Why the collision model works.

[Bronk]

Posted in the collisions thread.  I think this is significant enough for its own.


Went to the DA with a friend and shot film.

Now for all you people who want both to take damage .

Tell me why tangle should take any after looking at from his side.

Films best looked at from external .

Tangle's perspective.

http://www.speedyshare.com/505573530.html

My perspective.

http://www.speedyshare.com/193779581.html.


Basically from his view he gets "bronk has collieded with you.".  You then see me take damage in mid air.

My side you see me fly into his ac and take damage.


I submit this as proof collision model works as intended.



Thank you for your time.

Bronk

[Spatula]

AMEN

[Trikky]

Nice work but it still wont stop the monthly thread. Only explanation is that some people actually WANT to take damage even when they dont see it because its more REALISTIC.

[Lusche]

You can post any film you want but I know I lose every collision because other guys just take advantage of crappy connection so the server says its my fault and I die not the other guy HTC has to FIX collisions !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!










j/k

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Trikky
Nice work but it still wont stop the monthly thread. Only explanation is that some people actually WANT to take damage even when they dont see it because its more REALISTIC.

Wait, I didn't see you hit me but gimme damage anyway.   Is MORE realistic !!!!???!!




Bronk

[Trikky]

Anyone who says the damage model is crap is effectively saying 'I want to die through no fault of my own'.

[Benny Moore]

Actually, usually they whine for no collisions unless both front ends register it.  That effectively disables collisions, so I can only assume it's the head-on crowd that whines about collisions to most.

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Benny Moore
Actually, usually they whine for no collisions unless both front ends register it.  That effectively disables collisions, so I can only assume it's the head-on crowd that whines about collisions to most.

I have film where we both take damage.

Guess what we both get the "xxx has colided with you.".

Point of my post what you see is what you get.

Bronk

[BaldEagl]

OK, I've never whined about the collision model and I'm sure you guys are going to explain Internet lag and otherwise rip on me for it but I got killed three times in the last two days by the same types of collisions.

In the first I shot down a B-24.  I dived below him after ripping his wing off.  He had enough manouverability to roll it down into me as I crossed under killing me before i got the kill on him.  

In the other two I was in close combat and the enemy rolled over into me on his break turn.

In every case I attempted to avoid my oncoming enemy.  In every case they got the kill and I died.  I wish I had film.

I quickly realized that the common denominator was that my nose hit them in mid-plane even though there was nothing I could do to avoid it and that it was done purposefully (in the fighters i was pulling for lead shots against slower, better turn fighters at least given E-states but not with a significant E advantage).

Now I know how to game the collision model and so do you.

[SteveBailey]

The collision model may be the best it can be under the circumstances but I find fault with the following scenario and it happened to me just tonight.

I dove on a p51b in my D. I scored good hits as I dropped on his 6 and at same alt.  I then shot past him, going over his top.  At the last second he dips his left wing and his right wing  then collides with my plane. My plane loses critical pieces, alright so be it. The bad guy wanders off, undamaged from the collision.
 However, I feel if my FE shows me colliding w/ his wing that his wing ought to take damage as well, regardless of what his FE shows.

[BaldEagl]

Let me put this very simply.  Whoever's nose hits loses.  No matter what.  Thus the danger in HO's as both noses face possible collision.  If one turns just enough that the other noses into his wing, the guy who hits the wing loses.

If your nose hits any part of an enemy plane you will lose.  As long as his nose doesn't hit he'll fly away.

The Internet lag theory is a crock.  Maybe HT explained it to you all that way and maybe he thought it was that way.  I'm assuming he's got other people doing programming and it wouldn't be the fist time an employee snowballed his or her boss.  If so, HT, did you actually take the time to read the code?  Believe me, I'm not calling you out, just calling it as I see it.

Go into the arena, get into a collision or two and prove me wrong.  I'll bet I'm right every time.

[mussie]

Originally posted by SteveBailey
The collision model may be the best it can be under the circumstances but I find fault with the following scenario and it happened to me just tonight.

I dove on a p51b in my D. I scored good hits as I dropped on his 6 and at same alt.  I then shot past him, going over his top.  At the last second he dips his left wing and his right wing  then collides with my plane. My plane loses critical pieces, alright so be it. The bad guy wanders off, undamaged from the collision.
 However, I feel if my FE shows me colliding w/ his wing that his wing ought to take damage as well, regardless of what his FE shows.

What about this then

I am flying behind a player who is landing.

I have no ammo.

I ram him on purpose.

The other player who got rammed saw me close behind but decided that landing was more important.

The other player could not see the fact that I was going to ram him (on his end I was 100 behind when the collision occoured) and there fore he did not try to avoid.

He dies because on my end I rammed his plane

Now in this case would your idea be appropriate ?

EDIT: removed all caps... I hate all caps

[mussie]

Originally posted by BaldEagl
The Internet lag theory is a crock.

My God do you even understand what lag is... ?

[Kweassa]

I quickly realized that the common denominator was that my nose hit them in mid-plane even though there was nothing I could do to avoid it and that it was done purposefully (in the fighters i was pulling for lead shots against slower, better turn fighters at least given E-states but not with a significant E advantage).

Now I know how to game the collision model and so do you.

 Bullshi*.

 If you can do that, try and gain 5 kills straight by causing deliberate collisions that only the other guy is damaged. Give us the film, and we'll admit that collision model can be exploited purposely.

 There's no such thing as an unavoidable collision. Every collision is a failure on one's own part to take the necessary precautions to avoid it, and that's a fact. And as long as collisions are avoidable, there's no such thing as a "collision exploit".

[mussie]

Originally posted by BaldEagl
Maybe HT explained it to you all that way and maybe he thought it was that way.  I'm assuming he's got other people doing programming and it wouldn't be the fist time an employee snowballed his or her boss.  If so, HT, did you actually take the time to read the code?  Believe me, I'm not calling you out, just calling it as I see it.

IIRC HT Designed the code
IIRC HT has been in this bussiness for about 15 Years

Ever heard of "Confirmed Kill" or "Warbirds".....


From BulletHead, a History of HiTech

From the above theread

Originally posted by hitech
MOSQ Generaly described the sitatuion and outcome , but it was just makeing a detailed range sight . And expoerting the  terrain to acad so I could messure distances from fixed points of refference.

The monitor came later when I needed to make logs to show them they had blanks.

Btw all that stuff produced a film view, a terrain editor, and a cockpit editor . Kesmie used the TE for makeing there newer terrains, and the Film viewer and cockpit editor was release to the public.

So from this I think it proves that HT knows somthing about programming and flight sims