Collisions

[VonMessa]

See rule #4

[Wiley]

I chalk it up to frustration with seeing the other plane hit him and fly off undamaged.  I'm not entirely dismissing the possibility of mind-altering substances though.

For my part, I just completely cannot fathom why 'possible random collision any time your plane is somewhat near another plane' is superior to 'what you see happen to your plane is what you get'.

Fortunately for me, they're not sitting in the big chair, so they don't get to make the call.

Wiley.

[VonMessa]

I chalk it up to frustration with seeing the other plane hit him and fly off undamaged.  I'm not entirely dismissing the possibility of mind-altering substances though.

For my part, I just completely cannot fathom why 'possible random collision any time your plane is somewhat near another plane' is superior to 'what you see happen to your plane is what you get'.

Fortunately for me, they're not sitting in the big chair, so they don't get to make the call.

Wiley.

Me, too.

[Karnak]

See rule #4

[EVZ]

Guys, I think you're missing the point.  EVZ is one of those guys that (I think) understands how it works, he would just be happier having his plane blow up when the other guy hits him, even though on his end, he's yards away from a collision.

Keep in mind ... it's a 2 way street ... a Close Attack is a crap shoot in more ways than one ... Trying to avoid a collision can make trying to shoot down an attacker a secondary priority ... Giving him the advantage ... in his firing solution and/or in position following the merge. An aggressive attacker can play the odds of escaping a collision and gaining advantage under the present collision model. If he's assured that ANY collision will kill him ... Things change. Do you want to simulate  WWII engagements or Play Chicken ???

[RTHolmes]

But you see you DIDN'T avoid a collision, you participated in one, YOUR plane WAS collided with, just not on YOUR front end. You quite possibly CAUSED it to occur (even if unintentionally) ... you just got away with it ...

nope I didnt collide with anything, I avoided the collision. however the other guy collided with my representation on his FE. his problem, since I have no control over that.

[EVZ]

nope I didnt collide with anything, I avoided the collision. however the other guy collided with my representation on his FE. his problem, since I have no control over that.

And my point is, if you KNEW his collision was going to KILL YOU ... You would quickly figure out how to GET "Control Over That."

[Skuzzy]

Keep in mind ... it's a 2 way street ... a Close Attack is a crap shoot in more ways than one ... Trying to avoid a collision can make trying to shoot down an attacker a secondary priority ... Giving him the advantage ... in his firing solution and/or in position following the merge. An aggressive attacker can play the odds of escaping a collision and gaining advantage under the present collision model. If he's assured that ANY collision will kill him ... Things change. Do you want to simulate  WWII engagements or Play Chicken ???

You just gave a griefer a big boost.  Now he has no reason to avoid a collision as he knows it will take you down, no matter what you do.  You do understand that?

[Wiley]

Keep in mind ... it's a 2 way street ... a Close Attack is a crap shoot in more ways than one ...

But my ability to avoid the aircraft I can see is somewhat in my control.  If from my point of view, I avoid his aircraft, I successfully avoid the collision.  The way you want it, if I successfully avoid his aircraft, I may still die, and there is literally nothing I can do about that because the collision was caused by an invisible (to me) aircraft.

That is why the vast majority does not like the way you would prefer it.  Collisions become random.

Wiley.

[RTHolmes]

And my point is, if you KNEW his collision was going to KILL YOU ... You would quickly figure out how to GET "Control Over That."

if I was getting randomly killed in knife fights by something I can have no control of (I dont know where his FEs version of me is remember) I wouldnt bother flying.

[EVZ]

You just gave a griefer a big boost.  Now he has no reason to avoid a collision as he knows it will take you down, no matter what you do.  You do understand that?

I'm sure there are a few nutsos that won't care about the certainty they will crash too ... I doubt they stick around AH as paying customers for long or have much -impact- on the game. I'm also sure there are those who WILL adopt suicide tactics to save their bases or carriers ... That's NOT unrealistic, and is simply a challenge for pilots to deal with.

[Karnak]

And my point is, if you KNEW his collision was going to KILL YOU ... You would quickly figure out how to GET "Control Over That."

You cannot get control of that.  It is simply not possible to know the net communication delay between you and the other guy.

[hitech]

Keep in mind ... it's a 2 way street ... a Close Attack is a crap shoot in more ways than one ... Trying to avoid a collision can make trying to shoot down an attacker a secondary priority ... Giving him the advantage ... in his firing solution and/or in position following the merge. An aggressive attacker can play the odds of escaping a collision and gaining advantage under the present collision model. If he's assured that ANY collision will kill him ... Things change. Do you want to simulate  WWII engagements or Play Chicken ???

It would work 100% the opposite, the thought process would be,

If I break off and he does not,he will maybe kill me with his guns , I die, he may collide with me, I die.
If I don't break off, I may kill him with my guns, I win, If i collide with him, we both die and at least he does not win.

I.E. Not breaking off on the merge will win you more fights if both would die at collisions. And there would be more death overall do to collisions, and less realism.

HiTech

[ink]

But you see you DIDN'T avoid a collision, you participated in one, YOUR plane WAS collided with, just not on YOUR front end. You quite possibly CAUSED it to occur (even if unintentionally) ... you just got away with it ...

it has been said so many times.....what is on your system is NOT what is on his system...so NO..... if you avoid on your system.....YOU were not involved in a collision,   it is on HIS front end, IE his system...his game....NOT YOURS......


what you are asking for is absurd.

[EVZ]

See rule #4