Collision Model

[2fly]

It is goofy.  It all makes sense from a technical point fo view.  If I was the God of HTC I would consider implementing a change to discourage collisions.  If either computer detects a collision then both aircraft are destroyed.  Realism suffers a bit but then whats realistic about a one way collision?  I personally get a bit miffed when I am flying something like a P47 and get rammed (or ram) a zero and go down while the tissue paper zeke flies away unharmed.

But like others have said.  It is what it is and I choose to pay my $15/month knowing it is that way so the responisbility is mine.

[Scca]

Originally posted by 2fly
It is goofy.  It all makes sense from a technical point fo view.  If I was the God of HTC I would consider implementing a change to discourage collisions.  If either computer detects a collision then both aircraft are destroyed.  Realism suffers a bit but then whats realistic about a one way collision?  I personally get a bit miffed when I am flying something like a P47 and get rammed (or ram) a zero and go down while the tissue paper zeke flies away unharmed.

But like others have said.  It is what it is and I choose to pay my $15/month knowing it is that way so the responisbility is mine.

So...  You're suggesting that in an intense furball, you expertly evade an oncoming HO newb with a deft flick of your stick, and suddenly end up in the tower because said newb doesn’t have the dodging skill you have perfected?  

You would be on the board complaining that “I missed him and died!!!!!!”

Will never happen

[2fly]

I know it will never happen, but here is my logic.

The technology is (reportably) incaple of resolving the issue realisticaly.  Therefore all that is left is discouraging the risky flying.  If you know that raming the other guy will always result in your death as well then perhaps some will be discouraged from pushing it.  Would there be other problems, of course.  Nothing will ever make everyone happy.

[The Fugitive]

If you ram a guy on your computer, it WILL result in damage on your plane. Sounds like they have the incentive in there now. The only reason the other guy would get damage is if he collided with your plane on HIS computer.

[hubsonfire]

2fly, that's what the current system does. If the system were to detect a collision on one end, and destroy both planes, the kamikaze gets a reward, and the guy who was flying more intelligently gets punished. That is a horrible idea.

[B@tfinkV]

all in favour of a new forum being opened say aye.

Collision Model Forum - general and repetetive discusion on the collision model of AH2 and why we are sick of talking about it.

aye

[dedalos]

Originally posted by RedTop
It's confusing to say the least....And since we have had some GREAT fights and generally get along well...let me ask ya this...

If 2 planes collide in real life , and lets just say minimal speed to stay in flight , wouldn't more than likely BOTH planes sustain significant damge to prolly kill both guys or at least cause both planes to not be flyable?

Just wondering your thougts as I really don't like..nor totally understand the collsion modle.

nah, most likely you will lose a flap and I will get a pilot wound

[2fly]

Originally posted by hubsonfire
2fly, that's what the current system does. If the system were to detect a collision on one end, and destroy both planes, the kamikaze gets a reward, and the guy who was flying more intelligently gets punished. That is a horrible idea.

Thats not what the system does now. If it only detects one collision it only damages one plane. The Kamikaze will always be rewarded if that is his aim.   I suppose my beef is less with whether it detects a collision at all but in how it assigns damage.
I dont like how small light planes such as Zero's collide with P47s or Typhoons, or 190s or whatever.  Know the wings off off of them and fly away without any damage of their own. I have even seen a spitfire collide with a B-17 once and knock a wing off it and take no damage.  Absurd.   So let me amend my statement slightly.  When a collision is detected on BOTH ends then destroy Both aircraft.  
 
On a related issue the one that bothers me more than collisions really is Lag bullets.  Someone trys to HO you and you avoid it.  You fly past them, look back and see them speeding away and THEN the bullets hit you.

[Ghastly]

Originally posted by 2fly
Thats not what the system does now. If it only detects one collision it only damages one plane. The Kamikaze will always be rewarded if that is his aim.   I suppose my beef is less with whether it detects a collision at all but in how it assigns damage.
I dont like how small light planes such as Zero's collide with P47s or Typhoons, or 190s or whatever.  Know the wings off off of them and fly away without any damage of their own. I have even seen a spitfire collide with a B-17 once and knock a wing off it and take no damage.  Absurd.   So let me amend my statement slightly.  When a collision is detected on BOTH ends then destroy Both aircraft.  
 
On a related issue the one that bothers me more than collisions really is Lag bullets.  Someone trys to HO you and you avoid it.  You fly past them, look back and see them speeding away and THEN the bullets hit you.

If I understand what you are asking for correctly, you are asking for collisions to work exactly as you are describing "lag bullets".   You'd avoid the collision, look back, see the other guy explode and you'd explode too - even if you missed him by 50 meters.

Is that really what you want?  No thanks....

And to your original point, the Kamikaze is ONLY rewarded if you don't avoid him on your own system.  If you do so, then he only manages to kill himself.  And when both players system detect a collision, then both planes suffer damage or destruction - that's how it is NOW.

[hubsonfire]

Originally posted by 2fly
Thats not what the system does now. If it only detects one collision it only damages one plane. The Kamikaze will always be rewarded if that is his aim.   I suppose my beef is less with whether it detects a collision at all but in how it assigns damage.
I dont like how small light planes such as Zero's collide with P47s or Typhoons, or 190s or whatever.  Know the wings off off of them and fly away without any damage of their own. I have even seen a spitfire collide with a B-17 once and knock a wing off it and take no damage.  Absurd.   So let me amend my statement slightly.  When a collision is detected on BOTH ends then destroy Both aircraft.  
 
On a related issue the one that bothers me more than collisions really is Lag bullets.  Someone trys to HO you and you avoid it.  You fly past them, look back and see them speeding away and THEN the bullets hit you.

On the contrary, that's exactly what it does now. It damages the plane whose FE sees a collision.

This isn't one big shared reality like, well, reality. Due to the limitations of the internet, and computer and communications hardware, we have hundreds of separate realities, that share the same events, with those events occuring some milliseconds apart, depending on who is viewing it.

BTW, when both players' front ends see a collision, both take damage. What you ask for, is what we have.

[2fly]

Ok.

You convinced me.

 But I still maintain that the damage assigned is bogus.  I would rather both go down automatically then continue to see Zekes slam jugs out of the sky and fly away with nothing worse than an oil leak or a missing flap.

[Karnak]

2fly,

So you spend 10-15 minutes getting to the enemy base and a guy who spent 30 seconds in his Bf109K-4 rams you in a manner you can't dodge sends you back to the tower?  You'd like that?

It would be the number one way to stop base attacks.  Kill your 15 minute time investment with a 30 second time investment.

[hubsonfire]

 I don't know why I bother trying to explain anything.

[Bronk]

Originally posted by hubsonfire
 I don't know why I bother trying to explain anything.

hehe How would you feel after doing the film da thing. Posting both the films and  pics, with good explanations mind you. Yet the numpties still don't get it.

[hubsonfire]

I'd ask HTC to ban my IP.