Author Topic: Collision Model (Read 1978 times)

AKIron · « **Reply #45 on:** June 29, 2003, 06:32:37 PM »

Get yer glasses checked Martlet, I wrote Weav, as in AKWeav, not Weaz. I remember clearly you squeakin' at him a night or two ago for rammin' you. A collision which his front end did not detect I might add.

Ah well, don't let me discourage your antics, I usually find it amusing when someone complains about ramming.

Martlet · « **Reply #46 on:** June 29, 2003, 10:08:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
Get yer glasses checked Martlet, I wrote Weav, as in AKWeav, not Weaz. I remember clearly you squeakin' at him a night or two ago for rammin' you. A collision which his front end did not detect I might add.

Ah well, don't let me discourage your antics, I usually find it amusing when someone complains about ramming.

Nope, I've never been rammed by a weav, either. Did you like it?

Karnak · « **Reply #47 on:** June 29, 2003, 11:04:48 PM »

Martlet,

Contrary to what you think the exisiting collision model is as fixed as the current Internet allows it to be.

None of the suggestions in this thread, or any other thread on the subject have been as good as the current system.

The problems that you feel make the current system "hosed" are unfixable given the current Internet.

It seems likely to me that much of your disatisfaction with the current system is due to a flawed understanding of Internet communications.

Just to let you know that I have as much reason as anybody to dislike the current system:

This Tour I set my highest kill streak ever in this game. I had 30 kills in the Mosquito Mk VI without dying. While going for my 31st kill I collided with a Spitfire and lost my outer right wing and my tail, bailed and was captured ending my kill streak.

Am I irritated that I collided and ended my kill streak? Yes, of course.

Does it bother me that the other guy wasn't scratched? Not at all, in fact it would have been unfair if he had been.

Only I could have avoided that collision as it was on my FE. I was too aggressive and I paid the price as is appropriate.

anton · « **Reply #48 on:** June 29, 2003, 11:32:42 PM »

as a yak pilot I tend to get very close to targets before firing, especially when low ammo. Noticing a new trend in gamey bastages dumping throttle & trying to stay in the way. No matter what setting you choose some wisenheimer is going to take advantage of it.
I have (just once) run out of ammo in said yak, found a C47 otw to dead town, & succesfully made him run into me. I'm not proud of it & havent tried it since.
Anton

Tilt · « **Reply #49 on:** June 30, 2003, 04:40:38 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
Unfortuately, that isn't always the case.

I think it is..........

I think you incur all damage on your FE............

In the case of bullet hits, your FE is advised of hits and it sets the damage accordingly. (these hits may be from several sources and of several different lethalities).

I think your FE allocates a kill award to who ever is still flying with the highest damage on you. (the "who shot you down" report is never delayed but the report on your victim quite often is. )

The only factor that the server may add is a hit modifier such as the one used in AW(some FE hits on opponents[local hits] did not count) there is no evidence of this in AH. This does not explain how we can sometimes see a wingless fireball apparantly still fully manouverable.

I think the system we have now is the best. It is actually very difficult to induce a collision thru which you survive and your opponent does not.

The only manouvre I can imagine where this works is where you fly across the intended path of your opponent.........on your FE you have crossed infront of him, on his FE you hit him (or he hit you). I should imagine therefore that this most likely (although still rarely)occurs during close range rolling siccors.

I cannot see how a ram from behind ever actually damages the plane in front.

Mini D · « **Reply #50 on:** June 30, 2003, 07:49:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Innominate
squeaking is pointless. Despite the bad(imo anyways) collision system, its not going to be changed, no point in squeaking.

Collisions like everything else in AH favor the person with the bad internet connection.

Stupidest quote ever. Makes me feel all gooey inside knowing you are an FDB.

You do realize that lag doesnt only work one way... right tard? Any advantage someone might or might not gain from lag is shared by EVERYONE ELSE SINCE THE SAME LATENCY APPLIES ON RECEIVE AS WELL AS SEND.

What really amazes me is that you aren't even the biggest tard in the squad.

MiniD

Martlet · « **Reply #51 on:** June 30, 2003, 10:03:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Martlet,

Contrary to what you think the exisiting collision model is as fixed as the current Internet allows it to be.

None of the suggestions in this thread, or any other thread on the subject have been as good as the current system.

The problems that you feel make the current system "hosed" are unfixable given the current Internet.

It seems likely to me that much of your disatisfaction with the current system is due to a flawed understanding of Internet communications.

Just to let you know that I have as much reason as anybody to dislike the current system:

Thank you for reminding me how little I know about the internet. I'll have to tell my boss. I shouldn't have my job with my lack of knowledge.

Tilt= That is exactly why this damage model is hosed. As I stated before, it has been shown to me why many of the "better ideas" won't work. That makes sense. From what I can tell, though, one thing stands true: The person with the crappiest internet connection wins. Take this as an example, although there are many. Apply it to collisions.

I am in a HO scenario with another plane. We both open fire. I see numerous sprites. I go down, whether from collision or bullets. He fly's away. Why? Because my connection transfers information quickly. I register the hits, and my plane dies. He doesn't register the damage, since I'm not there.

AKIron · « **Reply #52 on:** June 30, 2003, 10:39:21 AM »

Maybe it wasn't Weav Martlet but another AK, hard to keep up without faces involved. Anyhow, you sayin' you weren't squeakin' at an AK for ramming you the other night? If so then I formally pronounce you full of ****.

Martlet · « **Reply #53 on:** June 30, 2003, 12:43:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
Maybe it wasn't Weav Martlet but another AK, hard to keep up without faces involved. Anyhow, you sayin' you weren't squeakin' at an AK for ramming you the other night? If so then I formally pronounce you full of ****.

Oh NO! Not a pronouncement from the mighty AKIron.

I would not be surprised at all if I complained about an AK ramming me. It's the only way most of you could kill me. I'm surprised the few good pilots you have stick around.

AKIron · « **Reply #54 on:** June 30, 2003, 12:45:10 PM »

You wanna duel? Lemme know, anytime.

ccvi · « **Reply #55 on:** June 30, 2003, 01:10:12 PM »

Can you please stop this useless discussion about who rammed whom or who is more fat and drunken and tell me what you think about my last post? (suggestion of modification to the current ram model, see page 1)?

AKIron · « **Reply #56 on:** June 30, 2003, 01:19:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ccvi
Can you please stop this useless discussion about who rammed whom or who is more fat and drunken and tell me what you think about my last post? (suggestion of modification to the current ram model, see page 1)?

he started it

I think you may be asking for too much ccvi. To test a collision based on flight history would require recording flight parameters at least for s short period. This would not only reqire additional coding but might have a significant impact on computer performance.

I think the current collision model is a good solution, at least until everyone has flawless super fast connections.

Martlet · « **Reply #57 on:** June 30, 2003, 02:03:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ccvi
Can you please stop this useless discussion about who rammed whom or who is more fat and drunken and tell me what you think about my last post? (suggestion of modification to the current ram model, see page 1)?

I thought it was a good idea.

He started it.

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #58 on:** June 30, 2003, 02:09:16 PM »

Yesterday I was diving (with very little E) over a zooming up P38, I had no E to evade and it seems he had little E also, so, we HO in the vertical plane with little gunnery result. Both of us continued straight without maneuvering and I saw clearly the "crash". I continued the straight dive wingless and the P38 continued the climb undamaged. He didnt evade but his FE didnt see the collission. It seems like me FE saw the collission earlier and his FE only saw F4U pieces passing by. Later, again against a P38, I was without ammo and saw a P38 just above me, I was faster and decided to ram it on purpuse. The P38 pilot was unaware of the aproach and "crash", my plane was broken in half and, again, the P38 continued undamaged. Finally I dove over another P38 in a P51, but I got too close and, while rolling slowly, I was unable to evade the crash, again, P51 wingless and P38 undamaged.

AKIron · « **Reply #59 on:** June 30, 2003, 02:25:27 PM »

It's VERY rare for both planes to be exactly (or least within a few feet) where one of the pilots observes them both to be. Where pilot a's fe sees pilot b is not where pilot b's fe sees itself when pilot a's fe sees it there. That's why it's VERY rare for both pilots fe to see a collision in anything other than a ho.

Even in a head on when both pilots suffer a collision, both the planes didn't suffer it at the same point in space.

Bottom line, you won't collide if your fe doesn't see it. Because of the effect I just mentioned it's VERY difficult to intentionally cause someone else to see the collision if you're not in a head on. That puts the onus completely on you to avoid it.