Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: chaser on September 28, 2011, 01:51:32 PM
-
Yes I know these threads come up every few months and the weird things that happen with are caused from lag blah blah blah.. But really, is there no other way to model this?
The reason I ask is because today I was flying my Brewster in TT and twice I was dodging planes trying to pick me and they passed very close to me. I got "You have collided" both times while there was no message saying "so an so has collided with you". Both times I lost a wing and went down as I watched the other plane fly away with no damage. I don't fly planes that much anyways and stuff like this makes me avoid flying planes even more. Frustrating to have someone dive on me, get collision message, watch them fly away unharmed, and me fall to the ground. :bhead :bhead :bhead
-
Yes I know these threads come up every few months and the weird things that happen with are caused from lag blah blah blah.. But really, is there no other way to model this?
The reason I ask is because today I was flying my Brewster in TT and twice I was dodging planes trying to pick me and they passed very close to me. I got "You have collided" both times while there was no message saying "so an so has collided with you". Both times I lost a wing and went down as I watched the other plane fly away with no damage. I don't fly planes that much anyways and stuff like this makes me avoid flying planes even more. Frustrating to have someone dive on me, get collision message, watch them fly away unharmed, and me fall to the ground. :bhead :bhead :bhead
Go back and read. It has been explained a million times.
Repeating it here will do no good if you can't understand the previous explaination.
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,294224.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,294224.0.html)
There, let's save everybody a whole bunch of time.
Wiley.
-
Go back and read. It has been explained a million times.
Repeating it here will do no good if you can't understand the previous explaination.
Clearly you need to go back and read my first sentence. again :bhead
-
But really, is there no other way to model this?
Yes. The alternative is to have it so that on your end, there will sometimes be a collision where your plane will take damage, even though the other plane appeared to pass by you missing you completely by yards.
Otherwise, no. The current way of doing things and the above are the only two options. HTC has chosen the lesser of two evils. LWI.
Wiley.
-
Yes. The alternative is to have it so that on your end, there will sometimes be a collision where your plane will take damage, even though the other plane appeared to pass by you missing you completely by yards.
Otherwise, no. The current way of doing things and the above are the only two options. HTC has chosen the lesser of two evils. LWI.
Wiley.
I personally would much rather it be like that. I would rather go down with the other guy than me go down alone even if I was the one that didn't see the collision on my end.
-
really? you want to take damage even though you didnt collide with the other aircraft? :confused:
-
Him and about a half-dozen other guys. I had a squaddie that was of the same opinion. I don't get it, but good on them. It won't change.
Wiley.
-
As it is now it is near impossible to hit another plane with any regularity. Changed it the other way and you will have people "crashing" into you just to tick you off. No thanks.
-
Clearly you need to go back and read my first sentence. again :bhead
Clearly you need to read what you posted.
-
See Rule #4
-
As it is now it is near impossible to hit another plane with any regularity. Changed it the other way and you will have people "crashing" into you just to tick you off. No thanks.
Why is that worse than it is now with people making a close pass to you and you get collision and they fly away. Seems like it would discourage people from trying that if they wanted to keep flying.
-
Chaser,
I can answer you because years ago I flew in a game that did just what you want,every plane had a hit "bubble" and if you flew to close and touched the "bubble" you both took damage and went down. Now the problems came as others would fly close enough to damage you when you were fighting their "buddy".
Another issue was the"bubble" size changed with latency and you never knew how close was too close and could ram someone from behind yet they were just in firing range. So I think I'd rather have what we have ingame,like Wiley said the lesser of 2 evils! Maybe someday there will be no lag,then HTC can revisit the CM.
:salute
-
I said I knew that it wasw because of lag. And because of lag we have the current crappy collision model.
Geez stupid people. I feel sorry for them.
I think the collision model we have is the best, fairest, and far from crappy.
-
Why is that worse than it is now with people making a close pass to you and you get collision and they fly away.
Simple. It is better because what you see on your screen is what happens to your airplane. Under the system you are proposing, if you pass close to the other plane, maybe you'll blow up, maybe you won't. Under the current system, if you see your plane hit another plane, you take damage. No guesswork about whether or not you're about to take damage because maybe his computer sees you hit him.
Wiley.
-
Why is that worse than it is now with people making a close pass to you and you get collision and they fly away. Seems like it would discourage people from trying that if they wanted to keep flying.
If you fly your plane and NEVER get close enough to collide you will NOT collide. It's a pretty simple fix really.
-
Maybe latency in the last month has been higher than usual, maybe I lost a little finesse taking a week vacation earlier, but been getting "odd" collisions regularly myself lately.
-
I'm still trying to figure out why planes that collide with a M4 or a plane that has landed and stopped will fly off undamaged.
-
I'm still trying to figure out why planes that collide with a M4 or a plane that has landed and stopped will fly off undamaged.
They didn't collide on their FE?
Every time I've collided with a GV has been very unhealthy for my airplane.
-
If the message "someone has collided with you" displays, I would hope that means the other person's front end was also relayed that message while the "you have collided with someone" message might mean only your front records the collision.
I really don't know how that part works but a mustang collided with my M4....no bombs.....I die and he flies off undamaged.
-
If the message "someone has collided with you" displays, I would hope that means the other person's front end was also relayed that message while the "you have collided with someone" message might mean only your front records the collision.
I really don't know how that part works but a mustang collided with my M4....no bombs.....I die and he flies off undamaged.
It depends on who sees what. From your point of view you saw a collision so you collided. from his point of view he didn't see a collision, so he flies off.
When you collide with someone you get the "you have collided with..." message
When someone collides with you (but you don't see a collision from your point of view) you will see a "so and so has collided with you" message, and NO message saying "you have collided with...." in which case the only damage you should take is from the round that the other guy hit you with BEFORE he collided.
Like I said before if you do NOT collide with any vehicles or planes on YOUR screen you won't get a "you have collided with...." message.
-
What is the sound you get from flying very low and pulling up abruptly when over the top of a GV, sounds like some hitting a 55 gal drum - I assume it's a tail bounce off the turret, I can neither confirm or deny but you do not get any messages.
HL
-
It depends on who sees what. From your point of view you saw a collision so you collided. from his point of view he didn't see a collision, so he flies off.
When you collide with someone you get the "you have collided with..." message
When someone collides with you (but you don't see a collision from your point of view) you will see a "so and so has collided with you" message, and NO message saying "you have collided with...." in which case the only damage you should take is from the round that the other guy hit you with BEFORE he collided.
Like I said before if you do NOT collide with any vehicles or planes on YOUR screen you won't get a "you have collided with...." message.
It is pretty hard to understand getting the message when your on autoclimb hands off the stick and someone rams you on a dive from behind. You get the message "you have collided" wtf?
To me that just means an error in the formula or is there a difference in computers and connections? So far we have been told no.
-
It is pretty hard to understand getting the message when your on autoclimb hands off the stick and someone rams you on a dive from behind. You get the message "you have collided" wtf?
To me that just means an error in the formula or is there a difference in computers and connections? So far we have been told no.
It means you are mentally stuck in the real world and thinking in terms of fault.
A collision happened on your Front End and and therefore "you" collided with another aircraft. The computers involved don't give a damn who was facing what way or doing what. All they care about is which Front End detected the collision.
-
Same collision from the perspective of each aircraft:
(http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/8585/collision.gif)
One collided, one didn't.
wrongway
-
I think the collision model we have is the best, fairest, and far from crappy.
wait till your afk and see a bad guy fly through your plane and your given all the dmg, with no msg from them. you die and they fly away without firing. just a bit annoying, to say the least.
-
wait till your afk and see a bad guy fly through your plane and your given all the dmg, with no msg from them. you die and they fly away without firing. just a bit annoying, to say the least.
Never had that happen tbh.
-
(http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j199/fergy61/beatdeadhorse5.gif)
-
wait till your afk and see a bad guy fly through your plane and your given all the dmg, with no msg from them. you die and they fly away without firing. just a bit annoying, to say the least.
Stop thinking in single reality terms. The problem is with you.
-
(http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j199/fergy61/beatdeadhorse5.gif)
Q
F
T
-
wait until a guy comes from behind you crashed into you while you are afk and you die and he flies away with a proxie.
collision model is bs. but it's not going to change, so just forget about it. I find it funny that you can avoid him crashing into you but you cant avoid him shooting you down while he's on your 12.
semp
-
I sit firmly in the corner that only if both aircraft collide on both players Front Ends then damage should be taken.
If one Front End detects a Collision and the other players Front End does not, then that collision is ignored and the fight resumes.
This way niether player can complain about the collision model, as both players will have collide messeges and both will most likely be falling from the sky.
:old:
-
I sit firmly in the corner that only if both aircraft collide on both players Front Ends then damage should be taken.
If one Front End detects a Collision and the other players Front End does not, then that collision is ignored and the fight resumes.
This way niether player can complain about the collision model, as both players will have collide messeges and both will most likely be falling from the sky.
:old:
The problem with your idea is some players would try to fly through you to get gun hits and they should have a collision penalty for that. The current collision model is the best option available.
-
wait until a guy comes from behind you crashed into you while you are afk and you die and he flies away with a proxy.
semp
And he does so because on his computer he flew over you never touching your plane.
-
The current collision model is the best option available.
why is this so hard for people to understand? seems perfectly logical to me. on 1 screen, an airplane flies through another, causing it to lose parts or simply explode. due to differences in internet connections or latency, on the other screen the aircraft pass within a few feet of one another, causing no damage. if one of the players manages to NOT fly through the others windscreen, then why should he be taking a damage penalty for it? you want a really simple fix to this problem? don't smash your damn airplane into someone elses. :bhead
-
I sit firmly in the corner that only if both aircraft collide on both players Front Ends then damage should be taken.
and this is EXACLY what happens!! :rolleyes:
if BOTH players see the collision, BOTH players recieve damage from it. the problem people seem to have is when said collision is seen on one players screen and and a near miss is seen on the other players screen.
-
I sit firmly in the corner that only if both aircraft collide on both players Front Ends then damage should be taken.
If one Front End detects a Collision and the other players Front End does not, then that collision is ignored and the fight resumes.
This way niether player can complain about the collision model, as both players will have collide messeges and both will most likely be falling from the sky.
:old:
Now here's an idea I like. Seems to be the most fair way to do it that I've heard yet.
-
wait till your afk and see a bad guy fly through your plane and your given all the dmg, with no msg from them. you die and they fly away without firing. just a bit annoying, to say the least.
How do you see it if you are afk?
-
Now here's an idea I like. Seems to be the most fair way to do it that I've heard yet.
lol. that's all we need, more HO'ers sprayin' away with no intention of breaking off because, hey, he might not see it on his end and you won't get a collision, even though you clearly just flew right through the middle of his airplane. think about this objectively for a moment. it is what it is now because what it is now works just fine. it seems to be nothing more than a lack of understanding causing dissent over collision modelling
-
and this is EXACLY what happens!! :rolleyes:
Exactly. :rolleyes:
Anyway I think you have misread my post, I doubt you read it all. Had you read the whole of it you would have nothing to roll your eyes at.
But you are right the problem arises when 1 FE sees a collision and the other does not, which is what my post was getting to.
Adding that unless both FEs see a collision, nothing happens.
I suppose to put it in some context; say 2 players are in a flat scissor they are about to cross each other at the edge of a turn. One front end the lag allows him to cut across the front of his opponent with a couple of pixels to spare. While the other guy sees his opponent turn into him and appears to ram him out of the sky in a side swiping motion. The pilot that near misses curses the collision model for taking out his opponent who was giving him a decent fight. While the downed pilot is fuming with hate that the collision was entirely his opponents fault, and accuses the pilot still in flight of ramming him out of the sky. Had the system in this case been how I wish it was, both pilots would still be inflight and still fighting as only 1 FE saw the collison, so the system ignored it.
However I can see what FLS is saying, but that is no different to what is happening now. I hear it so often on range about "I'm going to ram him" and "yes it worked" as the system in it's current form is being 'gamed'. I just believe my idea is a little fairer on both players who are fighting and not gaming the game.
Anyway, Like all my ideas they can be dismissed easily.
-
they passed very close to me. I got "You have collided" both times
You may garner more respect if you would not overstate the facts. The real fact is it was not JUST close, you collided with the other plane on your computer.
HiTech
-
LCADolby somebody colliding with you on their PC without them suffering damage is not more fair. A few people exploiting the current collision model with hit or miss results is better than exploiting a different model where the player only dies if his target dies.
Maneuvering to avoid a collision should only reward the player who maneuvers to miss not the player trying to hit you.
-
(http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo237/grizz441/collision1.png)
-
Anyway I think you have misread my post, I doubt you read it all. Had you read the whole of it you would have nothing to roll your eyes at.
But you are right the problem arises when 1 FE sees a collision and the other does not, which is what my post was getting to.
Adding that unless both FEs see a collision, nothing happens.
lol. that's all we need, more HO'ers sprayin' away with no intention of breaking off because, hey, he might not see it on his end and you won't get a collision, even though you clearly just flew right through the middle of his airplane. think about this objectively for a moment. it is what it is now because what it is now works just fine. it seems to be nothing more than a lack of understanding causing dissent over collision modelling
please allow me to roll my eyes once again :rolleyes:
-
please allow me to roll my eyes once again :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: Pretty much happens now, your lack of sight bothers me. The HOers at this point in time with the current model do the same. They Hold the trigger down aimed squarely at their enemy hoping he explodes before a collide. My idea wouldnt increase HOing it would merely keep the amount of HOing the same but improve the gameplay for the ones that enjoy knife fighting and not being heavily punished by lag that is out of thier control.
-
AWwrgwy and grizz's posts should be mandatory in all future collision threads.
-
:rolleyes: Pretty much happens now, your lack of sight bothers me. The HOers at this point in time with the current model do the same. They Hold the trigger down aimed squarely at their enemy hoping he explodes before a collide. My idea wouldnt increase HOing it would merely keep the amount of HOing the same but improve the gameplay for the ones that enjoy knife fighting and not being heavily punished by lag that is out of thier control.
cmon now. really? IF YOU DON'T HIT ON YOUR END, THERE IS NO COLLISION ON YOUR END. if you fly your airplane through another, then you have collision. what you propose is being able to sometimes fly through another aircraft, depending on what HE sees on HIS end. how would you know what he sees? depending on his connection, sometimes you'd have damage, and sometimes you'd pass right through the center of him and fly off like nothing happens. i don't see how my "lack of sight" could bother you. i think i have a pretty firm grasp of how this works and why it is what it is. you say it would help in scissors and knife fights? how, pray tell?? IF YOU DON'T COLLIDE ON YOUR FRONT END, THERE IS NO COLLISION ON YOUR END!! it's simple! don't hit the other plane (this obviously goes for both pilots) and there won't be a collision! what you propose would not be an improvement, it would be a detriment. i can't explain it any simpler than that. say what you will.
-
You are not punished as long as you do not run into planes on your front end.
-
You are not punished as long as you do not run into planes on your front end.
this
-
this
I know, I have a way with words. :aok
-
I know, I have a way with words. :aok
i wish i did, i wouldn't have to type so much! :lol
-
How do you see it if you are afk?
I went afk to take a leak once, came back and was in the tower with a "you have collided" message in the buffer. I got an earful for being a ram tard. I actually was recording for some reason. Watched it and the guy made like 4 passes on me before flying through me and taking us both down. :lol
(http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/8585/collision.gif)
And sticky this please :aok
-
You are not punished as long as you do not run into planes on your front end.
Need to restate this as:
"You are not punished as long as there is no collision with your plane on your front end."
I think the issue the OP has in this particular film is he, and others who complain about the collision model, is trying to place blame for the collision and the individual "at fault" should be punished.
All the complaints seem to be, "I was flying along, minding my own business. Someone made multiple passes on me while I did nothing, and I "collided" and he flew away undamaged.
There is no "blame". It's like getting hit by raindrops.
It's like complaining about getting rear ended in your car because you "were just sitting there"... in the middle of the highway.
wrongway
-
Need to restate this as:
"You are not punished as long as there is no collision with your plane on your front end."
I think the issue the OP has in this particular film is he, and others who complain about the collision model, is trying to place blame for the collision and the individual "at fault" should be punished.
All the complaints seem to be, "I was flying along, minding my own business. Someone made multiple passes on me while I did nothing, and I "collided" and he flew away undamaged.
0
There is no "blame". It's like getting hit by raindrops.
It's like complaining about getting rear ended in your car because you "were just sitting there"... in the middle of the highway.
wrongway
You don't understand what happened. I was trying to avoid pickers and both times they came screaming through my plane and took off one of my wings. I was doing everything I could to avoid them. It's not like I was trying to force a collision. I just don't see how its fair for them to make a close pass on their end and on my end they fly through me. I wouldn't like it even if I was on the other side. I'm still liking the idea that both ends have to register a collision for either plane to take damage.
-
You don't understand what happened. I was trying to avoid pickers and both times they came screaming through my plane and took off one of my wings. I was doing everything I could to avoid them. It's not like I was trying to force a collision. I just don't see how its fair for them to make a close pass on their end and on my end they fly through me. I wouldn't like it even if I was on the other side. I'm still liking the idea that both ends have to register a collision for either plane to take damage.
So now your saying you DIDN'T avoid the collision and your made because you took damage. :huh
Be cause they DID avoid the collision you want them to go down too?
If you make it so that BOTH FE's have to see a collision your going to see more and more people try to get even closer and you'll find yourself going down with damage even more than you do now. No thanks, I'll trust to my skills to avoid running into a plane and staying out of trouble that way.
-
See Rule #4
-
You don't understand what happened. I was trying to avoid pickers and both times they came screaming through my plane and took off one of my wings. I was doing everything I could to avoid them. It's not like I was trying to force a collision. I just don't see how its fair for them to make a close pass on their end and on my end they fly through me. I wouldn't like it even if I was on the other side. I'm still liking the idea that both ends have to register a collision for either plane to take damage.
Please explain something to me: Why is it better to have what you see on your screen not always be what is counted against you?
Wiley.
-
Stop thinking in single reality terms. The problem is with you.
so yea lemme try to follow you I'm flyin mindin my own business dude misjudges his speed and that's my fault.....and he gets a kill and flies away with little to no dmg........sound about right?
I understand how the lag thing works but that still pretty much sucks, plain and simple. Plus I was just making a comment I understand why and how this happens.
-
so yea lemme try to follow you I'm flyin mindin my own business dude misjudges his speed and that's my fault.....and he gets a kill and flies away with little to no dmg........sound about right?
I understand how the lag thing works but that still pretty much sucks, plain and simple. Plus I was just making a comment I understand why and how this happens.
Thats right. On the other had you been paying attention and maintaining good SA you would have seen the loser coming and would have most likely been able to avoid him.
-
(http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo237/grizz441/collision1.png)
Inactive?! So who is she and when did you knock her up? Where's the fashionabley-internet "I'm quiting, see you guys in a couple weeks" thread? :headscratch:
-
Chaser, on the assumption that the game is limited by the available technology, what we currently have may be the best that we might hope for and may result from time to time in you not receiving what you perceive as a fair deal.
Simplified: Some days your the bug, somedays you are the windshield.
I noticed you have 140 fighter kills this month and 918 tank kills. If I may suggest, try flying a bit more often, improve your skills, expand your SA and you may find it unneccessary to focus on the one thing that has put another death on your score when there is so much more to improve and focus on.
-
You are not punished as long as you do not run into planes on your front end.
not really accurate. a guy coming from behind me while afk or thru no fault of my own will cause a collision that only will be seen on my end.
i did not cause the collision and yet I'm the only one taking damage. even when both detect a collision more often than not only one plane goes down.
semp
-
Semp- You're suggesting they change the collision model because of the multitude of times you have been rammed while afk?
<img src=notsureifserious.jpg>
Wiley.
-
not really accurate. a guy coming from behind me while afk or thru no fault of my own will cause a collision that only will be seen on my end.
i did not cause the collision and yet I'm the only one taking damage. even when both detect a collision more often than not only one plane goes down.
semp
1) There is no "fault." There either is, or is not, a collision on your computer. If there is, you take damage. If there is not, you do not take damage. Simple and fair.
Same goes for the other guy. There either is, or is not, a collision on his computer. If there is, he takes damage. If there is not, he does not take damage. Simple and fair.
The two statements are separate but equal. They are separate because you are playing in two different realities, separated by milliseconds of internet latency. They are equal because both get what they see in their reality.
2) Even in a mutual collision, the reality is still different. If his wing goes through your pilot, why shouldn't your pilot die and kill your cartoon aircraft? Obvious answer is, your pilot should die and so your plane being killed is absolutely logical.
If in his reality his aileron nicked your vertical stabilizer, why should he lose more than his aileron? Obvious answer is, he shouldn't lose anything more than his aileron, and so surviving the collision is absolutely logical.
-
1) There is no "fault." There either is, or is not, a collision on your computer. If there is, you take damage. If there is not, you do not take damage. Simple and fair.
Same goes for the other guy. There either is, or is not, a collision on his computer. If there is, he takes damage. If there is not, he does not take damage. Simple and fair.
The two statements are separate but equal. They are separate because you are playing in two different realities, separated by milliseconds of internet latency. They are equal because both get what they see in their reality.
2) Even in a mutual collision, the reality is still different. If his wing goes through your pilot, why shouldn't your pilot die and kill your cartoon aircraft? Obvious answer is, your pilot should die and so your plane being killed is absolutely logical.
If in his reality his aileron nicked your vertical stabilizer, why should he lose more than his aileron? Obvious answer is, he shouldn't lose anything more than his aileron, and so surviving the collision is absolutely logical.
You bastages that use logic supporting your arguments are pathetic. You make me sick! Didn't your parents teach you anything? Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
-
not really accurate. a guy coming from behind me while afk or thru no fault of my own will cause a collision that only will be seen on my end.
i did not cause the collision and yet I'm the only one taking damage. even when both detect a collision more often than not only one plane goes down.
thats why you should always fly with a wingman. that way you have someone to blame :aok
-
1) There is no "fault." There either is, or is not, a collision on your computer. If there is, you take damage. If there is not, you do not take damage. Simple and fair.
Same goes for the other guy. There either is, or is not, a collision on his computer. If there is, he takes damage. If there is not, he does not take damage. Simple and fair.
The two statements are separate but equal. They are separate because you are playing in two different realities, separated by milliseconds of internet latency. They are equal because both get what they see in their reality.
2) Even in a mutual collision, the reality is still different. If his wing goes through your pilot, why shouldn't your pilot die and kill your cartoon aircraft? Obvious answer is, your pilot should die and so your plane being killed is absolutely logical.
If in his reality his aileron nicked your vertical stabilizer, why should he lose more than his aileron? Obvious answer is, he shouldn't lose anything more than his aileron, and so surviving the collision is absolutely logical.
This post should be featured in a "Explaining the Collision Model" sticky at the top of this forum.
-
not really accurate. a guy coming from behind me while afk or thru no fault of my own will cause a collision that only will be seen on my end.
i did not cause the collision and yet I'm the only one taking damage. even when both detect a collision more often than not only one plane goes down.
semp
of course it was your fault, your SA is always your responsibility. :devil
-
not really accurate. a guy coming from behind me while afk or thru no fault of my own will cause a collision that only will be seen on my end. (my emphasis added.)
The other guy would get a collision message. If he didn't, then it would be a bug.
In real life, you'd both take damage in that situation, wouldn't you? Collision modeling in AH is good, considering the constraints of the Internet and fairness to players and game play. If you don't think that, then you probably haven't thought about it deeply enough.
If you have an idea to improve the model, you can post it. Hitech and his band of merry men would adopt it if it's truly an improvement.
-
so yea lemme try to follow you I'm flyin mindin my own business dude misjudges his speed and that's my fault.....
But he didn't misjudge his speed. He judged it correctly, or else he would have hit you.
What you fail to appreciate is that he can't know or predict exactly what you see on your front end. All he can know is what he sees on his front end. On his front end, he made an aggressive and accurate pass and did not collide with you. From his perspective, the fact that there was a collision on your end was a pure accident over which he had no control.
and that's my fault.....
Try to understand this. THERE IS NO FAULT. Physics does not know any concept of "fault". The game models this. If you collide, you will take damage. You do not take damage because someone thinks you ought to be punished for your bad judgment, you take damage as an inevitable result of having collided, no matter whose fault it was or how blameless or reckless you were leading up to the collision. That's how the real world works, and that's how the game works. The only difference is that in the game, due to limitations of technology, the guy flying the other plane is in a slightly different world than you are. There's no way around that until someone invents a net connection with zero lag.
(Also, I think the current method is the best incentive for good and accurate game play. If you have both players take damage if either collides, you will punish aggressive but skillful flying and push players toward overly conservative flying. If you have neither player take damage unless both collide, as others have pointed out, you'll have players deliberately ramming others from behind hoping the collision won't occur on the other guy's end and they'll get the kill with a zero-range shot. Historically, collision was a major factor and pushing to the edge of it to get close-range shot was a calculated risk. Pilots who pushed it too far died, and those who didn't push it close enough had a tough time getting kills. That's how it is with the current game model.)
-
Id rather they just turn it off in the MA. Whats the downside? We might get HO'd more? How is that possible? Atleast they wouldnt be TRYING to crash into you as well. Leave it on in the DA and SEA. The worst is getting run into from behide and it says you collided but hes ok. Not a fan.
Also Ive often seen prop to prop collisions where one guy comes out ok and asked the guy "Did that look like we collided prop to prop?' and he said ya. Just too weird to be useful. Too inconsistant.
-
For those who think the collision model is perfect I totally understand how the collision thing works but it's very unfortunate that the person with the better computer/connection always gets the worst of it. In a co-collision I'm always the one to die. I'm never the one to score the kill. My computer and connection mean my FE registers immediately and I lose every time or at least 98% of the time.
Taking it to an extreme I lose 98% of the time if the other player rams me from behind. It's only because my FE sees it first.
I wish that part of the collision model could be fixed. The only work around is to play on a crappy PC or with a crappy connection.
BTW, when I had a crappy PC/connection I won those more often than not.
-
of course it was your fault, your SA is always your responsibility. :devil
I'll try to watch the computer better when I am afk.
The other guy would get a collision message. If he didn't, then it would be a bug.
In real life, you'd both take damage in that situation, wouldn't you? Collision modeling in AH is good, considering the constraints of the Internet and fairness to players and game play. If you don't think that, then you probably haven't thought about it deeply enough.
If you have an idea to improve the model, you can post it. Hitech and his band of merry men would adopt it if it's truly an improvement.
yeah I do have a better idea, if both collide they both go down, like it normally happens in real life. the way it happens in ah is normally 1 airplane will fly away with little to no damage the other one goes down. this is the part that really gets people upset.
I can understand a big airplane like a bomber sometimes surviving a collision, it did happen and there's even 1 or two bombers that landed with a fighter stuck in the middle of the fuselage. but fighters surviving the collision model as it is in ah when it indicates both collided, not very realistic.
again the main beef with almost everybody is when both show a collision and most of the time one flies away with little to no damage while the other goes down.
semp
-
I lose collisions when a light fighter hit's my tank.
-
For those who think the collision model is perfect I totally understand how the collision thing works but it's very unfortunate that the person with the better computer/connection always gets the worst of it. In a co-collision I'm always the one to die. I'm never the one to score the kill. My computer and connection mean my FE registers immediately and I lose every time or at least 98% of the time.
Taking it to an extreme I lose 98% of the time if the other player rams me from behind. It's only because my FE sees it first.
I wish that part of the collision model could be fixed. The only work around is to play on a crappy PC or with a crappy connection.
BTW, when I had a crappy PC/connection I won those more often than not.
Obviously you do NOT understand how it works.
Your close but not exact.
this statement
In a co-collision I'm always the one to die.
You do not understand or are deliberately misrepresenting the situation.
Who dies has nothing to do with lag. Weather you die or not has nothing to do with connect speeds but rather what your client sees.
So under your assumption of a co-collision who dies is simply based on what part of your plane hits the other guy.
The 2nd part who is awarded the kill , you are correct. But even though you were not awarded the kill, the other guy still dies.
This also assumes you were both not previously shot by someone else. Because if someone collides,dies, and was shot by someone else before the collision. You also would not be awarded the kill no matter what your ping times are.
HiTech
-
Id rather they just turn it off in the MA. Whats the downside? We might get HO'd more? How is that possible? Atleast they wouldnt be TRYING to crash into you as well. Leave it on in the DA and SEA. The worst is getting run into from behide and it says you collided but hes ok. Not a fan.
Too inconsistant.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^This and turn off the HO aswell make them learn to fight
-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^This and turn off the HO aswell make them learn to fight
And can we please make it so planes only roll to the left? I really hate having to deal with opponents who roll to the right.
Wiley.
-
And can we please make it so planes only roll to the left? I really hate having to deal with opponents who roll to the right.
Wiley.
:rofl :rolleyes:
-
And can we please make it so planes only roll to the left? I really hate having to deal with opponents who roll to the right.
Wiley.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This ! We need NASCAR Aces High !
-
In summary, if another object in your airspace, as registered on your PC (even if you didn't "see" it with your eyeballs) doesn't hit anything, you won't take damage...
Sounds simple and fair to me.... I just don't see why it's so hard to understand this concept...
-
For those who think the collision model is perfect I totally understand how the collision thing works but it's very unfortunate that the person with the better computer/connection always gets the worst of it. In a co-collision I'm always the one to die.
It always appears that way to the collider. I promise you that you won't die to a collision if you don't collide.
-
It always appears that way to the collider. I promise you that you won't die to a collision if you don't collide.
Quoted for troof...
This isn't rocket science people... DON'T HIT STUFF AND YOU WON'T DIE TO A COLLISION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead
-
In summary, if another object in your airspace, as registered on your PC (even if you didn't "see" it with your eyeballs) doesn't hit anything, you won't take damage...
Sounds simple and fair to me.... I just don't see why it's so hard to understand this concept...
Why is it so hard to understand?
It's because people cannot wrap their heads around the fact that just because their front end detects a collision does not mean that the other person's front end had a collision.
If it happened to them then it must have happened to the other guy, yet nothing happened to the other guy.
I'll try to watch the computer better when I am afk.
yeah I do have a better idea, if both collide they both go down, like it normally happens in real life. the way it happens in ah is normally 1 airplane will fly away with little to no damage the other one goes down. this is the part that really gets people upset.
semp
If BOTH collide then BOTH take damage.
The part that gets people upset is the other guy didn't collide.
The other thing the guy who goes down usually just dismisses is he is more than likely getting shot, fatally, as the collision on his front end is occurring. The collision was just a bonus.
wrongway
-
:rofl Trust me, we understand how it works. Some of us better than you ever will. We just don't like it and apparently you guys can;t understand the difference between not liking it and not understanding it, and turn every collision post to a "I don't understand collisions" post.
In simple terms, my fight (witch might have taken a long time to find) can end instantly dew to no fault of anyone. For example, bad guy flies too close puling up from under my nose, he clears by a few feet but my FE sees a collision. Great, we understand why it happens. What I don;t understand is what is the point? Why is this specific future of realism needed? What does it do for the game? Obviously it does nothing to prevent HOing if that is what we are worried about, so why are we adding a fight ending future in the game? That is what we don;t understand. I also don;t understand why so many people are jumping on anyone that questions it.
Can someone answer the question of the cons and pros of not having it instead of giving some explanation of how they think it works? And btw, it can be gamed very easily but I will let the guys that don;t understand how explain to me that it can't.
-
And btw, it can be gamed very easily but I will let the guys that don;t understand how explain to me that it can't.
I can tell you exactly how you can game it. Get altitude and find someone to pick. Dive on them and if they pull up to HO, keep diving straight for them building as much spped as you can. Pull up at the VERY last instant before you see a collision. You won's see a collision, EVER. But the one who pulled up will see a collision everytime. Perhaps this is similar to what happened to me. Execpt I wasn't trying to pull around for a HO, I was trying to dodge their bullet stream.
-
I can tell you exactly how you can game it. Get altitude and find someone to pick. Dive on them and if they pull up to HO, keep diving straight for them building as much spped as you can. Pull up at the VERY last instant before you see a collision. You won's see a collision, EVER. But the one who pulled up will see a collision everytime. Perhaps this is similar to what happened to me. Execpt I wasn't trying to pull around for a HO, I was trying to dodge their bullet stream.
Okay Chaser... I'll make a deal with ya.. My ingame name is AKmeathd. Find me when I'm on, and I will go to the DA with you, and you can try all you want to get me to take collision damage, and you not. I think it would be almost impossible to do consistently as it's impossible to predict what your opponent sees on his front end (where the decision of damage is made). You may get lucky once or twice, but it won't be with any consistency.
I honestly can't remember the last time I took damage from a collision. I have figured out how to avoid hitting things, to keep that from happening. If they changed the collision model so that I took damage from a collision that didn't happen as far as I'm concerned, I would be angry, but I would adapt, and leave a larger margin.
You see, I realized this was a game, that took place on via the internet, and realize that "some" concessions would have to be made for playability. I feel the "if I don't hit it, I don't take damage" model is fine.
-
I can tell you exactly how you can game it. Get altitude and find someone to pick. Dive on them and if they pull up to HO, keep diving straight for them building as much spped as you can. Pull up at the VERY last instant before you see a collision. You won's see a collision, EVER. But the one who pulled up will see a collision everytime.
the low guy trying to evade didnt evade, so on his FE there was a collision, so he took damage. as it should be. :aok
-
lol, still no answer on why it is soooooo needed in the game.
Scca, he is spot on. Also, try flying fast under buffs and pull up right in front of them a couple of times. Then explain the model to them and why it is their fault for not evading.
It is really simple. It does not matter how it works. What matters is that it is there. Do you see anything bad happening to the game play if it was not there?
-
well the only thing Ive seen saying why it shouldn't be is because folks would try to intentional try to ram you. The thing to think about is how hard it is to actually do this most folks have hell shooting let alone gettin into a position to run into you. Unless from the HO that is. Ive rammed bombers before out of ammo tryin to save a cv......it worked a couple times.
-
Do you see anything bad happening to the game play if it was not there?
yes, i do. whether you want them to or not, airplanes shouldn't be flying THROUGH one another. how hard is it to not smash into somebody? you keep saying you understand how it works. if that is true, then how do not understand the why? i'm not calling you out or anything here, but can you tell me why it SHOULDN'T be there? real examples please, not some made up stuff like "pull up at the last second and you will always collide" because that dog don't hunt.
-
well the only thing Ive seen saying why it shouldn't be is because folks would try to intentional try to ram you. The thing to think about is how hard it is to actually do this most folks have hell shooting let alone gettin into a position to run into you. Unless from the HO that is.
quite - I'm sure most of the complaints about the collision model come from alot of experience of damage during a joust. I dont see many duellers complaining about it ...
-
It is really simple. It does not matter how it works. What matters is that it is there. Do you see anything bad happening to the game play if it was not there?
If there was no penalty for it, why wouldn't people just fly through your plane guns blazing? It would be the easiest way to get a kill. Up something fast and fly through the guy guns blazing, you don't even need to lead him. It would become the best way to kill buffs. The possibility of collision makes the average player fly to avoid them, which makes for better gameplay than the alternative.
Wiley.
-
If there was no penalty for it, why wouldn't people just fly through your plane guns blazing? It would be the easiest way to get a kill. Up something fast and fly through the guy guns blazing, you don't even need to lead him. It would become the best way to kill buffs. The possibility of collision makes the average player fly to avoid them, which makes for better gameplay than the alternative.
^This is the answer
-
From what I gather on this whole collision business is that: If you close your eyes, you won't get hurt. Thats what I always do :rofl :rofl :rofl.
-
If there was no penalty for it, why wouldn't people just fly through your plane guns blazing? It would be the easiest way to get a kill. Up something fast and fly through the guy guns blazing, you don't even need to lead him. It would become the best way to kill buffs. The possibility of collision makes the average player fly to avoid them, which makes for better gameplay than the alternative.
Wiley.
I think my answer would, many people DO fly through guns blazing and take their chances. Problem is their taking the chance at my flight too.Atleast if they were blazing at me headon and I die atleast I'd know it was the bullets, not the carcass that killed me. I dont pretend to know how it works. I just know it doesnt work very well from my pov.
-
If the "collision" were to be removed from the game, dog fighting as we know it will no longer exist.
Angle fighting is what it is because of the threat of a collision. Who can get the best angle(s) on their opponent without collision and without getting shot usually equates to a win. Take out the collision and I don't care what angle you throw at me, I can probably get a better angle or counter your angle by simply flying thru you ... now that sucks.
I have been here for close to ten years now and have always been an "angles" fighter ... that means close quarters flying ... and I can probably count on my 2 hands and maybe one of yours the amount of collisions that I have had while fighting or evading. It's not a big deal when it happens ... you get another plane and try again.
Some people here make it seem like collisions happen all the time to just about all the people who play this game and it is a rampant problem ... which it isn't ... there is nothing to fix here but some peoples flying tactics.
If you are frequently dieing to collisions ... check your flying abilities because they are the suck.
As far as the OP's description of his "collisions" ... I don't believe it ... something is being left out of the equation ... show us the film and then I might believe it.
-
If the "collision" were to be removed from the game, dog fighting as we know it will no longer exist.
Angle fighting is what it is because of the threat of a collision. Who can get the best angle(s) on their opponent without collision and without getting shot usually equates to a win. Take out the collision and I don't care what angle you throw at me, I can probably get a better angle or counter your angle by simply flying thru you ... now that sucks.
I have been here for close to ten years now and have always been an "angles" fighter ... that means close quarters flying ... and I can probably count on my 2 hands and maybe one of yours the amount of collisions that I have had while fighting or evading. It's not a big deal when it happens ... you get another plane and try again.
Some people here make it seem like collisions happen all the time to just about all the people who play this game and it is a rampant problem ... which it isn't ... there is nothing to fix here but some peoples flying tactics.
If you are frequently dieing to collisions ... check your flying abilities because they are the suck.
As far as the OP's description of his "collisions" ... I don't believe it ... something is being left out of the equation ... show us the film and then I might believe it.
I don't frequently die to collisions but these two stood out to me. I never remember to film my sorties so there is no film.
Do you think I'm making this up?? I don't come to these boards making stuff up for attention. I posted it cause I thought it was a genuine problem that frustrated me.
-
Obviously you do NOT understand how it works.
Your close but not exact.
this statement
You do not understand or are deliberately misrepresenting the situation.
Who dies has nothing to do with lag. Weather you die or not has nothing to do with connect speeds but rather what your client sees.
So under your assumption of a co-collision who dies is simply based on what part of your plane hits the other guy.
The 2nd part who is awarded the kill , you are correct. But even though you were not awarded the kill, the other guy still dies.
This also assumes you were both not previously shot by someone else. Because if someone collides,dies, and was shot by someone else before the collision. You also would not be awarded the kill no matter what your ping times are.
HiTech
Semantics. I should have said in a co-collision I'm never awarded the kill. The other guy gets it every time.
-
I think my answer would, many people DO fly through guns blazing and take their chances. Problem is their taking the chance at my flight too.Atleast if they were blazing at me headon and I die atleast I'd know it was the bullets, not the carcass that killed me. I dont pretend to know how it works. I just know it doesnt work very well from my pov.
quite - I'm sure most of the complaints about the collision model come from alot of experience of damage during a joust. I don't see many duellers complaining about it ...
Key word being "joust".
Yes, the skilless will fly straight at you, guns blazing, (that's how I fly a 262 :rolleyes:), taking their chances they will shoot you before[//i] they run into you.
You assume you are not getting shot before you collide and die. Why else would someone come zooming in close enough for you to run into them if not to shoot you in the process? The end result may be death from collision but the intent was death by fire.
wrongway
-
I don't frequently die to collisions but these two stood out to me. I never remember to film my sorties so there is no film.
Do you think I'm making this up?? I don't come to these boards making stuff up for attention. I posted it cause I thought it was a genuine problem that frustrated me.
Did you know you can set up the game to auto film your flights? That way you never have to remember to roll film.
Second as Slap said, if your getting a lot of collisions then it is your flying. Not to say this is you, but maybe someone spends too much time trying to HO. Flying strait at someone guns blazing seems to be a major tactic these days. Those players are the one most likely to end up with a collision due to the closing speeds and their attention being on getting as many rounds into the opponent as they can instead of flying the plane.
"Getting close, then getting closer" is a great shooting tactic, but nobody says do it from the front quarter.
-
"Getting close, then getting closer" is a great shooting tactic, but nobody says do it from the front quarter.
sig material :aok
-
Did you know you can set up the game to auto film your flights? That way you never have to remember to roll film.
Second as Slap said, if your getting a lot of collisions then it is your flying. Not to say this is you, but maybe someone spends too much time trying to HO. Flying strait at someone guns blazing seems to be a major tactic these days. Those players are the one most likely to end up with a collision due to the closing speeds and their attention being on getting as many rounds into the opponent as they can instead of flying the plane.
"Getting close, then getting closer" is a great shooting tactic, but nobody says do it from the front quarter.
I know you can but I'm as good as remembering to check that as I am remembering to start film.
Like I said I rarely ever collide. But those 2 happened within an hour of each other and it just stood out to me because I died from a collision from a plane diving on me while I was doing everything I could with my horrible skills to get out of the way.. I guess its just one of those frustrating things that happens.
-
I don't frequently die to collisions but these two stood out to me. I never remember to film my sorties so there is no film.
Do you think I'm making this up?? I don't come to these boards making stuff up for attention. I posted it cause I thought it was a genuine problem that frustrated me.
No, I don't think you were making it up ... I just don't believe that we have the whole story as it took place.
-
Semantics. I should have said in a co-collision I'm never awarded the kill. The other guy gets it every time.
So basically, you hit the ground first? Or...?
-
Semantics. I should have said in a co-collision I'm never awarded the kill. The other guy gets it every time.
If he was awarded the kill then one of two things happened. 1) kill was a proxy or 2) he actually managed to get a round or two into you before the collision.
ack-ack
-
Semantics. I should have said in a co-collision I'm never awarded the kill. The other guy gets it every time.
And I'm curious, how do you know the other guy died?
HiTech
-
If the "collision" were to be removed from the game, dog fighting as we know it will no longer exist.
Angle fighting is what it is because of the threat of a collision. Who can get the best angle(s) on their opponent without collision and without getting shot usually equates to a win. Take out the collision and I don't care what angle you throw at me, I can probably get a better angle or counter your angle by simply flying thru you ... now that sucks.
I have been here for close to ten years now and have always been an "angles" fighter ... that means close quarters flying ... and I can probably count on my 2 hands and maybe one of yours the amount of collisions that I have had while fighting or evading. It's not a big deal when it happens ... you get another plane and try again.
Some people here make it seem like collisions happen all the time to just about all the people who play this game and it is a rampant problem ... which it isn't ... there is nothing to fix here but some peoples flying tactics.
If you are frequently dieing to collisions ... check your flying abilities because they are the suck.
As far as the OP's description of his "collisions" ... I don't believe it ... something is being left out of the equation ... show us the film and then I might believe it.
Take out head on shots and remove colisions. Problem solved.
-
Take out head on shots and remove colisions. Problem solved.
Collisions and head on shots make AH better. :D
-
And I'm curious, how do you know the other guy died?
HiTech
I don't for sure. I do find it curious though that after dozens of collisions the other guy always gets a kill on me, even if he rams into me from behind and this only started after I upgraded my system and Comcast got my connection fixed. It was never like that before. With my old system I was awarded the kill at least half the time.
I'm not going to argue with you but I do believe there's flaws in the system. Whether it's coding or net lag I don't really care. I do know that a slower system, be it the computer or connection, again I don't care which it is, benefits from the current set-up.
-
I do know that a slower system, be it the computer or connection, again I don't care which it is, benefits from the current set-up.
I have been saying this as far as the the bullet hit system as well.
-
Take out head on shots and remove colisions. Problem solved.
Might as well change the name to Air Warrior in that case.
ack-ack
-
Might as well change the name to Air Warrior in that case.
ack-ack
Pretty sure that name has been used already. You'll have to come up with something new.
-
I posted screenshots of my collision with SunsFan last night in another thread. Had their not been collisions it would have taken something away from that fight. Nothing worse then realizing you are going too fast and the other guy is hanging there while you drive through. The collision happened that should have happened. I misjudged his speed, and even though I was slowing and hanging on the props, I was still too fast and collided with the tail of his 109
I have stretches where it seems like I do nothing but collide. It does seem to be a symptom of my turning into the guy in the BnZ bird going light speed as he is dropping on me. Lousy timing on my part I guess :)
-
I posted screenshots of my collision with SunsFan last night in another thread. Had their not been collisions it would have taken something away from that fight. Nothing worse then realizing you are going too fast and the other guy is hanging there while you drive through. The collision happened that should have happened. I misjudged his speed, and even though I was slowing and hanging on the props, I was still too fast and collided with the tail of his 109
I have stretches where it seems like I do nothing but collide. It does seem to be a symptom of my turning into the guy in the BnZ bird going light speed as he is dropping on me. Lousy timing on my part I guess :)
Or being too close when you shoot a bandits wing off and it flys back and hits you. Yeah it sucks when it happens but that was a reality in real dogfights of the day.
-
Yep, as expected. the "collisions are BS" crowd have no evidence of the exploits, the oddities, that are apparently so common that the collision code should be changed. No films, etc. :aok
-
It's all irreverent in the space time continium of missing sheep.
-
I have no issues with planes colliding but losing a collision to a light fighter with no bombs or rockets while in a m4 with the light fighter flying off not even smoking is complete BS.
-
I have no issues with planes colliding but losing a collision to a light fighter with no bombs or rockets while in a m4 with the light fighter flying off not even smoking is complete BS.
you have film of it? I'll guess not.
-
Might as well change the name to Air Warrior in that case.
ack-ack
It worked in AW.
Think they could add spit factory while there at it?
-
Take out head on shots and remove colisions. Problem solved.
There is no problem with the collision model, only the whiners' flying.
/thread
-
I don't for sure. I do find it curious though that after dozens of collisions the other guy always gets a kill on me, even if he rams into me from behind and this only started after I upgraded my system and Comcast got my connection fixed. It was never like that before. With my old system I was awarded the kill at least half the time.
I'm not going to argue with you but I do believe there's flaws in the system. Whether it's coding or net lag I don't really care. I do know that a slower system, be it the computer or connection, again I don't care which it is, benefits from the current set-up.
I do find it curious though that after dozens of collisions the other guy always gets a kill on me, even if he rams into me from behind
Again showing that you really do not understand the system, or you would realize a co collision from behind is almost impossible and hence of course some one else will be awarded the kill.
HiTech
-
Again showing that you really do not understand the system, or you would realize a co collision from behind is almost impossible and hence of course some one else will be awarded the kill.
HiTech
Then tell me how it happened because it has. I didn't think it was possible either but evidently it is.
-
Again showing that you really do not understand the system, or you would realize a co collision from behind is almost impossible and hence of course some one else will be awarded the kill.
HiTech
hitech we do understand the collision, we dont like it, but we do understand it. but ramming from behind happens a lot more that we like. and normally for me, just about every collision where i see a message we both collide, I die and as I am falling i see the other plane just going with perhaps little to no damage that I can see, except for la7's those always seem to get the engine damaged just about every time.
semp
-
hitech we do understand the collision, we dont like it, but we do understand it. but ramming from behind happens a lot more that we like. and normally for me, just about every collision where i see a message we both collide, I die and as I am falling i see the other plane just going with perhaps little to no damage that I can see, except for la7's those always seem to get the engine damaged just about every time.
semp
based on what you've said here it's obvious you don't have a clue how it works. if you did, you'd know exactly why that other airplane is flying away undamaged. there was no collision on his end. the guy flying the other plane didn't hit you. it may have looked like he did to you, but he didn't. people have different connections. it's going to happen whether you like it or not, or whether you understand it or not for that matter.
-
based on what you've said here it's obvious you don't have a clue how it works. if you did, you'd know exactly why that other airplane is flying away undamaged. there was no collision on his end. the guy flying the other plane didn't hit you. it may have looked like he did to you, but he didn't. people have different connections. it's going to happen whether you like it or not, or whether you understand it or not for that matter.
here it is again.
hitech we do understand the collision, we dont like it, but we do understand it. but ramming from behind happens a lot more that we like. and normally for me, just about every collision where i see a message we both collide, I die and as I am falling i see the other plane just going with perhaps little to no damage that I can see, except for la7's those always seem to get the engine damaged just about every time.
semp
looks like you didnt understand my post.
semp
-
so you see a message. is that your point? he still didn't run into your plane if he flew away undamaged.
-
hitech we do understand the collision, we dont like it, but we do understand it. but ramming from behind happens a lot more that we like. and normally for me, just about every collision where i see a message we both collide, I die and as I am falling i see the other plane just going with perhaps little to no damage that I can see, except for la7's those always seem to get the engine damaged just about every time.
semp
Why did you let the guy ram you from behind? You saw him coming. :devil
Just avoid the ram, it's that simple. If you can't avoid the ram, then it is because you don't have a very good sense for how a fight/situation is developing and are realizing a ram is going to occur far too late. And I know this to be true with you, because there have been countless times where you pull your Spit8 nose directly into me forcing me to break guns to avoid the ram.
-
so you see a message. is that your point? he still didn't run into your plane if he flew away undamaged.
so then the collision model is wrong as it send a message saying so and so collided with you but no collision occurred and he flew away undamaged.
semp
-
Why did you let the guy ram you from behind? You saw him coming. :devil
Just avoid the ram, it's that simple. If you can't avoid the ram, then it is because you don't have a very good sense for how a fight/situation is developing and are realizing a ram is going to occur far too late. And I know this to be true with you, because there have been countless times where you pull your Spit8 nose directly into me forcing me to break guns to avoid the ram.
we are not discussing how to avoid a ram. but what happens when for whatever reason there's a collision from behind :salute.
semp
-
so then the collision model is wrong as it send a message saying so and so collided with you but no collision occurred and he flew away undamaged.
semp
now you got it. that is exactly what happens. just the other day i was doing some high speed scissoring with DazyCutr. we must have collided on his end, because when i looked back he was tumbling down in pieces. on my end we were close, but we did not hit. i got the collision message. i'm pretty sure he got one too. no damage to me whatsoever. he died. it is what it is, and it is not wrong.
-
we are not discussing how to avoid a ram. but what happens when for whatever reason there's a collision from behind :salute.
Well if that is the case, start posting some evidence so Hitech takes you seriously. I've been rammed from behind on the enemies end only as often as I have been unlucky where I have been only rammed on my end. Seems to me when you put yourself in a situation where you are in close quarters with an enemy plane, there is a lot of luck as to what actually unfolds on each respective front end. I don't think there is any reason to believe from my experience that a plane from behind holds any sort of magical collision advantage. :salute
-
Well if that is the case, start posting some evidence so Hitech takes you seriously. I've been rammed from behind on the enemies end only as often as I have been unlucky where I have been only rammed on my end. Seems to me when you put yourself in a situation where you are in close quarters with an enemy plane, there is a lot of luck as to what actually unfolds on each respective front end. I don't think there is any reason to believe from my experience that a plane from behind holds any sort of magical collision advantage. :salute
did your 30mm problem ever get fixed? how long did it take? you guys submitted lots of evidence if I remember correctly.
semp
-
did your 30mm problem ever get fixed? how long did it take? you guys submitted lots of evidence if I remember correctly.
semp
Yes it did get fixed because we submitted a lot of evidence.
-
Yes it did get fixed because we submitted a lot of evidence.
how long did it take?
semp
-
how long did it take?
semp
Quite a while because Hitech didn't take our grievance seriously for at least half a year.
-
yes, i do. whether you want them to or not, airplanes shouldn't be flying THROUGH one another. how hard is it to not smash into somebody? you keep saying you understand how it works. if that is true, then how do not understand the why? i'm not calling you out or anything here, but can you tell me why it SHOULDN'T be there? real examples please, not some made up stuff like "pull up at the last second and you will always collide" because that dog don't hunt.
Because you only think about the cases were a collision is clear with two planes driving into each other. The pull up at the last second is not made up stuff. Get in a set of buffs and lest go in the DA and try it. I will make you collide about 50% of the time. This is one of the things I don;t like about it. The other not made up stuff is that it is hard enough to avoid the 51s and 190s diving in for a pick. It is even harder to avoid getting rear ended while fighting someone else. What does the game gain from that?
So, stop thinking about collisions on a head to head situation. I have never complained when I screwed up like that. There are so many realism futures not included in this game, why is this one so important? Once again, the goal is to end a fight. Now, if you are looking for total realism then I agree, collisions are needed but I guess I am looking for a game.
-
lest go in the DA and try it. I will make you collide about 50% of the time.
Ill take that bet for $100.
HiTech
-
hmm so the reason I have not tried mock dogfighting with real planes and kept to solo aerobatics because of the extreme danger of collisions during unpredictable maneuvering is being complained about in a game that is designed to model the dangers of aerial combat?
sounds like the system is working as intended.
-
Ill take that bet for $100.
HiTech
A safe bet on your COAD, but throw in the limitations of the internet...
-
A safe bet on your COAD, but throw in the limitations of the internet...
this is the point. this is what we've been discussing this whole time. the limitations of the 'net are what causes a collision to happen on one end and not the other. call me crazy, but i'm willing to bet HiTech knows EXACTLY how this works, all variables included.
-
now you got it. that is exactly what happens. just the other day i was doing some high speed scissoring with DazyCutr. we must have collided on his end, because when i looked back he was tumbling down in pieces. on my end we were close, but we did not hit. i got the collision message. i'm pretty sure he got one too. no damage to me whatsoever. he died. it is what it is, and it is not wrong.
Quite simply:
If your front-end detects a collision and his does not, you see "you have collided" and you take damage but he does not.
If his front-end detects a collision and your does not, you see "xxx has collided with you" and you take no damage but he does.
If both front-ends detect a collision, you both see both messages and you both take damage.
So, fly your computer to avoid collisions and you will avoid collisions. Sometimes it's impossible to avoid, but blame it on poor SA and/or a lot of 'net lag on someone's side. Time to quit whining about it and get on with playing the game.
-
Quite simply:
If your front-end detects a collision and his does not, you see "you have collided" and you take damage but he does not.
If his front-end detects a collision and your does not, you see "xxx has collided with you" and you take no damage but he does.
If both front-ends detect a collision, you both see both messages and you both take damage.
So, fly your computer to avoid collisions and you will avoid collisions. Sometimes it's impossible to avoid, but blame it on poor SA and/or a lot of 'net lag on someone's side. Time to quit whining about it and get on with playing the game.
well put. however i fear some just don't want to get it. no matter how simply you put it :frown:
-
Things that I know to be true since my connection sucks:
1. When I review my films I see tracers coming out of the guns headed three to four planes lengths behind me as opposing planes make deflection shots. I also see hit sprites impacting my plane. Clearly, the other guy and I do not share the same exact picture, temporally speaking. I frankly do not think it is possible.
2. In most collisions, because my net is so terrible (remember my lag etc.... is the same from central MO to Dallas as Switzerland) I lose the majority of all collisions. Most collisions from my point of view take place whe I run at an angle underneath or in front of other planes. From my point of view I have plenty of clearance, just not the case overall.
All that said, it is just a quirk of the game and until the planet is covered in fiberoptic wonder cable and all of our systems are no more than 5 ping apart... it is what it is. The only other alternative would be to disable collsions, which would bring a new meaning to the notion of a HO. Think about pulling a mustang into a B17 like a jeep into a tank.
I don't like it, but the alternative is worse.
:salute
-
this is the point. this is what we've been discussing this whole time. the limitations of the 'net are what causes a collision to happen on one end and not the other. call me crazy, but i'm willing to bet HiTech knows EXACTLY how this works, all variables included.
Nop, it has nothing to do with how it works or how it happens. It has to do with not liking it. That is the point and it keeps getting converted to why and how it happens. I don;t really care how or why. I care that it is there and it is a way to end a fight. Lets bump up the puffy, have it over fields and town, have it use the proxy fuses and aim at you instead of random, increase the field ack and make it do damage, etc if realism is what we are after.
-
Ill take that bet for $100.
HiTech
I'll take the bet or we can just try it for a bottle of whiskey (wont hurt as much if I lose lol), but you will be playing over an internet connection and we some how will have to verify the ping times. Given your explanation of how it works, do you honestly think i can;t cause your buffs to collide by flying across their nose really fast or do you hope I wont be able to time it right (may happen since I've been gone for a while)?
Win or lose, I won;t be able to understand why it is needed or like that it is there. Don't you think it is funny that no one so far has given a reason on why we need it? It is all about how it works :lol
-
Dirtdart you can only collide with the bandit on your PC where lag is not an issue. If you are losing collisions it has nothing to do with lag.
It's true that the bandit in your rear view has better angles than he appears to but he's hitting you on his PC and you're getting the slightly delayed hit messages from the server.
Lag does not affect your shooting at the bandit or your collisions with the bandit.
-
Don't you think it is funny that no one so far has given a reason on why we need it? It is all about how it works :lol
the reason it is here is because when airplanes smash into one another in real life, there is a resulting catastrophe. if they were to stop modelling things such as collisions, they might as well not model the air in which we fly. it's in the game because it belongs in the game. simple as that.
-
Don't you think it is funny that no one so far has given a reason on why we need it? It is all about how it works :lol
I think it's funny you didn't notice that the reason why we need collisions has in fact been mentioned by various people in this thread.
-
Post film of Ded vs HT, I gotta see this :lol
-
Don't you think it is funny that no one so far has given a reason on why we need it? It is all about how it works :lol
Except for here:
If there was no penalty for it, why wouldn't people just fly through your plane guns blazing? It would be the easiest way to get a kill. Up something fast and fly through the guy guns blazing, you don't even need to lead him. It would become the best way to kill buffs. The possibility of collision makes the average player fly to avoid them, which makes for better gameplay than the alternative.
Wiley.
and here:
If the "collision" were to be removed from the game, dog fighting as we know it will no longer exist.
Angle fighting is what it is because of the threat of a collision. Who can get the best angle(s) on their opponent without collision and without getting shot usually equates to a win. Take out the collision and I don't care what angle you throw at me, I can probably get a better angle or counter your angle by simply flying thru you ... now that sucks.
I have been here for close to ten years now and have always been an "angles" fighter ... that means close quarters flying ... and I can probably count on my 2 hands and maybe one of yours the amount of collisions that I have had while fighting or evading. It's not a big deal when it happens ... you get another plane and try again.
Some people here make it seem like collisions happen all the time to just about all the people who play this game and it is a rampant problem ... which it isn't ... there is nothing to fix here but some peoples flying tactics.
If you are frequently dieing to collisions ... check your flying abilities because they are the suck.
And a few 'I agrees' thrown in around them.
I find it odd that you guys still haven't answered my question. Why it is an improvement to have a collision model where what you see on your end isn't always what you get?
Wiley.
-
I'll take the bet or we can just try it for a bottle of whiskey (wont hurt as much if I lose lol), but you will be playing over an internet connection and we some how will have to verify the ping times. Given your explanation of how it works, do you honestly think i can;t cause your buffs to collide by flying across their nose really fast or do you hope I wont be able to time it right (may happen since I've been gone for a while)?
Win or lose, I won;t be able to understand why it is needed or like that it is there. Don't you think it is funny that no one so far has given a reason on why we need it? It is all about how it works :lol
I'll play... You can use me if you like... I'll fly buffs, you try to collide with me taking damage and you not. BTW, I like Captain Morgan
-
I'll play... You can use me if you like... I'll fly buffs, you try to collide with me taking damage and you not. BTW, I like Captain Morgan
Swill
Just sayin, I suppose I'd brush my teeth with it if there wasn't any water available, but that's only becuase I'm gunn spit it out.
Yeah I know it's off subject but this thread aint going anywhere as those asking the questions are not listening because you are not giving them the answers the desire.
-
I'll take the bet or we can just try it for a bottle of whiskey (wont hurt as much if I lose lol), but you will be playing over an internet connection and we some how will have to verify the ping times. Given your explanation of how it works, do you honestly think i can;t cause your buffs to collide by flying across their nose really fast or do you hope I wont be able to time it right (may happen since I've been gone for a while)?
Win or lose, I won;t be able to understand why it is needed or like that it is there. Don't you think it is funny that no one so far has given a reason on why we need it? It is all about how it works :lol
As posted people have explained why.
You do realize I will be shooting and avoiding you?
HiTech
-
Why it is an improvement to have a collision model where what you see on your end isn't always what you get?
Funny, what I see on my end is what I get...
-
Funny, what I see on my end is what I get...
That's what I'm saying. Under the current system, if my system see a collision, my system registers a collision.
Under the other systems that are possible it would either mean that sometimes a collision that my FE saw would not register damage, or I would take damage from something that didn't happen on my FE. To me, that's a major downgrade.
Wiley.
-
Swill
lol....
-
That's what I'm saying. Under the current system, if my system see a collision, my system registers a collision.
Under the other systems that are possible it would either mean that sometimes a collision that my FE saw would not register damage, or I would take damage from something that didn't happen on my FE. To me, that's a major downgrade.
Wiley.
The third option some have suggested is to remove collisions entirely... :headscratch: That would be the dumbest move ever...
-
You do realize I will be shooting and avoiding you?
HiTech
cheater :lol Should we make this a 1 vs 1 in fighters best out of 7? :devil
-
Dirtdart you can only collide with the bandit on your PC where lag is not an issue. If you are losing collisions it has nothing to do with lag.
It's true that the bandit in your rear view has better angles than he appears to but he's hitting you on his PC and you're getting the slightly delayed hit messages from the server.
Lag does not affect your shooting at the bandit or your collisions with the bandit.
FLS, that may be, my experience contradicts this. When I was on Verizon fiberoptic, I cannot recall a collision take place that I did not see or understand. So I think lag has something to do with it, unless you can offer a better explanation.
To illustrate. If I look three plane lengths behind where I think I am and a guy still lands hits on me, how is that different from flying through the space where he thinks I am and I actually am?
-
cheater :lol Should we make this a 1 vs 1 in fighters best out of 7? :devil
No , your statement was that you can make a pass in game and make a bomber collide with you 50% of the time.
Hence the rules would be you make a dive pass at me and you make my buff have a collision at lease 50% of the passes.
Also:
Since multiple people have given you very valid reasons why collisions are better in game then no collisions, are you forever done stating that no one gives you reasons why collisions are needed?
HiTech
-
FLS, that may be, my experience contradicts this. When I was on Verizon fiberoptic, I cannot recall a collision take place that I did not see or understand. So I think lag has something to do with it, unless you can offer a better explanation.
To illustrate. If I look three plane lengths behind where I think I am and a guy still lands hits on me, how is that different from flying through the space where he thinks I am and I actually am?
Gunnery is not calculated on the shootee's FE, it's calculated on the shooter's FE. What you see when other people are shooting is not exactly what they're seeing on their FE. What you see when someone shoots at you doesn't affect what's counted, because if the bullets hit on their FE, you take damage, regardless of what you see.
Collisions, however, are calculated on both peoples' FE. So if your plane is 3 plane lengths behind you on his FE, and he flies into that plane, he takes damage. From your FE, you will see him pass 3 plane lengths behind you and take damage, while you will not take damage, because he was 3 plane lengths back on your FE.
Wiley.
-
FLS, that may be, my experience contradicts this. When I was on Verizon fiberoptic, I cannot recall a collision take place that I did not see or understand. So I think lag has something to do with it, unless you can offer a better explanation.
To illustrate. If I look three plane lengths behind where I think I am and a guy still lands hits on me, how is that different from flying through the space where he thinks I am and I actually am?
It's not your experience that contradicts what I said, it's your understanding of your experience. It's confusing for a lot of people. I still forget to add angles for lag when watching my 6.
-
No , your statement was that you can make a pass in game and make a bomber collide with you 50% of the time.
Hence the rules would be you make a dive pass at me and you make my buff have a collision at lease 50% of the passes.
Also:
Since multiple people have given you very valid reasons why collisions are better in game then no collisions, are you forever done stating that no one gives you reasons why collisions are needed?
HiTech
:lol I told one guy to try it with me in the DA, not you. I can do it in the game but I really don;t remember any buff twisting and turning to avoid me flying in front of their nose. As for shooting at me it proves nothing other than you can shoot. If you are in B26s you are not shooting at me under your belly nor are you shooting at me if you are busy shooting at others. Are we testing my collision theory or your gunning? If you want to customize the test to get the desired results I am afraid you will have to find someone else to try it with.
If by reasons you mean "because it needs to be there" or "because when two plains collide they should take damage" then, not really. I asked for what is the benefit to the game play of having a game ending future, and also gave examples of other realism futures we do not have in order to have a playable game.
What is the big deal anyway? Some of us don;t like to have collisions on. These threads grow because everyone jumps in to explain how they think collisions work and how we don;t understand it, while in reality it is about like it or not like it. Even our conversation would have been done instantly if you stated a single reason instead of issuing challenges. So, in my opinion, I have not seen any good reasons yet (unless I missed a post). Your opinion may be different on that.
-
In every instance where I collided with a plane in which I closed on it's six, I saw my plane hit the other plane.....my fault entirely.
Some HO's were sketchy but I always break before contact and have a relatively high ping which would explain getting collision when I didn't see it.
I should just break earlier.
The only time's I've gotten the message without seeing contact is when I was in a ground vehicle or landed airplane that somebody dove into.........yet flew off undamaged.
I only have issues with someone hitting a vehicle on the ground, colliding, being gifted the kill, and flying away undamaged.
I was wondering if the sim could assign any grounded vehicle the ability to damage whatever plane hit them............maybe as if said plane hit a tree.
There really isn't any historical evidence of any plane striking a vehicle on the ground and continuing on undamaged.
-
itt: dedalos backs down
man up or you'll have even less credibility than Tyrannis :)
-
itt: dedalos backs down
Right, like that could ever happen. :lol
-
So, in my opinion, I have not seen any good reasons yet (unless I missed a post).
you seem to have missed several.
These threads grow because everyone jumps in to explain how they think collisions work
it's not that i think i know how it works, i know exactly how it works. where in this thread have you showed any good reason for the collisions to not be in the game? oh yeah, you said you didn't like them. well, that sucks.
itt: dedalos backs down
Right, like that could ever happen. :lol
is that why you continue to ask a question that has been answered to death?? the only alternative would be to do away with collisions altogether, and it's been stated several times why it's not a good idea, and for several reasons. i'm not going to go back and quote all of them for you. if you want to read them, they are contained in this very thread. (and probably several others) this is becoming redundant.
-
you seem to have missed several.
it's not that i think i know how it works, i know exactly how it works. where in this thread have you showed any good reason for the collisions to not be in the game? oh yeah, you said you didn't like them. well, that sucks.
is that why you continue to ask a question that has been answered to death?? the only alternative would be to do away with collisions altogether, and it's been stated several times why it's not a good idea, and for several reasons. i'm not going to go back and quote all of them for you. if you want to read them, they are contained in this very thread. (and probably several others) this is becoming redundant.
First of all, the "think they know" was directed at you personally, although it includes you.
Second, just another no answer post. I am pretty sure you have not stated a reason other than "needs to be there" or "planes that collide should take damage". But what does it do for the game? If I missed a reason I apologize, but you missed my reason. It is not because I don;t like it, but it leads to me not liking it. My reason is that it ends a fight that takes a long time to find, and yes, turning them off is what I would prefer.
Third, why is everyone so upset about it? So what if it has been talked about in the past? Did I miss a rule about only talking about subjects one time? I am sure we have talked about everything at list one time already so maybe no more posts in this BBS? If you want to talk about it you are welcome to, if not, why are you wasting your time in this thread?
-
The best worded example of why they need to be here:
If the "collision" were to be removed from the game, dog fighting as we know it will no longer exist.
Angle fighting is what it is because of the threat of a collision. Who can get the best angle(s) on their opponent without collision and without getting shot usually equates to a win. Take out the collision and I don't care what angle you throw at me, I can probably get a better angle or counter your angle by simply flying thru you ... now that sucks.
Wiley.
-
The best worded example of why they need to be here:
Wiley.
Good answer, thnx
-
What is the big deal anyway? Some of us don;t like to have collisions on. These threads grow because everyone jumps in to explain how they think collisions work and how we don;t understand it, while in reality it is about like it or not like it.
if you look back at these threads its clear that almost all of the OPs dont understand how the dual FE collision model works. or even that collision damage effects the impact point, not the whole plane, and that the damage varies - "it said we both collided but the other guy just flew off and I died!".
when you get over understanding the model you realise there are 3 choices:
1. both take damage when a collision occurs on either FE. this is not fair.
2. neither take damage. this radically alters ACM options in a totally unrealistic and undesirable way.
3. the current model. which avoids both 1 and 3 above.*
* its true that 3 leaves the possibility of people exploiting the lag in the way you described, but really, if you can maneuver a fighter that accurately at high speed, you should have no problem shooting the other guy down anyway using your guns. this is probably why I cant ever recall losing a buff to this exploit.
-
Quite a while because Hitech didn't take our grievance seriously for at least half a year.
I record all my fights but I dont save them all. i know i have many films with collisions that happened from behind but i dont feel like going thru them. I'll start getting that data. perhaps I am misunderstanding but that is to prove to hitech that collisions from behind are not nearly impossible as he stated earlier but happen quite often and normally one plane will fly away with little to no damage when system reports that a collusion occurred at both ends.
semp
-
I am pretty sure you have not stated a reason other than "needs to be there" or "planes that collide should take damage".
how much more reasoning do you need? it is as important to the game as the virtual bullets we fire. perhaps we should do away with the damage caused by bullets colliding with our airplanes as well.
Second, just another no answer post. I am pretty sure you have not stated a reason other than "needs to be there" or "planes that collide should take damage". But what does it do for the game? If I missed a reason I apologize, but you missed my reason.
ok. all i have posted are reasons. if i missed your reasoning, perhaps you would elaborate? as far as "what does it do for the game?" it's not about pure realism or bust, and i realize that, but it is about being as realistic as possible while still being playable yet challenging to anyone from the 2 weekers to the guys who have been flying 6-7-8 years. i can't imagine a flight simulation without collision modelling. i understand making concessions in the name of playability, but IMO sacrificing collisions would be unjustifiable. what next, after that? i really hate it when my plane compresses, but hey, it happens. should we get rid of compression? of course not. if i dont want that to happen, i wont fly a p38 straight down from 20k. same with collisions. i really hate colliding. so i try not to collide. that works for me, as i'm sure it works just as well for countless others.
Third, why is everyone so upset about it? So what if it has been talked about in the past? Did I miss a rule about only talking about subjects one time? I am sure we have talked about everything at list one time already so maybe no more posts in this BBS? If you want to talk about it you are welcome to, if not, why are you wasting your time in this thread?
rest assured, i am far from upset about it :lol i live for debate. if i feel i am right about something, which i do 100% in this case, then ill argue it until the point has been driven home. i do not think this thread is a waste of time, i'm actually rather enjoying it. isn't that why we're all here, after all?
-
if i feel i am right about something, which i do 100% in this case, then ill argue it until the point has been driven home. i do not think this thread is a waste of time, i'm actually rather enjoying it. isn't that why we're all here, after all?
:headscratch: How is this possible when we all know I am right 100% of the time? :confused:
-
:headscratch: How is this possible when we all know I am right 100% of the time? :confused:
Pfft. Only if you agree with me. :p
Wiley.
-
* its true that 3 leaves the possibility of people exploiting the lag in the way you described, but really, if you can maneuver a fighter that accurately at high speed, you should have no problem shooting the other guy down anyway using your guns. this is probably why I cant ever recall losing a buff to this exploit.
Yeah, it is not even about that. I brought it up as an example of what I don't like about it. As for the reasons you gave, and I think they kind of match what Slap said, I think that as long as the HO shot threat is present, people will try to avoid those situations. I also think or should I say in my experience, most collisions I had that I took damage were not intentional or because we were careless during a fight. They happened when a third party dives in, misses and passes really close. In that case, two fights end for no reason (in my opinion).
-
Pfft. Only if you agree with me. :p
Wiley.
Would that make you 99.99999% right? In that case we are in agreement
-
Would that make you 99.99999% right? In that case we are in agreement
Ah, close enough. ;)
Wiley.
-
To reiterate.
1. Dedalos backs down from claim that he can collide with a bomber at will, about 50% of the time.
2. He admits people have given reasons why collisions are in the game.
3. Since he has been corned he now try to resort to diverting attention by try to joke he is right 100% of the time.
In conclusion Dedalos is making stuff up to support his desire for removal of collisions.
HiTech
-
i dont think Dedalos even plays the game right now, if so why does it matter to him.
-
3. Since he has been corned ...
Remind me to never make stuff up to support a desire for a game change, and challenge Hitech about it.
I have no desire to be corned... :noid
-
I'm all for what makes my air combat flight sim experience more enjoyable.
Pretty explosions, parts flying off, trailing smoke, guy pissing me off, me pissing other guy off by out flying/outshooting eachother. All enjoyable.
Whats not enjoyable? Robot gunners, proximity 5" for all years of the war, strats that dont do anything, and collisions. All pretty much end a flight and/or waste your time. Again Ill say Ive done prop to prop collisions and had very odd results, when each pilot saw themselves hitting prop to prop. Its the inconsistancy of it that bothers me.
That and if you jerk your stick up at the last second, its like the enemy doesnt see that you "moved" and thinks its still coming at him causing him to collide and you are ok.
Did this one night in a Snapshot outnumbered in a P47 like 7 -1. Killed them all with pure collision, I was unscathed. If nothing else...the want for realism, the inconsistancy of damage, that..the ability to game the heck of it should be enough reason to ask why do we need collision?
-
See rule #4
-
I'm all for what makes my air combat flight sim experience more enjoyable.
Pretty explosions, parts flying off, trailing smoke, guy pissing me off, me pissing other guy off by out flying/outshooting eachother. All enjoyable.
Whats not enjoyable? Robot gunners, proximity 5" for all years of the war, strats that dont do anything, and collisions. All pretty much end a flight and/or waste your time. Again Ill say Ive done prop to prop collisions and had very odd results, when each pilot saw themselves hitting prop to prop. Its the inconsistancy of it that bothers me.
That and if you jerk your stick up at the last second, its like the enemy doesnt see that you "moved" and thinks its still coming at him causing him to collide and you are ok.
Did this one night in a Snapshot outnumbered in a P47 like 7 -1. Killed them all with pure collision, I was unscathed. If nothing else...the want for realism, the inconsistancy of damage, that..the ability to game the heck of it should be enough reason to ask why do we need collision?
Careful, hemay corner you and then back down :lol
-
just to clarify :D the original wording of the claim and response - but who backed down!?! decide for yourself
The pull up at the last second is not made up stuff. Get in a set of buffs and lest go in the DA and try it. I will make you collide about 50% of the time.
Ill take that bet for $100.
HiTech
I'll take the bet or we can just try it for a bottle of whiskey (wont hurt as much if I lose lol), but you will be playing over an internet connection and we some how will have to verify the ping times. Given your explanation of how it works, do you honestly think i can;t cause your buffs to collide by flying across their nose really fast or do you hope I wont be able to time it right (may happen since I've been gone for a while)?
Win or lose, I won;t be able to understand why it is needed or like that it is there. Don't you think it is funny that no one so far has given a reason on why we need it? It is all about how it works :lol
You do realize I will be shooting and avoiding you?
HiTech
your statement was that you can make a pass in game and make a bomber collide with you 50% of the time.
Hence the rules would be you make a dive pass at me and you make my buff have a collision at lease 50% of the passes.
:lol I told one guy to try it with me in the DA, not you. I can do it in the game but I really don;t remember any buff twisting and turning to avoid me flying in front of their nose. As for shooting at me it proves nothing other than you can shoot. If you are in B26s you are not shooting at me under your belly nor are you shooting at me if you are busy shooting at others. Are we testing my collision theory or your gunning? If you want to customize the test to get the desired results I am afraid you will have to find someone else to try it with.
dedalos claims victory :aok :salute
Careful, he may corner you and then back down :lol
-
Get in a set of buffs and lest go in the DA and try it. I will make you collide about 50% of the time.
No where is there a qualifier in this statement that the bombers should fly different then people would in the main arena.
So I will be happy to do the challenge if I may fly like I would in the main arena. But if you demand I fly straight and level with out shooting, and you say you can collide, I say well DUHHHH of coarse thats possibly.
HiTech
-
No where is there a qualifier in this statement that the bombers should fly different then people would in the main arena.
So I will be happy to do the challenge if I may fly like I would in the main arena. But if you demand I fly straight and level with out shooting, and you say you can collide, I say well DUHHHH of coarse thats possibly.
HiTech
Hitech, to be fair, bombers will fly straight and level in the MA as well so they can shoot the incoming fighter. If Dedalos is going to try to collide your bombers though, that means he is going to be flying very close. Shouldn't be too hard to autopilot and blast him with your guns. There is no advantage in trying to ram bombers unless your intent is to get killed.
-
No where is there a qualifier in this statement that the bombers should fly different then people would in the main arena.
So I will be happy to do the challenge if I may fly like I would in the main arena. But if you demand I fly straight and level with out shooting, and you say you can collide, I say well DUHHHH of coarse thats possibly.
HiTech
Thank you, that was the whole point of this, that it is possible, and I will agree that 50% is an exaggeration but it was made to make a point. That is also why I said lets try it in the DA. More control of the variables. The goal is to see if I can force a collision not to see if the gunner can take me down (I think we know that bullets kill, unless you feel that needs testing also) and in all honesty, unless I am dog fighting a B26, buffs in the MA are not avoiding (yes, they fly straight and level and it is better to attack when they are shooting someone else). They just wait in their guns.
I discovered this by accident making passes on 999 a while back. I was so scared of him that I would come in so fast and from the side, I could not control the plane very well and ended up passing right in front of his nose. I any case, I never claimed that people are using this on me or anything like that.
So, yeah, nowhere in the qualifier was it mentioned that the buffs are not shooting and not avoiding, but I would think one could assume that, given the goal and the fact that the challenge was issued to a friend trying to show something.
Then again, I could have just posted that I just won and you backed down because you got cornered and make up some stuff about you backing down (since you admit it is possible unless you are trying to avoid) or that you admit that some people did post reasons for removing collisions. Isn't this how we solve things here? Personal attacks, twisting posts, and try to speak louder than the other guy? :aok
-
Thank you, that was the whole point of this, that it is possible, and I will agree that 50% is an exaggeration but it was made to make a point. That is also why I said lets try it in the DA. More control of the variables. The goal is to see if I can force a collision not to see if the gunner can take me down (I think we know that bullets kill, unless you feel that needs testing also) and in all honesty, unless I am dog fighting a B26, buffs in the MA are not avoiding (yes, they fly straight and level and it is better to attack when they are shooting someone else). They just wait in their guns.
I discovered this by accident making passes on 999 a while back. I was so scared of him that I would come in so fast and from the side, I could not control the plane very well and ended up passing right in front of his nose. I any case, I never claimed that people are using this on me or anything like that.
So, yeah, nowhere in the qualifier was it mentioned that the buffs are not shooting and not avoiding, but I would think one could assume that, given the goal and the fact that the challenge was issued to a friend trying to show something.
Then again, I could have just posted that I just won and you backed down because you got cornered and make up some stuff about you backing down (since you admit it is possible unless you are trying to avoid) or that you admit that some people did post reasons for removing collisions. Isn't this how we solve things here? Personal attacks, twisting posts, and try to speak louder than the other guy? :aok
Let me get this straight,. You state that you can collide at will as a reason that there is a problem with collision code? (hence implying it can be used in the main arena as a offensive weapon) and now it becomes qualified to if a friend flies straight and level with out shooting and lets me maneuver at will so I can position my plane ahead of him and collide with him. And even farther qualified that you exaggerated the 50%.
And now you state it is I that am backing down?
So since you have now qualified it to only straight and level with out shooting, I would assume you would agree that the idea that you can collide at will given your qualifiers, really has no effect in the main arena?
And for sake of argument, if you could fly that precisely, wouldn't it just be easier to shoot the bomber?
So tell me how can this be used as a weapon in any way in the main arena.
P.S. Since you have now stopped that no one has posted reasons of why we should have collision, I assume you agree there are valid reasons for having planes collide, even though you still don't like it?
HiTech
-
Let me get this straight,. You state that you can collide at will as a reason that there is a problem with collision code?
I am pretty sure if you do a search or read my posts, will find no evidence of me saying anything like that.
(hence implying it can be used in the main arena as a offensive weapon) and now it becomes qualified to if a friend flies straight and level with out shooting and lets me maneuver at will so I can position my plane ahead of him and collide with him. And even farther qualified that you exaggerated the 50%.
Never implied that either although I will imply it now if it makes you feel better. Yes it could, but it would be easier to shoot the buff as you said, unless you just want to annoy people or are out of ammo. What I did say, is that it could be gamed. I never said or implied that there is a problem with the code. If you remember, I said it does not even matter how it works. It is the fact that it is there that I don;t like. And the reason is that it can end a fight most of the time not due to a mistake the guys involved in it made, but due to a bad pick attempt.
So, I did offer a friend to go to the DA and show him what I meant and how it could be done. He might have proved me wrong, too. I have no clue where you came from, assuming you knew what the set up was going to be and all the rest.
And now you state it is I that am backing down?
No, I said I could say that. You know, like you did with me. Instead of talking about it, you came after me. So I said I could play the same game.
So since you have now qualified it to only straight and level with out shooting, I would assume you would agree that the idea that you can collide at will given your qualifiers, really has no effect in the main arena?
Yes, or a very small one. However, it does have an effect when guys are buzzing your fight. Not intentionally causing a collision, but causing one never the less. And that is what I wanted to show him. I also wanted to show the guys that keep explaining how the collisions work that not only you can collide due to no fault of yours (meaning you cant avoid it) but you can also intentionally cause one.
And for sake of argument, if you could fly that precisely, wouldn't it just be easier to shoot the bomber?
No argument there. It is. Read above.
P.S. Since you have now stopped that no one has posted reasons of why we should have collision, I assume you agree there are valid reasons for having planes collide, even though you still don't like it?
HiTech
Yes, after 20 something pages some people did post reasons. It does not matter if agree with them or not. At list they did post reasons instead of the normal attacks and explaining how the code works. So, what does that prove? That after I said no one has posted reasons some people did post? Or that I might have missed a couple of posts? I mean really, what is your point with this one?
So, I don't understand what you are so upset about or why people get upset about this subject. Why can;t we talk about pros and cons of having it (between us) instead of how it works? I thought this was a place to talk about things like this, no? People that don;t want to be involved in the conversation can always not read the thread instead of coming in to tell us that it has been talked about before, no?
I m tired of this and I think in the 10 years here, I have learned that we are not going to get anywhere by continuing this, so here is my offer. If you still don;t understand what I was trying to say and show, to who ever I told to meed in the DA, continuing this conversation is pointless. Lets just say I backed down and run away. If however you think that I could not cause a collision by flying in front a set of buffs that are not twisting and turning (which was the idea before you jumped in) then lets try it.
-
pass me the pop corn this is getting interesting
-
Yes, or a very small one. However, it does have an effect when guys are buzzing your fight. Not intentionally causing a collision, but causing one never the less. And that is what I wanted to show him. I also wanted to show the guys that keep explaining how the collisions work that not only you can collide due to no fault of yours (meaning you cant avoid it)
..........
but you can also intentionally cause one.No argument there. It is. Read above.
The last piece of this statement is the big issue I have, Saying you can intentionally cause a collision is in accurate when you need the help of the other guy (I.E. flying straight and level) . The real statement is that 2 people can intentionally make one of the guys collide.
The way you make this statement you are trying to portray the idea that people intentionally cause collisions in the main arena where the other guy dies. And hence are not adding facts or reality to the discussion but rather just using false statement to forward you desire not to have collisions modeled.
You are entitled to your opinion ( you do not like collisions), but you are not entitled to false facts (A person can intentionally miss use the collision system by having the other guy collide and him not).
The fact is , someone can not intentionally cause a collision as a tactic to use to his advantage in the main arena.
And this is the fact that I would be happy to prove to you by testing.
HiTech
-
The fact is , someone can not intentionally cause a collision as a tactic to use to his advantage in the main arena.
And this is the fact that I would be happy to prove to you by testing.
HiTech
Just because you said this, and it's going to get quoted and repeated ad nauseum at some point, I think that statement should contain the word "consistently". You absolutely can force a collision, although I do agree that it's extremely difficult, requires a number of factors in your favor, and it's only really good as a defensive measure. If someone is capable of timing the merge/near-miss and flying with any sort of precision, they could just as easily shoot you down with less risk of causing a collision on their FE.
-
Hence why I choose the words "tactic " and "advantage".
HiTech
-
Fair enough, I just thought it was a little ambiguous as typed.
-
The last piece of this statement is the big issue I have, Saying you can intentionally cause a collision is in accurate when you need the help of the other guy (I.E. flying straight and level) . The real statement is that 2 people can intentionally make one of the guys collide.
OK, I don;t know if this a language issue on my part or what. I can definitely cause a collision with out the help of the other guy. Will it be easy in the MA? no. Could I die in the process? sure. But I could cause one.
I definitely need the other guys help in order to produce a high percentage occurrence for demonstration purposes. This is why I chose buffs in the DA. The only help there would be that I wont have to worry about fighters, looking for buffs, and of coarse the gunners. Buffs fly straight in the MA also so I don;t see what cooperation I get from the other guy there . The intent was to prove it was possible and not what you read into it. Sorry I can't make you understand what I am trying to say.
-
Dedalos, I know how the system works, I know how a collision can be caused in controlled circumstance. I also know that it is completely irrelevant to game play. But the fact that you COULD cause one is not really the issue.
Do you really think that people flying around trying to cause a collision is a problem in the main arena?
Also discussing the pros and cons, is an impossibility with some one until they understand how the system works.
I am one of the few people who flown all available options regarding collisions with 1 acceptation (no collision, 1 person collides both damaged, 1 person collides no damage, 1 person collides the other one damaged, and also damage only if both collide) I havn't done the 1 person collides only other takes damage)
And if you havn't flown with no collisions and found out how flying threw people completely changes the fight, then it is hard to describe.
1. Bomber attacks are high attacks flying directly threw the bomber.
2. Head on guns blazing fly threw become the norm.
HiTech
-
Just because you said this, and it's going to get quoted and repeated ad nauseum at some point, I think that statement should contain the word "consistently". You absolutely can force a collision, although I do agree that it's extremely difficult, requires a number of factors in your favor, and it's only really good as a defensive measure. If someone is capable of timing the merge/near-miss and flying with any sort of precision, they could just as easily shoot you down with less risk of causing a collision on their FE.
As long as we're nit picking for the sake of clarity. If you can't do it consistently then you can't force a collision. You can try to force a collision and occasionally succeed but that isn't the same thing.
-
Dedalos, I know how the system works, I know how a collision can be caused in controlled circumstance. I also know that it is completely irrelevant to game play. But the fact that you COULD cause one is not really the issue.
I totally agree. It is not the issue, but some how we made it the issue here. All I said is that it could be done and offered to demo for some one. All down hill after that lol.
Do you really think that people flying around trying to cause a collision is a problem in the main arena?
Not at all. I think I made it clear that most of my collisions are a result of someone missing a pick. So, not intentionally, but I have been saying this all along, no?
Also discussing the pros and cons, is an impossibility with some one until they understand how the system works.
I m, curious why you think that. One either likes having collisions or not. Why do the workings of it make a difference?
I am one of the few people who flown all available options regarding collisions with 1 acceptation (no collision, 1 person collides both damaged, 1 person collides no damage, 1 person collides the other one damaged, and also damage only if both collide) I havn't done the 1 person collides only other takes damage)
And if you havn't flown with no collisions and found out how flying threw people completely changes the fight, then it is hard to describe.
I think I understand that part. I definitely play for the fight so having people fly through me guns blazing would not be a good thing. I have considered that but from what I have experienced in the MA, the ones that hold the trigger down from 1K out are not really afraid of the collision and the ones that don;t would not fly through me anyway.
It is however a very good reason to have it on, if I am wrong about the behavior I described above.
<S>
Going for dinner lol
-
To reiterate.
1. Dedalos backs down from claim that he can collide with a bomber at will, about 50% of the time.
2. He admits people have given reasons why collisions are in the game.
3. Since he has been corned he now try to resort to diverting attention by try to joke he is right 100% of the time.
In conclusion Dedalos is making stuff up to support his desire for removal of collisions.
HiTech
How come he gets to troll? It just ain't fair, I tells yas. :cry
-
Fair enough, I just thought it was a little ambiguous as typed.
I was just happy he gets the spelling right
-
I just noticed HT isn't even a Radioactive BBs member. What can he possibly know? Where's Krusty? :D
-
I dove in on a low A20, which was hunting for GVs, in my p47 from about 12k. I started to compress as I pulled lead and could not avoid the collision. I flew straight through the middle of the A20's full broadside. I thought for sure I was a gonner.
But nope. I landed my kills at the nearest CV with a screen full of red. :neener:
Fun times.
Most ridiculous sortie ever.
Messiah :angel:
-
I am one of the few people who flown all available options regarding collisions with 1 acceptation (no collision, 1 person collides both damaged, 1 person collides no damage, 1 person collides the other one damaged, and also damage only if both collide) I havn't done the 1 person collides only other takes damage)
And if you havn't flown with no collisions and found out how flying threw people completely changes the fight, then it is hard to describe.
1. Bomber attacks are high attacks flying directly threw the bomber.
2. Head on guns blazing fly threw become the norm.
HiTech
If people think the HO attack is a bad now, wait until there is no threat of a collision.
The collision model may not be ideal, but it is a "roll the dice" situation. Everyone is going to win some/lose some.
-
A little vid;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B8BuQHMyPc
Just some food for thought.
Don't forget to check out 'Gustav Gets' :D
-
The collision model may not be ideal, but it is a "roll the dice" situation. Everyone is going to win some/lose some.
Hardly a "roll the dice". If anything, a "won the powerball".
-
A little vid;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B8BuQHMyPc
Just some food for thought.
Don't forget to check out 'Gustav Gets' :D
yes that WAS a collision. The parts of the wing flew back and hit you. You can't see that? :headscratch:
-
Dedalos, I know how the system works, I know how a collision can be caused in controlled circumstance. I also know that it is completely irrelevant to game play. But the fact that you COULD cause one is not really the issue.
Do you really think that people flying around trying to cause a collision is a problem in the main arena?
Also discussing the pros and cons, is an impossibility with some one until they understand how the system works.
I am one of the few people who flown all available options regarding collisions with 1 acceptation (no collision, 1 person collides both damaged, 1 person collides no damage, 1 person collides the other one damaged, and also damage only if both collide) I havn't done the 1 person collides only other takes damage)
And if you havn't flown with no collisions and found out how flying threw people completely changes the fight, then it is hard to describe.
1. Bomber attacks are high attacks flying directly threw the bomber.
2. Head on guns blazing fly threw become the norm.
HiTech
some people will just never be happy no matter which model you use.
"coad" is one thing, but FFS please at least use the spell checker included by you in the forum. you make my head hurt. :D
-
A little vid;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B8BuQHMyPc
Just some food for thought.
Hmp. Interesting. If you look at the angle starting at 1:16, you can see an engine cowling shape floating just off the end of the broken wing. Maybe there's some kind of invisible polygon out there that shouldn't be when the wing breaks in that way?
Wiley.
-
A little vid;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B8BuQHMyPc
Just some food for thought.
Don't forget to check out 'Gustav Gets' :D
I know this is going to sound crazy but......
HE SHOT YOU DOWN... with bullets... from his guns.
And then, HE collided with YOU.
So, in conclusion, no, the 110 did not collide with anything but bullets.
If this were a "both take damage" situation the 110, which obviously did not collide, would have blown up anyway.
wrongway
-
Maybe there's some kind of invisible polygon out there that shouldn't be when the wing breaks in that way?
Wiley.
That's what i was thinking to, i don't know how to ask this next question but let me try... is the wing drawn to its exact shape as a polygon or is it a rectangle shaped polygon with the wing outlined and filled in and the rest of the rectangle polygon is clear and can't be seen, does this question make sense? it's hard to type what I'm meaning i think
In other words he hit the clear part of the polygon not the filled in rendered wing part, understand what i mean? ugh i now have a headache lol
-
Well, from what I know and have seen of 3D modeling, the actual polygons that are what the hit calculations etc are based on are independent of the skin. They should match up but with an irregular thing like a broken wingroot I don't know how close to what is displayed it would be.
The floating engine outline would seem to me to possibly indicate a part that stays with the plane that shouldn't.
The other possibility that occurs to me is if the recorder might have a teeny bit of lag compared to what happens in real time in gameplay. A pass that close, being out of sync by a couple hundredths of a second could be the difference between no hit and hit.
Or, perhaps the zones that count for hits are just slightly larger than the planes themselves. I thought I read somewhere they don't use 'hitboxes' like they did in the Other Sim though, so that shouldn't apply.
In any case, a couple of feet is pretty good fidelity for collision modeling when you're talking about closing speeds in the hundreds of mph.
I can hardly wait for the 'ZOMG I saw a video on youtube showing a plane miss a bomber and register a collision! The collision model is useless and shouldn't count against me!' comments to begin.
Wiley.
-
Someone from HTC correct me if I'm wrong...
When you "hit" parts no longer attached to the plane with the other guy in it - in this case the wing/engine/etc. - you only hear the thump of hitting it but take no damage. The only way to take damage is to hit something of the plane still attached to the other guy. Because drones are technically attached to the other guy, you would take collision damage from hitting them too.
Since we can't see the actual text buffer in the video, we have no evidence that there were both collision messages to indicate that he collided with you and you collided with him.
Anyway, I guess the lesson learned is to not fly so close to an enemy plane.
-
HE SHOT YOU DOWN... with bullets... from his guns.
And then, HE collided with YOU.
So, in conclusion, no, the 110 did not collide with anything but bullets.
If this were a "both take damage" situation the 110, which obviously did not collide, would have blown up anyway.
In that vid my poor old 110 suffered the collision. In the game it said it was a collision and that I collided with the guy. I'm pretty sure that the B17 killed me via bullets anyhow, but the fact is, while I was sat in the Tower, the games text buffer called me out for colliding, when I had not. I'd like to mention the collision sound was made also just prior to the tower.
-
Dolby there is no collision in your video. If you want to claim otherwise post the AH film with the collision message.
-
It been sent to HiTech at his request :)
I sat in the Tower in game and had a hissy fit this morning on 200 over it calling me out for colliding
-
That video looks like a general collision bug (not just plane to plane but any type of line/polygon intersections) I fixed (but has not been released) about 1 month back.
It has to do with one of math region cases when computing intersection a line segment and a triangle.
It most notably was discovered by driving a 262 out of a hangar and it would blow up.
There should never be a case where you sufferer a collision and your plane does not hit the other plane.
And parts coming of a plane do not cause damage.
HiTech
-
:salute HiTech
-
That video looks like a general collision bug (not just plane to plane but any type of line/polygon intersections) I fixed (but has not been released) about 1 month back.
It has to do with one of math region cases when computing intersection a line segment and a triangle.
It most notably was discovered by driving a 262 out of a hangar and it would blow up.
There should never be a case where you sufferer a collision and your plane does not hit the other plane.
And parts coming of a plane do not cause damage.
HiTech
That probably explains why I collided with nothing once when I was about to fly through a hanger. I couldn't reproduce it so I didn't post it.
It been sent to HiTech at his request :)
I sat in the Tower in game and had a hissy fit this morning on 200 over it calling me out for colliding
That's understandable, it just wasn't clear from your video.
-
I prefer colliding into stuff..... pfft colliding into line segments and triangles..... Aliens I tell you ALIENS..........