General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: flippz on July 03, 2017, 09:34:43 AM
Title: collision model
Post by: flippz on July 03, 2017, 09:34:43 AM
I'm not sure how or if possible, but can you turn off the collision model until it is better perfected. I am tired of getting collide messages when clearly I wasn't the "responsible" party and on a few and I mean a few occasions others received the collide message when clearly it was my fault. If we are unable to figure out how to use the collision model with internet latency then are we able to make it where both planes receives the same damage. on three sorties last night I was ran into, on one it was a direct head on ram, I am sure neither plane would have made it to the runway, but of course the other lands 2 kills. I would like to see either both planes receive the same amount of damage or no damage at all. with internet speeds varying so wildly in here I think it would be much appreciated.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: hitech on July 03, 2017, 09:41:56 AM
flippz: There is nothing wrong with the collision model. What you must accept is that the other person did not collide with you. Others can post a more detailed explanation with an animated give. But As he was flying his plane he saw that he missed you and hence would think it very bad if he took damage.
So you are either asking
A. You intentionally avoid a head on collision, the other plane intentionally rams the plane he sees. And the YOU did even though you missed him.
or B. You are in a bomber, a fighter dives in guns blazing and continues shooting as he flies right thew you.
Both of these option have far more detrimental effects to game play then the current choice.
HiTech
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: BowHTR on July 03, 2017, 09:49:12 AM
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: FLS on July 03, 2017, 09:54:55 AM
So you are either asking
A. You intentionally avoid a head on collision, the other plane intentionally rams the plane he sees. And then YOU die even though you missed him.
or
B. You are in a bomber, a fighter dives in guns blazing and continues shooting as he flies right thru you.
Both of these options have far more detrimental effects to game play then the current choice.
HiTech
Edited for the new guys. :aok
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: ImADot on July 03, 2017, 10:35:21 AM
As it is now, you are in complete control as to whether you collide or not. You are flying your plane on your front-end game client. If your game client does not detect a collision, you get no damage, even if the other player's front-end game client shows that he collided with you...in which case he takes damage but you do not.
The only time you take damage is if your client detects that your plane hit something, even if you don't see it...like if another player's plane runs into the back of your plane while you are staring out the front of your cockpit.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: AAIK on July 03, 2017, 10:40:43 AM
As it is now, you are in complete control as to whether you collide or not. You are flying your plane on your front-end game client. If your game client does not detect a collision, you get no damage, even if the other player's front-end game client shows that he collided with you...in which case he takes damage but you do not.
The only time you take damage is if your client detects that your plane hit something, even if you don't see it...like if another player's plane runs into the back of your plane while you are staring out the front of your cockpit.
Sometimes you collide and you just had no chance to avoid it, like when you are partially compressed.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: ImADot on July 03, 2017, 10:49:30 AM
Sometimes you collide and you just had no chance to avoid it, like when you are partially compressed.
How is this any different from what I said? Your front-end detected that you hit something. It doesn't care if you were able to try to avoid it or not. Are you saying that you shouldn't take damage if you cannot maneuver your plane to avoid a collision?
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: AAIK on July 03, 2017, 10:57:35 AM
How is this any different from what I said? Your front-end detected that you hit something. It doesn't care if you were able to try to avoid it or not. Are you saying that you shouldn't take damage if you cannot maneuver your plane to avoid a collision?
Just pointing out that you are not in complete control 100% of the time.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: FLS on July 03, 2017, 11:02:29 AM
If you are able to look forward 10s of seconds and predict that enemies will turn into your 12 oc while you are diving into attack and take preventative measures you probably have too much of an IQ.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: FLS on July 03, 2017, 11:12:55 AM
If you are able to look forward 10s of seconds and predict that enemies will turn into your 12 oc while you are diving into attack and take preventative measures you probably have too much of an IQ.
The point is you made a choice to degrade maneuverability. Collisions result from a series of choices.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: AAIK on July 03, 2017, 11:15:40 AM
If you are able to look forward 10s of seconds and predict that enemies will turn into your 12 oc while you are diving into attack and take preventative measures you probably have too much of an IQ.
chess grandmasters are able to predict around 15 moves ahead, so what you wrote is possible :D
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: FLS on July 03, 2017, 11:18:10 AM
It's possible to lose altitude and control your speed. A trainer can help you with that. :aok
I am just saying that is it almost impossible to predict when someone will try and ram you.
It is like driving, you may be driving as usual and avoiding issues, but there are other drivers out there who may be in a state that may cause a crash even if you had nothing to do with it.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: ImADot on July 03, 2017, 11:39:43 AM
I predict every enemy will try to ram me...or at least turn into me to try for a HO. I'm correct at least 80% of the time.
HO is quite different from a ram, the ram is blatant, while a HO is calculated.
If someone is just in it for the HO, they would of made signs of avoidance or preperation, otherwise they will just head straight into you without and course corrections.
Even with the delay in updates; you should be able to see slight movements if they plan to survive.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: flippz on July 03, 2017, 11:46:09 AM
the other night for example when I dove on torquilla, I rammed him, no doubt about it, but yet he received the collide and damage. there have been many time when I was afk in bombers and received the collision when the fighters are diving on me and hit the plane from the rear. I think Monday knight there was a incident where two aks ran into my plane from the rear I received the collide on both of the hits. also I have received damage as well when clearly there was no bullets being fired. my question is doesn't it take two planes to collide? how is it determined what plane receives damage and collision? is it that my internet is faster and sees stuff faster or is it that mine is slower and I am seeing stuff later than others? there was a situation last night where we did go head on and rammed both planes, I turn to dust and go to see jesus (hopefully) and he lands with my scalp as nothing happened. how does that work? I am asking because I evidently don't understand, when two cars hit they both receive damage. I have never worked a wreck where two cars hit and one is towed away totaled and the other drives on to the drug store with no damage.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: BowHTR on July 03, 2017, 12:03:25 PM
the other night for example when I dove on torquilla, I rammed him, no doubt about it, but yet he received the collide and damage. there have been many time when I was afk in bombers and received the collision when the fighters are diving on me and hit the plane from the rear. I think Monday knight there was a incident where two aks ran into my plane from the rear I received the collide on both of the hits. also I have received damage as well when clearly there was no bullets being fired. my question is doesn't it take two planes to collide? how is it determined what plane receives damage and collision? is it that my internet is faster and sees stuff faster or is it that mine is slower and I am seeing stuff later than others? there was a situation last night where we did go head on and rammed both planes, I turn to dust and go to see jesus (hopefully) and he lands with my scalp as nothing happened. how does that work? I am asking because I evidently don't understand, when two cars hit they both receive damage. I have never worked a wreck where two cars hit and one is towed away totaled and the other drives on to the drug store with no damage.
It's as simple as this, if there is a collision on your screen, then you receive damage. If there is a collision on their screen, they receive damage. If there is a collision on both screens, both receive damage.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Lusche on July 03, 2017, 12:07:37 PM
Quote
my question is doesn't it take two planes to collide?
In the real world yes, because there is no lag. Over the internet, what you see on your screen can look somewhat different on the other players' screen. Different enough that it may show a collision only on one player's computer, while on the others they narrowly missed each other. What you see is what you get
Quote
how is it determined what plane receives damage and collision?
If you have your plane colliding with any object on your computer, you take damage. Same for everyone else.
Quote
is it that my internet is faster and sees stuff faster or is it that mine is slower and I am seeing stuff later than others?
No. AH is not played on a server, but on your own client. In a collision you , you both are affected by the combined lag of both player's connections (simplified said) The higher this combined lag is, the more probable a one sided collision will be.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: FLS on July 03, 2017, 12:08:07 PM
There are two different collision messages.
"PlayerID collided with you" means there was a collision detected on PlayerID's computer.
"You collided with PlayerID" means there was a collision detected on your computer.
Sometimes you see both messages together, other times just one or the other.
Real life doesn't use 2 PC's over the internet. :aok
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: FLS on July 03, 2017, 12:13:24 PM
I am just saying that is it almost impossible to predict when someone will try and ram you.
It is like driving, you may be driving as usual and avoiding issues, but there are other drivers out there who may be in a state that may cause a crash even if you had nothing to do with it.
Does that change how you drive?
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Lusche on July 03, 2017, 12:16:30 PM
These pictures where taken at the exact same moment. The first one was taken on the Thunderbolt players computer, the second one was taken on the Mustang driver's one. The Mustang tried to ram the Thunderbolt.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Randy1 on July 03, 2017, 12:30:13 PM
Like taxes, we all complain but in real life it is what it is and it is always going to be. That does give you the full right to get the red asss. We all get it from time to time.
Flippz is a good guy and a good player. We have collided together more than once with varying outcome. Each time I knew it was not on purpose on both sides.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: nugetx on July 03, 2017, 12:31:14 PM
Don't collide..... problem solved :D
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: caldera on July 03, 2017, 01:01:03 PM
I predict every enemy will try to ram me...or at least turn into me to try for a HO. I'm correct at least 80% of the time.
If you are flying a plane with weak firepower, 99.9% will take every possible FQ shot because they know there is no danger of reprisal. Conversely, a plane with big guns will reduce that percentage to 10% - the suicidal types.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: flippz on July 03, 2017, 02:05:04 PM
in one year of flying here I have never intentionally tried to collide with anyone, except once. I tried to ram a c47 as I was out of ammo and after about 10 swipes was unable and ran out of gas. I understand the no damage part for both planes as we would have every one flying straight into one another, but I am also tired of constantly receiving the collide be it mine or there internet is slower. if everyone that collided got the same damage that would be nice and also maybe keep people from getting so close. I understand at times I will still be on the loosing end of the collision but at other times it is so aggravating when I get the collide and wings pop off and the other flies away to heavenly bliss. today I upped and the very first flight "collide" wings come off and the other planes nothing :bhead :bhead
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Randy1 on July 03, 2017, 02:27:14 PM
in one year of flying here I have never intentionally tried to collide with anyone, except once. I tried to ram a c47 as I was out of ammo and after about 10 swipes was unable and ran out of gas. I understand the no damage part for both planes as we would have every one flying straight into one another, but I am also tired of constantly receiving the collide be it mine or there internet is slower. if everyone that collided got the same damage that would be nice and also maybe keep people from getting so close. I understand at times I will still be on the loosing end of the collision but at other times it is so aggravating when I get the collide and wings pop off and the other flies away to heavenly bliss. today I upped and the very first flight "collide" wings come off and the other planes nothing :bhead :bhead
-1. There is nothing wrong with the collision model.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: hitech on July 03, 2017, 03:28:28 PM
if everyone that collided got the same damage that would be nice.
Consider how much you would like flying in a head on ,missing the other plane by 100 feet, and then being destroyed do to a collision.
HiTech
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: atlau on July 03, 2017, 03:30:55 PM
Hitech are the issues we are seeing/some people are complaining about mostly due to inherent internet lag between various players and the server?
If so, is this related at all to the phenomenon of watching the floppy fish defense where aircraft maneuvers are happening too quickly to be transmitted and then smoothly represented on ither players front ends? I find that to be a greater nuisance.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zimme83 on July 03, 2017, 03:45:41 PM
Then you must learn how to avoid collisions flippz, you are the one that keeps flying unto people, not the other way around. Thats why you are taking the damage. Internet lag cannot cause you to collide, it just makes it harder for your opponent to ram you..
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Drano on July 03, 2017, 05:34:21 PM
Is it just me or is this comet on about a 6 month orbit since like forever?
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Lusche on July 03, 2017, 05:40:47 PM
Hitech are the issues we are seeing/some people are complaining about mostly due to inherent internet lag between various players and the server?
If so, is this related at all to the phenomenon of watching the floppy fish defense where aircraft maneuvers are happening too quickly to be transmitted and then smoothly represented on ither players front ends? I find that to be a greater nuisance.
They are not really related.
HiTech
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: flippz on July 03, 2017, 08:43:50 PM
again I try to not to collide as much as possible and at times when I ACCIDENTLY do collide I apologize immediately. but right now hitec I feel as I already am on the loosing end of collisions as most time when I get the collide message I can usually still see the others persons air frame. I mostly fly a yak 3 so I get in close in a fight unlike guys that fly bigger gun planes and stay out further. there are also a few others I see complain about this occurrence. and again I know when I hit a plane and I apologize accordingly. I also know there are accidents, but I believe there is far too many occurrences for it to be my flying.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: atlau on July 03, 2017, 09:00:16 PM
Is there anything we can do to mitigate the 2nd one? Bettee internet connection or faster graphics card?
Improve your situational awareness. That is the first and most important thing to do to minimize collisions.
Data travels through the internet at about .4 to .5 of the speed of light. Even the speed of light would not be fast enough to eliminate lag. I am in Texas, only a few hundred miles from the server, my ping time is usually about 45 milliseconds. That is pretty fast. However, I have no way of controlling or knowing what the ping time of my opponent is. He could be in Dallas right next to the server, meaning we probably have a combined ping time of ~75 milliseconds. He could be in Sydney or Tokyo and our ping time would be lucky to be 333 milliseconds.
The only reliable solution is to 1) keep situational awareness and avoid collisions on your end and 2) understand the limitations of the Internet and be forgiving of instances when it forces it's limitations into your evening's entertainment.
The collision system in AH is the best possible under current technology while also keeping the effect that consideration of collisions has on air combat in the game.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: atlau on July 04, 2017, 12:25:38 PM
Improve your situational awareness. That is the first and most important thing to do to minimize collisions.
Data travels through the internet at about .4 to .5 of the speed of light. Even the speed of light would not be fast enough to eliminate lag. I am in Texas, only a few hundred miles from the server, my ping time is usually about 45 milliseconds. That is pretty fast. However, I have no way of controlling or knowing what the ping time of my opponent is. He could be in Dallas right next to the server, meaning we probably have a combined ping time of ~75 milliseconds. He could be in Sydney or Tokyo and our ping time would be lucky to be 333 milliseconds.
The only reliable solution is to 1) keep situational awareness and avoid collisions on your end and 2) understand the limitations of the Internet and be forgiving of instances when it forces it's limitations into your evening's entertainment.
The collision system in AH is the best possible under current technology while also keeping the effect that consideration of collisions has on air combat in the game.
Karnak i was referring to the floppy fish issues
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Owlblink on July 12, 2017, 11:33:03 AM
Is there anything we can do to mitigate the 2nd one? Bettee internet connection or faster graphics card?
Since AH runs on a data transport that can loose packets rather than delaying them (UDP), sometimes abrupt movements are going to look even more bazaar on your client vs the person that is initiating the snaproll or similar phenomenon. Graphic card and other memory limitations can play a roll with droping your frame rate and causing you to further experience gaps in perception, but the difference in plane location and any odd looking behavior does boil down to latency and the type of file transfer protocol the data is being transferred on.
Read up on TCP and UDP https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_file_transfer_protocols (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_file_transfer_protocols)
There are benefits and drawbacks for each of them.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: lunatic1 on July 12, 2017, 11:48:25 AM
chess grandmasters are able to predict around 15 moves ahead, so what you wrote is possible :D
we are not playing chess, I always lost at that as well.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: lunatic1 on July 12, 2017, 11:59:00 AM
ok I get into a collision with another plane, in white letters in the text message screen it say so n so collided with me-his fault yet I go down he don't--another collision we collide in yellow letters it says I collided with so n so my fault I go down he don't. sometimes with a collide in white letter says he collided with me we both go down and same when he collides with me. in real life 2 planes collide both go down no wins no points.
in the game my opinion is if 2 planes collide no matter who is at fault both planes should go down. no matter if bullets hit target, both go down no points no kills awarded. I don't try or look to ram or collide with another plane, I will ho on purpose but not ram
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Lusche on July 12, 2017, 12:12:14 PM
--another collision we collide in yellow letters it says I collided with so n so my fault
This is a common misconception. Those messages don't have anything to do with "fault". "You have collided" simply means there was a collision detected on your screen, on your computer two planes intersected with each other. "XY has collided" simply means there was a collision on his screen. None of that has anything to do with 'who's fault it was.
In real life, yes. In AH, sometimes not. Just look at the wo pictures I posted, that's an 'asymetric collision'. This is why there are two separate messages. Sometimes just you collide. Sometimes just him. Sometimes you both do.
in the game my opinion is if 2 planes collide no matter who is at fault both planes should go down
If both player have a collision on their screen, both take damage. Sometimes one plane with a collision just does not go down because the damage wasn't critical. Sometimes it goes down but you won't note it because you died first. Also, enemy planes have the nasty habit of pulling the trigger when getting close... And again, the program doesn't care 'who's fault' it is.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Skuzzy on July 12, 2017, 12:13:41 PM
Thank you Lusche, saved me some typing.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Wiley on July 12, 2017, 12:16:33 PM
ok I get into a collision with another plane, in white letters in the text message screen it say so n so collided with me-his fault yet I go down he don't--another collision we collide in yellow letters it says I collided with so n so my fault I go down he don't. sometimes with a collide in white letter says he collided with me we both go down and same when he collides with me. in real life 2 planes collide both go down no wins no points.
...Ok. That message is not your insurance adjuster. It is not "fault" that is being described, it is whether a collision occurred on your end or his. "Manguy collided with you" means your planes collided on his computer. "You collided with Manguy" means your planes collided on your computer. If you get both messages, it means your planes collided on both ends.
Quote
in the game my opinion is if 2 planes collide no matter who is at fault both planes should go down. no matter if bullets hit target, both go down no points no kills awarded. I don't try or look to ram or collide with another plane, I will ho on purpose but not ram
Again, for the cheap seats, if you were in the P47 in the top picture in this post:
And that was what you saw, and your plane took damage, would you be ok with it? Because that's exactly what you're asking for when you say "Both should go down". The top picture is what was happening on the P47 guy's computer, the bottom picture is what was happening on the P51's computer.
Again, fault has nothing, repeat nothing to do with it. This system is good because what you see on your end is what you get. There are no "guy passed near me but didn't touch and I got a collision" problems.
The best part about it is, the faster communication gets the better the system will be because the discrepancy between where things are on both ends will be reduced as that speeds up.
Wiley.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: JunkyII on July 12, 2017, 12:21:13 PM
Is there anything we can do to mitigate the 2nd one? Bettee internet connection or faster graphics card?
The floppy fish is a lot worse then the collision model for sure....you can't really get more accurate with collisions...yea sometimes it sucks but it's what it is.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: The Fugitive on July 12, 2017, 04:02:40 PM
I think he just "cuts and pastes" it from some document he has saved on his desktop...... He saves everything like :devil
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: flippz on July 12, 2017, 04:55:23 PM
ok, so explain how I'm in auto climb went to get a pbj samich and milk, return 7 min later and as I sit down a p47 comes screaming in flys through me and I'm in auto climb straight and level, and "you have collided" appears in the text buffer. my wing is missing and the 47 never fired a shot. so I go down the 47 flys away to see him land 2 kills 5 min later and I ruin my pbj samich. that does not make sense. I get a lot of collides, never ever intentional except the c47 thing. is mine internet just that much faster? or is it that much slower? why is it fair that I am penalized if it is faster? that collision was a true incident (except the samich) happened last Thursday night if I remember right. maybe I don't grasp how this is working but I am sure I am not that bad of a flyer, also it takes more than one to collide.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zimme83 on July 12, 2017, 05:08:13 PM
But again, the collision only occurs on your screen, the other guy never hit you. There is no way to intentionally collide with Another player since you never know what he sees on his screen.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Wiley on July 12, 2017, 05:15:53 PM
ok, so explain how I'm in auto climb went to get a pbj samich and milk, return 7 min later and as I sit down a p47 comes screaming in flys through me and I'm in auto climb straight and level, and "you have collided" appears in the text buffer. my wing is missing and the 47 never fired a shot. so I go down the 47 flys away to see him land 2 kills 5 min later and I ruin my pbj samich. that does not make sense. I get a lot of collides, never ever intentional except the c47 thing. is mine internet just that much faster? or is it that much slower? why is it fair that I am penalized if it is faster? that collision was a true incident (except the samich) happened last Thursday night if I remember right. maybe I don't grasp how this is working but I am sure I am not that bad of a flyer, also it takes more than one to collide.
Ok. Simply put, any time two airplanes are within sight of each other in this game, there are actually 4 airplanes involved.
On your end, there is your computer's representation of your airplane, and there is your computer's representation of the other guy's airplane.
On his end, there is his computer's representation of his airplane, and there is his computer's representation of your airplane.
The locations of the other guy's plane on both ends is only approximate, and here's why:
Because of communication speed on the internet, there is a slight delay between where your computer has your airplane's location and where other peoples' computers last got your airplane's location information. It's got nothing to do with whether you or he has faster internet speed, the only concern is the total amount of time it takes for the messages to go between your computer, the server, and then his computer. The longer that total time is, the more difference between where your computer has your airplane, and where his computer has your airplane.
Generally speaking your plane on the other guy's end is a little behind where it is showing on your end, and vice versa.
As shown in Lusche's post, the P51's computer shows him colliding with the P47, the P47's computer shows him missing by a couple plane lengths. On the P51's computer it registers a collision, because it happened. On the P47's computer it does not register a collision because it missed by a couple of plane lengths.
Wiley.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Lusche on July 12, 2017, 05:18:40 PM
ok, so explain how I'm in auto climb went to get a pbj samich and milk, return 7 min later and as I sit down a p47 comes screaming in flys through me and I'm in auto climb straight and level, and "you have collided" appears in the text buffer. my wing is missing and the 47 never fired a shot. so I go down the 47 flys away to see him land 2 kills 5 min later and I ruin my pbj samich. that does not make sense. I get a lot of collides, never ever intentional except the c47 thing. is mine internet just that much faster? or is it that much slower? why is it fair that I am penalized if it is faster? that collision was a true incident (except the samich) happened last Thursday night if I remember right. maybe I don't grasp how this is working but I am sure I am not that bad of a flyer, also it takes more than one to collide.
What kind of bread were you using?
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: lunatic1 on July 12, 2017, 06:33:03 PM
^^this is showing a collision from the rear-I and I think flippz are talking about head on collisions. most of you are getting hung up on the word fault. IF A GUY PURPOSELY FLYS INTO MY PLANE IT'S HIS/HER FAULT.
BUT from what it seems to sound like to me is you all are saying there is no collision at any time in the game that nobody collided with me, even though I see his plane hit me and I get the message that so n so collided with me.
I will just go back and play the game. and I will remember that when the next plane to collide with me that it didn't really happen, that it was my imagination.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zimme83 on July 12, 2017, 06:45:25 PM
^^this is showing a collision from the rear-I and I think flippz are talking about head on collisions. most of you are getting hung up on the word fault. IF A GUY PURPOSELY FLYS INTO MY PLANE IT'S HIS/HER FAULT.
BUT from what it seems to sound like to me is you all are saying there is no collision at any time in the game that nobody collided with me, even though I see his plane hit me and I get the message that so n so collided with me.
I will just go back and play the game. and I will remember that when the next plane to collide with me that it didn't really happen, that it was my imagination.
If you collide when going head on and the other guy dont he probably pulled up right Before he was about to collide with you. You will of course see it as he smack right into your nose but on his screen he will miss you.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Lusche on July 13, 2017, 01:21:08 AM
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,387995.msg5156368.html#msg5156368 . most of you are getting hung up on the word fault. IF A GUY PURPOSELY FLYS INTO MY PLANE IT'S HIS/HER FAULT.
We get hung up because it has no place in the discussion about how the collision model technically works. As it leads people to wrong conclusions all the time. You can't win or lose collisions and the program totally doesn't care who did fly into whom.
BUT from what it seems to sound like to me is you all are saying there is no collision at any time in the game that nobody collided with me, even though I see his plane hit me and I get the message that so n so collided with me.
That's not what we are saying. You still seem to ignore that there are two different realities, one on your screen and one on the other players screen. This difference is caused by internet lag, i.e. the time signals need to travel between your both computers.
When you see a collision on your end, a collision happens to YOU. Damage gets applied to YOU. If the enemy is seeing a collision on his screen too, damage gets applied to him.
The reason I posted the pictures is to illustrate how much different the same moment can look on both screens. The pony had a collision on his (and got damage, was an oil leak btw), the Thunderbolt had no collision happenening and thus got no damage at all.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: EskimoJoe on July 13, 2017, 06:22:25 AM
Stay in school, kiddos :old:
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: FLS on July 13, 2017, 07:16:28 AM
^^this is showing a collision from the rear-I and I think flippz are talking about head on collisions. most of you are getting hung up on the word fault. IF A GUY PURPOSELY FLYS INTO MY PLANE IT'S HIS/HER FAULT.
BUT from what it seems to sound like to me is you all are saying there is no collision at any time in the game that nobody collided with me, even though I see his plane hit me and I get the message that so n so collided with me.
I will just go back and play the game. and I will remember that when the next plane to collide with me that it didn't really happen, that it was my imagination.
You're missing the point. Fights happen on at least 2 computers. You and the bandit. Collisions happen on one or both of the computers. When the collision happens on both computers you get the normal real world results you expect. When the collision only happens on one computer the results may seem wrong but they aren't. That's why there are two collision messages, they aren't telling you who is at fault, the messages simply tell you which computer recorded a collision.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: popeye on July 13, 2017, 07:42:15 AM
You're missing the point. Fights happen on at least 2 computers. You and the bandit. Collisions happen on one or both of the computers. When the collision happens on both computers you get the normal real world results you expect. When the collision only happens on one computer the results may seem wrong but they aren't. That's why there are two collision messages, they aren't telling you who is at fault, the messages simply tell you which computer recorded a collision.
So how does this apply to gunnery? Do both computers need to agree that "hits" occurred to cause damage? :headscratch:
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: BowHTR on July 13, 2017, 08:13:07 AM
Whether you're colliding with someone or shooting at someone, it depends on what is seen on your end.
Wrong.
While a collision is dictated by what your computer detects, gunnery is dictated by the shooter's computer. If his computer shows you in his sights, and he shoots, and his computer detects hits, those hits are sent to your computer where your game front-end applies the results.
Have you ever been in the situation where someone got hits on you when you thought, "there is no way he had a gun solution on me."?
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: BowHTR on July 13, 2017, 08:38:55 AM
While a collision is dictated by what your computer detects, gunnery is dictated by the shooter's computer. If his computer shows you in his sights, and he shoots, and his computer detects hits, those hits are sent to your computer where your game front-end applies the results.
Have you ever been in the situation where someone got hits on you when you thought, "there is no way he had a gun solution on me."?
Which is exactly what I just said, in simpler terms.
Whether you're colliding with someone or shooting at someone, it depends on what is seen on your end.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: flippz on July 13, 2017, 08:55:16 AM
yes I have looked at the pictures and read what all was typed. I am not saying I don't accept it because that's the best you can do right now, I am saying it sucks again when like last night a la7 comes screaming in I am diving away to the right and BAM "YOU HAVE COLLIDED" pops up and all kinds of important stuff comes off my plane. again I was diving "away" from the said la7 he was coming in above and to the left, he flies away untouched and I go down cussing said la :bhead :bhead.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: BowHTR on July 13, 2017, 09:13:44 AM
yes I have looked at the pictures and read what all was typed. I am not saying I don't accept it because that's the best you can do right now, I am saying it sucks again when like last night a la7 comes screaming in I am diving away to the right and BAM "YOU HAVE COLLIDED" pops up and all kinds of important stuff comes off my plane. again I was diving "away" from the said la7 he was coming in above and to the left, he flies away untouched and I go down cussing said la :bhead :bhead.
Yes, it does suck and I have had this happen to me before as well. However, there is nothing wrong with the collision model.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: pembquist on July 13, 2017, 10:33:30 AM
Maybe they should change the message to "There was a collision in XXX's universe" "There was a collision in your universe"
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zoney on July 13, 2017, 10:35:07 AM
If you are complaining about the collision model then you do not understand it.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: FLS on July 13, 2017, 10:49:32 AM
So how does this apply to gunnery? Do both computers need to agree that "hits" occurred to cause damage? :headscratch:
Objects in your rear view are closer than they appear!
Because you shoot at the bandit on your PC and the bandit shoots at you on their PC, lag works to your advantage when offensive and against you when defensive. This is because lag puts you behind your current position on the bandit's PC and puts the bandit behind their current position on your PC.
This means you have a better shot than the bandit sees you having when you have the offense and the bandit has a better shot than you see when you are defensive. When it looks like the bandit almost has a shot he probably already has you lined up.
Since you shoot at the bandit on your PC, the hits are recorded on your PC and sent to the bandit's PC. The bandit's PC only determines hits from the bandit's guns, which are then sent to you.
Guess who's PC controls the ack that shoots you down? :devil
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: ImADot on July 13, 2017, 11:01:49 AM
Ok, let's ask it this way...
Would you rather rely upon your controller inputs directly affecting the flight of your plane, and have the collision model we have? This is a client-side game where data from your controller directly affects your flight, and your data is passed through the central server to the other players.
Or
Would you rather rely upon your connection to the central server where your inputs are sent to the server before your plane's controls are affected, and have the server determine if two planes collided? This is a server-side game where your plane's flight is determined by whether the server received your control input, and then sends the data to you and the other players.
Personally, I would rather be in direct control of the flight of my plane. I tried a server-side game, and was immediately put off it when my plane continued to fly into the ground because I lost control of it when the sever connection had a hiccup and it failed to see my controller inputs.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: atlau on July 13, 2017, 09:11:41 PM
Objects in your rear view are closer than they appear!
Because you shoot at the bandit on your PC and the bandit shoots at you on their PC, lag works to your advantage when offensive and against you when defensive. This is because lag puts you behind your current position on the bandit's PC and puts the bandit behind their current position on your PC.
This means you have a better shot than the bandit sees you having when you have the offense and the bandit has a better shot than you see when you are defensive. When it looks like the bandit almost has a shot he probably already has you lined up.
Since you shoot at the bandit on your PC, the hits are recorded on your PC and sent to the bandit's PC. The bandit's PC only determines hits from the bandit's guns, which are then sent to you.
Guess who's PC controls the ack that shoots you down? :devil
Does that apply to taters as well?
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: FLS on July 14, 2017, 05:44:31 AM
ok, so explain how I'm in auto climb went to get a pbj samich and milk, return 7 min later and as I sit down a p47 comes screaming in flys through me and I'm in auto climb straight and level, and "you have collided" appears in the text buffer. my wing is missing and the 47 never fired a shot. so I go down the 47 flys away to see him land 2 kills 5 min later and I ruin my pbj samich. that does not make sense. I get a lot of collides, never ever intentional except the c47 thing. is mine internet just that much faster? or is it that much slower? why is it fair that I am penalized if it is faster? that collision was a true incident (except the samich) happened last Thursday night if I remember right. maybe I don't grasp how this is working but I am sure I am not that bad of a flyer, also it takes more than one to collide.
In your case it is simply that the interwebs hates you and was jealous of your pbj sammich. By causing the collision and thus ruining your sammich experience the interwebs wins.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: flippz on July 15, 2017, 02:30:58 PM
In your case it is simply that the interwebs hates you and was jealous of your pbj sammich. By causing the collision and thus ruining your sammich experience the interwebs wins.
Russians, its the Russians for sure. why hate a man with a good pbj samich. maybe it was hoagie jealous of the traditional anglo saxon samich. I got a good laugh out of that be :x :x Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Randy1 on July 16, 2017, 06:22:16 AM
You and I collided yesterday. I was using VR which gives me a very large view. By my view, we missed each other. I was going straight in a dive and you turning away to avoid my shot and a collision. I got the collision notice and you got the kill.
Do you remember what you saw on your screen. I was in a 38 and you were in a yak.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: FLS on July 16, 2017, 09:09:48 AM
You and I collided yesterday. I was using VR which gives me a very large view. By my view, we missed each other. I was going straight in a dive and you turning away to avoid my shot and a collision. I got the collision notice and you got the kill.
Do you remember what you saw on your screen. I was in a 38 and you were in a yak.
You thought you missed him, your computer that tracks everything's location says you hit him. Who should we believe? Without film showing a miss and collision message this is pointless.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Drano on July 16, 2017, 09:47:42 AM
I just can't believe there are people still out there these days that somehow think the internet is a finite and absolute place where only black or white exists. It's not now or has it ever been. The flow of info is in a constantly fluid state. My connection is different from your connection is different from some guy in Europe or from a guy in Asia or from HTC's. That's the way it's been since day one. The amount of variables produced by the gazillion different nodes that info passes on its way back and forth around the world makes this a no-brainer. Are things getting better as times goes by? Sort of! Better equipment and higher speeds are happening but as more and more..... And more people around the world use the system the load to it increases also. Constant battle between those two forces alone!
Eventually, probably towards the end of our lifetimes anyway, there may be some breakthrough technology that supplies an instant real time internet to everyone everywhere but that ain't happening in today's world. Once that technology exists a collision will exist in all places simultaneously which is what has to happen in order for everyone to see the same thing. Only then will both planes disintegrate when they hit.
I collide with planes. It happens. I chalk it up to the internet, which I have like no control over. I just pick up the shattered pieces of my life and grab another plane. It's not some conspiracy or code problem. It's just the nature of the internet.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: pembquist on July 16, 2017, 01:43:21 PM
Well lets do the arithmetic:
AH3 with the Boo Hoo! collision phenomena for $15 a month VS Real Life Authentic Collision Model where your share of the cost will run at least $1000 an hour of game play plus a hefty initial capital outlay of as much as 2 million dollars. Of course you really can't put a price on the sublime feeling of vindication you will experience when with the few nanoseconds of consciousness you have left you get to watch not only your limbs separately spiraling down out of the sky but also that other guy, the stupid Cessna pilot who wouldn't get out of your way.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zygote404 on July 16, 2017, 08:08:09 PM
Collision model sucks but it'd suck more avoiding the HO and colliding so probably best until they develop modems based on quantum entanglement :)
I'm from Australia but now I've been playing for a bit I notice my collisions have dropped off a lot though I still take the collision damage about 99% of the time.
One main thing I did to reduce catastrophic collisions was stop flying into the ground, for air to air collisions I found avoiding HO attacks the most helpful :)
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Owlblink on July 17, 2017, 01:19:06 AM
Okay... horse is dead and beaten :ahand.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Skuzzy on July 17, 2017, 09:35:13 AM
What horse? All I see is a pile of dust where there used to be a horse and some maniac continuing to beat it.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: lunatic1 on July 17, 2017, 11:26:58 AM
You thought you missed him, your computer that tracks everything's location says you hit him. Who should we believe? Without film showing a miss and collision message this is pointless.
FLS come down off your soap box. I just ask what Flip saw, not starting an inquisition. A skuzzy said you are beating a dead horse.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Drano on July 18, 2017, 06:30:19 AM
FLS come down off your soap box. I just ask what Flip saw, not starting an inquisition. A skuzzy said you are beating a dead horse.
Then don't ask questions like "what did you see" regarding collisions. If you understood how it works you'd know it matters not what either of you see. All that matters is what the computers (notice plural) see. Clearly you don't understand how it works and refuse to accept the reality of the situation. You've had this issue before.
Read my post above. Then read it again. That's how it works bud. That is until you invent us all a new internet.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: FLS on July 18, 2017, 07:37:46 AM
FLS come down off your soap box. I just ask what Flip saw, not starting an inquisition. A skuzzy said you are beating a dead horse.
Skuzzy wasn't referring to me. I believe he thinks I'm helping. :D
I responded to your implication that there is a problem with the collision model. I don't think it's a good idea to post imaginary problems on the BB where they may discourage new players. When you believe you missed and your computer reports a hit then film is useful to validate your claims.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Skuzzy on July 18, 2017, 08:57:26 AM
Skuzzy wasn't referring to me. I believe he thinks I'm helping. :D
I responded to your implication that there is a problem with the collision model. I don't think it's a good idea to post imaginary problems on the BB where they may discourage new players. When you believe you missed and your computer reports a hit then film is useful to validate your claims.
I have no complaint nor did I imply a complaint. The collision model is probably as good as HTC can make it for internet play. Again, I only asked what flip saw.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: FLS on July 18, 2017, 09:46:45 AM
I have no complaint nor did I imply a complaint. The collision model is probably as good as HTC can make it for internet play. Again, I only asked what flip saw.
You said you got a collision message when you appeared not to collide. What is the implication?
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Petey on July 18, 2017, 11:19:20 AM
how bout this?
you collide both die! no kill no points and they can only fly early WWI stuff in the MA for the next 24 hours....... and no fruit cup!
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zoney on July 18, 2017, 11:29:24 AM
So, people are asking for the server to calculate the resulting damage instead?
No, they're asking for magic more or less. They get upset when the other guy doesn't collide and gets to fly away while they take damage.
Personally I like the fact that no matter what if the collision doesn't happen on my end, I don't take damage from it. I can't understand why anyone would possibly want anything else.
Wiley.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: ImADot on July 18, 2017, 12:53:38 PM
So, people are asking for the server to calculate the resulting damage instead?
Yeah, I think they assume this is a server-side game like War Thunder, where in reality AH is a client-side game. In case anyone missed it, here's an earlier post that I made:
Yeah, I think they assume this is a server-side game like War Thunder, where in reality AH is a client-side game. In case anyone missed it, here's an earlier post that I made:
It is possible to have a hybrid server/client side game.
There is nothing limiting that, it doesn't have to be an absolute.
How would it be an improvement?
Wiley.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: AAIK on July 18, 2017, 02:50:41 PM
Just technical babble really.
There are many downsides of having an "accurate" collision model.
People would start ramming others more often and it might generate bad blood the way vulching does.
Currently its a lottery as to how each encounter ends.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Wiley on July 18, 2017, 02:53:43 PM
The reason I think the client model is the best is because what happens on your end is what you get. You never have a collision where you're flying along, the enemy plane misses you, and you fall from the sky because of it. You also never have a situation where you fly through the other guy's plane and don't take damage.
To me that's the best solution. How would a hybrid solution improve on that?
Wiley.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: FLS on July 18, 2017, 03:02:03 PM
What do you think should happen when a plane's wing and another plane's engine collide?
Wiley.
Well if we are talking about planes with similar size and heading at each-other with the same roll (head on shot), if the engine of one were to strike the wing of the other, the same would happen to the other plane resulting in both having engine damage and loss of wing.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Wiley on July 18, 2017, 04:12:05 PM
So what are you saying? You've seen stuff hit your plane that didn't break it? Or are you saying you saw stuff on his plane hit yours that didn't break? If it's the latter, that's likely because he rolled or wasn't in the same orientation when they struck on his end.
Wiley.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: FLS on July 18, 2017, 07:37:47 PM
I have gotten away with too many collisions to speak of, with little/no damage.
Which collision message did you get? You know there are two different messages?
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zimme83 on July 18, 2017, 07:55:32 PM
It's obvious that people don't realize what they are wishing for. I'm pretty sure that they would not like a model where other people could deliberately ram them and that they could see a plane pass 100 yards behind them and then their wing fall off...
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Skuzzy on July 19, 2017, 06:08:37 AM
I have gotten away with too many collisions to speak of, with little/no damage.
Which probably means you were not the one who collided, the other guy did. If you do not think you are taking enough damage when you do collide, then I encourage you to submit the film in a bug report.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zygote404 on July 19, 2017, 09:43:46 PM
I don't think since starting playing again I have ever collided and not been the one that takes damage. Doesn't matter if I jam on the brakes and he runs up my bellybutton or I deliberately collide with him, or collided with a bomber on the way past on a strafe.
I think its because I'm in Aussie yeah?
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zimme83 on July 19, 2017, 10:07:21 PM
So you still dont understand how it works..
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zygote404 on July 20, 2017, 04:46:49 AM
What I understand is how Hitech explained it way back in AH1. Theres my computer with its data, the server with its data, and the other plane with its data. Since the data on my computer and the data on the server and the data on the other guys computer are all different collisions occur on my computer when my plane hits the other guy, collisions occur on the other guys computer when his plane his my plane on his computer. When either of those events happen the clients will send that data to the server and the server will blow up whoever his whoever on their own client.
While my client might detect a collision on my computer, the other guys computer might not because its using different data. On his computer I miss him.
?
Still doesn't explain why I haven't had someone collide into me and die yet.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: BowHTR on July 20, 2017, 05:50:05 AM
Still doesn't explain why I haven't had someone collide into me and die yet.
Because they haven't hit you on their screen.
If there is a collision on your side, then you get damage. If there is a collision on their side, they get damage. If there is a collision on both sides, both get damage.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: pembquist on July 20, 2017, 10:27:52 AM
Zygote I don't know if this is superfluous but you used the expression "when my plane hits the other guy" which is a little misleading as it isn't important whose plane hits whose but just on whose computer the hitting takes place.
I'm not saying you misunderstand but most people who have a problem with the collision model seem to impute fault with collisions which really doesn't make much sense.
To be truthful I once rammed a bomber on purpose but the way I did it was by flying very close to it but not by flying into it.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zygote404 on July 20, 2017, 10:48:49 PM
Zygote I don't know if this is superfluous but you used the expression "when my plane hits the other guy" which is a little misleading as it isn't important whose plane hits whose but just on whose computer the hitting takes place.
I'm not saying you misunderstand but most people who have a problem with the collision model seem to impute fault with collisions which really doesn't make much sense.
To be truthful I once rammed a bomber on purpose but the way I did it was by flying very close to it but not by flying into it.
Yeah understood. Maybe they're just better at avoiding collisions, only just started again 1 month in :)
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Scca on July 21, 2017, 06:34:29 AM
I was not referring to FLS. I was referring to the general topic, which has been explained/discussed ad nauseum.
Perhaps a well thought out sticky post with pictures and video posted by HTC might be in order. This way when someone complains about the model, "go to the sticky" would end the discussion.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: flippz on July 21, 2017, 03:00:50 PM
Randy1 I know of what you speak of but I cant remember. I am sure I was right and it was all your fault <S>.
As to the rest of you saying this is what it is and talking "down" to us guys that are not understanding it you may want to to stay out of the conversation. I am not good with computers, this is the first game I have ever played in my life and I am 39. I do not understand how it works or what a mmo is or a node and what packet transfers are. I know what I see and what aggravates me, so that is what I bring to the forum. I don't need some guys that's played this game for 20+years making me feel like an idiot or some one telling me I am beating a dead horse. Lets think about this, all you guys that have been here for 20 yrs say yall hear this all the time, and you tired of hearing it and we are boo hooing, well if that many folks have complained and said something about it maybe just maybe there is a issue. is that issue fixable maybe not at the moment. is there a better way to explain and offer examples absolutely. I know 99% of the time I take the damage from a collision, be a front, rear, or side hit. like today zenner in a p51d hit me head on twice (not saying its his fault) and flew away with no damage. there were two friendlies in the area that commented on it and the collision model in here. also today me an hotard was in a turn fight, we collided me left side of the plane and his nose into my cockpit (from what I saw) I instantly go boom with no shots fired. I ask on 200 if he died also and the reply was no but it broke my wing. I guess my question is, is there not away for info to be shared and dealt out by the server because obviously I cant trust my computer because what it shows me is not really happening ehh.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zoney on July 21, 2017, 03:04:09 PM
flippz......man, why are you taking this personal? Those that understand how the collision model work had responses explaining why and how the way it works. From your posts I simply learned that you didn't understand it. Is it not possible for you to just embrace that this is the best way to model collisions and move on sir?
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Skuzzy on July 21, 2017, 03:13:30 PM
flippz, you need to stop thinking in terms of colliding with someone or someone colliding with you.
It all boils down to this; If your computer detects your plane intersecting an object, then your plane is going to be assessed damage based on what your computer detected being hit.
If the other guy did not hit your plane, then he is not going to take damage.
What I just said will never make any sense to anyone if you hang onto the thought that in the real world both planes are going down in a collision. The difference is the real world is 100% real time. The Internet is not and that is the big difference. The reality, in the game, is different on every computer running the simulation.
You want crazy making? Wait until you run into a plane whose rounds do not appear to be coming straight out of the guns. It can happen.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: FLS on July 21, 2017, 05:12:58 PM
Flippz when a collision happens to both players it still isn't the same collision. Because the internet puts you in a different position on the other player's PC, you might miss the player who hits you on his PC or you might hit him differently than he hits you or you might coincidentally hit him the same way and get the same damage.
In any case you only have to avoid collisions on your PC where you can see them if you're looking in the right direction.
Fault and damage to the other player are not useful considerations, it's just the internet creating a situation that needed a solution and we have the best one.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Wiley on July 21, 2017, 09:22:36 PM
I guess my question is, is there not away for info to be shared and dealt out by the server because obviously I cant trust my computer because what it shows me is not really happening ehh.
Ok. You're almost there, Flippz. That is a good question. The reason it's not done on the server is because due to the amount of time it takes to get the information from the server to your computer, one of two things would happen:
If absolutely everything was controlled by the server, there would be whatever amount of delay is between you and the server for every single thing you do in the game. Every control input would have a delay on it and any hiccup in your connection would result in your control inputs taking even longer to get to the server. This would make gunnery and flying worse in every aspect.
If things worked the way they do now, but the server was the one to decide whether there was a collision or not, it would mean you'd take damage sometimes when there was no collision on you end. You'd pass near another plane and fall from the sky with damage.
Your computer shows you exactly what happens to your plane and your plane only in a collision. What happens (or doesn't happen) on his end to his plane is calculated on his end and passed along to you from the server. Whatever you see happen to his plane on your end at the moment of collision is only an approximation.
Wiley.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Scca on July 21, 2017, 09:32:28 PM
Remember, you may get a collision message, and not take damage. It's an informational message. Don't hit stuff, don't let stuff hit you based on what you see on YOUR screen and you'll be fine.
There isn't a better solution for an internet based game.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: The Fugitive on July 21, 2017, 10:18:45 PM
We are not trying to be a holes here. If you can avoid hitting any one on your computer you will never get a collision/damage. That includes some bozo flying up your tailpipe. Roll out of the way and you avoid the collision. That is how it works. YOU are in control with the way they set it up.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zygote404 on July 23, 2017, 04:06:41 AM
Perhaps a well thought out sticky post with pictures and video posted by HTC might be in order. This way when someone complains about the model, "go to the sticky" would end the discussion.
Might be a good idea - some J0ker guy collided with me the other day and started whinging about me colliding with him.
I told him since he died and I didn't he failed to avoid me not the other way around then him n his squaddies proceeded to pick me repeatedly for it in F4U-4 (always in 152 so I'm easy to spot).
Was a great learning experience since I'm in a sort of take every fight with the 152 to learn it through seat hours and mistake :)
But yeah clearly even vets have no clue how collisions work
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: BowHTR on July 23, 2017, 05:46:41 AM
Might be a good idea - some J0ker guy collided with me the other day and started whinging about me colliding with him.
I told him since he died and I didn't he failed to avoid me not the other way around then him n his squaddies proceeded to pick me repeatedly for it in F4U-4 (always in 152 so I'm easy to spot).
Was a great learning experience since I'm in a sort of take every fight with the 152 to learn it through seat hours and mistake :)
But yeah clearly even vets have no clue how collisions work
For stuff like that, there's just no shortage of people who whine when something bad happens to them.
Wiley.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: save on July 26, 2017, 07:44:16 AM
How can you collide and hurt your engine, but the propeller is intact ?
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Skuzzy on July 26, 2017, 08:59:58 AM
How can you collide and hurt your engine, but the propeller is intact ?
My guess would be, it is a lack of resolution in the graphic presentation of damage. I could be wrong.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Vinkman on July 26, 2017, 10:35:09 AM
I can live with it either way, so I'm not requesting a change to the model. That said...
I've come to the conclusion that I [personally] don't like one sided collisions. If the bandit and I are close enough that one of us gets a collision, then we are too close to whine that we didn't hit him. I would like the deterrent to reckless flying more than I would dislike getting a two sided collision that I thought I had avoided. Here's why....
I have learned how to ram a bomber [with my ghost plane on his front end] and avoid damage on mine. When I run out of ammo, I can "one side collided" with buffs and knock them out of the sky, and have done it often. It's also annoying when a pilot turns right into me and breaks my plane only to discover he didn't get a collision too. reckless flying like that can be rewarded in the current system. No guarantee that people fly less reckless however, but there should be a price for flying like a lunatic [no offense to the player named Lunatic]
:salute
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: FLS on July 26, 2017, 11:06:49 AM
I can live with it either way, so I'm not requesting a change to the model. That said...
I've come to the conclusion that I [personally] don't like one sided collisions. If the bandit and I are close enough that one of us gets a collision, then we are too close to whine that we didn't hit him. I would like the deterrent to reckless flying more than I would dislike getting a two sided collision that I thought I had avoided. Here's why....
I have learned how to ram a bomber [with my ghost plane on his front end] and avoid damage on mine. When I run out of ammo, I can "one side collided" with buffs and knock them out of the sky, and have done it often. It's also annoying when a pilot turns right into me and breaks my plane only to discover he didn't get a collision too. reckless flying like that can be rewarded in the current system. No guarantee that people fly less reckless however, but there should be a price for flying like a lunatic [no offense to the player named Lunatic]
:salute
If he didn't hit you on his computer how is he flying like a lunatic? :headscratch:
Nobody likes the internet effect on air combat. Feel free to post a better solution that doesn't create new problems. :old:
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zoney on July 26, 2017, 11:24:09 AM
I can live with it either way, so I'm not requesting a change to the model. That said...
I've come to the conclusion that I [personally] don't like one sided collisions. If the bandit and I are close enough that one of us gets a collision, then we are too close to whine that we didn't hit him. I would like the deterrent to reckless flying more than I would dislike getting a two sided collision that I thought I had avoided. Here's why....
I have learned how to ram a bomber [with my ghost plane on his front end] and avoid damage on mine. When I run out of ammo, I can "one side collided" with buffs and knock them out of the sky, and have done it often. It's also annoying when a pilot turns right into me and breaks my plane only to discover he didn't get a collision too. reckless flying like that can be rewarded in the current system. No guarantee that people fly less reckless however, but there should be a price for flying like a lunatic [no offense to the player named Lunatic]
:salute
-1
Absolutely positively NO!
If I don't have a collision on my front end I do not want to take damage just because you have a collision on your front end. Your statement that you can cause a collision on the other guys front end and show none on yours is.............circumspect. Certainly not consistently, sir.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Wiley on July 26, 2017, 11:38:13 AM
If he didn't hit you on his computer how is he flying like a lunatic? :headscratch:
Nobody likes the internet effect on air combat. Feel free to post a better solution that doesn't create new problems. :old:
To be fair, he feels the downside presented by both sides going down outweighs the downsides now.
I still disagree, and I am pretty confident the vast majority don't want to see no collision occur on their end and magically fall from the sky.
I also question how easy it is for someone to ram a bomber in this fashion consistently. If it were easy, a lot more people would be doing it. The only times I've seen a consistent "I can see he's about to hit me and I'm going to miss him" is when both of us are coming over the top merging usually inverted. I can see that coming for about 3 seconds before it happens as he passes behind my tail, but that's the only situation I've seen any kind of repeatability.
Wiley.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Lusche on July 26, 2017, 11:58:12 AM
If the bandit and I are close enough that one of us gets a collision, then we are too close to whine that we didn't hit him.
(http://i.imgur.com/o9LsiNq.jpg)
Too close to whine? The P-51 is about 120 feet away from your Thunderbolt when the collision happens. You will not complain even though you had evaded more than clearly?
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Vinkman on July 26, 2017, 12:42:04 PM
...Your statement that you can cause a collision on the other guys front end and show none on yours is.............circumspect. Certainly not consistently, sir.
Yes I can. I assure you I do it all the time. Please don't call me a liar because you don't want to believe it's true. :salute
If it could be proved would you change your position?
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Skuzzy on July 26, 2017, 12:49:55 PM
The P-51 is about 120 feet away from your Thunderbolt when the collision happens. You will not complain even though you had evaded more than clearly?
Lusche and Skuzzy,
Fair enough. But you give up every 12in miss because of that one case. What's the distribution of distance in collisions? If it's left shifted to where the mean is 3ft with a right extreme at 120ft happening in .0001% of collisions, would you still agree?
If it were right shifted, where the mean was 120 ft and .0001% were 3ft I would agree with you. :salute
a ping of 70ms is 41 ft at 400mph. So if I fly 400mph under a straight and level buff doing 275mph, I can pull up past his nose within a plane length and get one sided collide on his end.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Vinkman on July 26, 2017, 01:08:44 PM
Your request would promote reckless flying, simply for the fact that you are depending on the other guy to miss you to prevent a collision.(your describing a classic case of "Tragedy of the commons") Since you have no way of knowing if he is going to try avoid you, your best move would be to take the chance of killing him before the collision.
I.E. You have no control over if the collision will happen or not, and hence almost all people will now make the choice to continue the gun pass instead of trying to avoid. Because the choice of avoiding the collision and hence less of a gun solution increases the chance of you not getting the kill, but still dieing to to the other guy colliding.
HiTech
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Lusche on July 26, 2017, 01:15:18 PM
Fair enough. But you give up every 12in miss because of that one case. What's the distribution of distance in collisions?
My collisions were always similar to this one because of my location. "Both go down" would frequently see collisions with getting damage&death while clearly evading the other guy as soon as a non-US player is involved. (Or US players with a less than great connection)
Current CM is "what you see is what you get", no matter where you are. It doesn't get clearer and fairer than this. If I evade, I won't get damaged. "Both go down" would change that to a roll of dice.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: caldera on July 26, 2017, 01:22:40 PM
It is amazing that no matter how simply and expertly the collision model is explained, some people still don't get it. Maybe they just don't want to.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Vinkman on July 26, 2017, 01:25:19 PM
Your request would promote reckless flying, simply for the fact that you are depending on the other guy to miss you to prevent a collision.(your describing a classic case of "Tragedy of the commons") Since you have no way of knowing if he is going to try avoid you, your best move would be to take the chance of killing him before the collision.
I.E. You have no control over if the collision will happen or not, and hence almost all people will now make the choice to continue the gun pass instead of trying to avoid. Because the choice of avoiding the collision and hence less of a gun solution increases the chance of you not getting the kill, but still dieing to to the other guy colliding.
HiTech
I guess. I thought going for a bad gun solution, that vastly increases your chance of collision is a bad trade that most wouldn't take. But like I said in my first post, I don't know what people are thinking, or what they see when they make those moves, so doubt changing how it worked would change anyone's ACM choices.
So I yield. :salute
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: pembquist on July 26, 2017, 05:49:33 PM
Also you wouldn't be able to repeatedly ram bombers with no damage to yourself, which while completely self degrading and unsportsmanlike is now a feature!
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zimme83 on July 26, 2017, 05:55:15 PM
You cant do that. not on purpose at least. what's happening is that the fighter guy turns to avoid a collision (on his end) and narrowly misses the bomber, however this last second maneuver isn't transferred to your computer in time so you will see him ram you..
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Vinkman on July 27, 2017, 08:23:42 AM
You cant do that. not on purpose at least. what's happening is that the fighter guy turns to avoid a collision (on his end) and narrowly misses the bomber, however this last second maneuver isn't transferred to your computer in time so you will see him ram you..
You can do it on purpose. I will post the film I made yesterday a little later today. :salute
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Randy1 on July 27, 2017, 12:50:58 PM
Here is a good case for one sided collisions. We were trying to capture a town. A b25 broke through and was near town. I dove, with throttle off trying to not to over shoot. I did collide with the B25. I went down and he stayed up. That was fair.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: BowHTR on July 27, 2017, 01:14:15 PM
Here is a good case for one sided collisions. We were trying to capture a town. A b25 broke through and was near town. I dove, with throttle off trying to not to over shoot. I did collide with the B25. I went down and he stayed up. That was fair.
Now if only others could understand WHY he stayed up and you went down.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: AAIK on July 28, 2017, 11:36:46 AM
After reading this, it is clear that the damage model is probably in need of some work.
Not the detection of the model, but the actual physics rendered during said collision.
How many years has it been since it was updated?
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Wiley on July 28, 2017, 12:09:30 PM
After reading this, it is clear that the damage model is probably in need of some work.
Not the detection of the model, but the actual physics rendered during said collision.
How many years has it been since it was updated?
:rofl :rofl :rofl
What's your in-game name again?
Did you come to this conclusion after playing for a couple of years?
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: AAIK on July 28, 2017, 02:53:30 PM
Looking at the past and present posts about it, people deeply feel there is something wrong.
If you look at it just from a detection point of view, we can talk about the FE all day.
But people feel there is something wrong, and I usually subscribe that if you feel something is wrong, there is: Now the big thing about that is being able to correctly analyse what is bothering you and express it properly.
Currently people have just been scratching the surface with all the FE talk, whereas the real issue is the actual physics applied to the FE that calculates the result from a collision.
This applies to the negative comments towards me on this thread as well, meaning which there is something I am lacking in my posts. Care to lend a hand or are empty responses all the rage these days?
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zoney on July 28, 2017, 03:00:10 PM
AAIK your post had no specifics and now your post is about how you "feel" again with no specific details about exactly what you think is wrong so I therefore submit to you that my previous post was appropriate.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Wiley on July 28, 2017, 03:03:40 PM
But people feel there is something wrong, and I usually subscribe that if you feel something is wrong, there is: Now the big thing about that is being able to correctly analyse what is bothering you and express it properly.
Because they either don't understand how it works, or they want magic.
Quote
Currently people have just been scratching the surface with all the FE talk, whereas the real issue is the actual physics applied to the FE that calculates the result from a collision.
Explain in detail what you mean by that.
Wiley.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: puller on July 28, 2017, 03:08:27 PM
AAIK your post had no specifics and now your post is about how you "feel" again with no specific details about exactly what you think is wrong so I therefore submit to you that my previous post was appropriate.
He doesn't have first hand experience with multiple collisions...He cannot explain...
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Skuzzy on July 28, 2017, 03:24:24 PM
Currently people have just been scratching the surface with all the FE talk, whereas the real issue is the actual physics applied to the FE that calculates the result from a collision.<snip>
There is no issue, other than a lack of understanding.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: AAIK on July 28, 2017, 03:36:10 PM
We have been talking about the *when* considering collisions, not the *how*. People are getting their panties in a knot trying to make sense(?) of collision detection but we haven't been talking about how (the in-depths of the physics modelling that takes place). My suspicion is that people are more aggravated by the how then the when.
Zoney, you have no idea what you are talking about, if anyone feels greatly; it must be you since you keep putting up these negative responses over and over with little or no details. Its kind of a waste of time actually addressing you: How far its gone.
Skuzzy, I agree, a lack of understanding greatly magnifies the subject matter at hand.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Wiley on July 28, 2017, 03:39:37 PM
My suspicion is that people are more aggravated by the how then the when.
What "How"? Pieces of the plane that intersect with the other plane take damage. What more needs to be done? What leads you to that conclusion?
Wiley.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Randy1 on July 28, 2017, 04:11:22 PM
No matter how it works because it is same for everyone. Now if someone figures out an in-game hack by taking advantage of a hole in the model, that would be a different colored horse. Something odd like full up and down elevator or flaps just before the collision.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Skuzzy on July 29, 2017, 06:19:24 AM
We have been talking about the *when* considering collisions, not the *how*. People are getting their panties in a knot trying to make sense(?) of collision detection but we haven't been talking about how (the in-depths of the physics modelling that takes place). My suspicion is that people are more aggravated by the how then the when. <snip>
The "how" is easy. The pilot failed to avoid intersecting a foreign object and thus his/her plane took damage. Ta-da!
Too many people over-think this. It is as simple as this, and applies to every individual pilot in the game; If your plane intersects a foreign object, your plane takes damage.
All anyone has to do is ask; Did my plane intersect a foreign object?
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Vinkman on August 06, 2017, 11:44:49 AM
I can live with it either way, so I'm not requesting a change to the model. That said...
I've come to the conclusion that I [personally] don't like one sided collisions. If the bandit and I are close enough that one of us gets a collision, then we are too close to whine that we didn't hit him. I would like the deterrent to reckless flying more than I would dislike getting a two sided collision that I thought I had avoided. Here's why....
I have learned how to ram a bomber [with my ghost plane on his front end] and avoid damage on mine. When I run out of ammo, I can "one side collided" with buffs and knock them out of the sky, and have done it often. It's also annoying when a pilot turns right into me and breaks my plane only to discover he didn't get a collision too. reckless flying like that can be rewarded in the current system. No guarantee that people fly less reckless however, but there should be a price for flying like a lunatic [no offense to the player named Lunatic]
Just following up on point. I moved in to attack a group of Lancs and decided to film me creating a 1 sided collision to prove how easy it is. If you are out of ammo and do this a few times, you can knock 3 buffs out the sky without firing a shot. Gamey. Now I agree with most about the benefits of the one-sided model for most situations. But perhaps an exception could be written for Buff-to-fighter to prevent this....
Here is the video: https://youtu.be/j_dsoHsf29k (https://youtu.be/j_dsoHsf29k)
:salute
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Mongoose on August 06, 2017, 07:59:52 PM
Just following up on point. I moved in to attack a group of Lancs and decided to film me creating a 1 sided collision to prove how easy it is. If you are out of ammo and do this a few times, you can knock 3 buffs out the sky without firing a shot. Gamey. Now I agree with most about the benefits of the one-sided model for most situations. But perhaps an exception could be written for Buff-to-fighter to prevent this....
Here is the video: https://youtu.be/j_dsoHsf29k (https://youtu.be/j_dsoHsf29k)
:salute
Send the .ahf file in to Hitech. That will tell him far more than a Youtube video can.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: TequilaChaser on August 06, 2017, 09:00:31 PM
This..... Send in the actual AH film, so hitech can pull the raw data from it, only if you think something is wrong or off.....
This horse was beat to death over 16+ years ago and the only thing left to beat is horse bone dust piled up on the ground.....
TC
no need to send anything else. This wasn't for HiTech, he knows it all already. This was for the people who say "there is no way to make a one side collision happen". Now they know how easy it is. :salute
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Wiley on August 07, 2017, 12:52:58 AM
Just following up on point. I moved in to attack a group of Lancs and decided to film me creating a 1 sided collision to prove how easy it is. If you are out of ammo and do this a few times, you can knock 3 buffs out the sky without firing a shot. Gamey. Now I agree with most about the benefits of the one-sided model for most situations. But perhaps an exception could be written for Buff-to-fighter to prevent this....
Here is the video: https://youtu.be/j_dsoHsf29k (https://youtu.be/j_dsoHsf29k)
:salute
Not available.
Wiley.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Vinkman on August 07, 2017, 07:54:16 AM
That's weird it was there yesterday...and now it's gone. :noid
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Vinkman on August 07, 2017, 10:43:25 AM
Vid was set to private...OOPS. Try it now?
Just following up on point. I moved in to attack a group of Lancs and decided to film me creating a 1 sided collision to prove how easy it is. If you are out of ammo and do this a few times, you can knock 3 buffs out the sky without firing a shot. Gamey. Now I agree with most about the benefits of the one-sided model for most situations. But perhaps an exception could be written for Buff-to-fighter to prevent this....
Here is the video: https://youtu.be/j_dsoHsf29k (https://youtu.be/j_dsoHsf29k)
:salute
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: FLS on August 07, 2017, 12:08:42 PM
I would have kept it private and just sent HTC a link to prove your point.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Arlo on August 07, 2017, 12:10:34 PM
Why does every online game company have their programmers code in lag?! So unfair! Stop programming in lag!
:old:
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Arlo on August 07, 2017, 12:42:10 PM
On a serious note .... expecting a perfect solution for an imperfect situation that HT has no complete control over is not a reasonable stance. Lag exists. It affects both players (unless they've moved to HT's server room and plugged in directly). There are choices that HT can make to approach lag:
1) Player front-end resolution. (The player sees his plane strike the other plane and he suffers the consequence.) [the choice made]
2) Server resolution. (The server sees one player fail to avoid a collision and determines both suffer the consequence even if the other player either took action to avoid or saw nothing to avoid and actually saw no collision.
The first option is the fairest for fighter vs fighter engagement. The second is not a solution to the 'problem' of collisions, at all.
When it comes to players gaming the game to 'shoot' down bombers by colliding with them, it doesn't render their fighter impervious to bomber guns. Apparently the trick involves diving from above in front of the bomber or perhaps zooming up in front. If an ammo-less fighter is taking out entire bomber boxes this way then I find it hard to believe that the bombers aren't trying to shoot it down, in the process. If the bombers are winchester (bad, bad ammo wastage, dude), well, this seems like an unfortunate situation but it doesn't warrant going from the best possible solution to none at all.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Vinkman on August 07, 2017, 01:02:17 PM
I would have kept it private and just sent HTC a link to prove your point.
Again, because HTC knows this. So this wasn't for them. :salute
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zimme83 on August 07, 2017, 01:10:57 PM
I really dont get what you are trying to do, other than showing players how to game the game, any other collision model means that in the case of your video your plane would have exploded mid air because of a collision that occurs somewhere else and it means that ramming other players would be even easier than in you video, and that they have no chance to avoid them..
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Vinkman on August 07, 2017, 01:14:05 PM
1) Player front-end resolution. (The player sees his plane strike the other plane and he suffers the consequence.) [the choice made]
2) Server resolution. (The server sees one player fail to avoid a collision and determines both suffer the consequence even if the other player either took action to avoid or saw nothing to avoid and actually saw no collision.
Blah blah..such little creativity.
How about an exception to the current collision model in the case of Fighter hitting bomber, where a 2 sided collision would always result. this would close the abuse hole in an otherwise favorable situation. :salute
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Arlo on August 07, 2017, 01:15:43 PM
Quote
Blah blah..such little creativity.
How about an exception to the current collision model in the case of Fighter hitting bomber, where a 2 sided collision would always result. this would close the abuse hole in an otherwise favorable situation. :salute
You keep suggesting an 'exception' can be coded into the front end model. Impress me with your own 'creativity' and tell us how you think that can be accomplished?
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zimme83 on August 07, 2017, 01:18:34 PM
How about an exception to the current collision model in the case of Fighter hitting bomber, where a 2 sided collision would always result. this would close the abuse hole in an otherwise favorable situation. :salute
Again: Nope. (see my last response) And trust me, you would not want a model where your plane explodes midair because another player decides to ram you. You could see the plane 100 yards away and then Boom,
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Vinkman on August 07, 2017, 01:33:53 PM
Again: Nope. (see my last response) And trust me, you would not want a model where your plane explodes midair because another player decides to ram you. You could see the plane 100 yards away and then Boom,
But you're ok with that for tracers! Because the gunnery model is exactly the opposite of the collision model. :salute
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Arlo on August 07, 2017, 01:35:47 PM
You keep suggesting an 'exception' can be coded into the front end model. Impress me with your own 'creativity' and tell us how you think that can be accomplished?
with a simple IF Then Else loop. :salute
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: FLS on August 07, 2017, 01:40:34 PM
you can knock 3 buffs out the sky without firing a shot.
In the video he dosn't even do what he claimed, the bomber flew on and was not taken out.
I don't believe vinkmans claim that he can consistently take down bombers with collisions. Can it be done on ocasion? Absolutely. Simply trying to kill your self by colliding with a bomber in that manner is very difficult. Let alone having to guess the distance ahead of the bomber need for him to collide.
HiTech
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zimme83 on August 07, 2017, 01:42:19 PM
I wouldn't post an exploit. My concern is who will benefit from watching it and what they will do with the information.
OK I see your point but at some points the exploits are known and have to be discussed so there can be change. Maybe you don't think we are at that point yet. I confess to not knowing. It seemed appropriate based on the way the OP was getting hammered for suggesting the current model might not be perfect.
But I will consider your point in future situations. :salute
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Vinkman on August 07, 2017, 01:48:39 PM
In the video he dosn't even do what he claimed, the bomber flew on and was not taken out.
I don't believe vinkmans claim that he can consistently take down bombers with collisions. Can it be done on ocasion? Absolutely. Simply trying to kill your self by colliding with a bomber in that manner is very difficult. Let alone having to guess the distance ahead of the bomber need for him to collide.
HiTech
I simply wanted to show that on my first pass I could bump the guy. If I do anymore experiments, I will send them to you directly per FLS suggestion. :salute
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zimme83 on August 07, 2017, 01:52:46 PM
Challenge: you kill 3 bombers by colliding with them and you have to fly away after. Then post the video here and tell us how many time you had to try and how many time you died.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: AAIK on August 07, 2017, 02:03:42 PM
The fact that vink could do it once, with methodology means it can be done over and over as long as you stick to the strict method.
I am confident that vink could take out all 3 if he chose to.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: thrila on August 07, 2017, 02:05:37 PM
The fact that vink could do it once, with methodology means it can be done over and over as long as you stick to the strict method.
I am confident that vink could take out all 3 if he chose to.
I'm not confident of that at all.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zimme83 on August 07, 2017, 02:06:02 PM
Only if the bomber guy is letting him, and i doubt he will. Thst collision is easily avoided by the bomber and if he want he can just dive and then mr Vink will have a collision on his screen...
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: AAIK on August 07, 2017, 02:08:15 PM
Vink is a good pilot who has a very repetetive MO. I am pretty sure he could do lots of damage with the technique shown.
I watched a film where a bomber received a collision message. I did not see a film of 3 bombers being purposely rammed and destroyed as i expected. If it was that easy to destroy a trio of bombers in that fashion I would expect a film in fairly short order.
It isn't reliably easy to do because:
a) You don't know the internet latency of the enemy bomber (if you find someone to practice against so you know what distance to fly ahead/behind their bomber it will only be reliable against this one person).
b) To aim for the right point with knowing how far to 'lead' without being shot up by most bombers, makes the approach angle and speed very challenging, risking a collision to yourself.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Arlo on August 07, 2017, 02:25:44 PM
I watched a film where a bomber received a collision message. I did not see a film of 3 bombers being purposely rammed and destroyed as i expected. If it was that easy to destroy a trio of bombers in that fashion I would expect a film in fairly short order.
It isn't reliably easy to do because:
a) You don't know the internet latency of the enemy bomber (if you find someone to practice against so you know what distance to fly ahead/behind their bomber it will only be reliable against this one person).
b) To aim for the right point with knowing how far to 'lead' without being shot up by most bombers, makes the approach angle and speed very challenging, risking a collision to yourself.
This^
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: AAIK on August 07, 2017, 02:27:24 PM
But you see, he did: The white text alerted him that one of the bombers collided with him (the bombers FE). He didn't get a message saying that he collided (his FE). No damage was awarded though, but that is just technicalities.
Thrila, like any technique it takes a bit of work and estimation to get right.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Vinkman on August 07, 2017, 02:36:23 PM
It sounds like a challenge.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Arlo on August 07, 2017, 02:39:02 PM
My line of reasoning is that if its possible; I don't need to have someone take down all 3 to make it something that is a problem, once is enough.
The idea is that it is a repeatible trick, making imaginary requirements to hide the reality is not reasonable.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zimme83 on August 07, 2017, 03:16:25 PM
It will for sure lead to the death for the fighter more often than the bomber.
Edit: First of all the video shows how hard it is to use this, the bomber did not take any critical damage. 2nd: Depending on what bomber you attack 2 things would likely happen - If you attack a plane w ventral guns the fighter will be an almost stationary target for the bomber and a decent gunner will not miss.. Or you attack bombers without guns and the bomber pilot will apply the standard method of countering such attacks, maneuvering, and that will make the fighter miss his target.
And even if the bomber guy is at the toilet and doesnt do anything at all there is a significant risk that you collide with the bombers and go down yourself.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Arlo on August 07, 2017, 03:51:12 PM
My line of reasoning is that if its possible; I don't need to have someone take down all 3 to make it something that is a problem, once is enough.
The idea is that it is a repeatible trick, making imaginary requirements to hide the reality is not reasonable.
What 'imaginary' requirements? He said he could take down a complete 3 plane bomber formation without firing a shot. He said it can be done as if routine. I'm pretty sure I didn't imagine that. Until I see someone do that then do it again with a different foe this wish isn't productive. Quite the opposite, actually.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: The Fugitive on August 07, 2017, 04:34:32 PM
If someone is intentionally forcing a collision, then I hope HTC would take action on that person if they are reported, as it is exploiting a bug.
I think that's what there doing to me exploiting me for sure
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Vinkman on August 07, 2017, 06:34:36 PM
Here is today's vid. I tried this twice because finding buffs was tough and fighting Flippz was more fun. 2nd go, I attacked a formation of B-26s Knocked the first two down on the first two passes. Pilot got evasive after that and I just missed getting the third...until he ripped his wings off.
Here is today's vid. I tried this twice because finding buffs was tough and fighting Flippz was more fun. 2nd go, I attacked a formation of B-26s Knocked the first two down on the first two passes. Pilot got evasive after that and I just missed getting the third...until he ripped his wings off.
Way to follow up on what you said you would do in the future and keep it off the message boards, and private messaging HTC (hitech or Skuzzy)
There is this thing called "game etiquette" - 2 types -
Good Game Etiquette and Bad Game Etiquette.... These same types of etiquette also apply to the AH Community Message Boards just as much as they do in the game....
Continuing to talk about and post links to and show videos of this crap falls in to the Bad Etiquette category....
People/players/ AH community members should always strive to set good examples and show good etiquette....
This post is not meant for vinkman alone, rather it is posted and directed at everyone on these message boards, including myself!
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Wiley on August 07, 2017, 09:31:59 PM
Ordinarily I'd agree with you TC, but he does have a point. He had around a half dozen people HT included saying he couldn't do it reliably on a resisting opponent. He proved he could. Not sure if it needs a solution, but he did prove it can be done, and is a possible issue. AAIK's concern trolling notwithstanding.
Wiley.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Vinkman on August 07, 2017, 09:36:22 PM
Way to follow up on what you said you would do in the future and keep it off the message boards, and private messaging HTC (hitech or Skuzzy)
There is this thing called "game etiquette" - 2 types -
Good Game Etiquette and Bad Game Etiquette.... These same types of etiquette also apply to the AH Community Message Boards just as much as they do in the game....
Continuing to talk about and post links to and show videos of this crap falls in to the Bad Etiquette category....
People/players/ AH community members should always strive to set good examples and show good etiquette....
This post is not meant for vinkman alone, rather it is posted and directed at everyone on these message boards, including myself!
Bad etiquette? I pointed out a game flaw that can be corrected. I was told there was no need to correct it because "it wasn't really possible to do it". So I proved it.
Now we can discuss if needs to be fixed based on the facts. Your welcome. :salute
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Vinkman on August 07, 2017, 09:37:23 PM
Ordinarily I'd agree with you TC, but he does have a point. He had around a half dozen people HT included saying he couldn't do it reliably on a resisting opponent. He proved he could. Not sure if it needs a solution, but he did prove it can be done, and is a possible issue. AAIK's concern trolling notwithstanding.
Wiley.
:salute Sir
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: TequilaChaser on August 07, 2017, 10:09:09 PM
I simply wanted to show that on my first pass I could bump the guy. If I do anymore experiments, I will send them to you directly per FLS suggestion. :salute
Vinkman, this was the reason for my post in response to your 2nd experiment and posting of the video, Sir.
I RE read my post and edited it to point out that I was not personally singling you out and edited my post to direct it towards anyone and everyone who makes posts and replies on these message boards including myself...
and yes Sir, it falls in to the Bad Etiquette category when publicly posting videos and explaining how it can be done, to exploit the game
As far as welcoming me, heh, I knew of this 8 years before you registered your Vinkman user name on these message boards
TC
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: FLS on August 08, 2017, 01:18:34 AM
OK I see your point but at some points the exploits are known and have to be discussed so there can be change. Maybe you don't think we are at that point yet. I confess to not knowing. It seemed appropriate based on the way the OP was getting hammered for suggesting the current model might not be perfect.
But I will consider your point in future situations. :salute
I don't see any reason why exploits should be discussed publicly. I think the change you want would just introduce a different problem. The current solution is the best one. The fact that it's not perfect doesn't mean a change would be better. :salute
Hitech says you missed so next time I'll watch the film before I worry about it. :D
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zimme83 on August 08, 2017, 01:40:58 AM
Here is today's vid. I tried this twice because finding buffs was tough and fighting Flippz was more fun. 2nd go, I attacked a formation of B-26s Knocked the first two down on the first two passes. Pilot got evasive after that and I just missed getting the third...until he ripped his wings off.
Still not 3 :D (and i also want to know how the first try worked out) And the buff driver was unusually nice with you, he should have made evasive maneuvers on the first pass since you attacked from a blind spot.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zimme83 on August 08, 2017, 03:16:59 AM
But obviously does all of you who wants a different collision model neither understand how it works or the consequences of your wish. Any other model means that i can at anytime ram my opponent and take him down with me and there is nothing he could do about it. We would see a lot of dogfights ends with one player raming the other.
Attacking bombers will also be more dangerous since your attack run might end in a collision even if you tries to avoid it, you not only have to miss the bombers on your screen but you also have to miss them on his screen..
Vinkman also showed another issue with his tactic, he did not get the kills..
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Vinkman on August 08, 2017, 06:39:24 AM
Vinkman, this was the reason for my post in response to your 2nd experiment and posting of the video, Sir.
I RE read my post and edited it to point out that I was not personally singling you out and edited my post to direct it towards anyone and everyone who makes posts and replies on these message boards including myself...
and yes Sir, it falls in to the Bad Etiquette category when publicly posting videos and explaining how it can be done, to exploit the game
As far as welcoming me, heh, I knew of this 8 years before you registered your Vinkman user name on these message boards
TC
I don;t feel singled out, I just don't agree with you. :salute
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Vinkman on August 08, 2017, 06:49:18 AM
Attacking bombers will also be more dangerous since your attack run might end in a collision even if you tries to avoid it, you not only have to miss the bombers on your screen but you also have to miss them on his screen..
Again this is made up nonsense because you don't know what change will be made.
<snip> The point was to down the planes. This is a tactic you use when you are out of ammo, not because you want "Killz"
This "tactic" should be treated as exploiting a bug. In most games, if you intentionally exploit a bug, you are either temporarily banned, or permanently banned.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zimme83 on August 08, 2017, 07:25:57 AM
You aren't exactly the first one to think of this, but it's not a tactic that will help you that much. This is just like any attack run and can be avoided in the same way, either by guns or by maneuvering. It's the same thing w HO.s. How many planes do you think ive brought down by pulling up in the last second while he get a collision? But its the same thing there, the risk is apparent that you will be killed..
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Vinkman on August 08, 2017, 07:40:38 AM
You aren't exactly the first one to think of this, but it's not a tactic that will help you that much. This is just like any attack run and can be avoided in the same way, either by guns or by maneuvering. It's the same thing w HO.s. How many planes do you think ive brought down by pulling up in the last second while he get a collision? But its the same thing there, the risk is apparent that you will be killed..
:rolleyes:
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zimme83 on August 08, 2017, 07:45:07 AM
And you still havent told us how your first attempt worked out..
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Vinkman on August 08, 2017, 07:56:50 AM
Ordinarily I'd agree with you TC, but he does have a point. He had around a half dozen people HT included saying he couldn't do it reliably on a resisting opponent. He proved he could. Not sure if it needs a solution, but he did prove it can be done, and is a possible issue. AAIK's concern trolling notwithstanding.
Wiley.
I gotta agree 100% with the stupid coyote on this one.
I'm the one of those who said it was not possible and called BS.
Vinkman, I apologize sir, I stand corrected <S>
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zimme83 on August 08, 2017, 10:43:58 AM
I most surprised that none of you have figured this out earlier, i have known about it for like 2 years but as i have said, its just as easy to kill yourself in the process and is also very easy to counter.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: hitech on August 08, 2017, 10:44:43 AM
I can not see the video.
HiTech
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: AAIK on August 08, 2017, 10:47:51 AM
Trolling? I was exactly right. AND he pulled it off repetively.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: BowHTR on August 08, 2017, 10:48:08 AM
I most surprised that none of you have figured this out earlier, i have known about it for like 2 years but as i have said, its just as easy to kill yourself in the process and is also very easy to counter.
I had it figured out the day I understood the collision model. I had tried it a few times out of curiosity but had no success doing something very similar to what Vinkman did. My conclusion was it was difficult to pull off consistently.
As with anything, it's not perfect, but my point is it's easier to do than I had thought.
Wiley.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: FLS on August 08, 2017, 11:29:21 AM
It's not air combat. It's an internet game exploit. There is no easy fix that doesn't cause new problems. The current solution is still the best one. It's up to the players to make good choices.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Vinkman on August 08, 2017, 11:51:52 AM
... There is no easy fix that doesn't cause new problems. The current solution is still the best one. It's up to the players to make good choices.
Let's wait for HiTech to give it some thought. I think he can help limit this, without throwing away current model. He just needed to know it wasn't as hard as people thought.
or he may decide it doesn't happen that often and just let this thread die. :salute
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Vinkman on August 08, 2017, 11:52:47 AM
Let's wait for HiTech to give it some thought. I think he can help limit this, without throwing away current model. He just needed to know it wasn't as hard as people thought.
or he may decide it doesn't happen that often and just let this thread die. :salute
I still think it is a non issue. And your trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
You have shown that you could not constantly do it. Plus the fact it really is would not be the first choice as a method of attack.
I have no plans to change anything.
HiTech
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: TequilaChaser on August 08, 2017, 12:53:29 PM
It's not air combat. It's an internet game exploit. There is no easy fix that doesn't cause new problems. The current solution is still the best one. It's up to the players to make good choices.
They are not going to pay any attention to your post, FLS.... even after posting that they would send stuff like this to hitech, etc....and not post it publicly
Nothing new about being able to do what Vinkman has posted videos on.... Regardless if a person can do it 20% of the time upwards of 80+ % of the time. It is still the same!
It is using a known issue to exploit game play! and yes most all long time players have been aware of this since the year 2000....
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Vinkman on August 08, 2017, 01:02:24 PM
The message boards is not supposed to be used to post about, show, discuss or collaboration with the community about potential game exploits
Matters of possible game exploits are supposed to be sent directly to Hitech and/or HTC through email and private messaging
surprising how so many ignore the stickied thread at the top of every forum....
My guess is that people have done that enough and that is why these threads exist.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: TequilaChaser on August 08, 2017, 01:16:05 PM
My guess is that I'll just add AAlK to my ignore list, after all the stirring the pot, I've watched you do since you first showed up on the message boards
Cheers
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: hitech on August 08, 2017, 01:17:04 PM
My guess is that I'll just add AAlK to my ignore list, after all the stirring the pot, I've watched you do since you first showed up on the message boards
Cheers
He's new, he'll learn faster if we're nice to him. :old:
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: AAIK on August 08, 2017, 01:24:20 PM
He's new, he'll learn faster if we're nice to him. :old:
Thanks FLS, don't worry about it though.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Arlo on August 09, 2017, 08:15:12 AM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Arlo on August 09, 2017, 10:28:09 AM
I kinda expected a whack with a ruler, there. But I also imagine Skuzzy or HT printing it for framing in the office. :D
(Skulks away with ashamed look.)
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: ccvi on August 15, 2017, 08:25:01 AM
As this is the wishlist, I wish addition of the following...
Achievement: "Vinkman" - 25 points In one sortie, make three bombers of the same formation collide with your plane, without your plane colliding with the bombers.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zoney on August 15, 2017, 11:38:16 AM
As this is the wishlist, I wish addition of the following...
Achievement: "Vinkman" - 25 points In one sortie, make three bombers of the same formation collide with your plane, without your plane colliding with the bombers.
-1
No, lets not reward gamey activity.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Vinkman on August 15, 2017, 11:46:36 AM
I think it was a joke, and a dig at me Zoney :salute
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zoney on August 15, 2017, 01:36:51 PM
I think it was a joke, and a dig at me Zoney :salute
Ahhh.
Poor form if it's a dig at you and not in a joking manner. Although I would have rather you gave HiTech a heads up privately about your discovery, I think it did need to be shown.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Vinkman on August 15, 2017, 01:52:34 PM
Poor form if it's a dig at you and not in a joking manner. Although I would have rather you gave HiTech a heads up privately about your discovery, I think it did need to be shown.
I'm cool with it, but thanks for the support Zoney. :salute I was going to do it privately, but people basically called me a liar, so it I felt the need to defend myself and I chose public. Maybe I should be a bigger person....but hey it's a game, the Melee will keep on spinning. :salute
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zoney on August 15, 2017, 01:57:12 PM
I'm cool with it, but thanks for the support Zoney. :salute I was going to do it privately, but people basically called me a liar, so it I felt the need to defend myself and I chose public. Maybe I should be a bigger person....but hey it's a game, the Melee will keep on spinning. :salute
Yeah, I'm the one that called you a liar and I was completely wrong. I learned from doing that. It was uncalled for and unacceptable, and I am truly sorry. <S>
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Arlo on August 15, 2017, 03:18:19 PM
P.S. Private messages sent to HTC will never result in being called out on something in public. It's a horse-cart thing. Practice better rationalization.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: ccvi on August 15, 2017, 04:39:26 PM
Like WW2 pilots inspire the achievements in the "historical" category, Vinkman inspired this one for the "challenges" category, and naming it after him would be paying proper respect. No offense intended.
I haven't yet made up my mind if I intended as a joke only, or fully serious. It's just the solution on one extreme end for this situation.
The universe in the game has certain properties. And they are whatever they are chosen to be by the creator of the universe, within the limits of what is possible. Having an achievement that depends on some details simply is a statement that how things are is fully intended.
Alternatively, like some have suggested it to be an exploit, on top of the universe there might be additional "man-made" rules set up. It behaves in a certain way, but don't you dare to take any advantage of that, evil exploiter! If this starts at intentional one-sided ramming, where does it end? Any flying that works on one side, but is "incorrectly" (unbelievable, not "realistic", ...) transmitted would be in a similar category (pretending to crash might work - even if pulling out in time, it may look like flying into the ground on the other side, at least I remember having seen that once or twice). Will there be a rule-book of what flying you can do, and what's forbidden?
Then there's another alternative, to tell anyone who complains about "getting rammed" that they simply don't understand the underlying reasons and shall shut up due to stupidity.
Some advanced AI that decides whether or not, and if so who, gets damaged in a collision on one side or the other in a way that both parties can consider the result acceptable probably isn't within reach any time soon.
Of the different possibilities, having the achievement might not be so bad at all.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Arlo on August 15, 2017, 05:49:39 PM
Like WW2 pilots inspire the achievements in the "historical" category, Vinkman inspired this one for the "challenges" category, and naming it after him would be paying proper respect. No offense intended.
Encouraging players to emulate this 'tactic' is not paying proper respect to anything or anyone. Try again (only better).
Vink, you have an unusual fan.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: flippz on August 15, 2017, 06:40:04 PM
so is it possible that my game is faster than the rest with the amount of collisions I get rewarded? if that's the point why do I seem to see the troops running 45 secs to late? :bhead :bhead
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: JOACH1M on August 15, 2017, 10:44:16 PM
https://youtu.be/U20BMG-RGu0
I want this collision model
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Arlo on August 15, 2017, 11:48:57 PM
Collision model or graphics? Lots of friendly collisions there.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: FLS on August 16, 2017, 01:34:57 AM
so is it possible that my game is faster than the rest with the amount of collisions I get rewarded? if that's the point why do I seem to see the troops running 45 secs to late? :bhead :bhead
You're only getting a lot of collisions because you're colliding a lot. You might reread the thread until you understand that. It doesn't matter who's at fault, who has a better connection or computer or magical fairy dust, it's simply a question of "was there a collision on your computer?" and in your case the answer seems to be "frequently". So try to avoid them. :aok
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zoney on August 16, 2017, 11:22:00 AM
We have that collision model, as long as both planes, on their own front end, actually collide. The difference I see is the damage to the aircraft in that model shown is not nearly severe enough.
I like our set up better.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: flippz on August 17, 2017, 11:21:59 AM
You're only getting a lot of collisions because you're colliding a lot. You might reread the thread until you understand that. It doesn't matter who's at fault, who has a better connection or computer or magical fairy dust, it's simply a question of "was there a collision on your computer?" and in your case the answer seems to be "frequently". So try to avoid them. :aok
not to be smart but I have read it many times, just cant get my head around it, again twice Tuesday night an f4u hits me from behind diving from 3k above me and I get the collision. and if I didn't loose as many collisions I may be accepting of it, but I seem to loose 95% of the collisions EVEN WHEN THEY HIT ME FROM THE REAR
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Krusty on August 17, 2017, 11:28:13 AM
Compared to that arcade mess? Yes. I like ours better. However, I would love to see more to it eventually...
I love trying to limp home if I've sustained damage. I almost never bail just to end a sortie. I guess I'm stubborn or maybe a lot of the fun I get from this game is that part of the challenge.
I'd love to be able to take this damage and (barely) make it back to land:
not to be smart but I have read it many times, just cant get my head around it, again twice Tuesday night an f4u hits me from behind diving from 3k above me and I get the collision. and if I didn't loose as many collisions I may be accepting of it, but I seem to loose 95% of the collisions EVEN WHEN THEY HIT ME FROM THE REAR
Front, rear, side,top,bottom - it doesn't matter. 'Losing' a collision happens on your end. If their end doesn't register contact, they didn't collide. As unfair as that may seem, any other method of approaching collisions v. lag would be worse.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zoney on August 17, 2017, 11:33:33 AM
Krusty, i'm with you on the "limping home" fun. I love the challenge. Especially when you've got a pilot wound, missing half a wing and the engine is oiled. Very exciting! I never give up, I want that fun to be mine.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Arlo on August 17, 2017, 11:35:55 AM
Krusty, i'm with you on the "limping home" fun. I love the challenge. Especially when you've got a pilot wound, missing half a wing and the engine is oiled. Very exciting! I never give up, I want that fun to be mine.
It'd be great to breed this into the majority of bomber players. :)
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Wiley on August 17, 2017, 11:45:22 AM
not to be smart but I have read it many times, just cant get my head around it
Ok, step one, before anything involving collisions...
Take an example where there is you and some other guy flying within sight of each other.
Unless both of your planes are stationary, because it takes time to update where the other guy's plane is over the internet, that means the other guy's plane is in a slightly different location on his end than it shows on your end. Do you understand that? Yes, or no?
Wiley.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: The Fugitive on August 17, 2017, 12:06:03 PM
flippz , all you need to understand is to avoid hitting anything on your screen/computer. This includes f4us diving on your six. If you roll out of the way and avoid him you will not get a collision, ever.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Wiley on August 17, 2017, 12:12:34 PM
flippz , all you need to understand is to avoid hitting anything on your screen/computer. This includes f4us diving on your six. If you roll out of the way and avoid him you will not get a collision, ever.
Actually, that is an excellent point.
Wiley.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: hitech on August 17, 2017, 01:58:14 PM
not to be smart but I have read it many times, just cant get my head around it, again twice Tuesday night an f4u hits me from behind diving from 3k above me and I get the collision. and if I didn't loose as many collisions I may be accepting of it, but I seem to loose 95% of the collisions EVEN WHEN THEY HIT ME FROM THE REAR
Flippz change your wording to this, may help you understand.
just cant get my head around it, again twice Tuesday night I collided with an 4fu that was behind me diving from 3k above me. and if I didn't loose as many collisions I may be accepting of it, but I seem to loose 95% of the collisions EVEN WHEN THEY HIT ME FROM THE REAR
There is no fault assigned
HiTech
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: flippz on August 17, 2017, 05:16:04 PM
you guys are incorrigible. I wasn't in reverse when I COLLIDED WITH THE F4U THAT WAS SCREAMING IN BEHIND ME, I will just take the honor of having the fastest internet and monitor and can near see in to the future just cant see the plane I am about to hit. all day I hear it in the ma all day, I just seem to be the only one that brings it to the forums.
since its all my fault and I seem to ram every plane (EVEN FROM THE REAR) ill digress.
please lock this as its no longer helpful.
thanks
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Arlo on August 17, 2017, 05:21:14 PM
Chill, Flippz. We all know you weren't in reverse and the collision happened to the rear of your aircraft while you were flying forward. :rofl . You need to read the thread carefully for information (you're the one confused).
(Begging for a lock isn't going to help you.)
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zygote404 on August 17, 2017, 06:45:46 PM
you guys are incorrigible. I wasn't in reverse when I COLLIDED WITH THE F4U THAT WAS SCREAMING IN BEHIND ME, I will just take the honor of having the fastest internet and monitor and can near see in to the future just cant see the plane I am about to hit. all day I hear it in the ma all day, I just seem to be the only one that brings it to the forums.
since its all my fault and I seem to ram every plane (EVEN FROM THE REAR) ill digress.
please lock this as its no longer helpful.
thanks
It might be a good idea to have no collision when you're Not Slowing Down and a plane hits you from behind. That sort of collision is like penalising a driver who gets rear ended while travelling at the speed limit when in fact they have no control over the collision at all.
Completely different if you drop your flaps, throttle and gear to force an overshoot though since there is a high likelihood of your actions causing a collision.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Devil 505 on August 17, 2017, 07:24:12 PM
And what happens when I am diving and get rammed from behind by a faster plane?
The current system is not always fair, but it is the fairer than any other system. It is also the simplest to implement with the fewest variables to contend with.
The only problem with the current model is between the ears of those who do not understand how it works.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: morfiend on August 17, 2017, 07:40:32 PM
Seems some are forgetting the other collision,you know those pesky bullets! When rammed from behind,how many bullets hit you and what caused you to go down?
This can happen in any collision from any angle.
Want to fix the collisions,stop flying right at the other guy and when rammed think about the bullets that hit you. It doesnt matter who has the fastest internet,lag is the combined total of both players.
I have tried to fly formation,only problem is every player sees the other player at different distances,this is a result of lag. When you're in a scissor fight and you colide,it's because you failed to avoid the other player....pretty simple really!
:salute
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zygote404 on August 17, 2017, 08:03:32 PM
And what happens when I am diving and get rammed from behind by a faster plane?
The current system is not always fair, but it is the fairer than any other system. It is also the simplest to implement with the fewest variables to contend with.
The only problem with the current model is between the ears of those who do not understand how it works.
I don't see how that's your fault. The guy who's diving on you is faster, has control over the collision, you have none since you have no situational awareness of directly behind you. Doesn't make sense that he didn't collide but his actions made your rear end collide with his plane. In that situation dismissing the collision is probably preferable in terms of gameplay over killing the guy being dived on.
You could probably abuse that situation by diving on and just missing a plane to kill it, you might not get every attempt but you'd get a few every number of tries.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Devil 505 on August 17, 2017, 08:51:45 PM
I don't see how that's your fault. The guy who's diving on you is faster, has control over the collision, you have none since you have no situational awareness of directly behind you. Doesn't make sense that he didn't collide but his actions made your rear end collide with his plane. In that situation dismissing the collision is probably preferable in terms of gameplay over killing the guy being dived on.
You could probably abuse that situation by diving on and just missing a plane to kill it, you might not get every attempt but you'd get a few every number of tries.
To quote Clint Eastwood, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it."
What you fail to realize is that the guy attacking you attacked you while not colliding with you on his screen. He flew in a manner to not have himself collide.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zygote404 on August 17, 2017, 09:02:39 PM
To quote Clint Eastwood, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it."
What you fail to realize is that the guy attacking you attacked you while not colliding with you on his screen. He flew in a manner to not have himself collide.
Yeah but that's not the issue. The issue is basically game design. Do you design your game with the idea "tough luck, might not make sense but that's how it is" or do you design it for maximum "enjoyablity". When a mechanic exists that annoys a player but has no other real purpose why leave it in.
Collisions as a whole have a purpose, and the "only the person that collides died has a purpose", the collision from the rear where the person that dies has no real ability to avoid it and is not the person that caused the collision is counterproductive. Why? Because none of the pilots involved see's a collision but one still dies and gets annoyed.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: The Fugitive on August 17, 2017, 09:08:02 PM
Yeah but that's not the issue. The issue is basically game design. Do you design your game with the idea "tough luck, might not make sense but that's how it is" or do you design it for maximum "enjoyablity". When a mechanic exists that annoys a player but has no other real purpose why leave it in.
Collisions as a whole have a purpose, and the "only the person that collides died has a purpose", the collision from the rear where the person that dies has no real ability to avoid it and is not the person that caused the collision is counterproductive. Why? Because none of the pilots involved see's a collision but one still dies and gets annoyed.
It is designed very well. It is setup so YOU have full control. If your SA is up to snuff and you spot the guy diving on your six it is up to YOU to avoid the collision. If your SA sucks then you might as well run into a tree, its the same thing. Avoid the collision on you computer and you will NEVER get a collision, period!
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zygote404 on August 17, 2017, 09:26:23 PM
It is designed very well. It is setup so YOU have full control. If your SA is up to snuff and you spot the guy diving on your six it is up to YOU to avoid the collision. If your SA sucks then you might as well run into a tree, its the same thing. Avoid the collision on you computer and you will NEVER get a collision, period!
You have zero SA one the diver when someone is diving and gaining on your 6. The diver has 100% SA in regards to your plane. They almost crash into you for lack of control or because they want to play the random collision game with your plane and you die. It benefits no one at all.
You're arguing a fallacy, that the person dived on has SA, they don't, and that the person is responsible for the collision, they are not. Your argument has to fail in those circumstances because they're based on a incorrect premise.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Devil 505 on August 17, 2017, 09:43:38 PM
Lets try this:
If you are the attacking plane and you dive past an enemy at a close distance but did not collide with him on your screen - should you explode because it was a collision on your enemy's screen?
That is what you are asking for.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Arlo on August 17, 2017, 09:55:54 PM
If you are the attacking plane and you dive past an enemy at a close distance but did not collide with him on your screen - should you explode because it was a collision on your enemy's screen?
That is what you are asking for.
Not saying that at all. I'm saying the guy that was dived on that can't see behind his plane and didn't cause a collision and could not have seen a collision either, should not die either. In that situation IMO it'd be better for game play reasons to not flag any collision.
The reason for that is simple - its pointless and serves only to annoy a subscriber to kill them in those circumstances. The other reason for that is you could theoretically up a Arado or a Mossie bomber and fly around almost colliding with peoples 6's and be able to shoot them down with collisions.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Arlo on August 17, 2017, 11:43:35 PM
In that situation IMO it'd be better for game play reasons to not flag any collision.
Someone once said something like that could be easy to code with an 'if this than that' code.
I asked for more details like 'if what then what?'
I suspect its not as easy as coding 'if player a has no SA ('can't' see behind him) and player b is diving at a speed faster than player a is traveling then player a receives no collision damage.
Well, of course, the game has no idea of either players situation awareness.
So that can't be coded.
What about speed and position?
If player b is behind player a and traveling faster than he is then player a receives no collision damage?
What if player a actually does have effective situational awareness and chops throttle as player b saddles up - forcing a rear end collision?
Well ..... that doesn't work.
No collisions ever?
Player b dives through you, guns blazing and player a is shot down (player b zooms through without a scratch.
Hmmmmm ....
Either player registers a collision and both planes are wrecked?
Player a actually had effective SA and dodged his plane at the last possible second ... on his end .... but .... down he goes because player b's front end saw a collision.
Help us out here. Provide a solution to your problem.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zygote404 on August 18, 2017, 12:11:17 AM
Someone once said something like that could be easy to code with an 'if this than that' code.
I asked for more details like 'if what then what?'
I suspect its not as easy as coding 'if player a has no SA ('can't' see behind him) and player b is diving at a speed faster than player a is traveling then player a receives no collision damage.
(1) Well, of course, the game has no idea of either players situation awareness.
So that can't be coded.
What about speed and position?
(2) If player b is behind player a and traveling faster than he is then player a receives no collision damage?
What if player a actually does have effective situational awareness and chops throttle as player b saddles up - forcing a rear end collision?
Well ..... that doesn't work.
No collisions ever?
(3) Player b dives through you, guns blazing and player a is shot down (player b zooms through without a scratch.
Hmmmmm ....
Either player registers a collision and both planes are wrecked?
Player a actually had effective SA and dodged his plane at the last possible second ... on his end .... but .... down he goes because player b's front end saw a collision.
Help us out here. Provide a solution to your problem.
Its not that difficult in fact.
(1) the game has an exquisite idea of your SA, which is why if a part of your plane is blocking an enemy it doesn't show a red icon.
(2) If player a is behind player b and player b cannot see player a and player a does not collide with player b but on player b's client player a collides with player b then no collision
(3) if player a dives through player b's plane (2) is no satisfied since player a collides with player b. If on player b's client player b does not collide with player b then player b doesn't collide obviously, if however in diving through player b's plane player b's client detects a collision player be dies (both collide).
The only time player b doesn't collide is where player a doesn't collide but on player b's client there is a clip of player a colliding and player b cannot witness the collision - direct 6 collision.
The main purpose being to acknowledge its impossible to collide with something your directly moving away from. Any collision of something your moving directly away from is a collision of the object moving towards you.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: FLS on August 18, 2017, 01:03:17 AM
you guys are incorrigible. I wasn't in reverse when I COLLIDED WITH THE F4U THAT WAS SCREAMING IN BEHIND ME, I will just take the honor of having the fastest internet and monitor and can near see in to the future just cant see the plane I am about to hit. all day I hear it in the ma all day, I just seem to be the only one that brings it to the forums.
since its all my fault and I seem to ram every plane (EVEN FROM THE REAR) ill digress.
please lock this as its no longer helpful.
thanks
I'm sorry. I should have told you to reread Hitech and Skuzzy, not the whole thread. :salute
It's not your fault. You are fixated on unimportant details that prevent you from understanding what we're trying to tell you.
There is nothing about your computer or connection that causes you to have more collisions.
The F4u that hit you from behind caused your collision. You didn't see him coming and couldn't get out of the way. In real life that would not prevent the collision. In Aces High it doesn't prevent the collision. The collision occurred on your PC and that is why you were damaged. A tragic occurrence which is not your fault. You don't have to see it or cause it. You just have to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
If the F4u that hit you on your PC did not collide with you on their PC, then they did not have a collision. Since they did not have a collision on their PC they didn't get damaged. Since there was no collision on their PC they are not at fault on their PC.
In real life those two things cannot both be true at the same time. In Aces High it can happen a lot. It's the internet, it brings us together in the arena but there's a cost.
Some people think a different solution would be better but most of us disagree and think the current solution is genius.
With more experience you'll collide less. Look where you want to go not at what you don't want to hit and check 6 often. :aok
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Arlo on August 18, 2017, 01:10:34 AM
(1) the game has an exquisite idea of your SA, which is why if a part of your plane is blocking an enemy it doesn't show a red icon.
(2) If player a is behind player b and player b cannot see player a and player a does not collide with player b but on player b's client player a collides with player b then no collision
(3) if player a dives through player b's plane (2) is no satisfied since player a collides with player b. If on player b's client player b does not collide with player b then player b doesn't collide obviously, if however in diving through player b's plane player b's client detects a collision player be dies (both collide).
The only time player b doesn't collide is where player a doesn't collide but on player b's client there is a clip of player a colliding and player b cannot witness the collision - direct 6 collision.
The main purpose being to acknowledge its impossible to collide with something your directly moving away from. Any collision of something your moving directly away from is a collision of the object moving towards you.
1) You're confused about what situational awareness means. It's never meant a blind spot to your field of view. If it was as simplistic as that you'd be confused every time an enemy plane passed you then saddled.
2) Since you think the game equates having an enemy plane on your dead six with 'unavoidable lack of SA' then I guess actually having SA and chopping throttle to force a 'pass through' is a fair result, what with your claim of an unfair situation created by having a front end collision model?
3) " If on player b's client player b does not collide with player b then player b doesn't collide obviously, if however in diving through player b's plane player b's client detects a collision player be dies (both collide)." I really don't think I confused you. I was very careful. I think you're confusing you. Please take the advantage of a Mulligan, in this case. :)
4) "The main purpose being to acknowledge its impossible to collide with something your directly moving away from." And this is where you deviate from simple physics (and the unavoidable reality of lag, for that matter). Moving in the same direction does not equate to 'moving away.' Rear end collisions happen the same way in the air as on the ground. If the plane behind you is travelling at 400 mph and you are travelling at less than 400 mph and neither of you turn then you both collide. If he turns at the last tenth of a second and misses you by mere inches on his front end .... and your SA tells you to fly straight and steady at cruise speed .... you may be the only plane that suffers damage. If the other player decides to ram your tail and you suddenly hear his engine and turn at the last second ... he may see that his plane collided where your front end shows you barely dodged .... his plane, alone, takes damage.
Avoid hubris. Embrace logic. We are all actually on your side (the best possible solution). You just refuse to accept that, it seems.
(Please, don't confuse 'front end' with what you're currently viewing. It's what your PC sees - which can be more than you see.)
:salute :cheers:
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: FLS on August 18, 2017, 01:23:14 AM
(1) the game has an exquisite idea of your SA, which is why if a part of your plane is blocking an enemy it doesn't show a red icon.
(2) If player a is behind player b and player b cannot see player a and player a does not collide with player b but on player b's client player a collides with player b then no collision
(3) if player a dives through player b's plane (2) is no satisfied since player a collides with player b. If on player b's client player b does not collide with player b then player b doesn't collide obviously, if however in diving through player b's plane player b's client detects a collision player be dies (both collide).
The only time player b doesn't collide is where player a doesn't collide but on player b's client there is a clip of player a colliding and player b cannot witness the collision - direct 6 collision.
The main purpose being to acknowledge its impossible to collide with something your directly moving away from. Any collision of something your moving directly away from is a collision of the object moving towards you.
Collisions with bullets are handled the same as collisions with aircraft. So if you don't see someone shoot you, you won't get shot. :D
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Arlo on August 18, 2017, 01:38:00 AM
I ..... don't have the best SA in AH. But I still know what it is. I'm tempted to start an SA thread. Wait, even better, I'm tempted to revive an SA thread (you know more than one already exists). That way the author of the original thread would be held to task on his .... score. :)
My short take, however:
SA is more than seeing an enemy plane. It's a combination of dar bar, radar, deduction (whether radar is up or not). 'I don't see him in front of me, beside me, below me - when I dip alternating wings, above me ... yet there's enemy dar bar. If he sees me where would he likely be? Have I flown straight on auto pilot too long?'
How about in a furball? Well, effective SA is akin to telepathic intuition there. Sure, you see the guy you're chasing (fixated on?), you saw his wingman, who broke right, you saw the entire flight of four when you headed their way, you didn't see the last two friendlies splash, you didn't see three new enemy cons enter the fray (you didn't even notice the dar bar shift as they entered the sector you're in. Kinda hard to notice the guy who dove on your six, has terrible gunnery skills but broke left at the last second.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zygote404 on August 18, 2017, 01:43:38 AM
1) You're confused about what situational awareness means. It's never meant a blind spot to your field of view. If it was as simplistic as that you'd be confused every time an enemy plane passed you then saddled.
2) Since you think the game equates having an enemy plane on your dead six with 'unavoidable lack of SA' then I guess actually having SA and chopping throttle to force a 'pass through' is a fair result, what with your claim of an unfair situation created by having a front end collision model?
3) " If on player b's client player A does not collide with player b then player b doesn't collide obviously, if however in diving through player b's plane player b's client detects a collision player b dies (both collide)." I really don't think I confused you. I was very careful. I think you're confusing you. Please take the advantage of a Mulligan, in this case. :)
4) "The main purpose being to acknowledge its impossible to collide with something your directly moving away from." And this is where you deviate from simple physics (and the unavoidable reality of lag, for that matter). Moving in the same direction does not equate to 'moving away.' Rear end collisions happen the same way in the air as on the ground. If the plane behind you is travelling at 400 mph and you are travelling at less than 400 mph and neither of you turn then you both collide. If he turns at the last tenth of a second and misses you by mere inches on his front end .... and your SA tells you to fly straight and steady at cruise speed .... you may be the only plane that suffers damage. If the other player decides to ram your tail and you suddenly hear his engine and turn at the last second ... he may see that his plane collided where your front end shows you barely dodged .... his plane, alone, takes damage.
Avoid hubris. Embrace logic. We are all actually on your side (the best possible solution). You just refuse to accept that, it seems.
(Please, don't confuse 'front end' with what your currently viewing. It's what your PC sees - which can be more than you see.)
:salute :cheers:
(1) SA does not only apply to the entire situation. SA also applies to portions of a situation. One could have excellent forward SA and terrible side and aft SA.
(2) This makes no sense at all. Strawman argument.
(3) It doesn't take a genius to figure out what I meant. Fixed it for you.
(4) It is impossible to collide with something your moving away from. If something is moving towards you while your moving away from it, that thing can collide with you, you cannot collide with it unless you reverse direction towards it. Its a very basic concept.
Collisions with bullets are handled the same as collisions with aircraft. So if you don't see someone shoot you, you won't get shot. :D
Yeah no. We're specifically talking about planes colliding not bullets, you don't get collision message with bullets so clearly even if bullets and planes used the same collision code there is a way to differentiate the different collisions - strawman argument.
Lastly the point i'm making is this - neither player A or player B see's a collision. Since neither see's a collision then why cause player B to crash? In a situation where player A doesn't see a collision and player B does, Player A is spared a collision because they didn't see one while player B is damaged or destroyed because he did.
In this latter situation where player B is rear ended, neither saw a collision, even though player B's client technically did, but it seems counter productive in this situation to flag one since a) its not player b's fault, its player a's, and b) player b had no way to avoid it since he couldn't' see player A in the first place. Its probably better to allow them to continue fighting their fight, better gameplay, better outcome.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Arlo on August 18, 2017, 02:00:51 AM
(1) SA does not only apply to the entire situation. SA also applies to portions of a situation. One could have excellent forward SA and terrible side and aft SA.
(2) This makes no sense at all. Strawman argument.
(3) It doesn't take a genius to figure out what I meant. Fixed it for you.
(4) It is impossible to collide with something your moving away from. If something is moving towards you while your moving away from it, that thing can collide with you, you cannot collide with it unless you reverse direction towards it. Its a very basic concept. Yeah no. We're specifically talking about planes colliding not bullets, you don't get collision message with bullets so clearly even if bullets and planes used the same collision code there is a way to differentiate the different collisions - strawman argument.
1) SA always applies to the entire situation. There's no such thing as 'excellent forward SA.'
2) A 'strawman argument' means refuting an argument that was not presented by the opposing side. Your 'solution' to your problem was "If player a is behind player b and player b cannot see player a and player a does not collide with player b but on player b's client player a collides with player b then no collision." I presented a scenario where that can be taken advantage of. You can either prove my scenario false or you can concede a flaw in your 'solution.'
3) You almost fixed it. I'm generous. Take a second shot and then we might discuss the merits and flaws of your claim. :)
4) Flying in front of does not equate to 'moving away.' Try this .... do you have a couple of matchbox or hot wheels cars? Maybe a couple of lengths of hot wheels track? (If you don't, I understand, those went away years ago back in my youth.) At least visualize. Roll the first car, gently .... on the track. Quickly roll the second car, hard .... on the track. Can you picture the second car ramming into the first? You know ... the first car that was 'moving away?' It wasn't 'moving away' fast enough.
I'm really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by spending all this time and effort explaining that to you. If it goes much further I risk getting rule sanctioned due to possible perception that I'm being intentionally rude or mean to you. Depending on the effort you put into a reply, I may not bother responding. No offense intended. :)
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Arlo on August 18, 2017, 02:04:21 AM
Lastly the point i'm making is this - neither player A or player B see's a collision. Since neither see's a collision then why cause player B to crash? In a situation where player A doesn't see a collision and player B does, Player A is spared a collision because they didn't see one while player B is damaged or destroyed because he did.
In this latter situation where player B is rear ended, neither saw a collision, even though player B's client technically did, but it seems counter productive in this situation to flag one since a) its not player b's fault, its player a's, and b) player b had no way to avoid it since he couldn't' see player A in the first place. Its probably better to allow them to continue fighting their fight, better gameplay, better outcome.
I'm sorry but, again, you're confusing what your computer sees with what you (don't) see.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: FLS on August 18, 2017, 02:11:56 AM
I'm sorry but, again, you're confusing what your computer sees with what you (don't) see.
No I'm not. I'm pointing out that the collision code doesn't necessarily need to be acted upon if the acting upon is detrimental to game play - I think it is in the situation where no one see's a collision in a very specific circumstance and the collision code still activates where it'd probably be better that it didn't for game play purposes.
Obviously its not up to me, or you, its up to HTC but I think frustrating the player is this particular circumstance is probably counter productive.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Arlo on August 18, 2017, 02:25:10 AM
No I'm not. I'm pointing out that the collision code doesn't necessarily need to be acted upon if the acting upon is detrimental to game play - I think it is in the situation where no one see's a collision in a very specific circumstance and the collision code still activates where it'd probably be better that it didn't for game play purposes.
Obviously its not up to me, or you, its up to HTC but I think frustrating the player is this particular circumstance is probably counter productive.
'The player' meaning you. Good luck, Zygote. I actually have confidence that years down the road this thread of yours will make you laugh and all of us will have beers and swap other stories and jokes. :cheers:
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zygote404 on August 18, 2017, 03:01:52 AM
'The player' meaning you. Good luck, Zygote. I actually have confidence that years down the road this thread of yours will make you laugh and all of us will have beers and swap other stories and jokes. :cheers:
Kindof like the one where I suggested some GV bases should have the ability to field planes and got flamed / laughed at and then years later they can :) <S>
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Skuzzy on August 18, 2017, 07:05:04 AM
Not trying to be contentious here, but someone claiming their SA is bad and they want the game changed to compensate for it, is not what I would call a solid, logical argument for changing a combat flight sim.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zygote404 on August 18, 2017, 08:30:04 AM
Not trying to be contentious here, but someone claiming their SA is bad and they want the game changed to compensate for it, is not what I would call a solid, logical argument for changing a combat flight sim.
Did someone say that though?
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: hitech on August 18, 2017, 08:35:40 AM
You want the sim to detect your SA and change a result of physics based on your SA.
Yep you said that.
I don't really care who was at fault. Your plane collided with another plane, it was in the same place at the same time as another aircraft. And hence your plane should take damage.
Accidents happen. Deal with it.
HiTech
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Vinkman on August 18, 2017, 08:44:46 AM
this has been going around and around. How about this...
Yes yes, we all understand the collision how lag affect the what is seen on two different screens. But that doesn't mean the model had to reflect what is seen. [gunnery model doesn't].
The option that has not been discussed: The collision had to happen on both screens or there is no collision for anyone. This ends the one-sided collision, and preserves the "I missed on my screen so I shouldn't get a collision" issue. It also ends the Gamey ability to create a one-sided collision. The side effect is that you might see a collision on your end but NOT get a collision message.
Would anyone really complain about that? Please discuss. :salute
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: hitech on August 18, 2017, 08:55:33 AM
The option that has not been discussed: The collision had to happen on both screens or there is no collision for anyone. This ends the one-sided collision, and preserves the "I missed on my screen so I shouldn't get a collision" issue. It also ends the Gamey ability to create a one-sided collision. The side effect is that you might see a collision on your end but NOT get a collision message.
G I only thought of that 25 years ago.
What your solution does 2 things bad for game play. And one annoying thing.
First it allows an attacker from the rear to be able to flying right threw another plane while shooting with out having to worry about a collision.
2nd it penalizes some one on a head on from pulling up and not colliding , because it allows the other guy to continue shooting and fly right threw the other plane.
And now because no damage can happen until the host receives and re transmits the collision, there would be a very noticeable lag between the visual collision and taking damage.
HiTech
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Vinkman on August 18, 2017, 09:07:12 AM
What your solution does 2 things bad for game play. And one annoying thing.
First it allows an attacker from the rear to be able to flying right threw another plane while shooting with out having to worry about a collision.
2nd it penalizes some one on a head on from pulling up and not colliding , because it allows the other guy to continue shooting and fly right threw the other plane.
And now because no damage can happen until the host receives and re transmits the collision, there would be a very noticeable lag between the visual collision and taking damage.
HiTech
I see. But wouldn't people flying straight at each other get double collisions? the lag on the damage a big deal? I see the collide message isn't that lag less than a second?
The off angle flying through a guy while shooting would be weird. If you've been there and done that and think it would be a bigger issue, I believe you. :salute
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: hitech on August 18, 2017, 09:39:00 AM
Quote
The option that has not been discussed:
Did not say in this thread. Hence my assumption of (at any time).
Quote
I see. But wouldn't people flying straight at each other get double collisions?
If both collided yes they would, but I am speaking of how it changes the choices you make on a head on engagement. I.E. how it effects behavior.
At the moment all is in your own hands, you know if you do not collide with the other guy, you do not take damage and hence reap the rewards of that choice.
Under your suggestion.
You know that if you avoid the collision you will not take damage, but also know this allows the other guy to fly right threw you with out taking damage.And hence your choice gives the other guy an advantage. He can now choose to collide or not collide with the same outcome. Do you think that knowledge may change the way you approach head ons?
I believe most people would now make the choice to fly right threw the other person, causing a rise in the number of head on collisions and hence blaming other guy, why didn't you try to avoid. And hence a huge rise in whines.
Quote
the lag on the damage a big deal? I see the collide message isn't that lag less than a second?
I said it was annoying. Not a big deal.
HiTech
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zygote404 on August 18, 2017, 09:56:54 AM
You want the sim to detect your SA and change a result of physics based on your SA.
Yep you said that.
I don't really care who was at fault. Your plane collided with another plane, it was in the same place at the same time as another aircraft. And hence your plane should take damage.
Accidents happen. Deal with it.
HiTech
No I did not say I wanted the game to do anything. I said it would probably be better game wise if it did.
Its physically impossible for an object moving in one direction to collide with a faster object moving in the same direction. Imagine a guy running away from another guy with a gun. The guy with the gun shoots at the guy running. Does the bullet collide with the guy running? Yes. Does the guy running collide with the bullet. No.
I think I've had one collision in 3 months I've been playing where a plane hit me from behind. I don't need to deal with it because its not bothering me, this is merely a discussion. I thought that was what forums are for?
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: hitech on August 18, 2017, 10:30:56 AM
Its physically impossible for an object moving in one direction to collide with a faster object moving in the same direction.
I believe you are not using the term collide in it's normal fashion of.
Quote
to strike one another or one against the other with a forceful impact; come into violent contact; crash:
I.E. there are always 2 objects in a collision.
You appear to be using the term collide in the manner of a car rear end collision at a stop light, saying only the rear car collided? Or possibly missing the term CAUSED? If so Caused is assigning fault, as I have said before fault has nothing to do with the collision system, and I have no desire to add fault to the collision system.
Because if the slower object is in front of the faster object , it absolutely can collide as described above.
HiTech
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Lusche on August 18, 2017, 10:34:01 AM
Often players confuse 'collide with' with 'ram into'. And subsequently get angry about the "you have collided" message. :old:
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: FLS on August 18, 2017, 12:00:00 PM
Often players confuse 'collide with' with 'ram into'. And subsequently get angry about the "you have collided" message. :old:
They get stuck on "He rammed me and didn't get hurt. It's not fair." If they can't move on from there it doesn't matter how well we explain it.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: puller on August 18, 2017, 12:08:01 PM
I just read that "when you shoot bullets they collide with the guy running but the guy running doesn't collide with the bullets"
That's the damnedest thing I have ever heard...Because why????
Earth is orbiting in space...An asteroid is on a collision course with Earth...The asteroid collides with the earth...The earth collides with the asteroid...They are in the same place at the same time...It is a mutual collision..
.If I shoot at a plane running ...that guy flys into my bullets...My bullets will collide with him at a point in space...It's his responsibility to avoid that collision
Don't want a collision in the game....Don't hit someone
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Wiley on August 18, 2017, 12:18:24 PM
No I'm not. I'm pointing out that the collision code doesn't necessarily need to be acted upon if the acting upon is detrimental to game play - I think it is in the situation where no one see's a collision in a very specific circumstance and the collision code still activates where it'd probably be better that it didn't for game play purposes.
Obviously its not up to me, or you, its up to HTC but I think frustrating the player is this particular circumstance is probably counter productive.
Wait... You're actually suggesting the "Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal" collision model, where if you don't see the collision, it is assumed not to have happened?
I... how do... what...
Can we apply the same to gunnery? It really bugs me when a guy I don't see shoots me. That's frustrating, and counterproductive.
Wiley.
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Zygote404 on August 18, 2017, 01:34:48 PM
I believe you are not using the term collide in it's normal fashion of.I.E. there are always 2 objects in a collision.
You appear to be using the term collide in the manner of a car rear end collision at a stop light, saying only the rear car collided? Or possibly missing the term CAUSED? If so Caused is assigning fault, as I have said before fault has nothing to do with the collision system, and I have no desire to add fault to the collision system.
Because if the slower object is in front of the faster object , it absolutely can collide as described above.
HiTech
Yes I guess I should have used the term strike, rather than collide. Actually I"m incorrect, you are correct. The slower object still strikes the faster one doh
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: Vinkman on August 18, 2017, 01:55:46 PM
Did not say in this thread. Hence my assumption of (at any time). If both collided yes they would, but I am speaking of how it changes the choices you make on a head on engagement. I.E. how it effects behavior.
At the moment all is in your own hands, you know if you do not collide with the other guy, you do not take damage and hence reap the rewards of that choice.
Under your suggestion.
You know that if you avoid the collision you will not take damage, but also know this allows the other guy to fly right threw you with out taking damage.And hence your choice gives the other guy an advantage. He can now choose to collide or not collide with the same outcome. Do you think that knowledge may change the way you approach head ons?
I believe most people would now make the choice to fly right threw the other person, causing a rise in the number of head on collisions and hence blaming other guy, why didn't you try to avoid. And hence a huge rise in whines.
I said it was annoying. Not a big deal.
HiTech
Thanks for the explanation. :salute
Title: Re: collision model
Post by: icepac on August 18, 2017, 01:57:59 PM
In all my time aces high, I have never gotten a collision in which my direction of travel was not straight at the enemy plane.
Sometimes I break off and it gives me a collision because I broke off too late.
Why?...........because my path was intersecting the enemy plane and any lag will cause it to continue toward the intersection.
I fly as if my control inputs are reaching the arena or enemy front end at least 1 second later and I rarely collide unless it is intentional.
You can't expect to miss a plane by 4 inches and not get a collision but you should feel grateful when it you do get away with it.
Break off earlier and if you observe buffs acting strangely, keep your distance especially when approaching from a plane flying straight and level from behind.
Lag is such that the course and control input of the plane determine where it will "lag to".
Level buffs will warp forward and back unless the enemy made a control input you did not see.....because of the lag.
A fighter in a hard turn that encounters lag will usually continue the turn until a new packet arrives stating otherwise.
If you're making a run on buffs from any direction, you are safer to break under them since most buff pilots will pull up if they move at all and lag may not let you see it happening until you get the collision after flying over them.
The only collisions I find unusual are the ones where a plane collides with a tank and flies off seemingly undamaged.