Collisions

[Nitrous]

I would love to see a more true to life model of what a real air to air collision would cause. That is, instead of one plane going down, that both planes go down. This would be a more equal, truer and a much more fair representation of what a real life air to air collision would cause. It is not right for any one player to have the upperhand under this circumstance. You collied you both die!  and tired of 

[grizz441]

As soon as Hitech can find a way to eliminate internet lag, I agree this would be a great idea.  Until then, what we have is the best collision system available.

[guncrasher]

nitrous might as well post a thread about which is better amd or intel.  you will get less hassle for it.  lots of us totally agree with you.  but that aint gonna happen so leave it alone.  this is one of those things that arent good to post.   


semp

[MachFly]

I would love to see a more true to life model of what a real air to air collision would cause. That is, instead of one plane going down, that both planes go down. This would be a more equal, truer and a much more fair representation of what a real life air to air collision would cause. It is not right for any one player to have the upperhand under this circumstance. You collied you both die!   and tired of  

There have been plenty of mid air collisions where one aircraft would be completely destroyed and one would safely land back at base.
Sure we can use some more realistic collisions in AH but it's nowhere near as bad as you make it sound.

[grizz441]

nitrous might as well post a thread about which is better amd or intel.  you will get less hassle for it.  lots of us totally agree with you.  but that aint gonna happen so leave it alone.  this is one of those things that arent good to post.  


semp

The main issue with both people going down from a one sided collision is that one person may see his opponent fly past him safely like 50 yards away and his wing rips off because his laggy opponent collided on his end. There is no way this is more desirable than "what you see is what you get" model.

[guncrasher]

The main issue with both people going down from a one sided collision is that one person may see his opponent fly past him safely like 50 yards away and his wing rips off because his laggy opponent collided on his end. There is no way this is more desirable than "what you see is what you get" model.

then explain how I can see a con having no gun solution on me as I am avoiding and yet I end up in the tower dead.  on my end I clearly can see that his guns werent even aiming in my direction.  to me this is a contradiction of the explanation of the collision model but anyway this has been discussed to death.  I understand why hitech coaded both things different but I dont really have to like it do I? 


semp

[Chalenge]

What we need is a button that indicates our choice to RAM when we press it and if we collide then ... it should do damage to both planes just like shooting and you see a hit where the other guy doesnt see a hit but takes damage.

Im against this by the way! 

[lyric1]

I would love to see a more true to life model of what a real air to air collision would cause. That is, instead of one plane going down, that both planes go down. This would be a more equal, truer and a much more fair representation of what a real life air to air collision would cause. It is not right for any one player to have the upperhand under this circumstance. You collied you both die!  and tired of 

Lt. Williams would disagree.




Lt. Russ Williams' P-51C, Suichuan 1945



Lt. Russ Williams became the last squadron Ace when he rammed a Japanese airplane over Canton. He flew 650 miles back to base.

[Skuzzy]

then explain how I can see a con having no gun solution on me as I am avoiding and yet I end up in the tower dead.  on my end I clearly can see that his guns werent even aiming in my direction.  to me this is a contradiction of the explanation of the collision model but anyway this has been discussed to death.  I understand why hitech coaded both things different but I dont really have to like it do I?  


semp

If he pulls the trigger on you, when he does have a gun solution according to his front end, then on your front end, regardless of where he is pointing, the rounds are going to come from his plane and hit yours.

It is the same issue with collisions.  You first have to wrap your brain around the fact that EVERY computer playing the game, at any given time, has a slightly different representation of where everyone is in the game.  Until you can get that, nothing anyone can say will make any sense.

The only contridiction exists for those who refuse to understand every computer has every person in a slightly different location in the Aces High world.

I think the worst representation of this, I have seen, was a film that showed a plane firing backwards from its location hitting the person rolling the film.  There were some rants in that one.  The person firing also sent his film in due to so many accusations of being a hacker/cheater.  Turns out he was on a satellite connection where 2 to 3 seconds of latency are normal.

[Bruv119]

Turns out he was on a satellite connection where 2 to 3 seconds of latency are normal.

can you ban those guys ?   

[thndregg]

Sorry, but...

[grizz441]

then explain how I can see a con having no gun solution on me as I am avoiding and yet I end up in the tower dead.  on my end I clearly can see that his guns werent even aiming in my direction.  to me this is a contradiction of the explanation of the collision model but anyway this has been discussed to death.  I understand why hitech coaded both things different but I dont really have to like it do I?  


semp

It's only a contradiction if you are assuming you died from a collision that you did not see.  If this were the case, an orange "you have collided" message would accompany you to the tower.  If there is no message, then you were shot with his guns which is all a matter of what he sees, not what you see.

So to be clear:

Collision: All that matters is what you see.
Guns: All that matters is what the shooter sees.

[Skuzzy]

can you ban those guys ?  

There is no way to do this.  At any given moment, anyones Internet connection can suffer dramatic swings in latency.  It is the nature of the beast.  As long as streaming video services are alive and well on the Internet then crazy swings in latencies will be the norm.  That is just a simple fact.

Most players, with consistently bad latencies end up quitting anyway.  They cannot stand the crazy things they have to deal with anymore than the guys on the other end.  Only a few hang around because they have no other choice in connections.

[Wiley]

to me this is a contradiction of the explanation of the collision model but anyway this has been discussed to death.
semp

I used to think of it as a contradiction as well, but look at it this way:  If your gunnery didn't depend on what you see on your end like it does now, you would see nearly constant 'rubber bullet' effect.  Which is more frustrating?  Occasionally getting hit from a funny angle, or more often than not seeing tracers hit an enemy and not doing damage?  I think the choice is clear, that what you see when you're shooting at someone should be what the game uses to calculate hits.  I agree it's not perfect, but it's the better choice of the two.  Avoiding gunnery is an approximation.  Unfortunately that's how it will be until the global network improves significantly.

With collisions, you've got a chance to maneuver your plane to avoid the enemy aircraft.  What you see should be what you get there as well, instead of having your plane take damage based on what other computers in the chain see.

The choices were made to consistently minimize (not eliminate) frustration in an imperfect world.  There is no contradiction, IMO.

Wiley.

[hitech]

I used to think of it as a contradiction as well, but look at it this way:  If your gunnery didn't depend on what you see on your end like it does now, you would see nearly constant 'rubber bullet' effect.  Which is more frustrating?  Occasionally getting hit from a funny angle, or more often than not seeing tracers hit an enemy and not doing damage?  I think the choice is clear, that what you see when you're shooting at someone should be what the game uses to calculate hits.  I agree it's not perfect, but it's the better choice of the two.  Avoiding gunnery is an approximation.  Unfortunately that's how it will be until the global network improves significantly.

With collisions, you've got a chance to maneuver your plane to avoid the enemy aircraft.  What you see should be what you get there as well, instead of having your plane take damage based on what other computers in the chain see.

The choices were made to consistently minimize (not eliminate) frustration in an imperfect world.  There is no contradiction, IMO.

Wiley.

Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner. This is exactly why we made the current choices for bullet and plane collisions.

HiTech