Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Nitrous on April 01, 2012, 10:38:34 PM
-
I would love to see a more true to life model of what a real air to air collision would cause. That is, instead of one plane going down, that both planes go down. This would be a more equal, truer and a much more fair representation of what a real life air to air collision would cause. It is not right for any one player to have the upperhand under this circumstance. You collied you both die! :salute and tired of :bhead
-
As soon as Hitech can find a way to eliminate internet lag, I agree this would be a great idea. Until then, what we have is the best collision system available.
-
nitrous might as well post a thread about which is better amd or intel. you will get less hassle for it. lots of us totally agree with you. but that aint gonna happen so leave it alone. this is one of those things that arent good to post. :salute
semp
-
I would love to see a more true to life model of what a real air to air collision would cause. That is, instead of one plane going down, that both planes go down. This would be a more equal, truer and a much more fair representation of what a real life air to air collision would cause. It is not right for any one player to have the upperhand under this circumstance. You collied you both die! :salute and tired of :bhead
There have been plenty of mid air collisions where one aircraft would be completely destroyed and one would safely land back at base.
Sure we can use some more realistic collisions in AH but it's nowhere near as bad as you make it sound.
-
nitrous might as well post a thread about which is better amd or intel. you will get less hassle for it. lots of us totally agree with you. but that aint gonna happen so leave it alone. this is one of those things that arent good to post. :salute
semp
The main issue with both people going down from a one sided collision is that one person may see his opponent fly past him safely like 50 yards away and his wing rips off because his laggy opponent collided on his end. There is no way this is more desirable than "what you see is what you get" model.
-
The main issue with both people going down from a one sided collision is that one person may see his opponent fly past him safely like 50 yards away and his wing rips off because his laggy opponent collided on his end. There is no way this is more desirable than "what you see is what you get" model.
then explain how I can see a con having no gun solution on me as I am avoiding and yet I end up in the tower dead. on my end I clearly can see that his guns werent even aiming in my direction. to me this is a contradiction of the explanation of the collision model but anyway this has been discussed to death. I understand why hitech coaded both things different but I dont really have to like it do I? :salute
semp
-
What we need is a button that indicates our choice to RAM when we press it and if we collide then ... it should do damage to both planes just like shooting and you see a hit where the other guy doesnt see a hit but takes damage.
Im against this by the way! :devil
-
I would love to see a more true to life model of what a real air to air collision would cause. That is, instead of one plane going down, that both planes go down. This would be a more equal, truer and a much more fair representation of what a real life air to air collision would cause. It is not right for any one player to have the upperhand under this circumstance. You collied you both die! :salute and tired of :bhead
Lt. Williams would disagree.
Lt. Russ Williams' P-51C, Suichuan 1945
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/asppg_Qo409613019.jpg)
Lt. Russ Williams became the last squadron Ace when he rammed a Japanese airplane over Canton. He flew 650 miles back to base.
-
then explain how I can see a con having no gun solution on me as I am avoiding and yet I end up in the tower dead. on my end I clearly can see that his guns werent even aiming in my direction. to me this is a contradiction of the explanation of the collision model but anyway this has been discussed to death. I understand why hitech coaded both things different but I dont really have to like it do I? :salute
semp
If he pulls the trigger on you, when he does have a gun solution according to his front end, then on your front end, regardless of where he is pointing, the rounds are going to come from his plane and hit yours.
It is the same issue with collisions. You first have to wrap your brain around the fact that EVERY computer playing the game, at any given time, has a slightly different representation of where everyone is in the game. Until you can get that, nothing anyone can say will make any sense.
The only contridiction exists for those who refuse to understand every computer has every person in a slightly different location in the Aces High world.
I think the worst representation of this, I have seen, was a film that showed a plane firing backwards from its location hitting the person rolling the film. There were some rants in that one. The person firing also sent his film in due to so many accusations of being a hacker/cheater. Turns out he was on a satellite connection where 2 to 3 seconds of latency are normal.
-
Turns out he was on a satellite connection where 2 to 3 seconds of latency are normal.
can you ban those guys ?
-
Sorry, but...(http://mail.yimg.com/ok/u/assets/img/emoticons/emo27.gif)
-
then explain how I can see a con having no gun solution on me as I am avoiding and yet I end up in the tower dead. on my end I clearly can see that his guns werent even aiming in my direction. to me this is a contradiction of the explanation of the collision model but anyway this has been discussed to death. I understand why hitech coaded both things different but I dont really have to like it do I? :salute
semp
It's only a contradiction if you are assuming you died from a collision that you did not see. If this were the case, an orange "you have collided" message would accompany you to the tower. If there is no message, then you were shot with his guns which is all a matter of what he sees, not what you see.
So to be clear:
Collision: All that matters is what you see.
Guns: All that matters is what the shooter sees.
-
can you ban those guys ?
There is no way to do this. At any given moment, anyones Internet connection can suffer dramatic swings in latency. It is the nature of the beast. As long as streaming video services are alive and well on the Internet then crazy swings in latencies will be the norm. That is just a simple fact.
Most players, with consistently bad latencies end up quitting anyway. They cannot stand the crazy things they have to deal with anymore than the guys on the other end. Only a few hang around because they have no other choice in connections.
-
to me this is a contradiction of the explanation of the collision model but anyway this has been discussed to death.
semp
I used to think of it as a contradiction as well, but look at it this way: If your gunnery didn't depend on what you see on your end like it does now, you would see nearly constant 'rubber bullet' effect. Which is more frustrating? Occasionally getting hit from a funny angle, or more often than not seeing tracers hit an enemy and not doing damage? I think the choice is clear, that what you see when you're shooting at someone should be what the game uses to calculate hits. I agree it's not perfect, but it's the better choice of the two. Avoiding gunnery is an approximation. Unfortunately that's how it will be until the global network improves significantly.
With collisions, you've got a chance to maneuver your plane to avoid the enemy aircraft. What you see should be what you get there as well, instead of having your plane take damage based on what other computers in the chain see.
The choices were made to consistently minimize (not eliminate) frustration in an imperfect world. There is no contradiction, IMO.
Wiley.
-
I used to think of it as a contradiction as well, but look at it this way: If your gunnery didn't depend on what you see on your end like it does now, you would see nearly constant 'rubber bullet' effect. Which is more frustrating? Occasionally getting hit from a funny angle, or more often than not seeing tracers hit an enemy and not doing damage? I think the choice is clear, that what you see when you're shooting at someone should be what the game uses to calculate hits. I agree it's not perfect, but it's the better choice of the two. Avoiding gunnery is an approximation. Unfortunately that's how it will be until the global network improves significantly.
With collisions, you've got a chance to maneuver your plane to avoid the enemy aircraft. What you see should be what you get there as well, instead of having your plane take damage based on what other computers in the chain see.
The choices were made to consistently minimize (not eliminate) frustration in an imperfect world. There is no contradiction, IMO.
Wiley.
Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner. This is exactly why we made the current choices for bullet and plane collisions.
HiTech
-
If he pulls the trigger on you, when he does have a gun solution according to his front end, then on your front end, regardless of where he is pointing, the rounds are going to come from his plane and hit yours.
It is the same issue with collisions. You first have to wrap your brain around the fact that EVERY computer playing the game, at any given time, has a slightly different representation of where everyone is in the game. Until you can get that, nothing anyone can say will make any sense.
The only contridiction exists for those who refuse to understand every computer has every person in a slightly different location in the Aces High world.
I think the worst representation of this, I have seen, was a film that showed a plane firing backwards from its location hitting the person rolling the film. There were some rants in that one. The person firing also sent his film in due to so many accusations of being a hacker/cheater. Turns out he was on a satellite connection where 2 to 3 seconds of latency are normal.
I totally understand it skuzzy. not trying to start a war. I understand why it's coded that way also, it has been explained to death. but it is one of those things even though i understand why it happens, how it happens, when it happens. I still dont have to like it.
and it's because of the times i have gotten into a really good battle and actually had gotten behind the guy's plane and when i am about to shoot, boom, i am in the tower. in looking at the film I see nobody else around and the guy is in front of me or in a place where he cant shoot me down. I understand how I died, I totally do in his end he had me in his sights. but on my end I didnt and that's why even though i understand it, I dont have to like it. and since I cant think of a better solution that what we have then that's life. :salute
semp
-
I totally understand it skuzzy. not trying to start a war. I understand why it's coded that way also, it has been explained to death. but it is one of those things even though i understand why it happens, how it happens, when it happens. I still dont have to like it.
and it's because of the times i have gotten into a really good battle and actually had gotten behind the guy's plane and when i am about to shoot, boom, i am in the tower. in looking at the film I see nobody else around and the guy is in front of me or in a place where he cant shoot me down. I understand how I died, I totally do in his end he had me in his sights. but on my end I didnt and that's why even though i understand it, I dont have to like it. and since I cant think of a better solution that what we have then that's life. :salute
semp
I can count on one hand the number of times I have been on someone's tail and then he has warped behind me.
To say you understand how it works, and that the way it is set up is the best way to do it, but then say that you "still do not like it" is silly. That's the equivalent of saying that you do not like gravity.
-
I can count on one hand the number of times I have been on someone's tail and then he has warped behind me.
To say you understand how it works, and that the way it is set up is the best way to do it, but then say that you "still do not like it" is silly. That's the equivalent of saying that you do not like gravity.
not the same comparison. i can say i dont like gravity because it makes me stay at the height of 5'7. doesnt mean i dont understand it. there's a big difference between like and understanding it. I totally understand my ex-wife when she talks to me, but I just dont like her.
semp
-
you get a text message when someone collides with you when you missed them.
as an exercise in "getting what you want" make sure to bail out every time you see this message even when you avoided them on your end.
-
not the same comparison. i can say i dont like gravity because it makes me stay at the height of 5'7. doesnt mean i dont understand it. there's a big difference between like and understanding it. I totally understand my ex-wife when she talks to me, but I just dont like her.
semp
:lol
-
Maybe adding in stalls and spins due to collisions? it seems to often that upon a frontal ramming or even from a lesser angle, both or the one surviving plane goes on flying straight (based on the amount of damage done) where as that much force being input at an angle other than directly into the center off mass, is going to induce some kind of spin.
-
Maybe adding in stalls and spins due to collisions? it seems to often that upon a frontal ramming or even from a lesser angle, both or the one surviving plane goes on flying straight (based on the amount of damage done) where as that much force being input at an angle other than directly into the center off mass, is going to induce some kind of spin.
Did you not read the thread? If he flies away undamaged he didnt have a colision on his end!
Do you think it's fair that your plane becomes uncontrollable when you fly by another A/C at say 100 ft?
For those who dont think it's right or fair,do as Fester suggests and bail out when you see the message.
You cant have it both ways. :rolleyes:
:salute
-
his original post said nothing about near misses, and i was referring to when an actual collision occurs and only takes off an outboard wing or tail segment, something that is not fatal upon impact.
-
If he pulls the trigger on you, when he does have a gun solution according to his front end, then on your front end, regardless of where he is pointing, the rounds are going to come from his plane and hit yours.
It is the same issue with collisions. You first have to wrap your brain around the fact that EVERY computer playing the game, at any given time, has a slightly different representation of where everyone is in the game. Until you can get that, nothing anyone can say will make any sense.
The only contridiction exists for those who refuse to understand every computer has every person in a slightly different location in the Aces High world.
I think the worst representation of this, I have seen, was a film that showed a plane firing backwards from its location hitting the person rolling the film. There were some rants in that one. The person firing also sent his film in due to so many accusations of being a hacker/cheater. Turns out he was on a satellite connection where 2 to 3 seconds of latency are normal.
the how dose battle field 3 do it?
-
Always fun when a guy comes form behind my 3/9 line and tears my plane to shreds from the collision I had no chance to avoid. Yet his plane flies away showing no collision. Any way to code a 1 second delay to confirm both FE see the collision? Most frustrating thing in game for me is having a midair with a plane I didn't actually hit. Maybe it's my connection but 80% of the time, when there is a "collision", I'll suffer damage where the other guy didn't see anything.
-
Thought this topic has already been beaten to death over and over again. Wish I had that smiley face that had a bat beating a horse.
-
the how dose battle field 3 do it?
I have no idea what this is in reference to. Is that another flight sim?
The problem with trying to compare games starts with this question: Client based, or Server based?
Of course, the obvious one is you cannot compare a first person shooter to a flight simulator. Vastly different in all aspects. That is like asking why a skateboard cannot perform like a Ferrari.
-
. That is like asking why a skateboard cannot perform like a Ferrari.
Skuzzy you should know if you throw enough money at it there's no reason why a skateboard cant preform like a ferrari! :rofl :rofl :rofl
:salute
-
the how dose battle field 3 do it?
10mph vs 600mph.
-
Skuzzy you should know if you throw enough money at it there's no reason why a skateboard cant preform like a ferrari! :rofl :rofl :rofl
:salute
(http://skateandannoy.com/aa-sna-uploads/2008/01/ferrari-top.jpg)
Sorry, mate. I'm into the current pricing for AHII.
-
the how dose battle field 3 do it?
BF3 has a hitbox that is shaped like a soldier, jet or whatever vehicle you're in. When a bullet hits the hitbox, the target takes damage.
When theres lag, the soldier, jet or whatever vehicle does not match up with the hitbox. Therefore, when you shoot at a lagger in Bf3, even though you see your bullets passing through the soldier, jet or vehicle, you are not doing any damage because the hitbox is a few spaces behind, in front or not there at all.
-
Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner. This is exactly why we made the current choices for bullet and plane collisions.
And the choices are reasonable ... However, I think the ongoing frustration caused by collisions modelling is readily apparent? The system in use makes LAG into a WEAPON ... that -IS- employed by experienced players who CHOOSE to exploit the GAMEY aspect of collision modeling. While I agree that the distant player, flying blissfully along and bothering no one should NOT suffer for collisions he's not even aware of ... I'd say 99.9% of all collisions take place between opponents involved in CLOSE COMBAT ... not innocents wondering "whatwasthat?" Closing the loophole that allows RAMMING (and surviving) as a viable (if GAMEY) tactic would make AH a LOT more realistic. BOTH partys going down in the event of a collision would undoubtedly diminish the number of collisions taking place dramatically.
:cool:
-
How does it make lag a weapon?
I think you 100% fail to understand how things work.
-
And the choices are reasonable ... However, I think the ongoing frustration caused by collisions modelling is readily apparent? The system in use makes LAG into a WEAPON ... that -IS- employed by experienced players who CHOOSE to exploit the GAMEY aspect of collision modeling. While I agree that the distant player, flying blissfully along and bothering no one should NOT suffer for collisions he's not even aware of ... I'd say 99.9% of all collisions take place between opponents involved in CLOSE COMBAT ... not innocents wondering "whatwasthat?" Closing the loophole that allows RAMMING (and surviving) as a viable (if GAMEY) tactic would make AH a LOT more realistic. BOTH partys going down in the event of a collision would undoubtedly diminish the number of collisions taking place dramatically.
:cool:
When both parties do collide, they both go down.
The current system gives you absolute control over your collisions. Your idea gives control over your collision to the other player. You just gave the other player the power to force a collision where you go down and there is nothing you can do to avoid it. How does that make it less frustrating?
By the way, it is not lag that is the issue. It is time displacement. The time it takes data to cover the distance between your computer, the server and the other players computer.
-
And the choices are reasonable ... However, I think the ongoing frustration caused by collisions modelling is readily apparent? The system in use makes LAG into a WEAPON ... that -IS- employed by experienced players who CHOOSE to exploit the GAMEY aspect of collision modeling. While I agree that the distant player, flying blissfully along and bothering no one should NOT suffer for collisions he's not even aware of ... I'd say 99.9% of all collisions take place between opponents involved in CLOSE COMBAT ... not innocents wondering "whatwasthat?" Closing the loophole that allows RAMMING (and surviving) as a viable (if GAMEY) tactic would make AH a LOT more realistic. BOTH partys going down in the event of a collision would undoubtedly diminish the number of collisions taking place dramatically.
:cool:
I think you should take some time to learn how the collision model works because it sounds like you really don't have a clue how it works.
ack-ack
-
How does it make lag a weapon?
I think you 100% fail to understand how things work.
Agreed,what most fail to realize is the fact they took damage from bullets fired and not the collision! You may recieve the collision message because your FE saw a collision,the other guys FE didn't so he flies away undamaged as should be.
Years ago I flew a sim that used a collision model much like players think they want,however I quit because I was tired of colliding with planes infront of me and I wasnt even in guns range!
You could never tell if you were too close,atleast with AH's collision model it's wysiwig[what you see is what you get! And I for 1 would rather that than exploding to a collision when the other guy is a couple hundred yards away.
YMMV.
:salute
-
How does it make lag a weapon?
I think you 100% fail to understand how things work.
Well, I have run into situations at most half a dozen times since I've been here that have allowed me to see a guy about to have a collision with me probably about 3 seconds out.
The reader's digest version is, in a low speed scissors, your plane on his FE is generally dragging a plane length or two behind where you're showing on your FE. I've seen guys pulling into me, and I could tell by the timing they were about to cut behind me about a plane length or two, and had a split second to think, 'He's probably going to have a collision. Yup, there he goes.'
I'd love to see the guy that can use it consistently and effectively as a weapon, as I don't think he exists.
Wiley.
-
Well, I have run into situations at most half a dozen times since I've been here that have allowed me to see a guy about to have a collision with me probably about 3 seconds out.
The reader's digest version is, in a low speed scissors, your plane on his FE is generally dragging a plane length or two behind where you're showing on your FE. I've seen guys pulling into me, and I could tell by the timing they were about to cut behind me about a plane length or two, and had a split second to think, 'He's probably going to have a collision. Yup, there he goes.'
I'd love to see the guy that can use it consistently and effectively as a weapon, as I don't think he exists.
Wiley.
Depends on where you and he are in the world. If you're in New York and he is in Tokyo, that 2-3 lengths will be more like 4-6 lengths. If you're in Dallas and he is in Austin, it could well be less than 1 length.
It is much easier to just shoot the guy than to fly in front of him, maybe even in front of his guns, trying to ram him on his FE and not yours. Somebody trying to use that ramming technique is likely an easy kill due to it.
-
It is much easier to just shoot the guy than to fly in front of him, maybe even in front of his guns, trying to ram him on his FE and not yours. Somebody trying to use that ramming technique is likely an easy kill due to it.
That's my take on it as well, and I personally think the guys that are constantly complaining about it are doing something wrong if they're running into that many aircraft in an evening, but that's just me.
Wiley.
-
Im not complaining and I understand the system and all that, but...
I don't get how sometimes, you only lose a single part and the other guy exploded and vice versa.
Just yesterday, I was rammed while in a 262 (I'm not afraid to lose perks), and only lost an aileron while the other guy blew up. How does that work? I was going 500+ and him at 200+, over 700mph in total, how does that not equate into my entire wing ripping off, at the very least? I was pretty amused by it for a few minutes.
-
Im not complaining and I understand the system and all that, but...
I don't get how sometimes, you only lose a single part and the other guy exploded and vice versa.
Just yesterday, I was rammed while in a 262 (I'm not afraid to lose perks), and only lost an aileron while the other guy blew up. How does that work? I was going 500+ and him at 200+, over 700mph in total, how does that not equate into my entire wing ripping off, at the very least? I was pretty amused by it for a few minutes.
This post actually touches on something I've noticed now and again when colliding at high speed, that I've wondered if it might be worth changing.
I tend to collide most often at high speed. Quite often, I will collide with a guy and remove say, an aileron, or an elevator. The thing that confuses me, I'm not generally (able to be) pulling hard at all in these collisions, I'm usually in compression. This means the aircraft isn't rolling that fast or changing attitude that fast. It's basically moving straight.
The part that comes off is on the trailing edge of the wing. How did it get knocked off, but the rest of the wing stay intact?
I'm assuming it's due to the amount of 'samples' my computer takes looking for collisions. Basically the wing would have gone through the bandit, and it only registered that the aileron hit the bandit?
It would seem to be a pretty significant improvement if the system did a bit of extrapolation on what actually took the damage based on the angle it came from when it detects the hit. In other words, if the aircraft hit from the front, if your aileron got knocked off, there's very little possibility the colliding object didn't have to go through the wing to get there.
Or when the code checks for collisions, does it have no access to direction of travel, and it's as though at all times the plane is standing still?
Just a thought.
Wiley.
-
Just because you both collided doesn't mean you had the same collision. Remember that the degree of position difference ranges from none, you both see the same thing, to no collision at all. Any difference between those extremes can give you different collisions with different damage amounts.
-
Just because you both collided doesn't mean you had the same collision. Remember that the degree of position difference ranges from none, you both see the same thing, to no collision at all. Any difference between those extremes can give you different collisions with different damage amounts.
I'm not talking about both sides, I'm only speaking in terms of what my FE saw.
I don't run film often, but most of my collisions are of the making a run on a bomber and having an, 'Oh crap, I'm going way too fast and on a direct collision course with his wing!" variety.
Basically my wingtip goes through some part of his plane, and the control surface gets knocked off, but that's it. I can only envision one scenario where an aileron would get knocked off and the wing wouldn't be damaged, and that's if the wing goes over the bandit and the aileron is the only thing to touch. I know I've collided with buffs rolled 90 degrees to their attitude and only taken off an aileron. I just can't see how that would happen other than what I described above.
Wiley.
-
And the choices are reasonable ... However, I think the ongoing frustration caused by collisions modelling is readily apparent? The system in use makes LAG into a WEAPON ... that -IS- employed by experienced players who CHOOSE to exploit the GAMEY aspect of collision modeling. While I agree that the distant player, flying blissfully along and bothering no one should NOT suffer for collisions he's not even aware of ... I'd say 99.9% of all collisions take place between opponents involved in CLOSE COMBAT ... not innocents wondering "whatwasthat?" Closing the loophole that allows RAMMING (and surviving) as a viable (if GAMEY) tactic would make AH a LOT more realistic. BOTH partys going down in the event of a collision would undoubtedly diminish the number of collisions taking place dramatically.
:cool:
Thanks for the laugh.
-
I have no idea what this is in reference to. Is that another flight sim?
The problem with trying to compare games starts with this question: Client based, or Server based?
Of course, the obvious one is you cannot compare a first person shooter to a flight simulator. Vastly different in all aspects. That is like asking why a skateboard cannot perform like a Ferrari.
BF3 is client based.
-
And the choices are reasonable ... However, I think the ongoing frustration caused by collisions modelling is readily apparent? The system in use makes LAG into a WEAPON ... that -IS- employed by experienced players who CHOOSE to exploit the GAMEY aspect of collision modeling. While I agree that the distant player, flying blissfully along and bothering no one should NOT suffer for collisions he's not even aware of ... I'd say 99.9% of all collisions take place between opponents involved in CLOSE COMBAT ... not innocents wondering "whatwasthat?" Closing the loophole that allows RAMMING (and surviving) as a viable (if GAMEY) tactic would make AH a LOT more realistic. BOTH partys going down in the event of a collision would undoubtedly diminish the number of collisions taking place dramatically.
:cool:
Translation: I still don't understand...
Who broke the interwebz????
-
I'm not talking about both sides, I'm only speaking in terms of what my FE saw.
I don't run film often, but most of my collisions are of the making a run on a bomber and having an, 'Oh crap, I'm going way too fast and on a direct collision course with his wing!" variety.
Basically my wingtip goes through some part of his plane, and the control surface gets knocked off, but that's it. I can only envision one scenario where an aileron would get knocked off and the wing wouldn't be damaged, and that's if the wing goes over the bandit and the aileron is the only thing to touch. I know I've collided with buffs rolled 90 degrees to their attitude and only taken off an aileron. I just can't see how that would happen other than what I described above.
Wiley.
My previous response was for titanic3. Sorry that wasn't clear.
Damage modeling is simplified. I assume it's a resource issue. I'm sure it will be improved.
-
I must add a note; the brilliance of the current collision implementation is in its insane simplicity and thus ability to cause dis-belief as to the possibilities of its internal workings. So if one overthinks the system and tries to "game" or understand it with brute complexity they usually wont get far.
An example: Back in the *Warbirds* days, simply looking *behind* you alot of the time before the moment of impact, would prevent you suffering from the penalty of it and the other person would usually die as a result.
I can't say AH works the same way, but im sure its a basic extension of the idea that *Only what you see is real* and your FE is always a subjective machine that negotiates with the collective of subjective machines around you to come up with the *truth* of the situation, very much like human beings do.
If AH were to simulate everything server side, there would probably be *too* many collisions and everyone would be really angry, its the relativity of the core design that allows for the general acceptance of its existance. To say, "We all see what we want to see" and it pretty much gives us that due sense of satisfaction.
-
When both parties do collide, they both go down.
Yep, and when one party maneuvers his plane so that his delayed "image" on my front end collides ... he kills me and flys on, LHAO ... Got another one without firing a shot. It's not that hard to do and if you know what to look for you can often see em coming and avoid it ... But that's NOT EXACTLY a simulation of WWII air combat ... is it ? It's pure BS ... and when they start congratulating you on avoiding them after the fact it's kind of hard to call it a coincidence ... isn't it ???
The current system gives you absolute control over your collisions.
At the expense of flying realistic combat encounters ... Am I supposed to enjoy spending my time trying to avoid these "GAMERS" and their whacko misuse of the games inconsistency ... ? This subject KEEPS REAPPEARING because MANY are unsatisfied with the way collisions are modeled. Understanding WHY helps ... But when you truly understand WHY, you also understand - it doesn't have to BE this way ... It isn't unreasonable, but it isn't satisfactory.
Your idea gives control over your collision to the other player.
My idea provides a choice ... Ramming = Suicide ... Nobody flys away to go do it again.
:uhoh
-
By the way, it is not lag that is the issue. It is time displacement. The time it takes data to cover the distance between your computer, the server and the other players computer.
I understand that ... and I understand you guys CAN'T DO ANYTHING about it. Read these messages and tell me HOW MANY TIMES you see it being called LAG ... ? I don't really wish to further confuse those trying to understand with technical explanations of terminology.
;)
-
Torquila I believe that's the first anthropomorphic misunderstanding of the collision model that I've seen.
-
Translation: I still don't understand...
Sorry, (but not suprised) that you -Don't Get It-. Stick with backshooting M3s from your jeep.
:neener:
-
EVZ,
It is clear that you don't understand it as you still claim that people ram the other guy intentionally.
-
It is clear that you don't understand it as you still claim that people ram the other guy intentionally.
It's clear that you don't understand it. The fact is that THEY DO TRY (success is NOT guaranteed). I've been taught how to do it and have done it myself in practice (successfully) ... I've never used it on an enemy and never will.
:cool:
-
This subject KEEPS REAPPEARING because MANY are unsatisfied with the way collisions are modeled. Understanding WHY helps ... But when you truly understand WHY, you also understand - it doesn't have to BE this way ... It isn't unreasonable, but it isn't satisfactory.
People keep bringing it up because like you, they cannot seem to grasp how the collision model works. I really don't know why it's so hard of a concept to understand.
Front end sees collision = Collision
Front end doesn't see collision = No collision
Isn't really that tough to grasp?
ack-ack
-
Yep, and when one party maneuvers his plane so that his delayed "image" on my front end collides ... he kills me and flys on, LHAO ... Got another one without firing a shot. It's not that hard to do and if you know what to look for you can often see em coming and avoid it ... But that's NOT EXACTLY a simulation of WWII air combat ... is it ? It's pure BS ... and when they start congratulating you on avoiding them after the fact it's kind of hard to call it a coincidence ... isn't it ???
At the expense of flying realistic combat encounters ... Am I supposed to enjoy spending my time trying to avoid these "GAMERS" and their whacko misuse of the games inconsistency ... ? This subject KEEPS REAPPEARING because MANY are unsatisfied with the way collisions are modeled. Understanding WHY helps ... But when you truly understand WHY, you also understand - it doesn't have to BE this way ... It isn't unreasonable, but it isn't satisfactory.
My idea provides a choice ... Ramming = Suicide ... Nobody flys away to go do it again.
:uhoh
There is nothing inconsistent in the collision modeling. No one can kill you and fly on, via a collision. They fly on because they avoided the collision, and you did not.
If your computer detects an intersection with another object, your computer assigns damage to your plane. It is that simple.
Are you supposed to avoid a collision? Well, yes.
So I understand it. You are suggesting your plane takes damage when someone else does not take time to avoid the collision, but you did. Is that right?
-
It's clear that you don't understand it. The fact is that THEY DO TRY (success is NOT guaranteed). I've been taught how to do it and have done it myself in practice (successfully) ... I've never used it on an enemy and never will.
:cool:
If somebody is doing something so stupid as to try to ram your aircraft with the ghost of their aircraft, shoot them down, they are handing you the victory. It is vastly easier to just shoot you down than it is to play footsy with their ghost, hoping they don't hand you a perfect gunnery solution while doing so. The fact that you think otherwise is mind boggling.
-
Nine times out of ten what confuses people is when the hits are heard at the same time the other fellow collides with them and they get the message that the other fellow collided. Then they think the damage they received is due to the collision ignoring the possibility that they were instead shot. Every one of the problems related to that are caused by Internet lag.
-
So I understand it. You are suggesting your plane takes damage when someone else does not take time to avoid the collision, but you did. Is that right?
Then what are you suggesting?
-
Sure they can ... they need only fly thru the spot where I will be when the data reaches my front end ... we collide ... I die, but THEY have already moved past the collision point on THEIR front end and they fly on untouched. It's an intuitive process, and not guaranteed, but can be around 70% effective.
Coincidentally, making stuff up is also around 70% effective.
-
can you ban those guys ?
ummmmm NO :aok
that's the only way I can play.....I generally have a ping in the 80's and very rarely do I see others warping.....when I do see others warping.... everyone is, which means I AM....
-
Torquila I believe that's the first anthropomorphic misunderstanding of the collision model that I've seen.
I never claimed to understand the AH model, so i'd say the collision here is on your front end...
:D
:airplane:
-
If somebody is doing something so stupid as to try to ram your aircraft with the ghost of their aircraft, shoot them down, they are handing you the victory.
That sounds nice doesn't it ... but it's not likely ... in fact your attempt to bring your guns to bear is anticipated and can be used to manipulate you into position for the collision.
It is vastly easier to just shoot you down than it is to play footsy with their ghost, hoping they don't hand you a perfect gunnery solution while doing so.
No, it's not ... A shoot down likely involves a HO situation, and bringing your guns on target means he's capable of doing the same ... depending on the aircraft you fly, you can place yourself at a distinct disadvantage. But it's easy to avoid his shot with a few subtle bobs and weaves that CAN be structured to lead your opponent into the position and attitude you want him in. My observation would be that intentional rammers are either habitual BAD SHOTS, BORED with the typical HO tactics of less talented or experienced pilots, or just generally HOSTILE to -ANYONE- attempting a HO attack. Then you have the sociopathic types who are intent on "Beating" the GAME itself anyway they can. Those guys even have their own squad.
:eek:
-
I never claimed to understand the AH model, so i'd say the collision here is on your front end...
:D
:airplane:
I'm not claiming you understand it either. I just commented on your comment. :D
I can't say AH works the same way, but im sure its a basic extension of the idea that *Only what you see is real* and your FE is always a subjective machine that negotiates with the collective of subjective machines around you to come up with the *truth* of the situation, very much like human beings do.
This is not correct. It's been explained a few times in this thread already. You either have a collision on your PC or you don't. It's that simple. There's no negotiation of a consensus.
You imagine a collision that didn't happen. :D
-
That sounds nice doesn't it ... but it's not likely ... in fact your attempt to bring your guns to bear is anticipated and can be used to manipulate you into position for the collision.
No, it's not ... A shoot down likely involves a HO situation, and bringing your guns on target means he's capable of doing the same ... depending on the aircraft you fly, you can place yourself at a distinct disadvantage. But it's easy to avoid his shot with a few subtle bobs and weaves that CAN be structured to lead your opponent into the position and attitude you want him in. My observation would be that intentional rammers are either habitual BAD SHOTS, BORED with the typical HO tactics of less talented or experienced pilots, or just generally HOSTILE to -ANYONE- attempting a HO attack. Then you have the sociopathic types who are intent on "Beating" the GAME itself anyway they can. Those guys even have their own squad.
:eek:
Funny how nobody has ever produced a film of this. Maybe you ought to as you claim it is so easy and in itself mandates a need to change the way collisions are handled.
I won't hold my breath.
-
So I understand it. You are suggesting your plane takes damage when someone else does not take time to avoid the collision, but you did. Is that right?
No
Then what are you suggesting?
-
I think we need a video tutorial on collisions for this and future threads.
-
A shoot down likely involves a HO situation
(http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/42/Youre_Doing-it-wrong.jpg)
-
Then what are you suggesting?
He is suggesting that both planes suffer damage and plummet to the Earth, even IF there was separation of 50 ft' on the FE of one of the individuals involved.
You would need to to open a completely separate forum for the whines about that situation...
-
He is suggesting that both planes suffer damage and plummet to the Earth, even IF there was separation of 50 ft' on the FE of one of the individuals involved.
You would need to to open a completely separate forum for the whines about that situation...
I know that is what he is suggesting, but when I posed it back to him as follows:
So I understand it. You are suggesting your plane takes damage when someone else does not take time to avoid the collision, but you did. Is that right?
He said, "No".
Hence my question to get him to clarify his suggestion.
-
He really has two choices for what he is suggesting, unless he is asking for some extremely complex and situational piece of code. He either wants both to suffer damage in a collision, which he said no to, or wants the collision to only apply damage if both FEs detected a collision.
The problem with the second method is that it leads to planes with non-explosive rounds flying through their target aircraft, guns blazing. It is very easy to hit from 10ft. Bombers in particular would suffer for it.
-
Hence my question to get him to clarify his suggestion.
My preference is very clear ... If there -IS- a Collision ... Both Planes Go down ... It has nothing to do with who tried to do what or who "didn't take the time" etc ... You accept the risk when you get close enough for a collision to happen ... don't like the risk ? break off ...
:cool:
-
See rule #4
-
My preference is very clear ... If there -IS- a Collision ... Both Planes Go down ... It has nothing to do with who tried to do what or who "didn't take the time" etc ... You accept the risk when you get close enough for a collision to happen ... don't like the risk ? break off ...
:cool:
A collision was detected in the following instance.
You are suggesting your plane takes damage when someone else does not take time to avoid the collision, but you did. Is that right?
You said no to that question.
So please elaborate.
By the way, there is no such thing as a "ghost" plane. The plane you see on your computer is the plane you have to deal with. There is no other plane for any given player.
-
Deleted for quote of a rule #4 violation
-
See rule #4
-
I'm still waiting to see film of this mythical intentional one-sided collision.
3 or more examples with the same pilots in the same session please, just to show it can be done intentionally and consistently.
edit: we'll need the the films from both FEs obviously, just to confirm it was one-sided.
-
A collision was detected in the following instance. You said no to that question.
So please elaborate.
-NO- is about as elaborate as it gets ... That is NOT what I was suggesting ... There is NO consideration of -who did what- required. A collision involves TWO pilots who have accepted the risk that they -WILL- crash if they collide. Nobody flys away ... VERY SIMPLE :(
-
if your aircraft collides with another aircraft, you take damage.
if another aircraft collides with your aircraft, he takes damage.
which bit of that dont you like? :headscratch:
-
-NO- is about as elaborate as it gets ... That is NOT what I was suggesting ... There is NO consideration of -who did what- required. A collision involves TWO pilots who have accepted the risk that they -WILL- crash if they collide. Nobody flys away ... VERY SIMPLE :(
You do understand and accept that for the two players they both are in different places on each others screens?
In order to do what you want, you are penalizing the player who manages to avoid a collision because the other player did not. Yes, that is exactly what happens in the game because the two planes are NOT in the same places on both screens.
The other sceanario is as Karnak said. You only want collisions to occur when BOTH computers have detected a collision. Might as well turn off collisions then. Given the fact that the planes on each compter are in different locations on each computer, the odds of a collision occuring on both is nearly improbable. This would encourage reckless flight, whereas the current system encourages and respects anyone who manages to avoid a collision.
-
Deleted for quote of a rule #4 violation
-
Since a particular bug (that I had on youtube film) has been fixed, I have barely had any collisions. :D
Now all we need to work on; is a world on fibre optic and not copper wire. Even then, I'm not sure that we will be satisfied with the speed of light.
-
You do understand and accept that for the two players they both are in different places on each others screens?
In order to do what you want, you are penalizing the player who manages to avoid a collision because the other player did not. Yes, that is exactly what happens in the game because the two planes are NOT in the same places on both screens.
The other sceanario is as Karnak said. You only want collisions to occur when BOTH computers have detected a collision. Might as well turn off collisions then. Given the fact that the planes on each compter are in different locations on each computer, the odds of a collision occuring on both is nearly improbable. This would encourage reckless flight, whereas the current system encourages and respects anyone who manages to avoid a collision.
you have far more patience then I :salute
-
Since a particular bug (that I had on youtube film) has been fixed, I have barely had any collisions. :D
Now all we need to work on; is a world on fibre optic and not copper wire. Even then, I'm not sure that we will be satisfied with the speed of light.
Even then the issue still exists.
You could do a very elaborate server driven flight model where all inputs are buffered and then time to each computer is measured and only when that maxium time has elapsed, send the flight positioning information to all at one time with a time to display delta between each data packet.
Your controls would be horrible. Move the stick, wait a second for the results. Rinse and repeat. Not acceptable either.
-
Eeek! There are worms in this can!
-
-NO- is about as elaborate as it gets ... That is NOT what I was suggesting ... There is NO consideration of -who did what- required. A collision involves TWO pilots who have accepted the risk that they -WILL- crash if they collide. Nobody flys away ... VERY SIMPLE :(
So, if you are attacking a base and some guy decides to ram you, even though on your FE you are 200ft away from him and don't even think you need to dodge, you are fine with going down? Really? You think this wouldn't be massively abused? You think that complaints about ramming would go down? After all, the defender is back up where he was in 60 seconds whereas the attacker will take 300 to 600 seconds to get back to were he was. That is a pretty good ratio for the defender, no?
Try to actually think about what people are saying and think about the consequences of your ideas beyond your ideal "everything will be just perfect" initial thought. Try to find flaws in your ideas as well.
-
EVZ,
Made-up numbers here for illustration:
My front-end has my position at 200,6000,1845 and your position at 200,6050,1850 in the x,y,z world; close, but not close enough that my front-end detects a collision with your aircraft.
Your front-end has your position at 200,6010,1840 and my position at 200,6010,1835 in the x,y,z world; close enough that your front-end detects a collision with my aircraft.
You see the message that you have collided with me.
I see the message that you have collided with me.
Nowhere is there a message saying I have collided with you - because on my front-end there was no collision.
Why do you insist that I should also take damage?
It is a cold, hard fact that each player is playing against what their own front-end is showing them. If I hit you with bullets on my front-end, your front-end is updated with that data and you see/hear hits even if on your front-end you see an impossible angle for hits. Same goes for collisions. If I collide with you on my front-end but to your front-end there was no collision, I take damage because it happened on my computer. You are informed that I collided with you and you continue to fly away unharmed, because on your computer there was no collision.
-
Now all we need to work on; is a world on fibre optic and not copper wire. Even then, I'm not sure that we will be satisfied with the speed of light.
strangely, fibre is generally slower than copper cable. you do get a whole lot more bandwidth in the same size bundle though.
-
strangely, fibre is generally slower than copper cable. you do get a whole lot more bandwidth in the same size bundle though.
unshielded copper conductor range 95 to 97% that of the speed of light in vacuum.
Speed of light in glass about 66% speed of light in vacuum.
HiTech
-
You do understand and accept that for the two players they both are in different places on each others screens? In order to do what you want, you are penalizing the player who manages to avoid collision because the other player did not.
I would penalise that player for participating in, and possibly CAUSING (intentionally or not) -A- collision ... He put himself INTO that position and accepted the known risk ... a collision occurs ... he goes down too.
If you want to postulate he was BEING rammed, maybe trying to avoid, and NOT making a CHOICE to participate ... it's also really simple ... He FAILED.
SOMEBODY is always going to complain ... I can't eliminate that ... But MY WAY does eliminate the GAMEY use of this factor as a weapon and DISCOURAGES any behavior that LEADS to collisions. It's also (IMHO) more realistic.
:salute
-
Soviet pilots regularly employed ramming and used their props to chop up enemy control surfaces.... because that's how Russians roll.
-
I would penalise that player for participating in, and possibly CAUSING (intentionally or not) -A- collision ... He put himself INTO that position and accepted the known risk ... a collision occurs ... he goes down too.
If you want to postulate he was BEING rammed, maybe trying to avoid, and NOT making a CHOICE to participate ... it's also really simple ... He FAILED.
SOMEBODY is always going to complain ... I can't eliminate that ... But MY WAY does eliminate the GAMEY use of this factor as a weapon and DISCOURAGES any behavior that LEADS to collisions. It's also (IMHO) more realistic.
:salute
Skuzzy, Hitech... permission to post Tec's Collision flowchart.
-
I would penalise that player for participating in, and possibly CAUSING (intentionally or not) -A- collision ... He put himself INTO that position and accepted the known risk ... a collision occurs ... he goes down too.
If you want to postulate he was BEING rammed, maybe trying to avoid, and NOT making a CHOICE to participate ... it's also really simple ... He FAILED.
SOMEBODY is always going to complain ... I can't eliminate that ... But MY WAY does eliminate the GAMEY use of this factor as a weapon and DISCOURAGES any behavior that LEADS to collisions. It's also (IMHO) more realistic.
:salute
To paraphrase, you wish to fly past another plane, intentionally miss that plane by 100 ft, and then explode do to a collision?
HiTech
-
To paraphrase, you wish to fly past another plane, intentionally miss that plane by 100 ft, and then explode do to a collision?
HiTech
That's at least pretty close to what takes place when causing an intentional collision, that the perpetrator NOW survives ... I don't think they should.
Do you ?
:salute
-
Why would you want to penalize a player for not colliding? Doesn't make for very good game mechanics and game play.
ack-ack
-
I would penalise that player for participating in, and possibly CAUSING (intentionally or not) -A- collision ... He put himself INTO that position and accepted the known risk ... a collision occurs ... he goes down too.
If you want to postulate he was BEING rammed, maybe trying to avoid, and NOT making a CHOICE to participate ... it's also really simple ... He FAILED.
SOMEBODY is always going to complain ... I can't eliminate that ... But MY WAY does eliminate the GAMEY use of this factor as a weapon and DISCOURAGES any behavior that LEADS to collisions. It's also (IMHO) more realistic.
:salute
:huh The model you are proposing is infinitely more 'gamey' than what we have now. If everyone is getting towered due to collisions that never happened on their end, how long do you think they are going to keep subscribing? Is what we have perfect? No. Will any collision model ever be perfect? Not until someone figures a way to eliminate latency from the internet. Is the flight model we have the best model possible at this time for playability? Absolutely, I don't want to explode because you saw a collision on your computer that I avoided by 100 feet on mine. Scientific Method:Form a theory, and then do everything you can to find holes in your theory and to prove that it will not work. If it holds up to your scrutiny, then propose it to others for them to try and find holes in it.
-
That's at least pretty close to what takes place when causing an intentional collision, that the perpetrator NOW survives ... I don't think they should.
Do you ?
:salute
To again be clear , YOU want YOUR plane to NOT touch another plane, and then blow up even though YOU intentionally maneuvered so that you would not hit the other plane?
This is not a pretty close question, this is a YES or NO , that is how you wish the game to work in the future.
HiTech
-
He's asking for the game to determine the INTENT of every player and penalize someone who INTENTIONALLY causes someone else's front-end to detect a collision while they themselves avoided it and fly away with no damage. In that case, the perpetrator (who didn't actually collide) would blow up.
The question is: how does the game determine INTENT?
The other question is: why not fly to avoid collisions?
I myself have never collided and taken damage where it wasn't partly my fault.
-
This is not a pretty close question, this is a YES or NO , that is how you wish the game to work in the future.
HiTech
I think I made it pretty clear ... Not sure why you need to make it a YES or NO? ... Yes ... If my participation results in a collision that causes someone else to crash, I should crash too. I may have avoided the actual contact but I was as much a part of the process that created the collision as the other guy ... and in the future I'd better make sure it doesn't happen if I don't want to crash again. Apply that collision model to EVERYONE playing the game and collisions will become a LOT less frequent.
:rock
-
if I go to the trouble of successfully avoiding a collision, I dont think its fair that I should take damage as you suggest.
I prefer it how it is now, where if I go to the trouble of successfully avoiding a collision, I dont take damage.
-
He's asking for the game to determine the INTENT
No... I'm asking for the game to ignore intent completely and operate strictly on the basis of results ... A collision occurs, YOU do NOT escape and survive ...
I myself have never collided and taken damage where it wasn't partly my fault.
And it's unlikely anyone ELSE has ever collided with you and taken damage when it wasn't "partly your fault." You participated in the event, you pay the price for the result ... REGARDLESS of your intent.
:salute
-
I'm asking for the game to ignore intent completely and operate strictly on the basis of results ... A collision occurs, YOU do NOT escape and survive ...
thats how it works now.
do you understand that in a 1v1 theres 4 aircraft?
-
thats how it works now.
do you understand that in a 1v1 theres 4 aircraft?
Easy, Holmes.
You will make his head explode.
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/student-head-explodes.gif)
-
Guys, I think you're missing the point. EVZ is one of those guys that (I think) understands how it works, he would just be happier having his plane blow up when the other guy hits him, even though on his end, he's yards away from a collision.
I don't understand the mentality, but I had a squaddie who felt the same way.
Wiley.
-
if I go to the trouble of successfully avoiding a collision, I dont think its fair that I should take damage as you suggest.
But you see you DIDN'T avoid a collision, you participated in one, YOUR plane WAS collided with, just not on YOUR front end. You quite possibly CAUSED it to occur (even if unintentionally) ... you just got away with it ...
:salute
-
See rule #4
-
I chalk it up to frustration with seeing the other plane hit him and fly off undamaged. I'm not entirely dismissing the possibility of mind-altering substances though.
For my part, I just completely cannot fathom why 'possible random collision any time your plane is somewhat near another plane' is superior to 'what you see happen to your plane is what you get'.
Fortunately for me, they're not sitting in the big chair, so they don't get to make the call.
Wiley.
-
I chalk it up to frustration with seeing the other plane hit him and fly off undamaged. I'm not entirely dismissing the possibility of mind-altering substances though.
For my part, I just completely cannot fathom why 'possible random collision any time your plane is somewhat near another plane' is superior to 'what you see happen to your plane is what you get'.
Fortunately for me, they're not sitting in the big chair, so they don't get to make the call.
Wiley.
Me, too.
-
See rule #4
-
Guys, I think you're missing the point. EVZ is one of those guys that (I think) understands how it works, he would just be happier having his plane blow up when the other guy hits him, even though on his end, he's yards away from a collision.
Keep in mind ... it's a 2 way street ... a Close Attack is a crap shoot in more ways than one ... Trying to avoid a collision can make trying to shoot down an attacker a secondary priority ... Giving him the advantage ... in his firing solution and/or in position following the merge. An aggressive attacker can play the odds of escaping a collision and gaining advantage under the present collision model. If he's assured that ANY collision will kill him ... Things change. Do you want to simulate WWII engagements or Play Chicken ???
-
But you see you DIDN'T avoid a collision, you participated in one, YOUR plane WAS collided with, just not on YOUR front end. You quite possibly CAUSED it to occur (even if unintentionally) ... you just got away with it ...
nope I didnt collide with anything, I avoided the collision. however the other guy collided with my representation on his FE. his problem, since I have no control over that.
-
nope I didnt collide with anything, I avoided the collision. however the other guy collided with my representation on his FE. his problem, since I have no control over that.
And my point is, if you KNEW his collision was going to KILL YOU ... You would quickly figure out how to GET "Control Over That."
:cool:
-
Keep in mind ... it's a 2 way street ... a Close Attack is a crap shoot in more ways than one ... Trying to avoid a collision can make trying to shoot down an attacker a secondary priority ... Giving him the advantage ... in his firing solution and/or in position following the merge. An aggressive attacker can play the odds of escaping a collision and gaining advantage under the present collision model. If he's assured that ANY collision will kill him ... Things change. Do you want to simulate WWII engagements or Play Chicken ???
You just gave a griefer a big boost. Now he has no reason to avoid a collision as he knows it will take you down, no matter what you do. You do understand that?
-
Keep in mind ... it's a 2 way street ... a Close Attack is a crap shoot in more ways than one ...
But my ability to avoid the aircraft I can see is somewhat in my control. If from my point of view, I avoid his aircraft, I successfully avoid the collision. The way you want it, if I successfully avoid his aircraft, I may still die, and there is literally nothing I can do about that because the collision was caused by an invisible (to me) aircraft.
That is why the vast majority does not like the way you would prefer it. Collisions become random.
Wiley.
-
And my point is, if you KNEW his collision was going to KILL YOU ... You would quickly figure out how to GET "Control Over That."
if I was getting randomly killed in knife fights by something I can have no control of (I dont know where his FEs version of me is remember) I wouldnt bother flying.
-
You just gave a griefer a big boost. Now he has no reason to avoid a collision as he knows it will take you down, no matter what you do. You do understand that?
I'm sure there are a few nutsos that won't care about the certainty they will crash too ... I doubt they stick around AH as paying customers for long or have much -impact- on the game. I'm also sure there are those who WILL adopt suicide tactics to save their bases or carriers ... That's NOT unrealistic, and is simply a challenge for pilots to deal with.
:cool:
-
And my point is, if you KNEW his collision was going to KILL YOU ... You would quickly figure out how to GET "Control Over That."
:cool:
You cannot get control of that. It is simply not possible to know the net communication delay between you and the other guy.
-
Keep in mind ... it's a 2 way street ... a Close Attack is a crap shoot in more ways than one ... Trying to avoid a collision can make trying to shoot down an attacker a secondary priority ... Giving him the advantage ... in his firing solution and/or in position following the merge. An aggressive attacker can play the odds of escaping a collision and gaining advantage under the present collision model. If he's assured that ANY collision will kill him ... Things change. Do you want to simulate WWII engagements or Play Chicken ???
It would work 100% the opposite, the thought process would be,
If I break off and he does not,he will maybe kill me with his guns , I die, he may collide with me, I die.
If I don't break off, I may kill him with my guns, I win, If i collide with him, we both die and at least he does not win.
I.E. Not breaking off on the merge will win you more fights if both would die at collisions. And there would be more death overall do to collisions, and less realism.
HiTech
-
But you see you DIDN'T avoid a collision, you participated in one, YOUR plane WAS collided with, just not on YOUR front end. You quite possibly CAUSED it to occur (even if unintentionally) ... you just got away with it ...
:salute
it has been said so many times.....what is on your system is NOT what is on his system...so NO..... if you avoid on your system.....YOU were not involved in a collision, it is on HIS front end, IE his system...his game....NOT YOURS......
what you are asking for is absurd.
-
See rule #4
-
It is simply not possible to know the net communication delay between you and the other guy.
Not precisely, but it can be approximated (ask Skuzzy) ... AND it's not really necessary to KNOW that ... Collisions (on both ends) aren't HARD to avoid when you REALLY WANT TO.
:banana:
-
if you avoid on your system.....YOU were not involved in a collision,
Your Screen says you were ...
;)
-
Nothing random about -if you crash him, you will die- :lol
It will appear to be random to most players as they will die to collisions that they were never closer than 250ft from the guy they "collided" with.
Not precisely, but it can be approximated (ask Skuzzy) ... AND it's not really necessary to KNOW that ... Collisions (on both ends) aren't HARD to avoid when you REALLY WANT TO.
:banana:
Your idea on how it should be would encourage people to collide intentionally. You think it would reduce it, but it would massively increase the number of collision deaths.
-
Nothing random about -if you crash him, you will die- :lol
Don't make the mistake of thinking the general population at AH is represented here ... There are a LOT of players UNHAPPY with the collision model,
Sure there are. A lot of people want things to be magically perfect. Due to the laws of physics, the options are the current way, the way you want it, or a way that effectively means collisions are turned off.
Ok... Once more, for the cheap seats... The filled in images are what is seen from the P47's point of view. Notice the P51 about 3 plane lengths back. The 'ghost' image is the P51's point of view, where it collides with the P47.
(http://www.gstelmack.com/Collision.gif)
If you were in this P47 under your system, you would die. Under the current system, you live, because the collision did not occur on your end.
Explain again why the way you want it is preferable?
Wiley.
-
It would work 100% the opposite, the thought process would be, If I break off and he does not,he will maybe kill me with his guns , I die, he may collide with me, I die. If I don't break off, I may kill him with my guns, I win, If i collide with him, we both die and at least he does not win.
Obviously, I disagree ... This might be Mr. Spock's thought process, or a computers decision ... But humans have this little gut monkey that's REALLY nervous and starts screaming -YOU WILL DIE - YOU WILL DIE- and just won't shut up ... (even in a computer game). We all (mentally healthy anyway) try and keep that monkey QUIET.
I.E. Not breaking off on the merge will win you more fights. (AND add more deaths to your score, cost you perk points? put you back in the tower).
Please note : I said early on that the present collision model was REASONABLE and I DO understand why it was adopted ... But it isn't popular, and the idea that BOTH PLANES Crash -is- the general perception of the result of a mid-air.
:cool:
-
(http://www.gstelmack.com/Collision.gif)
Your hosted image is ???? kind of weird since it seems to show (maybe it's the angle?) lateral displacement and to be IN FRONT of the original rather than time displaced behind it. (Questionable?Bogus?Faked?).
;)
-
(http://www.gstelmack.com/Collision.gif)
Your hosted image is ???? kind of weird since it seems to show (maybe it's the angle?) lateral displacement and to be IN FRONT of the original rather than time displaced behind it. (Questionable?Bogus?Faked?).
;)
that shows the placement of the planes overlaid one another on BOTH ends.... one there was a collision one there was not...both planes should not go down or get damage when only one collide
due to lag your positioning is not necessarily gonna be exactly "Behind" could be in any direction
-
(http://www.gstelmack.com/Collision.gif)
Your hosted image is ???? kind of weird since it seems to show (maybe it's the angle?) lateral displacement and to be IN FRONT of the original rather than time displaced behind it. (Questionable?Bogus?Faked?).
;)
It's not fake. It's just two different clips of the SAME collision. It's the two films of each pilot superimposed upon each other witht he P-47's (remember, there are two, the "original" /P-47 pilot's film and the "ghost Jug", which is what the pony driver actually sees). I was one of the two pilots and I chose to put them together in this way to demonstrate the huge difference between the players front ends.
The P-51 pilot tried to ram the Jug and - on HIS side - was successful. However, in the jug pilot's world, the pony was still far away and never even touched the P-47.
The pictures I frequently used in threads like this came from the very same event:
(http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/2236/rammyfeve9.jpg)
(http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/9027/ramotherfeen9.jpg)
Both pics show the very same moment (note the "Lusche(P-51) has collided with you" on the lower picture, taken from the Jug pilot's film).
-
(http://www.gstelmack.com/Collision.gif)
Your hosted image is ???? kind of weird since it seems to show (maybe it's the angle?) lateral displacement and to be IN FRONT of the original rather than time displaced behind it. (Questionable?Bogus?Faked?).
;)
The displacement is not just along the path you see the plane take on your FE. There is some side displacement as well.
-
Evz's point seems to be that the non-existent problem of deliberate offensive survivable collisions would be less feasible under his system and in his opinion this would more than make up for all the new unavoidable collisions that would ruin dogfighting.
-
If it wasn't for the four hundred some posts, I would think this guy is trolling. Either way, it has been explained to death in this thread how the collision system works, why it is set up the way it is, why it is vastly superior to the method that EVZ suggests, and that it will never change. /thread?
-
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Smileys/popcorn.gif)
-
It's not fake. It's just two different clips of the SAME collision.
Ok ... not accusing you of anything ... It's not perfect, but is illustrative. As for it's implications ... ? Please see message 31.
:angel:
-
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
:old:
-
Grizz its been thouroughly explained in this thread and at least two others that I'm aware of.
-
Nothing random about -if you crash him, you will die- :lol
Don't make the mistake of thinking the general population at AH is represented here ... There are a LOT of players UNHAPPY with the collision model, most of them just aren't interested in dealing with the "party line" types that frequent the forum and attempt to make life miserable for anyone that doesn't KA ... My perception is that the "Vast Majority" don't understand the present collision model and once it's explained ... THEY STILL DON'T LIKE IT ... Planes do not fly away from Mid-Air Collisions in the real world, is what THEY understand.
:angel:
If you crash, you die is exactly how it works now.
People who have no idea how and why the collision modeling works can be frustrated. Experience shows that if a player comes to grip with why and how the system works, they are fine with it as they understand there is no better alternative.
Not precisely, but it can be approximated (ask Skuzzy) ... AND it's not really necessary to KNOW that ... Collisions (on both ends) aren't HARD to avoid when you REALLY WANT TO.
:banana:
Uh, no, you cannot approximate it. In order to do so, you would need to know the physical location of the other player, his Internet connection quality, the Internet quality between him and the servers and your Internet quality between you and the servers.
The 'quality' of the Internet connection constantly changes. Just as an example. At 400MPH, there can be as much as a 58 foot distance displacement for every 0.1 second of time differential between you, the servers and the other player. You also have no idea what direction the displacement is.
By the time you figure it all out, the information is invalid.
Your Screen says you were ...
;)
The screen says what happened. If you collided with someone, you take damage and you get a message about colliding with someone. If the other player collided with you, you do not take damage, but he does and you get a message he collided with you. If you both collide with each other, you both get a message about being damaged and you both take damage.
This all happens on the respective desktops. Under complete control of each user, where it should be.
Obviously, I disagree ... This might be Mr. Spock's thought process, or a computers decision ... But humans have this little gut monkey that's REALLY nervous and starts screaming -YOU WILL DIE - YOU WILL DIE- and just won't shut up ... (even in a computer game). We all (mentally healthy anyway) try and keep that monkey QUIET.
Please note : I said early on that the present collision model was REASONABLE and I DO understand why it was adopted ... But it isn't popular, and the idea that BOTH PLANES Crash -is- the general perception of the result of a mid-air.
:cool:
People get irritated because they did not avoid the collision and the other player did. They get irritated because they refuse to accept the current system is the best compromise of all systems.
The only players who would be happy with what you propose are the ones who cannot avoid collisions or want to use collisions to thier benefit. The players, who in earnest do everything they can to avoid a collision, would leave the game with your system. Who could blame them?
-
As soon as Hitech can find a way to eliminate internet lag, I agree this would be a great idea. Until then, what we have is the best collision system available.
He needs to get with the inventor of the net... that gore guy :)
-
Then if the collision is not deadly for both pilots, then why not throw the remaining, or both aircraft into a spin? the force of the impact of two aircraft impacting at 300+ mph will most deffinitly throw even the heaviest aircraft into some sort of high speed stall.
-
Then if the collision is not deadly for both pilots, then why not throw the remaining, or both aircraft into a spin? the force of the impact of two aircraft impacting at 300+ mph will most deffinitly throw even the heaviest aircraft into some sort of high speed stall.
If both planes collide, both take damage.
If only one plane collides, then it takes damage and the other one does not.
You first have to wrap your brain around the fact that EVERY computer playing the game, at any given time, has a slightly different representation of where everyone is in the game. Until you can get that, nothing anyone can say will make any sense.
-
it amazes me in every collision thread how even after it's explained hundreds of times, people still don't get it. :uhoh
-
it amazes me in every collision thread how even after it's explained hundreds of times, people still don't get it. :uhoh
I don't see how it can get any clearer than Lusche's gif. About the only thing I think might make it clearer would be to have the two videos side by side to clearly show the two different POV's. It just seems some people can't get past the 'It didn't happen on the other computer' hump.
I also don't understand the thought process that leads to the viewpoint that random collisions when you get remotely close to another aircraft would be preferable to what you see is what you get. If there's one thing people in online games cannot stand, it's dying to something they have no chance to see or avoid.
Wiley.
-
it amazes me in every collision thread how even after it's explained hundreds of times, people still don't get it. :uhoh
I think a lot of people get so vested in defending thier own ideas they do not know how to gracefully back out of the discussion.
Most people I see seem to be a little frustrated and/or angry over the fact they did not avoid a collision and it made them even angrier to see the other guy fly off because he did avoid the collision.
Regardless of the reasons why, I am obliged to try and find a way to help them understand how and why it works the way it does. I feel very fortunate there are many players who do get it and are more than willing to go the extra mile to help others understand it.
-
I think a lot of people get so vested in defending thier own ideas they do not know how to gracefully back out of the discussion.
That works on both sides of an argument doesn't it ... and no one has as much vested here as AH ...
Most people I see seem to be a little frustrated and/or angry over the fact they did not avoid a collision and it made them even angrier to see the other guy fly off because he did avoid the collision.
It may seem that way from YOUR point of view ... Most of THOSE people DO NOT consider the collision to be a result of THEIR FAILURE ... and suggesting that to them, as you do, immediately creates a confrontation ... some people will submit (fighter pilots are real submissive types aren't they?), some will reluctantly accept it and RESENT IT henceforth, Some will aggressively oppose you. So, you may FAIL 2/3 of the time. The manner in which this bunch of synchophants in the forum TRY to reinforce your point of view probably drives more people AWAY than it converts. I've mentioned Lusche's film to a couple of old hands who understand very well how collisions work and ... lets just say they are NOT impressed. It certainly DOES illustrate the concept ... but it seems to invoke more suspicion than understanding.
Regardless of the reasons why, I am obliged to try and find a way to help them understand how and why it works the way it does. I feel very fortunate there are many players who do get it and are more than willing to go the extra mile to help others understand it.
I think you do a very good job of explaining it ... and it's NOT that hard to comprehend. I don't think people fail to understand so much as they REFUSE TO ACCEPT. You're never going to convince people that vinegar tastes good and they are never going to LIKE it ...
:salute
-
Uh, no, you cannot approximate it. In order to do so, you would need to know the physical location of the other player, his Internet connection quality, the Internet quality between him and the servers and your Internet quality between you and the servers.
Sure you can - Average Ping Rates (both players), Between Low and High rates, you have a rough approximation.
The 'quality' of the Internet connection constantly changes.
But generally remains within a given RANGE in the short term needed for approximation.
They get irritated because they refuse to accept the current system is the best compromise of all systems.
And that = Unhappy Customers ... not a good way to get rich ...
:cool:
-
I think skuzzy has been very patient in explaining the reasoning of the collision model. It's also evident that some people don't listen
but continue to argue about a dead issue. Forget the clue rake, we need a clue hammer :D
-
It's also evident that some people don't listen but continue to argue about a dead issue. Forget the clue rake, we need a clue hammer
The 1k+ readers of this topic seem to disagree. Skuzzy can lock the topic anytime he feels it's a dead issue ... Some one will just start it again in a week or two ... which should tell you something ...
:lol
-
I think skuzzy has been very patient in explaining the reasoning of the collision model. It's also evident that some people don't listen
but continue to argue about a dead issue. Forget the clue rake, we need a clue hammer :D
The weakness of the purely verbal argument dressed up as logical discourse won't be improved by clues. It's hard to see another viewpoint when you're dazzled by your own brilliance. :lol
Most of us started out young and foolish. ;)
-
Every collision I have ever had in AH I consider to be either my fault or no fault. The vast majority of them were my fault. Not once have I had a collision where I thought it was the other guy's fault or that the other guy was trying to ram me.
Don't try to speak for other people, EVZ.
-
sooo a one plane collision is like the sound of one hand clapping?
-
sooo a one plane collision is like the sound of one hand clapping?
Which part of the simple explanation don't you get? Is it the part where 2 aircraft collide or the part where no aircraft collide?
-
The 1k+ readers of this topic seem to disagree. Skuzzy can lock the topic anytime he feels it's a dead issue ... Some one will just start it again in a week or two ... which should tell you something ...
:lol
Skuzzy's explanation could not be clearer nor make any more sense. The collision model is perfectly logical and fair to all players. Your idea doesn't make any sense to people who normally try to avoid collisions. Either you are not reading the explanations, are a head trauma victim or deliberately trying to troll here. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is trollage.
-
Sure you can - Average Ping Rates (both players), Between Low and High rates, you have a rough approximation.
How are you going to know the average ping rate between the player, server, and you?
And that = Unhappy Customers ... not a good way to get rich ...
:cool:
And your idea of punishing the player who successfully avoids a collision is going to make them happy?
Early in the thread I asked you the following question:
So I understand it. You are suggesting your plane takes damage when someone else does not take time to avoid the collision, but you did. Is that right?
You answered "No". So you have changed your mind about that? You do want your plane to take damage when the other player does not avoid the collision. And in some way, you think that is a better solution.
You clearly avoid the collision, and you take damage. That is going to make you a happy camper? If so, you are very much in the minority.
sooo a one plane collision is like the sound of one hand clapping?
It is the only fair option available. Tell me, if you avoid a collision with another plane, do you feel a slight sense of relief and accomplishment? How do you feel when the other guy does not manage to avoid that collision and takes damage?
Would it make you feel better to have your plane damaged after you avoided the collision?
You have to stop thinking collisions work like they do in the real world in order to understand the limitations of networking thousands of computers together from all over the world. Once you understand every computer has every plane in a slightly different location, it can start to make sense. Due to the time displacement from computer to computer, HiTech made a design choice which only allows you and your computer to assess damage to your plane and to no other plane. This prevents others from having that control.
Quite frankly, the system is about as simple as it can get. It is all about what is on your computer.
You cannot cause damage to another players plane by colliding with it because your computer is only going to assess damage to your plane.
Now take that statement and apply it to every player/computer in the game and see if that makes it clearer. If that does not make it clearer, then ask why and we can go forward.
---
EVZ, I would really like to hear how you think collisions currently work in the following scenarios.
1) You collide and take damage and the other plane flies away.
2) You do not collide but the other plane takes damage and you fly away.
3) You both collide and take damage.
Please be as detailed as possible.
I know you are sure how they work. I am just trying to find a baseline to work from so I can understand a perspective that almost seems irrational. I am sure it is not intended that way, so there has to be some perspective mismatch in addressing this particular topic.
Until that is fully understood, it is going to be difficult to reach any accord.
-
sooo a one plane collision is like the sound of one hand clapping?
Oooooooh ... You're GOOD !!! :rofl
-
EVZ, I would really like to hear how you think collisions currently work in the following scenarios.
1) You collide and take damage and the other plane flies away.
2) You do not collide but the other plane takes damage and you fly away.
3) You both collide and take damage.
Please be as detailed as possible.
lets hear your 3 answers then EVZ ... :)
-
Would it make you feel better to have your plane damaged after you avoided the collision?
It would make me feel that the GAME had realistically modelled a mid-air collision ... I can live with that ...
You have to stop thinking collisions work like they do in the real world
I'm well aware that they DON'T ... in a nutshell, THAT'S what people are complaining about and WISHING you would change. You don't seem to be having much luck convincing them to THINK what you want them to. Aside from the 10-15 people you've got here in this forum I know of virtually NO ONE that "LIKES" the collision system.
EVZ, I would really like to hear how you think collisions currently work in the following scenarios.
1) You collide and take damage and the other plane flies away.
2) You do not collide but the other plane takes damage and you fly away.
3) You both collide and take damage.
There isn't any detail required, I think the way the current collision model works is WRONG in #1 & #2. I don't think it's unreasonable, it's a sensible and practical system ... That no one likes.
Until that is fully understood, it is going to be difficult to reach any accord.
I don't think any agreement is possible, I and every other paying customer ACCEPT the situation ... Most of us don't like it .. If you want people to LIKE IT ... Change it.
:salute
-
I don't think any agreement is possible, I and every other paying customer ACCEPT the situation ... Most of us don't like it .. If you want people to LIKE IT ... Change it.
:salute
No agreement is possible, you are right. The reason is because you want magic, either by the clients predicting the future, or by impossibly fast net times. Good luck with that. :aok
Wiley.
-
It would make me feel that the GAME had realistically modelled a mid-air collision ... I can live with that ...
I'm well aware that they DON'T ... in a nutshell, THAT'S what people are complaining about and WISHING you would change. You don't seem to be having much luck convincing them to THINK what you want them to. Aside from the 10-15 people you've got here in this forum I know of virtually NO ONE that "LIKES" the collision system.
There isn't any detail required, I think the way the current collision model works is WRONG in #1 & #2. I don't think it's unreasonable, it's a sensible and practical system ... That no one likes.
I don't think any agreement is possible, I and every other paying customer ACCEPT the situation ... Most of us don't like it .. If you want people to LIKE IT ... Change it.
:salute
hahahahah
I am sorry but you are wrong..... very few people "dont like it" far less then you are trying to portray .....far far less....
the collision model is the best there is considering the circumstances...you keep saying "two planes crash" they should both go down.....well for one we have proof that is not always true in the RW....
for 2 this is not the real world
for 3 it is NOT just 2 planes flying against each other, there are 4, the 2 on your end the 2 on your opponents end.
learn how to fight and you wont generally worry about collisions :aok
-
Actually ink, the game works just like real life does.
In the real world, when two planes collide in the air, they both take damage.
In the game, when two planes collide on both front ends, they both take damage.
In real life, if a pilot avoids a collision, he flies away.
In the game, if a pilot avoids a collision, he flies away.
In real life, if a plane collides with an object, it takes damage.
In the game, if a plane collides with an object, it takes damage.
1) You collide and take damage and the other plane flies away.
2) You do not collide but the other plane takes damage and you fly away.
3) You both collide and take damage.
There isn't any detail required, I think the way the current collision model works is WRONG in #1 & #2.
Please explain what you think is happening in #1 and #2, for you to call it wrong. Please be detailed.
-
There isn't any detail required, I think the way the current collision model works is WRONG in #1 & #2. I don't think it's unreasonable, it's a sensible and practical system ... That no one likes.
if you truly understood how latency effects AH and how collisions work, you would be able to answer skuzzy's 3 questions easily, with just a short sentence for each one.
-
In real life, if a pilot avoids a collision, he flies away.
In the game, if a pilot avoids a collision, he flies away.
Well, I've never really had an axe to grind about the way collisions work in AH, but I made a short film of an incident that happened this morning which seems to contradict what you say here Skuzzy
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?sij58xnan9i2lld
Salient points:
1. On my front end I do not collide (I checked from my cockpit view and from an external view in the film viewer to make sure)
2. The collision message states only that Blackjax collided with me, and not that I collided with him
3. His HO shot attempt missed me
4. My engine died after he collided with me
This isn't the only time that I have had a 'the other player collided with you' message only, but still had my plane ruined
However I still don't really have a problem with the AH collision system, the way I see it, I should have got out of the way of the HO attempt :joystick: But still, this example clearly contradicts the way the collision system supposedly works
-
Actually ink, the game works just like real life does.
In the real world, when two planes collide in the air, they both take damage.
In the game, when two planes collide on both front ends, they both take damage.
In real life, if a pilot avoids a collision, he flies away.
In the game, if a pilot avoids a collision, he flies away.
In real life, if a plane collides with an object, it takes damage.
In the game, if a plane collides with an object, it takes damage.
Please explain what you think is happening in #1 and #2, for you to call it wrong. Please be detailed.
not 100% every time as some have posted pics showing otherwise......as far as 2 planes colliding in the RW....I know its a very rare thing for one to fly away.....so we cant say Every single time 2 planes collide in the real world both go down.
ok wait a minute I see you said "take damage" ok that I can say yes...but they don't always crash and pilots die....that's what he wants....that both planes crash and pilots die......
he just cant wrap his mind around the fact that there is 4 planes not just 2.......if he would learn to merge, that will avoid 99% of his collisions.....
and besides the fact when you have a tight knife fight, collision happen, just the way it is.
-
Quote from: Skuzzy on Today at 06:36:15 AM
You have to stop thinking collisions work like they do in the real world.
I'm well aware that they DON'T ... in a nutshell, THAT'S what people are complaining about and WISHING you would change.
Obviously you do not really wish to accept the fact , that it is absolutely impossible to model the real world with respect to collisions.
You wish that a plane that does not touch anything be damaged in a collision. But at the same time you say you want us to change things like the real world.
I assume it is obvious that in the real world, a plane that does not touch anything but air can not be damaged in a collision? And hence damaging the plane in a collision that does not happen,would not match the real world.
So I can only see a few possibilities for your thought process.
1. You wish to ignore the realities of time lag.
2. You do not understand the realities of time lag.
3. You understand and accept , but still think it is possible to defy physics.
4. You die a lot in collisions, and wish to try hide your true motive of just wishing the other guy would die also.
5. You die a lot in collisions, but always think it is the other guys fault, and hence he should die also.
6. You wish to be intentionally obtuse and are just trolling.
7. You do understand, but you do not have the ability to view how other people would react from dieing when they did not collide with anything.
8. You are a progressive, and believe just because you wish it so, it can be done. :devil
HiTech
-
Well, I've never really had an axe to grind about the way collisions work in AH, but I made a short film of an incident that happened this morning which seems to contradict what you say here Skuzzy
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?sij58xnan9i2lld
Salient points:
1. On my front end I do not collide (I checked from my cockpit view and from an external view in the film viewer to make sure)
2. The collision message states only that Blackjax collided with me, and not that I collided with him
3. His HO shot attempt missed me
4. My engine died after he collided with me
This isn't the only time that I have had a 'the other player collided with you' message only, but still had my plane ruined
However I still don't really have a problem with the AH collision system, the way I see it, I should have got out of the way of the HO attempt :joystick: But still, this example clearly contradicts the way the collision system supposedly works
I believe you're saying that you didn't see him shoot your engine on your end. It's likely he shot your engine on his end before colliding with you. You wouldn't necessarily see that on your film.
-
Well, I've never really had an axe to grind about the way collisions work in AH, but I made a short film of an incident that happened this morning which seems to contradict what you say here Skuzzy
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?sij58xnan9i2lld
Salient points:
1. On my front end I do not collide (I checked from my cockpit view and from an external view in the film viewer to make sure)
2. The collision message states only that Blackjax collided with me, and not that I collided with him
3. His HO shot attempt missed me
4. My engine died after he collided with me
This isn't the only time that I have had a 'the other player collided with you' message only, but still had my plane ruined
However I still don't really have a problem with the AH collision system, the way I see it, I should have got out of the way of the HO attempt :joystick: But still, this example clearly contradicts the way the collision system supposedly works
How old is the film? Currently the "You have collided" will show in the film, in previous versions it would not.
If you didn't collide, that leaves only 1 choice, the bullets hit you.
HiTech
-
I've been leaning towards #6 for awhile now in this thread. :devil
-
How old is the film? Currently the "You have collided" will show in the film, in previous versions it would not.
If you didn't collide, that leaves only 1 choice, the bullets hit you.
HiTech
It's about an hour old
I would have thought if his bullets hit me there would be hit sprites on my plane even if it looks like he doesn't have an angle on my FE...?
For example on those occasions when there is a bit of lag in the DA and the hits seem to come a few seconds after you think you are clear of their guns, you still hear the pings and see the hit sprites :headscratch:
-
from his front end he most likely had the angle. He held his path a long time waiting for you to cross. With the delay of you getting the damage I'm thinking there was a pretty good bit of lag there as well (he was 200 past you when the collision message came up).
-
See rule #4
-
It's beyond me why people effectively wishes for a collision model, where they pass an enemy plane in a good safe distance, and then suddenly explodes.
Don't change the current model.
-
Obviously you do not really wish to accept the fact , that it is absolutely impossible to model the real world with respect to collisions.
Fact Accepted, I just think it's POSSIBLE to approximate the reality of a midair collision, rather than invent a consensual convenience.
You wish that a plane that does not touch anything be damaged in a collision.
On one front end the plane did PLENTY of touching ... Penalty called ... Here's an interesting inconsistency ... If I shoot the plane down on MY front end ... it dies ... what he sees on HIS front end doesn't matter. If I COLLIDE with his plane on my front end ... Well ... he really isn't THERE under that circumstance.
So I can only see a few possibilities for your thought process. 1. You wish to ignore the realities of time lag. 2. You do not understand the realities of time lag.
are we back to calling it lag again ...? I think the SAME standards should be applied to COLLISION LAG as are applied to SHOOT DOWN LAG ... is that any more comprehensible ? It's consistant.
4. You die a lot in collisions, and wish to try hide your true motive of just wishing the other guy would die also. 5. You die a lot in collisions, but always think it is the other guys fault, and hence he should die also.
I seldom have collisions anymore ... I consider that everyone participating in an encouter that results in anyone colliding is responsible and should suffer the same penalty.
6. You wish to be intentionally obtuse and are just trolling.
I'm not being any more obtuse than the people who disagree with me.
7. You do understand, but you do not have the ability to view how other people would react from dieing when they did not collide with anything.
I have plenty of imagination, evidently you do too.
8. You are a progressive, and believe just because you wish it so, it can be done.
I am being practical and proposing a change that would be easy and popular. Any complaints would be of the same nature as the "He shot me down when his guns weren't even pointed at me" nature. Which I think is both easier to explain AND accept.
:angel:
-
I am being practical and proposing a change that would be easy and popular.
I'd like it so much I would cancel my account.
-
There is no way to do this. At any given moment, anyones Internet connection can suffer dramatic swings in latency. It is the nature of the beast. As long as streaming video services are alive and well on the Internet then crazy swings in latencies will be the norm. That is just a simple fact.
Most players, with consistently bad latencies end up quitting anyway. They cannot stand the crazy things they have to deal with anymore than the guys on the other end. Only a few hang around because they have no other choice in connections.
Thanks Skuzzy. good explanation. So if you have latency, pester your provider until you get a better connection...or solicit new providers. :salute
-
<snip.
are we back to calling it lag again ...? I think the SAME standards should be applied to COLLISION LAG as are applied to SHOOT DOWN LAG ... is that any more comprehensible ? It's consistant.
It is TIME lag, not internet lag, as in a crappy connection.
It takes "x" amount of time for the data to go from your computer, to the server, then to the other players computer. That amount of time differs due to the distance each computer is from the server. Due to NOT having instantaneous transfers of data the two computers will NEVER be displaying the same thing. So due to those physics they have two choices.
1, the system we have now where you control your reality and have "what you see is what you get", or
2, We have what you suggest and have a plane that is flying along 100 feet away from another explode and crash.
At this time, with the technology that is available these are the choices. I'm sure HTC would love to be able to model mid-air collisions like real life, but it isn't possible. Of course, if it is possible I'd love to hear you explain it.
-
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/BeatDeadHorse.gif)
-
It's beyond me why people effectively wishes for a collision model, where they pass an enemy plane in a good safe distance, and then suddenly explodes.
Don't change the current model.
It is not going to change. No one has come up with a better solution.
-
I don't have any problem with the collisions themselves but rather who takes damage.
If I'm in a b17 and a Zero hits me from dead six, then he shouldn't fly off with zero damage while the b17 breaks into pieces.
-
I don't have any problem with the collisions themselves but rather who takes damage.
If I'm in a b17 and a Zero hits me from dead six, then he shouldn't fly off with zero damage while the b17 breaks into pieces.
The Zero didn't hit you, you hit the Zero.
Until you can wrap your mind around that, you aren't in a position to discuss why and how the collision system works.
-
I don't have any problem with the collisions themselves but rather who takes damage.
If I'm in a b17 and a Zero hits me from dead six, then he shouldn't fly off with zero damage while the b17 breaks into pieces.
How did you let a zero get so close as to ram you in b17 yet you did not shred him to pieces with your guns.
-
I can't believe how players are asking for their own plane to randomly explode without any contact with an enemy plane... :headscratch:
-
I don't have any problem with the collisions themselves but rather who takes damage.
If I'm in a b17 and a Zero hits me from dead six, then he shouldn't fly off with zero damage while the b17 breaks into pieces.
Interesting I have never had a fighter collide a bomber at any point in time & survive.
Where as the bomber is unscathed.
-
I think the SAME standards should be applied to COLLISION LAG as are applied to SHOOT DOWN LAG ... is that any more comprehensible ? It's consistant.
You're right that it is inconsistent from a front end perspective but it is still the best solution.
Look at the alternative for guns for example...if it only mattered what your opponent sees on his end, most bullets you shoot would miss. You could potentially empty an entire round before you killed someone, or, you could completely miss someone on your end and would randomly hit them on their end. The aiming game would be entirely a crap shoot relying completely on latency to estimate where someone actually is relative to where you see them. The fact of the matter is, the way it is now is perfectly acceptable because 99.9% of the time someone shoots you, they have a gun solution on you on your end. Yeah, his nose might sometimes be pointed one degree off of where you think his gun solution is but you learn to expand what you view as a gun solution and it really works out great as a player knowing that as long as you hit somebody, they will take damage. Do you question this setup?
As for the collisions, you keep saying that fighting close quarter combat is too risky and both players should receive penalty for it. That's quite absurd. You can learn to fight close and avoid collisions very easily with a little practice. Two skilled players can stall fight for hours without colliding one another. Collisions happen when someone gets greedy for a gun solution that simply is not there without a collision. If two skilled people can fight with full flaps in a stall fight in distances ranging from 50 yds to 200 yds for hours without colliding, there is something to be said about that. Why should someone be penalized for a ram if he did not see it on his end? Clearly there is skill in avoiding collisions, why should he be penalized for avoiding collisions when the other guy is not skilled enough to do so? And before you say that he should be penalized for fighting too close, please reread my example about how skilled pilots can fight for hours without colliding.
So to sum it up, just because shooting and collisions are technically "inconsistent", as you put it, each one examined individually shows that the current system is the best way to do it. The inconsistency is absolutely immaterial when the intent is to make the game run as effectively as possible.
-
See Rule #4
-
icepac do you want damage assigned to your plane when you avoid a collision?
-
You're right that it is inconsistent from a front end perspective but it is still the best solution. - as a gun solution and it really works out great as a player knowing that as long as you hit somebody, they will take damage. Do you question this setup?
For the Guns, No, works fine, popular, not many complaints heard from those who fall victim to being killed by planes that aren't in any position to hit them ... I've been the victim a few times, but it's easily understood and shrugged off as ... "just the way it is".
As for the collisions, you keep saying that fighting close quarter combat is too risky and both players should receive penalty for it. That's quite absurd.
Tell that to the FAA controllers who start freaking out when 2 planes get within a mile of each other ... I DIDN'T SAY it was -TOO RISKY- I said that it involves RISK, which is ACCEPTED by everyone flying ... I think the risk should be equalised and applied to BOTH parties when a collision occurs ... I don't think you can assign BLAME when BOTH parties participate willingly ... Kind of a "Her Fault She Got Pregnant" situation ... (try that one in court sometime!).
So to sum it up, just because shooting and collisions are technically "inconsistent", as you put it, each one examined individually shows that the current system is the best way to do it.
You're NEVER going to convince the expectant mother of that ... or the judge ... maybe the guy who's been paying child support for the last 15 years?
:uhoh
-
Redacted
-
From icepac as a private message as I guess he didn't want to expose himself to the forums with it:
You may claim to know such, but if you think the A6M actually takes no damage when it collides with your bomber you either don't understand it or you have fundamental disagreements with the priorities that are used to make the decision to set it where it is.
His mother's CIA, his Fathers Naval Intelligence and appeared on Dogfights, his sister works in the UK in Blackwater and can trace your ip to your home.
(However I dont see how a shopping centre can do that.)
He's privvy to information about MD millitary jet crashes when he was a interveiwee.
Now he can exploit the smoothing code and collision model on a whim to suit any situation.
I've been smelling that BS for months; BBs and ingame.
As always FRAUD.
-
. I don't think you can assign BLAME when BOTH parties participate willingly
This right here is the crux of your failure. Both parties are not willingly participating as you say, only the ones who see the collision are the ones participating. In real life if one person was trying to collide with another while the other was trying to avoid, it would be difficult for a collision to ever take place. Not the same in aces high. Just avoid the enemy you are fighting and u don't have to worry about colliding. It's so simple and perfect. How can you not grasp this?
-
Just avoid the enemy you are fighting
Gee ... either I missed that page in the fighter pilots text book ... or you slept thru the AGRESSION 101 lecture ...
:bolt:
-
Gee ... either I missed that page in the fighter pilots text book ... or you slept thru the AGRESSION 101 lecture ...
:bolt:
Ha, you apparently missed a class or two. Aggression does not mean colliding with your opponent, that has another term, it's called bad flying. I can see now why you feel slighted by the collision model if you have not yet learned how to fly aggressively without colliding
-
Griz this guy would have to fly to fly bad. Fact is hardly flies at all and as such is hardly an authority here. Check his stats. He's in a tank or gun the vast majority of the time. I think a collision in a tank would be a trick.
-
Aggression does not mean colliding with your opponent
It most assuredly does NOT mean AVOID THE ENEMY as you suggest ... and I'm pretty sure that's NOT what HT has in mind. If you'd like to check the stats pay particular attention to the RANKING for Bombers and Tanks ... My Squad has a SURPLUS of premium fighter jocks so I generally apply my talents where they are most needed. Personally I'm very pleased with the steady improvement they show in my fighter skills ... Now if I could ONLY get better at dodging the Ack ... Not to many experts around teaching THAT ...
:P
-
I think a collision in a tank would be a trick.
You've obviously NEVER been run over by a truck.
:pray
-
Yes I certainly have. While sitting on the runway too. But that's a bug in a terrain that not all terrains have, I'd guess were corrected as it hasn't happened to me in years, and is something that would happen beyond rarely anyway. That has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. A collision yes--but not with any "opponent" that would also be connected to the internet. But in any case I saw the trucks hit me so I took the damage while they merrily kept on truckin. I'm sure the AI trucks were oblivious to my existence as their part in the terrain is to drive a certain route on a certain time interval. I simply clicked .ef, landed safely, had a good laugh about it and took off again. I got over it in about 4 seconds.
If you're having collisions in MW--which is the only place you play the game according to your stats--it's got to be you. There's like next to no one in there, relative the other arenas, (where most of "us" play btw) almost all of the time. 20 guys would be a lot in there. Some nights when I pop in to see what's goin on I see no darbars anywhere. Because you're all in GVs! How is it possible to have collisions in such an empty arena? It boggles the mind. I fly in the big pond and in events *all the time* and have for *years and years* and I have a couple of collisions a week maybe with all kinds of stuff going on around me. And that's not because I have some magic internet that nobody else has. It's because I generally don't fly **right into** the other planes. Try aiming ahead, taking the shot, and then passing **behind** (behind being anywhere in the rear hemisphere) your target--not **through**. It'll work. Trust me.
There's no bug here. There's no coding that will fix this. For what you seek to be a reality the **entire planet** would have to have a simultaneous, perfectly stable connection to the internet right through to the game servers and then--back to them-- and also for each and every player logged on. Does that sound like something that exists anywhere else in the world today? Do you think HTC is just gonna wave a magic wand and make it so? Seriously?
-
Until there is some way to send digital information around the globe, faster than the speed of electricity/RF/microwaves/fiberoptics, et al, then this is as good as it gets. :salute
-
But that's a bug - I'd guess were corrected.
Nope, not corrected ... Trucks are VERY nasty ... Like to weaponise them and go on a rampage.
MW--which is the only place you play the game according to your stats--it's got to be you. There's like next to no one in there, relative the other arenas, (where most of "us" play btw) almost all of the time. 20 guys would be a lot in there.
25 - 30 players this sat. afternoon, probably a little busier tonight ... Mostly Regulars ... (around 200 total) some come and go. Many of whom are EXCEPTIONAL Players BORED with latewar, some of whom are there to LEARN from them ... Competition can get a bit intense. NO - superplanes to fall back on ... unless you include unperked lancasters. Cheap Tigers when you are out-numbered ... My Squad is based there and trains a lot of noobs that show promise (late night, nearly empty arena. is very good for that.)
There's no bug here.
Did someone say there was? What there IS here is an inconsistancy that most players don't care for. It angers players who watch the guy they CRASHED WITH fly away, and is OFTEN a BIG Suprises to those guys who are flying away. No improvement of the internet is required to CHANGE this, a simple adjustment to the program is all that's needed to send BOTH pilots who participated in a Mid air down.
:angel:
-
Stay off the roads and generally you won't get hit by the trucks. I know your tank it's faster on the road but the truck is king there. Ditto for the trains on the tracks.
I just logged on real quick to find 16 players in MW. About as busy as I ever see in there. How it's possible to collide in such an empty place is beyond comprehension. It's like walking into a wall in an empty room. But your squad is training you. I forgot.
You're just never gonna get that it's never "both" so just insert an emoticon for infinite face palms here.
We're all still waiting for your elegant solution to the problem. Still dancing around that question?
-
Stay off the roads and generally you won't get hit by the trucks. I know your tank it's faster on the road but the truck is king there. Ditto for the trains on the tracks.
The last truck that hit me wasn't ON A ROAD and AFAIK there was no road in sight. I don't run on roads anyway
How it's possible to collide in such an empty place is beyond comprehension.
Which serves to illustrate the limits of your comprehension ... To begin, Two people FLY at each other ... This is usually a mutual decision although one partys REAL intention may be attacking a different object or aircraft ... Had an interesting 7 to 1 (I was the 1) suprise confrontation this afternoon ... Managed to escape that and land ... must be doing SOMETHING right I guess.
We're all still waiting for your elegant solution to the problem. Still dancing around that question?
You should probably read a few of my previous posts ... it's been stated many times.
:cool:
-
The last truck that hit me wasn't ON A ROAD and AFAIK there was no road in sight. I don't run on roads anyway
Which serves to illustrate the limits of your comprehension ... To begin, Two people FLY at each other ... This is usually a mutual decision although one partys REAL intention may be attacking a different object or aircraft ... Had an interesting 7 to 1 (I was the 1) suprise confrontation this afternoon ... Managed to escape that and land ... must be doing SOMETHING right I guess.
You should probably read a few of my previous posts ... it's been stated many times.
:cool:
I said"generally" for a reason. I told you I got hit sitting on a runway. No roads there.
What you're having a hard time comprehending is we aren't physically flying at each other we're virtually flying at each other. There are limits to the virtual world. Take some time to educate yourself on those limits, understand and accept they're a fact of life. It's the internet. It is what it is at this time. It's gotten much, much better over the years. This used to be a lot worse but now it's better. And it'll continue to get better but perfection, if that's even possible, is years away. Your 6 months in this game doesn't equip you to speak intelligently on this subject (or many others as you've clearly demonstrated). I've been doing this for about 15 years and back in the day the world was on dialup--because that's all anyone had. Delays were in the hundreds or low thousands where today on cable it might be in the tens. Variances were all over the map where now they're relatively flat--unless you're still on dialup. Actual long time players --not the ones you consider long time players--will remember planes zipping all over the sky because of variance swings and whole swaths of planes dsiappearing from the arena because of some internet burp somewhere in the world. That hasn't happened much in recent years as things have improved dramatically. However, I do recall seeing a guy a few months back that was doing the zip zip thing. We saw him fly right into the ground and then pop up a thousand yards away in another direction. He did this for what seemed like a few minutes while we were all laughing before he simply blew up. It was like seeing a unicorn. Dude---it's not the game. At all.
Your problem is bad flying period. Try flying toward the other guy and not at him and your "problem" will go away.
I've been watching you dodge and dance around questions for months. You haven't given a direct answer here either beyond it's simple. Give us a detailed description of how you think this "problem" can be fixed. Still waiting.
-
Drano, somewhere oin the middle, he did state he believes people would be much happier if they were to run into invisible planes when they get somewhat close to other planes.
Wiley.
-
yup, and even more bizarrely he thinks that most other AH players also want to take damage when they didnt even hit another aircraft ... :headscratch:
-
Bizarre is a good adjective for this guy. I don't consider him unintelligent but it's beyond me how he can totally reject the factor that the internet has on an internet game. And he uses the word comprehension. <SMH>
-
hitech should write in some code in a future version they can turn on at will for specific players.. give them "you take damage when someone collides with you", and see how long it takes for them to come back whining about how they "weren't anywhere near the other guy and collided!". so whenever someone posts in collision thread that both should take damage, hitech or skuzzy can go turn their "idiotic collision flag" from 0 to 1 and let them have what they want! :D
-
it's beyond me how he can totally reject the factor that the internet has on an internet game.
Please quote for me ANY statement I've made rejecting internet time lag ANYWHERE in this thread... I've acknowledged it repeatedly ... I have no expectation that ANYONE can do ANYTHING about that ... It causes the situation THE GAME has to deal with inre: collisions ... The issue -I- am concerned with is HOW THE GAME deals with those collisions, (a programed CHOICE, that can be easily modified) NOT the technical internet imperfections involved. (do you get it yet?)
And he uses the word comprehension.
As in, evidently you don't ... ask skuzzy to explain it to you, he gets paid for it ...
:bhead
-
yup, and even more bizarrely he thinks that most other AH players also want to take damage when they didnt even hit another aircraft ... :headscratch:
I'd say, on average, I listen to 3 or 4 rants a week about -THE OTHER GUY- flying away from a collision and how "He should have crashed too..." and that's in the slow and sedate MWA ... Ocassionally I hear the guy whos wondering WHY he DIDN'T crash after a Mid Air event...
How many guys have you heard recently PRAISING the collision system ... It's a subject that only comes up when someone is suprised and usually angry.
The sycophantic (nuther big word - look it up) responses and derision heaped on anyone DARING to express their disappointment with this game "feature" simply drives them away. It doesn't resolve anything and creates more disenchantment with AH ... This is NOT the way to attract new players or paying customers.
:huh
-
How many guys have you heard recently PRAISING the collision system ... It's a subject that only comes up when someone is suprised and usually angry.
Most everyone involved in this thread besides you.
HiTech
-
Most everyone involved in this thread besides you.
Syncopants ... you know that ... they routinely dissuade anyone with "unacceptable" ideas ...
I suppose the wishlist/bbs is a good humanitarian mouse trap for them and prevents them causing problems.
:ahand
-
No logos.
-
Most everyone involved in this thread besides you.
HiTech
:aok for the current collision model
Syncopants ... you know that ... they routinely dissuade anyone with "unacceptable" ideas ...
I suppose the wishlist/bbs is a good humanitarian mouse trap for them and prevents them causing problems.
:ahand
:bhead
-
Syncopants ... you know that ... they routinely dissuade anyone with "unacceptable" ideas ...
I suppose the wishlist/bbs is a good humanitarian mouse trap for them and prevents them causing problems.
:ahand
Actually I am as far from a HTC "yes man" or groupie as they come. I regularly complain about other facets of the game. The collision system, however, is pretty much perfect. Save your whines for more controversial things like puffy ack.
-
Well I just logged after yet another perfectly enjoyable night in the LW arena flying a positively huge P-38 (that you'd think it'd be real easy to have collisions in) in a really busy area where people were actually flying at all alts and strangely---I didn't collide with anyone at all tonight. Imagine that? There was probably more people between the two bases I was fighting at than there were in the whole MW arena tonight. There was 19 in there when I logged on btw. (Woo Woo)! Got into several tight turning fights with the usual Spits and Laffers, etc. Nothing collided with anything else but bullets on airframes. What's the problem again? Could it be you just don't fly very well? It IS just you complaining. Saying there's this huge number of people upset just doesn't cut it. Where they all at? Look, you don't **represent** anyone here. You don't speak for **anyone**. You're your own ideal remember? Your squad that upset? None of em have a BBS account? Where they all at? They're your friends right? Where's this groundswell of pee'd off people of which you speak? I'm sure you'll dance around those questions as you have every other one. Simple enough to answer tho. They either exist or they don't. Where they at?
The game is how we sycophants like it. It's hard. We want it that way. Adapt--or go back to the EZ mode game you came from. It's not gonna change because you don't like it. It's not gonna get dumbed down because you can't figure it out. Or because you throw a tantrum like a 3 year old. Take your lumps and get better and this won't be a problem. In this game you don't go from newb to vet in a few weeks or a couple of months. It takes time. That's the process. Runnin your mouth ain't gonna get you there bro. It's certainly not gaining you any respect here.
-
You're your own ideal remember?
And you don't have a CLUE about who I'm quoting ... do you ...
It's certainly not gaining you any respect here.
That's a good thing in many ways ...
:lol
-
Actually I am as far from a HTC "yes man" or groupie as they come. I regularly complain about other facets of the game. The collision system, however, is pretty much perfect. Save your whines for more controversial things like puffy ack.
It's not perfect. I have been rammed without even seeing the other person until afterwards. I have seen the other person fly away, I crash. Must be lag.
-
Yeah just turn collision off already. Thanks.
-
I'd say, on average, I listen to 3 or 4 rants a week about -THE OTHER GUY- flying away from a collision and how "He should have crashed too..."
thats because they dont understand Lag and its Effects on Aces High (http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/lag/lag.htm). It is pretty tricky to get your head around - you essentially have to imagine 2 parallel universes which are similar but not identical, and how information is passed between them via the game server. it is not intuitive. luckily there are many here who have bothered to understand it, and are happy to try to help others understand it.
after 200-odd replies to this topic explaining the problem in depth, the 3 possible solutions, and the pros and cons of each, you are still referring to "THE OTHER GUY" and "BOTH planes". it is clear that you still dont get it, if you did you would be referencing the 4 aircraft which are involved in a "1v1". this is why you cannot answer skuzzy's 3 simple questions a few pages back.
"Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong" - Rousseau
-
And you don't have a CLUE about who I'm quoting ... do you ...
That's a good thing in many ways ...
:lol
Keep dancin, fool. Try answering a question. Dazzle us with your superior intellect.
RTHolmes he's just not gonna get it. He'll never accept he's wrong either. It's how he rolls. You could tell him the sky was blue and he'd have a problem with it. All this from a guy that has a grand total of 7 sorties in a fighter this tour vs 111 in a gun or GV. That's a wealth of experience talkin! He wrote the book on collisions! :rofl :rofl
-
Syncopants ... you know that ... they routinely dissuade anyone with "unacceptable" ideas ...
:rofl
There are many, many things about the game I am critical of and would like to see changed. Do I post against a lot of suggestions? Yes, because they are bad ideas, not because they would be a change from the what we have. One such bad idea is your collision idea.
Yeah just turn collision off already. Thanks.
No, this would have negative effects on the combat. It would become standard practice for machine gun armed aircraft to fly through their targets, guns blazing. Even cannon armed aircraft would do so, but with the caveat that they'd have to stop firing a second before passing through the other aircraft. Bombers would be even more helpless than they are.
-
Everyone knock of the name calling.
-
Syncopants ... you know that ... they routinely dissuade anyone with "unacceptable" ideas ...
The general knee-jerk reaction when someone starts grumbling about the collision model is to point out why it is that way. Most people who grumble about the collision model don't understand what is actually going on.
The stumbling block people are having with you is they seem to be having trouble wrapping their heads around the fact that you believe that people would be happier colliding with an invisible aircraft when they get somewhat near another aircraft, and think that would improve gameplay. The fact that you believe seeing the other guy go down is worth not being able to see another plane coming to avoid a collision.
I guarantee you would see vastly more complaints if both sides went down in a collision. The other sim does it. It is not popular.
It is not sycophantic, it is the right choice for gameplay.
Wiley.
-
thats because they dont understand Lag and its Effects on Aces High (http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/lag/lag.htm). It is pretty tricky to get your head around
In most cases no they don't ... My experience is that quite a few of them DON'T WANT TO understand it ... They're playing this game to escape from UNDERSTANDING TECHNICALITIES ... and they don't appreciate being told they HAVE TO when they are frustrated with the game's behavior ... "? is THIS what I'm PAYING for ?" Those who DO want to understand generally catch on pretty quick once the fact of time lag is called to mind and the mechanics of the present collision model are explained ... Understanding, even acceptance, does NOT cancel out resentment and frustration.
after 200-odd replies to this topic explaining the problem in depth, the 3 possible solutions, and the pros and cons of each, you are still referring to "THE OTHER GUY" and "BOTH planes". it is clear that you still dont get it.
Actually, that was a reference to what I commonly HEAR from OTHER PEOPLE ... limited comprehension? I guess you missed that. However there is in fact ONLY 1 "Other Guy" and 1 other aircraft involved. The 4 plane explanation -illustrates- the fact that they are time displaced due to internet limitations ... it's NOT a factual reality ... I find myself wondering how many of the people here who THINK they get it - really do ???
:cool:
-
The 4 plane explanation -illustrates- the fact that they are time displaced due to internet limitations ... it's NOT a factual reality ... I find myself wondering how many of the people here who THINK they get it - really do ???
:cool:
Um... no. The 4 plane explanation is a recording taken from both PCs involved in a collision. There is no 'illustration', it IS a factual reality. The two films are time synchronized to show what happened in realtime.
Wiley.
-
In most cases no they don't ... My experience is that quite a few of them DON'T WANT TO understand it ... They're playing this game to escape from UNDERSTANDING TECHNICALITIES ... and they don't appreciate being told they HAVE TO when they are frustrated with the game's behavior ... "? is THIS what I'm PAYING for ?" Those who DO want to understand generally catch on pretty quick once the fact of time lag is called to mind and the mechanics of the present collision model are explained ... Understanding, even acceptance, does NOT cancel out resentment and frustration.
Actually, that was a reference to what I commonly HEAR from OTHER PEOPLE ... limited comprehension? I guess you missed that. However there is in fact ONLY 1 "Other Guy" and 1 other aircraft involved. The 4 plane explanation -illustrates- the fact that they are time displaced due to internet limitations ... it's NOT a factual reality ... I find myself wondering how many of the people here who THINK they get it - really do ???
:cool:
I'm willing to bet that Skuzzy and HiTech get it...
-
The stumbling block people are having with you is they seem to be having trouble wrapping their heads around the fact that you believe that people would be happier colliding with an invisible aircraft when they get somewhat near another aircraft, and think that would improve gameplay.
I'm pretty sure -I- never said that ... Several people keep suggesting that I'm crazy BECAUSE this would make me happy ... That's THEIR PERCEPTION and it's due to their inability to ACCEPT an opinion that differs from their own without rationalizing (demonizing) it into something with senseless implications. Kind of like skuzzy insisting that -I- want to take damage when -I- escape a collision. This is NOT a PERSONAL ISSUE ...
I guarantee you would see vastly more complaints if both sides went down in a collision.
A collision in which BOTH PLANES go down is never going to make anyone HAPPY ... But it WILL be accepted as FAIR (in most cases) ... I would expect the complaints to be very similar to the "shot down when he wasn't even pointing at me" complaints and they can be explained with exactly the same explanation ... Not only will it be perceived as FAIR, it's consistant.
:angel:
-
I fully accept that you understand the model, EVZ. You have just reached an completely wrong conclusion and do not seem to be giving either thought or credence to the idea that the people whining about the other plane not going down would, in your system, be whining about going down to collisions that clearly didn't happen. Not only would those same players be complaining, they would be joined by throngs of other players who did understand why it is the way that it is and are unhappy going down to collisions that they avoided. You also seem to refuse to recognize how your system would be used as a gameplay tool, drastically increasing the number of collisions that are experienced.
-
I'm pretty sure -I- never said that ... Several people keep suggesting that I'm crazy BECAUSE this would make me happy ... That's THEIR PERCEPTION and it's due to their inability to ACCEPT an opinion that differs from their own without rationalizing (demonizing) it into something with senseless implications. Kind of like skuzzy insisting that -I- want to take damage when -I- escape a collision. This is NOT a PERSONAL ISSUE ...
I am not insisting anything. You are the one that is insisting you take damage when you avoid a collision if the other player does not.
I asked you questions you refused to answer.
-
There is no 'illustration', it IS a factual reality.
See what I mean ...
:uhoh
-
See what I mean ...
:uhoh
Not actually. I have no idea what you mean. What you quoted is quite true. The film representing the two realities is quite accurate. It is a fact, not an opinion.
-
EVZ yes or no question. There would be more whines if people were dying to collisions they did not see. Yes or no?
-
I am not insisting anything. You are the one that is insisting you take damage when you avoid a collision if the other player does not.
I am suggesting, that EVERYONE participating in a mid air collision CRASH ... Not interested in who got lucky or who knew how to create a collision and escape it, etc. I havn't INSISTED on anything, aside from believing what -I- choose to believe, regardless of the consensual pressure being applied.
I asked you questions you refused to answer.
You asked me PERSONAL QUESTIONS and, once again, this is NOT a personal issue (for me anyway).
:cool:
-
dA collision in which BOTH PLANES go down is never going to make anyone HAPPY ... But it WILL be accepted as FAIR (in most cases) ... I would expect the complaints to be very similar to the "shot down when he wasn't even pointing at me" complaints and they can be explained with exactly the same explanation ... Not only will it be perceived as FAIR, it's consistant.
:angel:
This here is where you are completely wrong. It is not at all fair to go down to a collision I had no chance of avoiding because it didn't even look like a collision was going to happen on my end. It is not at all fair to go down to a collision that I worked to avoid but my adversary worked to ensure.
-
I'm pretty sure -I- never said that
However it IS the consequence of the way you want it to work. If you want both planes to go down, if the other guy runs into your aircraft, you will get a collision with no visible collision occurring on your FE. Your plane will be damaged effectively by an 'invisible plane' because your FE is displaying one thing, and being damaged by another.
... Several people keep suggesting that I'm crazy BECAUSE this would make me happy ... That's THEIR PERCEPTION and it's due to their inability to ACCEPT an opinion that differs from their own without rationalizing (demonizing) it into something with senseless implications. Kind of like skuzzy insisting that -I- want to take damage when -I- escape a collision. This is NOT a PERSONAL ISSUE ...
You keep saying people will see it as fair. The logical extension is, YOU would see it as fair if your plane collided with an invisible plane even though you were nowhere near another aircraft.
A collision in which BOTH PLANES go down is never going to make anyone HAPPY ... But it WILL be accepted as FAIR (in most cases)
Why, when there was no collision on one person's end?
... I would expect the complaints to be very similar to the "shot down when he wasn't even pointing at me" complaints and they can be explained with exactly the same explanation ... Not only will it be perceived as FAIR, it's consistant.
:angel:
It's not the same thing though. When you're getting shot at, at some point you flew in front of the guy. Unless it was a particularly bad lag event, you can see that you flew in front of your aircraft and gave him an opportunity to put bullets into you, regardless of when the damage sorts itself through the network and you receive it.
In a collision, you have the opportunity to see the other plane come in, and miss you by a wide margin, and you still take damage. The collision happens relatively slowly compared to gunnery. You have way more opportunity to see the plane coming, and avoid it than you do a bullet. That is why it should be as it is, because if you see a plane coming and pull to avoid it, and see you avoided it, and then take damage anyways, that is going to be much more frustrating than the occasional snapshot that arrives late.
In the 2 years and change I've been here, I can count on one hand the number of times I saw funny gunnery due to lag. I've lost count of the number of collisions I've avoided. The one happens much more often than the other. 'Consistency' is not the right choice in this case.
See what I mean ...
:uhoh
It is not an illustration, EVZ. It is a recording of ingame footage from two players on separate computers flying in the game. One flying a P47, one flying a P51. They recorded a collision between them. That gif is the two videos superimposed over one another, time synchronized. Please explain what about that is not 'fact'?
Wiley.
-
I am suggesting, that EVERYONE participating in a mid air collision CRASH ...
And this is how it is actually happening now.
If you are NOT participating, if you are evading a collision - you do not take damage. With your proposal, you might take damage even if you fully and clearly evade.
It really is that simple.
If I evade I do not take damage. You want to change that and don't expect players to be much more upset, when they randomly explode without ANY physical contact to an enemy plane?
-
Not actually. I have no idea what you mean. What you quoted is quite true. The film representing the two realities is quite accurate. It is a fact, not an opinion.
and it shows 2 individual pilots flying 2 aircraft ... not 4 individual pilots flying 4 aircraft ... Wiley disgrees ... I don't think he "Gets It". I think he WANTS to think he gets it, but he's been (unintentionally) misled and confused.
:uhoh
-
And this is how it is actually happening now.
If you are NOT participating, if you are evading a collision - you do not take damage. With your proposal, you mightl take damage even if you fully and clearly evade.
It really is that simple.
Not for him it isn't...
-
I am suggesting, that EVERYONE participating in a mid air collision CRASH ... Not interested in who got lucky or who knew how to create a collision and escape it, etc. I havn't INSISTED on anything, aside from believing what -I- choose to believe, regardless of the consensual pressure being applied.
And that is what I said. "You are the one that is insisting you take damage when you avoid a collision if the other player does not."
If that is not true, then please explain.
Right now, everyone who detects a collision takes damage. How does that differ from what you want?
You asked me PERSONAL QUESTIONS and, once again, this is NOT a personal issue (for me anyway).
:cool:
How is this a personal question?
EVZ, I would really like to hear how you think collisions currently work in the following scenarios.
1) You collide and take damage and the other plane flies away.
2) You do not collide but the other plane takes damage and you fly away.
3) You both collide and take damage.
Please be as detailed as possible.
It is pertinent to the discussion and not personal at all.
-
and it shows 2 individual pilots flying 2 aircraft ... not 4 individual pilots flying 4 aircraft ...
No, it's showing 2 players with 4 planes in 2 different realities. As long as you think there are only two planes, you are on the wrong track.
-
and it shows 2 individual pilots flying 2 aircraft ... not 4 individual pilots flying 4 aircraft ... Wiley disgrees ... I don't think he "Gets It". I think he WANTS to think he gets it, but he's been (unintentionally) misled and confused.
:uhoh
It is showing where the two front ends are showing the two aircraft. The video has the 2 P47s overlaid as it is not maneuvering. It clearly shows the P51 collide on its end with the P47 as it is displayed on its end, and it shows the P47's end seeing the P51 3 planelengths back from it. This is recorded in realtime. What about this is not fact?
Wiley.
-
However it IS the consequence of the way you want it to work - The logical extension is - YOU would see it as -
Intersting, YOU decide what someone is REALLY saying, YOU put words into their mouth, then YOU argue about WHY what YOU say they said was wrong ... and YOU always win ... Big suprise!
It is not an illustration, EVZ.
Maybe you misunderstand the word illustration ... Yes it's a film, not a cartoon ... it's PURPOSE is to ILLUSTRATE ... Got a good dictionary?
:rolleyes:
-
Maybe you misunderstand the word illustration ... Yes it's a film, not a cartoon ... it's PURPOSE is to ILLUSTRATE ... Got a good dictionary?
:rolleyes:
Just clarifying. It is a factual represenation of how and why the collision system works the way it does.
-
And that is what I said. "You are the one that is insisting you take damage when you avoid a collision if the other player does not."
If that is not true, then please explain.
Please quote to me WHERE -I- "insist" on anything? I want, I think, I believe ... yes ... I do... I INSIST ...??? Don't think so.
How is this a personal question?
_You_ collide, _You_ do not, _You_ both ... fishing expedition?
:cool:
-
This is the best thread EVER :rock
-
Intersting, YOU decide what someone is REALLY saying, YOU put words into their mouth, then YOU argue about WHY what YOU say they said was wrong ... and YOU always win ... Big suprise!
No... You said earlier in the thread, in post 31 which you referenced as your definitive statement of your position:
BOTH partys going down in the event of a collision would undoubtedly diminish the number of collisions taking place dramatically.
Which means you want the P47 from the gif to go down when the P51 runs into it. That is the consequence of "both partys going down in the event of a collision". Make sense?
Maybe you misunderstand the word illustration ... Yes it's a film, not a cartoon ... it's PURPOSE is to ILLUSTRATE ... Got a good dictionary?
:rolleyes:
Could you lend me the one that contained the word 'syncopant'? Then we'd at least be making the same mistakes.
Your exact words were:
The 4 plane explanation -illustrates- the fact that they are time displaced due to internet limitations ... it's NOT a factual reality ...
I have asked you to explain what part of two time synchronized films from two different computers of the same event is NOT a factual reality. Relatively simple, yes?
Wiley.
-
Maybe this is even more "illustrating"
From the collision incident in the films above: This is the P-47 players view of the whole thing, the moment of "collision".You being the P-47 pilot... should you go down?
(http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/9027/ramotherfeen9.jpg)
-
Please quote to me WHERE -I- "insist" on anything? I want, I think, I believe ... yes ... I do... I INSIST ...??? Don't think so.
_You_ collide, _You_ do not, _You_ both ... fishing expedition?
:cool:
Ok fair enough. You expect your plane to be damaged when you avoid a collision. True? If not true, then please elaborate.
No fishing expedition. I am asking you how think they work in each of those circumstances. It is pertinent to the discussion.
EVZ, I would really like to hear how you think collisions currently work in the following scenarios.
1) You collide and take damage and the other plane flies away.
2) You do not collide but the other plane takes damage and you fly away.
3) You both collide and take damage.
Please be as detailed as possible.
Whay is this so difficult to answer?
-
I would really like to hear how you think collisions currently work in the following scenarios.
1) You collide and take damage and the other plane flies away.
2) You do not collide but the other plane takes damage and you fly away.
3) You both collide and take damage.
ok EVZ heres my answers for the 3 questions. I'll fill in the blanks when you've answered them. fair enuf?
1) ----- --- - --------- -------- -- -- --------, -- - ---- ------. ----- --- -- --------- -------- -- --- --------, -- -- --- --- ---- ------.
2) ----- --- -- --------- -------- -- -- --------, -- - --- --- ---- ------. ----- --- - --------- -------- -- --- --------, -- -- --- ---- ------.
3) ----- --- - --------- -------- -- -- --------, --- ---- - --------- -------- -- --- --------. -- -- ---- ---- ------.
-
I think we hit the "agree to disagree" point 10 pages ago. It's just a Lufbery now.
-
I think we hit the "agree to disagree" point 10 pages ago. It's just a Lufbery now.
I had thought so as well, but recent posts seem to indicate he doesn't actually get it.
Either understanding is starting to dawn, or he's an above average troll.
Wiley.
-
I think we hit the "agree to disagree" point 10 pages ago. It's just a Lufbery now.
The thing about facts is that you cannot disagree with them.
You don't have to like them, but there is not any level of agreement to dispute.
Collisions are not some mysterious voodoo secret. The facts of how the system works are being presented by the folks that designed the system and those same people are being told that they are wrong in their explanation.
The debate is really beyond idiocy.
-
you want the P47 from the gif to go down when the P51 runs into it.
I find it unlikely that such an event would occur during game play ... maybe if the 47 pilot was AFK ... But yes, the 47 would go down.
I have asked you to explain what part of two time synchronized films from two different computers of the same event is NOT a factual reality. Relatively simple, yes?
It is a contrived manipulation, mechanically created and assembled to illustrate a precovcieved concept ... it's not a factual reality any more than a kiddy cartoon is.
:angel:
-
See rule #4
-
I find it unlikely that such an event would occur during game play ... maybe if the 47 pilot was AFK ... But yes, the 47 would go down.
It is a contrived manipulation, mechanically created and assembled to illustrate a precovcieved concept ... it's not a factual reality any more than a kiddy cartoon is.
:angel:
The picture above has not been "manipulated" in any way, so you should be able to answer the very straightforward question...
-
You expect your plane to be damaged when you avoid a collision. True? If not true, then please elaborate.
Depends on what the other pilot experiences.
:salute
-
I find it unlikely that such an event would occur during game play ... maybe if the 47 pilot was AFK ... But yes, the 47 would go down.
And you believe that people would find a collision that occurred with a plane that wasn't anywhere near you less annoying than the other plane surviving an impact.
It is a contrived manipulation, mechanically created and assembled to illustrate a precovcieved concept ... it's not a factual reality any more than a kiddy cartoon is.
:angel:
It is an example to make it easy for people such as yourself to follow. The mechanics and result are the same regardless of how it happens. In fact, two planes maneuvering hard would actually show something even more different on each end than what you see here. This one is used so you can clearly see that the P51 is nowhere near the P47 from its end, so you can clearly see that there is no way that it touched the P51 on its end. It is also easy to follow because one of the planes isn't maneuvering.
It is done as a demonstration of how it works, but the same kind of thing happens if they are wildly scissoring.
Wiley.
-
I find it unlikely that such an event would occur during game play ... maybe if the 47 pilot was AFK ... But yes, the 47 would go down.
Why would such an event not occur during gameplay? Why would it matter if the P-47 is straight and level compared to in a bank, dive or climb? The P-51 will still miss the P-47 by about four plane lengths on the P-47 player's computer.
-
I had thought so as well, but recent posts seem to indicate he doesn't actually get it.
Either understanding is starting to dawn, or he's an above average troll.
Wiley.
10 pages ago he said he gets it but disagrees with it. Nothing has changed since then.
-
I find it unlikely that such an event would occur during game play ... maybe if the 47 pilot was AFK ... But yes, the 47 would go down.
It is a contrived manipulation, mechanically created and assembled to illustrate a precovcieved concept ... it's not a factual reality any more than a kiddy cartoon is.
:angel:
The film is a factual representation of the collision system at work.
You expect your plane to be damaged when you avoid a collision. True? If not true, then please elaborate.
Depends on what the other pilot experiences.
:salute
Please elaborate on the "dependencies".
EVZ, I would really like to hear how you think collisions currently work in the following scenarios.
1) You collide and take damage and the other plane flies away.
2) You do not collide but the other plane takes damage and you fly away.
3) You both collide and take damage.
Please be as detailed as possible.
-
Please elaborate on the "dependencies".
Nothing elaborate about the collision model I'd prefer ... If a collision occurs BOTH planes go down.
:)
-
Could you please answer my question above, EVZ?
-
Nothing elaborate about the collision model I'd prefer ... If a collision occurs BOTH planes go down.
:)
That makes what I stated true.
You expect your plane to be damaged when you avoid a collision. True? If not true, then please elaborate.
EVZ, I would really like to hear how you think collisions currently work in the following scenarios.
1) You collide and take damage and the other plane flies away.
2) You do not collide but the other plane takes damage and you fly away.
3) You both collide and take damage.
Please be as detailed as possible.
-
I quit reading at page 15, my brain was going to explode fromt the nutrinos colliding with it.
I for one accept the collision model as it is and understand why it it what way. Am I a yes man, no!
Unless you ask me if I want mayonnaise on my sammich.
Then I say YES!!! :)
-
I find it unlikely that such an event would occur during game play ... maybe if the 47 pilot was AFK ... But yes, the 47 would go down.
It is a contrived manipulation, mechanically created and assembled to illustrate a precovcieved concept ... it's not a factual reality any more than a kiddy cartoon is.
:angel:
Your statement leads me to believe that you do not actually understand the collision model as you claim that you do.
Not only have I experienced an event very similar to the one depicted in the films, I've been on both sides of it.
Personally I find it far more disconcerting when the plane you are flying against suddenly becomes disabled and crashes to the ground when to me he appears to be a safe distance away.
When I crash into other planes I don't get bent out of shape about it as it's my bad, and I know I'm that close, or at least I should know I'm that close.
-
That makes what I stated true
Does it ...? Did I say it wasn't ? If you mean - am I personally willing to accept damage under the collision model I propose ? Sure.
:salute
-
Does it ...? Did I say it wasn't ? If you mean - am I personally willing to accept damage under the collision model I propose ? Sure.
:salute
You sure are good at avoiding answering questions that show how bass ackwards your logic is.
-
I quit reading at page 15, my brain was going to explode fromt the nutrinos colliding with it.
Nutrinos ... ? I don't think I've ever encountered him, is he a Knight or a Rook ... I know he's not a BISH as we never collide with anything ...
:rofl
I for one accept the collision model as it is and understand why it it what way.
So do I ... I just don't LIKE IT...
:salute
-
Does it ...? Did I say it wasn't ? If you mean - am I personally willing to accept damage under the collision model I propose ? Sure.
:salute
I said exactly what I meant to say. If you understand how collisions work, then the answer should have been very simple.
You are proposing to have the game damage your plane, when you avoid a collision, if the other player does not avoid a collision. You propose to give another player control over whether or not you have a collision and take that control from you.
You have backed that up by stating you would not mind your plane being damaged, even when you avoid the collision, if another player does not avoid the collision. You have further stated most players would prefer it that way. I have not heard anyone who would prefer their plane be damaged when they avoid a collision, regardless of what the other player does or does not do, except for you.
You point at a factual representation of exactly how and why collisions currently work and claim it as being a "precovcieved concept". This does not illicit confidence in your understanding of how the collision system works.
Everything you have stated is predicated on a complete understanding of the current collision system, yet you refuse to answer any questions about that.
-
You sure are good at avoiding answering questions that show how bass ackwards your logic is.
Easier to avoid than a collision ... BS STINKS ...
:uhoh
-
I suspect EVZ has the concept of how the systems works, but not the scale of the differences in position. I suspect he believes the P-47/P-51 collision illustration of the system shows an exceptionally large difference.
Easier to avoid than a collision ... BS STINKS ...
:uhoh
Collisions in AH are pretty easy to avoid in my experience.
-
You are proposing to have the game damage your plane, when you avoid a collision, if the other player does not avoid a collision. You propose to give another player control over whether or not you have a collision and take that control from you.
I wouldn't necessarily say that's invalid, but I would note that it's a VERY limited perspective on the MUCH broader implications of having BOTH PLANES crash in the event of a Mid-Air. Limiting the perspective thus doesn't provide a true picture of the actual event (collision) ... or the process leading to it. Flying against players intentionally attempting to create and escape mid airs yields as much, if not MORE, "Control" over a victim's choices.
I have not heard anyone who would prefer their plane be damaged when they avoid a collision, regardless of what the other player does or does not do, except for you.
You've never heard (seen) ME say that either ... tho you've tried to get me to plenty of times. What you DO HEAR (on a regular basis) are a few brave souls who DARE to post their desire that BOTH PLANES CRASH after a mid air, and are subsequently called names and subjected to personal insults when they decline to be "RE-EDUCATED" ... like good little drones. We've witnessed one such attempt in this thread already ... and a couple of B & Z runs by guys smart enough to get well away from the ensuing insults.
Everything you have stated is predicated on a complete understanding of the current collision system, yet you refuse to answer any questions about that.
I've answered at least several, if not many, questions about the current collision model. I have not answered personal or "loaded" questions intended to provide the asker with a "Selling Point." Unlike at least SOME of the participants in this thread, I am NOT playing a game or keeping "Score."
:angel:
-
I have not answered personal or "loaded" questions intended to provide the asker with a "Selling Point."
Is my question I asked now repeatedly personal or loaded?
-
I wouldn't necessarily say that's invalid, but I would note that it's a VERY limited perspective on the MUCH broader implications of having BOTH PLANES crash in the event of a Mid-Air. Limiting the perspective thus doesn't provide a true picture of the actual event (collision) ...
It provides a complete picture of what happened on both ends. On one computer, the two aircraft missed. On the other, the two aircraft hit. You want the plane that didn't experience a collision to go down. That's all that needs to be said. Why do you have no desire to say the words, and instead dance around it?
Wiley.
-
EVZ,
You are stating that if Player A's computer detects a collision of Player A's airplane with the representation of Player B's airplane on Player A's computer then Player B's airplane should take damage even though the image of Player A's airplane on Player B's computer never got closer than 150ft to Player B's airplane.
That is exactly what Skuzzy is laying out and you are objecting to it despite your repeated statements saying it is what you want. Either you don't understand something or are flip flopping or you object to language being used to describe the system you want in other than favorable terms.
-
Is my question I asked now repeatedly personal or loaded?
Probably ... I havn't looked ... If it wasn't, I'd have answered it.
As I recall (?) you asked a loaded question expecting a specific answer, so you could tear it up ... Or was it one of those JUST SAY YES OR NO types?
:eek:
-
EVZ,
You are stating that if Player A's computer detects a collision of Player A's airplane with the representation of Player B's airplane on Player A's computer then Player B's airplane should take damage even though the image of Player A's airplane on Player B's computer never got closer than 150ft to Player B's airplane.
That is exactly what Skuzzy is laying out and you are objecting to it despite your repeated statements saying it is what you want. Either you don't understand something or are flip flopping or you object to language being used to describe the system you want in other than favorable terms.
To be fair, I doubt very often a 150 yd miss will ever be a collision on either end. They'd usually be in the range of 50 yds I imagine.
-
Probably ... I havn't looked ... If it wasn't, I'd have answered it.
As I recall (?) you asked a loaded question expecting a specific answer, so you could tear it up ... Or was it one of those JUST SAY YES OR NO types?
:eek:
How about just looking a few post up? The oen with the big picture in it. Showing a typical, unaltered, non- manipulated collision occurence.
-
I wouldn't necessarily say that's invalid, but I would note that it's a VERY limited perspective on the MUCH broader implications of having BOTH PLANES crash in the event of a Mid-Air. Limiting the perspective thus doesn't provide a true picture of the actual event (collision) ... or the process leading to it. Flying against players intentionally attempting to create and escape mid airs yields as much, if not MORE, "Control" over a victim's choices.
I did not state a perspective. I stated what you proposed. If the statement is incorrect, feel free to correct it.
Right now, the "victim" can chose to avoid any attempts to collide. With your proposal, that choice is removed. If you understood how collisions work, you would understand that as well.
You've never heard (seen) ME say that either ... tho you've tried to get me to plenty of times. What you DO HEAR (on a regular basis) are a few brave souls who DARE to post their desire that BOTH PLANES CRASH after a mid air, and are subsequently called names and subjected to personal insults when they decline to be "RE-EDUCATED" ... like good little drones. We've witnessed one such attempt in this thread already ... and a couple of B & Z runs by guys smart enough to get well away from the ensuing insults.
Here is what you said.
Yes ... If my participation results in a collision that causes someone else to crash, I should crash too.
Here is what I said.
I have not heard anyone who would prefer their plane be damaged when they avoid a collision, regardless of what the other player does or does not do, except for you.
Stating you want both planes to go down due to collision already happens if both planes collide on their respective front ends. It has always worked like that.
As far as "re-educating" people, you may find people are more willing to support facts, rather than personal opinion. Your proposal is nothing but opinion. Why should it carry any more weight than any other opinion?
I've answered at least several, if not many, questions about the current collision model. I have not answered personal or "loaded" questions intended to provide the asker with a "Selling Point." Unlike at least SOME of the participants in this thread, I am NOT playing a game or keeping "Score."
:angel:
My question is not about "score". It is not a leading question. It is a question about the topic at hand. A very pertinent question. Your paranoia displays a lack of confidence in the topic which is fine, as long as you are not the one trying to get something changed.
-
To be fair, I doubt very often a 150 yd miss will ever be a collision on either end. They'd usually be in the range of 50 yds I imagine.
That is why I said feet and not yards. :p
-
On one computer, the two aircraft missed. On the other, the two aircraft hit. You want the plane that didn't experience a collision to go down.
But you see it DID experience a Collision ... 2 pilots, 2 airplanes, check the serial #s ... The results on ONE computer (my way) determine the outcome on BOTH ... Just like when you shoot a plane down. SO simple, SO consistant ...
:D
-
But you see it DID experience a Collision ... 2 pilots, 2 airplanes, check the serial #s ... The results on ONE computer (my way) determine the outcome on BOTH ... Just like when you shoot a plane down. SO simple, SO consistant ...
:D
SO invisible to the other end. SO frustrating for the pilot who didn't actually hit anything.
Wiley.
-
That is why I said feet and not yards. :p
Doh! :aok
-
But you see it DID experience a Collision ... 2 pilots, 2 airplanes, check the serial #s ... The results on ONE computer (my way) determine the outcome on BOTH ... Just like when you shoot a plane down. SO simple, SO consistant ...
:D
It would not be consistent. If you want it to be 100% consistent with what you ask, bullets fired by one player would do damage in 2 different places. So you would see your bullets completely miss the airplane, but still damage the other plane.
HiTech
-
2 pilots, 2 airplanes
nope. have another go.
-
(http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee35/lengro/ramotherfeen91.jpg)
:aok
-
:lol
-
As far as "re-educating" people, you may find people are more willing to support facts, rather than personal opinion. Your proposal is nothing but opinion. Why should it carry any more weight than any other opinion?
Have I suggested that it should ??? There are no facts, because it hasn't been tried. I'd think this was kind of obvious?
My question is not about "score". It is not a leading question. Your paranoia displays a lack of confidence
My Paranoia ... Right ... No one HERE is "out to get me" ... are they ... ? Your "question(s), as any debate student will tell you, is loaded to: establish domination, crush argument, force the topic into YOUR context and produce a WIN ... No intelligent person, with an opposed point of view is going to answer directly. I think my understanding of the current collision model has been ably demonstrated ... and yet you persist.
:cool:
-
I think my understanding of the current collision model has been ably demonstrated
now that is something we agree on.
-
now that is something we agree on.
:rofl
It would not be consistent. If you want it to be 100% consistent with what you ask, bullets fired by one player would do damage in 2 different places. So you would see your bullets completely miss the airplane, but still damage the other plane.
HiTech
WooHoo! I want this. My bullets seem to miss most of the time. I would like to have them do damage anyhow :rock
-
There are no facts, because it hasn't been tried. I'd think this was kind of obvious?
The other sim HiTech coded does it. It's been tried. One of the things I liked when I came over here is how it works over here compared to over there. :aok
Wiley.
-
Have I suggested that it should ??? There are no facts, because it hasn't been tried. I'd think this was kind of obvious?
My Paranoia ... Right ... No one HERE is "out to get me" ... are they ... ? Your "question(s), as any debate student will tell you, is loaded to: establish domination, crush argument, force the topic into YOUR context and produce a WIN ... No intelligent person, with an opposed point of view is going to answer directly. I think my understanding of the current collision model has been ably demonstrated ... and yet you persist.
:cool:
What you have demonstrated is why I asked the question I did. You have not demonstrated a clear understanding of the collision system. The most recent failing is not recognizing a flim as being a factual representation of the collision system.
I persist as there have been other, I will call 'oddities', in you addressing this system. So my basis for the question remains. To get a baseline of understanding from where everyone would benefit in a discussion.
I find your idea, of what my motives are, rather interesting. Very far from the truth, but interesting.
-
It would not be consistent. If you want it to be 100% consistent with what you ask, bullets fired by one player would do damage in 2 different places. So you would see your bullets completely miss the airplane, but still damage the other plane
Hmmm ... I don't think so? ... my consideration is that just like the Gun Damge Model in use now, Collision Damage on either front end be applied on BOTH front ends ... Seems consistant? Not asking that the GUN DAMAGE model be changed.
:salute
-
Hmmm ... I don't think so? ... my consideration is that just like the Gun Damge Model in use now, Collision Damage on either front end be applied on BOTH front ends ... Seems consistant? Not asking that the GUN DAMAGE model be changed.
:salute
He really, really doesn't get it... :rolleyes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wW6rENTfaU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wW6rENTfaU)
-
I find your idea, of what my motives are, rather interesting. Very far from the truth, but interesting.
You get paid to keep the wheels greased ... say what must be said ... ignore what must be ignored ... diplomatically when possible.
I guess you do a good job at it ... You've been very helpfull at times and I appreciate it. Sorry if I remain a bit squeaky
:rock
-
Hmmm ... I don't think so? ... my consideration is that just like the Gun Damge Model in use now, Collision Damage on either front end be applied on BOTH front ends ... Seems consistant? Not asking that the GUN DAMAGE model be changed.
:salute
That isn't HiTech's point. The point he is making is that in your system there would be two volumes of space, one on each player's computer, that would result in a collision and both players going down whereas there would only be one volume of space that would result in bullets hitting, the one on the shooter's computer.
If I open fire on you and clearly miss on my computer but the rounds pass through you on your computer, you take no damage. Under your system if I flew by you, clearly missing on your computer, but hit you on my computer you would go down. So your advertised consistency is not there.
-
Easier to avoid than a collision ... BS STINKS ...
:uhoh
From that admission, you're admitting your logic is nothing more than smelly BS.
ack-ack
-
EVZ,
Do you honestly think that we are all either stupid, players posting in the thread, or disingenuous in motive and accuracy, HTC posters in the thread? You are strongly coming across like that now. It is as though you have a very high estimation of your own intelligence and a dismissively low estimation of anybody who disagrees with you.
-
You get paid to keep the wheels greased ... say what must be said ... ignore what must be ignored ... diplomatically when possible.
I guess you do a good job at it ... You've been very helpfull at times and I appreciate it. Sorry if I remain a bit squeaky ...
:rock
Ok that launch was more than a few miles off target. Might want to get the sites adjusted and try again.
In threads, like this, my priority is to make sure accurate information is being foisted on the unsuspecting reader.
The question I asked you, was designed to give your own idea a strong base to build from, if the idea really had merit. When I read through this thread, you wander a bit and there are some contridictions as well. At times, you have been your own worst enemy.
-
That isn't HiTech's point. The point he is making is that in your system there would be two volumes of space, one on each player's computer, that would result in a collision and both players going down whereas there would only be one volume of space that would result in bullets hitting, the one on the shooter's computer.
BOTH planes are (usually) CAPABLE of firing guns and there are 2 volumes of space (one on each computer) where they CAN do damage, just as there are 2 volumes of space (one on each computer) in which a collision can occur ... The difference being that when using guns, the collision may only be with bullets (no foul).
:cool:
-
BOTH planes are (usually) CAPABLE of firing guns and there are 2 volumes of space (one on each computer) where they CAN do damage, just as there are 2 volumes of space (one on each computer) in which a collision can occur ... The difference being that when using guns, the collision may only be with bullets (no foul).
:cool:
Wrong. When you fire your guns the hits only cause damage if they happen on your computer. If you miss on your computer and hit on his computer you do no damage.
In determining guns damage, the only objects that matter are the ones on the shooter's computer. So when firing at an airplane you have a single volume of space as a target, not two.
-
It is as though you have a very high estimation of your own intelligence and a dismissively low estimation of anybody who disagrees with you.
People with inferiority complexs and/or low self esteem often accuse the person they are confronting of acting superior ... Your own internal projection... Low estimation? No ... mutual respect is the accepted coversational norm ... it's a bit lacking hereabouts ... Many BBS system / moderators wouldn't tolerate what goes on.
:confused:
-
Wrong. When you fire your guns the hits only cause damage if they happen on your computer.
Ok let me rephrase that for you, english allows multi-parsing of phrases, but some people don't take the time to consider that.
- "there are 2 volumes of space where they CAN do damage, (one on each computer)" -
In determining guns damage, the only objects that matter are the ones on the shooter's computer. So when firing at an airplane you have a single volume of space as a target, not two.
See how that works?
:pray
-
No ... mutual respect is the accepted coversational norm ... it's a bit lacking hereabouts ... :confused:
Funny you speak of respect! :lol
Dude at what point have you shown anyone here a shred of respect since the day you started? I don't know how it works where you're from but from where I'm from respect is earned. Give some ya get some. At that point it becomes mutual. Walking in the door of this long established community some months ago spouting off at the mouth about how we all have it wrong and yours is the only way possible and then never backing off of that even a little bit didn't earn you much. But---that's a good thing right?
-
Funny you speak of respect! :lol
I din't really expect you to comprehend.
:)
-
Ok let me rephrase that for you, english allows multi-parsing of phrases, but some people don't take the time to consider that.
- "there are 2 volumes of space where they CAN do damage, (one on each computer)" -
See how that works?
No. Once again, there is a single volume of space and it is only on the shooter's computer. The volume of space in the shootee's computer is not a valid target and no damage is recorded by hitting it.
-
No. Once again, there is a single volume of space and it is only on the shooter's computer. The volume of space in the shootee's computer is not a valid target and no damage is recorded by hitting it.
Rephrasing for Clarity.
There is CURRENTLY a single volume of space that detects a bullet colliding with an airplane ,and it is only on the shooter's computer. The volume of space in the shootee's computer is not a real/live bullet and no collision detection is done, in fact you can watch the bullets go right on threw tanks.
HiTech
-
But you see it DID experience a Collision ... 2 pilots, 2 airplanes, check the serial #s ... The results on ONE computer (my way) determine the outcome on BOTH ... Just like when you shoot a plane down. SO simple, SO consistant ...
:D
Actually it's two pilots, four airplanes. Two on the P47's front end and two on the P51's front end.
On the P51's front end he ran into the P47, so the P51 takes damage. On the P47's front end the 51 did not hit him so the P47 doesn't take damage.
-
I think skuzzy has been very patient in explaining the reasoning of the collision model. It's also evident that some people don't listen
but continue to argue about a dead issue. Forget the clue rake, we need a clue hammer :D
That would be the backside of the ban hammer.
-
There is CURRENTLY a single volume of space that detects a bullet colliding with an airplane ,and it is only on the shooter's computer. The volume of space in the shootee's computer is not a real/live bullet and no collision detection is done, in fact you can watch the bullets go right on threw tanks.
When I say ... - "there are 2 volumes of space where they CAN do damage, (one on each computer)" - I am referring to EACH PILOT having a target to shoot at ... 1 pilot has 1 target (per enemy aircraft) on his computer that he can damage or collide with. If he shoots it, it takes damage, (actually, I guess we could realistically expect that the BULLET involved takes damage too, but THAT collision isn't significant to the shooter). If his PLANE collides, the damage -IS- significant and BOTH aircraft take damage/crash (my way). Either event could occur (my way) when it LOOKED impossible on the OTHER GUYS computer. (current modeling) I've experienced the GUNS not even pointed in my direction situation, it's rare ... (it sucks but I can't conceive of a BETTER way to do it). I've had the OTHER GUY collide with me and go down while I flew on (frequently) ... But NEVER when I would have been surprised if I had been killed too.
:eek:
-
EVZ the best way I can see to explain it to you is, your way would produce an infinite number more complaints in a few months than the current CM has since it's creation. HiTech and Skuzzy ( along with numerous others) have told you why it would be a terrible idea, and yet you dismiss not only other members of the forum,but the developer of the game. You are sure you understand the workings of the CM, and think that your way would be a more fair system, and that is when it becomes apparent that you do not understand the workings at all. If your system was implemented ( not that HTC would implement it), then flying at all would be completely and utterly frustrating to the point that many many would quit. Who would be interested in paying a subscription on a game they do not like? So it would be fair for me to be flying along,avoid a diving enemy and watch him clear me by 50 yards yet a few seconds later both of us are looking at the inside of the tower, because on his screen he flew right through me? That's not even taking into account griefers, oh imagine the fun it would be for them. If you shot someone down and they were upset about it, they could keep you in the tower all day,even if they had no chance of killing you in a fight, just by flying into you on their screen (and of course no way you could avoid the collision because you can't even SEE IT coming). This is an attempt to illustrate why it would be a bad idea, that would cause much more discontent than the current CM ever has. If you still want the CM changed to your way, then from now on every time someone collides without you taking damage, then just bail from your plane, convince the other guy to do the same if he doesn't take damage and voila you both died in the collision. I don't suspect you will find many willing to go along with you on bailing, for the exact reason your CM model wouldn't work, the thought of "I didn't collide with him, why should I die when no collision even happened on my end?"
-
Indeed!
EVZ: since you say it's such a vast majority that have a problem with the current collision model, they should just bail whenever they get EITHER collision message. Start the bail movement!
Unless youre already bailing upon seeing "xxxxx has collided with you", it should be interesting to see how it would catch on.
-
you dismiss not only other members of the forum, but the developer of the game.
I havn't dismissed anybody, least of all HT or Skuzzy, I'm pleased to see them take an interest, they both set an excellent example I think ... I have ignored a few maybe, as I'm going to ignore the rest of your post ... just trying to maintain a Higher Standard.
:)
-
I havn't dismissed anybody, least of all HT or Skuzzy, I'm pleased to see them take an interest, they both set an excellent example I think ... I have ignored a few maybe, as I'm going to ignore the rest of your post ... just trying to maintain a Higher Standard.
:)
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=profile;u=32325;sa=showPosts;start=480
we can read everything youv'e ever posted.
obvously, you provide facts in all the threads you've contributed to, otherwise, it's just your superior intelligence and weak sources which caused you to post 485+ posts since last october. (???) I wonder why you didn't just create your own game that meets your standards.
I'm curious who you actually are, I cant imagine someone's first post on the forums was in a scenario forum 6 months ago:
Nope can't see it ... Help?
EVZ :salute
has problems seeing how the collision model works. :neener:
-
I cant imagine someone's first post on the forums was in a scenario forum 6 months ago:
If you had any experience with scenarios, you'd know that it's often necessary for the CO to add your name to the list of people allowed into the allied or axis sites on the BBS ... You "can't SEE it" until he does. You wouldn't like it, everybodys NICE to each other ...
Since I was HERE anyway I took a look around and was stunned ... I ran a Fido Net BBS -before- there WAS an internet, and things have sure degenerated from the standards we maintained.
:lol
-
This is still going? Awesome, because it's gonna be a slow day at work, again...
I havn't dismissed anybody, least of all HT or Skuzzy, I'm pleased to see them take an interest, they both set an excellent example I think ... I have ignored a few maybe, as I'm going to ignore the rest of your post ... just trying to maintain a Higher Standard. and ignore any and all logic as explained to me by the game developers and long-term players
:)
Fixed :aok
-
Ok, so EVZ might understand the collision model, but he definitely doesn't like it - which is fine. His solution is not a better one, nor is it a fair one. Arguments about "when two planes collide they both die" or "it's two pilots and four planes" are pointless. Some people just can't wrap their brain around how the model works and why it's the most fair.
Making the collision model work like the bullet model is, as has been pointed out, not a fair or viable way to do it. Taking damage from someone who shoots you MUST be based on the shooter's perspective; and is totally under both people's control - you flew your plane across his guns and he shot you; you take damage. Taking damage from someone who collides with you MUST NOT be based on the other guy's perspective; and again is totally under both people's control - you flew your plane and avoided the collision, he did not; he gets damage and you do not.
Everyone here who is arguing about the subject will probably never stop arguing about the subject, because they probably think stopping is a sign of weakness or admission of being wrong. In either case, I still find this thread both funny and frustrating...carry on.
-
nitrous might as well post a thread about which is better and or Intel. you will get less hassle for it. lots of us totally agree with you. but that ain't gonna happen so leave it alone. this is one of those things that aren't good to post. :salute
semp
Post what you want & I will do the same. Who went and made you the expert on what to post or not? The point I'm trying to make is that no (ONE) player should die because another player rammed their plane into them. Make the game a more fair & level playing field so that at least both go down. This would cause less mouthing off when it does occur. (MAYBE) :salute
(Edited by me for miss closing quote)
-
See rule #4
-
See rule #4
-
Post what you want & I will do the same. Who went and made you the expert on what to post or not? The point I'm trying to make is that no (ONE) player should die because another player rammed their plane into them. Make the game a more fair & level playing field so that at least both go down. This would cause less mouthing off when it does occur. (MAYBE) :salute
(Edited by me for miss closing quote)
You say you want the player who rammed you to get damaged. This already happens. You are asking for the player who missed you to also get damaged and you think this would be more fair. This is likely why people think you don't understand the collision model.
-
The people that voice their displeasure...
Either do not understand how collisions work in the game, or refuse to believe in any reality other then their own even is reality is smacking them repeatedly in the head over and over.
In the case of the latter, this are probably the same people that would have no idea on a subjects matter, other then something they briefly thought up...then walk up to a doctorate in that field and tell him he's doing it wrong.
...Or overclock say...a GPU... :noid
...or MK-84 when he's drunk... :uhoh
-
Make the game a more fair & level playing field so that at least both go down. This would cause less mouthing off when it does occur. (MAYBE) :salute
(Edited by me for miss closing quote)
I just want you to fully understand what you are saying, Edit: (as this is the part that most of us are disagreeing with and have trouble understanding how someone could think otherwise). The above quote means you are saying that an online gamer who gets hit by an invisible aircraft will mouth off and get frustrated less than one who watches the other plane fly away after hitting him?
The guy flying the P47 in this picture would experience a collision and fall out of the sky...
(http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/9027/ramotherfeen9.jpg)
And he would complain less (edit: than the P51 driver who collided at this instant and watched the P47 fly away). You truly believe that?
If that's the case, that's 'agree to disagree' territory right there. No more can be said on either side.
Wiley.
-
The people that voice their displeasure... Either do not understand how collisions work in the game, or refuse to believe in any reality other then their own - In the case of the latter, this are probably the same people that would have no idea on a subjects matter, other then something they briefly thought up...then walk up to a doctorate in that field and tell him he's doing it wrong.
Yeah! The kind of idiots that sit down in a bath tub, watch the water rise, and ... BINGO ... Think they've discovered a universal truth !!!
:banana:
...or MK-84 when he's drunk...
ewwwww ... you drink in the BATHTUB ??? !!!
-
Yeah! The kind of idiots that sit down in a bath tub, watch the water rise, and ... BINGO ... Think they've discovered a universal truth !!!
Like Archemedis. And Aristotle was the source of my "no logos" comment. It's all Greek to me. :lol
-
The point I'm trying to make is that no (ONE) player should die because another player rammed their plane into them. Make the game a more fair & level playing field so that at least both go down.
An excellent example of a popular sentiment.
You say you want the player who rammed you to get damaged. This already happens. You are asking for the player who missed you to also get damaged and you think this would be more fair. This is likely why people think you don't understand the collision model.
For many players, it's NOT ABOUT understanding the collision model ... They don't WANT to understand technicalities, they want to immerse themselves in a simulated environment and ESCAPE from technicalities for a while ... Mid Air collisions that 1 party flys away from, only to do it again to someone else 5 minutes later, make it a bit hard to remain immersed ... the game fails to provide what they are looking for ... they move on ... AH loses another customer. I'm pretty sure if you did a survey you'd find that 90% or more of the players here DO NOT understand the collision model and VERY FEW of them like it.
Had a collision event last night, an experienced player trying to zoom off the deck in an a-20 (I think) for a suprise HO. I instinctively pinged him at long range then pulled up and cut power as he zoomed and bled E. Sure enough ... He hit it ... I got the kill, he got to cuss ... Am I supposed to be PROUD of that? The GAMEY aspects become instinctive ... I wasn't flying a 190, I was flying a Pentium ... Not sure that's what -I- want to do.
:angel:
-
EVZ making up percentages doesn't win arguments. It's not good rhetoric, it's just BS. You don't like the collision model, I get that. What you quoted wasn't directed at you. I still have hope for some of the other posters but not you. You will continue to dislike the collision model and I'm OK with that.
-
See rule #4
-
Had a collision event last night, an experienced player trying to zoom off the deck in an a-20 (I think) for a suprise HO. I instinctively pinged him at long range then pulled up and cut power as he zoomed and bled E. Sure enough ... He hit it ... I got the kill, he got to cuss
so you didnt see a collision on your end?
and you would have been happier if you had been sent straight to the tower?
-
See rule #4
-
so you didnt see a collision on your end?
No ... I saw the text that HE COLLIDED ... as I expected him to.
and you would have been happier if you had been sent straight to the tower?
I doubt I'd have done it to him if I'd known in advance that I would die too ...
:eek:
-
No ... I saw the text that HE COLLIDED ... as I expected him to.
so you didnt see a collision on your end?
-
so you didnt see a collision on your end?
It's a 2 letter word ... what part of NO is it that you don't understand?
:)
-
No ... I saw the text that HE COLLIDED ... as I expected him to.
Then he ought to have avoided colliding with you. It happened on his end, he had every opportunity to avoid it, yet he ran into you.
My heart bleeds for him. No, wait, it doesn't.
Maybe he whined, but had that been me, I would have shrugged, mentally reprimanded myself and upped another aircraft.
EVZ, you think that the collisions would be less common and the whining less common if both went down. That you are so far divorced from reality makes it impossible to have a discussion with you on the subject. You don't even acknowledge the shortcomings of "They both go down".
-
so you didnt see a collision on your end?
Apparently you missed his invisible "No".
Yet he wants to die, anyhow?
Can it be coded that i works that way just for him?
That way, he will be happy and status quo shall remain unchanged for the rest of us...
-
Then he ought to have avoided colliding with you. It happened on his end, he had every opportunity to avoid it, yet he ran into you.
Kind of hard to do from the position he was in ... Zoom climbing into a stall, Heavy Twin Engine Aircraft, VERY LOW E, Mushy - Unresponsive Controls, all of which I knew and responded to without even thinking ... Sure, he sat himself up, But he was flying AIRPLANES and I was flying Computers ...
You don't even acknowledge the shortcomings of "They both go down".
I think that would be better ... for the players and the game ... I never said it was PERFECT ...
:angel:
-
I think that would be better ... for the players and the game ... I never said it was PERFECT ...
:angel:
Yet you think people just LOVE colliding with invisible stuff and would whine less about going down for no reason they can see than watching another plane fly away from a collision on their end. The 'imperfection' of the way you want it is not so much of an 'imperfection' as it is a game breaking game mechanic.
Wiley.
-
I think that would be better ... for the players and the game ... I never said it was PERFECT ...
:angel:
Please explain how it would be better for the game and the players if both go down when only one collided? It is very clear you still do not understand how 1)the Intertardnet works 2) how the collision model works.
You insist on punishing both parties when only one is responsible. That doesn't seem very fair to the player that didn't collide and definitely is not good from a game play stand point.
The current collision model is the best solution to the issue, you may not like it but your idea of how it should be is a terrible idea and one that would be very detrimental to the game. In fact, from a game design standpoint, your idea is beyond terrible and any developer with a head on his shoulders would immediately dismiss it as being not viable froma gameplay standpoint.
ack-ack
-
Kind of hard to do from the position he was in ... Zoom climbing into a stall, Heavy Twin Engine Aircraft, VERY LOW E, Mushy - Unresponsive Controls, all of which I knew and responded to without even thinking ... Sure, he sat himself up, But he was flying AIRPLANES and I was flying Computers ...
Had you tried that to my heavy, twin engined aircraft I either would have blown you out of the way or not run into you. It isn't hard to do and it doesn't matter at all what you do on your end. He messed up and ran into you. You didn't do a magic maneuver that he couldn't avoid because of the internet. You simply slowed down faster than he was expecting. You took a big chance and tried to game internet lag and you won. Most often you will die when you hang yourself out in front of another guy's guns like that.
-
This is why the other guy collided with EVZ (there is only one player he "killed" in an A20)
Kills Hit Percentage 1.53
If the poor guy could aim he would have cut EVZ in half looooonnnnnggggg before he collided with him.
-
It's a 2 letter word ... what part of NO is it that you don't understand?
I just wanted confirmation, your original answer was somewhat ambiguous since you have shown an uncanny knack for evading direct questions and providing paragraphs of waffly rhetoric instead of giving direct answers.
I doubt I'd have done it to him if I'd known in advance that I would die too ...
what you did to him was go within a couple of hundred yards of him. the volume where these incidents can happen is quite large. to completely avoid these incidents, as you claim you would under your preferred system, would mean no rolling scissors, barrel roll defenses, close merges or any of the other commonly used ACMs. you would create an environment where BnZ is the only way to get a kill, if you are careful. while some are happy on a diet of pure BnZing, most like to mix it up.
so these incidents are still going to happen, but under your system the guy who avoids a collision is sent to the tower.
no evasion this time, tell me honestly that you would have been happier/thought it more fair if in the incident you described, you had been instantly sent to the tower?
-
Had you tried that to my heavy, twin engined aircraft I either would have blown you out of the way or not run into you.
No, you'd most likely have died just as he did ... Had you tried what he tried ... Understand that -I- didn't plan this or "TRY" anything, I just responded, purely instinctive. I pulled into him and pinged him, just as he started to climb, so he expected me to continue the HO ... Pulling up put him completely out of position just as his E (which was LOW to begin with) bled to the point his plane stopped responding normally to controls, Slowing Down raised the odds of a collision occurring significantly as HE figured I'd be dead, or on my way down, at this point - NOT that I'd be sticking my (ghost planes) nose into his copilots seat. He never fired, He never had a shot ... SUPRISE ... He's tried the tactic before, burys his icon at 50 ft and figures you won't see him coming ... If you've got your sight zoomed on an ack gun, you won't.
That doesn't make me a great fighter pilot ... just knowledgeable, with good instincts. You MIGHT have attacked differently ... I would say he was overconfident ... a batch of bozos had been feeding him kills for quite some time.
:eek:
-
I just wanted confirmation, your original answer was somewhat ambiguous since you have shown an uncanny knack for evading direct questions and providing paragraphs of waffly rhetoric instead of giving direct answers.
So you Find - NO - to be an Ambiguous and Evasive answer ... .... ok ...
:cool:
-
no evasion this time, tell me honestly that you would have been happier/thought it more fair if in the incident you described, you had been instantly sent to the tower?
-
No, you'd most likely have died just as he did ... Had you tried what he tried ... Understand that -I- didn't plan this or "TRY" anything, I just responded, purely instinctive. I pulled into him and pinged him, just as he started to climb, so he expected me to continue the HO ... Pulling up put him completely out of position just as his E (which was LOW to begin with) bled to the point his plane stopped responding normally to controls, Slowing Down raised the odds of a collision occurring significantly as HE figured I'd be dead, or on my way down, at this point - NOT that I'd be sticking my (ghost planes) nose into his copilots seat. He never fired, He never had a shot ... SUPRISE ... He's tried the tactic before, burys his icon at 50 ft and figures you won't see him coming ... If you've got your sight zoomed on an ack gun, you won't.
All of that is guessing on your part. You don't know exactly what he saw on his end. All we know is that what he did based on what he saw resulted in a collision. That was his responsibility to avoid. As you note, you didn't try to ram him and in fact did nothing on your FE that risked you being in a collision with him based on what you saw on your FE.
Change it to what you want, and even leaving aside the fact that people will be actively using collisions, you take out the ability to fly based on what you see in a situation because you never know where the enemy and you are on the enemy's FE. It would make tactics much harder and more dangerous.
-
no evasion this time, tell me honestly that you would have been happier/thought it more fair if in the incident you described, you had been instantly sent to the tower?
Yet again, hours before the answer. :rolleyes:
-
because you never know where the enemy and you are on the enemy's FE.
You don't have to ... You may never consciously KNOW, but that supercomputer in your head is constantly gathering and analysing data at phenomenal rates of speed ... and, if you let it, it's making decisions and implementing them much faster than you can ever follow ... Your eyes and brain can definitely develop a sense of the amount of time lag occurring based on reactions to your own actions ... and if you play the game frequently your brain will develop it's own system of compensation ... while there is still some random factor in the displacement, your brain knows a LOT more about it than you are aware of.
:cool:
-
nonsense, the brain cannot learn subconsciously from data it doesnt get (like the state of the other players FE.) the only time you get a snapshot of the state of the other players FE is at the point of a collision incident.
no evasion this time, tell me honestly that you would have been happier/thought it more fair if in the incident you described, you had been instantly sent to the tower?
-
nonsense, the brain cannot learn subconsciously from data it doesnt get (like the state of the other players FE.) the only time you get a snapshot of the state of the other players FE is at the point of a collision incident.
no evasion this time, tell me honestly that you would have been happier/thought it more fair if in the incident you described, you had been instantly sent to the tower?
Tick tock...
-
Tick tock...
Waiting for the newest paragraph to sprout from his backside?
-
for some reason I'm reminded of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KHMO14KuJk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KHMO14KuJk) ...
-
Waiting for the newest paragraph to sprout from his backside?
Cornhole Gazette :D
-
You don't have to ... You may never consciously KNOW, but that supercomputer in your head is constantly gathering and analysing data at phenomenal rates of speed ... and, if you let it, it's making decisions and implementing them much faster than you can ever follow ... Your eyes and brain can definitely develop a sense of the amount of time lag occurring based on reactions to your own actions ... and if you play the game frequently your brain will develop it's own system of compensation ... while there is still some random factor in the displacement, your brain knows a LOT more about it than you are aware of.
:cool:
That is nothing but touchy feely sounding gibberish. Tell me, if, based on his reaction delay, you determine the communication delay is .153 seconds, what is the margin of error with a closure rate of 342mph, now it is 267mph, now it is 81mph, now it is -102mph. What are the distances in each of those. No using paper, you need to come up with the answer and know it within 0.01 seconds or the information is out dated.
Got anymore fantasyland solutions to sell?
-
for some reason I'm reminded of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KHMO14KuJk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KHMO14KuJk) ...
How remarkably similar to this thread :lol
-
I had a new way of viewing this question in very simple terms. They may seem obvious but they do get down to why these threads pop up all the time.
1. Most people think when they collide with a plane , the other plane should be damaged just like in the real world.
2. Most people believe when they do not collide with a plane that their plane should not be damaged just like in the real world.
Until a person understand the inherent problems with communication lag , the person can not understand why those 2 desires are in conflict. This is not an easy idea to rap your head around ,thinking in multiple time displaced realities is not something that comes easy to most people.
For almost all of us, we believe that desire #2 out ways desire #1.
HiTech
-
You don't have to ... You may never consciously KNOW, but that supercomputer in your head is constantly gathering and analysing data at phenomenal rates of speed ... and, if you let it, it's making decisions and implementing them much faster than you can ever follow ... Your eyes and brain can definitely develop a sense of the amount of time lag occurring based on reactions to your own actions ... and if you play the game frequently your brain will develop it's own system of compensation ... while there is still some random factor in the displacement, your brain knows a LOT more about it than you are aware of.
:cool:
Or, you know... You could just rely on what's on your screen being accurate as far as your plane is concerned like it does now. Then you wouldn't have to do any of that... whatever that is.
Thanks for the laugh, EVZ. I needed that today.
Wiley.
-
1. Most people think when they collide with a plane , the other plane should be damaged just like in the real world.
2. Most people believe when they do not collide with a plane that their plane should not be damaged just like in the real world.
Until a person understand the inherent problems with communication lag , the person can not understand why those 2 desires are in conflict. This is not an easy idea to rap your head around ,thinking in multiple time displaced realities is not something that comes easy to most people.
For almost all of us, we believe that desire #2 out ways desire #1.
this covers it nicely.
-
See rule #2
-
See rule #2
-
See rule #2
-
See rule #2
-
See rule #2
-
I had a new way of viewing this question in very simple terms. They may seem obvious but they do get down to why these threads pop up all the time.
1. Most people think when they collide with a plane , the other plane should be damaged just like in the real world.
2. Most people believe when they do not collide with a plane that their plane should not be damaged just like in the real world.
Until a person understand the inherent problems with communication lag , the person can not understand why those 2 desires are in conflict. This is not an easy idea to rap your head around
Astute ...
thinking in multiple time displaced realities is not something that comes easy to most people.
which is part of the basis for the estimate I made that 90% of the players DO NOT understand the collision model ...
For almost all of us, we believe that desire #2 out ways desire #1.
-US- being the maybe 10% who DO understand? Seems hard for those who DON'T to have a definite opinion ... since they are unaware of the conflict.
:salute
-
2. Most people believe when they do not collide with a plane that their plane should not be damaged just like in the real world.
Another point for consideration is - This (#2) is a NON-EVENT. People generally DO NOT think about what DIDN'T happen ... In the midst of a furball, they're not thinking ... WOW thank god I avoided a collision ... They're trying to achieve a gun solution, or running for their life in most cases. The FOCUS of attention takes place when there -IS- a collision ... not when nothing happens.
:)
-
That is nothing but touchy feely sounding gibberish.
Touchy Feely ... yes! exactly !!! Gibberish, no ... Hundreds of Millions of $$$ worth of research spent on the brain and how it functions every year for the last 40 years or so ...
Tell me, if, based on his reaction delay, you determine the communication delay is .153 seconds, what is the margin of error with a closure rate of 342mph, now it is 267mph, now it is 81mph, now it is -102mph. What are the distances in each of those. No using paper, you need to come up with the answer and know it within 0.01 seconds or the information is out dated.
The Brain doesn't measure time and space conventionally, it makes comparisons to data in memory, measurements are relative and exceptionally accurate. And it updates itself a hell of a lot faster than the computers playing AH do.
Got anymore fantasyland solutions to sell?
A study of AH players in game might be interesting research ... Maybe a Grant Proposal ...? Nah, I'd never find a batch of AH Players who could qualify as NORMAL ...
:eek:
-
Another point for consideration is - This (#2) is a NON-EVENT. People generally DO NOT think about what DIDN'T happen ... In the midst of a furball, they're not thinking ... WOW thank god I avoided a collision ... They're trying to achieve a gun solution, or running for their life in most cases. The FOCUS of attention takes place when there -IS- a collision ... not when nothing happens.
:)
Ok, this is good! You're almost there, EVZ...
This is the person that has no clue about how the collision model works now, right? They're trying to achieve their gun solution... or running for their life... They're somewhat close to the enemy plane... And without their plane touching anything, they see a message in their buffer that says, 'Soandso collided with you.' and they fall from the sky in flames.
What do you think their reaction will be?
My guess and the assumption that the current model is built around is it's going to be something along the lines of, 'That was BS. I didn't hit anything and my plane blew up!' etc, etc.
However, with the current model, yes it sometimes sucks seeing a guy fly away after a collision, but when another plane hits yours, you had all the information available to you to avoid the situation. Regardless of what you were doing at that moment, at some point you could have reacted to him and made an attempt to avoid his plane. Because you didn't, or had put your plane in a position where you were unable to, he hit you.
Ability to trust what you're seeing, even with the downside it carries, creates much less frustration than going down to unavoidable collisions with invisible aircraft.
Wiley.
-
Ok, this is good! You're almost there, EVZ...
unfortunately - you're not ...
This is the person that has no clue about how the collision model works now, right? They're trying to achieve their gun solution... or running for their life... They're somewhat close to the enemy plane... And without their plane touching anything, they see a message in their buffer that says, 'Soandso collided with you.' and they fall from the sky in flames.
It rarely works that way ... except in Demo Films. I'll consider your "somewhat close" as being VISUALLY SEEN by the pilot in question ... In THAT instance the planes are generally HO or very close to it and a collision comes as no suprise ... what's suprising is when one survives and the other doesn't. If there IS NO VISUAL CONTACT, there is no basis for ANY judgement about having avoided the collision which (my way) killed you both. There will undoubtedly be exceptions ... but, again, RARELY ...
:cool:
-
I used to think of it as a contradiction as well, but look at it this way: If your gunnery didn't depend on what you see on your end like it does now, you would see nearly constant 'rubber bullet' effect. Which is more frustrating? Occasionally getting hit from a funny angle, or more often than not seeing tracers hit an enemy and not doing damage? I think the choice is clear, that what you see when you're shooting at someone should be what the game uses to calculate hits. I agree it's not perfect, but it's the better choice of the two. Avoiding gunnery is an approximation. Unfortunately that's how it will be until the global network improves significantly.
With collisions, you've got a chance to maneuver your plane to avoid the enemy aircraft. What you see should be what you get there as well, instead of having your plane take damage based on what other computers in the chain see.
The choices were made to consistently minimize (not eliminate) frustration in an imperfect world. There is no contradiction, IMO.
Wiley.
This might just be the most perfect statement ever to sum it all up.
-
consider "somewhat close" as meaning "somewhat close" then read Wiley's example again.
edit: btw ... no evasion this time, tell me honestly that you would have been happier/thought it more fair if in the incident you described, you had been instantly sent to the tower?
-
Somewhat close = ~50 yards.
-
unfortunately - you're not ...
It rarely works that way ... except in Demo Films.
Er... That is 100%, unarguably false. EVERY SINGLE TIME there is a collision where one plane went down and the other one didn't, it means the plane that didn't go down didn't collide with anything on its end.
Wiley.
-
I'll consider your "somewhat close" as being VISUALLY SEEN by the pilot in question ... In THAT instance the planes are generally HO or very close to it and a collision comes as no suprise ...
So let me get this straight...
If two pilots see each others plane, they're going head-on or nearly head-on? Really? So does that mean if a plane is D800 at my 3 O'clock and flying lead pursuit (for a possible ram), I turn my head and see him, that we're very close to a HO?
What if we both see each other at 2k (that's 2,000 yards)...are we "somewhat close", a collision is imminent and I shouldn't be surprised to end up in the tower from a collision?
Or are you saying 90% of the population have no clue about BFM and ACM and only know how to yank the nose of their plane into the nose of another plane and call that a fight... On second thought, I think this last sentence actually is true.
Yeah, I'm sorry for posting another reply in this thread, but sometimes I just can't resist; it's so full of lulz and win.
-
"1. Most people think when they collide with a plane , the other plane should be damaged just like in the real world.
2. Most people believe when they do not collide with a plane that their plane should not be damaged just like in the real world.
Until a person understand the inherent problems with communication lag , the person can not understand why those 2 desires are in conflict. This is not an easy idea to rap your head around ,thinking in multiple time displaced realities is not something that comes easy to most people.
For almost all of us, we believe that desire #2 out ways desire #1."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However .....both desires are true or fact. One does not out weigh the other.
Why is internet lag allowed to decide who wins or loses a collision? This is fair?
So, the people who REALLY understand it GOOD have an advantage?
Why not remove the conflict? If fairness is unachievable it should be eliminated entirely.
-
However .....both desires are true or fact. One does not out weigh the other.
Why is internet lag allowed to decide who wins or loses a collision? This is fair?
So, the people who REALLY understand it GOOD have an advantage?
Why not remove the conflict? If fairness is unachievable it should be eliminated entirely.
By that logic, we would have to eliminate gunnery as well. It's a compromise.
Wiley.
-
By that logic, we would have to eliminate gunnery as well. It's a compromise.
Wiley.
That is another topic #2
-
That is another topic #2
What, the 'This game shouldn't exist.' topic?
You guys are killing me here. Thanks for the entertainment.
Wiley.
-
Why is internet lag allowed to decide who wins or loses a collision? This is fair?
So, the people who REALLY understand it GOOD have an advantage?
Why not remove the conflict? If fairness is unachievable it should be eliminated entirely.
It is clear you do not understand how and why the system works as it does. 1) Internet lag does not determine who wins a collision. Nobody wins a collision. 2) Understanding it does not give me any advantage at all. 3) Removing collisions would be a massive distortion of air combat as actively flying through your opponent, it is hard to miss from 10ft away, would be desirable. Bombers in particular would suffer from this new tactic.
-
"1. Most people think when they collide with a plane , the other plane should be damaged just like in the real world.
2. Most people believe when they do not collide with a plane that their plane should not be damaged just like in the real world.
Until a person understand the inherent problems with communication lag , the person can not understand why those 2 desires are in conflict. This is not an easy idea to rap your head around ,thinking in multiple time displaced realities is not something that comes easy to most people.
For almost all of us, we believe that desire #2 out ways desire #1."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However .....both desires are true or fact. One does not out weigh the other.
Why is internet lag allowed to decide who wins or loses a collision? This is fair?
The Internet does not decide anything. The pilot does. There is no such thing as winning or losing in a collision. Your plane takes damage if you collide with another plane. Your plane does not take damage when you do not collide with another plane. Quit worrying about the other pilot. It is up to him if he collides or not, just as it is up to you.
So, the people who REALLY understand it GOOD have an advantage?
No.
Why not remove the conflict? If fairness is unachievable it should be eliminated entirely.
There is no conflict. The system is fair compromise. The pilot who does not avoid a collision takes damage. The pilot who does avoid a collision files away.
-
That is another topic #2
This from the guy that tried to take this into about 8 other directions a page or so ago. Nice.
BTW I flew AW FR for years. This has that beat by a thousand miles. Although I do miss the off death star mission. They were a hoot.
-
However ...
there is no However ..., everything HT stated there is factually true.
-
This from the guy that tried to take this into about 8 other directions a page or so ago. Nice.
BTW I flew AW FR for years. This has that beat by a thousand miles. Although I do miss the off death star mission. They were a hoot.
7 but who's counting
I never said it didn't have AW beat and I think its a fantastic game but you are just #2ing and #4ing again.
However, since YOU brought it up, there are plenty of ideas AW had that would be nice if implemented in into the game and the way the HO and collide were handled was better imho. :aok
-
7 but who's counting
I never said it didn't have AW beat and I think its a fantastic game but you are just #2ing and #4ing again.
However, since YOU brought it up, there are plenty of ideas AW had that would be nice if implemented in into the game and the way the HO and collide were handled was better imho. :aok
Well thats your opinion. I like it better this way. AW's way you had no incentive to turn away because you couldn't collide. EVERYONE went for the hO even though it hit far less than it does here. With this setup, you are in control. If YOU avoid the other guy you DON'T HAVE COLLISIONS. pretty easy to understand. You don't have to understand "communication lag" or "time lag" or anything else everyone is typing here.
Don't collide and you won't take damage.
-
See rule #4
-
So let me get this straight ... If two pilots see each others plane, they're going head-on or nearly head-on?
Two pilots -in close proximity- that see EACH OTHER, and wind up with someone colliding, are generally going to be involved in a merge, likely a HO ... One pilot may have a good visual on a plane that he is chasing ... but chases rarely lead to collisions.
Or are you saying 90% of the population have no clue about BFM and ACM and only know how to yank the nose of their plane into the nose of another plane and call that a fight... On second thought, I think this last sentence actually is true.
The HO is a natural form of attack ... in just about ANY form of equal combat ... there's also the ambush, but that's not easy to do with aircraft in AH ...
:)
-
So...
Has anyone here flown against him in the MW arena, yet?
Have you figured it out?
He wants to be able to HO on the 1st merge, continually, hoping that the plane with the biggest guns will win first and, if not and a collision ensues, both take catastrophic damage, regardless if only one collides.
It has been his MO from the start and only takes five minutes to figure it out.
Give it a try...
-
The vast majority of the collisions I have had in AH did not involve an HO.
You're talking out of your rear, EVZ.
-
The vast majority of the collisions I have had in AH did not involve an HO.
What did they involve then? and if it wasn't a HO ... ? How did you -SEE- it to KNOW what was involved ... about the only other thing ? would be chasing bombers with TERRIBLE gunners or maybe unarmed C-47s ???
:uhoh
-
What did they involve then? and if it wasn't a HO ... ? How did you -SEE- it to KNOW what was involved ... about the only other thing ? would be chasing bombers with TERRIBLE gunners or maybe unarmed C-47s ???
:uhoh
Oh my lord... I just figured it out...
EVZ doesn't look around him when he's flying. Reading this last comment and the one before it... EVZ, are you aware you can look out of your plane from angles other than forward? I mean this not laughing at you, but seriously. Most people in the game spend less than 10 percent of their time looking out the front of their plane. That could quite easily explain why so much stuff "sneaks up on you". If that's the case, get with a trainer to get help setting up your views. It will completely change the game for you.
Wiley.
-
What did they involve then? and if it wasn't a HO ... ? How did you -SEE- it to KNOW what was involved ... about the only other thing ? would be chasing bombers with TERRIBLE gunners or maybe unarmed C-47s ???
:uhoh
LOL1000
Close-quarters turn fights. Scissors, barrel rolls, snap rolls, trying to force overshoots (both kinds), engaging with a foe with the same fighting technique and you both try the same things, etc., etc.
Actually looking all around you as you fight, straining to keep your foe in sight; it's easy to -SEE- and to KNOW what was involved...and to know if you collided with him, he collided with you, or you both collided with each other. It's not tough, nor is it voodoo or weird science.
-
Combat maneuvers in close proximity. No, I don't always see what happened, but sometimes I do. I've seen guys make a pass from my four o'clock to my ten o'clock, clearly missing my aircraft by over 100ft, and explode off of my wingtip as I get the "Soandso has collided with you" message. I've done similar things where I was the one to collide and the other guy was fine. I've put my nose through the other guy's cockpit when doing scissors.
-
I have it, after 15 years of the collision debate I truly have a new collision method. I write an auto collision debate tracker for the bbs. As soon as some one argues the merits of both die, they get their wish. A flag is set for them so that the requester dies as they happily fly by ,waving there hand at an airplane, just as they requested.
I then charge $30 to remove the flag when they request it a few days later.
HiTech
Dale ... please make is so !!! ... it would have to be maybe a 2 hour effort to code and test.
-
No, I don't always see what happened, but sometimes I do.
OK... I don't doubt you've caught a few glimpses of events, from "views". My experience is they are usually brief and incomplete. If you spend a lot of time with people on your tail, I suppose there will be more collisions from other views. Personally, I don't try and get THAT close when in the chase plane position ... and rarely experience anyone THAT close behind me.
:)
-
OK... I don't doubt you've caught a few glimpses of events, from "views". My experience is they are usually brief and incomplete. If you spend a lot of time with people on your tail, I suppose there will be more collisions from other views. Personally, I don't try and get THAT close when in the chase plane position ... and rarely experience anyone THAT close behind me.
:)
My guess is that you rarely get into any good fights. Many times I'm close enough to see the rivets on the skins, and STILL avoid collisions.
-
OK... I don't doubt you've caught a few glimpses of events, from "views". My experience is they are usually brief and incomplete. If you spend a lot of time with people on your tail, I suppose there will be more collisions from other views. Personally, I don't try and get THAT close when in the chase plane position ... and rarely experience anyone THAT close behind me.
:)
Nice veiled insult.
If you have time to think of veiled insults you have time to actually try to read and comprehend what I actually wrote, which did not amount to "I spend a lot of time with the other guy on my tail."
-
OK... I don't doubt you've caught a few glimpses of events, from "views". My experience is they are usually brief and incomplete. If you spend a lot of time with people on your tail, I suppose there will be more collisions from other views. Personally, I don't try and get THAT close when in the chase plane position ... and rarely experience anyone THAT close behind me.
:)
EVZ... with all respect, and no ill will intended...
In a good rolling scissors fight, it is not uncommon at all to be within D100... and sometimes see the range icon say "0"... without colliding. Both guys are trying to force an overshoot on the other... stall horn is blaring, flaps are full out... in some cases gear is out too to give you extra drag. Throttles are being chopped, barrel rolls... etc. This is what most dogfights with pilots that are experienced turn into. Add a few more planes in the mix and its a close quarters knife fight.
Collisions do occur in this situation. And yes... the pilots are using their hat switches or track IR to look around them for 90% of the fight. Only when the opponent crosses in front of them do they quickly look ahead and take the snap shot. Losing sight of your opponent in these types of fights means you are dead... period. You catch much more than a glimpse from views... 90% of the fight is done by looking around.
This is where "most" of my collisions occur as well. Rarely do I let someone collide with me when they decide to HO... and even more rarely do I accept a HO.
Personally... the convergence on just about everything I fly is set at 300. I dont shoot at anything out much farther than that... and in fact I like it even closer. When I fire, I want everything I have hitting one spot, with maximum velocity... to kill as quickly as possible.
From the limited experiences I have had with you, you fly mostly bombers, and drive tanks and other GV's. This is indicated by your stats as well. I have yet you meet you in a fighter. Im not saying you are inexperienced, or are not a good shot... nor am I saying you are... because I dont know that about you one way or the other.
But... if most of your air-to-air combat has been head on passes, or longer range shots... you are missing out on a big part of the game, and its tactics. If you are unfamiliar with close quarters dogfighting, I can understand why you dont see the reason for the collision model as it is.
From personal experience... I flew MW only for about a year solid when I started this game. It was not until I started flying in LW, FSO, and practicing in the DA that I learned to dogfight. You seem to be following along the same path I was on back then.
Spend some time in late war... go to the dueling arena. Hook up with a squad that flies in FSO. Mid War may be your home, but you can only learn so much there. Of course it is totally up to you, but it would be worth your time.
-
In a good rolling scissors fight, - Collisions do occur in this situation.
Ok ... also without intending any disrespect ... What % of AH players would you say engage in this type of fight, or maybe I should say CAN engage in this type of fight ? I'd guess we're once again talking about the (around) 10% that have some real idea of what's going on and HOW the game works.
This is where "most" of my collisions occur as well. Rarely do I let someone collide with me when they decide to HO... and even more rarely do I accept a HO.
But YOU are not exactly the AVERAGE player, are you...? I'm suggesting that the game SHOULD be structured for THEM, not the relatively small percentage of advanced pilots. The HO is definitely the most COMMON attack mode, anyone want to argue about that? It's essentially realistic, it requires the participation of BOTH parties (can be easily declined as you are aware). I have said that -MOST- collisions occur because of it and I still think that's a fact ...
From the limited experiences I have had with you, you fly mostly bombers, and drive tanks and other GV's. This is indicated by your stats as well. I have yet you meet you in a fighter.
I fly a lot of attack missions too, Deack, Ords, Radar, etc... and I encounter plenty of defensive aircraft, who more often than not, attempt a HO (or if they have an alt advantage, require that I meet their B&Z attack, which can easily turn into a HO.)
But... if most of your air-to-air combat has been head on passes, or longer range shots... you are missing out on a big part of the game, and its tactics. If you are unfamiliar with close quarters dogfighting, I can understand why you dont see the reason for the collision model as it is.
What you call dogfighting was a WWI tactic ... Romantic notions aside, it occurred During WWII, but it wasn't common ... Some brief encounters during the BOB, (WWI Ace Goering had some illusions about "Shooting the British Airforce out of the sky"), an occasional encounter over Germany or France (with one or both parties usually low on fuel and ammo). Happened even less in the pacific. If I want to fly WWI, I'll go elsewhere and do it in the appropriate aircraft.
It -IS- amusing that the HORDE HATERS, are usually the dogfighter types who are opposed to the disciplined, objective oriented MISSIONS, typical of WWII operations.
:cool:
-
Ok ... also without intending any disrespect ... What % of AH players would you say engage in this type of fight, or maybe I should say CAN engage in this type of fight ? I'd guess we're once again talking about the (around) 10% that have some real idea of what's going on and HOW the game works.
I would say that % is higher. But that point can be argued by both sides.
But YOU are not exactly the AVERAGE player, are you...? I'm suggesting that the game SHOULD be structured for THEM, not the relatively small percentage of advanced pilots. The HO is definitely the most COMMON attack mode, anyone want to argue about that? It's essentially realistic, it requires the participation of BOTH parties (can be easily declined as you are aware). I have said that -MOST- collisions occur because of it and I still think that's a fact ...
Actually... I do consider myself average here. I have no delusions that I am good by any means. I learn every time I go up. I know as soon as I make a mistake too, and I usually know I am going to get shot down before it happens.
And while the HO may be the most common tactic for the inexperienced player... is it not realistic or the most common in terms of air to air combat... at least if you want to live. A head on attack exposes you to your opponents guns. You are relying on being able to hit him before his rounds hit you. Its about a 50/50 tactic. More common and more effective in air to air combat (assuming you dont WANT to die)... is to out maneuver your opponent so that you can shoot at him... but he cannot shoot at you. This is the reason for pilots STILL learning to dogfight. It is not a romantic memory of WW1. Many of the guys I "fly" with here, are retired combat pilots. They will tell... and show you the same thing. I cringe every time I have to practice against Mace or Rodent. But... I learn from each sortie, and they are good teachers.
The one thing that changed my flying style from when I first started, to now... is I want to land each sortie. Kills or no kills... my objective is to make it home. Unfortunately, there is a good number of players that still play with the mindset of "If I get shot down, no big deal.. I will just take off again." Which is ok... its just a game. But if you play with the intent of, "I want to do my job... and get home"... your desire to be involved in a HO evaporates.
EDIT: This being an advanced flight combat simulation... I would argue that those who are average, or inexperienced, need to get better. The bar here is set high. It is set high for a reason.
I fly a lot of attack missions too, Deack, Ords, Radar, etc... and I encounter plenty of defensive aircraft, who more often than not, attempt a HO (or if they have an alt advantage, require that I meet their B&Z attack, which can easily turn into a HO.)
Dont play their game... learn to maneuver and avoid.
What you call dogfighting was a WWI tactic ... Romantic notions aside, it occurred During WWII, but it wasn't common ... Some brief encounters during the BOB, (WWI Ace Goering had some illusions about "Shooting the British Airforce out of the sky"), an occasional encounter over Germany or France (with one or both parties usually low on fuel and ammo). Happened even less in the pacific. If I want to fly WWI, I'll go elsewhere and do it in the appropriate aircraft.
Again... it was quite common during WW2. It only stopped being common with the advent of air-to-air missiles. Dogfighting and wingman tactics were essential in both theaters. However, I am not going to argue that with you. You are entitled to your opinion.
It -IS- amusing that the HORDE HATERS, are usually the dogfighter types who are opposed to the disciplined, objective oriented MISSIONS, typical of WWII operations.
:cool:
On the contrary... FSO is a perfect example too. Each frame is a combination of objective oriented missions, and defensive missions.... Typical of WWII operations. It is a ONE LIFE EVENT... so people fly more "like" they would in real life than in the main arenas. In the 2 years I have been flying in FSO, I can count on one hand the number of times I have been "HO'ed". More often than not, the engagements between escorts and defenders turn into dogfights. It is a great example of historical WW2 action, and is the premier event in Aces High. At this point, I consider flying in the MA's practice for FSO. If we are flying our favorite planes, we are practicing wingman tactics. But if its Thursday or Friday, we are in the plane we were assigned in FSO.... both in the MA, and in the DA for about 2 -3 hours prior to the event on Friday.
Take a step out of Mid War. Sure... the same dweebery goes on in Late War too... but there are some VERY good players there. Join an FSO squad (you dont have to leave your main arena squad to do this by the way). It's about as real as this game gets. Killshooter is off... one life event... planned missions. Some of us spend hours planning a single strike mission... and the side CiC's can spend days working out who gets which plane, who is attacking, who is defending. It will change the way you look at the whole game.
In any case... enjoy what you do. And in the end... it IS just a game.
-
I only play in LWMA and people attempting to joust is actually pretty rare, and easily avoided.
like someone mentioned earlier, most collisions that I see come from slow, flat scissors.
-
At least in my experience, the HO is not the most common attack. The most common, by far, is an attack from the rear.
-
What you call dogfighting was a WWI tactic ... Romantic notions aside, it occurred During WWII, but it wasn't common ... Some brief encounters during the BOB, (WWI Ace Goering had some illusions about "Shooting the British Airforce out of the sky"), an occasional encounter over Germany or France (with one or both parties usually low on fuel and ammo). Happened even less in the pacific. If I want to fly WWI, I'll go elsewhere and do it in the appropriate aircraft.
Your knowledge of aerial combat and its history and usage is just as vast as your knowledge of the collision system, which is just a nice way of saying it's "nil".
One thing though has become crystal clear though, the reason for the majority of the collisions you suffer. You lack knowledge in proper merge tactics and it results in most of your collisions because all you do is maneuver for the head on shot and keep firing in a virtual game of chicken. If one doesn't die by the HO, then one of you will die by the collision. You should see a trainer, learn some ACM and proper merge tactics and you'll see the number of collisions you suffer dramatically decline.
ack-ack
-
At least in my experience, the HO is not the most common attack. The most common, by far, is an attack from the rear.
Just as it was in real life, majority of those killed never saw their attacker bounce them from behind.
ack-ack
-
At least in my experience, the HO is not the most common attack. The most common, by far, is an attack from the rear.
Although it'd be hard to argue the HO attack is by far the most common attack for the newb. How many times have you had a guy spraying at your spinner from 1500 out and once you've reversed and killed him 10 seconds later you never heard of him? It happens to me almost nightly. But it is what it is. That hasn't changed in like forever and it likely won't moving forward. Newbs use this attack because they don't know any better. As AKAK said--seek training and this will go away. This entire game doesn't need to get dumbed down because some 2 weeker doesn't want to take the time to learn ACM. It's hard. The learning curve IS STEEP. If this was a "problem" with customers" I'd draw your attention to the just passed 13th birthday of this sim that was preceded by others of the same genre for several years. That speaks for itself.
To get anywhere near the neighborhood of proficient in fighter tactics one has to spend hundreds or thousands of hours actually IN a fighter. Driving a tank isn't gonna get you there. Manning a field gun isn't gonna get you there. Flying a bombers isn't gonna get you there. Flying a fighter--as a bomber--isn't gonna get you there. It takes time. Period. Guys that have problems with collisions are a small number of people most often in the newb group. They haven't figured it out so they fly into things. Guys like EVZ, while he likes to talk a big game, like or not falls into this group. He drives a tank or mans a gun a vast majority of his time, flies a fighter plane a tiny ammount of time relatively and I guess he flies into things a lot which frustrates the crap out of him. There's a reason for that and it's not the game. An attitude adjustment would have to precede any sort of training or the progression to the next level will never happen.
BTW I thought I should report to the group--I had a collision just the other night. :x God almighty yes! :x I was in the process or roping a C205 flown by a guy that's been around a bit. It was getting dark so visibility wasn't the best. I topped out and started down waiting for his nose to drop so I could put a burst into his canopy but I kinda lost sight of his plane against a dark patch of ground. I hit him as I passed and took damage and subsequently continued straight down to meet terra firma. I flew into the guy. Duh. No biggie. I picked up the shattered pieces of my life, got another plane and found and killed the guy in a straight up turnfight on the deck a few minutes later. That flaps out, scissors kind. Good fight too.
-
Your knowledge of aerial combat and its history and usage is just as vast as your knowledge of the collision system, which is just a nice way of saying it's "nil".
One thing though has become crystal clear though, the reason for the majority of the collisions you suffer. You lack knowledge in proper merge tactics and it results in most of your collisions because all you do is maneuver for the head on shot and keep firing in a virtual game of chicken. If one doesn't die by the HO, then one of you will die by the collision. You should see a trainer, learn some ACM and proper merge tactics and you'll see the number of collisions you suffer dramatically decline.
ack-ack
I am compelled to agree with every word of that statement.
So will anyone that flies in the MW and engages with EVZ.
Most of the encounters with him involve him trying to force the HO shot as much as possible.
The rest of the time is spent listening to him whining about how it's "BS" that there was a collision during the HO attempt and that both planes should have died from it.
If you do not believe it, go see for yourself.
Not a personal attack, but unadulterated truth garnered from experience flying in that arena.
-
I am compelled to agree with every word of that statement.
So will anyone that flies in the MW and engages with EVZ.
Most of the encounters with him involve him trying to force the HO shot as much as possible.
The rest of the time is spent listening to him whining about how it's "BS" that there was a collision during the HO attempt and that both planes should have died from it.
If you do not believe it, go see for yourself.
Not a personal attack, but unadulterated truth garnered from experience flying in that arena.
So, in EVZ's case the HO very well may be by far the most common attack he sees, but that is due to the common participant in all of his fights, him.
-
So, in EVZ's case the HO very well may be by far the most common attack he sees, but that is due to the common participant in all of his fights, him.
Absolutely accurate.
Since it is a valid tactic in his mind (which it sometimes may be, dependent upon circumstances), it will not change.
Saying that it happened in WWII vindicates it in his mind and therefore, it is usually the first tactic employed at first merge.
Usually easy to defeat, but sometimes worth taking a chance upon, just to hear him whine about it...
-
I would say that % is higher.
It could be ... I'm just making a general approximation, to illustrate my point. Which is: that the present collision model is structured and understood by a small minority of players and DOES provide them some advantage. It is disliked and misunderstood by the majority of players
And while the HO may be the most common tactic for the inexperienced player... is it not realistic or the most common in terms of air to air combat... at least if you want to live. A head on attack exposes you to your opponents guns. You are relying on being able to hit him before his rounds hit you. Its about a 50/50 tactic.
Plenty of experienced players rely on the HO attack to open combat ... The difference being that the experienced player may have added a few tricks to the move in hopes of forcing the opponent out of position, and MAY break off if they don't work. Then there are the guys having a bad day (week, month) and getting shot down repeatedly, who KNOW the odds, but revert to the HO since 50/50 is BETTER than anything else they can manage. I do get a kick out of a certain player posting here who has 2 moves (HO and Run to ACK) telling me how lame I am.
As for realistic ... standard escort doctrine was to TURN INTO any direct attack on the escort ... German flyers seldom had the time or fuel to maneuver for a BOUNCE and ALWAYS either attacked the escort first or designated elements to do so. Doctrine also denied pursuit of enemy fighters and dictated immediate return to escort position when the threat had been forced out of attack position (NO FURBALLING).
:cool:
-
the model does not give anyone "an advantage".
HTC should not be modelling anything badly, just because some players dont understand.
skilled players do not resort to the HO/joust as their Plan A, they do not need to.
turning into an attacking aircraft was and is a standard tactic. it is generally not done in order to set up a HO/joust, but to deny the attacker angles, and to give you options.
buy a copy of Shaw.
-
Turning into the attack does not mean doing an HO. If you evade away from an attack it is much easier for the attacker to pull in on your tail than if you evade into an attack.
-
This is the reason for pilots STILL learning to dogfight. It is not a romantic memory of WW1.
Pilots still learn to dogfight because it keeps them confident and efficient, not because anybody expects they will ever use the skill. This was discovered quite some time ago ... when they took away the guns, moral and efficiency suffered. VERY LITTLE $$$ is actually spent on such training and ? I know of NO current tactical plans for either attack or defense that incorporate "dogfighting." EXPERIENCE dictates that it's better to be prepared for the unexpected ... and SHOULD it happen, we will be ... I approve, but lets keep it in perspective ... this isn't hollywood.
if you play with the intent of, "I want to do my job... and get home"... your desire to be involved in a HO evaporates.
Depends on the job ... PLAYING the game COMPLETELY, (to win the war) will necessitate that you accept MANY missions that may require you to confront HO attacks or execute them ... If you just want to fly around and furball, that's fine, enjoy ... But that's entertainment, not involvement. It may ALSO require that you spend time in a tank or a gun or a C-47 ... Which it seems many people here feel is something THEY don't do.
-
I had a collision just the other night. :x God almighty yes! :x I was in the process or roping a C205 flown by a guy that's been around a bit. It was getting dark so visibility wasn't the best. I topped out and started down waiting for his nose to drop so I could put a burst into his canopy but I kinda lost sight of his plane against a dark patch of ground. I hit him as I passed
Sounds suspiciously like a HO ... doesn't it !!!
:lol
-
It could be ... I'm just making a general approximation, to illustrate my point. Which is: that the present collision model is structured and understood by a small minority of players and DOES provide them some advantage. It is disliked and misunderstood by the majority of players
This is incorrect and has no basis in reality.
The current collision system takes into account the current limitations of networking players together from all over the world. No one has yet to propose a better method to implement it, which does not have worse side effects.
Being disliked or liked is irrelevant.
-
Turning into the attack does not mean doing an HO. If you evade away from an attack it is much easier for the attacker to pull in on your tail than if you evade into an attack.
Ok... you've turned your P51 escort into the 109s coming down at you ... Now ... do you ... A) turn away and give them the angle you just denied them? B) "Evade" them and allow them to attack the bombers you are protecting? c) HO ... ??? Reality Baby ... BTW, they are NOT time displaced and if THEY collide with YOU ... you will NOT fly away ...
:D
-
When I break into the attack I do not pull all the way into an HO. As I approach the Bf109s I pull up into a bit of a climb and roll onto my side and begin my turn onto the tail of the Bf109s. As I have begun my turn before we've even passed each other I am well ahead on getting into position before the Bf109 that was trying for the HO has even begun to roll for his turn.
-
When I break into the attack I do not pull all the way into an HO. As I approach the Bf109s I pull up into a bit of a climb and roll onto my side and begin my turn onto the tail of the Bf109s. As I have begun my turn before we've even passed each other I am well ahead on getting into position before the Bf109 that was trying for the HO has even begun to roll for his turn.
His turn? he's not after you ... he's after the bombers you are NOT protecting, cause YOU chickened out and let him into the henhouse ... He'll make his run, zoom, hit his wep and get into position to do it again ... because YOU LET HIM.
Also, you see, this isn't a 1V1 ... there are likely 4 - 12 109s involved, a few MAY be tasked to deal with escorts ... they're WAITING for you to do what you just did ... when you evaded the ho, one of them latched onto YOU and you will be VERY BUSY for a while TRYING to stay alive rather than protecting the bombers ... Your CO isn't going to be happy with you, if you survive ... Your BUDDIES accepted the HO (and the risk). They tried to prevent as many 109s as possible from getting to the bombers ... that's THEIR JOB.
;)
-
Pilots still learn to dogfight because it keeps them confident and efficient, not because anybody expects they will ever use the skill.
That is completely incorrect as later conflicts have shown. It was popular thought during the '50s with the advent of jets that "dogfighting" was a thing of the past as jets were too fast and missiles were thought to be primary factors in jet engagements that guns weren't really that needed anymore. Vietnam showed the folly of this line of thought and which is why we have fighter schools like Top Gun to teach "dogfighting" and close air to air engagements which came out of lessons learned from Vietnam and earlier conflicts.
ack-ack
-
(nevermind)
-
Ok... you've turned your P51 escort into the 109s coming down at you ... Now ... do you ... A) turn away and give them the angle you just denied them? B) "Evade" them and allow them to attack the bombers you are protecting? c) HO ... ??? Reality Baby ... BTW, they are NOT time displaced and if THEY collide with YOU ... you will NOT fly away ...
:D
If a Bf 109 is coming at me, I will create seperation at the merge that will allow me to turn into the attacker for a lead turn angle for the shot on the merge or to get onto their six after the merge. I will not merge with the intent of going head on with the attacker, it's a stupid tactic that anyone with any sort of experience or skill will try to avoid.
It is obvious that you do not have any understanding of ACM nor the tactics to employ them or any understanding of merge tactic or how to employ a proper merge. That is why you collide.
ack-ack
-
Pilots still learn to dogfight because it keeps them confident and efficient, not because anybody expects they will ever use the skill. This was discovered quite some time ago ... when they took away the guns, moral and efficiency suffered. VERY LITTLE $$$ is actually spent on such training and ? I know of NO current tactical plans for either attack or defense that incorporate "dogfighting." EXPERIENCE dictates that it's better to be prepared for the unexpected ... and SHOULD it happen, we will be ... I approve, but lets keep it in perspective ... this isn't hollywood.
wow. someone better go tell the fast jet pilots they are wasting their time learning ACM. :confused:
-
His turn? he's not after you ... he's after the bombers you are NOT protecting, cause YOU chickened out and let him into the henhouse ... He'll make his run, zoom, hit his wep and get into position to do it again ... because YOU LET HIM.
Also, you see, this isn't a 1V1 ... there are likely 4 - 12 109s involved, a few MAY be tasked to deal with escorts ... they're WAITING for you to do what you just did ... when you evaded the ho, one of them latched onto YOU and you will be VERY BUSY for a while TRYING to stay alive rather than protecting the bombers ... Your CO isn't going to be happy with you, if you survive ... Your BUDDIES accepted the HO (and the risk). They tried to prevent as many 109s as possible from getting to the bombers ... that's THEIR JOB.
;)
You should probably spend sometime checking out all the gun cam footage, After action reports or any doctrine outlined by the actual pilots involved in these engagements you can find, let us know how many of those detail that the way that interceptors were engaged were done so using a Head On pass. Take into account one fact and this 'theory' makes no sense, a head on pass with a 109 would require the belief that their 6 .50 caliber guns (using a Mustang for example) would down or cripple the 109 BEFORE the 109 was able to line up and fire his 20 or 30 millimeter Cannons. Even if the Mustang were to down the 109 he would have to do so before the 109 could fire an accurate burst of his own, since the rounds would still send him either spiraling to the ground, or outright kill him. Not a risk to take if you plan on surviving the war. They didn't have unlimited lives to try again.
And for Drano's statement that you quoted, see where he says he was waiting for the "205's nose to drop so he could put a burst into the canopy"? That's not a HO, it would have been a top down shot, just like diving on someone from above and firing into his cockpit.
On an added note: If you research it, you will begin to see that in many if not most cases following "Big Week" the bombers were basically bait to lure the Luftwaffe up so that the Allied fighters could engage them, sounds like a so called "furball" doesn't it.
-
They didn't have unlimited lives to try again.
That's right, and they put those lives ON THE LINE to protect the bomber crews depending on THEM as a first line of defense ... They weren't there for the scenic views ... or the "fun fights".
And for Drano's statement that you quoted, see where he says he was waiting for the "205's nose to drop
Which would indicate a NOSE UP attitude wouldn't it ??? Drano was betting the guy didn't have the E to COMPLETE the HO ... He lost.
On an added note: If you research it, you will begin to see that in many if not most cases following "Big Week" the bombers were basically bait to lure the Luftwaffe up so that the Allied fighters could engage them,
Sounds completely NUTS ... is what it sounds like ... Exactly HOW MANY bombers and airmen are you speculating were LOST while being used as BAIT? Strategic bombing decimated the german aircraft industry and fuel reserves ... there was NEVER any question of air superiority around or even NEAR the front lines. VERY late in the war, as the Russians closed in on Berlin and Patton cooled his heels, allied aircraft were freed for fighter sweeps and agressive incursions on german airbases, most of which they found EMPTY.
:rolleyes:
-
If you commit to the HO with the Bf109s in your scenario you get one shot and one shot only, you'll never make it back before they have attacked. If you do a lead turn you will be right behind the Bf109s and can put pressure on many of them.
Remember, the '51s would not be doing close escort, co alt and speed with the bombers, so don't make a fake scenario where they have to respond from such a position.
-
If you commit to the HO with the Bf109s in your scenario you get one shot and one shot only, you'll never make it back before they have attacked. If you do a lead turn you will be right behind the Bf109s and can put pressure on many of them.
Remember, the '51s would not be doing close escort, co alt and speed with the bombers, so don't make a fake scenario where they have to respond from such a position.
There you guys go, trying to make his head explode again with pilot mumbo-jumbo...
-
That's right, and they put those lives ON THE LINE to protect the bomber crews depending on THEM as a first line of defense ... They weren't there for the scenic views ... or the "fun fights".
Your examples of using close escorts to try and prove your point isn't a very good one for number of reasons.
The simple truth is, fighter escorts really didn't work out that well. Something the Germans learned during the Battle of Britain and something the USAAF was to learn later on in the war.
The main problem is that the escorts were initially in a close escort formation with the order to never leave the bombers. Unfortunately, due to the close proximity of the escort formation, it was unable to prevent an intercepting group from making high speed head on passes and since the escorts had to stay in close formation, they couldn't prevent multiple attacks by the same intercepting group.
It wasn't until the 8th AF rescinded the order to stay with the bombers and allowed the escort fighters to free roam in front and the flanks of the bomber stream, with the intent of intercepting the Luftwaffe fighters before they were able to form up and attack the bombers. For example, it took at least 10 miles of undisturbed flying for a formation of intercepting fighters to form up for a head on attack against the bombers, something that was almost impossible to do with Allied escort fighters free roaming ahead of the bomber stream. The most effective escorts are the ones you don't see from the bomber stream since they are intercepting the attacking fighters before they get within visual range of the bombers.
These fights often degenerated to nothing more than swirling planes in a dogfight. Read Bud Anderson's book if you think otherwise.
ack-ack
-
I didn't fly into his nose--I flew into his wing. The TOP of his wing. I did everything but shoot the guy. Because I didn't see him well enough. My bad. That time. As I said I made up for it a few minutes later.
Don't try to act like you know about this. Your stats won't lie for you. Your stats shout out that you know nothing.
Another swing and a miss. Keep driving the tanks buddy.
-
There you guys go, trying to make his head explode again with pilot mumbo-jumbo...
Like having a conversation on quantum physics with an eskimo
-
As soon as Hitech can find a way to eliminate internet lag, I agree this would be a great idea. Until then, what we have is the best collision system available.
What about less lethality in the collision model?
-
The last thing I think we need is the idea out there that colliding isn't likely to cause major damage to somebody. It would just make offending pilots worse than they already are. Its not a perfect model but its the best option we have currently. At least sometimes the offender gets what they deserve; a missing wing.
-
What about less lethality in the collision model?
That's already modeled in. Damage is in relation to the severity of the collision.
ack-ack
-
What about less lethality in the collision model?
One of these days Alice! :old:
-
Drano stated he was attempting to "rope" the 205, so to explain "roping" means that the 205 was on Drano's 6 and either had or was near a gun solution, so Drano went vertical to bleed off the 205's E, which would cause the 205 to "Nose down" and start to fall AWAY from Drano, at which time he planned to roll over dive DOWN on the 205 which should regain level flight allowing Drano to fire a burst into the TOP of his canopy.
On February 20, 1944, in the spirit of Arnold's directive, the USSTAF launched a series of missions against Germany that became known as "Big Week." The planners intended to lure the Luftwaffe into a decisive battle by launching massive attacks on the German aircraft industry. By defeating the Luftwaffe, the Allies would achieve air superiority and the invasion of Europe could proceed.
BIG WEEK, formally known as Operation ARGUMENT, was the Allied code name for a coordinated assault in February 1944 upon German fighter factories and ball-bearing works located in Germany, Austria, and occupied Poland. These attacks were mounted by the U.S. Eighth Air Force flying from England and the U.S. Fifteenth Air Force flying from Italy. Daylight raids by U.S. bombers were supplemented by Royal Air Force area-bombing by night. Operation ARGUMENT sought to disrupt fighter production, compelling German fighters into the air where they could be destroyed. Only thus could German airpower be defeated and the success of the forthcoming Allied invasion of the continent be assured.
As far as "Big Week", what you claim sounded "NUTS" was viewed as acceptable losses by Allied Air Command. "lure the Luftwaffe into a decisive battle" sure does sound like they were engaging the Luftwaffe not just HOing and hoping for the best. "Big Week" is well documented since it was an Allied offensive, and yes there was a question of air superiority, unless you think our bombers and fighters only showed up after the Normandy Invasion. :rolleyes: Allied bombing was going on for a long time before there WAS a front line.
-
hitech should write in some code in a future version they can turn on at will for specific players.. give them "you take damage when someone collides with you", and see how long it takes for them to come back whining about how they "weren't anywhere near the other guy and collided!". so whenever someone posts in collision thread that both should take damage, hitech or skuzzy can go turn their "idiotic collision flag" from 0 to 1 and let them have what they want! :D
i could swear hitech almost quoted my idea yesterday. I shall expect it! :rock
-
If you commit to the HO with the Bf109s in your scenario you get one shot and one shot only, you'll never make it back before they have attacked. If you do a lead turn you will be right behind the Bf109s and can put pressure on many of them.
It's simple really, as noted, you have ONE SHOT at the attackers before they get to the bombers... if you fail to take it, they WILL all attack the bombers ... putting "pressure" on them is NOT the job and isn't going to save any bombers ... The escorts job after they meet the threat is to reverse and force the 109s out of position preventing them from doing it again ... NOT to chase them down ... Unless they are under attack themselves, they are to break off and return to the bombers.
Remember, the '51s would not be doing close escort, co alt and speed with the bombers, so don't make a fake scenario where they have to respond from such a position.
? Wouldn't be doing close escort ? DUH ... Close escort generally flew around 500 ft above the bombers and used racetrack and weave manuvers to stay in position. 51s were the plane of choice for that job ... High escort (2,000 -5,000 ft) had other jobs, if possible they'd prevent those 109s from making an organised attack ... THEY might go in on the 109s that got past the close escort -IF POSSIBLE- but given the number of bombers being escorted, there were always holes in the high escort ... (which is WHY there WAS a close escort) 51s were preferred, lots of 38s were used, 47s were sometimes used in both roles, but had limited range.
:cool:
-
? Wouldn't be doing close escort ? DUH ... Close escort generally flew around 500 ft above the bombers and used racetrack and weave manuvers to stay in position. 51s were the plane of choice for that job ... High escort (2,000 -5,000 ft) had other jobs, if possible they'd prevent those 109s from making an organised attack ... THEY might go in on the 109s that got past the close escort -IF POSSIBLE- but given the number of bombers being escorted, there were always holes in the high escort ... (which is WHY there WAS a close escort) 51s were preferred, lots of 38s were used, 47s were sometimes used in both roles, but had limited range.
:cool:
As I mentioned in a previous post, the 8th AF dumped the idea of close escorts after they finally came to the realization that closed escorts weren't effective. I don't know why you keep referencing it to prove your incorrect point or what it has to do with your 1) lack of skill and 2) collision model.
ack-ack
-
As I mentioned in a previous post, the 8th AF dumped the idea of close escorts after they finally came to the realization that closed escorts weren't effective. I don't know why you keep referencing it to prove your incorrect point or what it has to do with your 1) lack of skill and 2) collision model.
ack-ack
He is trying to set up a situation where doing an HO is the only correct answer so he can say something to the effect of "Ha! Gotcha. HOs are a valid tactic and in AH the collision model hurts this most common correct tactic!" Note that in his initial question to me he doesn't even mention bombers so when I treat is as a fighter vs fighter engagement with the Bf109 trying to HO my Mustang and describe the tactic I'd use against it, he changes it to a close escort of the bombers in which I am going too slow and am to close to the bombers to get anything other than an HO before the Bf109s reach the bombers.
It is an entirely ignorant and loaded question.
-
why oh why........ :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead
thickheadedness :old:
-
I can understand if someone doesn't understand the collision model wanting it switched. What I don't understand is when someone wants both planes to go down no matter, and even after the shortcomings are explained, hold on to that belief so doggedly. At any rate, the CM we currently have is the best you are going to get period, so enjoy the game.
-
As I mentioned in a previous post, the 8th AF dumped the idea of close escorts after they finally came to the realization that closed escorts weren't effective. I don't know why you keep referencing it to prove your incorrect point or what it has to do with your 1) lack of skill and 2) collision model.
As distastefull as replying to you is ... people should not be misled ... Close Escort was never "Dumped." Tactics evolved as more escorts became available and the number of interceptors the Germans launched dwindled due to the effects of strategic bombing and pressure on the eastern front. With the drop in the number of attackers and the increased coverage allowed by the growing allied escort corp, the number of fighters managing to penetrate the screen dropped to the point that close escort was a waste of resources ... it had served it's purpose and saved a LOT of bombers and crews ... There wasn't any "Free-Ranging" fighter tactic ... Close escort became advance escort and covered attack vectors in FRONT of the bomber stream ... once engaged, elements of the HIGH ESCORT replaced them. "Just the facts mam."
:neener:
-
Note that in his initial question to me he doesn't even mention bombers
I mentioned you were FLYING ESCORT ... and assumed you realized you were not escorting betty boop to a cartoon (my mistake).
he changes it to a close escort of the bombers in which I am going too slow and am to close to the bombers to get anything other than an HO before the Bf109s reach the bombers.
Please note, the assumption remains the same, nothing changed ... AND ... you don't seem to understand that close escort did NOT involve flying SLOW ... they didn't fly formation with the bombers ... they flew at standard cruise, just like every other P51 on their way into enemy territory. As previously mentioned they flew WEAVE patterns and used racetrack manuvers to maintain position slightly above the buffs. It' seems clear you don't really have a clue about the subject OR the tactics ... If you did, I wouldn't be explaining it to you.
:uhoh
-
This thread is an unrelenting source of workday amusement. :rofl
Please carry on :rock
-
... people should not be misled ...
Oh yeah we certainly wouldn't want that! :rofl
-
This thread is an unrelenting source of workday amusement. :rofl
Please carry on :rock
"Unrelenting" is a particularly apt choice of word.
Wiley.
-
See Rule #4
-
As far as "Big Week", what you claim sounded "NUTS" was viewed as acceptable losses by Allied Air Command. "lure the Luftwaffe into a decisive battle" sure does sound like they were engaging the Luftwaffe not just HOing and hoping for the best.
"luring" the Germans into battle is some GREAT PR SPEAK (which was an AF priority at that time) which has NO BASIS in reality ... In reality, the germans had been building up their bomber killers over the winter and were intent on clearing the skies of allied bombers in the spring. No one BAITED them into the air.
"Big Week" is well documented since it was an Allied offensive, and yes there was a question of air superiority, unless you think our bombers and fighters only showed up after the Normandy Invasion. :rolleyes: Allied bombing was going on for a long time before there WAS a front line.
Prior to the invasion, the "Front Line" was the coast ... The germans NEVER controlled the air over it ... The allies conducted tactical raids at will. By D-Day the germans had withdrawn almost all air support to Russia or moved it to rear areas for bomber interception.
Big Week is well documented, but is misunderstood by most ... You probably think the Allies WON ... In reality, we lost around 450 planes to enemy action and they lost around 350 ... Downed Allied Pilots were mostly killed or captured, Germans Pilots had much better survival odds. Close Escort remained in effect during Big Week and saved MANY allied bombers. As mentioned BIG WEEK was what the GERMANS were prepared for. The bombers concentrated on Vital Aircraft Factories, but failed to accomplish much ... due to the INTENSE and FREQUENT interceptions. The ONLY thing that saved the allies was, the suprise introduction of the P-51 in strength.
:cool:
-
"luring" the Germans into battle is some GREAT PR SPEAK (which was an AF priority at that time) which has NO BASIS in reality ... In reality, the germans had been building up their bomber killers over the winter and were intent on clearing the skies of allied bombers in the spring. No one BAITED them into the air.
Prior to the invasion, the "Front Line" was the coast ... The germans NEVER controlled the air over it ... The allies conducted tactical raids at will. By D-Day the germans had withdrawn almost all air support to Russia or moved it to rear areas for bomber interception.
Big Week is well documented, but is misunderstood by most ... You probably think the Allies WON ... In reality, we lost around 450 planes to enemy action and they lost around 350 ... Downed Allied Pilots were mostly killed or captured, Germans Pilots had much better survival odds. Close Escort remained in effect during Big Week and saved MANY allied bombers. As mentioned BIG WEEK was what the GERMANS were prepared for. The bombers concentrated on Vital Aircraft Factories, but failed to accomplish much ... due to the INTENSE and FREQUENT interceptions. The ONLY thing that saved the allies was, the suprise introduction of the P-51 in strength.
:cool:
]
Yawn...
-
Snipped
Do you ever tire of being wrong?
ack-ack
-
"luring" the Germans into battle is some GREAT PR SPEAK (which was an AF priority at that time) which has NO BASIS in reality ... In reality, the germans had been building up their bomber killers over the winter and were intent on clearing the skies of allied bombers in the spring. No one BAITED them into the air.
Prior to the invasion, the "Front Line" was the coast ... The germans NEVER controlled the air over it ... The allies conducted tactical raids at will. By D-Day the germans had withdrawn almost all air support to Russia or moved it to rear areas for bomber interception.
Big Week is well documented, but is misunderstood by most ... You probably think the Allies WON ... In reality, we lost around 450 planes to enemy action and they lost around 350 ... Downed Allied Pilots were mostly killed or captured, Germans Pilots had much better survival odds. Close Escort remained in effect during Big Week and saved MANY allied bombers. As mentioned BIG WEEK was what the GERMANS were prepared for. The bombers concentrated on Vital Aircraft Factories, but failed to accomplish much ... due to the INTENSE and FREQUENT interceptions. The ONLY thing that saved the allies was, the suprise introduction of the P-51 in strength.
:cool:
EVZ I'm glad to see that you have a better grasp of what happened nearly 70 years ago, than historians not to mention the planners and pilots who were there. The fact that your response to documented information is to put forth your OPINION is interesting. I can already see your response denying that it is opinion, however that is exactly what it is due to the fact that you can't produce anything to support it, and you simply have no basis on which to refute the people that were. I mean honestly, first everyone except you is wrong about the collision model, then Ack-Ack is wrong about close escorts being used, Karnak is wrong about the way close escort was used, and now I, and the documents I quoted, are wrong about the operations of "Big Week". Wow seems that you believe you are the only person here that could ever be right. The condescending manner in which you post reveals the fact that you will never accept being wrong no matter how many times it is shown to be the case. Suggestions to improve your interactions. 1.) Do not pretend that you speak for the 'majority' of players regarding the CM or any other matter. 2.) AH has some really good trainers that could help you with understanding and employing ACM. 3.) When your wrong suck it up and learn from it 4.) Do some research on WWII before you convince yourself that you are an authority on the subject, because you are severely misguided on the history. I think these things will be of great benefit in your future interactions with either in game or here on the forums. I'm sure you will have some response that will attempt to disprove what I have posted here, and I quite frankly expect it, because well that's what you do EVZ. :lol
-
Do you ever tire of being wrong?
ack-ack
I very seriously doubt he has ever been wrong, in his mind at least.
-
Hubris.
-
EVZ, :salute sir.
Don't think I have ever encountered you in the game. Do you fly planes in this game?
-
I'm sure you will have some response that will attempt to disprove what I have posted here,
Nope ... you've illustrated your limitations quite adequately ... I do believe you have the potential to comprehend, but wouldn't expect that to happen any time soon ...
:cool:
-
I very seriously doubt he has ever been wrong, in his mind at least.
I'm almost ALWAYS wrong when I expect people to deal rationally with factual material. But, hope springs eternal ... Hey! there was even somebody here who knew who Archimedes was without googleing him !
:lol
-
Do you fly planes in this game?
Sure ... take a look at last months stats in MWA. This Mo. I've got LOTS of rehersals, cut's into online time ...
:cool:
-
I'm almost ALWAYS wrong when I expect people to deal rationally with factual material. But, hope springs eternal ... Hey! there was even somebody here who knew who Archimedes was without googleing him !
:lol
You know he didn't google him?
You really are omnipotent...
-
I'm almost ALWAYS wrong when I expect people to deal rationally with factual material.
It must really suck when you fail to meet your own expectations.
I think I might have to join VonMessa in the MW arena one of these nights and rack up some easy kills.
ack-ack
-
This thread is an unrelenting source of workday amusement. :rofl
Please carry on :rock
Yes, yes it is. :aok
-
I'm almost ALWAYS wrong when I expect people to deal rationally with factual material. But, hope springs eternal ... Hey! there was even somebody here who knew who Archimedes was without googleing him !
:lol
My point was your example was calling Archimedes an idiot. You still haven't made a single rational argument.
-
This is still going on!? My goodness :bhead
-
It must really suck when you fail to meet your own expectations.
I think I might have to join VonMessa in the MW arena one of these nights and rack up some easy kills.
ack-ack
:x
Just tell Commissioner Gordon to fire up the Baby Seal beacon !