collision model

[Randy1]

No matter how it works because it is same for everyone.  Now if someone figures out an in-game hack by taking advantage of a hole in the model, that would be a different colored horse.  Something odd like full up and down elevator  or flaps just before the collision.

[Skuzzy]

We have been talking about the *when* considering collisions, not the *how*. People are getting their panties in a knot trying to make sense(?) of collision detection but we haven't been talking about how (the in-depths of the physics modelling that takes place). My suspicion is that people are more aggravated by the how then the when.
<snip>

The "how" is easy.  The pilot failed to avoid intersecting a foreign object and thus his/her plane took damage.  Ta-da!

Too many people over-think this.  It is as simple as this, and applies to every individual pilot in the game;  If your plane intersects a foreign object, your plane takes damage.

All anyone has to do is ask;  Did my plane intersect a foreign object?

[Vinkman]

I can live with it either way, so I'm not requesting a change to the model. That said...

I've come to the conclusion that I [personally] don't like one sided collisions. If the bandit and I are close enough that one of us gets a collision, then we are too close to whine that we didn't hit him. I would like the deterrent to reckless flying more than I would dislike getting a two sided collision that I thought I had avoided. Here's why....

I have learned how to ram a bomber [with my ghost plane on his front end] and avoid damage on mine. When I run out of ammo, I can "one side collided" with buffs and knock them out of the sky, and have done it often. It's also annoying when a pilot turns right into me and breaks my plane only to discover he didn't get a collision too. reckless flying like that can be rewarded in the current system.  No guarantee that people fly less reckless however, but there should be a price for flying like a lunatic [no offense to the player named Lunatic]

Just following up on point. I moved in to attack a group of Lancs and decided to film me creating a 1 sided collision to prove how easy it is. If you are out of ammo and do this a few times, you can knock 3 buffs out the sky without firing a shot. Gamey. Now I agree with most about the benefits of the one-sided model for most situations. But perhaps an exception could be written for Buff-to-fighter to prevent this....

Here is the video: https://youtu.be/j_dsoHsf29k

 

[Mongoose]

Just following up on point. I moved in to attack a group of Lancs and decided to film me creating a 1 sided collision to prove how easy it is. If you are out of ammo and do this a few times, you can knock 3 buffs out the sky without firing a shot. Gamey. Now I agree with most about the benefits of the one-sided model for most situations. But perhaps an exception could be written for Buff-to-fighter to prevent this....

Here is the video: https://youtu.be/j_dsoHsf29k

 

Send the .ahf file in to Hitech.  That will tell him far more than a Youtube video can.

[TequilaChaser]

Send the .ahf file in to Hitech.  That will tell him far more than a Youtube video can.

^^^^^^^

This..... Send in the actual AH film, so hitech can pull the raw data from it,  only if you think something is wrong or off.....

This horse was beat to death over 16+ years ago and the only thing left to beat is horse bone dust piled up on the ground.....

TC

[Vinkman]

^^^^^^^

This..... Send in the actual AH film, so hitech can pull the raw data from it,  only if you think something is wrong or off.....

This horse was beat to death over 16+ years ago and the only thing left to beat is horse bone dust piled up on the ground.....

TC

no need to send anything else. This wasn't for HiTech, he knows it all already. This was for the people who say "there is no way to make a one side collision happen". Now they know how easy it is. 

[Wiley]

Just following up on point. I moved in to attack a group of Lancs and decided to film me creating a 1 sided collision to prove how easy it is. If you are out of ammo and do this a few times, you can knock 3 buffs out the sky without firing a shot. Gamey. Now I agree with most about the benefits of the one-sided model for most situations. But perhaps an exception could be written for Buff-to-fighter to prevent this....

Here is the video: https://youtu.be/j_dsoHsf29k

 

Not available.

Wiley.

[Vinkman]

Not available.

Wiley.

That's weird it was there yesterday...and now it's gone. 

[Vinkman]

Vid was set to private...OOPS. Try it now?

Just following up on point. I moved in to attack a group of Lancs and decided to film me creating a 1 sided collision to prove how easy it is. If you are out of ammo and do this a few times, you can knock 3 buffs out the sky without firing a shot. Gamey. Now I agree with most about the benefits of the one-sided model for most situations. But perhaps an exception could be written for Buff-to-fighter to prevent this....

Here is the video: https://youtu.be/j_dsoHsf29k

 

[FLS]

I would have kept it private and just sent HTC a link to prove your point.

[Arlo]

Why does every online game company have their programmers code in lag?! So unfair! Stop programming in lag!

 

[Arlo]

On a serious note .... expecting a perfect solution for an imperfect situation that HT has no complete control over is not a reasonable stance. Lag exists. It affects both players (unless they've moved to HT's server room and plugged in directly). There are choices that HT can make to approach lag:

1) Player front-end resolution. (The player sees his plane strike the other plane and he suffers the consequence.) [the choice made]

2) Server resolution. (The server sees one player fail to avoid a collision and determines both suffer the consequence even if the other player either took action to avoid or saw nothing to avoid and actually saw no collision.

The first option is the fairest for fighter vs fighter engagement. The second is not a solution to the 'problem' of collisions, at all.

When it comes to players gaming the game to 'shoot' down bombers by colliding with them, it doesn't render their fighter impervious to bomber guns. Apparently the trick involves diving from above in front of the bomber or perhaps zooming up in front. If an ammo-less fighter is taking out entire bomber boxes this way then I find it hard to believe that the bombers aren't trying to shoot it down, in the process. If the bombers are winchester (bad, bad ammo wastage, dude), well, this seems like an unfortunate situation but it doesn't warrant going from the best possible solution to none at all.

[Vinkman]

I would have kept it private and just sent HTC a link to prove your point.

Again, because HTC knows this. So this wasn't for them. 

[Zimme83]

I really dont get what you are trying to do, other than showing players how to game the game, any other collision model means that in the case of your video your plane would have exploded mid air because of a collision that occurs somewhere else and it means that ramming other players would be even easier than in you video, and that they have no chance to avoid them..

[Vinkman]

1) Player front-end resolution. (The player sees his plane strike the other plane and he suffers the consequence.) [the choice made]

2) Server resolution. (The server sees one player fail to avoid a collision and determines both suffer the consequence even if the other player either took action to avoid or saw nothing to avoid and actually saw no collision.

Blah blah..such little creativity.

How about an exception to the current collision model in the case of Fighter hitting bomber, where a 2 sided collision would always result. this would close the abuse hole in an otherwise favorable situation.