Collision Model Change

[Animl-AW]

It is 100% now. If you fly strait into someone on a HO you WILL collide, you WILL take damage. Everyone KNOWS it, and yet they still do it.

It’s not working that way. Many times someone intensionally rams and flys away. So it looks good on paper, it’s not really working that way all the time. It gets it wrong

[Wiley]

It’s not working that way. Many times someone intensionally rams and flys away. So it looks good on paper, it’s not really working that way all the time. It gets it wrong

So you're saying you avoid the collision and still take damage from it?  If so, post film.  That's not the way it should be working.

Wiley.

[Animl-AW]

Example

In events, I come down on buffs so hard and fast I accidently rammed them. They took the damage, I felt bad cuz it was my fault.

[Animl-AW]

Another example in reverse.

In my BoB video towards the end. I hit a buff, lost my wing, he got no damage and flew on just to be shot down by those behind me.

In reality both would have taken the damage

[Wiley]

Anither example in reverse.

In my BoB video towards the end. I hit a buff, lost my wing, he got no damage and flew on just to be shot down by those behind me.

In reality both would have taken the damage

Once again, on his end, you passed by a few feet from him.  His computer saw you pass by, thus it registered no damage.  It is very realistic for him.

Wiley.

[Animl-AW]

Once again, on his end, you passed by a few feet from him.  His computer saw you pass by, thus it registered no damage.  It is very realistic for him.

Wiley.

I understand you point. But I got “[name] collided with you” when I did the collision, in my first example. So its flawed. Error to both.

[Wiley]

I understand you point. But I got “[name] collided with you” when I did the collision, in my first example. So its flawed. Error to bith.

You're still ascribing intent.  On your end, you avoided collision so you did not take damage.  On his end, your plane intersected with his so he took damage.  It is still not your insurance adjuster.  The only thing it can tell is, did the two planes touch?  If yes, take damage.

If it became the preferred method of taking down bombers, you might have a point, but it's not.

Wiley.

[Animl-AW]

Ok. In my buff examples there are gray areas. In a HO burn em both.

[Wiley]

If they both collide, they do.

Your buff example is actually the most legit example, because the buff doesn't have much chance to maneuver versus an incoming fighter.

Both fighter pilots are in control of their plane.  They can easily move the controls to avoid the other plane.  If they don't, that's on them.  If it's happening to you on a regular basis, consider moving out of the way, and be happy that if you successfully see yourself avoid the other plane, you won't take damage if he collides, unlike what you're proposing.

Wiley.

[Animl-AW]

Well, its a subject that depends on how you squint your eyes.

My point is, 80% of the time an HO ram only one takes damage, that’s not realism its a bandaid. Doesn’t matter if I join 1000 times or 10, it’s not right. So to error, error to both sides. Because it’s getting it wrong.

I may join the HO yet try to avoid the ram, but down I go down and he flies off with no damage.

If it’s going to be that controversial, take em both out and put HO mongers out of biz.

[Wiley]

Well, its a subject that depends on how you squint your eyes.

My point is, 80% of the time an HO ram only one takes damage, that’s not realism its a bandaid. Doesn’t matter if I join 1000 times or 10, it’s not right. So to error, error to both sides. Because it’s getting it wrong.

What is it getting wrong?  If you collide, you take damage.  If you do not collide, you do not.  What you're proposing makes that not apply.

Instead, you would prefer to collide when you avoided the collision, or see way more rubber banding and other problems in normal situations that have nothing to do with collisions?

I may join the HO yet try to avoid the ram, but down I go down and he flies off with no damage.

If it’s going to be that controversial, take em both out and put HO mongers out of biz.

Then get better at avoiding his plane.  There is a LOT of empty space around enemy aircraft.

Put another way-  Do you seriously think it would anger fewer people if they miss the other plane by 30 feet and collide versus the way it is now?

Wiley.

[Animl-AW]

 :neener:In my first buff example. It was my fault, he lost a buff. That is getting it wrong.

I can make many films of someone being the rammer and I take the damage, it’s almost nightly.

It’s getting it wrong to put it on one. The only correction is take em both out.

Some are conflating data alignment with realism. You have to look at both. I’m removing the FE differences that burn one and rewards another. If the system saw a collision between two names it can also apply the realistic damage to both.

To damage both you remove that flawed equation and return to realism.

People get rooted in their POV. I’m prolly not going to convert them to realism.  Which is,  a collision harms both. Damaging one and not the other is fubar. Screw that FE deflection. >IMO<
<shrug>

Saying it can be avoided distracts from my point. When it happens it should be right.

[Wiley]

In my first buff example. It was my fault, he lost a buff. That is getting it wrong.

I can make many films of someone being the rammer and I take the damage, it’s almost nightly.

It’s getting it wrong to put it on one. The only correction is take em both out.

Some are conflating data alignment with realism. You have to look at both. I’m removing the FE differences that burn one and rewards another.

No, you're not.  You're saying if the other guy's system detects a collision, regardless that I successfully avoided him, I go down.

To damage both you remove that flawed equation and return to realism.

People get rooted in their POV. I’m prolly not going to convert them to realism.  Which is,  a collision harms both. Damaging one and not the other is fubar. Screw that FE deflection. >IMO<
<shrug>

Our POV is the only thing we have to go by when playing the game.  Explain in detail how it is "realistic" for one player to successfully avoid the collision but take damage anyway.

Wiley.

[Wiley]

Saying it can be avoided distracts from my point. When it happens it should be right.

It is!  When your end sees collision, you take damage.  When your end sees no collision, you do not.  What is not right about that?

What is preferable about dying to an invisible plane?

Wiley.

[Animl-AW]

I’m not going to get hung up on the two FEs.

If you avoided it then there was no collision at all why does he take the damage? It works both ways.

Ya beed to set the FE thing aside. It’s excusing errors.

The objective is to get players to stop intensional HO snd collisions. If damage to both stopd that then I’m fir damage to both. Period. If we’re going to error do it in to the way it stops encouraging both.

Technically is my stance wrong? Maybe. If it stops mirons from living in HOs and Rams I’ll take that error over the current. Yep I will