Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: BaldEagl on February 27, 2009, 11:28:17 AM
-
I'm sorry but the collision model is truely messed up.
Last night I was flying along in a Ta-152 when I saw tracers going over my wings. I looked back to see a 262 starting to try a break turn but before he was able he rammed me from behind taking he tail off my plane. He flew on with one engine smoking slightly.
The system reported that I collided! It also reported that he collided.
That's just not right. Period. End of story. How in the h*ll can I collide with someone I'm flying AWAY from.
Screw it. I'm just going to start ramming everyone in the arena. Evidently it works.
-
Screw it. I'm just going to start ramming everyone in the arena. Evidently it works.
Good luck.
-
The system reported that I collided! It also reported that he collided.
That's just not right. Period. End of story. How in the h*ll can I collide with someone I'm flying AWAY from.
It's not saying it had been your fault
It's not saying you rammed anybody
It's just saying there was a collision detected on your screen (and on his too)
For the rest.. well you know how it works and why
And why there's no alternative to that, even when sometimes it seems to be less than fair.
But if you do believe that running into other planes will benefit your K/D over the long run, feel free to do so - and thanks for the free kills we're gaining that way.
-
Come on Bald, your smarter than that.
Ram is virtually impossible to do, and we've yet to see any show definitive proof where they managed to ram someone without taking damage.
Collisions happen, in this case, it wasn't your fault. But flying AH isn't about "blame".
-
I once "caught" a low goon inbound with drunks...I was of course out of ammo (SOP). I spent a good 10 min trying to force a collision, finally after much effort I did...I got the orange message and windmilled into the drink while the SLF carrier trundled on...
-
I would bet he shot your tail off and broke into the wreckage. I let these oddities go because the more you fly the more likely a random event like this will happen. Your lucky because usually its a noob that is hiding in the trees while you are nose down egressing and looking behind that raises his nose and HOs or the one I hate is shooting the tail off of a P38 and as he flops over he death grips the stick and accidentally fires and one hit kills you.
-
I once "caught" a low goon inbound with drunks...I was of course out of ammo (SOP). I spent a good 10 min trying to force a collision, finally after much effort I did...I got the orange message and windmilled into the drink while the SLF carrier trundled on...
if only it were that hard for me to collide with the earth... must be the earth's fault, it moved in front of me!
-
Come on Bald, your smarter than that.
Ehhhh :uhoh :noid
-
I've suffered collisions on multiple occasions when I do defensive ACM against an attacker. For example, I'm doing some kind of scissors, they overshoot, and on my front end there is a collision, but not always on theirs. Yeah, it sucks, but the collision model is fine.
-
I have flown 400 mph right underneath a spit before, and he got a collision message and his wing was ripped off. No damage to me. This is the one circumstance imo where the collision model isn't great. As is now, the model does attempt to address fault and not penalize a player who didn't collide on his end.
I think it would be cool though if HiTech could somehow eliminate the rammed from behind collisions. Like if a collision starts from the back, the collision becomes void for that encounter for the player being rammed from behind. (no pun intended)
-
I have flown 400 mph right underneath a spit before, and he got a collision message and his wing was ripped off. No damage to me. This is the one circumstance imo where the collision model isn't great. As is now, the model does attempt to address fault and not penalize a player who didn't collide on his end.
I don't understand what you're saying here. This is an instance where the model's genius showed.
-
I have flown 400 mph right underneath a spit before, and he got a collision message and his wing was ripped off. No damage to me. This is the one circumstance imo where the collision model isn't great. As is now, the model does attempt to address fault and not penalize a player who didn't collide on his end.
I think it would be cool though if HiTech could somehow eliminate the rammed from behind collisions. Like if a collision starts from the back, the collision becomes void for that encounter for the player being rammed from behind. (no pun intended)
He should not let you get so close. His problem not yours.
-
I don't understand what you're saying here. This is an instance where the model's genius showed.
:huh
He should not let you get so close. His problem not yours.
Not sure if the "he had it coming" argument justifies a collision that was clearly my fault.
-
:huh
Not sure if the "he had it coming" argument justifies a collision that was clearly my fault.
Did you hit him.... no. You pointed your ac away from him. Well done. He took no or little action to avoid. Nothing to do with had it coming.
-
:huh
Not sure if the "he had it coming" argument justifies a collision that was clearly my fault.
not sure how you can say it was your fault either unless you can tell what is going on on his end.
-
IN :D
-
Did you hit him.... no. You pointed your ac away from him. Well done. He took no or little action yo avoid. Nothing to do with had it coming.
I took a reckless, unskilled, badly angled pass at an aircraft and got rewarded for it.
not sure how you can say it was your fault either unless you can tell what is going on on his end.
:lol Of course it was my fault! Regardless of who *saw* the collision, it was ultimately my offensive maneuver that caused the collision. Could you imagine a guy zoomin down at you going 500 in a p51d, crashing into you on his end as you are on autopilot eating a chicken finger then hearing him on 200 saying "Nice Ram autopilot dweeb!"
Look, I'm just saying I think this particular circumstance of the collision model is lame. I don't care enough about this one situation to post a thread about it or cry for it to be fixed to my liking. Ultimately, I love the collision model and think it is genius the way it functions 95% of the time.
-
I took a reckless, unskilled, badly angled pass at an aircraft and got rewarded for it.
And yet you didn't hit.
-
I took a reckless, unskilled, badly angled pass at an aircraft and got rewarded for it.
It obviously wasn't that badly angled if you were able to avoid him :D
It sucks that his ping or whatever caused his computer to render your aircraft in the wrong time and place, but it was no where near your fault, so you should not have been punished for it... and he didn't move out of the way, so there's no way he shouldn't have.
-
And yet you didn't hit.
So let me get this straight, you have never been rammed by an aircraft and thought it was his fault even though he didn't get a collision message?
I will defend this collision model too when an uninformed player begins whining about it but cmon, there are rare situations that do occur where fault is assessed opposite as to what really happened.
It obviously wasn't that badly angled if you were able to avoid him :D
It sucks that his ping or whatever caused his computer to render your aircraft in the wrong time and place, but it was no where near your fault, so you should not have been punished for it... and he didn't move out of the way, so there's no way he shouldn't have.
The fact that I didn't kill him with guns and that I zoomed 25 yds below him only to ram him on his end warrants me calling it 'a badly angled pass'
-
So let me get this straight, you have never been rammed by an aircraft and thought it was his fault even though he didn't get a collision message?
Only time is when I'm on the ground... as in when I can' maneuver taking off or stationary in a gv.
-
So let me get this straight, you have never been rammed by an aircraft and thought it was his fault even though he didn't get a collision message?
Though this is pointed at bronk...
No, because if he didn't take damage then he took the appropriate measures to avoid me. How would it be his fault?
-
This is also a pet peev of mine.
I simply do not understand why, when both planes
report that a collision has occured, both planes
don't crash.
Mid-air collisions are catastrophic events.
It is exceedingly rare for a plane to remain
airworthy after having one, especially when
the impact is highly kinetic.
Both should be dead or severely crippled and
near dead.
-
So let me get this straight, you have never been rammed by an aircraft and thought it was his fault even though he didn't get a collision message?
I will defend this collision model too when an uninformed player begins whining about it but cmon, there are rare situations that do occur where fault is assessed opposite as to what really happened.
I haven't ever really thought it was the other guys "fault" only ever looked at it like it was either my fault or no one's. I see what you are trying to say though grizz but there are many times it is not anyone's fault.
I have had several near misses and if my adversary took damage because his computer "saw" a collision then it is on his end and if it was from a maneuver that I performed that appeared to me that I had room for then how can it be my fault that he fell to the ground or vice versa.
You can only base your decisions on the positions on your screen not on his so if no collision on your screen then there is no fault to you. Now in your example there is no fault you flew under a spit and he fell crashing to the ground, sounds to me like a no fault situation but non-the-less there was a collision on his computer and then things worked the way they should.
You obviously understand the collision model and like many of us feel it's the best possible solution but this is one of those things where sometimes there is no fault but action must still be taken.
-
This is also a pet peev of mine.
I simply do not understand why, when both planes
report that a collision has occured, both planes
don't crash.
Depend on what part of the ac clips on each others front end. You run head on an I jink lets say. On Your front end pilot gets whacked. On my end I clip a wing tip.
Your pilot is dead and I'm missing a wing tip. Get it?
-
Depend on what part of the ac clips on each others front end. You run head on an I jink lets say. On Your front end pilot gets whacked. On my end I clip a wing tip.
Your pilot is dead and I'm missing a wing tip. Get it?
It doesn't happen that way.
One plane invariably dies and the other flies
on unscathed.
-
It doesn't happen that way.
One plane invariably dies and the other flies
on unscathed.
So you're in the other guys cockpit and have access to his damage list now?
-
It doesn't happen that way.
One plane invariably dies and the other flies
on unscathed.
No.
If both planes report a collision, both get damage.
The exact amount varies. Happened to me that I just lost just a gear or a flap from collision, though usually damage is more severe.
-
It obviously wasn't that badly angled if you were able to avoid him :D
It sucks that his ping or whatever caused his computer to render your aircraft in the wrong time and place, but it was no where near your fault, so you should not have been punished for it... and he didn't move out of the way, so there's no way he shouldn't have.
I haven't ever really thought it was the other guys "fault" only ever looked at it like it was either my fault or no one's. I see what you are trying to say though grizz but there are many times it is not anyone's fault.
I have had several near misses and if my adversary took damage because his computer "saw" a collision then it is on his end and if it was from a maneuver that I performed that appeared to me that I had room for then how can it be my fault that he fell to the ground or vice versa.
You can only base your decisions on the positions on your screen not on his so if no collision on your screen then there is no fault to you. Now in your example there is no fault you flew under a spit and he fell crashing to the ground, sounds to me like a no fault situation but non-the-less there was a collision on his computer and then things worked the way they should.
You obviously understand the collision model and like many of us feel it's the best possible solution but this is one of those things where sometimes there is no fault but action must still be taken.
When you pull a hard offensive maneuver and narrowly miss the enemy who happens to rip in half due to a collision *he* saw...I think it's silly to say that you pulled a good maneuver. What you pulled was a lucky maneuver. Most times when you narrowly miss a plane, but he gets the collision, it is blind luck. I'd say most one ended collisions occur with one plane missing the collision by at most 50 yds. The deviation of any offensive maneuver is greater than 50 yds, meaning you can't be accurate enough with your plane to where you are going to fly by a guy at 50 yds consistently. Sometimes it will be 150 yds, other times you will ram him hard. There are too many factors in play. It's pure luck. So to say, "Yeah I pulled hard into you and missed you by 25 yds because I am leet" is silly, you could have just as easily rammed him, or missed him by 200 yds. So keeping that in mind, I say yes, the pilot performing the offensive move into the other player is to blame if a collision occurs even if he doesn't see it.
-
So let me get this straight, you have never been rammed by an aircraft and thought it was his fault even though he didn't get a collision message?
I have never had a collision that I could give a rat's arse about (my fault / his fault) ... they are so infrequent and so unimportant in the greater scheme of things.
The level of pissed-offed-ness that people have concerning collisions boggles the mind.
-
I have never had a collision that I could give a rat's arse about (my fault / his fault) ... they are so infrequent and so unimportant in the greater scheme of things.
The level of pissed-offed-ness that people have concerning collisions boggles the mind.
Yep.
I don't care enough about this one situation to post a thread about it or cry for it to be fixed to my liking. Ultimately, I love the collision model and think it is genius the way it functions 95% of the time.
I'm just playing devil's advocate about a particular type of ram for the sake of discussion. Not that it comes up enough to where it would actually piss me off.
-
I'm just playing devil's advocate about a particular type of ram for the sake of discussion. Not that it comes up enough to where it would actually piss me off.
I understand grizz.
Why people can't see that the collision model is what it is ... not perfect but as close to it as one could get without writing tremendous amounts of complex code ... and for what ? ... to appease those who consistently put themselves and their planes in bad positions that increase the probability of collisions ... I don't think so ... the ROI would not be worth it.
-
You are absolutely correct.
-
For everyone who has complained about the collision model in the past, we have here two people colliding, both getting the collision message, both taking damage.... And we have a complaint. Why would it matter in what direction the collision occurred???
Did he shoot at you before or during the collision? Did he hit you?
This is also a pet peev of mine.
I simply do not understand why, when both planes
report that a collision has occured, both planes
don't crash.
Mid-air collisions are catastrophic events.
It is exceedingly rare for a plane to remain
airworthy after having one, especially when
the impact is highly kinetic.
Both should be dead or severely crippled and
near dead.
Two cars get in an accident, a collision. The driver of one car is killed. Should the other driver be dragged out of his car and be summarily executed?
I have flown 400 mph right underneath a spit before, and he got a collision message and his wing was ripped off. No damage to me. This is the one circumstance imo where the collision model isn't great. As is now, the model does attempt to address fault and not penalize a player who didn't collide on his end.
I think it would be cool though if HiTech could somehow eliminate the rammed from behind collisions. Like if a collision starts from the back, the collision becomes void for that encounter for the player being rammed from behind. (no pun intended)
Were you by chance shooting at the other plane? Did you hit him? Again, what difference does it make which direction the collision occurs? Should T-bones be eliminated too?
I think many of the "I died in a collision, he didn't" whines are due to being shot down prior or during the collision and not so much due to the impact of the aircraft with another aircraft.
IN :D
There should be some sort of penalty for unnecessary IN-ing. Where's the post-padding police?
wrongway
-
For everyone who has complained about the collision model in the past, we have here two people colliding, both getting the collision message, both taking damage.... And we have a complaint. Why would it matter in what direction the collision occurred???
Did he shoot at you before or during the collision? Did he hit you?
Two cars get in an accident, a collision. The driver of one car is killed. Should the other driver be dragged out of his car and be summarily executed?
Were you by chance shooting at the other plane? Did you hit him? Again, what difference does it make which direction the collision occurs? Should T-bones be eliminated too?
I think many of the "I died in a collision, he didn't" whines are due to being shot down prior or during the collision and not so much due to the impact of the aircraft with another aircraft.
There should be some sort of penalty for unnecessary IN-ing. Where's the post-padding police?
wrongway
Easy on the collision model martyrdom.
And no, I didn't fire at the guy, it was a terrible angled attack, I couldn't even get guns on him.
-
Come on Bald, your smarter than that.
Ram is virtually impossible to do, and we've yet to see any show definitive proof where they managed to ram someone without taking damage.
Collisions happen, in this case, it wasn't your fault. But flying AH isn't about "blame".
someone posted a film of himself doing just that deliberately, a couple of months ago.
they were outta ammo, caught up to the damaged 190(?) went under him, and came up in front, juuust close enough that their end saw a collision.
-
someone posted a film of himself doing just that deliberately, a couple of months ago.
they were outta ammo, caught up to the damaged 190(?) went under him, and came up in front, juuust close enough that their end saw a collision.
And yet, you can not call that a "ram", because Shane did not run his plane into the other.
-
And yet, you can not call that a "ram", because Shane did not run his plane into the other.
well, he did sort of.....he came up into the other plane...thus ramming him. he just didn't ram him with his nose.
-
The plane that rams me the most is the Yak. Yaks love to do rolling scissors which is a great move against most people and against my P51 it works really well but about 60% of the time (maybe higher) they will ram me. Only problem is I avoid the ram and they die because on my game I see them cross my nose and I shoot them. When the run into me and I dont shoot I still get the kill but the feeling of a job well done is missing. :(
-
And yet, you can not call that a "ram", because Shane did not run his plane into the other.
I have a film of me in KI-67s getting Rammed by a P-51. Already shot down one Spit, busy dodging NKL5 who's trying to kill me with an AR234, P-51 is spraying from 1.5k out, runs out of ammo and drives into me. If it wasn't deliberate i don't know what it was.
wrongway
-
No.
If both planes report a collision, both get damage.
The exact amount varies.
Happened to me that I just lost just a gear or a flap from collision,
though usually damage is more severe.
Which one took the most damage....?
(http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb209/StracCop/collision.jpg)
-
hmm could have been the Spit. I could imagine the 262 getting only a PW - or nothing when ther's no collision on HIS screen ;)
-
Which one took the most damage....?
(http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb209/StracCop/collision.jpg)
Need the other guys film.
C'mon I know you are smarter than this. You plan theses elaborate missions but can't grasp the fact that we have our own unique picture of what happens in an air to air encounter?
-
Which one took the most damage....?
(http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb209/StracCop/collision.jpg)
and on top of this all, you're showing us you're a hotard? :noid :noid
-
well, he did sort of.....he came up into the other plane...thus ramming him. he just didn't ram him with his nose.
The film clearly showed that Shane missed the other plane, thus no ram occurred.
That Shane got lucky and caused the other guy to collide is beside the point. For it to be a "ram", he would have had to smack the plane he saw with his. But, they never touched, hence it is not a ram.
Admittedly I am claiming a technicality, but it is an important one. The film was of a very unique situation, and for people to claim that it happens deliberately and regularly, is simply false.
In AH, if you actually ram a plane, you only guarantee harm to yourself. The other guy may or may not be damaged depending on whether the planes on his screen intersect or not.
-
The level of pissed-offed-ness ....
Quoted for my own amusement. :aok
I am not fond of the collision model but understand it may very well be the best solution to the factors involved in the game, particularly internet latencey.
Sometimes it frustrates me, then I come to the boards and start a thread about how I hate it. Hey, it makes me feel better to cry now and then.. :D
-
Need the other guys film.
C'mon I know you are smarter than this. You plan theses elaborate missions but can't grasp the fact that we have our own unique picture of what happens in an air to air encounter?
Bronk,
I'm just trying to get your post count up.
Its a little low...needs boosting to at least 10K! :P
Anyway, my only point is that in ANY collision,
both planes should be out of action. Period.
That would be far more fair than having one plane
completely destroyed and the other fly off
with, say, a gun damaged. That kind of
event is highly unrealistic.
Mutual destruction would reduce reckless HO's because both
pilots would KNOW that if they collided, both
would be dead. Period.
This one is not different than my other suggestions.
My intent is to make the game more realistic and
less of an arcade game. This idea is consistent
with that goal.
And with that said, I am done adding my comments
to this thread. I've already given my two-cents.
Any more and it will cost ya! :cool:
-
dp
-
Anyway, my only point is that in ANY collision,
both planes should be out of action. Period.
(...)
My intent is to make the game more realistic and
less of an arcade game.
The ususual question. Here's an actual collision from both players viewpoints:
(http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/2236/rammyfeve9.jpg)
(http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/9027/ramotherfeen9.jpg)
Both showing exact the moment of collision
So if you were the P-47 pilot (and what you see on 2nd picture is what happens on your screen) ... would you think it's more realistic and less arcade if you'd go down now? Getting a collision message even though on your screen the Pony never got closer than 30 yards?
-
I understand how the collision model works and why it is how it is but that doesn't mean it can't be improved and I don't think it would take an inordinate amount of coding to do so.
Here's an idea:
If two planes collide and one takes frontal damage (from the wing forward) and one takes rear damage (from the wing rearward) the forward damaged aircraft incurs appropriate damage while the rear "damaged" aircraft incurs no damage.
If two planes collide and both take forward damage then both incur appropriate damage.
If two planes collide and both incur rear damage (highly unlikely) then neither incur damage.
As to the coding it should be relatively easy. We all know what parts get damaged forward of the wings (engine, radiator, guns, wings or wingtips, etc.) and well all know which parts get damaged aft of the wings (vert. stab, elevators, etc.) so the extra code can be based off which parts take damage.
This at least gets rid of ramming someone into a death.
-
They cant ram you to death unless you see a ram on your side and usually you got shot anyway and its the bullets/cannon that does the damage. Why is this so obvious to me and not so much to other people? :huh
-
I think some have been hit by the dumbtruck. :noid ;)
-
Just for the record...
Today I messed it up and rammed my Spit XIV into an enemy Boston III drone. This collision did kill only... *drumroll*.. me!
I found it perfectly acceptable, and I guess RTHolmes even more so :lol
-
They cant ram you to death unless you see a ram on your side and usually you got shot anyway and its the bullets/cannon that does the damage. Why is this so obvious to me and not so much to other people? :huh
I never got shot in the instance in my OP. There was never a ping and I have to believe I'd have heard a 30mm hitting.
Why is everyone so adamamnt against an improvement to the damage model? All it would take is disabling rear damage in the case of collisions. Please explain how this would make things worse.
-
The film clearly showed that Shane missed the other plane, thus no ram occurred.
That Shane got lucky and caused the other guy to collide is beside the point. For it to be a "ram", he would have had to smack the plane he saw with his. But, they never touched, hence it is not a ram.
Admittedly I am claiming a technicality, but it is an important one. The film was of a very unique situation, and for people to claim that it happens deliberately and regularly, is simply false.
In AH, if you actually ram a plane, you only guarantee harm to yourself. The other guy may or may not be damaged depending on whether the planes on his screen intersect or not.
on his screen there was no ram. he knew full well what he was doing though. he was exploiting what could be considered a bug. he was taking into account(i think) the amount of delay or lag that he hoped was present, to see if he could take the guy out. if he could do it, then others will figure out how to do it on a regular basis.
and ya, i agree it is a technicality.
-
Why is everyone so adamamnt against an improvement to the damage model? All it would take is disabling rear damage in the case of collisions. Please explain how this would make things worse.
In that case I will try not only to make pursuing enemy fighters to overshoot me... I would try to incite a collision. After all I couldn't get damaged at all but they could. No risk for me, but high risk for them.
-
I never got shot in the instance in my OP. There was never a ping and I have to believe I'd have heard a 30mm hitting.
Why is everyone so adamamnt against an improvement to the damage model? All it would take is disabling rear damage in the case of collisions. Please explain how this would make things worse.
So when your vert stab catches on a merge..it just doest count?
-
I never got shot in the instance in my OP. There was never a ping and I have to believe I'd have heard a 30mm hitting.
Why is everyone so adamamnt against an improvement to the damage model? All it would take is disabling rear damage in the case of collisions. Please explain how this would make things worse.
I dont know about your game but on my game a 30mm hit sounds just like a ram and in fact any major part leaving my plane sounds like a 30mm hit.
-
I'm sorry but the collision model is truely messed up.
Last night I was flying along in a Ta-152 when I saw tracers going over my wings. I looked back to see a 262 starting to try a break turn but before he was able he rammed me from behind taking he tail off my plane. He flew on with one engine smoking slightly.
The system reported that I collided! It also reported that he collided.
That's just not right. Period. End of story. How in the h*ll can I collide with someone I'm flying AWAY from.
Screw it. I'm just going to start ramming everyone in the arena. Evidently it works.
If that's the case, then fly a spit 16 - they usually win ho's more than any other plane in the game. They can also seemingly explode a p38-j from 1k out as this happened to me 3!!!!!!!!!! times in one week.
The spit 16 is incorrectly modeled, I won't fly it. The hurri2 is the only plane I respect.
But yes to lend to your post, there IS an issue with collision that is ruining the game. Any real attempt to find real battle is gone. Possibly only the DA is your friend. I like the randomness of the MA personally but get very frustrated when I fly 20 minutes to be taken out by yet another spit dweeb that didn't even make an attempt to fire his weapons.
-
I have flown 400 mph right underneath a spit before, and he got a collision message and his wing was ripped off. No damage to me. This is the one circumstance imo where the collision model isn't great. As is now, the model does attempt to address fault and not penalize a player who didn't collide on his end.
I think it would be cool though if HiTech could somehow eliminate the rammed from behind collisions. Like if a collision starts from the back, the collision becomes void for that encounter for the player being rammed from behind. (no pun intended)
Makes you wonder greatly about what bullets are actually hitting. I think the window is WILDLY different than actually aiming. Enter again the spit tard who just flops his wings and has zero scaling - impossible to hit if done correctly.
-
But yes to lend to your post, there IS an issue with collision that is ruining the game. Any real attempt to find real battle is gone. Possibly only the DA is your friend. I like the randomness of the MA personally but get very frustrated when I fly 20 minutes to be taken out by yet another spit dweeb that didn't even make an attempt to fire his weapons.
The collision model isn't ruining the game.
Especially as it's been implemented this way from start.
If you really find yourself dying from collisions a lot, you should reevaluate your flying. I'm dead serious.
-
The collision model isn't ruining the game.
Far from it. It is a great source of entertainment. :D
-
Far from it. It is a great source of entertainment. :D
plenty of entertainment in game and on boards. ;)
-
Why is everyone so adamamnt against an improvement to the damage model? All it would take is disabling rear damage in the case of collisions. Please explain how this would make things worse.
Randomly blowing up when, in your perspective, you're nowhere near the other guy? Better for you?
wrongway
-
Why is everyone so adamamnt against an improvement to the damage model? All it would take is disabling rear damage in the case of collisions. Please explain how this would make things worse.
In that case I will try not only to make pursuing enemy fighters to overshoot me... I would try to incite a collision. After all I couldn't get damaged at all but they could. No risk for me, but high risk for them.
:) You're going to get a dozen bullets in your tail 19 out of 20 times before you actually force a one sided collision on the enemy by sheer luck and enemy stupidity. There's no way that anyone would be able to force rams in this manner. Remember the pursuing plane does have guns mounted to his nose.
Also, just because *you* force the backwards ram wouldn't mean that *he* saw the ram. So it's still the same concept just back collisions disabled on *your* end.
-
What you see is what you get. Anything else is too gamey the same way "HO cone" shields in AW (or wherever it was) were.
-
What you see is what you get. Anything else is too gamey the same way "HO cone" shields in AW (or wherever it was) were.
Heh I don't think disabling rear rams would be gamier than 100 other things. I liked those HO cone shields in AW :) Of course, ACM took a hit because guys would just go straight arrow through one another which is terrible acm.
-
It's still gamey. Why not make players invulnerable to cons their SA missed?
-
It's still gamey. Why not make players invulnerable to cons their SA missed?
That would certainly help me.
-
I think if we took a real 262 and a 152 then rammed the 262's armoured nose cone into your tail feathers at great speed...the result would be much the same.
-
Way too funny ... making "exceptions" to collisions.
If anything in my aircraft's X/Y/Z coordinates intersects with something in the X/Y/Z coordinates of the aircraft that I am fighting (all on my FE), I had better take some sort of damage. The day that Dale starts making "special" areas of interest that ignore the intersections of X/Y/Z, is the day that I cancel my account.
Why can't people understand ... If you fly YOUR plane into another plane YOUR gonna take damage, be it minimal or catastrophic, who cares !!! You blew it ... suck it up and grab another plane and TRY with all that you have ... to not fly into another plane.
As Lusche pointed out ... if you are suffering from multiple deaths due to collision ... then you really need to re-look at your flying abilities ... don't come here whining to make a change because of your failures.
Personally ... I am real surprised that BE came to this BBS with this BS whine.
-
Ultimately even though I have a very minor grievance with the collision model, it's fine the way it is and there's no reason to start making exceptions and complex coding to deal with subjective circumstances. That said though, for those who go to the grave with the argument "It happened on *your* end"...I'm sure there has been at least one time where you got one sided rammed and were angry about it and felt the other guy was at fault even though he didn't *see* the ram. I think you'd be lying if you said no. It really doesn't matter though, it's rare and pointless to whine about.
-
This is also a pet peev of mine.
I simply do not understand why, when both planes
report that a collision has occured, both planes
don't crash.
Mid-air collisions are catastrophic events.
It is exceedingly rare for a plane to remain
airworthy after having one, especially when
the impact is highly kinetic.
Both should be dead or severely crippled and
near dead.
Check out at about 5:40 . . .
Long Odds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1NTUzj7cGw&feature=related)
Clearly, in real life, the collision model is porked. :noid
-
"You would think...."
:aok
wrongway
-
Why can't people understand ... If you fly YOUR plane into another plane YOUR gonna take damage, be it minimal or catastrophic, who cares !!! You blew it ... suck it up and grab another plane and TRY with all that you have ... to not fly into another plane.
Why can't YOU understand I didn't fly my plane into anything. I was simply flying along, got rammed from behind and went down for it while the other guy flew on. I certainly didn't BACK into him.
-
BE its not like that I know. What happened is the guy attacked you from behind shot you and then collided with you. I have shot the wing off a P38 and had the wreckage hit me as I tried to pass over the top but the P38 does this wideangled nose up flop where the plane can actually climb after losing its tail. I imagine other planes can do the same thing pretty easy.
Tonight I ran into the same group of HOers over and over and I was killing them pretty easy since the skilless noobs had nothing more then HO everytime... then I started getting tired and relaxing too much and... Collisions do happen! :D
-
Why can't YOU understand I didn't fly my plane into anything. I was simply flying along, got rammed from behind and went down for it while the other guy flew on. I certainly didn't BACK into him.
Why can't you understand if you allow your ac to touch it's your problem. We cannot fly to what you see.
Or have you devised a way for us to know your ping time, our ping time and your AC speed? This way we can predict where your ac is on your front end.
-
Why can't YOU understand I didn't fly my plane into anything.
Yet there was a collision on your front end that you didn't avoid. And just like the often cited "real life": What you see is what you get. Collision = damage.
That sometimes your opponent is flying away unscathed while it seems to have ben his fault can suck. But it's only a logical result of the clear and simple "what you see is what you get" principle, and any departure from that principle opens a can of worms.
After all you are responsible for all what happens on your screen. If you evade, you don't suffer.
-
I'm sure there has been at least one time where you got one sided rammed and were angry about it and felt the other guy was at fault even though he didn't *see* the ram. I think you'd be lying if you said no.
Yeah, I get pissed for a nano-second ... and I get pissed at myself ... and then I get another plane and try again.
-
Why can't YOU understand I didn't fly my plane into anything. I was simply flying along, got rammed from behind and went down for it while the other guy flew on. I certainly didn't BACK into him.
I understand that you were "simply" flying straight and level and received a 30mm enema first, and then experienced a collision.
Anyone who flys a 262 (outside of a hand full of experten) can easily get caught in not really knowing their closure rate and inadvertently ram into the back of their target. The fact that he rammed you from behind really means nothing except that you were not trying to evade.
-
Slap, some rare times there is actualy nothing you can do to avoid being rammed, like if you are on the verge of a stall trying to force an overshoot, you may have 0% control authority at the time. But that makes no difference to your point, which is a valid one.
BaldEagle, imagine all the collisions that happened in real life, I am willing to assume that a good percentage of pilots who colided had:
A) No clue they were about to be rammed
B) No control over the situation of another pilot flying into them.
C) No forum to come and dispute the matter on afterwards.
Its the same on the roads today. When you get hit from behind at the lights you may have had 0% influence but you still got hit. The small downside of online gaming is that sometimes the only virtual reality that the crash occours in is yours. I know im wasting my time here, lucky i have alot of it currently.
-
Yeah, I get pissed for a nano-second ... and I get pissed at myself ... and then I get another plane and try again.
Yeah but on the same token, sometimes I pull a hard maneuver into someone then at the last nanosecond abort the maneuver and yank rudder and stick away from him as I realize I'm about to ram him instead of creating a 100yd snap shot. When he gets the collision message, I laugh of course, but I know that I created that collision even though it happened only on his end.
-
Why can't YOU understand I didn't fly my plane into anything. I was simply flying along, got rammed from behind and went down for it while the other guy flew on. I certainly didn't BACK into him.
I'm with ya' BaldEagl, it is 100% not your fault that you allowed another plane to hit yours.
How dare HiTech Coad it so that when things hit you you take damage and when they don't you won't.
What was he thinking?
-
Yeah but on the same token, sometimes I pull a hard maneuver into someone then at the last nanosecond abort the maneuver and yank rudder and stick away from him as I realize I'm about to ram him instead of creating a 100yd snap shot. When he gets the collision message, I laugh of course, but I know that I created that collision even though it happened only on his end.
I wonder how many other guys could impossibly (according the the experts) do this..... :rolleyes:
-
I wonder how many other guys could impossibly (according the the experts) do this..... :rolleyes:
You can't do it purposely.
It's incalculable, unless you know everybody in the arena's ping and you know who you're fighting against.
-
I wonder how many other guys could impossibly (according the the experts) do this..... :rolleyes:
Yeah, it happens, is never planned, and is purely lucky. But I do feel responsible for some collisions that only the other guy sees, and I feel he is responsible sometimes for only collisions I see. In the majority of rams it is both players' faults though for putting their aircraft in risky positions.
-
(http://pages.suddenlink.net/ja001son/collision.jpg)
-
OK,how about this...Whenever ONE of TWO planes gets a collision model,it AUTO CHUTES them out of their respective plane's and into open parachutes,then they can go at it with the guns,and whoever gets the kill by handgun,gets the kill earned for killing the other plane.. :D
Or something along those lines..
-
OK,how about this...Whenever ONE of TWO planes gets a collision model,it AUTO CHUTES them out of their respective plane's and into open parachutes,then they can go at it with the guns,and whoever gets the kill by handgun,gets the kill earned for killing the other plane.. :D
Or something along those lines..
How about you try to avoid other AC and we all do the same. Gentlemen collisions happen, adjust your flying and watch them virtually disappear. Chalk it up to oops and move on.
-
Yeah but on the same token, sometimes I pull a hard maneuver into someone then at the last nanosecond abort the maneuver and yank rudder and stick away from him as I realize I'm about to ram him instead of creating a 100yd snap shot. When he gets the collision message, I laugh of course, but I know that I created that collision even though it happened only on his end.
Hmmmm ... you realized that there is a imminent collision ... you adjust your flight path to avoid ... he continues to pull into the imminent collision and does nothing to prevent it ... and you feel as tho you caused the collision ?
:rolleyes:
-
Why can't YOU understand I didn't fly my plane into anything. I was simply flying along, got rammed from behind and went down for it while the other guy flew on. I certainly didn't BACK into him.
Should have paid more attention in my physics class.
"...It can not be done othervize, since the current system means that as long as you vatch yourself and do not collide on your own frontend, you vill be safe. Therefore, there is no such thing as an unexplained, unexpected collision. If a collision did happen in vich you are damaged and the opponent ist not, vat happent to the "other plane" is a non-issue. Vat happens to him, is vat happens in his reality, not yours. The only thing vich ist important is vat happent in your reality, and in that separate reality, you haf collided, and thus, you are damaged.
The physical vorld of Aces High is solid in that matter. Every collision has a reason, and therefore, can be estimated or expected. Hitech does not play dice."
-Albert Kweainsten, "The Theory of Collisional Relativity" -