People need to learn when THEY ram .

[RAPIER]

The collision model and the lag it has to deal with has the same result when you are fighting 1v1 and the nmy AC comes at you from the front, other than HO, and you see you avoided his shots, by plenty, but low and behold, you are getting shot to H and back.  You see yourself as well clear, yet you die or get hit.  Reason, probably same as with a collision, he sees hits, and you in his sights, and you do not.  
Things happen, but I am sure they tend to even out.

[Softail]

The collision model is very consistent on my FE.

I always lose.

Always.

Never have I survived.

Ever.

No joke....I get the
You have collided with XXXXXXX
XXXXX has collided with you.

I spin to the earth.
XXXXXX flies on like nothing happend.

So for consistancy....it is 100%.

Softail.

[Silat]

Originally posted by WMLute
Quick def. of "see"

When they say you SAW the ram on your front end, (sigh)

Most in here see a EWE on their front end.

[rshubert]

Originally posted by Softail
The collision model is very consistent on my FE.

I always lose.

Always.

Never have I survived.

Ever.

No joke....I get the
You have collided with XXXXXXX
XXXXX has collided with you.

I spin to the earth.
XXXXXX flies on like nothing happend.

So for consistancy....it is 100%.

Softail.

Yeh, me too.  I thought it was a conspiracy, then realized it is only Lord Krishna working to level my karma.  Some day, when my karma is in balance, I will start surviving collisions.

I know this to be true.

[TripleD]

why would i get the collide message if i am upping on a runway and a vulcher rams me?

[Bronk]

Because on his front end he probable just went past you when you spawned.


Bronk

[Schatzi]

Originally posted by Donzo
This is not an accurate statement.
 
Here's why:

I'm flying along straight and level and you come in from my side.  I do nothing and you fly into me from my 5 o'clock position and pull up at the last second.  On my front end I see you hit me, on yours you do not.  So I get the "I have collided" message and you get the one stating I collided with you.  

In this simple example I did not do the hitting as you stated.  My front end only saw the planes touch.  This does not mean that I did the hitting.

This is not a gripe about the collision model, just pointing out that it's not as you say it is.

Its not about who DID something.... its not about whos the "active" and whos the "inactive" part of a ram. Its not:

Its about whos FE registers two planes in the same spot at the same time.... nothing more and nothing less then that. (which might not even be 100% consistant with what actually displays on your monitor either).

[Bronk]

Somebody had great description of whats going on with the damage model.
I cant find it so I'll try to remember it as best as possible.

Imagine your AC in game is towing a copy behind it. This copy is what everyone else can see.  Depending on connection speed the tow line can grow or shrink .

Thats why we have odd occurrences in game .
Things like GV colliding with AC , parked or taxiing ac hitting ones in flight.
The ac in the above  made his run and had already passed on his front end.
On the the targets front end it looks like he dives and runs into you.


Now my question is. Do you want to have an attacker take damage for making his run and not running into his target?

Think about it you make a low lvl pass and 200-400 out you get message you have collided. You check film and you can't see in it anywhere from external .

You think you guys are complaining about the collision model now. Just imagine it  if it depended on what the other guy can see.

Things like "WTF I cant find anywhere on film where I touch enemy AC and I collide. The collision model is porked.".

For the just turn it off crowd .  Think how buffers will feel when fighters fly through em with guns blazing away.

For the make both sides have to see it for assigning collision damage.
Its already there, only it's rare .  Usually in head ons when neither turn as they hit .

The collision model is the best compromise on reality. Especially when lag is factored in.  

Bronk

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Schatzi
(which might not even be 100% consistant with what actually displays on your monitor either).

Shatzi it is 100% consistent with what the front end sees. In every film I have seen posted about collisions the planes touch on external view.  


Bronk

[Schatzi]

Originally posted by Bronk
Shatzi it is 100% consistent with what the front end sees. In every film I have seen posted about collisions the planes touch on external view.  


Bronk

Film viewer is not consistent with what you see/saw in the game Bronk! The film viewer reconstructs the visual from the recorded data on the front end (since the collision that happened where recorded on the FE, they are visible in the viewer) - that doesnt mean that you neccessarily saw the same picture while happening in the game.

[Bronk]

Ahh ok .

So its the best representation of what the front end had seen .  

Thanks for the info.

Do you think that it's not the best representation of what actually happened though ?

Bronk

[Schatzi]

Originally posted by Bronk
Ahh ok .

So its the best representation of what the front end had seen .  

Thanks for the info.

Do you think that it's not the best representation of what actually happened though ?

Bronk

Depends on how you define "what actually happened" - ever film a perfect CV landing in the game only to notice the CV being 400 yards off the port side in the film?

[Mugzeee]

Originally posted by Schatzi
Its not about who DID something.... its not about whos the "active" and whos the "inactive" part of a ram. Its not:

Its about whos FE registers two planes in the same spot at the same time.... nothing more and nothing less then that. (which might not even be 100% consistant with what actually displays on your monitor either).

Well said Shatzi.

Thats exactly what i was tryin to get at.

Its not a "Blame" thing. Its a message that a collision has occured.

Thats why i think the Collision Message is missleading and fuel for argument and should be removed.

That is also why i think any comment that intends blame to another player whereas a collision is concerned is total stupididy.

Anyone that has played long enough to have been in only a few collisions knows it's very difficult to avoid at times and near impossible to predict.

I think the claims of "Intentional Rams" is WAAAAYYYY Out of proportion.

[E25280]

Originally posted by Bronk
Ahh ok .

So its the best representation of what the front end had seen .  

Thanks for the info.

Do you think that it's not the best representation of what actually happened though ?

Bronk

This might not be the most accurate description, but I have always thought of it as an "internal system lag" that layers on top of the internet lag.

That is, what my PC's CPU thinks happens is the "reality" -- and there is a small but present lag between what the CPU thinks happens and what the video card displays through the monitor.  If nothing else, it is the difference between the thousands of decisions per second in the CPU and the lousy 25 frames per second my video card/monitor displays.

So to Schatzi's point, my CPU can register a collision and my monitor did not quite keep up to "show" it happen at a closing speed of 600 mph.

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Mugzeee

I think the claims of "Intentional Rams" is WAAAAYYYY Out of proportion.

Agree 100% with this.

My original complaint was not about being hit. It was about someone hitting me then telling me I hit them.

I know they happen and couldn't care less about it.


Bronk