Ram model needs changing

[2bighorn]

Yes we did.

[SlapShot]

Or is it that your ego refuses to belive that you screwed up, and damaged your plane, because it realy must have been the other guys fault.

That is the core of all these "fix the ram" threads.

What a bunch of wussies ... you collided ... don't worry about the other guy ... your the dolt that collided so suck it up and grab a new plane.

There are so many more important things in life to fret over ... it amazes me to read some of the logic and reactions that some people have to this phenomenon.

[Elfie]

Jousting so bad that it soon became the perferred method of engagement.

We have many jousters in AH as well. For those, jousting is the preferred method of engagement. /shrug

The only way to stop jousting is to do as AirWarrior did and nerf head on gunfire. (That isnt going to happen here either.)

Personally I dont cry foul when I run into a jouster, I do however, think that jousting is lame.

No collisions results in people flying through their targets, guns blazing from ranges that they cannot possible miss from. It totally distorts any semblence of WWII air combat tactics as suddenly the best tactics are ones that would quickly kill you in reality.

I actually try for those *guns blazing from ranges you cant possibly miss from* shots. Of course, you have to be prepared to roll your plane out of the way of the wreckage right after firing your guns at those close ranges or risk running into your target or his large pieces. I sometimes still manage to miss from those ranges though.

Example: The last time OzKansas was up I upped an La-7 to go hunt down a cherry picker La-7 and ran into Urchin. I purposely went for one of those close range shots knowing that 1) if I missed it I was dead due to the impending overshoot, 2) if I dont time it perfectly I am still dead due to a collision. Fortunately for me (unfortunately for Urchin) I didnt miss my shot and I rolled to my right after the shot missing his wreckage as well.

Incidently, I never did find that La-7 driver I was looking for heh.

[Schatzi]

Originally posted by hitech
I assume you both checked your damage screens?

HiTech

Is it possible that damage taken from a collision is sublethal for the part damaged?

Ie in a collision you damage the right aileron, but not enough that it falls off (ie still green in damage screen). But it would take less hits for it to come off completely afterwards?





On that regard: would it be doable (without much "coading") to show sublethal damage on the screen in yellow or orange text?

[Karnak]

Elfie,

No, you don't try to reach those ranges.  You just said you have to roll out of the way and at the ranges I am talking about there is no way to do that.

Think less than 10 feet.

Think, "fly my fighter right through the center mass of that B-17 with guns blazing."

[Elfie]

Originally posted by Karnak
Elfie,

No, you don't try to reach those ranges.  You just said you have to roll out of the way and at the ranges I am talking about there is no way to do that.

Think less than 10 feet.

Think, "fly my fighter right through the center mass of that B-17 with guns blazing."

Ok, I cant roll out of the way at 10 feet heh. Otoh, I dont recall seeing alot of that in AW either. Not that  close anyways.

Edit* the example with Urchin though, I was close enough for the range indicator to read 0.

[killnu]

Originally posted by Booz
But there were large problems of jousting without concern for damage. Jousting so bad that head-on gunfire was almost completely nerfed. Jousting so bad that it soon became the perferred method of engagement. We'd fly head on into the enemy in preparation for the immelman, don't worry about collision or gunfire, fly on through him as if he didn't exist. It was so bad that an entire generation of sim pilots thought that flying headon through the enemy was "how" to conduct air combat, an entire generation that today still cries foul at head on fire.

If i recall correctly, they also lowered down the % of HO shots that actually hit?  I flew from AW2 on.  I would much rather merge with a guy HO and fly thru them then tango with lower chance of HO, than do what happens now...they fly in HO gunz a blazing (already 50/50 chance of living) then you get collision on one of the ends(another crap shoot to living).


I do understand that it was a RR arena, this is not.  But if was a way to make the HO shot a lower % to hit, that would be nice and force people to gain a 6 shot.  my piddly thoughts.   i may be all wrong anyways.  

[Elfie]

And in that reality long long ago the standard tactic was hold triger down and fly threw the other plane.

Some did that, some didnt. Some tryed to conserve ammo some didnt. Just holding the trigger down was a waste of ammo imo (still is).

So exatly how is your "Opionion" created, have you actualy tried a creating a flight sim with all different option. Have you realy evaluated /tested/ seen the outcome of the different options?

I havent created a flight sim, but you already knew that.  I have however played various flight sims with various ways of dealing with collisions. I have formed my opinion based on my experiences, just as you have formed yours based on your experiences.

And do you not agree that when you fly threw a plane you take damage? Or is it that your ego refuses to belive that you screwed up, and damaged your plane, because it realy must have been the other guys fault.

I do take damage if I fly into another plane. So *should* the other plane.  My ego isnt in question here Just moments ago I was attacking a B-17 formation with a Tempest, I shot down the first 2, and in my own greed I hit the 3rd with my plane. Did I get mad? Or say it was the other  guys fault? Absolutely not. Why? Because I was greedy and paid the price

And under that agument it is imposible to even create a combat flight simulator, because just as with plane collisions, bullets also are not seen in the same place on both front ends, and hence do not collide with the plane on both front ends

Thats a point I hadnt thought of. So what else can be done? Would you agree that both planes *should* take damage during a collision? (In a perfact world that is, or in this case a perfect game?)

[Redd]

Originally posted by Elfie


Thats a point I hadnt thought of. So what else can be done? Would you agree that both planes *should* take damage during a collision? (In a perfact world that is, or in this case a perfect game?)

No way Elfie.


best example is the classic HO dweeb that fly's at you. You dodge/roll whatever to avoid him - on your FE you miss . He ploughs into you on his FE.

Why should you collide/take damage when you avoided him !

[hubsonfire]

 HiTech made teh funnay!


I take back most of the things I said about you; you're pretty amusing when you get irritated.

[Elfie]

Why should you collide/take damage when you avoided him !

Because a collision involves 2 planes and not just one?

[hubsonfire]

Okay, seriously, how many of you guys supporting "both die" have HiTech on your Ignore list? Surely you haven't read any of what he's posted.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Elfie
Because a collision involves 2 planes and not just one?

In AH it involves only one airplane.  Sorry, but that is the best way to look at it.

[Edbert1]

I told myself I wasn't going to post in this thread anymore to avoid provoking anyone any further, but...

I am not suggesting we dump the model we have, having only the rammer take damage is the most fair compromise to reality we can have. My only suggestion is that the rammer take catasrophic damage from 99.999% of the rams. I don't see why folks wont admit that with the current model players "see" another plane narrowly miss colliding yet never fire, then get a "xxxx has collided with you" message in white, then have their own plane disintegrate while the person who hit them flies off.

I understand the story, for those who think nobody pays attention to what they write...what really happened was that the other player fired at the last second, but the artwork hadn't updated itself until after the other plane flew past you (according to your FE) and the damage you received was not from the impact but from bullets that you never saw fired from a plane that was not where you thought it was.

It does NOT diminish the fact that the player who collided is flying away from a high speed mid-air crash, even if it means his damage does not show up. I mean, that WAS a midair collision of there right?

I am not questioning the veracity of how the coad works, I am sure it does what Dale it says it does. None of this is meant as an affront to anyone, but a large number of players see the same thing. Perception IS reality on some level. I'd just like for someone to admit that you can be hit by another player at 200-400mph (with differential speeds of 800mph or more in some cases) and he can fly away from the collision, regarless of whether your plane disintegrates or not.

I have seen a significant rise in this effect, maybe once a week or so with the limited flying I do. My guess is that many have figured out that if you bore right into someone as if to ram and fire at the last second they'll blow up and you might get some damage from a ram (of parts?) but they are dead and you have a good chance of landing...at least a better chance of that than if you had tried ACM rather than your newfound ramming technique. Perhaps the host could discount the 1-second of damage preceeding a collision for the rammer?

Anyhow, just rambling here...sorry if I have offended anyone that is never my intent.

[Connery]

So wait a second.... during a collision it is possible for both players to take damage ?