Collisions

[Lusche]

Collide, both die, no one gets the kill (or they both kill each other). I think that would discourage collisions in general.

It would absolutely not. It would A) reward the "rammer" and B) (and that is the really bad stuff) it would make active avoidance of collisions about impossible.
"Both die" means nothing less that your plane will blow up from a 'collision' that you clearly avoided on your screen. The enemy could pass 30ft from you, yet wou would get "you have collided" and go down from it.

Again I refer to the picture I posted: Imagine you had been the Jug pilot. Should your plane get damaged by the collision you see in that picture? (Note it's really the actual moment of impact. The Pony never gets any closer than that on your screen)

[bustr]

In the real world both parties to an aerial collision would receive some kind of damage. The laws governing physical objects colliding at speed and kinetic energy are in force and don't care about the two parties motivations.

In the game our client controls and communicates seeing your rounds hitting your con. It also controls seeing your aircraft colliding with another, then damaging your aircraft as the consequence of not avoiding colliding with that con. Then communicating to that con your aircraft has been damaged or destroyed as the cost of not avoiding colliding with that aircraft.

It's a motivational control for your conduct. Sucks in its reasoning but, in practice, keeps us leery of colliding on purpose.

If you dislike being HO'd by the majority of players you run into in the MA. Both parties dying from collisions would kill this game. New players would drive the arena nutz during their first months just learning to fly and fight. Every small minded backstabber with an ax to grind would ram everyone they meet instead of HOing like they do today. When they decided your ACM has to get knocked down a notch to sooth their hurt pride and feed their ego. Then they would have a face full of kamikaze love to screw you with.

If you get a collision message, then just like your game client tells your con to go boom and you are awarded a kill message. Your game client awards you a broken airplane and a collision message for not avoiding touching the con. In our game it's fine to shoot the red guys. It's a BIG no, no to touch them.

So now that we all know how the collision process works. Are some of you thinking about going to kindergarten over it?

[Tinkles]

In the real world both parties to an aerial collision would receive some kind of damage. The laws governing physical objects colliding at speed and kinetic energy are in force and don't care about the two parties motivations.

In the game our client controls and communicates seeing your rounds hitting your con. It also controls seeing your aircraft colliding with another, then damaging your aircraft as the consequence of not avoiding colliding with that con. Then communicating to that con your aircraft has been damaged or destroyed as the cost of not avoiding colliding with that aircraft.

It's a motivational control for your conduct. Sucks in its reasoning but, in practice, keeps us leery of colliding on purpose.

If you dislike being HO'd by the majority of players you run into in the MA. Both parties dying from collisions would kill this game. New players would drive the arena nutz during their first months just learning to fly and fight. Every small minded backstabber with an ax to grind would ram everyone they meet instead of HOing like they do today. When they decided your ACM has to get knocked down a notch to sooth their hurt pride and feed their ego. Then they would have a face full of kamikaze love to screw you with.

If you get a collision message, then just like your game client tells your con to go boom and you are awarded a kill message. Your game client awards you a broken airplane and a collision message for not avoiding touching the con. In our game it's fine to shoot the red guys. It's a BIG no, no to touch them.

So now that we all know how the collision process works. Are some of you thinking about going to kindergarten over it?

Basically saying, akin to the kamikaze damage idea, if you give the player a low skill (or no skill) weapon that can kill, they will use it. Some more than others, the closest thing I have to relate to this is the "Noob-Tube" grenade launcher from Call of Duty.

[NikonGuy]

You take damage, because you failed to avoid the collision.  The other guy, avoided the collision.  Thatis why he was able to fly away.

If you avoid a collision, you really want your plane to blow up because the other guy failed to avoid the collision?  You want the other player to have that kind of control over your plane?

You are already noting you lose at collisions.  Imagine losing when you actually avoid the collision!

That is what you are asking for.  It also indicates may not really understand how and why the collisions work the way they do and why they have to work that way.

Right now, you have absolute control over your plane.  If you avoid the collision, your plane takes no damage.  Any other scenario grants the other player the ability to ruin your day, no matter how well you fly.

Your right, I'll just shut up now

Good discussion though

<S>

[JimmyD3]

Your right, I'll just shut up now

Good discussion though

<S>

No you did good Nikonguy, it helped explain the process to the rest of us newbies as well. The only bad question is the one you don't ask. 

[FLS]

Part of the collision confusion is from the collision message appearing to assign fault. The two different messages just tell you which computer had two aircraft in contact. It may help if the text messages are changed. Instead of  "you collided with...",  something like  "you were in a collision with...", would be more neutral regarding causation but still ID the player's PC where it occurred.

[Skyyr]

It would absolutely not. It would A) reward the "rammer" and B) (and that is the really bad stuff) it would make active avoidance of collisions about impossible.
"Both die" means nothing less that your plane will blow up from a 'collision' that you clearly avoided on your screen. The enemy could pass 30ft from you, yet wou would get "you have collided" and go down from it.

Again I refer to the picture I posted: Imagine you had been the Jug pilot. Should your plane get damaged by the collision you see in that picture? (Note it's really the actual moment of impact. The Pony never gets any closer than that on your screen)

I think you're confusing two things - the model vs the application of it in Aces High.

If the situation presented with the "long-distance" collision is the norm, then the issue lies with the accuracy of reporting the location of the two planes. NO model would fix this, as it's obviously a problem of accuracy.

If the location of the planes (pre-collision) was highly-accurate, it would make the avoidance of collisions easy.

Again, my original point was that no one seems to be separating the problem into its core components. Is the "long-distance" collision a problem with the game or with lag? Because SEVERAL games model collisions accurately, down to inches/centimeters of player location.

[FLS]

There is no collision problem. The locations are accurate. They just can't avoid travel time. The only problem associated with collisions is understanding why they can appear to be unfair.

[Skyyr]

There is no collision problem. The locations are accurate. They just can't avoid travel time. The only problem associated with collisions is understanding why they can appear to be unfair.

Other games model it just fine. With ping times in the single and double milliseconds, it's a non-issue. Most humans can't detect variations less than 1/3 of a second (333ms) - dial-up can have better ping times than that.

[FLS]

Other games model it just fine. With ping times in the single and double milliseconds, it's a non-issue. Most humans can't detect variations less than 1/3 of a second (333ms) - dial-up can have better ping times than that.

Wiley already mentioned the problem earlier in this thread.  There is travel time which you can't eliminate. You can only add delay elsewhere. Adding delay to control input is not a better choice than the current system. You haven't suggested a better method. You simply insist that it can be improved based on your current level of understanding. Please explain how it's a non-issue.  And tell me which other games have up to 600 players in the same arena on huge maps with aircraft going up to 600 MPH with players from all over the world all seeing the same relative positions. Name one.

[Skyyr]

Wiley already mentioned the problem earlier in this thread.  There is travel time which you can't eliminate. You can only add delay elsewhere. Adding delay to control input is not a better choice than the current system. You haven't suggested a better method. You simply insist that it can be improved based on your current level of understanding. Please explain how it's a non-issue.  And tell me which other games have up to 600 players in the same arena on huge maps with aircraft going up to 600 MPH with players from all over the world all seeing the same relative positions. Name one.

I'm a software developer (as well as a flight instructor). I see it every day.

Your "travel" time (correctly called "latency") is double the slowest user's latest latency connecting to the server - that is usually less than 1/5th of a second. The average human can't react fast enough, let alone notice, a good connection's latency (using .01s - .2s connection speeds). It's a non-issue for any group of users on modern games playing on modern PC's with modern connections. It only becomes an issue when you allow users with subpar connections to play or you have a game which is overly-lax in it's hitbox modeling (or player location-reporting). This is also why laggy players are typically banned from most competitive play servers, because they present a disruption to otherwise equal gameplay.

This is not a hard feat by any means - this is common in modern games. Lest you forget, your gunnery model ALREADY works in the same fashion. If the player lags when they shoot you, they'll still hit you even if the bullets don't connect. Arguing that the collision model would be impossible to work in this fashion displays a lack of understanding for the mechanics already employed. Fighter Ace used the same model as I've described and collisions were not an issue unless another player simply had a horrible connection (and they were reported and banned if it was a persistent issue). And they had double to triple the numbers we have now.

[bustr]

Skyyr,

Why don't you take this to e-mail with the owner of the company. You have reached the point you are advocating for eliminating paying customers because they don't fit your ideal. That's not your decision to make, and it appears, you are starting a campaign to turn AH into FA while a guest in Hitech's living room.

If you are what you claim, then talk to the man himself.

[pembquist]

So what "modern games" are you talking about. You only mention Fighter Ace which doesn't exist anymore.

[FLS]

If you want to compare numbers you should compare how many AH has now to how many FA has now.

Gunnery in AH is similar to collisions except you still take damage when it appears you were missed. There is no case of being shot but nothing hit you, it's just that it visibly hit you on the other PC, not the one you're looking at.

You may prefer a different game architecture but you give up responsiveness and limit arena size and population. Did you want to name the common modern games that you believe compare to Aces High?

On response times, people can notice variations in timing at 60 FPS as micro stutters. As a game developer you'll know that was an issue with dual GPUs.

Latency refers to delay. I understand it's usage in networks but it connotes lateness. I think travel time is more descriptive for the average player.

[danny76]

I'm a software developer (as well as a flight instructor). I see it every day.

Your "travel" time (correctly called "latency") is double the slowest user's latest latency connecting to the server - that is usually less than 1/5th of a second. The average human can't react fast enough, let alone notice, a good connection's latency (using .01s - .2s connection speeds). It's a non-issue for any group of users on modern games playing on modern PC's with modern connections. It only becomes an issue when you allow users with subpar connections to play or you have a game which is overly-lax in it's hitbox modeling (or player location-reporting). This is also why laggy players are typically banned from most competitive play servers, because they present a disruption to otherwise equal gameplay.

This is not a hard feat by any means - this is common in modern games. Lest you forget, your gunnery model ALREADY works in the same fashion. If the player lags when they shoot you, they'll still hit you even if the bullets don't connect. Arguing that the collision model would be impossible to work in this fashion displays a lack of understanding for the mechanics already employed. Fighter Ace used the same model as I've described and collisions were not an issue unless another player simply had a horrible connection (and they were reported and banned if it was a persistent issue). And they had double to triple the numbers we have now.

And yet you are here instead of running your own air combat simulation?