The collision model SUCKS I hate it.

[CAP1]

Then I never hit them...  it takes two objects to have a collision. repeat: it takes two objects to have a collision.

you just hit the nail on the head!  it takes TWO objects to collide.
but there's FOUR aircraft in a 1-1 fight. there's 2 on your puter, and 2 on the other guys.

YOU hit on YOUR computer. no contact ever happened on the other guys puter.

[CAP1]

Sometimes collsions happen and you die thru no fault of your own now.  I've been scissored into(haven't we all?), the guy turn into me.. so not my fault...  I don't see how  there would be anymore complaining than there already is.

The latency bubble requirement would only be fulfilled if one FE registered an actual collision.

because again, it happened on YOUR machine. chances are good he mised you by pretty much on his machine

[CAP1]

I understand the collsion model as it works in its' current incarnation, with the differing perspectives of the FE's.. I get it.  I just do not agree with how collisions are handled. By definition, it takes two or more objects to collide. If there is a collision, both objects must be affected.

As it stands, we are basically ignoring newton's third law.

but go back to lusches pics, and imagine you're in that p47.  the way you want it to happen, he'd have taken damage too. but would you like to take damage from a plane that you see at over 100 yards away?

[Xasthur]

Fair enough.  Why should I be punished for collisions that others created but don't suffer damage from?

Uhhhh, because YOU crashed into them? The collision was your fault because you hit him. Do you actually think that the Typhoon was seeing what you saw and thought "hey, I can't shake this guy, I'll just slow down and get in his way so he crashes into me"? You do understand that on HIS computer screen he was probably trying to force an overshoot on an aircraft that was still over 200 yards away?

This is the typical and canned irrelevence I've come to expect from many. You really don't have anything to say except to be critical of others opinions.. why post at all?

Because your opinion is a demand 'to fix the code' when your 'problem' has nothing to do with code at all.

It has been explained with pictures and slabs of text not only Snailman but others too many times. The problem is not something HTC can 'fix', the internet is beyond their control.

Not only are you beating a dead and flogged horse, you're doing it in a 'pissy because I didn't get what I wanted' manner.

I'm critical of your opinion because it is either uniformed or willfully ignorant. If the former is the case my post was attempt to correct that and if it is the latter my criticism was well deserved.

When you started a topic with the words you used surely you expected no less than criticism? Temper tantrums don't inspire understanding.

[CAP1]

It is not the only alternative. No collisions at all is also alternative...

PS
I'm not saying which way is better

no collisions at all??? baaaaaad idea......it would become ace pilot central out there....

[Husky01]

no collisions at all??? baaaaaad idea......it would become ace pilot central out there....

I completely agree. 

[CAP1]

Fair enough.  Why should I be punished for collisions that others created but don't suffer damage from?

if you're referencing the original post with the tempest, it was actually your fault. you were too close to him. you were going too fast to avoid him.

[CAP1]

Interestingly enough, I don't think there'd be that many and no-one can show that there would be.

we have cable pullers. we have people in here who fly certian types of missions only to pretect score.....game the game. there were people that did the big h to the game...and they got caught and banned......people divebomb in lancs, dogfight in b25's.

there's plenty to show that people would indeed do that

[Steve]

we have cable pullers. we have people in here who fly certian types of missions only to pretect score.....game the game. there were people that did the big h to the game...and they got caught and banned......people divebomb in lancs, dogfight in b25's.

there's plenty to show that people would indeed do that

No offense but that's purely speculation. You simply don't know.

[Steve]

See Rules #4, #5

[Steve]

if you're referencing the original post with the tempest, it was actually your fault. you were too close to him. you were going too fast to avoid him.

I wasn't, but you're right that was my fault. However, I believe my system is better, simply based on that if I hit something, it will be damaged as well as I. I think both partiesd should take damage if teh formula I suggested indicates there was a collision.  Otherwise, neither party takes damage.

[2bighorn]

you just hit the nail on the head!  it takes TWO objects to collide.
but there's FOUR aircraft in a 1-1 fight. there's 2 on your puter, and 2 on the other guys.

YOU hit on YOUR computer. no contact ever happened on the other guys puter.

So, from 4 aircraft and two pilots (  ) involved in mid air collision 1 got damaged? Now I get it 

[Steve]

So, from 4 aircraft and two pilots (  ) involved in mid air collision 1 got damaged? Now I get it 

Ya, your fighter on his FE keeps flying and fighting.   

[Xasthur]

See Rule #7

[Karnak]

steve,

The problem is that you are deliberately not making obvious behavior predictions in an attempt to be neutral.

The fact is we know people game games.  They do it all the time, in reality and on computers.

If you give players that are inclined to use every tool they have to win, why wouldn't PlayerX up a Spitfire Mk XVI and ram PlayerY's Bf110G-2 when he knows he will be back in the same place in 30 seconds but it will take PlayerY 10-15 minutes to get back into the same place?  That is a 20-30 times value on player time.

And your suggestion would make it impossible for PlayerY to dodge.  Even if he did dodge successfully, "PlayerX" gets the same survival benefit from PlayerY's dodging efforts and gets to try again and again and again until he is successful.


Trying to pretend that we don't know how a tool will be used when we do know it is just sticking our heads in the sand.

EDIT:

And keep in mind that PlayerX will be firing while flying through PlayerY's Bf110G-2 each pass, so if the shooting doesn't do it the collision will.  PlayerX can't very well miss while he flies through PlayerY's Bf110G-2 can he?