collision model

[Wiley]

If he didn't hit you on his computer how is he flying like a lunatic?   

Nobody likes the internet effect on air combat. Feel free to post a better solution that doesn't create new problems.   

To be fair, he feels the downside presented by both sides going down outweighs the downsides now.

I still disagree, and I am pretty confident the vast majority don't want to see no collision occur on their end and magically fall from the sky.

I also question how easy it is for someone to ram a bomber in this fashion consistently.  If it were easy, a lot more people would be doing it.  The only times I've seen a consistent "I can see he's about to hit me and I'm going to miss him" is when both of us are coming over the top merging usually inverted.  I can see that coming for about 3 seconds before it happens as he passes behind my tail, but that's the only situation I've seen any kind of repeatability.

Wiley.

[Lusche]

If the bandit and I are close enough that one of us gets a collision, then we are too close to whine that we didn't hit him.

Too close to whine?
The P-51 is about 120 feet away from your Thunderbolt when the collision happens. You will not complain even though you had evaded more than clearly?

[Vinkman]

If he didn't hit you on his computer how is he flying like a lunatic?   

Only an actual collision is proof of high risk flying? If he misses me by an inch, it's not a reckless move?

Nobody likes the internet effect on air combat. Feel free to post a better solution that doesn't create new problems.   

I did. 

[Vinkman]

...Your statement that you can cause a collision on the other guys front end and show none on yours is.............circumspect.  Certainly not consistently, sir.

Yes I can. I assure you I do it all the time.  Please don't call me a liar because you don't want to believe it's true. 

If it  could be proved would you change your position?

[Skuzzy]

Only an actual collision is proof of high risk flying? If he misses me by an inch, it's not a reckless move?

It might be an inch on your computer, but it could have been 50 feet on his.

[Lusche]

I did. 

In your 'solution' you can evade an enemy by more then 100 feet and still suffer collision damage.
If that's not a new problem, I don't know what is.

[FLS]

Only an actual collision is proof of high risk flying? If he misses me by an inch, it's not a reckless move?


I did. 

A miss is as good as a mile.   

There is much disagreement about the overall superiority of your proposal. 

There will be a biannual memorial service for the horse in any case. 

[Vinkman]

It might be an inch on your computer, but it could have been 50 feet on his.

true but that 50ft is an awful lot margine to create a one sided collision in.   

[Vinkman]

The P-51 is about 120 feet away from your Thunderbolt when the collision happens. You will not complain even though you had evaded more than clearly?

Lusche and Skuzzy,

Fair enough. But you give up every 12in miss because of that one case. What's the distribution of distance in collisions? If it's left shifted to where the mean is 3ft with a right extreme at 120ft happening in .0001% of collisions, would you still agree?

If it were right shifted, where the mean was 120 ft and .0001% were 3ft I would agree with you. 

a ping of 70ms is 41 ft at 400mph.  So if I fly 400mph under a straight and level buff doing 275mph, I can pull up past his nose within a plane length and get one sided collide on his end.

[Vinkman]

A miss is as good as a mile.   

There is much disagreement about the overall superiority of your proposal. 

There will be a biannual memorial service for the horse in any case. 

       

[hitech]

I would like the deterrent to reckless flying .

Your request would promote reckless flying, simply for the fact that you are depending on the other guy to miss you to prevent a collision.(your describing a classic case of "Tragedy of the commons") Since you have no way of knowing if he is going to try avoid you, your best move would be to take the chance of killing him before the collision.

I.E. You have no control over if the collision will happen or not, and hence almost all people will now make the choice to continue the gun pass instead of trying to avoid. Because the choice of avoiding the collision and hence less of a gun solution increases the chance of you not getting the kill, but still dieing to to the other guy colliding.

HiTech

[Lusche]

Lusche and Skuzzy,

Fair enough. But you give up every 12in miss because of that one case. What's the distribution of distance in collisions?

My collisions were always similar to this one because of my location. "Both go down" would frequently see collisions with getting damage&death while clearly evading the other guy as soon as a non-US player is involved. (Or US players with a less than great connection)

Current CM is "what you see is what you get", no matter where you are. It doesn't get clearer and fairer than this. If I evade, I won't get damaged. "Both go down" would change that to a roll of dice.

[caldera]

It is amazing that no matter how simply and expertly the collision model is explained, some people still don't get it.  Maybe they just don't want to.

[Vinkman]

Your request would promote reckless flying, simply for the fact that you are depending on the other guy to miss you to prevent a collision.(your describing a classic case of "Tragedy of the commons") Since you have no way of knowing if he is going to try avoid you, your best move would be to take the chance of killing him before the collision.

I.E. You have no control over if the collision will happen or not, and hence almost all people will now make the choice to continue the gun pass instead of trying to avoid. Because the choice of avoiding the collision and hence less of a gun solution increases the chance of you not getting the kill, but still dieing to to the other guy colliding.

HiTech

I guess. I thought going for a bad gun solution, that vastly increases your chance of collision is a bad trade that most wouldn't take. But like I said in my first post, I don't know what people are thinking, or what they see when they make those moves, so doubt changing how it worked would change anyone's ACM choices. 

So I yield. 

[pembquist]

Also you wouldn't be able to repeatedly ram bombers with no damage to yourself, which while completely self degrading and unsportsmanlike is now a feature!