Collisions

[Wiley]

Another point for consideration is - This (#2) is a NON-EVENT. People generally DO NOT think about what DIDN'T happen ... In the midst of a furball, they're not thinking ... WOW thank god I avoided a collision ... They're trying to achieve a gun solution, or running for their life in most cases. The FOCUS of attention takes place when there -IS- a collision ... not when nothing happens.

Ok, this is good!  You're almost there, EVZ...

This is the person that has no clue about how the collision model works now, right?  They're trying to achieve their gun solution... or running for their life... They're somewhat close to the enemy plane...  And without their plane touching anything, they see a message in their buffer that says, 'Soandso collided with you.' and they fall from the sky in flames.

What do you think their reaction will be?

My guess and the assumption that the current model is built around is it's going to be something along the lines of, 'That was BS.  I didn't hit anything and my plane blew up!' etc, etc.

However, with the current model, yes it sometimes sucks seeing a guy fly away after a collision, but when another plane hits yours, you had all the information available to you to avoid the situation.  Regardless of what you were doing at that moment, at some point you could have reacted to him and made an attempt to avoid his plane.  Because you didn't, or had put your plane in a position where you were unable to, he hit you.

Ability to trust what you're seeing, even with the downside it carries, creates much less frustration than going down to unavoidable collisions with invisible aircraft.

Wiley.

[EVZ]

Ok, this is good!  You're almost there, EVZ...

unfortunately - you're not ...

This is the person that has no clue about how the collision model works now, right?  They're trying to achieve their gun solution... or running for their life... They're somewhat close to the enemy plane...  And without their plane touching anything, they see a message in their buffer that says, 'Soandso collided with you.' and they fall from the sky in flames.

It rarely works that way ... except in Demo Films. I'll consider your "somewhat close" as being VISUALLY SEEN by the pilot in question ... In THAT instance the planes are generally HO or very close to it and a collision comes as no suprise ... what's suprising is when one survives and the other doesn't. If there IS NO VISUAL CONTACT, there is no basis for ANY judgement about having avoided the collision which (my way) killed you both. There will undoubtedly be exceptions ... but, again, RARELY ...

[MK-84]

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.

This might just be the most perfect statement ever to sum it all up.

[RTHolmes]

consider "somewhat close" as meaning "somewhat close" then read Wiley's example again.


edit: btw ... no evasion this time, tell me honestly that you would have been happier/thought it more fair if in the incident you described, you had been instantly sent to the tower?

[Karnak]

Somewhat close = ~50 yards.

[Wiley]

unfortunately - you're not ...
It rarely works that way ... except in Demo Films.

Er...  That is 100%, unarguably false.  EVERY SINGLE TIME there is a collision where one plane went down and the other one didn't, it means the plane that didn't go down didn't collide with anything on its end.

Wiley.

[ImADot]

I'll consider your "somewhat close" as being VISUALLY SEEN by the pilot in question ... In THAT instance the planes are generally HO or very close to it and a collision comes as no suprise ...

So let me get this straight...

If two pilots see each others plane, they're going head-on or nearly head-on? Really? So does that mean if a plane is D800 at my 3 O'clock and flying lead pursuit (for a possible ram), I turn my head and see him, that we're very close to a HO?

What if we both see each other at 2k (that's 2,000 yards)...are we "somewhat close", a collision is imminent and I shouldn't be surprised to end up in the tower from a collision?

Or are you saying 90% of the population have no clue about BFM and ACM and only know how to yank the nose of their plane into the nose of another plane and call that a fight...   On second thought, I think this last sentence actually is true.


Yeah, I'm sorry for posting another reply in this thread, but sometimes I just can't resist; it's so full of lulz and win.

[Megalodon]

"1. Most people think when they collide with a plane , the other plane should be damaged just like in the real world.
2. Most people believe when they do not collide with a plane that their plane should not be damaged just like in the real world.

Until a person understand the inherent problems with communication lag , the person can not understand why those 2 desires are in conflict. This is not an easy idea to rap your head around ,thinking in multiple time displaced realities is not something that comes easy to most people.

For almost all of us, we believe that desire #2 out ways desire #1."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However .....both desires are true or fact. One does not out weigh the other.

Why is internet lag allowed to decide who wins or loses a collision? This is fair?

So, the people who REALLY understand it GOOD have an advantage?

Why not remove the conflict? If fairness is unachievable it should be eliminated entirely.

[Wiley]

However .....both desires are true or fact. One does not out weigh the other.

Why is internet lag allowed to decide who wins or loses a collision? This is fair?

So, the people who REALLY understand it GOOD have an advantage?

Why not remove the conflict? If fairness is unachievable it should be eliminated entirely.

By that logic, we would have to eliminate gunnery as well.  It's a compromise.

Wiley.

[Megalodon]

By that logic, we would have to eliminate gunnery as well.  It's a compromise.

Wiley.

 That is another topic #2

[Wiley]

That is another topic #2

What, the 'This game shouldn't exist.' topic?

You guys are killing me here.  Thanks for the entertainment.

Wiley.

[Karnak]

Why is internet lag allowed to decide who wins or loses a collision? This is fair?

So, the people who REALLY understand it GOOD have an advantage?

Why not remove the conflict? If fairness is unachievable it should be eliminated entirely.

It is clear you do not understand how and why the system works as it does.  1) Internet lag does not determine who wins a collision.  Nobody wins a collision.  2) Understanding it does not give me any advantage at all. 3) Removing collisions would be a massive distortion of air combat as actively flying through your opponent, it is hard to miss from 10ft away, would be desirable.  Bombers in particular would suffer from this new tactic.

[Skuzzy]

"1. Most people think when they collide with a plane , the other plane should be damaged just like in the real world.
2. Most people believe when they do not collide with a plane that their plane should not be damaged just like in the real world.

Until a person understand the inherent problems with communication lag , the person can not understand why those 2 desires are in conflict. This is not an easy idea to rap your head around ,thinking in multiple time displaced realities is not something that comes easy to most people.

For almost all of us, we believe that desire #2 out ways desire #1."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However .....both desires are true or fact. One does not out weigh the other.

Why is internet lag allowed to decide who wins or loses a collision? This is fair?

The Internet does not decide anything.  The pilot does.  There is no such thing as winning or losing in a collision.  Your plane takes damage if you collide with another plane.  Your plane does not take damage when you do not collide with another plane.  Quit worrying about the other pilot.  It is up to him if he collides or not, just as it is up to you.

So, the people who REALLY understand it GOOD have an advantage?

No.

Why not remove the conflict? If fairness is unachievable it should be eliminated entirely.

There is no conflict.  The system is fair compromise.  The pilot who does not avoid a collision takes damage.  The pilot who does avoid a collision files away.

[Drano]

That is another topic #2

This from the guy that tried to take this into about 8 other directions a page or so ago. Nice.

BTW I flew AW FR for years. This has that beat by a thousand miles. Although I do miss the off death star mission. They were a hoot.

[RTHolmes]

However ...

there is no However ..., everything HT stated there is factually true.