Collision: how is / should this scenario be scored?

[The Fugitive]

Did you look at the picture in Monks post?

The issue here is due to the internet there is lag. What you see on your screen can be more than a second ahead or behind what the guy on the other end sees. Thats what Hitech means about not occupying the same SPACE at the same TIME. In the picture Monk posted is the TWO films of the TWO planes taken at the SAME TIME. From one players point of view (The P47's) the 51 comes in and lazily slows to a spot 100 yards behind him and then starts smoking and dives away. From the others point of view (The P51's) the 51 tries to slow for a shot right off the P47s tail but mis-judges it and hits the tail of the P47, starts smoking and dives away.

This is what lag does in on-line gaming. It creates odd happenings like this. So in this senario only one guy would get the "you have collided" message, and that would be the only guy to take damage, seeing as the P47 never saw the guy get close enough to hit him he would fly away with out damage.

If on the other hand if both guys SEE a hit on both of their computers (both receive the "you have collided"message as well as the "xxx has collided with you" message) then BOTH WILL receive damage.

[SlapShot]

but i do believe that if you have two aircraft that goo head to head and collide and both go down or blow up.

You just don't get it ... if your front end sees a direct head on collision and your opponent's front end sees a direct head on collision, you will both die a horrible death according to the collision code.

[Ghosth]

What your not accepting bullethead is that AH is not the real world.

Because of differences in lag, what you see is not what he sees.

For a quick real time illistration, next time your flying fairly close to someone, inside 1k.
Ask him how far away you are from him, and at the exact same moment look at how far away you are on Your end.

You'll find that the 2 numbers are almost never the same.
And you'll also find that they vary from day to day.

Example
Day 1, Ghosth looks at Teeerex flying 350 off his right wing, "Hey Teee, how far away am I on your end?"
Teee comes back, Ghost-mon I have you at 475 bro, ya-ya"

Day 2 same scenario, Tee's at 350 off my wing.
Brother Teee, how far away am I today?
Brother Ghosth I am 725 out and closing, lets go get em.

Take that into a collision situation and one pilot doesn't evade in time, so he "see's" the collision, his Aces High Front end detects that 2 aircraft occupied the same space, does damage to your aircraft accordingly. The other guy on his Front end saw a close pass, but avoided the collision. So no damage.

What your asking for is for the guy that avoided the collision, who did not run into the other aircraft, to take the damage as if he had.

Because we are limited to an internet that is not Faster than Light, (FTL) we will always have to deal with a certain amount of lag. What we see is never going to exactly match what the other guy sees.

Read the article on Lag on the trainers side, and keep reading it until you understand why the collision model is the way it has to be.

[NCLawman]

Nope but with his brain and knowledge of airframes its a case if he doesn't know it it ain't worth knowing about
He knows far more than me bud cripe's he was working on meteor's to start with

I have no doubt that he is both skilled and knowledgeable in such matters -- As is HiTech (and crew).  They have the game coded to inflict damage (often catastrophic) to both planes, parts, and airframes in a collision.  while they may or may not be Structural Engineers, the game is coded with enough realism to reflect reasonable damage in such collisions -- sometimes that means a plane limps home, sometimes it falls from the sky.  

What you are failing to grasp here is the space-time continuum.  In the real world we all occupy ONE space-time continuum.  Therefore, if you are driving on the highway and see yourself crash, I assure you, so did the person or object you hit.  AH is not one single Space-time continuum.  It is in fact, hundreds of space-time continuums.  Each player's computer is his/her own space-time.  Each player plays his own game as if it were AI.  The data from each computer is then sent to the server, processed, and sent back to the respective computers.  Then your computer interprets and processes that data and attempts to decide where and when each plane/object is relative to YOUR space-time (at the same time his computer is trying to put your position on his computer relative to HIS space-time).  

So, having that in mind, if YOUR computer recognizes the data that you have struck an object in YOUR space-time, the programming of AH (on your 'puter) has to interpret the damage and inflict appropriate injury.  HIS computer may or may not plot his position relative to yours in HIS space-time.  If it DID, then he also would get a damage message and AH programming on his 'puter would interpret the severity of the collision and inflict appropriate injury.  If it DID NOT recognize a collision in HIS space-time then he flies off while you stumble to the ground.

So, in response to your point, I am sure your father is highly intelligent and I mean no disrespect.  But his knowledge is NOT relevant to the collision model.  His knowledge is VERY relevant to 'real life' collisions.  AH is NOT real life.  At this point, I think Einstein's theories in space-time is more appropriately applied.

<SALUTE>

[BulletVI]

OK so a few of you think i don't understand the lag issue well i do as in an earlier post you shall see that i commented on the fact that me and a fellow squaddie tested this out and the result was around a 5 second difference on our screen's. But what I'm saying is that lag has a tendencies that if 2 player's collide some times one can fly off as if nothing has happened or he has gone down and i have only engine damage say. now if it was a head on collision we should be both dead no matter what lag dictates. But in the case of a few collisions that has happened to me in the past if a wing has hit my engine. shouldn't i also have prop damage to ???? you know like one blade gets chopped of in the collision forcing me to bail out !"!!!!!!!! Then there is the impact it self which can most likely jam the canopy thus it cant open so you are left with having to sit there and go down with your ship.

[NCLawman]

OK so a few of you think i don't understand the lag issue well i do ....  now if it was a head on collision we should be both dead no matter what lag dictates.

Once again, you are failing to grasp.....  How do YOU know HIS computer 'saw' a head-on collision?  His space-time is different than yours.  While you 'saw' a head-on smash up, he may very have 'seen' a pull up at the last second and clipped your canopy with his gear, or he may have 'seen' no collision at all.  Unless you have both films and the ability to synchronize both times, you cannot know where he actually was relative to your computer's interpretation.

[BulletVI]

Yes but i am all so calling for a wider range of damage to happen after a collision.
Let me give an example here.

Ok you go head to head with your opponent right. Now you both shoot at say 300 yards you both do no real damage from that so 1 dive's and the other pulls up ok. Now here is the clincher right Now in doing this you now have a collided message come up saying you or such an such has collided right. But you both have no real damage from it  right you bath can carry on ok But maybe you both shouldn't be able to as the parts or your plane that collided are your prop's. Now if they collided what happens to them ( Remember a spinning prop at idle speed can make mince meat of a human being )

Your props should now have fatal damage ie they are in bits now.

That is what i want to see as then really if both planes do collide the one part that shall always get damaged would be the propeller. Even for a head on collision who care's if i blow up but the other player can fly off with a damaged engine but no prop damage. i mean come on if my wing hit his spinner cone first the prop would make Swiss cheese of my wing tip and his prop would also have  grave damage to it thus rendering his plane an overgrown glider  


So that's me way of thinking

Im sorry if i have up set anyone but this is my felling on the matter and that is what the forums are allso for the expresion of your concern's and thoughts on certain matters.
     And have a good day to you all 

[NCLawman]

Yes but i am all so calling for a wider range of damage to happen after a collision.
So that's me way of thinking

Okay... I will concede the point that props could/should take damage when the prop is involved in a collision.  I don't think that I have ever noticed that the prop is damageable on the "CTRL-D" function.  To that extent, I grant that you that point.

However you will still be in the same boat.... your computer and his/hers would still have to interpret data in the same way in different space-times.  You still have no way of knowing what part of the other players plane actually impacted with yours.  Merely adding the prop as a damageable part does not resolve the debate. 

However, if all you wanted was a damageable prop, you should simply ask HiTech for a damageable prop.  Then the rest of this discussion would not have been necessary.

[LLv34_Snefens]

if both planes do collide the one part that shall always get damaged would be the propeller.

Even if we were talking real life here, you can't think of any type of head-on collision where the prop wasn't involved?

[The Fugitive]

OK I get it now. Instead of this being a collision issue discussion, it is really now a discussion on a "wish list" item of adding more graphical details as well as enlarging the "damage list".

Right?

[maus92]

I was in a collision with a F4U while flying in a Spit8.  He dove down on me, and his wing chopped my wing off at the root, and his wing was taken off at about mid wing.  I had to bail, and he flew off.  In this scenario, I thought that was was a fair outcome: both planes suffered even though the other guy clearly ran into me.

My issue with collisions is not with the technical aspects of how they work, it's the fairness of the outcome. Is it fair if only one plane detects the collision, it is damaged and the other plane gets a pass?  Conversely, is it fair for your plane to be damaged for no apparent reason from your viewpoint, although it actually collided with another from that planes perspective?  Is there any reasonable way to solve this inequity, or does everybody think that the way it works now needs no improvement?

[Lusche]

Is it fair if only one plane detects the collision, it is damaged and the other plane gets a pass?  Conversely, is it fair for your plane to be damaged for no apparent reason from your viewpoint, although it actually collided with another from that planes perspective?  Is there any reasonable way to solve this inequity, or does everybody think that the way it works now needs no improvement?

The thing that does need improvement is the speed / latency of the internet.
Because THAT is the thing that causes all the discrepancies. The collision model we do have now is the best possible solution for the "two realities" dilemma. It's the fairest approach: what you see is what you get. In some way it's a compromise, but the best there is.

There are in fact only 3 basic ways the game could handle collisions: "What you see is what you get" (what we have now), "both take damage", or shutting collisions off completely. Unfortunately, both latter versions create MUCH more problems for gameplay than they are solving.

[WMLute]

or does everybody think that the way it works now needs no improvement?

Until the internet gets much, much, MUCH faster you will lag in this game.

If you have both pilots film a 1 on 1 fight you will notice, upon watching both, they look slightly different.

Both parties don't "see" the same fight because of the time it takes to go from their computer, to the server, and back again.

It can be subtle, or huge depending on both players connection.

Because of this what you saw as a collision the other player could have seen as a near (or far) miss.

One player collided on their Front End and the other managed to avoid the collision on their Front End.

The way it is now is the best it could be given the internet connections.

The guy who collides takes damage, and the guy who avoids the collision does not take damage.  (they didn't collide)

I don't see how anybody has an issues with how it is currently.

Don't hit them.

It's that easy.

[BulletVI]

Okay... I will concede the point that props could/should take damage when the prop is involved in a collision.  I don't think that I have ever noticed that the prop is damageable on the "CTRL-D" function.  To that extent, I grant that you that point.

However you will still be in the same boat.... your computer and his/hers would still have to interpret data in the same way in different space-times.  You still have no way of knowing what part of the other players plane actually impacted with yours.  Merely adding the prop as a damageable part does not resolve the debate. 

However, if all you wanted was a damageable prop, you should simply ask HiTech for a damageable prop.  Then the rest of this discussion would not have been necessary.

Yes i do know of and understand the time and space relevance you are talking about but really if its a game who cre's that when you coolide you both blow up. Because its a game we can start again not like in real life

[WMLute]

Yes i do know of and understand the time and space relevance you are talking about but really if its a game who cre's that when you coolide you both blow up. Because its a game we can start again not like in real life

What you are not understanding is both didn't collide.

You are asking to give both planes damage when only one collided and one missed.

You would have planes flying 500' away from you knocking you from the skies because THEY 'saw' a collision.