Collisions

[coombz]

How old is the film? Currently the "You have collided" will show in the film, in previous versions it would not.

If you didn't collide, that leaves only 1 choice, the bullets hit you.

HiTech

It's about an hour old

I would have thought if his bullets hit me there would be hit sprites on my plane even if it looks like he doesn't have an angle on my FE...?

For example on those occasions when there is a bit of lag in the DA and the hits seem to come a few seconds after you think you are clear of their guns, you still hear the pings and see the hit sprites

[The Fugitive]

from his front end he most likely had the angle. He held his path a long time waiting for you to cross. With the delay of you getting the damage I'm thinking there was a pretty good bit of lag there as well (he was 200 past you when the collision message came up).

[Drano]

See rule #4

[lengro]

It's beyond me why people effectively wishes for a collision model, where they pass an enemy plane in a good safe distance, and then suddenly explodes.

Don't change the current model.

[EVZ]

Obviously you do not really wish to accept the fact , that it is absolutely impossible to model the real world with respect to collisions.

Fact Accepted, I just think it's POSSIBLE to approximate the reality of a midair collision, rather than invent a consensual convenience.

You wish that a plane that does not touch anything be damaged in a collision.

On one front end the plane did PLENTY of touching ... Penalty called ... Here's an interesting inconsistency ... If I shoot the plane down on MY front end ... it dies ... what he sees on HIS front end doesn't matter. If I COLLIDE with his plane on my front end ... Well ...  he really isn't THERE under that circumstance.
 

So I can only see a few possibilities for your thought process. 1. You wish to ignore the realities of time lag. 2. You do not understand the realities of time lag.

are we back to calling it lag again ...? I think the SAME standards should be applied to COLLISION LAG as are applied to SHOOT DOWN LAG ... is that any more comprehensible ? It's consistant.

4. You die a lot in collisions, and wish to try hide your true motive of just wishing the other guy would die also. 5. You die a lot in collisions, but always think it is the other guys fault, and hence he should die also.

I seldom have collisions anymore ... I consider that everyone participating in an encouter that results in anyone colliding is responsible and should suffer the same penalty.

6. You wish to be intentionally obtuse and are just trolling.

I'm not being any more obtuse than the people who disagree with me.

7. You do understand, but you do not have the ability to view how other people would react from dieing when they did not collide with anything.

I have plenty of imagination, evidently you do too.

8. You are a progressive, and believe just because you wish it so, it can be done.

I am being practical and proposing a change that would be easy and popular. Any complaints would be of the same nature as the "He shot me down when his guns weren't even pointed at me" nature. Which I think is both easier to explain AND accept.

[Karnak]

I am being practical and proposing a change that would be easy and popular.

I'd like it so much I would cancel my account.

[W7LPNRICK]

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.

Thanks Skuzzy. good explanation. So if you have latency, pester your provider until you get a better connection...or solicit new providers. 

[The Fugitive]

<snip.
  are we back to calling it lag again ...? I think the SAME standards should be applied to COLLISION LAG as are applied to SHOOT DOWN LAG ... is that any more comprehensible ? It's consistant.

It is TIME lag, not internet lag, as in a crappy connection.

It takes "x" amount of time for the data to go from your computer, to the server, then to the other players computer. That amount of time differs due to the distance each computer is from the server. Due to NOT having instantaneous transfers of data the two computers will NEVER be displaying the same thing. So due to those physics they have two choices.

1, the system we have now where you control your reality and have "what you see is what you get", or

2, We have what you suggest and have a plane that is flying along 100 feet away from another explode and crash.

At this time, with the technology that is available these are the choices. I'm sure HTC would love to be able to model mid-air collisions like real life, but it isn't possible. Of course, if it is possible I'd love to hear you explain it.
 

[VonMessa]

[Skuzzy]

It's beyond me why people effectively wishes for a collision model, where they pass an enemy plane in a good safe distance, and then suddenly explodes.

Don't change the current model.

It is not going to change.  No one has come up with a better solution.

[icepac]

I don't have any problem with the collisions themselves but rather who takes damage.

If I'm in a b17 and a Zero hits me from dead six, then he shouldn't fly off with zero damage while the b17 breaks into pieces.

[Karnak]

I don't have any problem with the collisions themselves but rather who takes damage.

If I'm in a b17 and a Zero hits me from dead six, then he shouldn't fly off with zero damage while the b17 breaks into pieces.

The Zero didn't hit you, you hit the Zero.

Until you can wrap your mind around that, you aren't in a position to discuss why and how the collision system works.

[grizz441]

I don't have any problem with the collisions themselves but rather who takes damage.

If I'm in a b17 and a Zero hits me from dead six, then he shouldn't fly off with zero damage while the b17 breaks into pieces.

How did you let a zero get so close as to ram you in b17 yet you did not shred him to pieces with your guns.

[Lusche]

I can't believe how players are asking for their own plane to randomly explode without any contact with an enemy plane... 

[lyric1]

I don't have any problem with the collisions themselves but rather who takes damage.

If I'm in a b17 and a Zero hits me from dead six, then he shouldn't fly off with zero damage while the b17 breaks into pieces.

Interesting I have never had a fighter collide a bomber at any point in time & survive.

Where as the bomber is unscathed.