The collision model SUCKS I hate it.

[Donzo]

Then I never hit them...  it takes two objects to have a collision. repeat: it takes two objects to have a collision.

One object collided with a representation of the other object...not the object itself...think of it as a duplicate plane being towed behind the other players plane.  You see the plane being towed and that is what you hit.

[Steve]

One object collided with a representation of the other object...not the object itself...think of it as a duplicate plane being towed behind the other players plane.  You see the plane being towed and that is what you hit.

 

[Lusche]

The 51's FE then querys the 47's FE and asks what distance it sees. If the 47 doesn't see the 51 intruding at least half way into it's latency bubble, in this case 10 feet, no collision takes place. If the 47 sees the 51 more than half way into its latency bubble a collision occurs. I think that if one plane takes damage from a collision, the  other plane must as well. That's it.  I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm just giving my opinion.  If that makes me a whiner, so be it.

Ok.
That means we have two possible outcomes in this event depending on how big the "latency bubbles" are supposed to be.

I tried to make two very quick illustrations. No complains about quality are allowed



Obviously the requirements for a collsions would not be met. The Pony would continue to fly unharmed despite having flyown right into the P47's tail



That would mean I could fly guns blazing through my enemies. Particulary helpful when attacking buffs


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now with larger "latency bubbles"



The collision requirement is met. Your P47 takes damage from a ram that never happened on your side!
For no obvious reason? Can you imagine the storm of complains? Would you really like to go down that way? How would explain other victims whey they took damage from a collision that never happened on their side?

[Lusche]

This was exact my expression when i heard that the first time. Until I understood the "different realites".. then it suddenly went "ahhhhh    "

 

If it's of any help: Here you can download both player's films from which my screenshots are. See the differences in whats happening on both screens!

http://www.mediafire.com/?vgxoiygthky

[2bighorn]

Until I understood the "different realites"..

Parallel universe slightly offset in time and space...

[Steve]

Ok.
That means we have two possible outcomes in this event depending on how big the "latency bubbles" are supposed to be.

I tried to make two very quick illustrations. No complains about quality are allowed

(Image removed from quote.)

Obviously the requirements for a collsions would not be met. The Pony would continue to fly unharmed despite having flyown right into the P47's tail

(Image removed from quote.)

That would mean I could fly guns blazing through my enemies. Particulary helpful when attacking buffs


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now with larger "latency bubbles"

(Image removed from quote.)

The collision requirement is met. Your P47 takes damage from a ram that never happened on your side!
For no obvious reason? Can you imagine the storm of complains? Would you really like to go down that way? How would explain other victims whey they took damage from a collision that never happened on their side?

Sometimes collsions happen and you die thru no fault of your own now.  I've been scissored into(haven't we all?), the guy turn into me.. so not my fault...  I don't see how  there would be anymore complaining than there already is.

The latency bubble requirement would only be fulfilled if one FE registered an actual collision.

[Steve]

This was exact my expression when i heard that the first time. Until I understood the "different realites"..

I understand the collsion model as it works in its' current incarnation, with the differing perspectives of the FE's.. I get it.  I just do not agree with how collisions are handled. By definition, it takes two or more objects to collide. If there is a collision, both objects must be affected.

As it stands, we are basically ignoring newton's third law.

[Lusche]

Sometimes collsions happen and you die thru no fault of your own now.  I've been scissored into, the guy turn into me.. so not my fault...  I don't see how  there would be anymore complaining.

Yes. But now the collsion has to take place on your FE. That makes it easier to understand why you are taking damage.
But more important: You do have a chance to dodge. If you manage to turn away from the incoming rammer, you don't get hit!
If we would implement the hit bubbles you could dodge your enemy, make him pass you at 50y distance.. and still get a "collision". That's defenitely less fair.

And rammers would have a far better chance to actually hurt you:

Current CM: If I would try to ram you, I would have to cause a collision on your FE. The problem is just that I don't know what's happening on your screen. A deliberate ram is possible but very tricky
Latency Bubble CM: It's sufficient when I just ram you an my FE. It doesn't matter if you successfully dodged - the rammers FE decides about YOUR damage.
If the hit bubble wasn't big enough, thus resulting in no collision my ram attempt would have no detrimental effect on me, despite flyin through your plane on my FE. Try again Lusche!

As it stands, we are basically ignoring newton's third law.

Newtons third law is fine for a world with only 1 reality

[Steve]

Yes. But now the collsion has to take place on your FE. That makes it easier to understand why you are taking damage.
But more important: You do have a chance to dodge. If you manage to turn away from the incoming rammer, you don't get hit!
If we would implement the hit bubbles you could dodge your enemy, make him pass you at 50y distance.. and still get a "collision". That's defenitely less fair.

 I recognize your points.  I am still of the opinion that if one plane gets damaged, they both do.  It doesn't seem logical to me otherwise.

[dkff49]

not going to get real big into this conversation here because it has been hashed out countless times but........


The only alternative to the collision model we have now is to hand out collisions to people that never happened on their end. In other words person A and person B are in a fight. Person A's computer sees a collision he gets damage and his computer says the collision happened, now Person B's computer saw no collision therefore he never had a chance to avoid it, but since Person A had damage then Person B should receive damage too? That definitely does not sounds fair and I would have big issues with that.

Latency bubble or not why should I be punished for not avoiding a collision that was not going to happen on my computer?

[Lusche]

This is not adding anything new to this topic, but as you can't watch both .ahf films I posted above (http://www.mediafire.com/?vgxoiygthky 130k ZIP)
at the same time, I just made a quick WMV movie where I mixed both films into one by tricky editing 

http://www.mediafire.com/?doynhxrgljy 3MB only

[2bighorn]

The only alternative to the collision model we have now is to hand out collisions to people that never happened on their end.

It is not the only alternative. No collisions at all is also alternative...

PS
I'm not saying which way is better

[dkff49]

It is not the only alternative. No collisions at all is also alternative...

PS
I'm not saying which way is better

Ok you got me there. That was my bad. But I think most of us don't want that either. I know I don't.

By the way nice job with the movie Lusche.

[Donzo]

This is not adding anything new to this topic, but as you can't watch both .ahf films I posted above (http://www.mediafire.com/?vgxoiygthky 130k ZIP)
at the same time, I just made a quick WMV movie where I mixed both films into one by tricky editing 

http://www.mediafire.com/?doynhxrgljy 3MB only

Lusche, excellent job with the "tricky editing"!   


That film needs to be stickied and posted on the help page.

Great work!

[Xasthur]

get a wingman on vox fly right alongside him and then ask him how far he sees you away.

I've been parked on his wing for him to say im at 50-60.

Therein lies your answer  even playing from the same country when you throw in japanese, australian players there will be an even bigger gap.

I agree it is annoying as hell when they fly off undamaged.

I must say that I notice quite a few people getting a collision message on me and going down when they was no contact on my end. They were close to me but there was still no contact on my screen.

It has actually worked in my favour quite a few times. It's not something you can really plan, it just happens sometimes.


Now, with regards to the subject topic....The fact of the matter is that if you collide with an object on your screen, you take damage. Deal with it. Do you think collisions always resulted in BOTH aircraft going down? They didn't. Do you think that if it's not your fault that a collision happens on your end that you shouldn't go down? You should, watermelon happens. HTC has come up with a very functional system.

Basically, it's just this simple:

If you don't want collision damage don't fly close to enemy aircraft. If you chose to get in close you run the risk of taking damage.

I go down to collisions all the time because I like to get in very close. More often than not the other guy takes either little or no damage at all. Sometimes we both go down in smoking heaps. No complaints here.