Another Collision Whine

[Lusche]

But yes to lend to your post, there IS an issue with collision that is ruining the game.  Any real attempt to find real battle is gone.  Possibly only the DA is your friend.  I like the randomness of the MA personally but get very frustrated when I fly 20 minutes to be taken out by yet another spit dweeb that didn't even make an attempt to fire his weapons.

The collision model isn't ruining the game.
Especially as it's been implemented this way from start.

If you really find yourself dying from collisions a lot, you should reevaluate your flying. I'm dead serious.

[Bronk]

The collision model isn't ruining the game.

Far from it.  It is a great source of entertainment.

[dkff49]

Far from it.  It is a great source of entertainment.

plenty of entertainment in game and on boards. 

[AWwrgwy]

Why is everyone so adamamnt against an improvement to the damage model?  All it would take is disabling rear damage in the case of collisions.  Please explain how this would make things worse.

Randomly blowing up when, in your perspective, you're nowhere near the other guy?  Better for you?


wrongway

[grizz441]

Why is everyone so adamamnt against an improvement to the damage model?  All it would take is disabling rear damage in the case of collisions.  Please explain how this would make things worse.

In that case I will try not only to make pursuing enemy fighters to overshoot me... I would try to incite a collision. After all I couldn't get damaged at all but they could. No risk for me, but high risk for them.

  You're going to get a dozen bullets in your tail 19 out of 20 times before you actually force a one sided collision on the enemy by sheer luck and enemy stupidity.  There's no way that anyone would be able to force rams in this manner.  Remember the pursuing plane does have guns mounted to his nose.

Also, just because *you* force the backwards ram wouldn't mean that *he* saw the ram.  So it's still the same concept just back collisions disabled on *your* end.

[moot]

What you see is what you get.  Anything else is too gamey the same way "HO cone" shields in AW (or wherever it was) were.

[grizz441]

What you see is what you get.  Anything else is too gamey the same way "HO cone" shields in AW (or wherever it was) were.

Heh I don't think disabling rear rams would be gamier than 100 other things.  I liked those HO cone shields in AW   Of course, ACM took a hit because guys would just go straight arrow through one another which is terrible acm.

[moot]

It's still gamey. Why not make players invulnerable to cons their SA missed?

[grizz441]

It's still gamey. Why not make players invulnerable to cons their SA missed?

That would certainly help me.

[mechanic]

I think if we took a real 262 and a 152 then rammed the 262's armoured nose cone into your tail feathers at great speed...the result would be much the same.

[SlapShot]

Way too funny ... making "exceptions" to collisions.

If anything in my aircraft's X/Y/Z coordinates intersects with something in the X/Y/Z coordinates of the aircraft that I am fighting (all on my FE), I had better take some sort of damage. The day that Dale starts making "special" areas of interest that ignore the intersections of X/Y/Z, is the day that I cancel my account.

Why can't people understand ... If you fly YOUR plane into another plane YOUR gonna take damage, be it minimal or catastrophic, who cares !!! You blew it ... suck it up and grab another plane and TRY with all that you have ... to not fly into another plane.

As Lusche pointed out ... if you are suffering from multiple deaths due to collision ... then you really need to re-look at your flying abilities ... don't come here whining to make a change because of your failures.

Personally ... I am real surprised that BE came to this BBS with this BS whine.

[grizz441]

Ultimately even though I have a very minor grievance with the collision model, it's fine the way it is and there's no reason to start making exceptions and complex coding to deal with subjective circumstances.  That said though, for those who go to the grave with the argument "It happened on *your* end"...I'm sure there has been at least one time where you got one sided rammed and were angry about it and felt the other guy was at fault even though he didn't *see* the ram.  I think you'd be lying if you said no.  It really doesn't matter though, it's rare and pointless to whine about.

[E25280]

This is also a pet peev of mine.

I simply do not understand why, when both planes
report that a collision has occured, both planes
don't crash.

Mid-air collisions are catastrophic events.
It is exceedingly rare for a plane to remain
airworthy after having one, especially when
the impact is highly kinetic.

Both should be dead or severely crippled and
near dead.

Check out at about 5:40 . . .

Long Odds

Clearly, in real life, the collision model is porked.   

[AWwrgwy]

"You would think...."

 



wrongway

[BaldEagl]

Why can't people understand ... If you fly YOUR plane into another plane YOUR gonna take damage, be it minimal or catastrophic, who cares !!! You blew it ... suck it up and grab another plane and TRY with all that you have ... to not fly into another plane.

Why can't YOU understand I didn't fly my plane into anything.  I was simply flying along, got rammed from behind and went down for it while the other guy flew on.  I certainly didn't BACK into him.