Mid-air collision bug?

[Zippatuh]

Very cool.  Something didn't seem right today.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by lucull


 

Hof's article still explanes it pretty good, but if you still demand that both get the penality arguing that it takes two to collide, than it's totally clear that you don't understand the article and the effects of netlag or you are simply ignoring reality.  
However, understanding the effects of netlag makes your demand absolutly senseless.

Note: 1. netlag does not imperativly include  that >= 1 has a high ping.
2. even with yourself and your opponent connected directly to the server, you would still see a difference on both FEs due to the server process time (this diffenrence would be really small, but still a difference).

You really have no idea what I understand. Don't assume that you do. There are several things that one plane can do to FORCE a collision that he will not suffer from. Further, you still have the issue of hitting debris and giving the dead plane credit for a kill. I fully understand net lag, and the fact that it has an effect on collisions and maneuvers. I also understand that the collision model has been goofy and buggy all along, and that the bug made it worse.

[lucull]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
There are several things that one plane can do to FORCE a collision that he will not suffer from.

Please explain that to me, because it contradicts this:

The responsibility of avoiding collisions rests completely on your shoulders, if you want to live. If the other guy wants to live, he is completely responsible for dodging a collision, not you.

Further, you still have the issue of hitting debris and giving the dead plane credit for a kill.

This has been added in Patch 8 primary. I agree, that this is frustrating, but isn't it real? You never flew Il-2 Forgotten Battles, right?

I fully understand net lag, and the fact that it has an effect on collisions and maneuvers. I also understand that the collision model has been goofy and buggy all along, and that the bug made it worse.

So, you still demand that both get damage, if only one collides with the other on his FE?

[dtango]

HT thanks for looking at it!

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[killnu]

if you are talking about "real", then no, one plane can not collide with itself, it takes two.  if you are talking about real in the virtual world... well thats another story.  but i did think that AH2 was all about "realism", so both should go down................

and the bug has been found, yippppeeeee ty HT!!
~S~

[phookat]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Still, one plane can't collide, it takes two.

IRL there is a single reality.  In a distributed game there are many unsynchronized versions of the same database.  The goal of having a collision on one FE strictly imply the same collision on another FE is impossible--the information on the other planes movements simply does not have a chance of arriving.  This is a situation where we cannot simulate reality.  Thus we have to look for other solutions and judge them based on how well they work.

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
One plane won't get away with no damage, and to penalize one plane for lag and not the other is absurd.

Both planes are penalized equally for net lag.  The slower connection is the limiting factor for both planes.

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
That notion is a joke. You cannot collide with empty air space.

And you won't--at least when HTC fixes the bug where the collide bubbles are too big or whatever.  The underlying philosophy is still correct: you only collide if your FE thinks you collided.  Doesn't mean the other guy necessarily collided with you.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Hey, whatever you think. If you think the notion that one plane can collide with nothing, then enjoy the outstanding stupidity of that notion. I lived with it before, I'll live with it now. It does not make it right, it just makes it the current status quo.

If you must rationalize the current collision model by saying "you collided with him because you saw it, but because he didn't see it he didn't collide with you", then you can accept the absurd idea of a one plane collision, just don't expect everyone else to.  That's a lot like the idea that you see a hundred and fifty hit sprites on the plane you are shooting at, but if he doesn't see them, it's okay for him to keep right on flying undamaged. That one is pretty stupid as well.

Oh, and by the way, the incredibly stupid situation where you kill a plane (as in blow it to hundreds of small pieces) from 200-400 out and you are then not only killed by the debris, but the dead pilot gets credit for killing you, and you get no credit for killing him, existed in AH I. That is not at all new, nor is it a function of the current bug. What it is, is a function of the current stupid idea that you can collide with a plane and it kills you but not him. Now, given that it is a function of the collision model, go right ahead and reconcile the fact that a dead pilot and plane not only kills the pilot and plane that killed them, but also gets credit for a victory. Pure Bravo Sierra.

[lucull]

The "reality" in AH is your FE.

As some people don't seam to read the article, here the passage about collision:

Because of net lag and the way the system works, no two FE's see two plane's position in the same place. You can guarantee, unless the other guy is totally still (and so are you) that where he is on his FE is different from where you see him, and vice versa. Thus, if you fly into the other guy so that your FE sees both planes in the same place (collision), the other guys FE might not see this. In fact, the other guy's FE might never see your plane get anywhere near his plane. This is why decisions on collision are made by the FE. If your FE sees a collision, you die. If his FE sees a collision he dies. Your FE seeing a collision does not affect whether the other guy dies and vice versa. *His* FE must see the collision for him to die, and *your * FE must see the collision for you to die. The reason that the system does not kill both if one FE detects the collision is that there is no way to predict what the other guys' FE sees. If it were set up so that both planes were killed if one FE saw a collision, you could die from a collision you never saw. For example, take the classic headon situation. You pull up at range 5, just to be safe. You pull up so hard, you don't come within 200 yards of the other guy from your FE. Remember that 200 yards is two football fields in distance. He barrels right in on his FE into your image (which due to net lag is still headed right to him), without ever jinking. His FE detects a collision. Therefore he dies. With a both-die rule, you would also die, even though you did everything in your power to avoid the collision and didn't come anywhere near his plane on your FE. This is why both planes do not die, as it is simply unfair (and would give dweebs an easy way to ram-kill people, which would make Warbirds no fun to fly *real* quick). The way it is done now (with your FE deciding if you live based on your "perspective" of the world) is a necessary evil of Net Lag, even though in "real life", a collision would most likely destroy both planes.

The responsibility of avoiding collisions rests completely on your shoulders, if you want to live. If the other guy wants to live, he is completely responsible for dodging a collision, not you.

Read, understand and accept it or simply keep on ignoring and whining.
If you would at least understand it, you would realize how senseless your demand of punishing both is.

Note: wreckage and debris collsions are something else, which I'm not talking about.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Exactly how hard is it for you to grasp the simple concept that I understand the position but I DO NOT AGREE WITH IT? It seems that you are the one who lacks the understanding that just because you think something should work the way you want it to, it does not follow that everyone agrees with you. Can you not grasp this concept? Is that reality entirely beyond your ability to understand? Are you really that dense? I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOUR POSITION. Got it? I hope that was plain enough for you to understand.

[phookat]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
If you must rationalize the current collision model by saying "you collided with him because you saw it, but because he didn't see it he didn't collide with you", then you can accept the absurd idea of a one plane collision, just don't expect everyone else to.  That's a lot like the idea that you see a hundred and fifty hit sprites on the plane you are shooting at, but if he doesn't see them, it's okay for him to keep right on flying undamaged. That one is pretty stupid as well.

Actually, it's not the same.  In fact the stupidity you are describing with the hit sprites is exactly the stupidity that you are advocating by not accepting the idea of "each FE collides for itself only."

Given the fact that there is net lag, *all* possible methods of collision (including no collisions at all) lead to a BS situation.  There's nothing you can do to get around that.  If you can figure out a no-BS method, you get a cookie from HTC.  Therefore you have to choose based on fairness and gameplay.

You have four possible choices:

1) No collisions.

2) Only one FE colliding --> both planes collide.

3) Only one FE avoiding --> both planes avoid.

4) Each FE determines collision for itself.

(1) means people have no incentive to avoid a collision. (2) and (3) create a prisoner's dilemma, and the worst outcome prevails.  With (2) you encourage ramming and the guy who avoids is punished.  With (3) you discourage avoidance, and the dweeb who stays on target without avoiding is rewarded.  (4) is uniquely fair.  Each player can see for himself how to avoid, ramming is discouraged, and avoidance is encouraged.  It is the best solution for the conditions we have.

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Oh, and by the way, the incredibly stupid situation where you kill a plane (as in blow it to hundreds of small pieces) from 200-400 out and you are then not only killed by the debris, but the dead pilot gets credit for killing you, and you get no credit for killing him, existed in AH I. That is not at all new, nor is it a function of the current bug.

True.

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
What it is, is a function of the current stupid idea that you can collide with a plane and it kills you but not him.

False.  It is orthogonal.  Options (2) and (3) also create this situation.  The piece of debris is already disconnected, thus your colliding with it cannot possibly effect him no matter what method you use to determine collision.

Furthermore, they can solve this problem by simply not scoring a debris kill as a kill by the guy to whom the debris belongs.  The kill is unscored to anyone, or it is scored to the guy who pinged you before.

[lucull]

That's a lot like the idea that you see a hundred and fifty hit sprites on the plane you are shooting at, but if he doesn't see them, it's okay for him to keep right on flying undamaged. That one is pretty stupid as well.

No, if you turn it around, just like it is handled in AH, it's following exactly the same principle. Hits are only detected on your FE, because only you know where the objects (planes etc.) are in your "reality"/FE. Would you like to be hit from bullets that miss on your opponents FE? You see, if you can imagine yourself to be a bullet, you have the same with collisions.

[Urchin]

Awesome job HT.  By the way.. I kind of like the idea of hitting debris... is it possible to make it so you can be damaged by debris without keeping the 50 foot "ram bubbles"?

[lucull]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Exactly how hard is it for you to grasp the simple concept that I understand the position but I DO NOT AGREE WITH IT? It seems that you are the one who lacks the understanding that just because you think something should work the way you want it to, it does not follow that everyone agrees with you. Can you not grasp this concept? Is that reality entirely beyond your ability to understand? Are you really that dense? I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOUR POSITION. Got it? I hope that was plain enough for you to understand.

Netlag is an unavoidable fact. (I did not invent it. ) Denying facts makes you an ignorant.  Propagating something against better knowledge makes you an ignorant abuser.

Hopefully this thread showed the less ignorant people the stupidity of the "punish-both-in-collision" demand and how fair the AH collision handling is.

[Hyrax81st]

Originally posted by dtango
Hyrax:

The film loop was taken from me in the P-51.  My FE registered the collision.  The frames you see are the closest I got.  The guns are still blazing because it was a high speed pass and the F4U was rolling away pretty quickly.  The F4U didn't lose any parts and was maneuvering for a shot after I lost my parts.412th FS Braunco Mustangs

Reading down the thread, looks like HT found the bug... great job on the film evidence...thanks.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by lucull
Netlag is an unavoidable fact. (I did not invent it. ) Denying facts makes you an ignorant.  Propagating something against better knowledge makes you an ignorant abuser.

Hopefully this thread showed the less ignorant people the stupidity of the "punish-both-in-collision" demand and how fair the AH collision handling is.

No where in this or any other thread did I deny the existence of lag. And it is obvious that you didn't invent it.

Calling people names makes you much less than worth listening to. Continuing to do so shows both your level of intelligence and your level of class.

I'm so very glad you decided to make personal insults. I certainly appreciate your attitude. You have after all shown exactly what type of person you really are. Thanks for exhibiting your true nature. Oh, and the name calling REALLY builds a great base for your argument. Have a nice day.