Collisions

[EVZ]

You're your own ideal remember?

And you don't have a CLUE about who I'm quoting ... do you ...

It's certainly not gaining you any respect here.

That's a good thing in many ways ...

[cattb]

Actually I am as far from a HTC "yes man" or groupie as they come.  I regularly complain about other facets of the game. The collision system, however, is pretty much perfect.  Save your whines for more controversial things like puffy ack.

It's not perfect. I have been rammed without even seeing the other person until afterwards. I have seen the other person fly away, I crash. Must be lag.

[Slade]

Yeah just turn collision off already.   Thanks.

[RTHolmes]

I'd say, on average, I listen to 3 or 4 rants a week about  -THE OTHER GUY- flying away from a collision and how "He should have crashed too..."

thats because they dont understand Lag and its Effects on Aces High. It is pretty tricky to get your head around - you essentially have to imagine 2 parallel universes which are similar but not identical, and how information is passed between them via the game server. it is not intuitive. luckily there are many here who have bothered to understand it, and are happy to try to help others understand it.

after 200-odd replies to this topic explaining the problem in depth, the 3 possible solutions, and the pros and cons of each, you are still referring to "THE OTHER GUY" and "BOTH planes". it is clear that you still dont get it, if you did you would be referencing the 4 aircraft which are involved in a "1v1". this is why you cannot answer skuzzy's 3 simple questions a few pages back.


"Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong" - Rousseau

[Drano]

And you don't have a CLUE about who I'm quoting ... do you ...
That's a good thing in many ways ...

Keep dancin, fool. Try answering a question. Dazzle us with your superior intellect.

RTHolmes he's just not gonna get it. He'll never accept he's wrong either. It's how he rolls. You could tell him the sky was blue and he'd have a problem with it. All this from a guy that has a grand total of 7 sorties in a fighter this tour vs 111 in a gun or GV. That's a wealth of experience talkin! He wrote the book on collisions!

[Karnak]

Syncopants ... you know that ... they routinely dissuade anyone with "unacceptable" ideas ...

There are many, many things about the game I am critical of and would like to see changed.  Do I post against a lot of suggestions?  Yes, because they are bad ideas, not because they would be a change from the what we have.  One such bad idea is your collision idea.

Yeah just turn collision off already.   Thanks.

No, this would have negative effects on the combat.  It would become standard practice for machine gun armed aircraft to fly through their targets, guns blazing.  Even cannon armed aircraft would do so, but with the caveat that they'd have to stop firing a second before passing through the other aircraft.  Bombers would be even more helpless than they are.

[hitech]

Everyone knock of the name calling.

[Wiley]

Syncopants ... you know that ... they routinely dissuade anyone with "unacceptable" ideas ...

The general knee-jerk reaction when someone starts grumbling about the collision model is to point out why it is that way.  Most people who grumble about the collision model don't understand what is actually going on.

The stumbling block people are having with you is they seem to be having trouble wrapping their heads around the fact that you believe that people would be happier colliding with an invisible aircraft when they get somewhat near another aircraft, and think that would improve gameplay.  The fact that you believe seeing the other guy go down is worth not being able to see another plane coming to avoid a collision.

I guarantee you would see vastly more complaints if both sides went down in a collision.  The other sim does it.  It is not popular.

It is not sycophantic, it is the right choice for gameplay.

Wiley.

[EVZ]

thats because they dont understand Lag and its Effects on Aces High. It is pretty tricky to get your head around

In most cases no they don't ... My experience is that quite a few of them DON'T WANT TO understand it ... They're playing this game to escape from UNDERSTANDING TECHNICALITIES ... and they don't appreciate being told they HAVE TO when they are frustrated with the game's behavior ... "? is THIS what I'm PAYING for ?" Those who DO want to understand generally catch on pretty quick once the fact of time lag is called to mind and the mechanics of the present collision model are explained ... Understanding, even acceptance, does NOT cancel out resentment and frustration.

after 200-odd replies to this topic explaining the problem in depth, the 3 possible solutions, and the pros and cons of each, you are still referring to "THE OTHER GUY" and "BOTH planes". it is clear that you still dont get it.

Actually, that was a reference to what I commonly HEAR from OTHER PEOPLE ... limited comprehension? I guess you missed that. However there is in fact ONLY 1 "Other Guy" and 1 other aircraft involved. The 4 plane explanation -illustrates- the fact that they are time displaced due to internet limitations ... it's NOT a factual reality ... I find myself wondering how many of the people here who THINK they get it - really do ???

[Wiley]

The 4 plane explanation -illustrates- the fact that they are time displaced due to internet limitations ... it's NOT a factual reality ... I find myself wondering how many of the people here who THINK they get it - really do ???

Um... no.  The 4 plane explanation is a recording taken from both PCs involved in a collision.  There is no 'illustration', it IS a factual reality.  The two films are time synchronized to show what happened in realtime.

Wiley.

[VonMessa]

In most cases no they don't ... My experience is that quite a few of them DON'T WANT TO understand it ... They're playing this game to escape from UNDERSTANDING TECHNICALITIES ... and they don't appreciate being told they HAVE TO when they are frustrated with the game's behavior ... "? is THIS what I'm PAYING for ?" Those who DO want to understand generally catch on pretty quick once the fact of time lag is called to mind and the mechanics of the present collision model are explained ... Understanding, even acceptance, does NOT cancel out resentment and frustration.
Actually, that was a reference to what I commonly HEAR from OTHER PEOPLE ... limited comprehension? I guess you missed that. However there is in fact ONLY 1 "Other Guy" and 1 other aircraft involved. The 4 plane explanation -illustrates- the fact that they are time displaced due to internet limitations ... it's NOT a factual reality ... I find myself wondering how many of the people here who THINK they get it - really do ???

I'm willing to bet that Skuzzy and HiTech get it...

[EVZ]

The stumbling block people are having with you is they seem to be having trouble wrapping their heads around the fact that you believe that people would be happier colliding with an invisible aircraft when they get somewhat near another aircraft, and think that would improve gameplay.

I'm pretty sure -I- never said that ... Several people keep suggesting that I'm crazy BECAUSE this would make me happy ... That's THEIR PERCEPTION and it's due to their inability to ACCEPT an opinion that differs from their own without rationalizing (demonizing) it into something with senseless implications. Kind of like skuzzy insisting that -I- want to take damage when -I- escape a collision. This is NOT a PERSONAL ISSUE ...

I guarantee you would see vastly more complaints if both sides went down in a collision.

A collision in which BOTH PLANES go down is never going to make anyone HAPPY ... But it WILL be accepted as FAIR (in most cases) ... I would expect the complaints to be very similar to the "shot down when he wasn't even pointing at me" complaints and they can be explained with exactly the same explanation ... Not only will it be perceived as FAIR, it's consistant.

[Karnak]

I fully accept that you understand the model, EVZ.  You have just reached an completely wrong conclusion and do not seem to be giving either thought or credence to the idea that the people whining about the other plane not going down would, in your system, be whining about going down to collisions that clearly didn't happen.  Not only would those same players be complaining, they would be joined by throngs of other players who did understand why it is the way that it is and are unhappy going down to collisions that they avoided.  You also seem to refuse to recognize how your system would be used as a gameplay tool, drastically increasing the number of collisions that are experienced.

[Skuzzy]

I'm pretty sure -I- never said that ... Several people keep suggesting that I'm crazy BECAUSE this would make me happy ... That's THEIR PERCEPTION and it's due to their inability to ACCEPT an opinion that differs from their own without rationalizing (demonizing) it into something with senseless implications. Kind of like skuzzy insisting that -I- want to take damage when -I- escape a collision. This is NOT a PERSONAL ISSUE ...

I am not insisting anything.  You are the one that is insisting you take damage when you avoid a collision if the other player does not.

I asked you questions you refused to answer.

[EVZ]

There is no 'illustration', it IS a factual reality. 

See what I mean ...