Aces High Bulletin Board
Help and Support Forums => Aces High Bug Reports => Topic started by: Panzerace on July 04, 2010, 03:00:11 AM
-
Please fix this. A tank can drive over trees in real life, but in AH u can flip a Tiger on a rose bush.
-
They were such delicate vehicles while crossing the Rhine. :D
Agree.
-
What if it's NOT broken? What if it's a FEATURE in the game to make GVin a bit more of a challenge?
If it's the same for everyone (which it is) everyone is on a "level playing ground" so to speak. Learn to drive.
-
What if it's NOT broken? What if it's a FEATURE in the game to make GV'in a bit more of a challenge?
I have to sound off on this one
if you simple touch some bushes at less than 2 mph it flips the tank.
20-40 ton vehicles should not be so easily flipped.. PERIOD ! This game claims to be realistic, I don't
see it with foliage. I'm in total agreement with having hills to steep to climb, mud bogs, etc. It would
great to have REAL obstacles for gvs to have to maneuver around. But seriously a single bush in the
middle of open ground being clipped flips a tank is wrong. Tanks were used to clear paths through heavy
brush and ford various obstacles.
-
OK so instead of them having infantry carrying bazookas and throwing "sock bombs" and laying mine fields they have brushes that "simulate" those things. Easier to coad than all that other stuff. What do you think?
Like I said, I think ya'll should just learn to drive, or is just too much of a challenge to use the rudder to turn while your sitting in a gun? :noid
-
Oh thanks God the Fugitive put his 2 cents in. I was trying to turn my tank with the rudder and not the tracks. Thanks for your help. Now go ask your mommy for some cookies before bed time.
-
Oh thanks God the Fugitive put his 2 cents in. I was trying to turn my tank with the rudder and not the tracks. Thanks for your help. Now go ask your mommy for some cookies before bed time.
1:
you reply is in poor taste and already reduces the low asteem your peers have in you.
2:
your GSP quote is wrong!
-
1: Your a complete idiot
2: Your still a complete idiot
3: I am going on a tech board to express my findings in a game I pay $14.95 a month for. I do not need some love muffin to tell me to learn to drive. As for you and your findings in my statements. You came here to voice an opinion that has absolutely nothing to do with my complaint. You my Friend are the one that has "poor taste and already reduces the low asteem (the word is spelled esteem, which you spelled wrong since you want to be so correct in your findings, please learn to spell) your peers have in you. My quote was copied and pasted from a quote site. You will find several different versions of this quote if you do a search. Your presence here is not wanted and you really need to find something better to do then pollute boards with your worthless opinion. I know you will write back with more worthless trash so have fun you loser, but please don't waste time and space with your meager existence on these boards.
Thank You
-
Oh thanks God the Fugitive put his 2 cents in. I was trying to turn my tank with the rudder and not the tracks. Thanks for your help. Now go ask your mommy for some cookies before bed time.
OK, listen closely I'm going to teach you something.
If while riding in your pretend tank in any postion other than the drivers seat you use what ever control you use as your "rudder" control be it "A","D", or "S", the twist of the stick, or for us big boys (that our mommy's love) rudder pedals you can turn your tank just like you were in the drivers seat.
I know, as I'm sure Hitech most likely knows, that the only reason people "need" this bush problem fixed is because it is way too much trouble to gun/search, and pay attention to where you are driving, so you cry about loosing another tank to an obstacle a 5 year old can avoid.
Ok lesson over, I'm going to go have my cookies now.
1: Your a complete idiot
2: Your still a complete idiot
3: I am going on a tech board to express my findings in a game I pay $14.95 a month for. I do not need some love muffin to tell me to learn to drive. As for you and your findings in my statements. You came here to voice an opinion that has absolutely nothing to do with my complaint. You my Friend are the one that has "poor taste and already reduces the low asteem (the word is spelled esteem, which you spelled wrong since you want to be so correct in your findings, please learn to spell) your peers have in you. My quote was copied and pasted from a quote site. You will find several different versions of this quote if you do a search. Your presence here is not wanted and you really need to find something better to do then pollute boards with your worthless opinion. I know you will write back with more worthless trash so have fun you loser, but please don't waste time and space with your meager existence on these boards.
Thank You
oh and great post, right on topic :aok
-
OK, listen closely I'm going to teach you something.
If while riding in your pretend tank in any postion other than the drivers seat you use what ever control you use as your "rudder" control be it "A","D", or "S", the twist of the stick, or for us big boys (that our mommy's love) rudder pedals you can turn your tank just like you were in the drivers seat.
I know, as I'm sure Hitech most likely knows, that the only reason people "need" this bush problem fixed is because it is way too much trouble to gun/search, and pay attention to where you are driving, so you cry about loosing another tank to an obstacle a 5 year old can avoid.
Ok lesson over, I'm going to go have my cookies now.
oh and great post, right on topic :aok
Still it should be fixed. btw dont talk about what HT knows or doesnt know, or should know. Only he can say that. Seen people try to fix fighters due weight being out of sinc when dropping extra tanks. but talk about fixing gv's and that's so complicated and unfixable (made the word up?). It is frustrated when you are not even close to the damn bushes and your tank flips. has nothing to do with learning to drive a gv.
semp
-
Your presence here is not wanted
Who says yours is! Hehe couldn't resist! :)
-
Guncrasher.... I agree.... it should be fixed
I doubt it will get fixed soon, but eventually.
Hitech is reasonable, unlike .. well no need to mention names...............
This is so typical to have someone always butting in with a closed mind
forcing there opinions on others as if we are listening, totally missing the
entire point to having a forum and posting.
It is very much like ch 200, blah blah blah........
It was a good post, now it is ruin.
-
Guncrasher.... I agree.... it should be fixed
I doubt it will get fixed soon, but eventually.
Hitech is reasonable, unlike .. well no need to mention names...............
This is so typical to have someone always butting in with a closed mind
forcing there opinions on others as if we are listening, totally missing the
entire point to having a forum and posting.
It is very much like ch 200, blah blah blah........
It was a good post, now it is ruin.
:rofl Talk about closed minds !!!
I'm not saying what I said is true, what I'm suggesting is that it MIGHT be true. While I don't GV much each month, I've played in GVs 100's of hours over the years and I can tell you I've only been flipped a couple of times.
To me the trees are just something to make the game more fun/challenging, like running my plane to the rearm pad. I land and then I use all means to see where I'm going be it zig zag or F3, avoiding buildings and ack bunkers and finally that tank which loves to chew wings off planes to stop on the pad to rearm. I suppose I could post once a month that HTC should fix the problem with taxiing around all these objects so that I could get rearmed better, maybe just move the rearm pad to the middle of the runway, or maybe just give me a button to hit so the plane will taxi it self to the rearm pad, ya that would be cool!! :x
See what I'm saying? Maybe the trees are there just to make it more fun/challenging.
-
Tanks are suppose to run over trees, planes stop when they hot a building.
-
This is a game, different rules apply. Look at collisions. Should a tank be able to drive THROUGH another tank? :O
-
I agree with the "flip issue" funny part is when they had the sheep... smack one at 40 mph and stop ya cold! :rofl
-
This is a game, different rules apply. Look at collisions. Should a tank be able to drive THROUGH another tank? :O
Not really and it has been requested for it to be fixed too. people want to have a realistic game as possible and being flipped by a bush is not, and actually you should be able to shoot right thru bushes, but that is for another thread.
semp
-
Would be nice to see the tank flipping on bushes fixed. At the same time maybe fix or add, some trees to break off and others to pushed to the sides when a tank is pushing through a forest. I do agree some trees are just to big for a tank to run over, but not every single tree.
Here is what the scene would look like: I am in a tank or plane. as I look out and see the trees moving. Ah! There is the enemy tank location.
Shoot or bombs away.
It would look more realistic graphics in a game.
Trees and bushes to run over and push a side (+10) :aok
-
See Rule #4
-
OK so instead of them having infantry carrying bazookas and throwing "sock bombs" and laying mine fields they have brushes that "simulate" those things. Easier to coad than all that other stuff. What do you think?
Like I said, I think ya'll should just learn to drive, or is just too much of a challenge to use the rudder to turn while your sitting in a gun? :noid
lmfao 'killer bushes'
-
See Rule #4
-
There is no fix. You get it one way or the other.
1. Objects are solid. They stop things. Tanks, jeeps, bullets, shells. Everything.
2. Objects are not solid. Anything can go through them. In this case, there is no cover at all on a battlefield.
The bouncing problem is due to lack of elasticity. Everything is an entirely solid object. To compensate for that, when two objects interact, they push against each other with equal force. Problem is when you manage to shove enough of your polygons inside of something else's polygons; each one responds with equal force which builds into a massive reaction, hurling your vehicle.
I've flipped two tanks in just as many years. Don't drive into things.
-
I think you have to also consider the game engine and the mechanics and programming which would have to be done to get some trees to be run over (vs passing through) and some which stop you cold. When you are marketing to the general public such as in this case, too much of a good thing, graphics and gameplay wise, can remove possible customers due to computer issues.
In other words, stopping a GV dead or passing through the object is probably the choices feasable to work with the masses computers. (steps off of the soap box) :salute
-
OK so instead of them having infantry carrying bazookas and throwing "sock bombs" and laying mine fields they have brushes that "simulate" those things. Easier to coad than all that other stuff. What do you think?
I think (know) your are wrong!
Doesn't simulate ANYTHING.
Been explained plenty of times why it happens (do a BB search). It's also the reason why there are no GV on GV collisions.
[edit] OOZ662 explains it pretty well.
What he missed out - Without the coading to 'bounce' objects apart, there would be a chance that two objects would become interlocked with each other.
-
I think (know) your are wrong!
Doesn't simulate ANYTHING.
Been explained plenty of times why it happens (do a BB search). It's also the reason why there are no GV on GV collisions.
[edit] OOZ662 explains it pretty well.
What he missed out - Without the coading to 'bounce' objects apart, there would be a chance that two objects would become interlocked with each other.
Just to clarify...are you indicating that there are not GV on GV collisions due to, intentional or not, a lack of coding?
-
Just to clarify...are you indicating that there are not GV on GV collisions due to, intentional or not, a lack of coding?
GV-on-GV collisions are disabled because of system lag. Imagine every whine you hear about aerial collisions now taking place in the ground battles. Moving vehicles can be displayed in a location hundreds of yards apart on the two player's separate systems if the lag and latency is large enough.
One player seems himself do a glorious T-34-esque ram into the front of that evil Panzer.
The Panzer sees the T-34 come to a dead stop 100 yards in front of him. Bang.
HT describes and answers all of these problems in the 2003 convention Q&A session, if you'd like me to cut them out for you.
-
I think (know) your are wrong!
Doesn't simulate ANYTHING.
Been explained plenty of times why it happens (do a BB search). It's also the reason why there are no GV on GV collisions.
[edit] OOZ662 explains it pretty well.
What he missed out - Without the coading to 'bounce' objects apart, there would be a chance that two objects would become interlocked with each other.
I "know" why it's as it is, but explaining to some people is like trying to explain why there are caps on the arenas and why the collision model is as it is.
When I GV I use those limitations as part of the game. I was putting it in those terms to maybe help other to see it in that light and not get so worked up about it.
Congratulations ! you have now completely wiped away any illusions and these sorry people will now wallow in misery "knowing" that it will never be fixed. :D
-
GV-on-GV collisions are disabled because of system lag. Imagine every whine you hear about aerial collisions now taking place in the ground battles. Moving vehicles can be displayed in a location hundreds of yards apart on the two player's separate systems if the lag and latency is large enough.
One player seems himself do a glorious T-34-esque ram into the front of that evil Panzer.
The Panzer sees the T-34 come to a dead stop 100 yards in front of him. Bang.
HT describes and answers all of these problems in the 2003 convention Q&A session, if you'd like me to cut them out for you.
Great explanation, thanks! It might be helpful to have a link to that convention Q&A though... Saw that you mentioned splicing in another thread, but couldn't find anything else in the first few pages of search. Thanks again!
-
Great explanation, thanks! It might be helpful to have a link to that convention Q&A though... Saw that you mentioned splicing in another thread, but couldn't find anything else in the first few pages of search. Thanks again!
I'm actually not sure about the copyright on this, so I think I'll upload them as a whole. Cutting out the attribution or even just distributing them in less-than-whole condition could be a bad idea.
The relevant part of the Q&A starts at 63:15 in the first section of the session (http://www.mediafire.com/?t2aynay2hza). The full session can be found here (http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=c4c006dbe5d7e99fab1eab3e9fa335cab5d8125fdd90b0de) (you may need to click "Show Description/Tags" in the list to the left).
-
Not really and it has been requested for it to be fixed too. people want to have a realistic game as possible and being flipped by a bush is not, and actually you should be able to shoot right thru bushes, but that is for another thread.
semp
It's not a bug.
ack-ack