Collisions

[Wiley]

There are no facts, because it hasn't been tried. I'd think this was kind of obvious?

The other sim HiTech coded does it.  It's been tried.  One of the things I liked when I came over here is how it works over here compared to over there.  

Wiley.

[Skuzzy]

Have I suggested that it should ??? There are no facts, because it hasn't been tried. I'd think this was kind of obvious?
My Paranoia ... Right ... No one HERE is "out to get me" ... are they ... ? Your "question(s), as any debate student will tell you, is loaded to: establish domination, crush argument, force the topic into YOUR context and produce a WIN ... No intelligent person, with an opposed point of view is going to answer directly. I think my understanding of the current collision model has been ably demonstrated ... and yet you persist.

What you have demonstrated is why I asked the question I did.  You have not demonstrated a clear understanding of the collision system.  The most recent failing is not recognizing a flim as being a factual representation of the collision system.

I persist as there have been other, I will call 'oddities', in you addressing this system.  So my basis for the question remains.  To get a baseline of understanding from where everyone would benefit in a discussion.

I find your idea, of what my motives are, rather interesting.  Very far from the truth, but interesting.

[EVZ]

It would not be consistent. If you want it to be 100% consistent with what you ask, bullets fired by one player would do damage in 2 different places. So you would see your bullets completely miss the airplane, but still damage the other plane

Hmmm ... I don't think so? ... my consideration is that just like the Gun Damge Model in use now, Collision Damage on either front end be applied on BOTH front ends ... Seems consistant? Not asking that the GUN DAMAGE model be changed.

[VonMessa]

Hmmm ... I don't think so? ... my consideration is that just like the Gun Damge Model in use now, Collision Damage on either front end be applied on BOTH front ends ... Seems consistant? Not asking that the GUN DAMAGE model be changed.

He really, really doesn't get it...    

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wW6rENTfaU

[EVZ]

I find your idea, of what my motives are, rather interesting.  Very far from the truth, but interesting.

You get paid to keep the wheels greased ... say what must be said ... ignore what must be ignored ... diplomatically when possible.
I guess you do a good job at it ... You've been very helpfull at times and I appreciate it. Sorry if I remain a bit squeaky

[Karnak]

Hmmm ... I don't think so? ... my consideration is that just like the Gun Damge Model in use now, Collision Damage on either front end be applied on BOTH front ends ... Seems consistant? Not asking that the GUN DAMAGE model be changed.

That isn't HiTech's point.  The point he is making is that in your system there would be two volumes of space, one on each player's computer, that would result in a collision and both players going down whereas there would only be one volume of space that would result in bullets hitting, the one on the shooter's computer.

If I open fire on you and clearly miss on my computer but the rounds pass through you on your computer, you take no damage.  Under your system if I flew by you, clearly missing on your computer, but hit you on my computer you would go down.  So your advertised consistency is not there.

[Ack-Ack]

Easier to avoid than a collision ... BS STINKS ...

From that admission, you're admitting your logic is nothing more than smelly BS.

ack-ack

[Karnak]

EVZ,

Do you honestly think that we are all either stupid, players posting in the thread, or disingenuous in motive and accuracy, HTC posters in the thread?  You are strongly coming across like that now.  It is as though you have a very high estimation of your own intelligence and a dismissively low estimation of anybody who disagrees with you.

[Skuzzy]

You get paid to keep the wheels greased ... say what must be said ... ignore what must be ignored ... diplomatically when possible.
I guess you do a good job at it ... You've been very helpfull at times and I appreciate it. Sorry if I remain a bit squeaky ...

Ok that launch was more than a few miles off target.  Might want to get the sites adjusted and try again.

In threads, like this, my priority is to make sure accurate information is being foisted on the unsuspecting reader.

The question I asked you, was designed to give your own idea a strong base to build from, if the idea really had merit.  When I read through this thread, you wander a bit and there are some contridictions as well.  At times, you have been your own worst enemy.

[EVZ]

That isn't HiTech's point.  The point he is making is that in your system there would be two volumes of space, one on each player's computer, that would result in a collision and both players going down whereas there would only be one volume of space that would result in bullets hitting, the one on the shooter's computer.

BOTH planes are (usually) CAPABLE of firing guns and there are 2 volumes of space (one on each computer) where they CAN do damage, just as there are 2 volumes of space (one on each computer) in which a collision can occur ... The difference being that when using guns, the collision  may only be with bullets (no foul).

[Karnak]

BOTH planes are (usually) CAPABLE of firing guns and there are 2 volumes of space (one on each computer) where they CAN do damage, just as there are 2 volumes of space (one on each computer) in which a collision can occur ... The difference being that when using guns, the collision  may only be with bullets (no foul).

Wrong.  When you fire your guns the hits only cause damage if they happen on your computer.  If you miss on your computer and hit on his computer you do no damage.

In determining guns damage, the only objects that matter are the ones on the shooter's computer.  So when firing at an airplane you have a single volume of space as a target, not two.

[EVZ]

It is as though you have a very high estimation of your own intelligence and a dismissively low estimation of anybody who disagrees with you.

People with inferiority complexs and/or low self esteem often accuse the person they are confronting of acting superior ... Your own internal projection... Low estimation? No ... mutual respect is the accepted coversational norm ... it's a bit lacking hereabouts ... Many BBS system / moderators wouldn't tolerate what goes on.

[EVZ]

Wrong.  When you fire your guns the hits only cause damage if they happen on your computer.

Ok let me rephrase that for you, english allows multi-parsing of phrases, but some people don't take the time to consider that.
- "there are 2 volumes of space where they CAN do damage, (one on each computer)" -

In determining guns damage, the only objects that matter are the ones on the shooter's computer.  So when firing at an airplane you have a single volume of space as a target, not two.

See how that works?

[Drano]

No ... mutual respect is the accepted coversational norm ... it's a bit lacking hereabouts ...

Funny you speak of respect!

Dude at what point have you shown anyone here a shred of respect since the day you started? I don't know how it works where you're from but from where I'm from respect is earned. Give some ya get some. At that point it becomes mutual. Walking in the door of this long established community some months ago spouting off at the mouth about how we all have it wrong and yours is the only way possible and then never backing off of that even a little bit didn't earn you much. But---that's a good thing right?

[EVZ]

Funny you speak of respect!

I din't really expect you to comprehend.