Wanted: Better Collision detection.

[toasted]

Because they are mad they tried to ram someone and it didn't work like they expected?

i mean yes? that's exactly it

[toasted]

Fair enough, but you've got an uphill battle then.  It's been a while, but if memory serves HT's not a fan of kamikaze.  It's come up more than once for anti-carrier.

Wiley.

Yea i figured it would be something that never happened. But a man can dream.

[The Fugitive]

So if it's based of your view you don't have to worry about a collision unless it's a head to head one..

Most of those are part of the dreaded infamous HO.. ...sometimes the plane parts cause the collision...

Avoid the ho and you avoid the majority of collision issues..

Eagler

It is not so much you "seeing" a collision. Its that your computer "sees" the collision. It is possible for you to bank hard and cut in front of someone else and your tail clips his prop. You didnt technically "see" it but your computer detected the tail strike and you lose your tail, and more than likely the other guy flies away with out damage.

The whole thing is set up as "if you avoid hitting the other guy" you pretty much will never collide with him.

[CptTrips]

i mean yes? that's exactly it

Honesty and self-awareness go a long way. 

[icepac]

The thing to do when ramming is to make sure your cockpit never touches any part of the enemy plane.   

[Dadtallica]

Did the game "say" you collided? If not then the Mossie shot your rudder off as he went by. If it said the Mossie collided with you, the same still holds true, but the Mossie took a lot more damage because he DID collide.

If YOU collide (game says you collided, or you see a collision) you take massive damage. I you dont collide (you didnt get a "you have collided with xxx" message, or you avoid by maneuvering to "miss" the other plane) you ONLY take damage from the other plane if he shot you.

It was Todd and yes probably shot it off. I was more referring to the fact that we collided head on at hundreds of miles an hour, and both our plans would have been smithereens not me slowly whining to the ground. It said he collided it hi knot gave me the kill anyway.

[icepac]

When the pilot ceases to exist, so does the plane......meaning your plane's ability to inflict collision damage.

[Animl-AW]

fi

[Animl-AW]

Fi

[Animl-AW]

Funny how its diffeten if I bring it up.

CotTrips has not one clue of anything in he MA, nothing. Zero
A man without any clue wants to come off as he actually has one.

Thats not how its happening kinko

[Busher]

This P.I.T.A. has been debated far too long. Most always play the "realisitic SIM" card.

I have been told far too many times that the limitations of the internet make it impossible to model collisions realistically; so to remove the pssdoff rants, why not eliminiate them all together.  You want the enemy down, you're going to have to shoot him.

[Wiley]

This P.I.T.A. has been debated far too long. Most always play the "realisitic SIM" card.

I have been told far too many times that the limitations of the internet make it impossible to model collisions realistically; so to remove the pssdoff rants, why not eliminiate them all together.  You want the enemy down, you're going to have to shoot him.

Probably because the guy doesn't consider being able to fly through a formation of bombers or fighter, guns blazing, and being able to pass through them without consequence to be a good idea?

Wiley.

[Animl-AW]

My point WAS very elementary. The FE says it happened between two players. Bend the FE report and code in both take damage when the FE says it happened. It’s not a big production debate of WOT FE. Too much relies on the FE, it’s a fad talk. The players don’t give a crap about how the FE works, they want the damage to be fair. It’s not.

Just because I’d like the end result to be fair doesn’t mean I don’t understand FE. Bend it. The info exist to do so.

The 3 examples given to me I witnessed not one single time, not once. Invisible planes? Not ever saw this. Ya are magnifying rarities to counter a debate.

WTFE.

[CptTrips]

This P.I.T.A. has been debated far too long. Most always play the "realisitic SIM" card.

I have been told far too many times that the limitations of the internet make it impossible to model collisions realistically; so to remove the pssdoff rants, why not eliminiate them all together.  You want the enemy down, you're going to have to shoot him.

A similar thing happens in a tracking shot in a turn.  If you look back and see him in pure pursuit, he is probably already pulling lead on his end.  You might even see his tracers fall behind you but then get a hit packet.  Hits are calculated on the shooter's end.  It's a good idea to assume on his end he has more lead than you are seeing.

There is no way around the fact that information can not transit instantaneously across the internet so there is no getting away from the fact that you only see an approximation of what he is seeing on his end.

Except I guess, if you are both sitting stationary on the tarmac.

[CptTrips]

The current results are exactly fair.

You own your own collisions.