Author Topic: In Flight Collisions (Read 1538 times)

Steven · « **Reply #30 on:** November 13, 2001, 06:50:00 PM »

<<<The only person that had a chance to avoid that collision was you because you are the only person that could see that collision.>>>

Why do you always think it's so easy to get out of the way? The bomber pilot who is currently gunning cannot get out of the way of a deadly collision attack that wasn't intended because the attacker's FE is saying he'll pass clear. Or the full flaps F4U turnfighting on the stall horn vs a P38 and a N1K comes diving/climbing in who thinks he'll miss because his FE shows him that yet the poor F4U detects a collision on his end even if he's not even aware of the N1K attack.

The conflict is between the fact that a bullet can hit you and shoot you down that you do not see but an aircraft can hit you that you do not see and there is no damage taken by you.

I would personally maybe want to run experiments with only have a collision occur in the game if BOTH FEs detect the collision. I've seen it happen, where both go down. This would still make it so that you are careful to keep some distance from your target or pursuer.

I think I might adopt the tactic of attacking bombers from above by diving down to fly in front of them so that if there is a delay their FE will see me a second later moving that player forward a little bit and a collision occurs on his end. Yeah, that's the ticket!

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Steven ]

Karnak · « **Reply #31 on:** November 14, 2001, 12:38:00 AM »

All 4 possible combinations have been tried.

Unfortunately my post explaining them got cropped and is missing its top half. I will edit it.

There is nothing else I, or anyone else can say beyond the fact that they have all been tried and what we have, while not flawless, is the best option available.

I can't explain any better or more than I have. This will be my last post in this thread. Please read the edited post above as well.

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]

R4M · « **Reply #32 on:** November 14, 2001, 08:13:00 AM »

just FWIW, the day I "collide" with a plane wich is 20 yards away, will be the same day I think seriously in playing only Sub Command.

If someone is as stupid/clumsy/idiot to crash his plane on mine, but I manage to avoid him, then I MUST NOT die. The reverse is also appliable. Period.

K West · « **Reply #33 on:** November 14, 2001, 10:04:00 AM »

Mutual shoot down during a collision is the equivalent of making the colliding plane a lethal one ping bullet. It would change the very nature of AH base defense and capture that is for sure.

Imagine this (too easy to imo),,,

I'm in a Yak and I've run out of ammo. I spy an enemy bomber/C47 flying towards my base to either bomb it or capture it. Do I land and hope to reup in time? lol. right

Or do I ram them as I know they'll go down too? Although I may lose my 2-4 perk points I may have accumulated!

The prevalent "win-at-all-costs" mind set would pervert any "mutal death collisions are more realistic" feature and intentional rammings would replace the HO over night. Only it would be worse.

IMO of course.

Westy

whels · « **Reply #34 on:** November 14, 2001, 10:37:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by O'Westy:
Mutual shoot down during a collision is the equivalent of making the colliding plane a lethal one ping bullet. It would change the very nature of AH base defense and capture that is for sure.

Imagine this (too easy to imo),,,

I'm in a Yak and I've run out of ammo. I spy an enemy bomber/C47 flying towards my base to either bomb it or capture it. Do I land and hope to reup in time? lol. right Or do I ram them as I know they'll go down too? Although I may lose my 2-4 perk points I may have accumulated!

The prevalent "win-at-all-costs" mind set would pervert any "mutal death collisions are more realistic" feature and intentional rammings would replace the HO over night. Only it would be worse.

IMO of course.

Westy

done that simular already.

was at a port 1 night in a m16.
enemy fighter straffed my gun out.
c47 lands to let troops out.
i purposly run into his stopped plane,
he blows up, i get the kill, i remain unhurt
lol.

whels

Lephturn · « **Reply #35 on:** November 14, 2001, 11:29:00 AM »

Hmmmm. Yep it's been a few months... about time for this topic to come up again. I was questioning this system way back in WB 1.01.. until Worr explained it to me and I finally understood. Hopefully, I'll be able to provide that understanding to some of you.

whels,
Yep even the current system is exploitable to some degree, especially by slow moving vehicles. It's not perfect, it's just the best compromise. You can't use exceptions to disprove the rule, it's not logical. Look at a regular merge between two fighters, which is by far the most common situation in the game, and that is the situation you need to work with. That is the situation that is the most problematic, and the one the current system is designed to solve.

Look at a head-on pass if mutual damage was the system we used. We come at each other head-on in Hellcats for example at 8k and 250 IAS or so, and you execute a barrel roll at 1.4 K getting out of my flight path completely. I don't see you do that on my FE for another second or so though, so I am trying to shoot you and fly straight into you like a fool. Please tell me why you should explode because I suck, even though you avoided me completely and in plenty of time? Why should you explode no matter what you do to avoid it? Wouldn't that lead to every merge being a simple hold-down-the-trigger-and-see-who-dies-first test? Wouldn't the fellow with the most laggy connection win that contest every time? Um... I'll keep what we have now thank you. It's the best compromise, and the only reasonable one IMNSHO.

wolf37 · « **Reply #36 on:** November 19, 2001, 10:10:00 PM »

Karnak:

If the plane dives down on me, on my six, and collides, how is it I am at fault and am the one that screwed up. if he came in on my high six in a dive to shoot me down, he must havce seen me, I got the check six call and took a fast look, but when he collided with me, I was not watching him. but as he was coming after me, he must have been looking at me to try and get the shot. so he would have to be the one that screwed up.

Steven · « **Reply #37 on:** November 19, 2001, 11:18:00 PM »

<<<Look at a head-on pass if mutual damage was the system we used. We come at each other head-on in Hellcats for example at 8k and 250 IAS or so, and you execute a barrel roll at 1.4 K getting out of my flight path completely. I don't see you do that on my FE for another second or so though, so I am trying to shoot you and fly straight into you like a fool. Please tell me why you should explode because I suck, even though you avoided me completely and in plenty of time?>>>

It's funny how I've gotten myself into this discussion. I can't put my finger on it, but even though I accept the system as it is, the arguments being used never hold water with me. Maybe I'm just a Devil's-advocate turd.

On my FE I avoid your aircraft in an HO and nothing happens.

On my FE I avoid your HO bullet stream yet seconds after you pass I hear the pings and I go down.

The above two examples seem contradictions to me. And it seems there is a phobia against colliding with an airplane your FE doesn't see. Colliding with bullets your FE doesn't see seems to be acceptable however. An object is an object is an object.

<<<Why should you explode no matter what you do to avoid it?>>>
You are talking only about having avoided another aircraft because you still believe that the bullet should hit even though you avoid it in a HO too.

Yes, I do understand the facts of delay and all that and know we are playing something with considerable limitations. I agree with the airplane-collision-phobia people though and do accept the contradiction. It's actually kind of hard to intentionally ram someone HO who is trying to avoid you though. If someone is good at that, I would never call you a "fool" or say you suck. ;-)

Karnak · « **Reply #38 on:** November 21, 2001, 03:30:00 PM »

wolf37,

Its your fault because the collision only happened on your FE. There was nothing for him to avoid or make a mistake in doing. He had no control over what happened.

A mistake on his part would have been him colliding with you on his FE. That is something that he should have avoided.

wolf37 · « **Reply #39 on:** December 01, 2001, 05:02:00 PM »

Karnak:

If a plane is coming down on my high six for the boom and zoom attack, he must be able to see me. I saw him when I veiwed around looking up and back and did not stay in that veiw watching him come all the way down and into me, My veiw at time of collision was looking forward as I was startiing to roll out of the way of his attack. So for him to collide with me would mean that he could see me trying to avoid his attack and would have to adjust his line of attack to try for the shot, and then end up colliding with me. I am not saying he collided with me on purpose, but it does happen. But I dont see why I should be the only one to take the damage a end up dead.

And Hitech:

thank you so much for your respounce, I am so happy to know that by posting here I can expect to get insulted by you. As that is how I took and understood your respounce.

Smut · « **Reply #40 on:** December 01, 2001, 07:09:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by wolf37:
And Hitech:

thank you so much for your respounce, I am so happy to know that by posting here I can expect to get insulted by you. As that is how I took and understood your respounce.

Dude, if your skin is really that thin, perhpas you should consider something a bit less hostile for your computer gaming experiences. I'd suggest the MS solitare game to you, but you might get insulted when a card sticks a tongue at you...

-Smut

Karnak · « **Reply #41 on:** December 01, 2001, 07:31:00 PM »

wolf37,

What you say would be true if what he saw on his screen was the same thing your FE saw.

It is not.

Put yourself in his shoes, not yours. Look at what he sees.

Also, consider this:

If he had collided with you on his FE, you would have gotten off with a free kill.

Look at this theoretical occurance this way:

How would you like it if you also exploded in that situation?

How about being in the first situation and colliding and dying with thin air?

You are focusing too much on the specific instance that happened to you.

[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]

wolf37 · « **Reply #42 on:** December 02, 2001, 10:23:00 PM »

Karnak:

I am not saying there is anything wrong with his attack, but why should only one of us die, I did not see the collision as I was looking forward, there where no ping ping ping from gun hits, and a P-51 does not take your wing off with one hit. Yes he made a good attack as he had alt advantage and I would have done the same thing. But if he does not see the collision as he pulls up and I dont see it as I am looking forward, why just one plane to go down from it.

Smut:

why dont you read the title for this forum. If they dont want questons on gameplay feedback, then remove the forum. I asked a lagite queston, Hitech's answer was not lagite. It was nothing more then an insult. No matter how small an insult, it is not the way to answer a queston.

Karnak · « **Reply #43 on:** December 02, 2001, 10:53:00 PM »

wolf37,

Not only did he not see a collision, which your FE did even if you didn't, but he very likely saw a "not-collision".

It wouldn't look like he might have hit you and died due to that. It would look like he died due to getting within D200 of you.

What it comes down to is this, of the 4 methods of modeling collisions in online flight sims which produces, overall, the most realistic results?

Both dying produces realistic damage at the expense of realistic tactics and combat, it actualy encourages specifically unrealistc tactics in some cases.

It is more important to model combat as accurately as possible than to accurately model damage from collisions as the game is about air-to-air combat, not collisions.

K West · « **Reply #44 on:** December 03, 2001, 08:41:00 AM »

To this topic on collisions and other whines but about killshooter all I can say is THANK COD! that HiTech and Pyro aren't about to change anything just because a small minority have myopia.

Westy