Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: SPKmes on January 13, 2010, 02:29:03 PM
-
I know, I know.........but this isn't a gripe.....I don't even know if this is a bugs report forum question but I would just like answer on this (if there is one).....Can settings in the game/arena get set up in the wrong way?? That is, last night I had 2 instances where the collisions seemed to work the wrong way...one happened to me where the con pulled around and as we passed he ended up behind me on my screen and it said I had collided and nothing from the other side. Now I saw him pull around and all but the actual collision on from my point of view came from about a 4 Oclock postion into the side of me....the second I totally botched up an attack from a cons seven/six and totally slammed into him...I however got the message the con had collided with me and nothing about me hitting him....which honestly was strange to me as I had a front end full of 38 tail (those things are huge man)......
between the 2 instances I had re-logged (if you were there you would have all read about it hahaha...sorry for my lameness guys <S>) due to seemingly having defrosted peas for ammo and next to no ability.....
So when it happened the first time I put it down to my connection....should have re logged then...it would have saved me much frustration(maybe haha) but the second was after...and was the opposite outcome...sorry I should have kept film but I didn't.
-
You seem to be under a misunderstanding regarding the model. If the copy of Aces High running on your system determines that your aircraft "intersected" the same space as another players aircraft - then you get the "You collided with XXXX" and they get the "XXXX collided with you".
Because of the amount of time it takes for the copy of the game running on his system to transmit his position to the server and for the server to send it to your machine, there is a difference between where you each "see" the other's aircraft relative to your own. In the first instance, even though you think he ran into you (struck you from behind and to the side), as far as the game is concerned, you collided - "fault" doesn't come into play, only the intersection of the game objects.
In the second instance, you must have missed him, even though it was close - whereas on his FE, the intersection of objects did happen.
Make sense?
<S>
-
I think he is saying he thinks he missed in the first case but got a "you have collided" message anyway, and in the second case definitely "saw" a collision and did not get a "you have collided" message.
Something in the back of my head says this might be a vsync issue, but the back of my head and I have not been on speaking terms lately. Still, it might be something to check.
-
Makes sense in explaining what does happen.... but I still feel the results (often, one guy flies, one guy dies) are plain wrong. Always have been; and not just in AH but WB as well. IL-2, (online) too.
IF one front-end determines there was a collision, then the sim should enforce the same result on the other(s), EVEN IF THERE'S a lag issue that tells an unwitting participant's FE that he didn't collide. If, as you say, the other, non-colliding guy gets a 'xxx collided with you' message, then the game engine is well aware of both collisions and the disparity. And if any one person involved in the collision "didn't" collide... okay then, the collision shouldn't happen for anyone. As Chick Hearn used to say, "No harm, no foul, no blood, no ambulance."
It would certainly suck... as any collision would... but regardless of "fault", it's ridiculous to have "one-sided" collisions happening. Take 'em both... and both parties will soon learn not to press HOs or get too close during gunnery passes... right now, this misguided notion that one controls his own FE and therefore, the "fault" in the collision, is just not correct.
I've seen instances where lag causes a slower plane to "stutter stop" and an attacking plane collide with it even though he clearly pulled up and away from the target in time. *Klunk* the attacker's wing is gone and the target flies off like nothing happened.
-
So tell me stigy. What's to stop me from flying through buffs guns blazing in your "no harm no foul" world?
Figure A.
(http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/lag/bronkview.jpg)
Why shouldn't the pink spit take damage? Clearly collided.
Figure B.
(http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/lag/tangleview.jpg)
Same moment in time different front end.
Why should the cammo spit take damage? Clearly he avoided.
-
While not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, the collision modeling in AH is a very good game design compromise. Game design is something Stiglr doesn't understand very well.
ack-ack
-
Game design is something Stiglr doesn't understand very well.
ack-ack
You're kidding?
-
Well, you can look at each of those pictures and draw a different verdict, no?
But, there can only be one outcome in the same persistent world. And, it's not always 'no harm no foul.' Sometimes it's both going boom, and a lot of bad blood... kind of like in real life, huh? Some doofus steers right in front of your car, and you're not doing anything wrong at all. Doesn't matter: you're still just as 'hit' as if you were DWI and swerved into the other car.
The collision either happens or it doesn't. To blindly accept collsions happening to only one object offends my sensibilities, even though we all know that lag, as well as sh*t, happens. :)
Now, in application... because a player doesn't know which of those screenies the game will see, and make a judgment based on... it would seem prudent for our pink Spit driver to break off his attack with room to spare. The buff driver doesn't really have much say in the proceedings either way, does he? Well, he could corkscrew... but really, it's all down to what the Spit does.
To directly answer Bronk's question;
What's to stop me from flying through buffs guns blazing in your "no harm no foul" world?
The expectation that more times than not, you BOTH go boom if you press a gunpass inside 50 meters. As it happens now, an inopportune net-burp or bad connection might return the result that the Spit pulls up safely on his front end, but on the bomber's, his tail intersects with the climbing-away attacker, and... the bomber loses the flight surface. That shouldn't be acceptable to either player, either.
-
Well, you can look at each of those pictures and draw a different verdict, no?
Exactly. That is why one person collides and one doesn't. Duh.
-
Well, you can look at each of those pictures and draw a different verdict, no?
But, there can only be one outcome in the same persistent world. And, it's not always 'no harm no foul.' Sometimes it's both going boom, and a lot of bad blood... kind of like in real life, huh? Some doofus steers right in front of your car, and you're not doing anything wrong at all. Doesn't matter: you're still just as 'hit' as if you were DWI and swerved into the other car.
The collision either happens or it doesn't. To blindly accept collsions happening to only one object offends my sensibilities, even though we all know that lag, as well as sh*t, happens. :)
Now, in application... because a player doesn't know which of those screenies the game will see, and make a judgment based on... it would seem prudent for our pink Spit driver to break off his attack with room to spare. The buff driver doesn't really have much say in the proceedings either way, does he? Well, he could corkscrew... but really, it's all down to what the Spit does.
To directly answer Bronk's question;
The expectation that more times than not, you BOTH go boom if you press a gunpass inside 50 meters.
You would have no problems seeing an enemy plane pass you at 30yds distance, and suddenly you go "boom" because of a collision you did never see, because it never happened on your screen? :)
-
Now, in application... because a player doesn't know which of those screenies the game will see, and make a judgment based on... it would seem prudent for our pink Spit driver to break off his attack with room to spare. The buff driver doesn't really have much say in the proceedings either way, does he? Well, he could corkscrew... but really, it's all down to what the Spit does.
Well If you'd have played the game you'd know. What you see is what you get. Nothing to do what HTC's server see's. I see spit I fly into spit I take damage.
If the Cammo spit was a buff in your no "harm no foul world". I could fly through him guns a blazing with little care of colliding.
Now In HTC's world I actually have to set up a run. You know... pilot stuff, avoid gun fire and running into the AC.
-
You would have no problems seeing an enemy plane pass you at 30yds distance, and suddenly you go "boom" because of a collision you did never see, because it never happened on your screen? :)
What he says is that the computers should check each other and there shouldn't be a collision for either player unless both computers agree on it. Which I don't think would be any worse (nor necessarily any better) than the current system, and would probably result in less whining and confusion.
-
For stigy
http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/lag/lag.htm
Read and come back with a better compromise...i doubt you can.
-
What he says is that the computers should check each other and there shouldn't be a collision for either player unless both computers agree on it. Which I don't think would be any worse (nor necessarily any better) than the current system, and would probably result in less whining and confusion.
I disagree on both points. It would be worse precisely because there would often-to-usually be no penalty for flying through someone, and the whines would be worse due to the fact that there would be no consistency from the player's perspective on when he would or would not take collision damage. The current system provides both the appropriate penalty for hitting an object and does so consistently (OP's problem notwithstanding).
-
Thank you, Motherland. Perhaps people might not be resistant to the concept if simply someone else says it.
Meanwhile, lusche wrote:
You would have no problems seeing an enemy plane pass you at 30yds distance, and suddenly you go "boom" because of a collision you did never see, because it never happened on your screen?
That's no more dissatisfying than clearly pulling off of a target with room to spare and going boom.
As I said, due to net lag coloring our "perception" the results are going to suck at times, no question. And it's not going to always seem 'fair'. But... having any plane ever fly away scot-free from a collision... I can't see how that's EVER acceptable.
-
I disagree on both points. It would be worse precisely because there would often-to-usually be no penalty for flying through someone, and the whines would be worse due to the fact that there would be no consistency from the player's perspective on when he would or would not take collision damage. The current system provides both the appropriate penalty for hitting an object and does so consistently (OP's problem notwithstanding).
Absolute hogwash. I know we've ALL experienced the exact opposite result happen from what our screens tell us. There is no consistency NOW from the player's perspective.
As for "flying through" people, how often d'you think that'd happen vs. "both" planes going up in a ball of flames?
I think the other solution would make EVERYONE more fearful of proximity.
-
What he says is that the computers should check each other and there shouldn't be a collision for either player unless both computers agree on it. Which I don't think would be any worse (nor necessarily any better) than the current system, and would probably result in less whining and confusion.
That already happens If both collide they do indeed both go down. However if you run into me on your end you go down.
What you want is to run into me but check to see if I hit also. If I didn't you want your collision tossed out. Not a very good idea. Look at my pics above. I could set up vert passes on buffs guns blazing. Go through the buffs and take no damage because the buffs did not see a collision.
Now I ask you whats more gamier? What you see is what you get or flying through the tail end of buffs taking no damage.
-
Thank you, Motherland. Perhaps people might not be resistant to the concept if simply someone else says it.
Meanwhile, lusche wrote:
That's no more dissatisfying than clearly pulling off of a target with room to spare and going boom.
As I said, due to net lag coloring our "perception" the results are going to suck at times, no question. And it's not going to always seem 'fair'. But... having any plane ever fly away scot-free from a collision... I can't see how that's EVER acceptable.
I never fly away scot-free from a collision. If i see one, I take damage. If I see none, I don't. What you see is what you ge.
If collisions have to be mutual to get any effect, the results are getting inconsistent, but for the most part, you will be able to fly gun's blazing through enemy bombers, for example. Is that the kind of realism you are striving for? :lol
-
I disagree on both points. It would be worse precisely because there would often-to-usually be no penalty for flying through someone, and the whines would be worse due to the fact that there would be no consistency from the player's perspective on when he would or would not take collision damage. The current system provides both the appropriate penalty for hitting an object and does so consistently (OP's problem notwithstanding).
You still wouldn't know whether or not there's enough lag to warrant safe passage through an enemy.... doing so by tactic would be about as practical as the 'fly slightly infront of a bomber when you're passing by quickly to force a 1 sided collision' that is often postulated but has never been successfully done, to my knowledge at least.
-
Absolute hogwash. I know we've ALL experienced the exact opposite result happen from what our screens tell us. There is no consistency NOW from the player's perspective.
Your claim is the the absolute hogwash. I have never suffered collision damage when I did not collide. Neither have most players.
-
That's no more dissatisfying than clearly pulling off of a target with room to spare and going boom.
Post a film of that happening. I know you can't. If you don't touch on your front end you take ZERO damage from collision.
-
You still wouldn't know whether or not there's enough lag to warrant safe passage through an enemy.... doing so by tactic would be about as practical as the 'fly slightly infront of a bomber when you're passing by quickly to force a 1 sided collision' that is often postulated but has never been successfully done, to my knowledge at least.
You wouldn't "know" but could reasonably expect that touching another aircraft would have no consequences, hence your flying would be less careful regarding proximity to the other aircraft than it is today.
-
You still wouldn't know whether or not there's enough lag to warrant safe passage through an enemy.... doing so by tactic would be about as practical as the 'fly slightly infront of a bomber when you're passing by quickly to force a 1 sided collision' that is often postulated but has never been successfully done, to my knowledge at least.
Look at the distances in the pic. That's about 2 1/2 spit lengths. Just aim for the tail of a buff and you'd stand a good chance of not hitting if it took both to detect.
Nope what you see is what you get is the best compromise.
-
Stiglr,
I thought you were the guy so keen on realism?
Your suggestions fail, on both counts, to encourage, as accurately as possible, WWII air combat tactics. "Both Die" fails because it encourages gamey behavior, namely ramming when rams cannot be dodged, and encourages people to stay at longer ranges that should be required. We're not talking about a few feet of lag induced displacement like in a FPS, we're talking distances in excess of 100 yards at times, depending on total ping times and on the speeds involved. By no means would head ons be the only things affected.
The second suggestion, only enforce a collision if both players see it would pretty much remove collisions from the game and encourage people to fly through their targets, guns blazing. That is a severe distortion of combat tactics.
These games already have enough factors, such as no fear of dying, distorting tactics, more things doing so won't make them better.
-
You wouldn't "know" but could reasonably expect that touching another aircraft would have no consequences, hence your flying would be less careful regarding proximity to the other aircraft than it is today.
Someone who understands with an amount of finesse the way the collisions work, sure... the average joe, the first time his plane blows of from collision, is going to realize that they are on and will try not to hit anyone... even if sometimes it seems like he collides (because he did, but how would he know any better?) but didn't take any damage.
Look at the distances in the pic. That's about 2 1/2 spit lengths. Just aim for the tail of a buff and you'd stand a good chance of not hitting if it took both to detect.
Nope what you see is what you get is the best compromise.
I think if I flew through a buff with guns blazing we'd both collide anyway. Generally the one sided collisions are those that are near misses, in my experience at least...
Please remember that I don't actually think that this needs changed, I'm just offering some food for thought...
-
Sorry guys.... I didn't want all this to come up again (although I knew it would)....In the first one where I received damage it was in a bit of a turning battle...so win some lose some...no issue there...the second one is really the one that got me thinking about the first And other similar types...purely due to the fact that the P38 was not really evading at all (perhaps a slight banking to the left...and I fully screamed into the back of him I felt pretty bad actually that I basically went straight through him and received no damage...
So the answer to my question is...........No? Thanks for the input guys...please let this thread die...<S>
PS as motherland says...I am not questioning the model.....just wondered if coad can get confused hahaha....I know I am
-
Someone who understands with an amount of finesse the way the collisions work, sure... the average joe, the first time his plane blows of from collision, is going to realize that they are on and will try not to hit anyone... even if sometimes it seems like he collides (because he did, but how would he know any better?) but didn't take any damage.
I think if I flew through a buff with guns blazing we'd both collide anyway. Generally the one sided collisions are those that are near misses, in my experience at least...
Please remember that I don't actually think that this needs changed, I'm just offering some food for thought...
Well, here is some food for thought in the other direction . . .
If an occasional collision is supposed to be an effective deterrent to touching the other aircraft, then why wouldn't a collision every time (like we have now) be even more effective?
And all it would take is for someone to be able to fly straight through a buff once or twice without colliding to begin doing it all the time . . . ever hear of the term Intermittant Reinforcement?
Hence, without the certainty of collision damage if you touch another aircraft with yours, you get even gamier (if that's a word) flying that we have today.
-
Someone who understands with an amount of finesse the way the collisions work, sure... the average joe, the first time his plane blows of from collision, is going to realize that they are on and will try not to hit anyone... even if sometimes it seems like he collides (because he did, but how would he know any better?) but didn't take any damage.
I think if I flew through a buff with guns blazing we'd both collide anyway. Generally the one sided collisions are those that are near misses, in my experience at least...
Please remember that I don't actually think that this needs changed, I'm just offering some food for thought...
Aye don't think I'm being harsh with you Bubi. I flew AW when HO were more or less turned off.
As much as I hate it happening I'd rather have it AH2 way. Throwing out a collision because your opponent didn't see it is just to gamey. Once the gamers figure out they can do it .... they will. Look at all the other gamey crap they do.
-
Sorry guys.... I didn't want all this to come up again (although I knew it would)....In the first one where I received damage it was in a bit of a turning battle...so win some lose some...no issue there...the second one is really the one that got me thinking about the first And other similar types...purely due to the fact that the P38 was not really evading at all (perhaps a slight banking to the left...and I fully screamed into the back of him I felt pretty bad actually that I basically went straight through him and received no damage...
So the answer to my question is...........No? Thanks for the input guys...please let this thread die...<S>
Seriously, check to see that your vsync settings are turned on. Hopefully someone with better memory than me can verify my thinking that if this is off, it can occasionally cause a slight difference between what your monitor renders and what your CPU thinks it is seeing.
Other than that, it is impossible to verify without film. You may not have actually touched the other aircraft.
-
Aye I don't think I'm being harsh with you Bubi.
Nobody was I just wanted to make sure everyone understood my position :)
Well, here is some food for thought in the other direction . . .
If an occasional collision is supposed to be an effective deterrent to touching the other aircraft, then why wouldn't a collision every time (like we have now) be even more effective?
And all it would take is for someone to be able to fly straight through a buff once or twice without colliding to begin doing it all the time . . . ever hear of the term Intermittant Reinforcement?
Hence, without the certainty of collision damage if you touch another aircraft with yours, you get even gamier (if that's a word) flying that we have today.
TBH I may be very well wrong... I have to doubt though that people would be much more reckless than they currently are... I know that I wouldn't change the way I fly at all.
And all it would take is for someone to be able to fly straight through a buff once or twice without colliding to begin doing it all the time . . . ever hear of the term Intermittant Reinforcement?
Wouldn't that go both ways, though? And if you look at what happens all around you and even just in game (I ALWAYS get killed with just one ping!!), bad memories stick out in the mind more than good ones.
It's like a monkey and a buzzer.... sometimes he just gets the banana but occasionally he is shocked... and once it happens a couple times (even if he is occasionally rewarded) he learns not to touch the buzzer. Unless he's going for something physically addictive...
-
Wouldn't that go both ways, though? And if you look at what happens all around you and even just in game (I ALWAYS get killed with just one ping!!), bad memories stick out in the mind more than good ones.
Not when you are trying to create an avoidance behavior. Intermittant Reinforcement happens in reward situations.
100% negative reinforcement -- every time I touch another plane, I die -- I try to avoid 100% of the time to avoid the pain (collision).
Intermittant reinforcement of a reward -- I just flew through a guy, and it was SO FRIGGIN EASY TO HIT FROM 2 FEET AWAY, and I got the kill!!! WOOT WOOT!! -- This causes the behavior to repeat, even if occasionally the collision would occur, because the reward of an easy kill outweighs the occasional pain of a collision.
And just saw your edit -- yes, getting kills can be addictive. :D
-
Bubi I rather have penalty the tards for actually trying to ram. Rather than on the off chance the other guy doesn't see it the tard gets a pass.
-
The point you guys are missing here is that it is PERCEPTION that is misleading you. Often you can misjudge what you see. And, not to put too fine a point on it, what your screen shows you is not necessarily the reality as judged by the FE.
Still, no matter if you can trust what you see or not ... a result of a plane being involved in a collision, by dint of ONE plane suffering from it, being ZERO damage? By definition completely unrealistic. Having a consistent result, whether or not that suffers from lag... that, I think is preferable.
I suppose there's no way to know both ways unless there's a controlled experiment... but I think those who think suddenly there'll be NO collisions happening, but lots of flythroughs... they're making as much of a guess as I am when I say I think there'll be MORE collisions and NO flythroughs.
Nobody is arguing that if what you SEE (not what the FE computes) is a collision, you won't take damage.
But I am definitely arguing that I've seen a miss and still had a wing come off. I've had planes warp backward into me and then float off with no damage. Any of you who say you've never seen that are simply lying.
Don't shoot the messenger, just argue your point.
Oh, and by the way... intentional rams DID occur, no matter what you may think about the wrongness or rightness of it. The Russians did it, the Germans did it, the Japanese certainly did it.
-
But I am definitely arguing that I've seen a miss and still had a wing come off. I've had planes warp backward into me and then float off with no damage. Any of you who say you've never seen that are simply lying.
BS post a film. Ohh wait you don't play.
Edit:The point you guys are missing here is that it is PERCEPTION that is misleading you. Often you can misjudge what you see. And, not to put too fine a point on it, what your screen shows you is not necessarily the reality as judged by the FE
.
What your front end detects and what you see is virtually identical.
Give me a sec and I'lll find the corroborating post from a real programmer. Not one who plays one on the internet.
Edit 2: Ahh yes from a real game programer. From what the front end detects and records and what you see.
wrag: Your assessment is inncorect. The difference between AH film play back and what was displayed originally is so small (talking an inch or 2) that for all intensive purposes they are the same.
HiTech
Huhh imagine that. :neener:
-
All our "what you see " actually refers to the FE. So it's not a perception thing.
And again: Flying guns blazing through an opponent without any "collision" is more realistic and is better for gameplay than having to watch where you are flying to avoid a collision?
I suppose there's no way to know both ways unless there's a controlled experiment... but I think those who think suddenly there'll be NO collisions happening, but lots of flythroughs... they're making as much of a guess as I am when I say I think there'll be MORE collisions and NO flythroughs.
I have conducted controlled experiments, and so did other players. Also if one understands that "lag" is no freak accident or sign of a bad connection, but an inherent "feature" of internet communications, he will know that disparity between the frontends are common.
-
Still, no matter if you can trust what you see or not ... a result of a plane being involved in a collision, by dint of ONE plane suffering from it, being ZERO damage? By definition completely unrealistic. Having a consistent result, whether or not that suffers from lag... that, I think is preferable.
The result is absolutely consistent. If I touch another plane, I take collision damage. If I don't touch the other plane, I won't take collision damage. I still do not see what the problem is.
I suppose there's no way to know both ways unless there's a controlled experiment... but I think those who think suddenly there'll be NO collisions happening, but lots of flythroughs... they're making as much of a guess as I am when I say I think there'll be MORE collisions and NO flythroughs.
:lol Yeah, it isn't like the game designer has any experience in flight sims and knows from experience which way works best. :lol
But I am definitely arguing that I've seen a miss and still had a wing come off. I've had planes warp backward into me and then float off with no damage. Any of you who say you've never seen that are simply lying.
Actually, you are lying. You said in the other thread you don't even play the game.
I won't even get into the idiocy of the perk concept (the rich getting richer, the highest scoring pilots getting even greater weaponry and technology to feast on the others below him in ability...)
As you say, no, I don't play the game. Sorry I was misinformed.
-
BS post a film. Ohh wait you don't play.
Edit:What your front end detects and what you see is virtually identical.
Give me a sec and I'lll find the corroborating post from a real programmer. Not one who plays one on the internet.
I have missed planes by feet and still gotten a collision message, no I don't care to look through hundreds of films either.
But I have no reason to lie so take it for what its worth....
Strip
-
I have missed planes by feet and still gotten a collision message, no I don't care to look through hundreds of films either.
But I have no reason to lie so take it for what its worth....
Strip
If it showed the collision message on your film, then you didn't collide. Only the white "XXX has collided with you" will show on film. The orange system messages, of which "you have collided" is one, do not appear on the film viewer.
-
Exactly, Strip.
Also, note this "explanation" from that lag article Bronk posted up:
While it may be frustrating to watch the other guy fly away while you tumble to the ground with damage from a collision, it beats the alternative of you tumbling to the ground when you know for a fact that you were not part of a collision.
Here's the FACT: you DON'T "know for a fact" that you were or were not part of a collision. The FE determines that after the lag effect is in play. It's all perception. Now, again, that sucks but that's the way it is.
My problem is not with the fault, or even the perception (just like the gunnery explanation, which also sometimes "sucks"). My problem is simply that the OUTCOME, for both players can be that a plane can take damage from a collision the other plane was not in. That cannot be reality.
-
E25280 wrote:
If it showed the collision message on your film, then you didn't collide. [/i]
Not necessarily. If it showed the collision message on your film, then the FE has judged you didn't collide. Don't confuse perception with a system decision.
And before anyone starts tossing accusations, I'm definitely not a HO artist. I wait til I'm behind the wingline before I hose away. And I do make an honest attempt to break off a gunpass... that is, I don't ever AIM for a flythrough :rolleyes:
-
I have missed planes by feet and still gotten a collision message, no I don't care to look through hundreds of films either.
But I have no reason to lie so take it for what its worth....
Strip
You have made statement back it up with some evidence.
Edit.
Whoops sorry strip. Vitriol was not meant for you.
-
I am fully aware how the film viewer works, my comment stands....
I have taken collision damage while completely missing the enemy aircraft yet still receiving the "You have collided with XXX" message. I have also died by flying too close (but missing by inches and feet at times) many different structures in the game, cursing up a storm afterward when I can see air. Is it a positional error due to the film viewer mechanics, possibly, however I have watched TrackIr/Fraps film and seen the same thing before. It may be rare but you can take damage while completely avoiding some objects. Once I took an engine hit in a Me-262 at 300 mph while surviving to finish a race on one engine, something that should have been impossible.
Strip
-
Here's the FACT: you DON'T "know for a fact" that you were or were not part of a collision. The FE determines that after the lag effect is in play. It's all perception. Now, again, that sucks but that's the way it is.
Utter BS. Look at figure B in Bronk's post on the first page again. That is taken from the film of the plane in front. I can say FOR A FACT that he DID NOT COLLIDE.
My problem is not with the fault, or even the perception (just like the gunnery explanation, which also sometimes "sucks"). My problem is simply that the OUTCOME, for both players can be that a plane can take damage from a collision the other plane was not in. That cannot be reality.
The outcome for each player depends on his reality. Why is this a bad thing? Why should the pink spit in Bronk's first picture be allowed to get off scott free when HIS PLANE HIT ANOTHER PLANE? He shouldn't -- he should suffer the consequences.
-
I am fully aware how the film viewer works, my comment stands....
I have taken collision damage while completely missing the enemy aircraft yet still receiving the "You have collided with XXX" message. I have also died by flying too close (but missing by inches and feet at times) many different structures in the game, cursing up a storm afterward when I can see air. Is it a positional error due to the film viewer mechanics, possibly, however I have watched TrackIr/Fraps film and seen the same thing before. It may be rare but you can take damage while completely avoiding some objects. Once I took an engine hit in a Me-262 at 300 mph while surviving to finish a race on one engine, something that should have been impossible.
Strip
There is no "you have collided with XXXX" message. It only says "you have collided" in orange if you actually collided. If you are seeing a name, in white, that player collided with you.
I believe you are simply mistaken. Please post film if you have it. I am sure HTC would love to see evidence (as would I) if you are claiming his coding is faulty.
-
Fixed....
No worries....
Did it occur to you I have better things to do with my time than search hundreds of films looking for a 1 in 50 event anyway? Besides not saving many collisions anyway because I usually dont care to watch them afterward?
Strip
-
Exactly, Strip.
Also, note this "explanation" from that lag article Bronk posted up:
Here's the FACT: you DON'T "know for a fact" that you were or were not part of a collision. The FE determines that after the lag effect is in play. It's all perception. Now, again, that sucks but that's the way it is.
My problem is not with the fault, or even the perception (just like the gunnery explanation, which also sometimes "sucks"). My problem is simply that the OUTCOME, for both players can be that a plane can take damage from a collision the other plane was not in. That cannot be reality.
Bwahahahahhaa you tool the game is played on your front end. Your front end determines the collision lag has squat to do with it. Againn zippy if you don't run into it you don't take damage.
-
Show me were I have talked bad about HT? Other wise your just slandering....
Did it occur to you I have better things to do with my time than search hundreds of films looking for a 1 in 50 event anyway? Besides not saving many collisions anyway because I usually dont care to watch them afterward?
Strip
Fixed it strip my apologies. Wasn't meant for you.
-
I am fully aware how the film viewer works, my comment stands....
I have taken collision damage while completely missing the enemy aircraft yet still receiving the "You have collided with XXX" message.You really need to post a film of that happening.
I have also died by flying too close (but missing by inches and feet at times) many different structures in the game, cursing up a storm afterward when I can see air. Is it a positional error due to the film viewer mechanics, possibly, however I have watched TrackIr/Fraps film and seen the same thing before. It may be rare but you can take damage while completely avoiding some objects. Once I took an engine hit in a Me-262 at 300 mph while surviving to finish a race on one engine, something that should have been impossible.
Strip
Again strip, film. You can't see all of your ac from the cockpit. You need to look closely at films to see what has happened. It may be tedious to find but it can help explain what is going on.
-
I have missed planes by feet and still gotten a collision message, no I don't care to look through hundreds of films either.
But I have no reason to lie so take it for what its worth....
Strip
If your front end detected a collision, you did not miss a plane by a mere couple of feet. If you did, you should send in the film because if it happened it is clearly a bug and should be reported.
ack-ack
-
Fixed it strip my apologies. Wasn't meant for you.
I did the same thing at first. :( My apologies as well.
-
Again, its a rare event, certainly not worth bugging HTC about...
I take it as a "You should not have cut it that close" learning experience and move on promising to fly safer the next time. Trust me I have blown up enough flying through hangers in AHXARL to want to send it in though. More than a few racers have died in the line of fire yet have missed the structure on the film viewer. I think (almost positive to be truthful) the film viewer has a course flight path compared to what actually occurred in game. Being that this is not really within the scope of this thread I am not going to put very much effort into this matter though.
Strip
-
Lag does not have anything to do with if you do or do not collide.
Collisions are determined on your front end.
There is no lag on your front end.
You might have THOUGHT you missed, but I am 100% positive that some part of your plane touched some part of the nme plane.
Not conjecture; that is the reality of the situation.
-
Are you telling me under no circumstance can someone receive damage while completely missing a structure in the film viewer?
If so you are completely wrong....
I only wish I had access to the many films of me going boom while having "air to spare" through a hanger! As it stands thats over a year and two hard drives ago, no matter I am done defending myself over this thread.
Strip
-
Are you telling me under no circumstance can someone receive damage while completely missing a structure in the film viewer?
If so you are completely wrong....
I only wish I had access to the many films of me going boom while having "air to spare" through a hanger! As it stands thats over a year and two hard drives ago, no matter I am done defending myself over this thread.
Strip
"Transparent polygons" I think is the term that was used when people were hitting invisible bushes and such. These are map bugs that should be reported.
Different animal than hitting a plane FWIW.
-
I was referring to hangers and field objects...
One that baffles me to this day was losing an engine at 250+ mph in a Me-262, any collision should have ended in death. As I mentioned before I flew on to finish the race, pondering what AH god I pissed off after winning the first heat.
:lol
Strip
-
Ive got to learn to take this whole game a little more seriously.....Personally, if i collide on my screen and end up dying, i could care less what happens to the other guy. Im still going to be in the tower getting ready to up another plane, so i dont see what the big deal is.
cj3
-
WMLute wrote:
There is no lag on your front end.
In theory, but not in practice.
If I'm attacking a bomber, and the guy's got a poor connection (or maybe, even, I have the poor connection) such that the plane does the old "cha-cha-cha" position change (shifting back and forth along the line of flight; we've all seen it).... then there definitely IS a lag effect on my front end.
There does come a time when you're not sure if you can believe what your monitor is showing you. And with 10ths of seconds and great speeds involved, the probability of 'weird phenomena' happening is multiplied.
That's why I say, "what your FE sees is what you get" not always "what you see is what you get".
-
Are you telling me under no circumstance can someone receive damage while completely missing a structure in the film viewer?
If so you are completely wrong....
I only wish I had access to the many films of me going boom while having "air to spare" through a hanger! As it stands thats over a year and two hard drives ago, no matter I am done defending myself over this thread.
Strip
Problem is, as I understand it, that you don't follow the exact same paths in film as you do in game. The film recorder only records positions every x timefactor and then when you play a film it plays connect the dots with the dots for each aircraft. I understand there is other data in there that records events in greater detail, but not shown visibly. The paths are pretty close, and won't be far enough off to show a miss by plane lengths when a hit happened, but I think it can show a miss by a few feet when a collision did happen or a collision that wasn't recorded when it was actually a miss by a few feet.
I could be wrong on that though.
-
I guarantee if they made it to where both players went down regardless of ones FE I would suicide into people all the time for kicks, just to irritate them.
-
I guarantee if they made it to where both players went down regardless of ones FE I would suicide into people all the time for kicks, just to irritate them.
I can see it now..
Pegleg's flying everywhere! :D
-
I have missed planes by feet and still gotten a collision message, no I don't care to look through hundreds of films either.
But I have no reason to lie so take it for what its worth....
Strip
Do you recall by any chance when this occured? Reason why I ask is that there was a bug some time ago with the collision model that lasted a day or two before it was patched and fixed. When this occured, you could be as far as 30-50ft from the other plane and either player's front end would detect a collision. IIRC, this was the only time it happened and hasn't happened since the problem was fixed by HiTech.
ack-ack
-
One thing...
When someone says your 'front end sees the collision, you collide', that does NOT mean if you look away from the collision in the game you won't ram. Your view keys won't protect you, its your computer telling the server what position you are in, not the view keys.
I actually had a player tell me that one once.
-
I guarantee if they made it to where both players went down regardless of ones FE I would suicide into people all the time for kicks, just to irritate them.
You collide all the time because that lazy eye of yours kills your depth perception.
ack-ack
-
One thing...
When someone says your 'front end sees the collision, you collide', that does NOT mean if you look away from the collision in the game you won't ram. Your view keys won't protect you, its your computer telling the server what position you are in, not the view keys.
I actually had a player tell me that one once.
When I told you that, I didn't expect you to go blabbing on the forums about it. Thanks for keeping it confidential. :furious
ack-ack
-
One thing...
When someone says your 'front end sees the collision, you collide', that does NOT mean if you look away from the collision in the game you won't ram. Your view keys won't protect you, its your computer telling the server what position you are in, not the view keys.
I actually had a player tell me that one once.
Hilarious!
I once had a guy whine that he collided and he LOOKED away so his FE didn't "SEE" it.
He would fly right at 'em and just before the moment of impact he would look back.
(sigh)
Also what is being said about the film viewer is correct. The film viewer isn't 100% accurate. It is only off by mere feet but when flying through a hanger 1-3' can make a diff.
Stiglr, in the example you gave it still boils down to if your planes touched or not on your FE.
A player warping, or a buff drone warp, is totally diff. subject matter than what is being discussed.
But...
Even in your examples, if your plane touches the warpy plane or drone on your FE there is a collisions.
If they do not there isn't.
Until we have instantaneous internet where there is no lag what so ever what HTC has Coaded is the best possible solution.
My advice is just don't hit them.
-
Until we have instantaneous internet where there is no lag what so ever what HTC has Coaded is the best possible solution.
And if the internet did become "instantaneous" tomorrow ... HT would not have to change 1 line of coad.
-
The FE determines that after the lag effect is in play.
And you know this to be fact ? ... you have access to HT's coad and completely understand the game's architecture ?
-
The lag was really bad this past Tuesday. I was in my panzer when I got a xxx has collided with you and observed a B-25 fly by. Just a smoke trail from one engine. :O And another time I was in an Il2 and all the GV Icons dissapeared as I was shot down by an invisable flak. And Yes I was no more than 1000 ft alt. Gotta start filming all sorties.
-
And you know this to be fact ? ... you have access to HT's coad and completely understand the game's architecture ?
I'm basing this on the explanation and from my experience with the same collision code scheme used in Warbirds.... but, even if I'm not completely correct.. at LEAST I can spell "code" correctly. :lol
-
I'm basing this on the explanation and from my experience with the same collision code scheme used in Warbirds.... but, even if I'm not completely correct.. at LEAST I can spell "code" correctly. :lol
Uhm - coad seems spelled pretty perfect to me... especially when HTs coad is concerned!
-
at LEAST I can spell "code" correctly. :lol
That whooshing noise you hear is the subject matter at hand going right over y'er head.
-
Twiglr, do you actually play AH? So how many people flying in TWland??
-
So how many people flying in TWland??
9-12 on a "good" night.
-
I'm basing this on the explanation and from my experience with the same collision code scheme used in Warbirds.... but, even if I'm not completely correct.. at LEAST I can spell "code" correctly. :lol
Simply put ... you really have no clue ... and it's obvious.
-
Well, seeing that it hasn't been tested (both ways) to see the effects... nobody knows, do they?
-
Well, seeing that it hasn't been tested (both ways) to see the effects... nobody knows, do they?
As normal your speaking of which you do not know. I tested the 2 other methods besides what we are now using in about 1993 when I wrote my first simulator htsim.
So YES I do know.
HiTech
-
Now cough up the 14.95 and shut it right?
I love it! :lol
-
Rule #4
-
As normal your speaking of which you do not know. I tested the 2 other methods besides what we are now using in about 1993 when I wrote my first simulator htsim.
So YES I do know.
HiTech
Touche. But, your decision was based on your opinion of the findings.
Given what I know of your opinion on things like correct gauges, engine management, gunnery, etc., etc., well, I can't take your word for it that you made the right decision.
During those 1993 tests, were those tested on entire arenas, or were they controlled, limited-server-access tests?
-
Touche. But, your decision was based on your opinion of the findings.
Given what I know of your opinion on things like correct gauges, engine management, gunnery, etc., etc., well, I can't take your word for it that you made the right decision.
During those 1993 tests, were those tested on entire arenas, or were they controlled, limited-server-access tests?
Right decision ? ... according to you ? ... are you the stick that all Flight Sims need to measure against ?
It's amazing the crap that spews from your mouth for someone who has never written a flight sim and made a living from it or provided a living for others.
Wow ... your arrogance knows no bounds.
-
Touche. But, your decision was based on your opinion of the findings.
Given what I know of your opinion on things like correct gauges, engine management, gunnery, etc., etc., well, I can't take your word for it that you made the right decision.
During those 1993 tests, were those tested on entire arenas, or were they controlled, limited-server-access tests?
Gee lets see, the most successful game of it's kind. Yea I'd say he got it correct.
Go play wanna be game developer.
-
Given what I know of your opinion on things like correct gauges, engine management, gunnery, etc., etc., well, I can't take your word for it that you made the right decision.
That's an ad hominem.
-
Right decision ? ... according to you ? ... are you the stick that all Flight Sims need to measure against ?
It's amazing the crap that spews from your mouth for someone who has never written a flight sim and made a living from it or provided a living for others.
Wow ... your arrogance knows no bounds.
Dude, Stiglr is the ultimate flight sim game designer! Do not 'dis the Stiglr!
ack-ack
-
Uh Oh, Stigma is throwing out the old "you not using the correct gauges or engine controls" arguement.
Stiglrs game on Tuesday night 8pm EST 20people
Dales game on Tuesday night 8pm EST 900people.
I'll put my money on Dale's opinion.
-
Stiglrs game on Tuesday night 8pm EST 20people
That is a huge exaggeration.
-
That is a huge exaggeration.
Agreed more like 6. :D
-
I thought I'd be nice. :D
-
Since when does "more popular" equal "more correct"?
-
Just curious why are you so hell bent on changing AH, poking at the owner, or trolling the boards? Are you trying to bring AH players to TW?
-
Since when does "more popular" equal "more correct"?
Since dissatisfaction with gauges is evidence that a collision model is flawed.
-
Since dissatisfaction with gauges is evidence that a collision model is flawed.
:rofl :aok
-
I thought TW died, sniffs, looks around, eyes vultures circling, not quite dead or not quite ripe?
In all seriousness Stigler, you tried it your way. Obviously the majority does not want realism at the expense of gameplay. So why are you still trying to argue it?
Flight sim's are a niche market to start with. And ultra realists are 1 in 100? 1 - 500?
Who really wants to spend 10 minutes going through your start engine check list when you could be flying and fighting?
Now of all the things you could have picked on, why you chose collision model I have no idea.
That's just plain silly, and you have been around long enough to know better.
Just leave the ego at the door for a while while you knock the rust off and get used to fighting more than a handful.
-
Flight sim's are a niche market to start with. And ultra realists are 1 in 100? 1 - 500?
They are far more numerous than that. But they don't play AH, and they have good enough sense not to waste their time with TW.
-
Ghost asks:
Who really wants to spend 10 minutes going through your start engine check list when you could be flying and fighting?
I don't know, honestly. I never have to spend any more time going through an engine start checklist than you guys do... I do have to pay more attention to the ship while flying it, though, and don't just roar around at full throttle all sortie... :wink:
-
Just curious why are you so hell bent on changing AH, poking at the owner, or trolling the boards? Are you trying to bring AH players to TW?
For some reason he's trying to portray himself as the better game designer that knows how to make a game far better than Dale and Crew.
ack-ack
-
Is it time for an EPIC Fail picture? :D
-
Is it time for an EPIC Fail picture? :D
It was time after Stiglr's first post.
ack-ack
-
It was time after Stiglr's first post.
ack-ack
HT should edit his profile and make it his avitard. :D
-
I don't know, honestly. I never have to spend any more time going through an engine start checklist than you guys do... I do have to pay more attention to the ship while flying it, though, and don't just roar around at full throttle all sortie... :wink:
Which do you think pilots do more,and is more important, and not doing kills more pilots? Preflight, or airplane monitoring when in flight?
HiTech
-
Preflight, of course. (<---- sniffs the cheese in the trap, yet does not bite)
But that's outside the scope of the sim, which concentrates on the mission flying portion of the operation of the plane.
For the same reason, we don't have debrief rooms you have to go to to get your orders; we don't have after-mission debriefs (although having players "claim" kills to compare against what the server knows to be true... that would be interesting for events! :) )
We don't need to "run up" engines, we don't need groundcrew to turn intertia handles, or sit on wings while we taxi. We don't have to sit in the pit while the crew fuel us up, nor endure hours of "cockpit-readiness"...
All these things happened in the real event... but they're not necessary to simulate in the sim/game, are they? No.
However, the few seconds during which you do or don't manage your prop pitch, blower, cowl flaps, WEP and other injectants, fuel tanks and fuel state.... all those could tell the tale on whether you survive combat. I might also add that these events happen DURING the MISSION, and so are within the purview of the mission. It might only take a split second to flip a switch or manipulate a control, but the penalty for forgetting to do it may be severe; every bit as severe as overlooking something on the ground during a preflight.
Admittedly, a lot of this is game design decisionmaking... but if your goal is fidelity or realism, I don't see how you can leave out aircraft management... or worse still, simply pretend it didn't exist or wasn't a factor.
-
hmmm 6 players on at the high point. That guy is well on his way now..... to being alone.
-
Admittedly, a lot of this is game design decisionmaking... but if your goal is fidelity or realism, I don't see how you can leave out aircraft management... or worse still, simply pretend it didn't exist or wasn't a factor.
In a game design enviroment, just because a game puts in engine management and the like, doesn't always translate to a more 'realistic' sim, especially when those features are usually added to keep a player from doing certain things that the designer doesn't want the player to do.
ack-ack
-
Stiglr wrote:
I don't see how you can leave out aircraft management... or worse still, simply pretend it didn't exist or wasn't a factor.
Not my fault you are blind as a bat.
HiTech
-
Not my fault you are blind as a bat.
HiTech
:lol
-
Which do you think pilots do more,and is more important, and not doing kills more pilots? Preflight, or airplane monitoring when in flight?
HiTech
I would love to see some engine mangement being added as a realism option for each player to choose. Not go crazy with it but maybe add mixture controls, cowl flaps and direction finders. All to often I find myself growing increasingly bored with the wash rinse repeat found in nearly every arena. My cup of tea is in the long range missions and flying in a realistic manner. This may not be a simulator but I would like a little less arcade feel. The GPS map is a big kicker for me, I would love to see the ability to turn it off. Over land you have dead reckoning and basic land features, over water you have only dead reckoning. With the proper tools the map could go away and give people like me a big smile.
:(
Strip
-
The map/ GPS is a good idea for special events/ava as an option for the set ups.
The engine management idea is fine as long as it is optional AND no advantage for using detailed management.
Remember this is a for profit deal. HTC wants as many players as possible, any advantage given to detailed management may drive casual players away. It is easy fur us with multi function HOTAS set ups to map buttons. Think about the poor guy having to use a twisty and keyboard.
-
Flying without GPS wouldn't be so difficult in aircraft that had navigation instrumentation, e.g. Bf 109, P-51. Aircraft that lacked navigation instrumentation are another story.
As for engine management, I'd love to have it, even if it only hurts me vs those who do not. I would still use it. On the other hand, I would like to see the drag from radiator/cowl flaps added to the game for everyone. It would go along nicely with widewing's proposal that WEP recharge time should be affectedby throttle.
-
Think about the poor guy having to use a twisty and keyboard.
That would be me.
And, no, I have no desire to upgrade. This is entertainment for me - something I do to relax. I don't particularly care to be taxed with more buttons and levers and so on to "enhance" my gaming experience. I just want to shoot things down and blow stuff up.
The differences in how the planes handle are real enough to get a general feel for WWII style dogfighting. I don't particularly care if one side had to worry more about cowl flaps and another side didn't. It's useless minutiae to me.
Just my opinion, but I suspect I am closer to the "norm" than Strip or Anaxogoras. If it doesn't "harm" people like me to have an optional engine management system, fine, but anything that gives the hardcore player an advantage over a more casual player will only lead to an erosion of the casual player base.
(I guess I am just repeating bronk, just being more verbose about it)
-
Bronk, seriously....
as long as you preface everything with "for profit motive" you completely undermine any claim of realism and accuracy. If profitability is your #1 priority, and not fidelity, you cannot have a sim... the most you can hope for is a popular game; and AH has been successful on that count, certainly.
"...as long as there's no benefit [to engine management]?" Like, say, having your aircraft actually perform properly?
It's also optional to use your stick and rudder, and to coordinate maneuvers, and to fire the guns when you want to do damage... when it gets right down to it.
-
For me immersion is getting the feel (however remotely) of what a real pilot would experience. Something every pilot must face at least once in their flying is being lost. In Aces High that possibility does not exist, the second you open the map up to do anything your icon shows. Turning the icon off and giving us the tools (direction finders being a big one) to find our own way would be awesome. In my opinion you should get some reward for flying with higher realism, even if its just slightly more perks. I would be against giving a performance advantage though as that is not my goal, if anything I relish the additional challenge.If thats not your cup of tea fine, but these would be simple additions that a lot of game play for me and others like minded folk.
Strip
-
Bronk, seriously....
as long as you preface everything with "for profit motive" you completely undermine any claim of realism and accuracy. If profitability is your #1 priority, and not fidelity, you cannot have a sim... the most you can hope for is a popular game; and AH has been successful on that count, certainly.HT with less player= less $$= no mo AH. Everythin revolves around $$. The sooner you realize that the better off you'll be.
"...as long as there's no benefit [to engine management]?" Like, say, having your aircraft actually perform properly?Are you saying HTC aircraft do not? Please post your evidence they do not.
It's also optional to use your stick and rudder, and to coordinate maneuvers, and to fire the guns when you want to do damage... when it gets right down to it.
Correct and raptor in his 38 would probably still rip you to little pieces and he flies with a mouse. What's your point?
-
Flying without GPS wouldn't be so difficult in aircraft that had navigation instrumentation, e.g. Bf 109, P-51. Aircraft that lacked navigation instrumentation are another story.
As for engine management, I'd love to have it, even if it only hurts me vs those who do not. I would still use it. On the other hand, I would like to see the drag from radiator/cowl flaps added to the game for everyone. It would go along nicely with widewing's proposal that WEP recharge time should be affectedby throttle.
Not sure if you know this or not. I'm almost positive the reduction of rpm lower temps faster.
-
For me immersion is getting the feel (however remotely) of what a real pilot would experience. Something every pilot must face at least once in their flying is being lost. In Aces High that possibility does not exist, the second you open the map up to do anything your icon shows. Turning the icon off and giving us the tools (direction finders being a big one) to find our own way would be awesome. In my opinion you should get some reward for flying with higher realism, even if its just slightly more perks. I would be against giving a performance advantage though as that is not my goal, if anything I relish the additional challenge.If thats not your cup of tea fine, but these would be simple additions that a lot of game play for me and others like minded folk.
Strip
See now here is a man thinking out of the box. You could also add it would increase points towards ranking. :aok
-
"...as long as there's no benefit [to engine management]?" Like, say, having your aircraft actually perform properly?
Are you saying HTC aircraft do not? Please post your evidence they do not.
First things first: show me evidence that there is ANY engine management in AH besides throttle forward and backward and a fuel mixture control that only effects fuel economy. :rolleyes: Show evidence of any modeling of:
*Heat (managed by cowl flaps, backed up by performance penalties if you don't, and tradeoff of drag for cowl flap deployment)
*Mixture (tradeoff of fuel economy for HEAT [see previous for heat])
*Prop pitch (for planes that require it, so that these aircraft require more pilot workload)
*Blower (and proper critical alts to use low or high setting)
* Detailed injectants (not just a one-size fits all WEP setting, and one that also is installed in planes that didn't actually have it). So, that's methanol-water, nitrous, ADI, etc.
-
Not sure if you know this or not. I'm almost positive the reduction of rpm lower temps faster.
I haven't tested the relationship myself. I was just going by widewing's claim that reducing throttle does not reduce WEP recharge time any better than running at full MIL power.
The differences in how the planes handle are real enough to get a general feel for WWII style dogfighting. I don't particularly care if one side had to worry more about cowl flaps and another side didn't. It's useless minutiae to me.
Cooling systems caused drag. I'm not saying you ought to have to control them, just that their effects on performance be present. For example, if 109 A has been turning circles at WEP for 7 min, and 109 B has been at cruise settings during those 7 mins, 109 B should be faster than 109 A during minute 8 when they're both at WEP.
-
First things first: show me evidence that there is ANY engine management in AH besides throttle forward and backward and a fuel mixture control that only effects fuel economy. :rolleyes: Show evidence of any modeling of:
*Heat (managed by cowl flaps, backed up by performance penalties if you don't, and tradeoff of drag for cowl flap deployment)
*Mixture (tradeoff of fuel economy for HEAT [see previous for heat])
*Prop pitch (for planes that require it, so that these aircraft require more pilot workload)
*Blower (and proper critical alts to use low or high setting)
* Detailed injectants (not just a one-size fits all WEP setting, and one that also is installed in planes that didn't actually have it). So, that's methanol-water, nitrous, ADI, etc.
I myself rather have people to shoot at than all of these things. Not because I don't enjoy realism, but for fact I enjoy competition. I tried targetware, while all the forementioned concepts were neat, but what is the point if there is no one to engage? Might has well been playing MS Flight Simulator. At any given time I can find a fight in AH. But Stiglr, enjoy you boost controls, prop pitch and things of that sort. You may troll on now with you whines of how AH isn't targetware.
-
I myself rather have people to shoot at than all of these things. Not because I don't enjoy realism, but for fact I enjoy competition. I tried targetware, while all the forementioned concepts were neat, but what is the point if there is no one to engage? Might has well been playing MS Flight Simulator. At any given time I can find a fight in AH. But Stiglr, enjoy you boost controls, prop pitch and things of that sort. You may troll on now with you whines of how AH isn't targetware.
All it adds is push one or two extra buttons when needed. Stigma thinks it makes a huge diff in handling the Ac. Thing is he'd still have his rear handed to him. Why? He is under the delusion that the AC makes all the diff and not the pilot.
-
The problem with advanced engine management is that you either force it on everyone or make it selectable. If it were selectbale, the very few people motivated to be bothered with it would be SCREMING because all the engine EZ moders would be handing them their tulips and having a blast doing it, so you know what would come next: The Realists demands that it be FORCED on EVERYONE.
I am confident that if AH forced it on everyone then their customer base would shrink in two weeks to half of what it is now. Within a few months they would be collecting subscriptions from 200-300 people.
No, stglr needs to go develope his little science project and play with himself. Maybe he should be putting more effort into developing an AI that behaves like he does so that he could get a sense of what everyone else has to deal with :aok
I for one simply have no desire for the level of realism advanced engine management brings. Not that I would hate it but.....all I want is to play the game, have some fun learning about history and air machines, get a feel for what it might have been like. Talk to folks and be entertained. Thats exactly why I have been here since late 99.
-
Fwiw, Il-2 (and especially its recent mods) has all of the things that Stiglr is bragging about, and it has people to fight. Therefore, it's wrong to conclude that TW is empty because it has more complicated engine controls. Regardless of our opinions of Il-2 as it compares to AH, there is clearly a strong following for sims that put a greater workload on the player than AH. RoF also includes mixture and radiator controls, engine over-revs, etc. AH is becoming the exception in this regard, not the standard.
TW's problems are much deeper than any trivial disputes over engine management.
-
Fwiw, Il-2 (and especially its recent mods) has all of the things that Stiglr is bragging about, and it has people to fight. Therefore, it's wrong to conclude that TW is empty because it has more complicated engine controls. Regardless of our opinions of Il-2 as it compares to AH, there is clearly a strong following for sims that put a greater workload on the player than AH. RoF also includes mixture and radiator controls, engine over-revs, etc. AH is becoming the exception in this regard, not the standard.
TW's problems are much deeper than any trivial disputes over engine management.
And it has auto control. It also has easy mode. What rooms are more occupied on hyper lobby.
The easy mode rooms or full realism.
-
And it has auto control. It also has easy mode. What rooms are more occupied on hyper lobby.
The easy mode rooms or full realism.
It's mostly a 50/50 split, with almost nothing in the middle. I hate full-switch (no icons), and I hate the rooms with the wonder-woman view. It's a big reason for why I still play AH.
-
Stiglr: Once again you show your how little you do know about AH have you ever tried even played AH. We have had pitch/RPM control since the beginning. And besides this hole drift off collision topic is so typical of you grinding your ax. Why are you here, jealous that no one else really wants to play with you?
HiTech
-
Yeager spouts the usual gamer party line...
I for one simply have no desire for the level of realism advanced engine management brings. Not that I would hate it but.....all I want is to play the game, have some fun learning about history and air machines,
Right. You're a GAMER, not a sim fan. As for learning about history and air machines, guess what: the equipment and systems that were in them, and that had to be manipulated by the pilot in flight and in combat... that's part of LEARNING. You do get that, don't you?
It's a simple fact that the "marketing decision" to eschew this sort of thing is a big dodge. The people who whine the loudest have never even tried it. Instead, they'd rather defend their comfortable gamer abstractions by droning on with this doomsday, "Oh, if we actually had to manage engines, half our subscriber base would disappear over night!!! :O ).
-
By Stiglr, I have enough of the attacks on me and everyone here.
HiTEch
-
By Stiglr, I have enough of the attacks on me and everyone here.
HiTEch
You know, I think his attacks on you and your product, and on your customer's opinions, may actually have the effect of strengthening the attachment of your customers to your product.
His "arguments" definitely seem to cause an "us" vs "him" polarization, with not many (if any?) folks joining his "side".
Kind of ironic. And, I'd imagine, the last thing he intended. He's obviously not here to drum up business for you, or support for your business.
-
I cant speak for everyone, but the more garbage that spews from Stiglr mouth, the more I am content with staying here, and less to giving TW another try. I've been playing AH now for almost 4 years, and I can't think of any online game that has such a great community, and excellent customer support and owner customer interaction.
IMO, Stiglr is jealous of this. Perhaps HTC should give Stigma another 2 week trial, I know I'd love to blast him from the sky, actually pretty sure there'd be a line.