Collision Model

[dedalos]

The last piece of this statement is the big issue I have, Saying you can intentionally cause a collision is in accurate when you need the help of the other guy (I.E. flying straight and level) . The real statement is that 2 people can intentionally make one of the guys collide.

OK, I don;t know if this a language issue on my part or what.  I can definitely cause a collision with out the help of the other guy.  Will it be easy in the MA? no.  Could I die in the process? sure.  But I could cause one.
 
I definitely need the other guys help in order to produce a high percentage occurrence for demonstration purposes.  This is why I chose buffs in the DA.  The only help there would be that I wont have to worry about fighters, looking for buffs, and of coarse the gunners.  Buffs fly straight in the MA also so I don;t see what cooperation I get from the other guy there .  The intent was to prove it was possible and not what you read into it.  Sorry I can't make you understand what I am trying to say.

[hitech]

Dedalos, I know how the system works, I know how a collision can be caused in controlled circumstance.  I also know that it is completely irrelevant to game play. But the fact that you COULD cause one is not really the issue.

Do you really think that people flying around trying to cause a collision is a problem in the main arena?


Also discussing the pros and cons, is an impossibility with some one until they understand how the system works.

I am one of the few people who flown all available options regarding collisions with 1 acceptation (no collision, 1 person collides both damaged, 1 person collides no damage, 1 person collides the other one damaged, and also damage only if both collide) I havn't done the 1 person collides only other takes damage)

And if you havn't flown with no collisions and found out how flying threw people completely changes the fight, then it is hard to describe.

1. Bomber attacks are high attacks flying directly threw the bomber.
2. Head on guns blazing fly threw become the norm.

HiTech

[FLS]

Just because you said this, and it's going to get quoted and repeated ad nauseum at some point, I think that statement should contain the word "consistently". You absolutely can force a collision, although I do agree that it's extremely difficult, requires a number of factors in your favor, and it's only really good as a defensive measure. If someone is capable of timing the merge/near-miss and flying with any sort of precision, they could just as easily shoot you down with less risk of causing a collision on their FE.

As long as we're nit picking for the sake of clarity. If you can't do it consistently then you can't force a collision. You can try to force a collision and occasionally succeed but that isn't the same thing.

[dedalos]

Dedalos, I know how the system works, I know how a collision can be caused in controlled circumstance.  I also know that it is completely irrelevant to game play. But the fact that you COULD cause one is not really the issue.

I totally agree.  It is not the issue, but some how we made it the issue here.  All I said is that it could be done and offered to demo for some one.  All down hill after that lol.

Do you really think that people flying around trying to cause a collision is a problem in the main arena?

Not at all. I think I made it clear that most of my collisions are a result of someone missing a pick.  So, not intentionally, but I have been saying this all along, no?

Also discussing the pros and cons, is an impossibility with some one until they understand how the system works.

I m, curious why you think that.  One either likes having collisions or not.  Why do the workings of it make a difference?

I am one of the few people who flown all available options regarding collisions with 1 acceptation (no collision, 1 person collides both damaged, 1 person collides no damage, 1 person collides the other one damaged, and also damage only if both collide) I havn't done the 1 person collides only other takes damage)

And if you havn't flown with no collisions and found out how flying threw people completely changes the fight, then it is hard to describe.

I think I understand that part.  I definitely play for the fight so having people fly through me guns blazing would not be a good thing.  I have considered that but from what I have experienced in the MA, the ones that hold the trigger down from 1K out are not really afraid of the collision and the ones that don;t would not fly through me anyway.

It is however a very good reason to have it on, if I am wrong about the behavior I described above.

<S>

Going for dinner lol

[Babalonian]

To reiterate.

1. Dedalos backs down from claim that he can collide with a bomber at will, about 50% of the time.

2. He admits people have given reasons why collisions are in the game.


3. Since he has been corned he now try to resort to diverting attention by try to joke he is right 100% of the time.


In conclusion Dedalos is making stuff up to support his desire for removal of collisions.

HiTech

How come he gets to troll?  It just ain't fair, I tells yas. 

[The Fugitive]

Fair enough, I just thought it was a little ambiguous as typed.

I was just happy he gets the spelling right 

[BaldEagl]

I just noticed HT isn't even a Radioactive BBs member.  What can he possibly know?  Where's Krusty?   

[Ninthmessiah]

I dove in on a low A20, which was hunting for GVs, in my p47 from about 12k.  I started to compress as I pulled lead and could not avoid the collision.  I flew straight through the middle of the A20's full broadside.  I thought for sure I was a gonner. 

But nope.  I landed my kills at the nearest CV with a screen full of red.

Fun times.

Most ridiculous sortie ever.

Messiah 

[SmokinLoon]

I am one of the few people who flown all available options regarding collisions with 1 acceptation (no collision, 1 person collides both damaged, 1 person collides no damage, 1 person collides the other one damaged, and also damage only if both collide) I havn't done the 1 person collides only other takes damage)

And if you havn't flown with no collisions and found out how flying threw people completely changes the fight, then it is hard to describe.

1. Bomber attacks are high attacks flying directly threw the bomber.
2. Head on guns blazing fly threw become the norm.

HiTech

If people think the HO attack is a bad now, wait until there is no threat of a collision.

The collision model may not be ideal, but it is a "roll the dice" situation.  Everyone is going to win some/lose some. 

[LCADolby]

A little vid;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B8BuQHMyPc

Just some food for thought.

Don't forget to check out 'Gustav Gets' 

[-sudz-]

The collision model may not be ideal, but it is a "roll the dice" situation.  Everyone is going to win some/lose some. 

Hardly a "roll the dice".  If anything, a "won the powerball".

[uptown]

A little vid;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B8BuQHMyPc

Just some food for thought.

Don't forget to check out 'Gustav Gets' 

yes that WAS a collision. The parts of the wing flew back and hit you. You can't see that? 

[vonKrimm]

Dedalos, I know how the system works, I know how a collision can be caused in controlled circumstance.  I also know that it is completely irrelevant to game play. But the fact that you COULD cause one is not really the issue.

Do you really think that people flying around trying to cause a collision is a problem in the main arena?


Also discussing the pros and cons, is an impossibility with some one until they understand how the system works.

I am one of the few people who flown all available options regarding collisions with 1 acceptation (no collision, 1 person collides both damaged, 1 person collides no damage, 1 person collides the other one damaged, and also damage only if both collide) I havn't done the 1 person collides only other takes damage)

And if you havn't flown with no collisions and found out how flying threw people completely changes the fight, then it is hard to describe.

1. Bomber attacks are high attacks flying directly threw the bomber.
2. Head on guns blazing fly threw become the norm.

HiTech

some people will just never be happy no matter which model you use.

"coad" is one thing, but FFS please at least use the spell checker included by you in the forum.  you make my head hurt.  

[Wiley]

A little vid;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B8BuQHMyPc

Just some food for thought.

Hmp.  Interesting.  If you look at the angle starting at 1:16, you can see an engine cowling shape floating just off the end of the broken wing.  Maybe there's some kind of invisible polygon out there that shouldn't be when the wing breaks in that way?

Wiley.

[AWwrgwy]

A little vid;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B8BuQHMyPc

Just some food for thought.

Don't forget to check out 'Gustav Gets' 

I know this is going to sound crazy but......







































HE SHOT YOU DOWN... with bullets... from his guns.

And then, HE collided with YOU.

So, in conclusion, no, the 110 did not collide with anything but bullets.


If this were a "both take damage" situation the 110, which obviously did not collide, would have blown up anyway.


wrongway