PDA

View Full Version : Mid air collisions as a difficulty option



Danschnell
02-07-2006, 07:18 PM
I have posted many e-mails to Maddox Games regarding the horrendous lack of collision avoidance for larger aircraft in IL2. I don't think they'll do anything about it because I provided tracks which they say they cannot view with their 4.03b, and I did not post .mis files becuse they have a different outcome every time you play them anyway.

What I propose is, if its too much trouble to change the collision modelling, it would be ideal if we had a 'no mid-air collisions' difficulty option. Many other sims, if not all other, already have this.

the 3D models of AI aircraft would be allowed to overlap the 3D models of other AI aircraft. To keep the game realistic though this should not affect the player aircraft. (The number of AI collisions is already way less realistic than any 'no mid air collisions' option would be.)

Who else agrees with me?

DaimonSyrius
02-07-2006, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by Danschnell:
the 3D models of AI aircraft would be allowed to overlap the 3D models of other AI aircraft. To keep the game realistic
.../...
Who else agrees with me?
Not me

Cheers,
S.

LEXX_Luthor
02-07-2006, 08:32 PM
Agreed<span class="ev_code_yellow">!</span>

The AI cannot handle collision avoidance. Bingo! AI vs AI collision should be disabled totally.

This also cures any problem with AI vs AI collisions on airfields, once a HUGE fatal problem with this sim, and was "fixed" by making aircraft vanish after landing which is even more unrealistic and FAKE than AI vs AI overlapping on occasion.

Mass AI formations created by multiple AI flights using the SET escort tool causes mass AI vs AI collisions that destroy 50% of the AI aircraft -- because the AI all fly the exact same altitude during their attempt to get into position. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif If they can't fix the AI formation altitude behavior, its easy to turn off AI vs AI collisions.

Many other reasons -- one is saving AMD/Intel cpu calculations of AI vs AI collisions for other better uses, like more AI aircraft in the air over the battlefield.

Danschnell::
To keep the game realistic though this should not affect the player aircraft. (The number of AI collisions is already way less realistic than any 'no mid air collisions' option would be.)
Danschnell, you understand what is going on here with regards to realism, and you know that leaving AI vs Player collision is still needed. Thanks for a well thought out idea.

Stackhouse25th
02-07-2006, 08:35 PM
good call, but im still waiting on REARM REFUEL, and....dyanamic weather

Stigler_9_JG52
02-07-2006, 10:39 PM
I'll agree to that.

I absolutely hate the lag effect with regard to collisions, and personally, given the choice, I'd take the "unrealistic-ness" of collision flythroughs over "one guy flies, one guy dies" any time. If collisions can't be done right, err on the side of the continuance of the combat.

Both are undesirable, but the second one is pure bull****. I'd rather imagine that "boy that was a close one, I thought we'd collide for sure" and let the players' guns sort it out in a later pass.

Jetbuff
02-07-2006, 11:09 PM
Stigler, you may be blowing this out of proportion.

(a) My comment about the speed thing is from memory so it may not be 100% accurate. I noted that when I first said it.

(b) Even if it is in place, it is hardly as cut and dry as you make it sound. Often both planes go down.

Personally, if it's going to change, I'd rather it change for the better rather than regress to no-collisions at all. I'm surprised you aren't sticking to your realism guns on this one.

Philipscdrw
02-08-2006, 03:56 AM
Hey, if collisions were turned off, what would happen if someone flew through someone else while firing? The bullets would appear inside the other aircraft's structure. Granted the shrapnel would damage the firing aircraft, like firing guns into the ground, but it could do unexpected things to the damage model...

Anyway, I think the original poster is talking exclusively about offline, AI-vs-AI collisions. Nothing to do with dogfight servers.

SeaFireLIV
02-08-2006, 05:56 AM
I don`t agree at all. Ai collision avoidance is pretty good (at least offline) and online against AI bombers I have yet to see a serious problem. Collisions should be there. They happened, and more than you guys think.

BOBwov has a `fly-thru-things` option on as default and, man, it`s a true immersion killer (BOBwov`s coliision detection is truly bad though, try it, FB`s excelent by comparison). Unlike Stigler I can`t close my eyes and `pretend` it`s a close call, I`d rather it really was a close call. I like seeing a collision sometimes whether enemy or friendly - I might be bearing down on one hapless 111, smoking badly, I hit his rudder a couple of times, he starts falling out of formation straight into another 111 that couldn`t avoid - a priceless scene when it happens and extremely rare. He could even hit the other bomber even uninjured, but simply out of avoidance panic.

Also, have the naysayers actually played 4.02 lately, I heard that Lexx doesn`t and stigler doesn`t. Have you seen how much better the AI is these days? The collisions are very rare and I play DCG where it enables multiple bombers with with very few (I haven`t seen any yet) collisions. Watch them at the end of a flight when they come in to land as they are now excelent at avoiding and parking without collisions, even the bombers.

Still, you won`t be convinced, I can tell.

That said, I support the idea that everything should be an option, as long as it does not make programmers lazy.

SeaFireLIV
02-08-2006, 06:05 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:


The AI cannot handle collision avoidance. Bingo! AI vs AI collision should be disabled totally.

.

Totally disagree with this over-the-top statement. They handle collisons quite well- and NOTHING should ever be totally disabled, NOTHING. A pity, once upon a time we thought the same, but now you seem pretty much changed.

I`ll wave to you from the otherside. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

WOLFMondo
02-08-2006, 06:16 AM
I like the AI colliding. Real people collide all the time, there is nothing more ammusing to watch a conga line of Spitfires and 109's smash into each other as they jockey for position. The AI does the same thing.

LEXX_Luthor
02-08-2006, 06:46 AM
Hi SeaFire. Ya, make it an Option.

The best AI feature in FB was AI fighter pilots that lost control during dogfights, but that was disabled in an FB Patch some time ago, and I have never seen it again. That is worth alot more to me than AI vs AI collisions. Why? Because the AI losing control reminds me of myself, and it made the AI a little more "human" which is the true goal of Artificial Intelligence (also called AI). AI colliding with AI all the time in NORMAL mass formation flight (greater than 12 aircraft) reminds me of poorly programed "ai."


WOLFMondo::
I like the AI colliding. Real people collide all the time, there is nothing more ammusing to watch a conga line of Spitfires and 109's smash into each other as they jockey for position. The AI does the same thing.
That's "real life" Online dogfight shooter gamer behavior, and has nothing to do with AI modelling real life pilots. Which brings us to...

Phillips::
Anyway, I think the original poster is talking exclusively about offline, AI-vs-AI collisions. Nothing to do with dogfight servers.
Alas, as HelSqnProtos says -- this is an Onliner's forum. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LEXX_Luthor
02-08-2006, 07:17 AM
SeaFire, a big problem was using the SET escort function to build large bomber formations from airfield takeoff, later flight spawning later on the airfield, and all catching up in one great formation. The already airborne flights would circle the airfield until all flights were airborne, thus remaining within the 7km range of SET escort function.

The AI wingpersons will catch up to their required position in their flight, but in the process collide with other aircraft in other flights (these other flights were "escorting" the forward flights). Often half the aircraft would be lost to collisions. If the AI could have different altitudes in the SET escort function, even just 50 meters, this would be solved.

There are methods of SET escort that avoid this in most cases, but it becomes very complex -- SET escort to escort escorting aircraft... a complex tree of escort sets that results in a much looser formation. If all flights are SET to escort the lead flight, the formation is very tight, but just needs some altitude differences between flights.

I prefer turning collisions OFF because the planes "merge" only briefly on their way to gain correct formation position. Thus, the "merge" is not an immersion killer.

Jetbuff
02-08-2006, 08:22 AM
Lexx, you know I support offline. Ever since the default spacing on AI formations was increased they have collided much less often. The only collisions that I still find common are headons between 'average' or lower pilots waiting too long to take the shot. I'm with Seafire (who also happens to be an offliner iirc) on this one, collision modelling is not as bad as some of you make it out to be. If anything, they are far less often than online.

LEXX_Luthor
02-08-2006, 09:00 AM
The increase of formation spacing did not help the collision Problem described below.


...a big problem was using the SET escort function to build large bomber formations from airfield takeoff, later flight spawning later on the airfield, and all catching up in one great formation. The already airborne flights would circle the airfield until all flights were airborne, thus remaining within the 7km range of SET escort function.

The AI wingpersons will catch up to their required position in their flight, but in the process collide with other aircraft in other flights (these other flights were "escorting" the forward flights). Often half the aircraft would be lost to collisions. If the AI could have different altitudes in the SET escort function, even just 50 meters, this would be solved.

There are methods of SET escort that avoid this in most cases, but it becomes very complex -- SET escort to escort escorting aircraft... a complex tree of escort sets that results in a much looser formation. If all flights are SET to escort the lead flight, the formation is very tight, but just needs some altitude differences between flights.

I prefer turning collisions OFF because the planes "merge" only briefly on their way to gain correct formation position. Thus, the "merge" is not an immersion killer.

Danschnell
02-08-2006, 09:04 AM
For those of you worrying my suggestion means immertion killer, I said TO MAINTAIN SOME REALISM THIS WOULD NOT APPLY TO THE PLAYER AIRCRAFT. You would still collide. You should have intelligence enough to avoid planes. AI don't have eyes remember.

Also, for those of you who think collisions don't happen often, it depends what plane you fly. If you are talking about single engine fighters you are right, they collide a realistic amount. However larger aicraft, such as twin engined, have HORRIBLE TERRIBLE collision avoidance. 50% loss per mission is normal. I've come to expect it in Bf110 DGEN missions.

Also, Oleg e-mailed me and said my suggestion wouldn't be implemented, which is quite annoying because he also said he wouldn't change the AI collision avoidance routines either. Some offline campaigns will always be unplayable it seems.

Ever escorted Ju52s in an airbase transfer mission flying Bf110s? The usual scenario is - 50% Bf110 collision, 80% Ju52 collision.

I'm surprised Oleg convinced himself his collision avoidance is good because no other sim has this problem. Even the 1990's Aces Over Europe had more advanced collision avoidance. When flying to formation, friendly planes simply ignore each other on IL2.

I shake my head in disbelief that something as simple as 'A/C 1 turns in direction opposite to A/C 2 upon proximity' is not part of AI routines. I hope Oleg wakes up because I sent him sooooo many tracks of consecutive missions all showing 50% loss rates from collisions. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

WOLFMondo
02-08-2006, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:

WOLFMondo:: [QUOTE]I like the AI colliding. Real people collide all the time, there is nothing more ammusing to watch a conga line of Spitfires and 109's smash into each other as they jockey for position. The AI does the same thing.
That's "real life" Online dogfight shooter gamer behavior, and has nothing to do with AI modelling real life pilots. Which brings us to...

My point was lost on you me thinkshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Why shouldn't AI aircraft collide? Planes collided in real life, people collide online, accidentally and deliberately so why not offline AI? I fly offline a fair amount as well as co-ops which feature allot of AI aircraft and I like the fact they do collide when trying to get in position but I do think its a bit odd when 2 B17's (or other large plane) collide when one formation crosses another.

What I think is more daft is AI planes crashing into the ground when trying to follow the human flight leader when he' landed.

Danschnell
02-08-2006, 09:10 AM
AI colliding would be good. BUT you miss the point. AI aircraft don't collide by accident. They collide because they are morons with no eyes. Thats why the loss rates for larger than single engine aircraft are sooooo high.

In IL2, I see BF110 A, slowly slowly gaining on Bf110 B. in front of him, then, still flying perfeclty straight, gently colliding with his dead 6. its ludicrous.

LEXX_Luthor
02-08-2006, 09:15 AM
Correct Danschnell, you identify the problem well, and you focus on that. Thank You.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

WOLF::
Why shouldn't AI aircraft collide? Planes collided in real life,
The Online Dogfight gamer Collision Party http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif you try to use as your example is not related to AI modelling the real life chances of collision on real life airfields. Don't confuse Online Dogfight gamer with AI pilots.


WOLF::
I like the fact they do collide when trying to get in position but I do think its a bit odd when 2 B17's (or other large plane) collide when one formation crosses another.
The crossing Problem you find "a bit odd" is the key to your understanding of how 50% loss rates can be generated by Oleg's collisions.

We can cover this again... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

...a big problem was using the SET escort function to build large bomber formations from airfield takeoff, later flight spawning later on the airfield, and all catching up in one great formation. The already airborne flights would circle the airfield until all flights were airborne, thus remaining within the 7km range of SET escort function.

The AI wingpersons will catch up to their required position in their flight, but in the process collide with other aircraft in other flights (these other flights were "escorting" the forward flights). Often half the aircraft would be lost to collisions. If the AI could have different altitudes in the SET escort function, even just 50 meters, this would be solved.

There are methods of SET escort that avoid this in most cases, but it becomes very complex -- SET escort to escort escorting aircraft... a complex tree of escort sets that results in a much looser formation. If all flights are SET to escort the lead flight, the formation is very tight, but just needs some altitude differences between flights.

If some altitude variation cannot be made for SET escort function, then turning collisions OFF is needed because the planes "merge" only briefly on their way to gain correct formation position. Thus, the "merge" is not an immersion killer.

Jetbuff
02-08-2006, 09:17 AM
Lexx, I'm sure we could pick one situation where any FB feature is an issue. I think you are too intent on this one scenario, esp. when you consider that it is avoidable by a capable mission designer.

BTW, I'm pretty sure escorts stick to their pre-escort altitude and believe I used that before to set up a box of B-17's + some serious P-47 escorts complete with handing off on the way in and out. Not a single collision... other than myself into a B17! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

LEXX_Luthor
02-08-2006, 09:23 AM
Jetbuff, ~~> Formation building from airfield TAKE OFF

JetBuff::
Lexx, I'm sure we could pick one situation where any FB feature is an issue. I think you are too intent on this one scenario, esp. when you consider that it is avoidable by a capable mission designer.

BTW, I'm pretty sure escorts stick to their pre-escort altitude and believe I used that before to set up a box of B-17's + some serious P-47 escorts complete with handing off on the way in and out. Not a single collision... other than myself into a B17!

We are talking about formations taking off from airfields and joining up, and I think you are talking about perfectly created "Air-Start" formations already in perfect position.


We can cover this again, if you would enjoy more examples beyond this one, just ask. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


...a big problem was using the SET escort function to build large bomber formations from airfield takeoff, later flight spawning later on the airfield, and all catching up in one great formation. The already airborne flights would circle the airfield until all flights were airborne, thus remaining within the 7km range of SET escort function.

The AI wingpersons will catch up to their required position in their flight, but in the process collide with other aircraft in other flights (these other flights were "escorting" the forward flights). Often half the aircraft would be lost to collisions. If the AI could have different altitudes in the SET escort function, even just 50 meters, this would be solved.

There are methods of SET escort that avoid this in most cases, but it becomes very complex -- SET escort to escort escorting aircraft... a complex tree of escort sets that results in a much looser formation. If all flights are SET to escort the lead flight, the formation is very tight, but just needs some altitude differences between flights.

If some altitude variation cannot be made for SET escort function, then turning collisions OFF is needed because the planes "merge" only briefly on their way to gain correct formation position. Thus, the "merge" is not an immersion killer.

Stigler_9_JG52
02-08-2006, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
Stigler, you may be blowing this out of proportion.

(a) My comment about the speed thing is from memory so it may not be 100% accurate. I noted that when I first said it.

(b) Even if it is in place, it is hardly as cut and dry as you make it sound. Often both planes go down.

Personally, if it's going to change, I'd rather it change for the better rather than regress to no-collisions at all. I'm surprised you aren't sticking to your realism guns on this one.

Normally, i do stick to my realism guns, as you put it. But, for reasons of lag, or perhaps disinterest on the part of the Maddox dev team (and probably the former; I haven't seen a good solution to this phenomenon in any sim, anywhere), this isn't even close to being fixed, or being accurate. So, if it's going to be unrealistic in any event, err on the side of giving the players a break and let the guns deide the issue, instead of some stupid, "*ker-lunk* wing off (of just one plane, while the other flies away blithely), my, doesn't that look all purty?" eye candy routine with no basis in reality.

LEXX_Luthor
02-08-2006, 09:45 AM
Danshcell::
Also, for those of you who think collisions don't happen often, it depends what plane you fly. If you are talking about single engine fighters you are right, they collide a realistic amount. However larger aicraft, such as twin engined, have HORRIBLE TERRIBLE collision avoidance. 50% loss per mission is normal. I've come to expect it in Bf110 DGEN missions.

Also, Oleg e-mailed me and said my suggestion wouldn't be implemented, which is quite annoying because he also said he wouldn't change the AI collision avoidance routines either. Some offline campaigns will always be unplayable it seems.

Ever escorted Ju52s in an airbase transfer mission flying Bf110s? The usual scenario is - 50% Bf110 collision, 80% Ju52 collision.

I'm surprised Oleg convinced himself his collision avoidance is good because no other sim has this problem. Even the 1990's Aces Over Europe had more advanced collision avoidance. When flying to formation, friendly planes simply ignore each other on IL2.

I shake my head in disbelief that something as simple as 'A/C 1 turns in direction opposite to A/C 2 upon proximity' is not part of AI routines. I hope Oleg wakes up because I sent him sooooo many tracks of consecutive missions all showing 50% loss rates from collisions. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif
I was thinking, it may be easier to program the AI for altitude change rather than turning horizontal to avoid collision. Most likely, no more AI programming for FB/PF will be done during the move to BoB And Beyond, and I can agree with this. Some AI programming I'm sure is needed for dealing with 4.xy New FM which is beta FM for BoB And Beyond.

However, making AI vs AI collisions an Offline play Option as SeaFire suggests would solve the Offline play problem TODAY for campaign players and those building large formations from airfield takeoff.

So we see, even I would like AI collision modelling that WORKS. If it does not work, turn it off. Very Simple.

Sorry to hear about that emil from Oleg.

SeaFireLIV
02-08-2006, 09:55 AM
i`m coming to the slightly paranoid belief that Siglir will agree to anything that`ll make IL2 stupid or arcadish if it`ll possibly make it look worse than his targetware which he constantly advertises. how can someone pan IL2 for being unrealistic then say it`s ok to have AI aircraft flying through each other and just `pretend` it didn`t happen.

"So, if it's going to be unrealistic in any event, err on the side of giving the players a break ... blah, blah!"

Yea, and let`s add no fms at all and lazer beams for bullets! What a load of bull. It`s ok as long as Stigler says so in his universe of the hated IL2. He`s constantly panned the `iffy` fms, panned the `what-if` hardly flown aircraft cos it isn`t realistic, but let the AI aircraft flying through each other - that`s ok is it? Ok, because Oleg does such a bad job with the collision detection? Poppycock! Yes, I`m repeating myself because the logic of Stigler isn`t logical, unless you reckon he`s out to break IL2`s hold over crappy Targetware that he`s advertising right now.

Heaven forbid that Oleg takes Stigler seriously, because he will destroy it.

LEXX_Luthor
02-08-2006, 10:08 AM
SeaFire, Stiglr is talking about Online collision and he/she makes some technical points that are valid. But its not the game crippling issue that Offline player Danschell is talking about in this thread. FB/PF bombers are ramming each other trying to get into formation larger than 12 aircraft after airfield takeoff. Danschell is right, the Offline bombers are getting the sharp end of Oleg's collision modelling.

OldMan____
02-08-2006, 10:39 AM
Hated the idea. Colisions are as importatn as firing. And collision detection is not that heavy until the collision happens (simple boundign sphere vs boundign sphere collision detection takes less than 30 CPU cicles)

LEXX_Luthor
02-08-2006, 11:06 AM
OldMan::
Hated the idea. Colisions are as importatn as firing.
Yes and No

Yes -- as Danschnell notes, the dogfight shooter planes are not suffering from Oleg's lack of collision avoidance modelling, but the larger aircraft are.

No -- Formation flying is taught before air combat shooting, and this applies especially to large aircraft like bombers that require formation in combat. Thus, avoiding collision is more important than firing.

Danschnell::
Also, for those of you who think collisions don't happen often, it depends what plane you fly. If you are talking about single engine fighters you are right, they collide a realistic amount. However larger aicraft, such as twin engined, have HORRIBLE TERRIBLE collision avoidance. 50% loss per mission is normal. I've come to expect it in Bf110 DGEN missions.

LEXX_Luthor
02-08-2006, 12:49 PM
Stiglr does make a point -- the "kewl" gamer perception of game collision modelling.

But, for Offline play, Oleg's sim has NO collision avoidance modelling, especially for bombers in very large formation. How strange is that?

Thus, the collision modelling stands alone as "arcade" or unrealistic, meaning a more accurate simulation is found in turning the current arcade collision modelling OFF, at least for larger aircraft as I suggested long ago to fix the airfield taxi disasters among bombers (instead, all aircraft were made to vanish after landing).

SeaFire, if you and I turn ON the collision avoidance modelling, then we can turn ON a realistic collision modelling. But collision avoidance modelling does not exist in the sim.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

SeaFireLIV
02-08-2006, 03:31 PM
But, there is a collision avoidance modelled in the sim. Individual bombers will try to evade.


Ok, a battle where I and my AI wingman attack 18 HE111s...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/approach.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/avoidd02.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/position036.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/avoidance0.jpg


Nearly all these shots are of AI bomber/s attempting to avoid hitting each other, NOT turning on a waypoint manouever. remember, these are bombers, their avoidance capability will be limited, add to that the fact that they must keep in formation for protection. the avoidance can only do so much in such a pack.

I haven`t bothered illustrating fighter avoidance, because EVERYONE knows they do, and very well. Although, I`ll post pics of that too if I must!

And in 4.02m fighters AND bombers do land and park - they do not dissapear - at least not for a while. I`ve seen German fighters and bombers sitting on the runway at the end of a long sortie. I do believe that Bombers do vanish sooner than fighters eventually.

I do this to try and dispell this strange attempt at saying there is no collision detection avoidance with AI planes when there is!

Now I`m off to bed.

Stigler_9_JG52
02-08-2006, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
i`m coming to the slightly paranoid belief that Siglir will agree to anything that`ll make IL2 stupid or arcadish if it`ll possibly make it look worse than his targetware which he constantly advertises. how can someone pan IL2 for being unrealistic then say it`s ok to have AI aircraft flying through each other and just `pretend` it didn`t happen.

"So, if it's going to be unrealistic in any event, err on the side of giving the players a break ... blah, blah!"

Yea, and let`s add no fms at all and lazer beams for bullets! What a load of bull. It`s ok as long as Stigler says so in his universe of the hated IL2. He`s constantly panned the `iffy` fms, panned the `what-if` hardly flown aircraft cos it isn`t realistic, but let the AI aircraft flying through each other - that`s ok is it? Ok, because Oleg does such a bad job with the collision detection? Poppycock! Yes, I`m repeating myself because the logic of Stigler isn`t logical, unless you reckon he`s out to break IL2`s hold over crappy Targetware that he`s advertising right now.

Heaven forbid that Oleg takes Stigler seriously, because he will destroy it.

You certainly misrepresent me, as well as fail to make any point of your own, you're so busy foaming at the mouth that anyone can make some pretty on-target statements about the failings of this sim.

For one thing, Targetware currently has no in-flight collisions; I'm not sure if it's an artifact of the entire "TBA" collision code (you don't collide with ground objects right now, either, which is something in dire need of fixing) or planned, but I must say I don't miss the silly, one guy dies, one guy flies collisions. Let the players sort it out with the guns. For my part, I avoid headons like the plague. I tend to get in collisions when I fail to pull out of a shot (at least, my PC says I didn't pull out of it, even sometimes when I'm certain I did), or when some clown just splays his plane out as a last ditch maneuver and "draws" the collision like a defender trying to draw a charge in basketball.

If you go back and read my post without trying to sift my words for your own fanboi purposes, you'll see that I fully acknowledge that neither solution is realistic. However, NO online flight sim has ever had a satisfactory solution for collisions, because of net lag, and the sometimes vast differences between what two computers "see" of the same two planes doing several hundred miles per hour each. I always wondered naively if the code couldn't somehow have a "backchecking" routine that would only apply a collision if it found that BOTH computers "saw" the same collsion. If only one saw it, then it didn't happen. A plane does not collide with itself, we can all agree to that.

And even if the "result" is delayed by a second or two for this backchecking to be done, it's not like it's really going to have a big effect on what happens next. You might pass by a plane, and just when you think, wow that was close your wing THEN falls off. Same result... only slightly delayed... but with the benefit that the guy you just jousted with is going to lose a chunk of airframe too. Or, both of you might just explode.

I have no idea as to how feasible that is, and have never gotten a straight answer from any code geek over whether it could work.

LEXX_Luthor
02-08-2006, 05:08 PM
SeaFire, thanks for the input, but your screenshots are all taken when the bombers are under fire in combat. Also, your screenshots do not differentiate between aircraft of different flights. This is what Mondo referred to as "a bit odd" to see B-17 formations collide when crossing paths.

Here are screenshots of bombers trying to build formation...small bombers at that. No combat in this test mission. Collisions are caused by lack of collision avoidance among different flights or 6 x 3 = 18 aircraft total.

D3A closing in...
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/1e346864.jpg

D3A taking collision damage and dropping bomb...
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/9200ea20.jpg

Two D3A's colliding...
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/aabe4890.jpg

Followed seconds later by two more D3A's colliding. This one mission eventually resulted in 9 out of 18 aircraft destroyed in collision.
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/f3c9d4aa.jpg

Same with Ju-88s, here just before a ramming collision during formation buildup...
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/677140b5.jpg

Now, this is the simplest method of SET escort which means all flight leaders escort the lead flight. Better collision avoidance can be created with flights escorting not the lead flight but other escorting flights. This however leads to elongated large formations (which I can live with somewhat). Also, dive bombers must build formation again after their attack, exposing them to more collisions (dive bombers don't maintain level altitude formation during attack).

I would prefer some altitude variation in the SET escort function, preferably built into the AI. So we see, I am not "against" collision modelling, as long as there is collision avoidance modelling.

SeaFire::
And in 4.02m fighters AND bombers do land and park - they do not dissapear - at least not for a while.
Yes, Oleg fixed the AI taxi routes so they won't collide. But it took years and while we were waiting, we could have had good airfield taxi just by turning OFF the AI vs AI collision, at least for larger aircraft, and at least when after landing.

We suggested Oleg just turn OFF the AI vs AI collision for larger aircraft, and if needed, restrict that for after landing, but the vanishing aircraft were introduced which had the same result -- aircraft vanish after colliding on the airfield, then they vanished after landing.

There is no myth about lack of collision avoidance as can be seen in the screenshots above, and the mission file below.

FB + PACIFIC FIGHTERS MERGED REQUIRED


[MAIN]
MAP Empty2a_Winter/load.ini
TIME 12.0
CloudType 0
CloudHeight 1500.0
army 1
playerNum 0
[Wing]
IJN_C_Zuikaku_FS_VT00
IJN_C_Zuikaku_FS_VT01
IJN_C_Zuikaku_FS_VT02
IJN_C_Zuikaku_FS_VT12
IJN_C_Zuikaku_FS_VT03
IJN_C_Zuikaku_FS_VT10
[IJN_C_Zuikaku_FS_VT00]
Planes 3
Parachute 0
Skill 1
Class air.D3A1
Fuel 50
weapons 1x250
[IJN_C_Zuikaku_FS_VT00_Way]
TAKEOFF 8213.58 31743.17 0 0 0_Static 0 &0
NORMFLY 2274.41 27187.16 500.00 300.00 &0
NORMFLY 6839.68 26153.71 500.00 300.00 &0
NORMFLY 986.19 27798.39 500.00 300.00 &0
NORMFLY 13683.47 27551.85 500.00 300.00 &0
NORMFLY 44954.09 25326.64 1000.00 300.00 &0
GATTACK 49145.44 24921.99 1000.00 300.00 &0
NORMFLY 5588.44 10539.97 1000.00 300.00 &0
NORMFLY 5917.18 20155.38 1000.00 300.00 &0
LANDING 10859.53 25123.15 0 0 0_Static 0 &0
[IJN_C_Zuikaku_FS_VT01]
Planes 3
Parachute 0
Skill 1
Class air.D3A1
Fuel 50
weapons 1x250
[IJN_C_Zuikaku_FS_VT01_Way]
TAKEOFF 8131.40 31085.72 0 0 0_Static 0 &0
NORMFLY 1023.16 26273.90 500.00 300.00 IJN_C_Zuikaku_FS_VT00 1 &0
[IJN_C_Zuikaku_FS_VT02]
Planes 3
Parachute 0
Skill 1
Class air.D3A1
Fuel 50
weapons 1x250
StartTime 4
[IJN_C_Zuikaku_FS_VT02_Way]
TAKEOFF 7884.85 30181.70 0 0 0_Static 0 &0
NORMFLY 3223.64 25834.22 500.00 300.00 IJN_C_Zuikaku_FS_VT00 1 &0
[IJN_C_Zuikaku_FS_VT12]
Planes 3
Parachute 0
Skill 1
Class air.D3A1
Fuel 50
weapons 1x250
StartTime 4
[IJN_C_Zuikaku_FS_VT12_Way]
TAKEOFF 7811.91 29197.56 0 0 0_Static 0 &0
NORMFLY 5052.20 25783.86 500.00 300.00 IJN_C_Zuikaku_FS_VT00 1 &0
[IJN_C_Zuikaku_FS_VT03]
Planes 3
Parachute 0
Skill 1
Class air.D3A1
Fuel 50
weapons 1x250
StartTime 8
[IJN_C_Zuikaku_FS_VT03_Way]
TAKEOFF 7595.62 28592.08 0 0 0_Static 0 &0
NORMFLY 1880.96 25213.74 500.00 300.00 IJN_C_Zuikaku_FS_VT00 1 &0
[IJN_C_Zuikaku_FS_VT10]
Planes 3
Parachute 0
Skill 1
Class air.D3A1
Fuel 50
weapons 1x250
StartTime 8
[IJN_C_Zuikaku_FS_VT10_Way]
TAKEOFF 7546.87 27716.20 0 0 0_Static 0 &0
NORMFLY 1968.27 23057.47 500.00 300.00 IJN_C_Zuikaku_FS_VT00 1 &0
[NStationary]
0_Static ships.Ship$RwyCon 0 13724.56 27305.28 360.00 0.0 0 2 1.0
1_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$ML20 1 49180.11 24978.41 360.00 0.0 0
2_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$ML20 1 49111.04 24974.77 360.00 0.0 0
3_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$ML20 1 49067.41 24942.05 360.00 0.0 0
4_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$ML20 1 49054.69 24867.52 360.00 0.0 0
5_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$ML20 1 49105.58 24814.80 360.00 0.0 0
6_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$ML20 1 49209.20 24867.52 360.00 0.0 0
7_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$ML20 1 49251.01 24896.60 360.00 0.0 0
8_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$ML20 1 49149.21 25012.94 360.00 0.0 0
9_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$ML20 1 49151.03 24976.59 360.00 0.0 0
10_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$ML20 1 49187.38 24945.69 360.00 0.0 0
[Buildings]
[Bridge]
[House]

OldMan____
02-08-2006, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
OldMan:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hated the idea. Colisions are as importatn as firing.
Yes and No

Yes -- as Danschnell notes, the dogfight shooter planes are not suffering from Oleg's lack of collision avoidance modelling, but the larger aircraft are.

No -- Formation flying is taught before air combat shooting, and this applies especially to large aircraft like bombers that require formation in combat. Thus, avoiding collision is more important than firing.

Danschnell::
Also, for those of you who think collisions don't happen often, it depends what plane you fly. If you are talking about single engine fighters you are right, they collide a realistic amount. However larger aicraft, such as twin engined, have HORRIBLE TERRIBLE collision avoidance. 50% loss per mission is normal. I've come to expect it in Bf110 DGEN missions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Avoiding collisions is all bout collisions. If there is no collisions,, there is no AVOID collisions. And since even you consider avoiding them so important... again.. no collision is terrible idea.

If there is a problem, it should be FIXED, not covered with a pice of cloth full of patches...

SeaFireLIV
02-08-2006, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:

fix the airfield taxi disasters among bombers (instead, all aircraft were made to vanish after landing).



This is also wrong. I did one last flight and realised I had the perfect chance to PROVE that bombers do taxi succesfully to a stop without any disasters if in good nick.

First pic shows first bomber with 2nd coming in.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/1stparked.jpg


3 parked. 15 flying overhead still btw.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/3parkedcopy.jpg

5 altogether with one taxxing to ALTERNATIVE parkway.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/5he111s.jpg


A close upof another He11 choosing alternate parkway. 1st bomber to land still there!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/he111seven.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/bluebomber.jpg

The final pic shows an overall view. After 25 minutes approx, the first bomber is still in position. EVERY SINGLE bomber (actually I didn`t wait for all the bombers because I`d like to get to bed eventually! I don`t get paid for this.)parked without incident, finding ALTERNATIVE parking spots when a place was unavailable.

I do not do this for Stigler as he has an Agenda, but i do this for Lexx`s benefit because he`s badly mistaken and I respect him enough to go to all this trouble (hanging around for 30 mins after my flight) to prove the point! Stalingrad map btw.

I`ll probably be kicked off photobucket now for this.

LEXX_Luthor
02-08-2006, 06:14 PM
SeaFire::
I do not do this for Stigler as he has an Agenda, but i do this for Lexx`s benefit because he`s badly mistaken and I respect him enough to go to all this trouble...
Thanks, but I have been long aware of all the things you are trying to say and post screenshots about. We are not talking about that.

As you can see in my screenshots, perhaps I am pushing my sim beyond what its designed for...ie...using SET escort to create mass bomber formations beyond one (1) flight starting from airfield takeoff (something I wish Jetbuff could understand http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif). If Oleg can't create collision avoidance modelling for all aircraft beyond one flight, he can turn it OFF. At least for bombers (obviously large and small dive bombers alike).


SeaFire, everybody here -- probably even Stiglr since he/she plays this sim -- knows that Oleg fixed the AI airfield taxi routes, and while we waited years for that, Oleg could have turned OFF the AI vs AI collision at least on the airfields for landed aircraft instead of making the aircraft vanish. Interestingly, this effected large aircraft mostly, unlike the formation building problem, which effects both large and small dive bombers.

SeaFire::
I`ll probably be kicked off photobucket now for this.
Re-size your pics. I often don't read posts when I have to scroll past supersize images. Sometimes I block images from websites used by flight simmers who find their happiness in oversize pics. But I don't know if that would effect just your photobucket account or mine too hehe!!!

What is it with flight simmers and oversize pics? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LEXX_Luthor
02-08-2006, 06:38 PM
More clear ... We waited about 2 years for Oleg to fix the taxi routes so aircraft won't collide. Done! In the past.

The "temporary" solution which lasted for a whole year or more was to make the AI aircraft vanish immediately after landing which killed off a great feature of Offline play -- attacking parked planes.

Yes its fixed now, but it showed lack of attention to a simple fix because of a truly bizzare notion that aircraft colliding and exploding all over the airfield is more "realistic" than aircraft passing through each other for a few seconds while they find their parking spot which will be occupied for the rest of the mission run.

Very short and brief moments of "merge" do not hurt "dogfight game" immersion if it means more realism in the much larger Air Warfare simulation. That is what I try to achieve with mass bomber formations building up from takeoff.

LEXX_Luthor
02-08-2006, 06:55 PM
OldMan::
Avoiding collisions is all bout collisions. If there is no collisions,, there is no AVOID collisions. And since even you consider avoiding them so important... again.. no collision is terrible idea.

If there is a problem, it should be FIXED, not covered with a pice of cloth full of patches...
You made me think...if there were no collison modelling, some (a minority) of the aircraft in my SET escort problems would occupy the same space for most of the mission. So, just turning collisions OFF will not help here (Danschell's problems are another story though).

So yes, we do need collision avoidance as more important than collision itself -- to prevent aircraft from occupying the same space. Whether colliding aircraft explode or take damage is a secondary consideration. Granted, I may be pushing the SET escort function too far, and I may be needing more advanced AI formation capability. I really love to watch firey explosive collisions -- I am after all a flight simmer in addition to a wannabe air war simmer, but I need collision avoidance to match, and I'm asking too much with my formation attempts.

Danschnell
02-09-2006, 01:22 AM
Thank you for making your points Lexx. Sometimes a point needs to be made a lot of times because people still make the same misinterpretations of what you're saying.

During normal forming up there is NO collision AVOIDANCE at all, and in normal formation flight there is no avoidance at all of planes from OTHER flights. Its a breathtakingly bad omission.

To make it a little more complitcated, I believe that the He-111 collision avoidance seafire pictures here is only programmed into specific planes. In normal formation flight, fighters don't have collision avoidance programmed with even members of their OWN flight. I think Oleg thought it wasn't neccessary, but then comes big fighters like bf110 and they all collide. Mosquito will have same problem.

Seafire I understand that there are circumstances where AI aircraft avoid, but you need to understand that for 90% of your flight time those circumstances won't apply in D-Gen missions (variable in user missions.)

But its all irrelevant anyway. Oleg says he won't do anything about it. From the way he was talking I don't even think he believes theres a problem. He should play the DGEN offline Bf110 campaign.

He'd soon start foaming at the mouth with frustration as he looked down at his loss roster to see 90% of his lost pilots were t collisions, and all he was left with was 0 kill noobs.

Lexx can you do me a favour please? If you have lots of sequential screenshots showing planes approaching each other, and then just crashing into each other without avoiding at all... please send them to Oleg. Maybe he'll change his mind.

Stafroty
02-09-2006, 01:27 AM
why just dont make AI planes to withstand collisions with other AI planes? isnt that easier solution than to start program that too in their "brains" ? it wouldnt eat as much immersion, than those silly behaviors what they do with their mathematic brains when avoiding collisions?

for collisions between human and AI or Human vs human, it can be kept the same we have now.
well, it sure pisses bit when you collide with other virtual pilot, and you urself only lose part of your plane, as on friend screen nothing happened http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif hard issue

SeaFireLIV
02-09-2006, 12:12 PM
Something weird happened earlier. I couldn`t log on cos I was banned??? For most of the day until night time??

Anyway, from the responses here all I can see are people who refuse to believe what`s in front of them (and circumnavigating the issue a lot) because they basically want to stick with their same constant line. Unbelievable!

Jetbuff
02-09-2006, 01:15 PM
OK, I think I get your drift Lexx now. Correct me if I'm wrong, you're settng bombers to 'escort' other bombers so that they fly in formation, correct? Well in that case I suggest it's your method that is flawed not the collision avoidance. It may take some tweaking/testing, but you can certainly get a large formation to take-off and form up just using norm-fly waypoints. Granted your method is easier, but you said it yourself, that's not what it was meant for.

LEXX_Luthor
02-09-2006, 05:01 PM
Thanks Jetbuff. Yes you can make any "formation" manually, but it takes astronomically more work and the formation cannot maintain position pattern during turns. The SET Escort formation maintains formation pattern no matter how many turns. The neat thing, if you looked at the mission file posted above, is that only the lead flight has waypoints from takeoff to land. All others only need 2 waypoints -- takeoff and set escort.

A very advanced combat flight sim feature cannot be used effectively because of lack of collision avoidance between flights.

Perhaps a good compromise can found in having collision modelling for aircraft of the same flight, but no collisions for aircraft of different flights. The *best* solution is for altitude variation in the SET ESCORT function. I hope even SeaFire can see this. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The cause of this formation collision problem is all SET ESCORT bombers fly at the same altitude.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


SeaFire::
Something weird happened earlier. I couldn`t log on cos I was banned??? For most of the day until night time??
By any chance did you turn OFF javascript? I did that yesterday in my FireFox and I could not logg in until I turned it back on. I guess UBI requires the javascript.