Ram model needs changing

[Elfie]

You are trying to apply real life physics and real time circumstances to a non-real life virtual world that will never be able to simulate real life physics and real time circumstances ... at least in my lifetime.

Keep the faith Slapshot, at the rate technology is improving you just might see a virtual world that can simulate real life physics and real time circumstances.

[-sudz-]

Dok: I have written the system you proposed back in 94. Out come is only on a direct head on would both people show a collision. You can test this now by seeing how often you see a double collision I.E. you get both messages.

So now lets assume we just take that as a fact, what would the out come of this implemtation be, You wish less head ons. But by implementing this system the chances of taking damage when you fly threw a plane are greatly reduced. Hence you will continue and press the head on more than you would now. 2ndly you are acctuly penalizing the guy who breaks off to avoid the collision, because If he avoides it, it allows the other player to fly right threw him. So net affect head on pass becomes a better option.

You would never have a collision when diving in on a bomber and could always just keep shooting as you flew right threw him.

If you are experincing more  collisions from head ons then you used to, it isn't the arena or other players that changed,or players gaming the game, but wrather you are pushing the edge to close. Kev just did some testing where both people are trying to collide, and found out it wasn't as simple as he thought.

Finaly for collision to occure 2 planes do collide now. What you are asking and what breaks the logic down is you think 2 people is the same as 2 planes , it isn't. And it still all comes down to, I do not belive I screwed up, it must have been the other guys fault,he should be punished.


HiTech
Ooops on sudz's computer.

[Edbert1]

Originally posted by -sudz-
You can test this now by seeing how often you see a double collision I.E. you get both messages.

Here's a screenie of a double collision, I started the film after the fact, it shows my plane with both horizontals and rudder missing (funny how I lose my tail in a HO) spinning in and the other player RTBing with a smoking engine. His E-state must have been quite high because at the start of the film he was almost 5K above me.



FWIW I have no problem with taking catastrophic damage when I collide, I just expect the other guy to when he does.

[Simaril]

Originally posted by -sudz-


...snip....

 And it still all comes down to, I do not belive I screwed up, it must have been the other guys fault,he should be punished.


HiTech
Ooops on sudz's computer.

That IS the tradition of US tort system, isnt it? I guess folks are just exporting the attitude to their games....

[DoKGonZo]

Originally posted by -sudz-
Dok: I have written the system you proposed back in 94. Out come is only on a direct head on would both people show a collision. You can test this now by seeing how often you see a double collision I.E. you get both messages.

...

OK ... fair enough, HT.

But I don't see how having both FE's report collisions would result in the bomber situation you site, though. Someone running into a bomber flying straight and level should register on both FE's, no? I mean, in that case both planes are more or less projectiles - one going slow and level, the other fast and oblique. Detecting where they merge should be one of the easier cases I'd think. But if testing has shown otherwise, I'll back off.

And the players have changed, HT. You hear it on the vox - six months ago I don't recall ever hearing someone say they were going to deliberately ram another plane. Now I hear it at least once or twice a night. Maybe it's just the hours I fly, but it has changed.

(Dang ... I hadn't heard Cal's name mentioned in years.)

[JMFJ]

Originally posted by Simaril
You're confusing reality with the computer game on your desktop.

Time passes as electrons run the internet -- and at simulated speeds of 300mph (or closure rate of 600 mph with nose to nose)  you'll see 200-500 FOOT differences in aircraft positions between the 2 computers involved in the 1/4-1/2 sec lag.

JMFJ, you are therefore saying that YOU would rather take damage when soem dweeb hits you on his front end, even though you've managed to get FIVE HUNDRED FEET AWAY by flying well on your front end?

Is that really what you want? You want to take damage when you are far away, adn you've done everything right?

Not me.

The alternative is the current system, where at least you have some control over what happens -- dont get close and you dont hit them.

My example offers the same result, don't get close and you won't both go down.

To date I've never had a collision occur from a plane that was 500 away (that doesn't meen that I don't think they occur), I would rather have us both go down.  Whether the guys is a dweeb or not, is irrelevant.  Statistics show that majority of air collisions result in both planes going down, so why not in a video game (designed to be as realistic as virtually possible) would statistics not prevail as the DEFAULT result.

I'm not expecting HTC to discern all of the "what if" scenarios, I'm stating if a collision occurs either both planes should stay up, or both go down would be a more fair way of dealing with it than who ever has the best/worste frame rate.  In a virtual world where unreliable conectivity is a major factor it seems statistics should be the final say not who hit who first, cause you can't control the truth of who did really hit who first.

I realize this is not probably the most popular opinion amongst the majority of posters on this forum cause for the most part, most of the posters on this forum are your experienced sticks, and don't play for fun but to win the dog fight.  Note the quote "some dweeb collides with you" is a prime example of you don't want to be punished because someone lacking in ability or conectivity should be able to affect your game.  The fact remains whether you hit him, or he hits you, a collision (by definition two objects in motion hitting one another) occured.  The result should be consistent with practical results.  Trying to doctor the code to match random events gives random results, which is what we got now.  Which appears that no one including HITECH is COMPLETELY satisfied with.

Trying to dictate collision results based on who is at fault (whether that be "a ramming player" or "bad connectivity") is like changing the HO coding so bullets shot from HO angles have no affect.  It takes away from why we all play this game over other games, cause it is suppose to be the most REALISTIC WW2 flight sim available on the market to date.  Otherwise why not let all of the planes drop flaps at all speeds?, or carry unrealistic levels of ord?, why not put cannon rounds on a f4u-1d?.  Because it's not in line with what history shows was a realistic truth of what it was.

It would be nice if peoples suggestions wouldn't be caked with personal gain incentives, most suggestions seem to be full of things that benefit that particular players abilities or lack there of.

Oppinions should not come out of both sides of your mouth.  Supporting realism when it's a change in your favor, but not supporting it when it's not in your favor.

I'M NOT POINTING AT YOU SIMARIL, just noting some of these players posts sit on both sides of the fence, depending on whether they gain an advantage by the change or not.  Take note my suggestions are apples for apples, If I get a spankin so should you, cause in the end it does take two.

JMFJ

[viator]

if when he collides "RAM" the game for 3 minutes didn't you fly...then the pilots would think it 2 times before of to collide:p

[SlapShot]

Originally posted by JMFJ
My example offers the same result, don't get close and you won't both go down.

To date I've never had a collision occur from a plane that was 500 away (that doesn't meen that I don't think they occur), I would rather have us both go down.  Whether the guys is a dweeb or not, is irrelevant.  Statistics show that majority of air collisions result in both planes going down, so why not in a video game (designed to be as realistic as virtually possible) would statistics not prevail as the DEFAULT result.

I'm not expecting HTC to discern all of the "what if" scenarios, I'm stating if a collision occurs either both planes should stay up, or both go down would be a more fair way of dealing with it than who ever has the best/worste frame rate.  In a virtual world where unreliable conectivity is a major factor it seems statistics should be the final say not who hit who first, cause you can't control the truth of who did really hit who first.

I realize this is not probably the most popular opinion amongst the majority of posters on this forum cause for the most part, most of the posters on this forum are your experienced sticks, and don't play for fun but to win the dog fight.  Note the quote "some dweeb collides with you" is a prime example of you don't want to be punished because someone lacking in ability or conectivity should be able to affect your game.  The fact remains whether you hit him, or he hits you, a collision (by definition two objects in motion hitting one another) occured.  The result should be consistent with practical results.  Trying to doctor the code to match random events gives random results, which is what we got now.  Which appears that no one including HITECH is COMPLETELY satisfied with.

Trying to dictate collision results based on who is at fault (whether that be "a ramming player" or "bad connectivity") is like changing the HO coding so bullets shot from HO angles have no affect.  It takes away from why we all play this game over other games, cause it is suppose to be the most REALISTIC WW2 flight sim available on the market to date.  Otherwise why not let all of the planes drop flaps at all speeds?, or carry unrealistic levels of ord?, why not put cannon rounds on a f4u-1d?.  Because it's not in line with what history shows was a realistic truth of what it was.

It would be nice if peoples suggestions wouldn't be caked with personal gain incentives, most suggestions seem to be full of things that benefit that particular players abilities or lack there of.

Oppinions should not come out of both sides of your mouth.  Supporting realism when it's a change in your favor, but not supporting it when it's not in your favor.

I'M NOT POINTING AT YOU SIMARIL, just noting some of these players posts sit on both sides of the fence, depending on whether they gain an advantage by the change or not.  Take note my suggestions are apples for apples, If I get a spankin so should you, cause in the end it does take two.

JMFJ

I guess you really don't understand what has been written and explained in detail ... or maybe you don't have the capacity to understand what has been explained.

Most angst and anguish that comes from collisions is due to the fact that most don't really understand what takes place to bring this virtual world forward to the masses in a best case scenario ... hence the creation of these collision threads.

To insinuate that some are trying to change the collision coad to suit their flying style is insulting to say the least, and then to try and lay it on experienced sticks is even more insulting. Experienced sticks have dealt with this for quite some time, and if they didn't deal with it, then they wouldn't be experienced sticks ... they would have quit long ago.

[hubsonfire]

Both PCs don't see the same thing at that same time. Period. Ever. Forget reality, forget realism. The game isn't written to be "the most realistic sim". That is only you saying that. Both players don't see the collision, so determining, randomly, as you are suggesting JMJF, that one computer is the correct reality, and the other isn't, and destroying both planes after spinning the bottle, would only worsen the situation. With no consistency, the ram model would only infuriate those of us who understand and accept the current model.

Taking both planes down if one registers a collision is a horrible idea, whether you understand how the current setup works or not.

Also, regarding all the "induced" collisions. I seriously doubt most noobs understand how collisions work in here, and probably have many of the same misconceptions that many of you have. I've heard a lot of things called out on vox and typed; this doesn't mean any of them were successfully executed.

If you think it's really a simple matter to consistently induce collisions, I urge you to try it. My personal experience is that it's easier to induce a mutual HO collision. I've only managed 2 or 3 intentional collisions, and it's impossible to say 2 of those were due to my skillful flying. The first victim was Wadke, and while I think I have it on film, I don't have his perspective.

[Boxboy]

As I said before just turn collisions off and the problem is solved as to collisions, but you will NOT like what comes AFTER they are turned off.

I get frustrated when I collide but in ALMOST all cases it was really my own fault, on the rare occasion that the ACM sucked me into one that I could not avoid well watermelon happens.

[E25280]

Originally posted by Elfie
On my FE I have to hit an enemy plane or vehicle for a collision to occur. Or, an enemy has to hit my plane on HIS FE for a collision to occur. When a collision occurs, I expect BOTH aircraft/vehicles to take damage. Anything less is kinda gamey is it not?

No, gamey is when Elfie passes straight down at d400 in front of me, and suddenly my tail falls off because of it.

Originally posted by Edbert1
FWIW I have no problem with taking catastrophic damage when I collide, I just expect the other guy to when he does.

Two problems with what you say.  First, "where" you collide, i.e. the part of your airplane that collides, should absolutely make a difference as to how much damage you take.  Suppose your front end felt a minor collision of your wingtip scraping his verticle stablizer or some other minor scrape. Meanwhile on his front end his nose cone appeared to go right through your fuselage.  He disintegrates, as it should be given "his" collision, while you fly away with paint scratches, as it should be given "your" collision.  Why would you want your minor scrape to be equally catastrophic?

The second problem is, even given "real life" collisions, damage is not necessarily equal anyway.  Consider the following . . .

From May 2006 issue of World War II Magazine:

Article "Typhoon Strikes", an interview with Harry Hardy, a Canadian WWII pilot with more than 100 attack sorties. Bold mine.

WWII: You were posted to No. 61 Operational Training Unit at Rednal, England . . .
Hardy: . . . Nothing spectacular happened there, except I had a midair collision and lost a Spitfire.
WWII: What happened?
Hardy: We were practicing dogfighting. One guy would take the lead and the other would follow. You were expected to do everything you could to shake your opponent, and he was supposed to hang on. On this particular occasion I was out in front and being chased. In an effort to break away, I whipped my Spitfire into a tight turn and dropped a little flap to tighten up the turn. He wasn't watching and flew right into me. My Spitfire exploded. His was still flyable so he got it down. I was just left there in the seat and there was no Spitfire. I got rid of the seat and opened my parachute. I remember how quiet it was going down. There was fog on the ground. I went down through it and landed in a farmer's field. I wasn't hurt at all. They put the two of us in a hospital and checked us all over. They endorsed my logbook and said it was partially my fault.

IMHO, nothing wrong with the collision model.  Slapshot's "wall of text" is the most thourough explanation I have seen so far, and Edbert1's post right after explains the common misperceptions.  Should be made a sticky on the Forum and sent as required reading to all new subscribers.  After that, applying a few brain cells is all that is required to understand it.  Judging by a few posts afterward, I guess whining is just easier for some people than logic.

[hubsonfire]

Unfortunately, we don't know the exact situation in which one plane disintegrates, and the other flies home. While it's an interesting story, it doesn't help us much with sorting out which cartoon plane goes home and which doesn't. I would still tend to think that relative speeds should be a factor, possibly more than they are now, in determining the severity of the damage, but I think Ed does make some interesting points. At the same time, I don't want to suddenly explode for slashing his wingtip with my own.

[JMFJ]

Originally posted by SlapShot
I guess you really don't understand what has been written and explained in detail ... or maybe you don't have the capacity to understand what has been explained.

Most angst and anguish that comes from collisions is due to the fact that most don't really understand what takes place to bring this virtual world forward to the masses in a best case scenario ... hence the creation of these collision threads.

To insinuate that some are trying to change the collision coad to suit their flying style is insulting to say the least, and then to try and lay it on experienced sticks is even more insulting. Experienced sticks have dealt with this for quite some time, and if they didn't deal with it, then they wouldn't be experienced sticks ... they would have quit long ago.

LOL:rofl

[hubsonfire]

Well, there's a useful post offering all sorts of interesting insight and technical knowledge.

Campers = wasted carbon.

[Simaril]

Originally posted by JMFJ


To date I've never had a collision occur from a plane that was 500 away ...snip....


JMFJ

Yes, you have. It just didnt look that way on your machine.

You do not understand the software at all.

OK, let me try to say this simply. The game is not played on the server. There is no central processor that decides where planes "really" are. The server is a results clearing house, thats it.

The game is played on each subscribers computer -- 500 in arena, 500 computers processing the game. The computers are far apart, so net lag means that my plane on YOUR computer is IN A DIFFERENT PLACE than it is on my computer. Let me say that again, because your rather condescending megapost shows complete ignorance of that fact -- my plane on YOUR computer is IN A DIFFERENT PLACE than it is on my computer.

The "500 feet" I referred to is NOT how it looks on your computer -- Its the DIFFERENCE between where your computer thinks our planes are, and where my computer thinks our planes are. So no matter what it looks like on your computer, it looks different on my computer. If I register a collision from hitting your 6, you may show me 300 feet behind you.

SO I repeat, do you want to die because I hit you from behind, even though you didnt come anywhere near me?












P.S. The "some dweeb collides with you" comment was intended as a humorous sop to your position, nothing more. You woudl have understood that if you knew me -- and my  MANY help-the-new-guys posts -- at all.  

You should be very careful when you assign motives to individuals, and especially to groups. There is much you do not perceive in the world, young paduan.