A question about the collision model ?? (no not a gripe)

[Stiglr]

I disagree on both points.  It would be worse precisely because there would often-to-usually be no penalty for flying through someone, and the whines would be worse due to the fact that there would be no consistency from the player's perspective on when he would or would not take collision damage.  The current system provides both the appropriate penalty for hitting an object and does so consistently (OP's problem notwithstanding).

Absolute hogwash. I know we've ALL experienced the exact opposite result happen from what our screens tell us. There is no consistency NOW from the player's perspective.

As for "flying through" people, how often d'you think that'd happen vs. "both" planes going up in a ball of flames?

I think the other solution would make EVERYONE more fearful of proximity.

[Bronk]

What he says is that the computers should check each other and there shouldn't be a collision for either player unless both computers agree on it. Which I don't think would be any worse (nor necessarily any better) than the current system, and would probably result in less whining and confusion.

That already happens If both collide they do indeed both go down. However if you run into me on your end you go down.

What you want is to run into me but check to see if I hit also. If I didn't you want your collision tossed out. Not a very good idea. Look at my pics above. I could  set up vert passes on buffs guns blazing. Go through the buffs and take no damage because the buffs did not see a collision.
Now I ask you whats more gamier? What you see is what you get or flying through the tail end of buffs taking no damage.

[Lusche]

Thank you, Motherland. Perhaps people might not be resistant to the concept if simply someone else says it.

Meanwhile, lusche wrote:

That's no more dissatisfying than clearly pulling off of a target with room to spare and going boom.

As I said, due to net lag coloring our "perception" the results are going to suck at times, no question. And it's not going to always seem 'fair'. But... having any plane ever fly away scot-free from a collision... I can't see how that's EVER acceptable.

I never fly away scot-free from a collision. If i see one, I take damage. If I see none, I don't. What you see is what you ge.
If collisions have to be mutual to get any effect, the results are getting inconsistent, but for the most part, you will be able to fly gun's blazing through enemy bombers, for example. Is that the kind of realism you are striving for?  

[Motherland]

I disagree on both points.  It would be worse precisely because there would often-to-usually be no penalty for flying through someone, and the whines would be worse due to the fact that there would be no consistency from the player's perspective on when he would or would not take collision damage.  The current system provides both the appropriate penalty for hitting an object and does so consistently (OP's problem notwithstanding).

You still wouldn't know whether or not there's enough lag to warrant safe passage through an enemy.... doing so by tactic would be about as practical as the 'fly slightly infront of a bomber when you're passing by quickly to force a 1 sided collision' that is often postulated but has never been successfully done, to my knowledge at least.

[E25280]

Absolute hogwash. I know we've ALL experienced the exact opposite result happen from what our screens tell us. There is no consistency NOW from the player's perspective.

Your claim is the the absolute hogwash.  I have never suffered collision damage when I did not collide.  Neither have most players.

[Bronk]

That's no more dissatisfying than clearly pulling off of a target with room to spare and going boom.

Post a film of that happening. I know you can't. If you don't touch on your front end you take ZERO damage from collision.

[E25280]

You still wouldn't know whether or not there's enough lag to warrant safe passage through an enemy.... doing so by tactic would be about as practical as the 'fly slightly infront of a bomber when you're passing by quickly to force a 1 sided collision' that is often postulated but has never been successfully done, to my knowledge at least.

You wouldn't "know" but could reasonably expect that touching another aircraft would have no consequences, hence your flying would be less careful regarding proximity to the other aircraft than it is today.

[Bronk]

You still wouldn't know whether or not there's enough lag to warrant safe passage through an enemy.... doing so by tactic would be about as practical as the 'fly slightly infront of a bomber when you're passing by quickly to force a 1 sided collision' that is often postulated but has never been successfully done, to my knowledge at least.

Look at the distances in the pic. That's about 2 1/2 spit lengths.  Just aim for the tail of a buff and you'd stand a good chance of not hitting if it took both to detect.
 Nope what you see is what you get is the best compromise.

[Karnak]

Stiglr,

I thought you were the guy so keen on realism?

Your suggestions fail, on both counts, to encourage, as accurately as possible, WWII air combat tactics.   "Both Die" fails because it encourages gamey behavior, namely ramming when rams cannot be dodged, and encourages people to stay at longer ranges that should be required.  We're not talking about a few feet of lag induced displacement like in a FPS, we're talking distances in excess of 100 yards at times, depending on total ping times and on the speeds involved.  By no means would head ons be the only things affected.

The second suggestion, only enforce a collision if both players see it would pretty much remove collisions from the game and encourage people to fly through their targets, guns blazing.  That is a severe distortion of combat tactics.


These games already have enough factors, such as no fear of dying, distorting tactics, more things doing so won't make them better.

[Motherland]

You wouldn't "know" but could reasonably expect that touching another aircraft would have no consequences, hence your flying would be less careful regarding proximity to the other aircraft than it is today.

Someone who understands with an amount of finesse the way the collisions work, sure... the average joe, the first time his plane blows of from collision, is going to realize that they are on and will try not to hit anyone... even if sometimes it seems like he collides (because he did, but how would he know any better?) but didn't take any damage.

Look at the distances in the pic. That's about 2 1/2 spit lengths.  Just aim for the tail of a buff and you'd stand a good chance of not hitting if it took both to detect.
 Nope what you see is what you get is the best compromise.

I think if I flew through a buff with guns blazing we'd both collide anyway. Generally the one sided collisions are those that are near misses, in my experience at least...

Please remember that I don't actually think that this needs changed, I'm just offering some food for thought...

[SPKmes]

Sorry guys.... I didn't want all this to come up again (although I knew it would)....In the first one where I received damage it was in a bit of a turning battle...so win some lose some...no issue there...the second one is really the one that got me thinking about the first And other similar types...purely due to the fact that the P38 was not really evading at all (perhaps a slight banking to the left...and I fully screamed into the back of him   I felt pretty bad actually that I basically went straight through him and received no damage...

So the answer to my question is...........No?   Thanks for the input guys...please let this thread die...<S>


PS    as motherland says...I am not questioning the model.....just wondered if coad can get confused  hahaha....I know I am

[E25280]

Someone who understands with an amount of finesse the way the collisions work, sure... the average joe, the first time his plane blows of from collision, is going to realize that they are on and will try not to hit anyone... even if sometimes it seems like he collides (because he did, but how would he know any better?) but didn't take any damage.
I think if I flew through a buff with guns blazing we'd both collide anyway. Generally the one sided collisions are those that are near misses, in my experience at least...

Please remember that I don't actually think that this needs changed, I'm just offering some food for thought...

Well, here is some food for thought in the other direction . . .

If an occasional collision is supposed to be an effective deterrent to touching the other aircraft, then why wouldn't a collision every time (like we have now) be even more effective?

And all it would take is for someone to be able to fly straight through a buff once or twice without colliding to begin doing it all the time . . . ever hear of the term Intermittant Reinforcement?

Hence, without the certainty of collision damage if you touch another aircraft with yours, you get even gamier (if that's a word) flying that we have today.

[Bronk]

Someone who understands with an amount of finesse the way the collisions work, sure... the average joe, the first time his plane blows of from collision, is going to realize that they are on and will try not to hit anyone... even if sometimes it seems like he collides (because he did, but how would he know any better?) but didn't take any damage.
I think if I flew through a buff with guns blazing we'd both collide anyway. Generally the one sided collisions are those that are near misses, in my experience at least...

Please remember that I don't actually think that this needs changed, I'm just offering some food for thought...

Aye don't think I'm being harsh with you Bubi. I flew AW when HO were more or less turned off.
As much as I hate it happening I'd rather have it AH2 way. Throwing out a collision because your opponent didn't see it is just to gamey. Once the gamers figure out they can do it .... they will. Look at all the other gamey crap they do.

[E25280]

Sorry guys.... I didn't want all this to come up again (although I knew it would)....In the first one where I received damage it was in a bit of a turning battle...so win some lose some...no issue there...the second one is really the one that got me thinking about the first And other similar types...purely due to the fact that the P38 was not really evading at all (perhaps a slight banking to the left...and I fully screamed into the back of him   I felt pretty bad actually that I basically went straight through him and received no damage...

So the answer to my question is...........No?   Thanks for the input guys...please let this thread die...<S>

Seriously, check to see that your vsync settings are turned on.  Hopefully someone with better memory than me can verify my thinking that if this is off, it can occasionally cause a slight difference between what your monitor renders and what your CPU thinks it is seeing.

Other than that, it is impossible to verify without film.  You may not have actually touched the other aircraft.

[Motherland]

Aye I don't think I'm being harsh with you Bubi.

Nobody was I just wanted to make sure everyone understood my position

Well, here is some food for thought in the other direction . . .

If an occasional collision is supposed to be an effective deterrent to touching the other aircraft, then why wouldn't a collision every time (like we have now) be even more effective?

And all it would take is for someone to be able to fly straight through a buff once or twice without colliding to begin doing it all the time . . . ever hear of the term Intermittant Reinforcement?

Hence, without the certainty of collision damage if you touch another aircraft with yours, you get even gamier (if that's a word) flying that we have today.

TBH I may be very well wrong... I have to doubt though that people would be much more reckless than they currently are... I know that I wouldn't change the way I fly at all.

And all it would take is for someone to be able to fly straight through a buff once or twice without colliding to begin doing it all the time . . . ever hear of the term Intermittant Reinforcement?

Wouldn't that go both ways, though? And if you look at what happens all around you and even just in game (I ALWAYS get killed with just one ping!!), bad memories stick out in the mind more than good ones.
It's like a monkey and a buzzer.... sometimes he just gets the banana but occasionally he is shocked... and once it happens a couple times (even if he is occasionally  rewarded) he learns not to touch the buzzer. Unless he's going for something physically addictive...