Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Martlet on June 27, 2003, 08:40:22 AM
-
Fix it.
Either have both planes die, or neither. Getting rammed from behind or the side after taking no hits and dying while the other plane flies off is getting really old.
-
got a point there, or both planes should be damaged or both die, choise is yours htc!
-
This one has been beat to death. The collision model is completely based on your FE. Because of inherent lag I might see you as 200 away, but your FE reports a collision. I'd be pretty upset if I'm suddenly back in the tower when I was expecting to line up for a shot simply because your computer reported a collision.
-
Originally posted by jonnyb
This one has been beat to death. The collision model is completely based on your FE. Because of inherent lag I might see you as 200 away, but your FE reports a collision. I'd be pretty upset if I'm suddenly back in the tower when I was expecting to line up for a shot simply because your computer reported a collision.
Then remove collisions.
-
Originally posted by jonnyb
This one has been beat to death. The collision model is completely based on your FE. Because of inherent lag I might see you as 200 away, but your FE reports a collision. I'd be pretty upset if I'm suddenly back in the tower when I was expecting to line up for a shot simply because your computer reported a collision.
if i can hit u with bullets and damage u where i see u, then if i hit same plane with my plane, it should take damge also.
if we cant have both planes take damage due to lag of net cause the plane isnt really where i see, then how do i hit it wih guns?
its either were i see it or it isnt, not both depending on
what the programmer chooses.
-
I don't feel like typing it all out again. Here is a copy/past job from past threads:
_____________________________ _____________________
If both FEs must see the collision for the collision to occur there will essentially be no collisions anymore.
Tactics to be derived from this involve things like intentionally flying through the target aircraft while firing as it is impossible to miss from one foot away from the target. This is not a small change and it would not be rare.
Another effect would be the switch to free form manuvering without regard to the proximity of your airframe to the enemies airframe. It would remove one of things that a combat pilot in a close dogfight needed to track from the game.
This kind of change in tactics essentially destroys any and all simulation of real world tactics. The rules have been changed so much that it is no longer a simulation of WWII air combat tactics.
Personally I have no interest in flying in an environment in which the need to avoid collisions is not part of the tactics used.
_____________________________ _____________________
There are only four ways of modeling damaging collisions in online games, all of which have been tried at some point by HiTech. The possibilities are: both are damaged, neither are damaged, the aircraft on the FE that detects the collision is damaged and the aircraft on the FE that does not detect the collision is damaged.
I will give a breif overview of the pros and cons of each system and a breif look a gunnery modeling as well.
Both Are Damaged:
Pros: This most accurately simulates the resulting damage of a collision between two real aircraft. This system can be seen as egalitarian because both suffer the damage.
Cons: It can be seen as unegalitarian because players suffer collisions that they were not responsible for. Ramming becomes a major combat tactic in the simulation. It creates and environment in which ramming targets that can't dodge is rewarded, e.g you take off to defend a field and ram an enemy aircraft knowing that he can't dodge and it'll cost him 5 minutes of flight time against your 30 seconds of flight time. It increases the "gameyness" of the game. It encourages unrealistic tactics, above and beyond being imortal.
Neither Are Damaged:
Pros: It can be seen as egalitarian because both survive.
Cons: This is the least realistic solution. There is no longer any reason to even attempt to avoid collisions. HOs would be even more common. Hitting a target, say a B-17G, is easy when you just dive through him while firing your guns, the shells fired from 10 feet will hit. It encourages unrealistic tactics, above and beyond being imortal.
The Aircraft On The FE That Detects The Collision Is Damaged:
Pros: Each party has an independant chance to avoid the collision and is rewarded for their success. It can be seen as egalitarian because only the responsible party suffers. Realistic behavior is encouraged.
Cons: It does not generate an accurate simulation of the damage that occurs in a real collision. It can be seen as unegalitarian because only one party suffers.
The Aircraft On The FE That Does Not Detect The Collision Is Damaged:
Pros: None.
Cons: It does not generate an accurate simulation of the damage that occurs in a real collision. It removes the reward for avoiding collisions. There is no longer any reason to even attempt to avoid collisions. It creates and environment in which ramming targets that can't dodge is rewarded, e.g you take off to defend a field and ram an enemy aircraft knowing that he can't dodge. Hitting a target, say a B-17G, is easy when you just dive through him while firing your guns, the shells fired from 10 feet will hit and if that doesn't kill him your aircraft certainly will. HOs would be even more common. It increases the "gameyness" of the game. It encourages unrealistic tactics, above and beyond being imortal. It can be seen as unegalitarian because only one party suffers.
Bullet Hits
The Target Is Damaged If Bullet Hits Occur On Either FE:
Pros: All bullet hits anywhere cause damage, e.g. if it looks like he hit you, to you or him, he hits.
Cons: Sometimes the shooter is rewarded even though he missed his intended target. Effectively doubles the target's size for the purpose of "Spray and Pray" shooting.
The Target Is Damaged Only If the Bullet Hit Occurs On Both FEs:
Pros: Bullets only hit if the target absolutely did not dodge.
Cons: Aircraft would be insanely hard to hit, hitting being more a matter of luck than of skill. Massively frusterating for the shooter.
Only The Shooter's FE Calcultes And Applies Damage When A Bullet Hit Occurs On It:
Pros: The shooter is only rewarded for his hitting intended target.
Cons: The target has a slightly reduced SA and slightly reduced ability to dodge.
Only The Target's FE Calcultes And Applies Damage When A Bullet Hit Occurs On It:
Pros: Maximizes the benefits of the target's SA and the target's ability to dodge.
Cons: The shooter must guess where the target is on the target's FE and is thus shooting at ghosts. Only dead 6 o'clock and dead 12 o'clock shots have a good chance of hitting, if the target hasn't changes course on the target's FE.
When you think about these things, try not to think about how it has affected you personally in the game, rather think about it in the terms of its effects from a theoretical player A's and player B's perspective and from the overall effect it would have on gameplay. Some of you have commented that the current system is exploitable and suggested a different system in its place. It doesn't seem that you tried to think of exploits in your proposed system. Think of those and compare the exploits of each system. Which is worse? Once you've done all of that, then present your arguments.
Until we get 10ms or faster ping times for everyone the system used in AH generates the most realistic, least frusterating, least exploitable results of the available systems.
-
Originally posted by whels
if i can hit u with bullets and damage u where i see u, then if i hit same plane with my plane, it should take damge also.
if we cant have both planes take damage due to lag of net cause the plane isnt really where i see, then how do i hit it wih guns?
its either were i see it or it isnt, not both depending on
what the programmer chooses.
There have been times when I would swear that I got under the oncoming plane with the correct angle as to avoid any gunfire ... only to hear bullets ripping thru my plane and the tail come off.
I was flying the other night, into a merge with an N1K, where I had at least 100-200 foot separation between him and I on my left. After the merge, I swung right, checked my rear view and to my amazement, he lost 1 wing and was going down completely on fire. I have seen this at least 4 or 5 times before.
If on the above scenario, I /You ended up in the tower, I/You would be pissed beyond belief.
-
squeaking is pointless. Despite the bad(imo anyways) collision system, its not going to be changed, no point in squeaking.
Collisions like everything else in AH favor the person with the bad internet connection.
-
Originally posted by Innominate
squeaking is pointless. Despite the bad(imo anyways) collision system, its not going to be changed, no point in squeaking.
Collisions like everything else in AH favor the person with the bad internet connection.
Guess I'll have to switch to dial up when I play. I'm gonna join the ranks of the warpers.
-
If it upsets you, I like it.
-
Collisions favour the guy who doesn't see a collision on his FE
Now.. granted the odd occasion you will fly away from what appeared to be a collision on your end but 9 times out of 10, if you see another plane collide with yours... you are taking damage.
Its really very simple... YOU hit something YOU take the damage. Only YOU can stop collisions
SKurj
-
Originally posted by SKurj
Collisions favour the guy who doesn't see a collision on his FE
Now.. granted the odd occasion you will fly away from what appeared to be a collision on your end but 9 times out of 10, if you see another plane collide with yours... you are taking damage.
Its really very simple... YOU hit something YOU take the damage. Only YOU can stop collisions
SKurj
Unfortuately, that isn't always the case.
-
I would say, the way it is now works real well.
If you hit somone, you blow up, if you don't hit somone, you don't blow up. Sounds like a good system to me.
Why sould I blow up if I don't hit anyone????
If you hit somone, and you blow up, why do you care if they other guys who didn't hit you blows up or not?
If you want to make people blow up by crashing into them, your playing the wrong game. Someone should make a game called "Blowup." You fly around and crash into people to make them blowup.
Gunner
-
Originally posted by GunnerCAF
I would say, the way it is now works real well.
If you hit somone, you blow up, if you don't hit somone, you don't blow up. Sounds like a good system to me.
Why sould I blow up if I don't hit anyone????
If you hit somone, and you blow up, why do you care if they other guys who didn't hit you blows up or not?
If you want to make people blow up by crashing into them, your playing the wrong game. Someone should make a game called "Blowup." You fly around and crash into people to make them blowup.
Gunner
I only care when someone rams me from the side or back, then flies off happily as I crash and burn.
-
I only care when someone rams me from the side or back, then flies off happily as I crash and burn.
If you hit some, you take damage. If they hit you, they would take damage.
I have never had anyone hit me from the side or back, I guess I get out of the way, or get shot down long before that happens. Being that close and in front of the enemys guns is a bad thing... kind of like loosing the fight either way.
Gunner
-
It isn't always the case like i said...
1 in 10 you may actually fly through someone.
The claim here is always that someone hit YOU.... when as far as your FE is concerned YOU made contact with them.
I've had a collision in a scissors before as have most of us I am sure but guess what.... I hit them, NOT the other way around.
Start looking at it this way and the current collision model makes perfect sense.
Even if you were parked on the runway and a vulcher appeared to run into you... If you took damage YOUR fe saw your plane hit another. If you didn't then your FE didn't see contact.
None of us want no collisions, if you seriously think about it, the reasons are obvious.
Mutual destruction upon any collision would bring you back here whining alot more than the current model, because you would more often die from NO contact than you would where you actually saw contact. AND even then odds are your damage would occur up to seconds AFTER the supposed collision took place.
Suggest a better model (no collisions is not an alternative) that would work and rid us of these whines and I am sure HT would implement it right away.
SKurj
-
Originally posted by GunnerCAF
If you hit some, you take damage. If they hit you, they would take damage.
FALSE, totally FALSE, this is a pure myth.
I landed my 109 at a deacked enemy field and placed it near the end of a runaway heading the opposite side. An enemy P51 spawned at my back and rolled over my stopped plane. My plane was cut in half while the enemy P51 took off undamaged.
-
I died the other day colliding with B17's. I lined came in fast behind the lead one, shot him up, and got hit by one of those ultra-laggy random-warp drones.
More than once I've died in collisions when people have warped on top of me.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
There have been times when I would swear that I got under the oncoming plane with the correct angle as to avoid any gunfire ... only to hear bullets ripping thru my plane and the tail come off.
I was flying the other night, into a merge with an N1K, where I had at least 100-200 foot separation between him and I on my left. After the merge, I swung right, checked my rear view and to my amazement, he lost 1 wing and was going down completely on fire. I have seen this at least 4 or 5 times before.
If on the above scenario, I /You ended up in the tower, I/You would be pissed beyond belief.
slap,
i have had collision deaths were i visually saw our 2 planes miss, but i still took damage from a ram. i have had a plane pass me
to the left(missing me visually) and taken right wing damage.
i have visually on my FE flown through a enemy plane and took NO damage.
the collision model is porks, it dishes out damage arbitaraly sometime.
did u ask the other pilot in ur situation if he saw a ram? he might have seen u miss also and still gotten arbitary damage.
-
Originally posted by whels
slap,
i have had collision deaths were i visually saw our 2 planes miss, but i still took damage from a ram. i have had a plane pass me
to the left(missing me visually) and taken right wing damage.
i have visually on my FE flown through a enemy plane and took NO damage.
the collision model is porks, it dishes out damage arbitaraly sometime.
did u ask the other pilot in ur situation if he saw a ram? he might have seen u miss also and still gotten arbitary damage.
No I didn't ... there were other cons to deal with, so I didn't have a chance.
How many times, per night/day, does this anomoly really effect you ? I typically can run into this, at the most, 3 times per night and most days/nights I NEVER run into this. For me its a non-issue ... I just up another plane and get back into the action.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
No I didn't ... there were other cons to deal with, so I didn't have a chance.
How many times, per night/day, does this anomoly really effect you ? I typically can run into this, at the most, 3 times per night and most days/nights I NEVER run into this. For me its a non-issue ... I just up another plane and get back into the action.
i rarely collide with anyone. maybe 1 time every couple months.
the fly through without damage happens alot from my FE standpoint, especially Buff killing. the arbitrary damage, id say hard to tell how often but i have noticed it. i have cable connect
so i usually die in the collisions.
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by GunnerCAF
If you hit some, you take damage. If they hit you, they would take damage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FALSE, totally FALSE, this is a pure myth.
I landed my 109 at a deacked enemy field and placed it near the end of a runaway heading the opposite side. An enemy P51 spawned at my back and rolled over my stopped plane. My plane was cut in half while the enemy P51 took off undamaged.
Relitively speaking... In this case, you hit him, but you were not moving in relation to the ground :)
The model is not perfect, if you call real life perfect. Dealing with delay and collisions, the model is brillant in my opinion. Collisions are needed to make head on passes dangerous. Many of the quirks come from delays. Figure out a way to eliminate all delay, and I bet HTC will have a perfect model.
If you think about it, it is truly incredible that people from different parts of the world can play a real time game like this at all!
Gunner
-
This isnt the only scenerio, but it is the one that causes complaints.
Problem: Pilot A on broadband sees collision and reports damage before Pilot B on dial-up sees the inevatible collision. Result Pilot B flies merrily on his way because A is either dead, or had a drastic flight path change.
Possible solution:
Delay damage pending collision confirmation via both FE.
Did A and B see collision?
No= No collision
Yes= collision, assign damages.
"A" may not take damage until after the merge from his pov, but at least "B" also takes the hit now.
Just a thought.
-
Originally posted by Murdr
This isnt the only scenerio, but it is the one that causes complaints.
Problem: Pilot A on broadband sees collision and reports damage before Pilot B on dial-up sees the inevatible collision. Result Pilot B flies merrily on his way because A is either dead, or had a drastic flight path change.
Possible solution:
Delay damage pending collision confirmation via both FE.
Did A and B see collision?
No= No collision
Yes= collision, assign damages.
"A" may not take damage until after the merge from his pov, but at least "B" also takes the hit now.
Just a thought.
EXACTLY what i'm talking about. That's a good idea. I'd rather get delayed damage, than watching someone fly off.
-
Originally posted by Murdr
Delay damage pending collision confirmation via both FE.
Did A and B see collision?
No= No collision
Yes= collision, assign damages.
This is raw common sense, why it is not implemented after years? who knows.
-
I think most unfair collisions happen when you crash into a plane that is doing a hard maneuver just before the crash.
Don't disable collisions completely, just disable them, when the G load of the enemy plane changed largely shortly before crash.
-
We need a "dead horse" forum, Skuzzy?
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
Originally posted by Murdr
Delay damage pending collision confirmation via both FE.
Did A and B see collision?
No= No collision
Yes= collision, assign damages.
This is raw common sense, why it is not implemented after years? who knows.
Because it is not raw common sense.
This is an idea that has not been fully thought through and would be a disaster.
Basically this idea would have the same results as the "just have no collisions" idea. There is no practical difference except that once in a great while this idea would produce a collision in an HO situation. Do to the rarity of this event it would shock both participants.
I would guess that 99+% of the time the collision only happens on one player's FE (Mind you, if it happens on both player's FEs both players get killed, its just that the poor ping player gets the kill. Whoopdee doo.) and would under this proposal result in no collision for either player.
Under this proposal I could fly right through a B-17 at the fuselage/wing juncture blazing away with a guaranteed chance of killing him and I would never suffer a collision.
Here is HiTech's response to a similar suggestion by lemur:
Originally posted by lemur
There are 4 possible ways of handling this:
1) 'Collider' takes damage, 'Target' doesn't. This is the way it's handled now. Downside: It's exploitable (barely), it's unrealistic. Upside: You know you've been killed right away (No delay from your FE telling you you're dead)
2) 'Collider' takes damage, 'Target takes damage': Downside, the 'target', which didn't see a collision on his FE, takes damage. He may have manovered to avoid the collision, but he gets screwed instead. Also, the damage to the target shows up a second AFTER the collision
3) Target takes damage, collider doesn't. This is a stupid idea (I'm just throwing it in here for completeness sake)
4) Neither takes damage unless both sides see the collision on their FE:
Downside: Long delay before damage takes effect (since both sides have to tell the server about the damage, then the server has to come back with a 'Yup, the target agrees that was a collision'), occationally you'll fly right through a guy.
Upside: Not gameable, realistic (up to a point), completely fair.
I'd say options 1 & 4 are the only 'workable' and fair solutions.
In the case of 4 we'd all have to live with collisions that took effect a certain time after the fact ('Collider' + 'target' ping time later) Still, this time shouldn't be more than 1 second later, on average.
So it boils down to this: Either one guy might get screwed in a collision, or nobody gets screwed but we have to live with 'late' damage from collisions.
And HiTech's response:
Originally posted by hitech
Lemar, only thing I disagree with your analiss is #4,on anything but a head on collision both FEs will never both see a collision.
HiTech
That about sums up why Murdr's idea wouldn't work.
-
Originally posted by ccvi
I think most unfair collisions happen when you crash into a plane that is doing a hard maneuver just before the crash.
Don't disable collisions completely, just disable them, when the G load of the enemy plane changed largely shortly before crash.
I hate to quote myself, but... Any ideas why this might not work?
-
Originally posted by ccvi
I hate to quote myself, but... Any ideas why this might not work?
For the same reasons we have now ...
The report of High-G load data from both planes is no different than any data elements that are being sent now to determine if a collision happended or not. So, with netlag, the collision will still happen.
Your just changing the criteria not the environment ... you need to make the ping for all under 10ms ... got any suggestions ?
-
ccvi
Which is the enemy plane?
How do you define "shortly"?
Shortly could mean, the server would then have to monitor all clients g-loads at all times OR clients would have to keep a log of their g-loads over time, and in the case of a collision, the server would then have to consult the g-load history, and then decide whether a collision occured or not...
This method would result in long delays until damage is issued, as well as no collisions would occur in scissor type maneuvers. Players could then go for last minute HO's, pull hard into the target at the last second blasting away..
Least its a suggestion!!
Perhaps by the time the horse is just a bloody spot on the ground another solution will be found (or next generation Internet has appeared giving us all 5ms delay)
SKurj
-
For all of those that constantly strive to change this, how many times do you really die to collisions per day/night/week/month ?
If you are dieing a lot to this anomoly, then you might consider changing your flying habits, cause I don't think that HT will be changing his code anytime soon.
I agree with Iron .. this needs to be moved to the "Dead Horse" Forum.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
For all of those that constantly strive to change this, how many times do you really die to collisions per day/night/week/month ?
If you are dieing a lot to this anomoly, then you might consider changing your flying habits, cause I don't think that HT will be changing his code anytime soon.
I agree with Iron .. this needs to be moved to the "Dead Horse" Forum.
Just because YOU feel this is a dead horse, doesn't mean that it isn't a legitimate gripe. The collision model is hosed as it is currently, and there were several good suggestions given to fix it.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Just because YOU feel this is a dead horse, doesn't mean that it isn't a legitimate gripe. The collision model is hosed as it is currently, and there were several good suggestions given to fix it.
I disagree on all your points ...
Its not hosed and I haven't seen a good suggestion for replacement yet and yes it is a "Dead Horse" ... all these suggestions, and more, have been brought forth before in one of the 1,000,000 posts that have been written on this subject.
-
Originally posted by SKurj
Which is the enemy plane?
How do you define "shortly"?
I guess I didn't make this clear. Most unfair collisions happen when one of the aircrafts is suddenly quickly pulling a large number of Gs. Usually this is not done to change the course in a way to ram the other aircraft - at least not on the front end of the plane that pulls.
From the other front end the situation looks clear, no ram going to happen. Then suddenly the other aircraft changes course directly into the flight path, with no way to avoide the crash.
Shortly would mean just long enough to give time to evade the other aircraft doing something that is unharmful on his frontend but harmful to the other. A single second should be sufficient.
Shortly could mean, the server would then have to monitor all clients g-loads at all times OR clients would have to keep a log of their g-loads over time, and in the case of a collision, the server would then have to consult the g-load history, and then decide whether a collision occured or not...
Yes. Crashs are calculated on the FE, so the FE would have to keep 1 second of data for all aircraft that are close. That's not enough data to make it impossible.
This method would result in long delays until damage is issued, as well as no collisions would occur in scissor type maneuvers.
Both wrong. There would be no delay on crashs. If the FE sees both planes the same position, it already knows if the other aircraft did a hard maneuvre shortly before. So there won't be a long delay - not even a short one. Collisions during scissors can still happen, just not those where the other aircraft suddenly changes its flight path (clear on his FE) into yours (on your FE). This is exactly the situation where the crash is noones fault.
Players could then go for last minute HO's, pull hard into the target at the last second blasting away..
No, they couldn't. This would require that they know that the enemy aircraft is doing a hard maneuvre just before they see a crash. Pulling away will (which can be seen as pulling into the flight path on the other FE) will grant the other player a grace period, not the one that is pulling.
Still doubts?
-
I really have no inhearant concern with this issue, other than stumbling along and chiming in. To the two posters that brought constructive points from past discussions, thank you for the short cut.
To the rest who seem to think that everyone who had not began posting at the boards date of inception should read the entire contents of the board before posting, . How about starting an Elietest forum since it is painfully too hard to say A and B were discussed and C was the conclusion. I see no point in seriptitously attacking the thread starter as some kind of dolt. Obviously if a gameplay issue comes back again and again and again its the fault of the next player who encounters it, and not the game.
-
Ouch, sorry to step on yer toes there Murdr. From the date on your BB account it appears that you've been around long enough to have seen this topic appear and reappear and reappear, ad nauseaum.
It's been explained and reexplained and reexplained why the collision model is the way it is. Time to get over it and move on.
-
Maybe a sticky thread in this forum regarding collisions, killshooter, etc... would be of some use to the relative newbies?
Then again maybe not, some just don't like the way aspects of the game work and will argue them indefinitely.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Ouch, sorry to step on yer toes there Murdr. From the date on your BB account it appears that you've been around long enough to have seen this topic appear and reappear and reappear, ad nauseaum.
It's been explained and reexplained and reexplained why the collision model is the way it is. Time to get over it and move on.
Or, since its still being brought up, perhaps it's time to fix it.
If it bothers you that much, feel free to excercise your right to not read the thread. Constructive criticism is welcome. Many of the posts contain good information, as well as reasons why some of the ideas I'd thought of won't work.
Your constant "stop saying that" is indicative of the brow beating you get at home, and bring to the BBS.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Or, since its still being brought up, perhaps it's time to fix it.
If it bothers you that much, feel free to excercise your right to not read the thread. Constructive criticism is welcome. Many of the posts contain good information, as well as reasons why some of the ideas I'd thought of won't work.
Your constant "stop saying that" is indicative of the brow beating you get at home, and bring to the BBS.
I hear that amateur psychology doesn't pay well, you may wanna consider another line of work.
Guess I'll continue to exercise my "right" to post when and what I like here, constructive or not. You don't like it, exercise your own right to not read it.
A whine has been recorded.
It really bothered you the other night when you and Weav collided didn't it? Get over it already.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Maybe a sticky thread in this forum regarding collisions, killshooter, etc... would be of some use to the relative newbies?
See, now that is constructive :)
-
I thought my idea of a "dead horse" forum was constructive. Probably get a lot of activity, and little illusion of something getting changed. A place to blow off steam or beat the "dead horse". Might make too much work for Skuzzy moving so many threads there though. ;)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I hear that amateur psychology doesn't pay well, you may wanna consider another line of work.
Guess I'll continue to exercise my "right" to post when and what I like here, constructive or not. You don't like it, exercise your own right to not read it.
A whine has been recorded.
It really bothered you the other night when you and Weav collided didn't it? Get over it already.
You must be confused. I never collided with weaz. Perhaps you are thinking of when Weaz rear ended you.
-
I see it still smarts Martlet, whining only prolongs the pain.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I see it still smarts Martlet, whining only prolongs the pain.
As I said, I've never even seen Weaz in MA. Getting rammed by others does smart, though. Kinda like the smarting you're experiencing, only less bleeding.
-
Get yer glasses checked Martlet, I wrote Weav, as in AKWeav, not Weaz. I remember clearly you squeakin' at him a night or two ago for rammin' you. A collision which his front end did not detect I might add.
Ah well, don't let me discourage your antics, I usually find it amusing when someone complains about ramming.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Get yer glasses checked Martlet, I wrote Weav, as in AKWeav, not Weaz. I remember clearly you squeakin' at him a night or two ago for rammin' you. A collision which his front end did not detect I might add.
Ah well, don't let me discourage your antics, I usually find it amusing when someone complains about ramming.
Nope, I've never been rammed by a weav, either. Did you like it?
-
Martlet,
Contrary to what you think the exisiting collision model is as fixed as the current Internet allows it to be.
None of the suggestions in this thread, or any other thread on the subject have been as good as the current system.
The problems that you feel make the current system "hosed" are unfixable given the current Internet.
It seems likely to me that much of your disatisfaction with the current system is due to a flawed understanding of Internet communications.
Just to let you know that I have as much reason as anybody to dislike the current system:
This Tour I set my highest kill streak ever in this game. I had 30 kills in the Mosquito Mk VI without dying. While going for my 31st kill I collided with a Spitfire and lost my outer right wing and my tail, bailed and was captured ending my kill streak.
Am I irritated that I collided and ended my kill streak? Yes, of course.
Does it bother me that the other guy wasn't scratched? Not at all, in fact it would have been unfair if he had been.
Only I could have avoided that collision as it was on my FE. I was too aggressive and I paid the price as is appropriate.
-
as a yak pilot I tend to get very close to targets before firing, especially when low ammo. Noticing a new trend in gamey bastages dumping throttle & trying to stay in the way. No matter what setting you choose some wisenheimer is going to take advantage of it.
I have (just once) run out of ammo in said yak, found a C47 otw to dead town, & succesfully made him run into me. I'm not proud of it & havent tried it since.
Anton
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Unfortuately, that isn't always the case.
I think it is..........
I think you incur all damage on your FE............
In the case of bullet hits, your FE is advised of hits and it sets the damage accordingly. (these hits may be from several sources and of several different lethalities).
I think your FE allocates a kill award to who ever is still flying with the highest damage on you. (the "who shot you down" report is never delayed but the report on your victim quite often is. )
The only factor that the server may add is a hit modifier such as the one used in AW(some FE hits on opponents[local hits] did not count) there is no evidence of this in AH. This does not explain how we can sometimes see a wingless fireball apparantly still fully manouverable.
I think the system we have now is the best. It is actually very difficult to induce a collision thru which you survive and your opponent does not.
The only manouvre I can imagine where this works is where you fly across the intended path of your opponent.........on your FE you have crossed infront of him, on his FE you hit him (or he hit you). I should imagine therefore that this most likely (although still rarely)occurs during close range rolling siccors.
I cannot see how a ram from behind ever actually damages the plane in front.
-
Originally posted by Innominate
squeaking is pointless. Despite the bad(imo anyways) collision system, its not going to be changed, no point in squeaking.
Collisions like everything else in AH favor the person with the bad internet connection.
Stupidest quote ever. Makes me feel all gooey inside knowing you are an FDB.
You do realize that lag doesnt only work one way... right tard? Any advantage someone might or might not gain from lag is shared by EVERYONE ELSE SINCE THE SAME LATENCY APPLIES ON RECEIVE AS WELL AS SEND.
What really amazes me is that you aren't even the biggest tard in the squad.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Martlet,
Contrary to what you think the exisiting collision model is as fixed as the current Internet allows it to be.
None of the suggestions in this thread, or any other thread on the subject have been as good as the current system.
The problems that you feel make the current system "hosed" are unfixable given the current Internet.
It seems likely to me that much of your disatisfaction with the current system is due to a flawed understanding of Internet communications.
Just to let you know that I have as much reason as anybody to dislike the current system:
Thank you for reminding me how little I know about the internet. I'll have to tell my boss. I shouldn't have my job with my lack of knowledge.
Tilt= That is exactly why this damage model is hosed. As I stated before, it has been shown to me why many of the "better ideas" won't work. That makes sense. From what I can tell, though, one thing stands true: The person with the crappiest internet connection wins. Take this as an example, although there are many. Apply it to collisions.
I am in a HO scenario with another plane. We both open fire. I see numerous sprites. I go down, whether from collision or bullets. He fly's away. Why? Because my connection transfers information quickly. I register the hits, and my plane dies. He doesn't register the damage, since I'm not there.
-
Maybe it wasn't Weav Martlet but another AK, hard to keep up without faces involved. Anyhow, you sayin' you weren't squeakin' at an AK for ramming you the other night? If so then I formally pronounce you full of ****.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Maybe it wasn't Weav Martlet but another AK, hard to keep up without faces involved. Anyhow, you sayin' you weren't squeakin' at an AK for ramming you the other night? If so then I formally pronounce you full of ****.
Oh NO! Not a pronouncement from the mighty AKIron.
I would not be surprised at all if I complained about an AK ramming me. It's the only way most of you could kill me. I'm surprised the few good pilots you have stick around.
-
You wanna duel? Lemme know, anytime.
-
Can you please stop this useless discussion about who rammed whom or who is more fat and drunken and tell me what you think about my last post? (suggestion of modification to the current ram model, see page 1)? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by ccvi
Can you please stop this useless discussion about who rammed whom or who is more fat and drunken and tell me what you think about my last post? (suggestion of modification to the current ram model, see page 1)? :rolleyes:
he started it ;)
I think you may be asking for too much ccvi. To test a collision based on flight history would require recording flight parameters at least for s short period. This would not only reqire additional coding but might have a significant impact on computer performance.
I think the current collision model is a good solution, at least until everyone has flawless super fast connections.
-
Originally posted by ccvi
Can you please stop this useless discussion about who rammed whom or who is more fat and drunken and tell me what you think about my last post? (suggestion of modification to the current ram model, see page 1)? :rolleyes:
I thought it was a good idea.
He started it.
-
Yesterday I was diving (with very little E) over a zooming up P38, I had no E to evade and it seems he had little E also, so, we HO in the vertical plane with little gunnery result. Both of us continued straight without maneuvering and I saw clearly the "crash". I continued the straight dive wingless and the P38 continued the climb undamaged. He didnt evade but his FE didnt see the collission. It seems like me FE saw the collission earlier and his FE only saw F4U pieces passing by. Later, again against a P38, I was without ammo and saw a P38 just above me, I was faster and decided to ram it on purpuse. The P38 pilot was unaware of the aproach and "crash", my plane was broken in half and, again, the P38 continued undamaged. Finally I dove over another P38 in a P51, but I got too close and, while rolling slowly, I was unable to evade the crash, again, P51 wingless and P38 undamaged.
-
It's VERY rare for both planes to be exactly (or least within a few feet) where one of the pilots observes them both to be. Where pilot a's fe sees pilot b is not where pilot b's fe sees itself when pilot a's fe sees it there. That's why it's VERY rare for both pilots fe to see a collision in anything other than a ho.
Even in a head on when both pilots suffer a collision, both the planes didn't suffer it at the same point in space.
Bottom line, you won't collide if your fe doesn't see it. Because of the effect I just mentioned it's VERY difficult to intentionally cause someone else to see the collision if you're not in a head on. That puts the onus completely on you to avoid it.
-
"From what I can tell, though, one thing stands true: The person with the crappiest internet connection wins."
WRONG !!!
I have a rock solid DSL connection ... pings are always 40 and below. In my scenario that I described on the first page, using your logic, the guy that disintegrated, must have a T1 to T3 connection ... cause he crashed, therefore he must have the better connection than me.
-
Gonna elaborate a bit.
If you're trying to force a non ho collision your best bet is to just fly near the other plane doing a lot of jinking. No point running into him because he is most likely not where you see him. Just jink and try to make him run into you, as seen on his front end.
Because of lag what you're seeing (disregarding lag smoothing code) is probably where he was a short time ago as seen by his front end. To force a collision you might try anticipating where he is going (because it's actually where he now is) and put your plane there. Of course you have to adjust even further for the delay in which his fe sees you.
Also, you don't get hit by invisible planes so while you are trying to collide with where he'll be in the future, he can see and maneuver away.
If you get hit by lightning while doing 88 mph you may have a better chance at forcing the collision. ;)
-
Martlet,
If you understand the Internet's technology then you have no excuse for not understanding why the collision model is done the way it is.
-
I have only been doing this for about 9 months, and don't have a big background in the code involved. But I am a computer guy, and I am curious about how this system works, in a general sort of way.
FE stands for flight engine, right? What does my FE report to the server? Does my FE assume that the vector of the other aircraft in view stays constant between updates, or does my system assume that their paths change based on their speed/power/control settings that I received during the last update?
Does the server "customize" a session for me, showing only what is currently in view or range, or do I get all the information about all the planes in the arena all the time?
Is this documented anywhere? I can't find anything in the help files about it.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
"From what I can tell, though, one thing stands true: The person with the crappiest internet connection wins."
WRONG !!!
I have a rock solid DSL connection ... pings are always 40 and below. In my scenario that I described on the first page, using your logic, the guy that disintegrated, must have a T1 to T3 connection ... cause he crashed, therefore he must have the better connection than me.
Well...
Although I am not an expert in the AH system, there is always the coincidence factor. It all depends on WHEN the last update was received by you. That variable is unpredictable. But, it would favor the guy with a slow connection, IN GENERAL, but not always.
I have a 47 ping most of the time, and almost always lose the collision, even if the other guy 'sees' it too, he gets the kill.
-
FE is Front End rshubert. It's the program running on your PC (bet you knew this).
What it reports to the server isn't public knowledge. My guess is xyz coordinates along with the pitch/roll/yaw axes. Lotta other stuff too no doubt.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I am in a HO scenario with another plane. We both open fire. I see numerous sprites. I go down, whether from collision or bullets. He fly's away. Why? Because my connection transfers information quickly. I register the hits, and my plane dies. He doesn't register the damage, since I'm not there.
lag went both ways...........
If your con was fastest
Your hits on him were at the server before his hits on you........ however whilst server packet to him was slowed his slow packet of hits on you is quickly transfered to your end. Net result you both recieve hits at the same time. (If you both started the exchange simultaniuosly)
Now if one of you has a huge differential between sending speed and recieving speed (ie a differential that is not matched by the opponent) then the quality of connection does come into play........but it is not neccesarily the slowest overal that wins.
Further your hits always count........your FE sent those hit packets before it sent a packet announcing your death. Hence the bullets were in flight. The (your hits)packet would have to be totally lost not to be registered by your opponents FE. (or swallowed by the server)
Problem with combined collision/firing during a head on is that you do not really know what type of damage is incurred.
I would suggest that when two AC actually hit at 180 degrees both suffer...........any other angle and it is possible (not probable) that one will survive. The total lag between the two is the same however the view is at opposite ends of the lag and one may not see a collision.............I do not see why it should be either the the fastest or slowest connection to server that decides it...........merely the angle, and on whose FE this angle caused two paths to cross.
Unless of course the server was deciding when a collision took place............but why should HTC use server processing time to generate an inaccuracy when it gets yours for free and more accurately?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I think you may be asking for too much ccvi. To test a collision based on flight history would require recording flight parameters at least for s short period. This would not only reqire additional coding but might have a significant impact on computer performance.
Every change of the crash detection would require additional / change code, so this is not a valid point for a specific change, just for a change at all.
Significant impact on performance?? Do you have the slightest idea what you are talking about?
-
Do you?
-
Want me to post source that outputs "inihibit crash with aircraft X because of hard maneuvre" and just needs to be fed with the data describing the momvent of other aircraft in the vicinity?
-
Maybe I should explain?
A collison has occurred. FE decision time: I think a collison just occurred, do I act on it and lose appropriate airplane parts? Well, lemme see, was I just maneuvering "hard". Guess I'll check the flight recorder for that data. Nope, no exceeding the "g" threshold, lose that wing.
So, yes, the flight parameters would have to be recorded and evaluated. How much of a performance hit this would require is unknown to me as to you. Is it likely Hitech would implement this to satisfy you? No idea but it seems unlikely to me.
I really don't even understand the need to add maneuvering into the equation anyhow.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
FE is Front End rshubert. It's the program running on your PC (bet you knew this).
What it reports to the server isn't public knowledge. My guess is xyz coordinates along with the pitch/roll/yaw axes. Lotta other stuff too no doubt.
Thanks, AKiron. I would call that the "client application", but the computer biz is so full of alphabet soup that overlap is a sure bet.
shubie
-
It seems to me that the irritation with collisions isn't so much that they occur but that when they do the other guy flies off without a scratch. What some fail to understand is that they did in fact collide on their front end while the other guy did not.
Seems pretty fair to me.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Maybe I should explain?
A collison has occurred. FE decision time: I think a collison just occurred, do I act on it and lose appropriate airplane parts? Well, lemme see, was I just maneuvering "hard". Guess I'll check the flight recorder for that data. Nope, no exceeding the "g" threshold, lose that wing.
So, yes, the flight parameters would have to be recorded and evaluated. How much of a performance hit this would require is unknown to me as to you. Is it likely Hitech would implement this to satisfy you? No idea but it seems unlikely to me.
I really don't even understand the need to add maneuvering into the equation anyhow.
Ok, I think you didn't understand the concept. The idea isn't to disable the crash detection when the aircraft on the FE that sees the crash is maneuvering hard shortly before the crash, but when the OTHER aircraft does. This is what leads to most complaints - he rammed me! waa! The other aircraft suddenly doing something "trying" to ram, without beeing in and seeing danger himself.
A quick way to detect a hard maneuvre could work the following way:
Calculate an average of the last acceleration data realtive to the enemy plane. This can easily be done during recording and doesn't require more than 6 additions and 3 multiplications each recurrence for every plane in the vicinity. That's completely negliglible. To detect a hard maneuvre the integral of the difference of the recorded data (28 data sets in 1 second I think) from the average data would have to exceed a threshold. For one second (28 steps) this would require 169 additions, 84 multiplications and 28 squareroots.
This wouldn't even really impact the server, if it had to calculate it for 600 planes.
-
Ok, I had the roles reversed. Still, an analysis requires data, data that may or may not be available in the current game engine. Assuming that it's not, you have to start bufferering all flight data on a continuous basis, likely to be done by the fe rather than the server. Then upon collision you analyze the buffers. The buffers would likely contain raw positional data rather than acceleration vectors. So, more work in processing that data.
Anyhow, you may be correct in your assesment of the load involved, I dunno. But, I still say avoiding a collision isn't that hard, especially when it's so very hard for the other guy to intentionally cause one.
-
Originally posted by ccvi
The idea isn't to disable the crash detection when the aircraft on the FE that sees the crash is maneuvering hard shortly before the crash, but when the OTHER aircraft does. This is what leads to most complaints - he rammed me! waa! The other aircraft suddenly doing something "trying" to ram, without beeing in and seeing danger himself.
And when the collision occurs without a hard manouvre?
or even
how hard is hard? are rolling siccors hard? are rolling siccors an unreasonable "manouvre? would we not be introducing a fix that is just another source of complaint?
seems to me that lag is the curse of our game it makes our "reality" different for each of us............I die mostly from it via canopy shots.........forgetting that the 51 cutting above and behind from my high 12 sees his sights runing right down my fuselage.........
we have to learn to live with it, compensate accordingly.
-
Ain't that irritating Tilt? I squeak about it every time it happens. :)
-
Originally posted by Tilt
And when the collision occurs without a hard manouvre?
or even
how hard is hard? are rolling siccors hard? are rolling siccors an unreasonable "manouvre? would we not be introducing a fix that is just another source of complaint?
On a detected collision without a hard maneuvre of the other plane nothing should be different from now. Whoever sees the crash and is responsible (because the other plane is flying predictable enough) should die.
Rolling at constant speed while pulling constant Gs isn't a hard maneuvre, the flight path is predictable and can be avoided. Anything that causes a crash by a quick change in this case of either roll speed/direction or G-load should disable collisions for a grace period - from the other FE it can be seen as suddenly quickly pulling into the flight path - unavoidable.
What kind of complaints would be generated? "I pulled hard while flying in front of him to ram him on his FE, but he didn't die. Fix this!". Hu?
-
Originally posted by ccvi
What kind of complaints would be generated? "I pulled hard while flying in front of him to ram him on his FE, but he didn't die. Fix this!". Hu?
"He did a hard manouvre and I still died via collision I have flims to prove it!"
"The hard manouvre collision fix model is porked get rid of it now"
"stop 'Jink' attackers! they can fly right thru my b17and shoot me up with out fear of collision"
"the hard manouvre collision fix is so unreal, (and its porked) get rid of it now"
"close combat acm a la AH = "jink warrior""
Actually my view is that it does not really move the game on.......it just replaces one not very real aspect of lag with another not very real aspect.
Our reality is what happens on our FE.. others have a slightly different reality.....
-
Originally posted by Tilt
"stop 'Jink' attackers! they can fly right thru my b17and shoot me up with out fear of collision"
You still didn't understand :p
It doesn't allow to fly through B17s by jinking. It would require the B17 to jink.
The rest of your examples looks much less substantiated than the complaints (aka whines) about the current implementation.
-
Hmm not ever seen these last minute high G maneuvers with the intention of ramming...
Seen last minute Hi G maneuvers when used to try and avoid a collision, though often as not your opponent tries to pull the same way to avoid...
The screaming in the MA comes from one or both players not seeing ANY maneuvering on their FE of their opponent in an attempt to evade. Which then leads to "You rammed me ***hole"
When actually, likely the opponent did maneuver and the message didn't arrive in time for the person doing the whining to see it. Or the other plane could see he wasn't going to collide and didn't maneuever any harder anyways.
I've intentionally rammed (successfully) maybe 2-3 times (non-HO) since I started flyin AH (played over 2 yrs). The only way it worked was to fly across the opponents nose, at basically 90 degrees. Worked well against bombers. In HO passes half the time I won't bother trying to evade if I sense the other player isn't going to, I don't see the point. I just say to myself... "FU you HO squeak!! here it comes +)" oh as I pull the trigger.
I have a ping under 70, and no I am not always the one to go down in pieces.
Life can often suck, we gotta deal with it! for the most part its worth living. The collision model in AH... I have accepted it and am comfortable with it, I really can't see how it could be done another way. Sure in the days of my playing a few hundred hours a month I would lose a couple planes a day to collisions but hey WHO CARES...
SKurj
SKurj
-
Originally posted by ccvi
You still didn't understand :p
It doesn't allow to fly through B17s by jinking. It would require the B17 to jink.
So (in your proposal) the jinker can still collide?
isnt jinking what folk do to avoid a collision? would not attempted last second evasives be seen as"hard"manouvres? could this mean that a straight flying rammer escapes whilst the player trying to avoid with an unsuccessful "hard"manouvre does not?
That apart it seems now that infact this would all change very little as the pre requesit is a hard manouvre which exceeds that found in a rolling scissors......(or hard scissors?) and only then the party not making the manouvre become immune to collision.
I still think (although a valiant attempt) it brings little gain........
-
Let me get this straight. I get to fly threw some ones plane and not collide?
I Think not.
HiTech
-
Guess that's that.
Until 6 months from now and we rinse and repeat.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Let me get this straight. I get to fly threw some ones plane and not collide?
I Think not.
HiTech
HT,
u can do that now, u can even visually miss a enemy plane and get collision damage. u can hit a plane on 1 side, and get damage on opposite side, and NO damage on side closest to collision.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Let me get this straight. I get to fly threw some ones plane and not collide?
I Think not.
HiTech
Intentional-ram prevention. It's not about beeing able to crash into someone else's plane, but about neglecting the enemy the possibility to pull into your plane (willingly or not) when the situation looked clear a split second before.
When will we take damaged by flying through debris from planes that got completely blown up, err completely desintegrated out of existance?
-
Probably never, because then a plane could intentialy ram you by ripping it's wings off.
Just so I have this idea correct, you wan't more realism by only having collisions when the plane you collide with is flying straight?
I Can just see the after action report.
But sir, I didn't think he would turn into me, so it's his fault that we collided, me doing a 6 g turn in a sissors had no effect on us colliding. That bloody german should have been more carefull. Can you build these spitfires so I can just fly threw the 109's? Those bloody eng. should design stronger planes. And sir they should also put in an auto pilot that automaticly avoids collision, so I don't have to watch out for collisions my self. I realy think there should be a general order sent to all friendly planes to please make sure they don't run into me, because I realy feel the entire sky is mine, and I should be able to fly how,when, and where ever I wish.
HiTech
-
HT,
Since you are here....
I have no problem with collisions as modeled, but there are instances when a warp causes a collision.
For example, I once was in a fight with a yak about 200-250 off his tail in a co-E situation. He warped and in the blink of an eye, I was in his cockpit.
Would it be possible to have the program check for such anomalies in change of position prior to assigning damage?
-
Originally posted by hitech
Probably never, because then a plane could intentialy ram you by ripping it's wings off.
Not sure how that might work. After ripping wings the flight path is pretty straight except that earth sucks a bit, so should be easily avoidable. Just ripping wings off currently doesn't make the plane vanish, haven't seen it at least. Only extreme G loads and lots of bullets. So that intentional ram should work now?
Just so I have this idea correct, you wan't more realism by only having collisions when the plane you collide with is flying straight?
Not straight, but without large change of acceleration shortly before impact. Crashing into something that is flying at a constant high G load should still happen. "That dweeb pulled right into me the second I flew past him" when in fact he didn't, he was pulling somewhere safe from his point of view. Why detect a crash in such a situation?
-
Originally posted by hitech
Probably never, because then a plane could intentialy ram you by ripping it's wings off.
Just so I have this idea correct, you wan't more realism by only having collisions when the plane you collide with is flying straight?
I Can just see the after action report.
But sir, I didn't think he would turn into me, so it's his fault that we collided, me doing a 6 g turn in a sissors had no effect on us colliding. That bloody german should have been more carefull. Can you build these spitfires so I can just fly threw the 109's? Those bloody eng. should design stronger planes. And sir they should also put in an auto pilot that automaticly avoids collision, so I don't have to watch out for collisions my self. I realy think there should be a general order sent to all friendly planes to please make sure they don't run into me, because I realy feel the entire sky is mine, and I should be able to fly how,when, and where ever I wish.
HiTech
Better than the after action report:
That bloody 109 flew into me, then just kept on flying while I crashed and burned.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Better than the after action report:
That bloody 109 flew into me, then just kept on flying while I crashed and burned.
On his FE he did not fly into you........he quite safely flew past you...... you on the other hand flew into him or allowed him (on your FE) to fly into you.
-
HT,
Since you are here....
I have no problem with collisions as modeled, but there are instances when a warp causes a collision.
For example, I once was in a fight with a yak about 200-250 off his tail in a co-E situation. He warped and in the blink of an eye, I was in his cockpit.
Would it be possible to have the program check for such anomalies in change of position prior to assigning damage?
That and those warpy bomber drones. You know the ones where the bomber pilot rides his buff to the ground and in the mean time the drones geek dance all over the sky.
The way collisions are modelled is the only reasonable way to do it given lag. Lag will never go away even with fiber optics.
Its quite simple if you die in a collisions its because you collided. You control your plane. What the other guy sees is that he did not collide.
If you search these collision posts you will see HT has been consistant in that that the way it is now is the way it will remain because there is no better way.
-
About the lag issue...
The latest EA F1 game in the netcode has a system where, if a player's connection goes bad collisions with the player are disabled. The host can set the lag threshhold at which point the collisions are disabled.
Perhaps if something like this could be coded in such a way as it isn't exploitable...
SKurj
-
about month ago i was fighting spit vs ponyD /me and wilbuz/
he dive in to me and pass about 300 yards over, i heard nothing and wilbuz plane wings and engine blow up. He say we colide
both ping about 150.
Smetimes i can pass thrue enemy. He die im not and sometimes reverse.
Its happend
a) unknow reason
b) lost packets on one or both sides
ramzey
-
Originally posted by Tilt
On his FE he did not fly into you........he quite safely flew past you...... you on the other hand flew into him or allowed him (on your FE) to fly into you.
I didn't allow anything. Take the scenario that happened to me last week.
I'm in on the lead lanc in a formation. I crumple his wing, he goes down. I throttle back and cut low and left to come up under the next one, only nothing is there. I assume someone got it, since I don't see it behind or above me. As I bank right to get that one, the "missing" lanc warps from far below, to right on top of me. I blow up, he flies on.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I didn't allow anything.
I assume someone got it, since I don't see it behind or above me.
The warp was unfortunate but you entered into an area where any pilots risks.............risked collision. (the middle of a box)
Every time we assume we take a risk.
-
Originally posted by Tilt
The warp was unfortunate but you entered into an area where any pilots risks.............risked collision. (the middle of a box)
Every time we assume we take a risk.
Now you are just being ignorant to prove your point. Jolly good show, though.
-
Originally posted by Tilt
The warp was unfortunate but you entered into an area where any pilots risks.............risked collision. (the middle of a box)
Every time we assume we take a risk.
Cool, if this is all there is, this game can be made much easier.
If you go on the runway you enter a risk. Let's simulate that by rolling a 100 sided dice. If you roll 1 to 10 that's the number of kills you land with, roll 1-50 you land safely, roll 51-70 you bail, 71 to 100 you die. Not even anything involved.
It's the same with players or drones that warp (or almost warp) into you. Just a matter of luck.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Now you are just being ignorant to prove your point. Jolly good show, though.
ignorant rarely, wrong quite often, right sometimes, arrogant and opinionated......... always:) I am full of faults
ccvi missed the point....... did he assume also? ( I do quite often)
-
Just my $.02 on this.
I argued the collision angle from a realist position. In the real world, anytime there is a collision between planes there is shared impact damage. The extent is immaterial, they both suffer some damage. In AH that will not happen. Hitech has spoken and stated he will NOT change the collision model. He does not want to have players deliberately ramming, not that other forms of suicide attack aren't allowed. :rolleyes:
I felt that a collision should be modeled as in the real world. You have one, both planes suffer damage, period. Lag does have an impact but it still seems to maintain a fairly GOOD ratio of shooter vs shootee results. Collisions should be held the same way. Right now the collisions are one sided and some have been able to figure a way to work them to thier advantage.
You pays yer money and you plays the game. If this issue is your only squeak, then I'd say your money is still well spent irregardless of the lack of real world accuracy.
-
Mav: You are correct in the real world when TWO planes collide they both take damage, and in AH they do also, The hole point is that in AH 2 planes don't collide only 1 does. So soon as you tell me a real world situation where only 1 plane can collide , ill consider your real world argurment.
I Realy hate selective realism.
HiTech
-
In the real world the other plane usually wouldn't willingly do something that caused a collisions. Here it can, without risk.
You can't kill both, but you can disable collisions when an unavoidable situation is enforced by one that kills the other.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Mav: You are correct in the real world when TWO planes collide they both take damage, and in AH they do also, The hole point is that in AH 2 planes don't collide only 1 does. So soon as you tell me a real world situation where only 1 plane can collide , ill consider your real world argurment.
I Realy hate selective realism.
HiTech
but arent u using selective realism?
as it is now, i can shoot the enemy where i see it and hit and do damage. but yet i cant fly into the same enemy plane and do damage to it. so u selectively choosing it is where i see it like RL
realism then suddenly its not the next incident.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Or, since its still being brought up, perhaps it's time to fix it.
It aint broke. And you know the old saying...if it aint broke, dont fix it.
HTC has stated numerous times on numerous occasions how collisions work and why they work that way. If you cant take the effort to change the way you fly and start avoiding running into other people, then thats your fault....not HTC's.
-
Originally posted by sling322
It aint broke. And you know the old saying...if it aint broke, dont fix it.
HTC has stated numerous times on numerous occasions how collisions work and why they work that way. If you cant take the effort to change the way you fly and start avoiding running into other people, then thats your fault....not HTC's.
Yeah, that's it. It's all my fault I get warped into.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Yeah, that's it. It's all my fault I get warped into.
No, I don't think it is. I think that is simply one of the inconveniences that we have to accept given that we are playing a game over the internet with players from all over the world.
Sometimes it bites you.
Deal with it and move on.
-
Originally posted by whels
but arent u using selective realism?
Yes it is. Some kind of maneuvering (or even warping) can happen in the game because of lag that would not happen irl, where both see the same. This can result in crashs.
There are two options:
a) Weight the crash detection by two planes at the same place higher than anything else. Let someone crash, completely ignoring whether unrealistic lag was cause of the crash or not.
b) In case of a detected crash coupled with a movement that would not have happened IRL, ignore the crash. The unreal case here isn't the non-real movment, just the ability to fly through others in very limited boundary conditions.
Using a) ignores all effects of lag and shows that visual correctness is prefered over limitation to real aircraft movements. It's unreal in both ways. Using b) just accepts the fact that lag creates the lag of realness.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
No, I don't think it is. I think that is simply one of the inconveniences that we have to accept given that we are playing a game over the internet with players from all over the world.
Sometimes it bites you.
Deal with it and move on.
I do deal with it, and move on. But until they change the system, I'll blitch about it also. It's my dime.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I do deal with it, and move on. But until they change the system, I'll blitch about it also. It's my dime.
Which is why we need a "dead horse" forum. I'll even volunteer to decide which threads are moved there. ;)
-
actually i like combat footage and have um 30-40 vhs tapes from diff souces. (great deal now on pbs.com 10 tapes for 5$+ shipping)
collisions?
have tapes of b17,b24,p38s,p51s,flying boats, and other ac including jets with wings, vert stabs, hori stabs, cocpits, noses, engs fell off, missing and landing so why should every collision result in a double death. one tape talks of a Nip pilot ramming a b29 with a k100 and sending it limping off over the ocean and landing his disabled fighter to boot !