Author Topic: Collision Damage Modelling  (Read 469 times)

Leopard

  • Guest
Collision Damage Modelling
« on: March 28, 2001, 08:09:00 PM »
Okay, I'm sure it has been discussed before but indulge me...

How does the collision damage model decide who gets damaged in a collision?  EVERY time I collide with someone, I go down in flames and they fly on undamaged.

I am sure that it has something to do with net lag (my conn can be poor at times) but this happens every time.  It even occurs when someone turns into me and initiates the collision.

Why is this so?

Offline Fatty

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3885
      • http://www.fatdrunkbastards.com
Collision Damage Modelling
« Reply #1 on: March 28, 2001, 08:54:00 PM »
It's FE dependent.  Whenever you hit someone on your FE, you are damaged, but if latencies have you colliding on his FE but not yours, you are not damaged.

Leopard

  • Guest
Collision Damage Modelling
« Reply #2 on: March 29, 2001, 06:41:00 AM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Fatty:
It's FE dependent.  Whenever you hit someone on your FE, you are damaged, but if latencies have you colliding on his FE but not yours, you are not damaged.

In other words, if my conn is slower than his  I always get the short straw...  Oh well, ce la vie (or however you spell it).

Offline SKurj

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3630
Collision Damage Modelling
« Reply #3 on: March 29, 2001, 08:53:00 AM »
no Leopard, if u see a collision u go down.  If he sees a collision u both go down.  Sometimes he may appear to miss you but go down.
Generally if u see him hit you down you go. Whether he does or not.  I don't really know if connect speed has much to do with this or not.

SKurj

Offline Fatty

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3885
      • http://www.fatdrunkbastards.com
Collision Damage Modelling
« Reply #4 on: March 29, 2001, 06:44:00 PM »
Right.  If you run into a plane then your plane is damaged.  If you do not your plane is not.  The other flyer has no control over whether you do or not (except intentional ramming, which this actually cuts down on).

I've heard this called unfair many times, but I have yet to comprehend why (except under the pretense of "Why should I die just because I screwed up?").

Leopard

  • Guest
Collision Damage Modelling
« Reply #5 on: March 29, 2001, 08:15:00 PM »
Okay, info digested.  Let me see if I get this straight:

I'm dogfighting a bad guy.  We're turning in a scissors.  During one merge we collide.  Now, due to net lag, he sees me go past ok but I see a collision because of my slow conn giving me lag.  I go down in flames because I see a collision and he flies merrily on his way with a kill and an undamaged aircraft.

Basically, it seems as if collisions do not result in damage packets being sent to the other players FE...  Is this the case?  If so, this severely disadvantages the player with the slower connection as he is the one who is most likely to see a lagged move resulting in a collision.

It would be greatly appreciated if HTC or someone else in the know could clarify whether damage packets are sent out as the result of a collision.

Thanks again for help guys.

Leopard

Offline SKurj

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3630
Collision Damage Modelling
« Reply #6 on: March 29, 2001, 11:46:00 PM »
I don't think damage packets are sent.  Its only calculated on your pc.  I can see this going both ways I might add.  The guys with the faster connection won't see your move til after you've done it.  For example you on dial up, vs me, headon on cable.  I fly straight and level, at last second u nose down and miss, the delay for the signa to reach my pc, may mean I hit you, while you fly on unscratched.

Personally i think its the faster conn at a disadvantage in a collision situation.

Had a strange one today, I think I was in spitV at the time, and Nath (i think) in a typhoon flew right through each other, and neither one of us took damage.

If damage packets were sent, then ramming could become a problem, seen it before.  I like this current model overall, it seems a good compromise, tho I think weapons are too effective headon.  No glancing shots etc..

If you hit someone on your fe you go down.  It really gives noone an advantage, if you collide, u screwed up plain and simple.
More often than not both guys do go down in a collision, at least headon anyways.


SKurj

[This message has been edited by SKurj (edited 03-29-2001).]

Offline Lephturn

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1200
      • http://lephturn.webhop.net
Collision Damage Modelling
« Reply #7 on: March 30, 2001, 07:08:00 AM »
You connection speed makes no difference in terms of the collision itself.

When you say, "we collided" you have to understand that this never happens.  Let me explain...

First, you need to understand the lag factor.  Simply put, the total lag is the latency between both players and the server added together.  It doesn't really matter who's connect is responsible for a higher % of the latency, the difference in time between what you see and what he see's will be the total latency between player 1, the server, and player 2.  Now, lets say that latency is about 1/2 a second.  This means that whenever one guy does something, the other guy doesn't see it for 1/2 a second.

The result is, that there is only one way to collide, and that is to hit the image of the other guy's plane.  Now because your two worlds are out of synch by 1/2 a second or so, the other fellow may have avoided you, but you didn't see him pull off because of the lag, so you hit him.  You take damage.  There is no "we" in the collision, only your own FE.  It only looks like you collide "with each other" if you both screw up and you both hit the image of the other guy.

Now, there is a time when lag can make a difference.  Lets say this was a head-on attack, and you both barrel in and slam into each other.  When your FE detects the collision, it informs the host, and now the host sends the damage packets to your FE, and the results to the other guy.  I suppose it is possible that if your connect is faster, you get your damage packets faster.  If you are tracked as being "dead" first, the other guy gets a kill of you before he bites it.  In this way, having a faster connection could possibly be a disadvantage if you are engaged in a joust where you both die.  This only is going to happen if you go around slamming into people anyway... which I don't normally reccomend.  

You know, I almost never test these things because I just don't collide with guys.  It is extremely rare for me to even be shot in a head-on attack, let alone actually collide with someone.  The reason is, I almost never fire in a head-on situation.  Tactically it is almost always a bad move to fire at the other guy in a nose to nose merge.  If you are colliding with the enemy on a regular basis, I gaurantee it is because you are trying to shoot him.  This happens because in order to shoot him, you have to aim your plane right where he is going.  Firing at him as you merge will fly you right into him every time.  If you handle HO merges by avoiding them and working for position instead, you will not collide and you will win a more fights.

I wrote an article on my sight about this as well, here:  http://users.eastlink.ca/~sconrad/hodefense.htm

------------------
Sean "Lephturn" Conrad - Aces High Chief Trainer

A proud member of the mighty Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com

Check out Lephturn's Aerodrome for AH articles and training info!

[This message has been edited by Lephturn (edited 03-30-2001).]

Leopard

  • Guest
Collision Damage Modelling
« Reply #8 on: March 31, 2001, 04:12:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Lephturn:
The result is, that there is only one way to collide, and that is to hit the image of the other guy's plane.  Now because your two worlds are out of synch by 1/2 a second or so, the other fellow may have avoided you, but you didn't see him pull off because of the lag, so you hit him.  You take damage.  There is no "we" in the collision, only your own FE.

This is my point exactly.  If he does a move and it flies him into me because I cant get out of the way in time he doesnt suffer but I go down.  I agree that I should be trying to get out of the way but sometimes you can't maneuver clear in time.  This means it's not a level playing field if my FE detects it but his doesn't.

Technically, your plane should act as a "weapon hit" in this situation.  If you can shoot him when lag is a factor, you should be able to damage him with your collision too.  I mean, why should you have a rubber plane if your bullets can damage him.  IMO the current method of FE only damage is still a disadvantage to the player whose connect is slower.  (This may be factually incorrect but it's just an opinion and I guess it'll stay as it is anyway)

If you are colliding with the enemy on a regular basis, I gaurantee it is because you are trying to shoot him.

Not a regular thing but it has happened to me a few of times and it occurred to me to post the thread above.  I avoid HO's whenever possible for the reasons you stated.

Thanks for your replies guys  (Image removed from quote.)

Offline Lephturn

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1200
      • http://lephturn.webhop.net
Collision Damage Modelling
« Reply #9 on: March 31, 2001, 05:30:00 PM »
That can't work either Leopard.  If it could, I could "ram" you and damage your plane and you would have no chance to avoid it.  That's not a workable solution.

He can't "do a move" without you seeing it and having a chance to avoid.  You see everything he does, just a bit later than he does it.  You have every reasonable chance to avoid the other guy's plane.  It's not reasonable to punish the other fellow because you crashed into him when he avoided you on his FE.

------------------
Sean "Lephturn" Conrad - Aces High Chief Trainer

A proud member of the mighty Flying Pigs
http://www.flyingpigs.com

Check out Lephturn's Aerodrome for AH articles and training info!

wlfsbane

  • Guest
Collision Damage Modelling
« Reply #10 on: April 01, 2001, 07:23:00 PM »
Originally posted by Lephturn:
That can't work either Leopard.  If it could, I could "ram" you and damage your plane and you would have no chance to avoid it.  That's not a workable solution.

Ahh yes, but we can already shoot someone after his FE says he is out of the way, how would a lag affected collision be any different?

He can't "do a move" without you seeing it and having a chance to avoid.  You see everything he does, just a bit later than he does it.  You have every reasonable chance to avoid the other guy's plane.

I agree but sometimes you cannot get out of the way, just like IRL collisions happen by accident.

It's not reasonable to punish the other fellow because you crashed into him when he avoided you on his FE.

As noted above, you can shoot someone when on his FE he is avoiding your fire.  Isn't he being punished for something you see on your FE but not his?  Why are collisions different?

I appreciate the points you are making Lephturn but I think that collisions should be modelled such that damage packets are sent out.  The instances in which a ramming could be deliberately used in which the other person doesnt see it as well would be very few.  Having collision damage sent out would serve to equalise the accidental ramming events IMO.

Don't worry, it isn't something I'm really hung up on, it doesn't happen regularly.  I just wanted to get it clarified and raise a point I thought was valid...  

Offline Lephturn

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1200
      • http://lephturn.webhop.net
Collision Damage Modelling
« Reply #11 on: April 02, 2001, 07:47:00 AM »

You can't compare a collision do a firing pass.  Guns must be fired in certain parameters, they have their own flight time and such.  In addition, weapon attacks are mostly done in very low closure rate situations, the very opposite of a collision situation.  Low closure means a much smaller effect from lag, hence what you see is much closer to what he sees than with a typical head-on approach with high closure.

The bottom line is that if we did it the way you suggest, I could more easily ram you in a head-on than I could shoot you.  That's just not a good situation.

The current compromise is the best one, and really the only valid one.  The HTC crew have been at this for years, and they have tried it all three ways.  This is the only reasonable compromise that works.

------------------
Sean "Lephturn" Conrad - Aces High Chief Trainer

A proud member of the mighty Flying Pigs
http://www.flyingpigs.com

Check out Lephturn's Aerodrome for AH articles and training info!

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Collision Damage Modelling
« Reply #12 on: April 02, 2001, 12:49:00 PM »
Shooting and collisions are two totally different things.

Shooting works as follows:

Bob and John are in a dogfight and after a series of maneuvers, Bob manages to hit the right elevator of John's N1K2 on Bob's FE.  Bob's FE knows that an MG151/20 round will destroy the right elevator of an N1K2, so Bob sees John's right elevator spin away.  Bob's FE informs the server that the damage has occurred and the server then informs John's FE that his right elevator has been hit by an MG151/20 round and destroyed.  John's FE then removes his N1K2-J's right elevator.  This all occurs in the space of 1/4 to 1/2 of a second.
In the 1/4 to 1/2 of a second that John still has his right elevator on his FE, but not on Bob's FE, he continues to maneuver using it, his maneuvers are then sent, via the server, to Bob's FE.  Even though an N1K2 missing its right elevator could not do the maneuvers that John is doing, it continues to maneuver as though it had both elevators until John's FE is informed of the loss of the right elevator, from which point John's N1K2-J follows its new flight model that lacks the right elevator.

It has to work this way because otherwise it would be nigh impossible to hit enemy aircraft.  If the hits had to intersect with the target on the target's FE, the attacker would have to guess where the target was on the target's FE.  If hits had to intersect with the target on both the attacker's FE and the target's FE on direct 6 o'clock and direct 12 o'clock shots would hit.

Collisions work as follows:

John, now missing his right elevator, continues to turn, hoping that his slower moving N1K2-J can still turn inside Bob's fast moving Fw190D-9 as Bob comes in for another attack.  On John's FE he cuts across the path of the onrushing Fw190D-9 with about 100 yards to spare, managing to get through the line of fire without having any more systems destroyed.  On Bob's FE John's move is taking place 1/4 to 1/2 of a second later.  Bob sees John's break turn, slower because of the elevator damage, and dives in for the kill.  Bob presses his attack too aggressively, sees a possible collision and slews his rudder over to try to pass behind John but, unfortunately for Bob, his left wing intersects with the tail of John's N1K2-J, and is ripped off.  Bob tumbles down and bails, leaving a damaged, somewhat puzzled John with the victory.

Collisions have to work this way.  In the example, John correctly estimated that he had room to cut in front of Bob's Fw190D-9.  Bob miscalculated his maneuver and collided with John's N1K2.  John should not be punished when he estimated correctly and Bob estimated incorrectly.  Likewise, Bob should not be rewarded for his mistake by either destroying John in a collision or by passing through John's aircraft unscathed.  Both pilots had a chance to avoid colliding with the other on their own FE, but only John was successful.

If both aircraft were destroyed when a collision occurred people would use this to their advantage.  If it takes the attacker 10 minutes to get to your base and you 30 seconds to takeoff and collide with him you can be back where you were 30 seconds later but it will take your enemy 10 minutes to regain what he lost from you colliding with him in a way he could not avoid.  After all, on his FE you flew across his flight path 300 yards behind him, why should he have dodged?
On the other hand, if there has to be a collision on both FEs in order to for a collision to occur, then people will simply fly straight through their targets,firing all the way (hitting from 10 feet out is easy), without worrying about colliding.  After all,I know that the B-17 I am diving on is, on my target's FE, 150 yards ahead of where it is on my FE.  I know there won't be a collision, but I will definitely nail him with by guns as I fly through the image of his B-17.

------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother

Bring the Spitfire F.MkXIVc to Aces High!!!

Sisu
-Karnak
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Softail

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 327
Collision Damage Modelling
« Reply #13 on: July 17, 2007, 07:52:52 PM »
Bump ;-)   how long has the "Collision" thread been around?

A lonnnngggg loonnnnngggggg time.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Collision Damage Modelling
« Reply #14 on: July 17, 2007, 08:25:58 PM »
You shouldn't bump fosilized threads, although it was interesting reading one of my old (oldest?) descriptions of the collision model and why it had to be that way.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-