Author Topic: Collisions  (Read 10786 times)

Offline VonMessa

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11922
Re: Collisions
« Reply #45 on: April 03, 2012, 03:35:17 PM »
And the choices are reasonable ... However, I think the ongoing frustration caused by collisions modelling is readily apparent? The system in use makes LAG into a WEAPON ... that -IS- employed by experienced players who CHOOSE to exploit the GAMEY aspect of collision modeling. While I agree that the distant player, flying blissfully along and bothering no one should NOT suffer for collisions he's not even aware of ... I'd say 99.9% of all collisions take place between opponents involved in CLOSE COMBAT ... not innocents wondering "whatwasthat?" Closing the loophole that allows RAMMING (and surviving) as a viable (if GAMEY) tactic would make AH a LOT more realistic. BOTH partys going down in the event of a collision would undoubtedly diminish the number of collisions taking place dramatically.
:cool:


Translation:   I still don't understand...

Who broke the interwebz????
Braümeister und Schmutziger Hund von JG11


We are all here because we are not all there.

Offline FLS

  • AH Training Corps
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11603
      • Trainer's Website
Re: Collisions
« Reply #46 on: April 03, 2012, 03:40:29 PM »
I'm not talking about both sides, I'm only speaking in terms of what my FE saw.

I don't run film often, but most of my collisions are of the making a run on a bomber and having an, 'Oh crap, I'm going way too fast and on a direct collision course with his wing!" variety.

Basically my wingtip goes through some part of his plane, and the control surface gets knocked off, but that's it.  I can only envision one scenario where an aileron would get knocked off and the wing wouldn't be damaged, and that's if the wing goes over the bandit and the aileron is the only thing to touch.  I know I've collided with buffs rolled 90 degrees to their attitude and only taken off an aileron.  I just can't see how that would happen other than what I described above.

Wiley.

My previous response was for titanic3.  Sorry that wasn't clear.

Damage modeling is simplified. I assume it's a resource issue. I'm sure it will be improved.

Offline Torquila

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
Re: Collisions
« Reply #47 on: April 03, 2012, 03:57:18 PM »
I must add a note; the brilliance of the current collision implementation is in its insane simplicity and thus ability to cause dis-belief as to the possibilities of its internal workings. So if one overthinks the system and tries to "game" or understand it with brute complexity they usually wont get far.

An example: Back in the *Warbirds* days, simply looking *behind* you alot of the time before the moment of impact, would prevent you suffering from the penalty of it and the other person would usually die as a result.

I can't say AH works the same way, but im sure its a basic extension of the idea that *Only what you see is real* and your FE is always a subjective machine that negotiates with the collective of subjective machines around you to come up with the *truth* of the situation, very much like human beings do.

If AH were to simulate everything server side, there would probably be *too* many collisions and everyone would be really angry, its the relativity of the core design that allows for the general acceptance of its existance. To say, "We all see what we want to see" and it pretty much gives us that due sense of satisfaction.

« Last Edit: April 03, 2012, 05:00:10 PM by Torquila »

Offline EVZ

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 540
Re: Collisions
« Reply #48 on: April 03, 2012, 04:12:32 PM »
When both parties do collide, they both go down.
Yep, and when one party maneuvers his plane so that his delayed "image" on my front end collides ... he kills me and flys on, LHAO ... Got another one without firing a shot. It's not that hard to do and if you know what to look for you can often see em coming and avoid it ... But that's NOT EXACTLY a simulation of WWII air combat ... is it ? It's pure BS ... and when they start congratulating you on avoiding them after the fact it's kind of hard to call it a coincidence ... isn't it ???

The current system gives you absolute control over your collisions. 
At the expense of flying realistic combat encounters ... Am I supposed to enjoy spending my time trying to avoid these "GAMERS" and their whacko misuse of the games inconsistency ... ? This subject KEEPS REAPPEARING because MANY are unsatisfied with the way collisions are modeled. Understanding WHY helps ... But when you truly understand WHY, you also understand - it doesn't have to BE this way ... It isn't unreasonable, but it isn't satisfactory.

Your idea gives control over your collision to the other player.
My idea provides a choice ... Ramming = Suicide ... Nobody flys away to go do it again.
:uhoh

I am my Ideal ! - You may now return to your petty bickering.

Offline EVZ

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 540
Re: Collisions
« Reply #49 on: April 03, 2012, 04:17:58 PM »
By the way, it is not lag that is the issue.  It is time displacement.  The time it takes data to cover the distance between your computer, the server and the other players computer.
I understand that ... and I understand you guys CAN'T DO ANYTHING about it. Read these messages and tell me HOW MANY TIMES you see it being called LAG ... ? I don't really wish to further confuse those trying to understand with technical explanations of terminology.
;)
I am my Ideal ! - You may now return to your petty bickering.

Offline FLS

  • AH Training Corps
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11603
      • Trainer's Website
Re: Collisions
« Reply #50 on: April 03, 2012, 04:24:03 PM »
Torquila I believe that's the first anthropomorphic misunderstanding of the collision model that I've seen.


Offline EVZ

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 540
Re: Collisions
« Reply #51 on: April 03, 2012, 04:42:43 PM »
Translation:   I still don't understand...
Sorry, (but not suprised) that you -Don't Get It-. Stick with backshooting M3s from your jeep.
:neener:
I am my Ideal ! - You may now return to your petty bickering.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23046
Re: Collisions
« Reply #52 on: April 03, 2012, 04:46:17 PM »
EVZ,

It is clear that you don't understand it as you still claim that people ram the other guy intentionally.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline EVZ

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 540
Re: Collisions
« Reply #53 on: April 03, 2012, 04:53:59 PM »
It is clear that you don't understand it as you still claim that people ram the other guy intentionally.

It's clear that you don't understand it. The fact is that THEY DO TRY (success is NOT guaranteed). I've been taught how to do it and have done it myself in practice (successfully) ... I've never used it on an enemy and never will.
:cool:
I am my Ideal ! - You may now return to your petty bickering.

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Re: Collisions
« Reply #54 on: April 03, 2012, 04:59:01 PM »
This subject KEEPS REAPPEARING because MANY are unsatisfied with the way collisions are modeled. Understanding WHY helps ... But when you truly understand WHY, you also understand - it doesn't have to BE this way ... It isn't unreasonable, but it isn't satisfactory.


People keep bringing it up because like you, they cannot seem to grasp how the collision model works.  I really don't know why it's so hard of a concept to understand.

Front end sees collision = Collision
Front end doesn't see collision = No collision

Isn't really that tough to grasp?

ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline Skuzzy

  • Support Member
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31462
      • HiTech Creations Home Page
Re: Collisions
« Reply #55 on: April 03, 2012, 05:03:14 PM »
Yep, and when one party maneuvers his plane so that his delayed "image" on my front end collides ... he kills me and flys on, LHAO ... Got another one without firing a shot. It's not that hard to do and if you know what to look for you can often see em coming and avoid it ... But that's NOT EXACTLY a simulation of WWII air combat ... is it ? It's pure BS ... and when they start congratulating you on avoiding them after the fact it's kind of hard to call it a coincidence ... isn't it ???
At the expense of flying realistic combat encounters ... Am I supposed to enjoy spending my time trying to avoid these "GAMERS" and their whacko misuse of the games inconsistency ... ? This subject KEEPS REAPPEARING because MANY are unsatisfied with the way collisions are modeled. Understanding WHY helps ... But when you truly understand WHY, you also understand - it doesn't have to BE this way ... It isn't unreasonable, but it isn't satisfactory.
My idea provides a choice ... Ramming = Suicide ... Nobody flys away to go do it again.
:uhoh

There is nothing inconsistent in the collision modeling.  No one can kill you and fly on, via a collision.  They fly on because they avoided the collision, and you did not.

If your computer detects an intersection with another object, your computer assigns damage to your plane.  It is that simple.

Are you supposed to avoid a collision?  Well, yes.

So I understand it.  You are suggesting your plane takes damage when someone else does not take time to avoid the collision, but you did.  Is that right?
Roy "Skuzzy" Neese
support@hitechcreations.com

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23046
Re: Collisions
« Reply #56 on: April 03, 2012, 05:06:13 PM »
It's clear that you don't understand it. The fact is that THEY DO TRY (success is NOT guaranteed). I've been taught how to do it and have done it myself in practice (successfully) ... I've never used it on an enemy and never will.
:cool:
If somebody is doing something so stupid as to try to ram your aircraft with the ghost of their aircraft, shoot them down, they are handing you the victory.  It is vastly easier to just shoot you down than it is to play footsy with their ghost, hoping they don't hand you a perfect gunnery solution while doing so.  The fact that you think otherwise is mind boggling.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Chalenge

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15179
Re: Collisions
« Reply #57 on: April 03, 2012, 05:17:48 PM »
Nine times out of ten what confuses people is when the hits are heard at the same time the other fellow collides with them and they get the message that the other fellow collided. Then they think the damage they received is due to the collision ignoring the possibility that they were instead shot. Every one of the problems related to that are caused by Internet lag.
If you like the Sick Puppy Custom Sound Pack the please consider contributing for future updates by sending a months dues to Hitech Creations for account "Chalenge." Every little bit helps.

Offline EVZ

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 540
Re: Collisions
« Reply #58 on: April 03, 2012, 05:27:44 PM »
So I understand it. You are suggesting your plane takes damage when someone else does not take time to avoid the collision, but you did. Is that right?

Then what are you suggesting?
« Last Edit: April 04, 2012, 06:20:51 AM by Skuzzy »
I am my Ideal ! - You may now return to your petty bickering.

Offline FLS

  • AH Training Corps
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11603
      • Trainer's Website
Re: Collisions
« Reply #59 on: April 03, 2012, 05:59:11 PM »
Sure they can ... they need only fly thru the spot where I will be when the data reaches my front end ... we collide ... I die, but THEY have already moved past the collision point on THEIR front end and they fly on untouched. It's an intuitive process, and not guaranteed, but can be around 70% effective.


Coincidentally, making stuff up is also around 70% effective.