my pc should get a collision. You can't have a collision with only one object. If two cars on the highway hit head on, its a dual collision, not one guy collides and the other gets nothing. A collision involves two entities, whether thats another plane, another car or a brick wall, yes?
You cannot apply what happens in the real world. If you cannot stop that, then think of it this way. Try having a head on collision with another car who is on the other side of the world. That is essentially what the game has to deal with.
Yes, there are always two entities involved in a collision. For the sake of clarity, let's name them Bob and Ralph.
On Bob's computer, he sees Ralph explode and fall into a million pieces while Bob flies away.
What was happening was Ralph did not avoid colliding with Bob, on Ralph's computer. So Ralph's computer assigned the appropriate damage to Ralphs' plane.
Bob's computer did not detect Bob intersecting with another object, so Bob flew away.
And that is the reality in Aces High. Every computer, in the game, has its own version of where it thinks every one is. None of them are in the same place on each on of those computers. It is due to time displacement.
You may not like or agree with the way it works, but it is the best compromise for a game that is not server based.
-
And that is the reality in Aces High. Every computer, in the game, has its own version of where it thinks every one is. None of them are in the same place on each on of those computers. It is due to time displacement.
You may not like or agree with the way it works, but it is the best compromise for a game that is not server based.
And I much prefer it this way. Allow me to fly with a responsive plane and have full control over where I fly my plane. If I happen to briefly lose connection, I'm still flying my plane around and can still avoid trees, buildings and mountains. Others will see me continue on my last path and then suddenly "warp" to my new position when my connection comes back up and my client can update the server with my new position.
I tried another flight game that is server based. When I briefly lose connection to their server, I can no longer control my plane and I'm stuck watching it fly in a straight line right into the trees or a mountain. THAT is more frustrating than anything else, and one of the many reasons I stopped playing it.
So the bottom line is this: fly your plane to avoid contact with other objects and you will NEVER take collision damage. Bullet damage, on the other hand is given based on who is doing the shooting and what their game client detects as hitting other objects.
-
Thats what baffles me .. if the other pc had a collision then my pc should get a collision. You can't have a collision with only one object.
Haven't you seen the collision picture I posted earlier in this thread?
-
FLS and Skuzzy .. thanks for that great explanation .. I do get it.
I guess what I am saying is no matter where the other players plane may be. If he hits you then bad luck, you both go down. Or if I hit him, whether deliberate or not, we both take the collision and fall gracefully to earth .. :P
Seriously 9 out of 10 collisions for me end up with me losing it totally and the other guy flying away. Whether thats because I am in Australia who knows, regarding latency or whatever. I do know my ping is always 250+ but whether thats got anything to do with it, I don't know.
<S>
-
Haven't you seen the collision picture I posted earlier in this thread?
Yes Lusche, I did, thank you :)
I get it .. I am just not very good at explaining myself. <S>
-
FLS and Skuzzy .. thanks for that great explanation .. I do get it.
I guess what I am saying is no matter where the other players plane may be. If he hits you then bad luck, you both go down. Or if I hit him, whether deliberate or not, we both take the collision and fall gracefully to earth .. :P
Seriously 9 out of 10 collisions for me end up with me losing it totally and the other guy flying away. Whether thats because I am in Australia who knows, regarding latency or whatever. I do know my ping is always 250+ but whether thats got anything to do with it, I don't know.
<S>
You take damage, because you failed to avoid the collision. The other guy, avoided the collision. Thatis why he was able to fly away.
If you avoid a collision, you really want your plane to blow up because the other guy failed to avoid the collision? You want the other player to have that kind of control over your plane?
You are already noting you lose at collisions. Imagine losing when you actually avoid the collision!
That is what you are asking for. It also indicates may not really understand how and why the collisions work the way they do and why they have to work that way.
Right now, you have absolute control over your plane. If you avoid the collision, your plane takes no damage. Any other scenario grants the other player the ability to ruin your day, no matter how well you fly.
-
You take damage, because you failed to avoid the collision. The other guy, avoided the collision. Thatis why he was able to fly away.
Does the gunnery model work like this?
-
Does the gunnery model work like this?
Kinda. If you hit your target on your "screen", it's damaged. It doesn't matter if you hit him on "his screen" as well, which occasionally to often you will not.
Game would be unplayable otherwise.
-
Kinda. If you hit your target on your "screen", it's damaged. It doesn't matter if you hit him on "his screen" as well, which occasionally to often you will not.
Game would be unplayable otherwise.
So gunnery doesn't work the same as Skuzzy described that collisions do (damage is only taken if directly experienced by the end-user). And that makes sense that gunnery would work as described above.
So why is there such an uproar over collisions (which involve a huge, entirely avoidable plane) damaging both players, yet not a peep about all of the lag-filled shots that happen on a daily basis?
The gunnery model is proof that 1) people would be fine with a system that affects both players (as such a mechanism is already in place for the gunnery model) and 2) that the lag is acceptable enough that it shouldn't cause any adverse problems (in that the playerbase doesn't seem to be crying about laggy shots killing them). It follows then that unless the collision boxes are somehow much bigger than described, a dual-damaging collision system would also be viable.
Collide, both die, no one gets the kill (or they both kill each other). I think that would discourage collisions in general.
-
Collide, both die, no one gets the kill (or they both kill each other). I think that would discourage collisions in general.
It would absolutely not. It would A) reward the "rammer" and B) (and that is the really bad stuff) it would make active avoidance of collisions about impossible.
"Both die" means nothing less that your plane will blow up from a 'collision' that you clearly avoided on your screen. The enemy could pass 30ft from you, yet wou would get "you have collided" and go down from it.
Again I refer to the picture I posted: Imagine you had been the Jug pilot. Should your plane get damaged by the collision you see in that picture? (Note it's really the actual moment of impact. The Pony never gets any closer than that on your screen)
-
In the real world both parties to an aerial collision would receive some kind of damage. The laws governing physical objects colliding at speed and kinetic energy are in force and don't care about the two parties motivations.
In the game our client controls and communicates seeing your rounds hitting your con. It also controls seeing your aircraft colliding with another, then damaging your aircraft as the consequence of not avoiding colliding with that con. Then communicating to that con your aircraft has been damaged or destroyed as the cost of not avoiding colliding with that aircraft.
It's a motivational control for your conduct. Sucks in its reasoning but, in practice, keeps us leery of colliding on purpose.
If you dislike being HO'd by the majority of players you run into in the MA. Both parties dying from collisions would kill this game. New players would drive the arena nutz during their first months just learning to fly and fight. Every small minded backstabber with an ax to grind would ram everyone they meet instead of HOing like they do today. When they decided your ACM has to get knocked down a notch to sooth their hurt pride and feed their ego. Then they would have a face full of kamikaze love to screw you with.
If you get a collision message, then just like your game client tells your con to go boom and you are awarded a kill message. Your game client awards you a broken airplane and a collision message for not avoiding touching the con. In our game it's fine to shoot the red guys. It's a BIG no, no to touch them.
So now that we all know how the collision process works. Are some of you thinking about going to kindergarten over it?
-
In the real world both parties to an aerial collision would receive some kind of damage. The laws governing physical objects colliding at speed and kinetic energy are in force and don't care about the two parties motivations.
In the game our client controls and communicates seeing your rounds hitting your con. It also controls seeing your aircraft colliding with another, then damaging your aircraft as the consequence of not avoiding colliding with that con. Then communicating to that con your aircraft has been damaged or destroyed as the cost of not avoiding colliding with that aircraft.
It's a motivational control for your conduct. Sucks in its reasoning but, in practice, keeps us leery of colliding on purpose.
If you dislike being HO'd by the majority of players you run into in the MA. Both parties dying from collisions would kill this game. New players would drive the arena nutz during their first months just learning to fly and fight. Every small minded backstabber with an ax to grind would ram everyone they meet instead of HOing like they do today. When they decided your ACM has to get knocked down a notch to sooth their hurt pride and feed their ego. Then they would have a face full of kamikaze love to screw you with.
If you get a collision message, then just like your game client tells your con to go boom and you are awarded a kill message. Your game client awards you a broken airplane and a collision message for not avoiding touching the con. In our game it's fine to shoot the red guys. It's a BIG no, no to touch them.
So now that we all know how the collision process works. Are some of you thinking about going to kindergarten over it?
Basically saying, akin to the kamikaze damage idea, if you give the player a low skill (or no skill) weapon that can kill, they will use it. Some more than others, the closest thing I have to relate to this is the "Noob-Tube" grenade launcher from Call of Duty.
-
You take damage, because you failed to avoid the collision. The other guy, avoided the collision. Thatis why he was able to fly away.
If you avoid a collision, you really want your plane to blow up because the other guy failed to avoid the collision? You want the other player to have that kind of control over your plane?
You are already noting you lose at collisions. Imagine losing when you actually avoid the collision!
That is what you are asking for. It also indicates may not really understand how and why the collisions work the way they do and why they have to work that way.
Right now, you have absolute control over your plane. If you avoid the collision, your plane takes no damage. Any other scenario grants the other player the ability to ruin your day, no matter how well you fly.
Your right, I'll just shut up now :P
Good discussion though :)
<S>
-
Your right, I'll just shut up now :P
Good discussion though :)
<S>
No you did good Nikonguy, it helped explain the process to the rest of us newbies as well. The only bad question is the one you don't ask. :cheers:
-
Part of the collision confusion is from the collision message appearing to assign fault. The two different messages just tell you which computer had two aircraft in contact. It may help if the text messages are changed. Instead of "you collided with...", something like "you were in a collision with...", would be more neutral regarding causation but still ID the player's PC where it occurred.
-
It would absolutely not. It would A) reward the "rammer" and B) (and that is the really bad stuff) it would make active avoidance of collisions about impossible.
"Both die" means nothing less that your plane will blow up from a 'collision' that you clearly avoided on your screen. The enemy could pass 30ft from you, yet wou would get "you have collided" and go down from it.
Again I refer to the picture I posted: Imagine you had been the Jug pilot. Should your plane get damaged by the collision you see in that picture? (Note it's really the actual moment of impact. The Pony never gets any closer than that on your screen)
I think you're confusing two things - the model vs the application of it in Aces High.
If the situation presented with the "long-distance" collision is the norm, then the issue lies with the accuracy of reporting the location of the two planes. NO model would fix this, as it's obviously a problem of accuracy.
If the location of the planes (pre-collision) was highly-accurate, it would make the avoidance of collisions easy.
Again, my original point was that no one seems to be separating the problem into its core components. Is the "long-distance" collision a problem with the game or with lag? Because SEVERAL games model collisions accurately, down to inches/centimeters of player location.
-
There is no collision problem. The locations are accurate. They just can't avoid travel time. The only problem associated with collisions is understanding why they can appear to be unfair.
-
There is no collision problem. The locations are accurate. They just can't avoid travel time. The only problem associated with collisions is understanding why they can appear to be unfair.
Other games model it just fine. With ping times in the single and double milliseconds, it's a non-issue. Most humans can't detect variations less than 1/3 of a second (333ms) - dial-up can have better ping times than that.
-
Other games model it just fine. With ping times in the single and double milliseconds, it's a non-issue. Most humans can't detect variations less than 1/3 of a second (333ms) - dial-up can have better ping times than that.
Wiley already mentioned the problem earlier in this thread. There is travel time which you can't eliminate. You can only add delay elsewhere. Adding delay to control input is not a better choice than the current system. You haven't suggested a better method. You simply insist that it can be improved based on your current level of understanding. Please explain how it's a non-issue. And tell me which other games have up to 600 players in the same arena on huge maps with aircraft going up to 600 MPH with players from all over the world all seeing the same relative positions. Name one.
-
Wiley already mentioned the problem earlier in this thread. There is travel time which you can't eliminate. You can only add delay elsewhere. Adding delay to control input is not a better choice than the current system. You haven't suggested a better method. You simply insist that it can be improved based on your current level of understanding. Please explain how it's a non-issue. And tell me which other games have up to 600 players in the same arena on huge maps with aircraft going up to 600 MPH with players from all over the world all seeing the same relative positions. Name one.
I'm a software developer (as well as a flight instructor). I see it every day.
Your "travel" time (correctly called "latency") is double the slowest user's latest latency connecting to the server - that is usually less than 1/5th of a second. The average human can't react fast enough, let alone notice, a good connection's latency (using .01s - .2s connection speeds). It's a non-issue for any group of users on modern games playing on modern PC's with modern connections. It only becomes an issue when you allow users with subpar connections to play or you have a game which is overly-lax in it's hitbox modeling (or player location-reporting). This is also why laggy players are typically banned from most competitive play servers, because they present a disruption to otherwise equal gameplay.
This is not a hard feat by any means - this is common in modern games. Lest you forget, your gunnery model ALREADY works in the same fashion. If the player lags when they shoot you, they'll still hit you even if the bullets don't connect. Arguing that the collision model would be impossible to work in this fashion displays a lack of understanding for the mechanics already employed. Fighter Ace used the same model as I've described and collisions were not an issue unless another player simply had a horrible connection (and they were reported and banned if it was a persistent issue). And they had double to triple the numbers we have now.
-
Skyyr,
Why don't you take this to e-mail with the owner of the company. You have reached the point you are advocating for eliminating paying customers because they don't fit your ideal. That's not your decision to make, and it appears, you are starting a campaign to turn AH into FA while a guest in Hitech's living room.
If you are what you claim, then talk to the man himself.
-
So what "modern games" are you talking about. You only mention Fighter Ace which doesn't exist anymore.
-
If you want to compare numbers you should compare how many AH has now to how many FA has now.
Gunnery in AH is similar to collisions except you still take damage when it appears you were missed. There is no case of being shot but nothing hit you, it's just that it visibly hit you on the other PC, not the one you're looking at.
You may prefer a different game architecture but you give up responsiveness and limit arena size and population. Did you want to name the common modern games that you believe compare to Aces High?
On response times, people can notice variations in timing at 60 FPS as micro stutters. As a game developer you'll know that was an issue with dual GPUs.
Latency refers to delay. I understand it's usage in networks but it connotes lateness. I think travel time is more descriptive for the average player.
-
I'm a software developer (as well as a flight instructor). I see it every day.
Your "travel" time (correctly called "latency") is double the slowest user's latest latency connecting to the server - that is usually less than 1/5th of a second. The average human can't react fast enough, let alone notice, a good connection's latency (using .01s - .2s connection speeds). It's a non-issue for any group of users on modern games playing on modern PC's with modern connections. It only becomes an issue when you allow users with subpar connections to play or you have a game which is overly-lax in it's hitbox modeling (or player location-reporting). This is also why laggy players are typically banned from most competitive play servers, because they present a disruption to otherwise equal gameplay.
This is not a hard feat by any means - this is common in modern games. Lest you forget, your gunnery model ALREADY works in the same fashion. If the player lags when they shoot you, they'll still hit you even if the bullets don't connect. Arguing that the collision model would be impossible to work in this fashion displays a lack of understanding for the mechanics already employed. Fighter Ace used the same model as I've described and collisions were not an issue unless another player simply had a horrible connection (and they were reported and banned if it was a persistent issue). And they had double to triple the numbers we have now.
And yet you are here instead of running your own air combat simulation?
-
Other games model it just fine. With ping times in the single and double milliseconds, it's a non-issue.
It's a world wide game. There is no way whatesoever for huge part of the playerbase to get even down do double digit ping times. For single digit ping times you would basically have to sit next to the server (from a global perspective.)
Yuu simply can not get around that in anyway but severley limiting the player base to "local people". The signal travel time is just a fact that no one has any influence on. No game can get around that premise.
-
I am in the Austin, TX region and my ping times to HTC's server are usually in the 60-75ms range. When I was in the San Francisco Bay Area they were in the 120ms range. There is no way that somebody in Australia, Japan or Europe can hope to have a ping that isn't, in your mind, bannable.
Other games have much slower movement which hides the latency based discrepancies. Elite: Dangerous, currently in production, is limiting velocity (outside of fantasy engines) to 1000mph due to the same problem AH has, too fast of speeds causing player realities to diverge too much. WWII fighter speeds are about the fastest reasonably viable game speeds over the internet, and even those require imperfect solutions such as the collision system in AH.
-
Other games model it just fine.
Are those games server based or client based? It makes a difference.
As I said before, I have no problem with the current collision model, as AH is a client-based game. If I fly my plane and avoid a collision with an object, I take NO DAMAGE. It doesn't seem so hard to understand.
This thread has become a circular argument and I see no way out...
-
Does the gunnery model work like this?
Not sure of the context of this question.
If you hit the bad guy on your computer, then he takes damage. If he hits you on his computer you take damage.
It can cause bullets to look like they are coming from odd angles if the guy shoots and hits you when the time displacement is high.
I'm a software developer (as well as a flight instructor). I see it every day.
Your "travel" time (correctly called "latency") is double the slowest user's latest latency connecting to the server - that is usually less than 1/5th of a second. The average human can't react fast enough, let alone notice, a good connection's latency (using .01s - .2s connection speeds). It's a non-issue for any group of users on modern games playing on modern PC's with modern connections. It only becomes an issue when you allow users with subpar connections to play or you have a game which is overly-lax in it's hitbox modeling (or player location-reporting). This is also why laggy players are typically banned from most competitive play servers, because they present a disruption to otherwise equal gameplay.
This is not a hard feat by any means - this is common in modern games. Lest you forget, your gunnery model ALREADY works in the same fashion. If the player lags when they shoot you, they'll still hit you even if the bullets don't connect. Arguing that the collision model would be impossible to work in this fashion displays a lack of understanding for the mechanics already employed. Fighter Ace used the same model as I've described and collisions were not an issue unless another player simply had a horrible connection (and they were reported and banned if it was a persistent issue). And they had double to triple the numbers we have now.
You are talking about using a server based flight model, which has its own set of problems. We are not going to go there. Every design has its compromises and limitations.
-
I am in the Austin, TX region and my ping times to HTC's server are usually in the 60-75ms range. When I was in the San Francisco Bay Area they were in the 120ms range. There is no way that somebody in Australia, Japan or Europe can hope to have a ping that isn't, in your mind, bannable.
A human eye can't detect a .06ms delay. Even five (5) times that is unnoticeable by most players (though some exceptional/professional gamers might notice it). I had a .290 - .320 (320ms) ping time when I played FA on dial-up and I had ZERO issues with server-managed collisions when I played FA. Literally - I had no problem.
One of our squad members connects from Australia - his average ping time is (strangely enough) .320s (320ms) as well. He runs DSL.
It's not as big of an issue as people make it out to be. Now, I'm not saying it is the singular solution here, but for some reason, everyone seems paranoid about confronting a server-based collision model. An average "fast" human reflex is typically 1/3rd of a second (anywhere from .25s to .35s). There are certainly faster and certainly slower people, but the average person cannot react faster than that. A latency that matches that is quite literally a non-factor.
Just to be clear, I'm not advocating it - I'm simply baffled at how everyone seems to be afraid of it without understanding the actual application of it. It would literally be a non-factor for players with ping times of 350ms or less, which is likely 98-99% of players. The only players who typically would have an issue with this are satellite connection and dial-up users with poor connections.
-
It is not as simple as you paint it to be.
I really do not want to get into a design and theory discussion here. It is beyond the scope of what this forum is for.
HiTech is very familiar with the server side model and its limitations. To allow up to a thousand connections to a server, it simply does not work well.
-
It's not as big of an issue as people make it out to be. Now, I'm not saying it is the singular solution here, but for some reason, everyone seems paranoid about confronting a server-based collision model. An average "fast" human reflex is typically 1/3rd of a second (anywhere from .25s to .35s). There are certainly faster and certainly slower people, but the average person cannot react faster than that. A latency that matches that is quite literally a non-factor.
If I understand it correctly, here's how it would work. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Let's assume just for grins and because I like round numbers, .25 second latency for all parties concerned.
I'm flying along, something happens.
0.25 seconds for me to react to it.
0.25 seconds for my input to get to the server.
0.25 seconds for my input to make it back to all clients, including my own.
Since it would take 0.5 seconds for my inputs to be transferred into motion of my plane, effectively there'd be a 0.5 second delay on gunnery. That's pretty noticeable, and that's assuming a pretty decent ping. Wouldn't that be much worse than what we have now?
Even if we assume 0.125 ping, that's still going to double reaction time.
Wiley.
-
NM, cell phone ate response.
-
If I understand it correctly, here's how it would work. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Let's assume just for grins and because I like round numbers, .25 second latency for all parties concerned.
I'm flying along, something happens.
0.25 seconds for me to react to it.
0.25 seconds for my input to get to the server.
0.25 seconds for my input to make it back to all clients, including my own.
Since it would take 0.5 seconds for my inputs to be transferred into motion of my plane, effectively there'd be a 0.5 second delay on gunnery. That's pretty noticeable, and that's assuming a pretty decent ping. Wouldn't that be much worse than what we have now?
Even if we assume 0.125 ping, that's still going to double reaction time.
Wiley.
Your latency is typically the full round-trip time (otherwise, your .25s travel time would actually be a .5s latency, which is horrible by any standard). Most users have a latency of .3 or less (which means 150ms or less both ways).
Now, yes, if you're flying straight and level and you waited for some kind of queue to move your joystick (whether it's a barrage of bullets, an oncoming plane, etc.), then yes, you'd have your reaction time coupled with your latency. However, that's not how it functionally works.
Due to latency, you're ALWAYS flying current time minus latency. Let's assume a latency of .2 seconds (200ms, which is getting somewhat close to the high side). This means that you're flying .2 seconds in the past for ALL of your maneuvers... and so is your opponent. Your opponent is also seeing you .2 seconds in the past... all the time. When both planes are reacting .2s in the past, then they're effectively flying the same as they would in the present. In most cases, it's unnoticeable.
You're not flying with your hand off your stick and then quickly grabbing it in a dogfight - you're constantly making adjustments (that's what dogfighting is). It's natural, so the only "reaction" time you need is the visual queue, which corresponds with latency. As long as the plane you're watching/fighting against has a latency of less than 1/3 a second or so, you're fine, because what you see on the screen corresponds to what is happening in real time (as the average human can't easily detect changes that happen faster than 1/3 a second or so). Even if you could, WWII aircraft are not that responsive, so it fits this genre of games just fine.
Therefore, latency isn't an issue when 1) it's relatively low (under 1/3 a second or so) and 2) the players have similar latencies, as experienced latency ends up being the difference between the individual players' latencies in relation to the reference connection. This is important.
Why? Because the reference connection on a server-based solution is, you guessed it, the server. So if one player is connecting to the server at 100ms and another at 150ms, then the perceived lag will be 50ms (which is virtually undetectable by humans).
However, when using a client-based solution, the server is no longer the reference point, so perceived "lag" occurs whenever two players encounter something that doesn't match exactly on both ends, as you have no common reference point or standard. This usually ends up benefiting one player while putting the other (or others) at a disadvantage.
This is why server-based systems are in place for most all competitive/professional games.
-
It is not as simple as you paint it to be.
I really do not want to get into a design and theory discussion here. It is beyond the scope of what this forum is for.
HiTech is very familiar with the server side model and its limitations. To allow up to a thousand connections to a server, it simply does not work well.
Understood (and sorry, didn't see your response until just now). Again, I'm not advocating it, I'm simply surprised that people think that server-based referencing is impossible, when in reality it's used quite commonly. Now, of course, it may not be suitable for this game, but that doesn't make it irrelevant to this genre of games because of that.
-
Skyyr your theoretical argument about reaction time is not convincing. If you happen to have 2 accounts and 2 computers together, you can hook up your monitor to the other PC, which has joined you as an observer, and fly while looking at the delayed response added by travel time to the server and back. It is very noticeable even with a .06 ping.
Understood (and sorry, didn't see your response until just now). Again, I'm not advocating it, I'm simply surprised that people think that server-based referencing is impossible, when in reality it's used quite commonly. Now, of course, it may not be suitable for this game, but that doesn't make it irrelevant to this genre of games because of that.
This is Help and Training for Aces High. This game, not this genre of games, is the subject of this discussion. Sorry if that wasn't clear to you.
-
. . . . A human eye can't detect a .06ms delay. . . .
But at 500mph closure speed in that .06ms the distance between the two planes is reduced by roughly 800 yards
-
Skyyr your theoretical argument about reaction time is not convincing. If you happen to have 2 accounts and 2 computers together, you can hook up your monitor to the other PC, which has joined you as an observer, and fly while looking at the delayed response added by travel time to the server and back. It is very noticeable even with a .06 ping.
This is Help and Training for Aces High. This game, not this genre of games, is the subject of this discussion. Sorry if that wasn't clear to you.
You keep arguing how it's not feasible in this game - you seem to keep ignoring that this mechanism is used world-wide in MANY games. If it's not feasible in this game, then it's a problem OF this game (which, if you go back and read, was my original comment).
I could care less about other games, except for the fact that several of them, including the now-dead Fighter Ace, solved this problem quite easily while also using a server-based collision model. If this game can't, it's not a limitation of technology in general, it's simply a limitation of THIS game. Which is fine, but simply admit it and move on and find something that works within the confines of it (which, yet again, was my original post).
-
:rofl
-
You keep arguing how it's not feasible in this game - you seem to keep ignoring that this mechanism is used world-wide in MANY games. If it's not feasible in this game, then it's a problem OF this game (which, if you go back and read, was my original comment).
I could care less about other games, except for the fact that several of them, including the now-dead Fighter Ace, solved this problem quite easily while also using a server-based collision model. If this game can't, it's not a limitation of technology in general, it's simply a limitation of THIS game. Which is fine, but simply admit it and move on (which, yet again, was my original post).
It is not a problem with the game. No one at HTC said it was not feasible. Again, I am not going to get into design and theory as it is not within the scope of this forum.
I do play other games and they all suffer from input lag due to them being server based. Even with only 32 players in the room. I cannot imagine what it would be like to have several hundred in view.
-
You keep arguing how it's not feasible in this game - you seem to keep ignoring that this mechanism is used world-wide in MANY games. If it's not feasible in this game, then it's a problem OF this game (which, if you go back and read, was my original comment).
Actually, on the subject of reading and original comments, I argued that our current system is better and I pointed out that the other games that are server based are so different from Aces High that you cannot seriously compare them.
-
See Rule #4