Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: YamaRaja on December 04, 2013, 02:08:52 PM
-
And you can flame all you want because I likely wont come back in here to see it.
This game has the hands down worst collision model of any flight game out there. It rewards colliding. I know Hightech doesn't care what anyone thinks about it.
Couple that with the cheats that are known to exist and are let go.
Packet loss at the servers resulting in unregistered hits of ammo.
Its hard to keep playing. I can take a week off and it doesn't take an hour to be pissed off again.
This game is on a downward spiral, I have seen it before.
I was a test coordinator for 9 years for a now defunct flight game.
They didn't listen either, the vocal loyalist finally got their way. Nothing changed, that's how they wanted it, and the game died as a result.
Yes there will be a core group of people that will remain loyal, always is.
But they will either die off or lose interest to, games all have a shelf life.
Without new players games become unable to support themselves and go away.
Planes that hit each other should BOTH be damaged. No fighter plane flys away completely unscathed from a midair collision. Perhaps one can land both they both sustain damage.
Players in the game collide intentionally, all the time, they know half the time they get a kill and nothing happens to them.
The result is a whole bunch of ho tards.
Perhaps Hightech is one in a hider nick, perhaps that's why it stays this way. :devil
-
And you can flame all you want because I likely wont come back in here to see it.
This game has the hands down worst collision model of any flight game out there. It rewards colliding. I know Hightech doesn't care what anyone thinks about it.
Couple that with the cheats that are known to exist and are let go.
Packet loss at the servers resulting in unregistered hits of ammo.
Its hard to keep playing. I can take a week off and it doesn't take an hour to be pissed off again.
This game is on a downward spiral, I have seen it before.
I was a test coordinator for 9 years for a now defunct flight game.
They didn't listen either, the vocal loyalist finally got their way. Nothing changed, that's how they wanted it, and the game died as a result.
Yes there will be a core group of people that will remain loyal, always is.
But they will either die off or lose interest to, games all have a shelf life.
Without new players games become unable to support themselves and go away.
Planes that hit each other should BOTH be damaged. No fighter plane flys away completely unscathed from a midair collision. Perhaps one can land both they both sustain damage.
Players in the game collide intentionally, all the time, they know half the time they get a kill and nothing happens to them.
The result is a whole bunch of ho tards.
Perhaps Hightech is one in a hider nick, perhaps that's why it stays this way. :devil
We will just have more complaining and crying when both planes take damage from a collision because one person didn't collide on their screen.
-
:cry
Couple that with the cheats that are known to exist and are let go.
:ahand
-
Planes that hit each other should BOTH be damaged.
This is a actual online collision, from the P-47 pilot's point of view. It's the very moment of collision, the 51 never get's closer than this (from the P-47 pilot's view):
(http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/9027/ramotherfeen9.jpg)
(See the white collision message: "Lusche (P-51 pilot) has collided with you")
If you were the P-47 pilot, would demand that your plane takes collision damage from this?
-
I guess I don't take issue with the collision model. I get the arguments why it is th e way it is and has been discussed ad nauseum. What I don't get is why bullet hits have to be managed by the server. Why not locally? Wouldn't this cure the rubber bullet issue. I'm shooting at what I see, not what my opponent sees or is...
Cheers
-
And you can flame all you want because I likely wont come back in here to see it.
This game has the hands down worst collision model of any flight game out there. It rewards colliding. I know Hightech doesn't care what anyone thinks about it.
Couple that with the cheats that are known to exist and are let go.
Packet loss at the servers resulting in unregistered hits of ammo.
Its hard to keep playing. I can take a week off and it doesn't take an hour to be pissed off again.
This game is on a downward spiral, I have seen it before.
I was a test coordinator for 9 years for a now defunct flight game.
They didn't listen either, the vocal loyalist finally got their way. Nothing changed, that's how they wanted it, and the game died as a result.
Yes there will be a core group of people that will remain loyal, always is.
But they will either die off or lose interest to, games all have a shelf life.
Without new players games become unable to support themselves and go away.
Planes that hit each other should BOTH be damaged. No fighter plane flys away completely unscathed from a midair collision. Perhaps one can land both they both sustain damage.
Players in the game collide intentionally, all the time, they know half the time they get a kill and nothing happens to them.
The result is a whole bunch of ho tards.
Perhaps Hightech is one in a hider nick, perhaps that's why it stays this way. :devil
You're rage quitting because you don't understand how the collision model works? :rofl
-
This is a actual online collision, from the P-47 pilot's point of view. It's the very moment of collision, the 51 never get's closer than this:
(http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/9027/ramotherfeen9.jpg)
If you were the P-47 pilot, would demand that your plane takes collision damage from this?
^this^
Some people just don't understand how this works.
I've seen enemy fire that, on my end, looks to be passing hundreds of feet behind my plane, yet I get hit by it.... Because on the shooters end, I am where he sees me, not where I am on my end.
it's spelled LAG.
Accept it. Live with it. Or leave. But it doesn't need to be changed.
-
Honestly, the collision system in Aces High, while frustrating at times, makes perfect sense once you understand it.
-
OK....what's a hider nick? :headscratch:
YamaRaga do a forum search on collisions. It's been explained hundreds of times.
-
OK....what's a hider nick? :headscratch:
YamaRaga do a forum search on collisions. It's been explained hundreds of times.
A shade.... :cool:
I'd like to know how the OP knows the packets are lost at HTC's servers,did he run a pingplot to find this out or is he just spouting off on another urban myth.... Did you hear about the doberman that coughed up a pair of fingers,ya it's happened to a friend of a friend who knows the sister of the guy who saw the dog..... :rolleyes:
Most of the game works on wisiwig,what you see is what you get! That includes shooting,if you see hit sprites then you hit the enemy,regardless what he sees.
:salute
-
I guess I don't take issue with the collision model. I get the arguments why it is th e way it is and has been discussed ad nauseum. What I don't get is why bullet hits have to be managed by the server. Why not locally? Wouldn't this cure the rubber bullet issue. I'm shooting at what I see, not what my opponent sees or is...
Cheers
They are managed locally. Turn on vsync.
-
I agree that the collision model is fishy, but I don't really understand it. So, I do my damnedest not to collide or allow another guy to collide with me. Sometimes though my cologne attracts certain kinds of players and I can't get away.
It happens. Deal with it. Understand for every collision you've lost there are about an equal number you've won. Funny how people don't run here to the forums and proclaim how things "suck" when things happen in their favor, be it collision, the proverbial HO, rubber bullets, etc.
Relax and suck it up, cupcake. The sun will rise tomorrow no matter what you think, what you do, or if HTC trips over the power cable again. Everything will be alright. :aok
-
(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w246/fieldsofink/collision1.png) (http://s178.photobucket.com/user/fieldsofink/media/collision1.png.html)
-
Well, bye.
Wiley.
-
(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w246/fieldsofink/collision1.png) (http://s178.photobucket.com/user/fieldsofink/media/collision1.png.html)
Priceless :aok
-
:sigh:
Not enough energy for this one.
Bye
:airplane:
-
Hahaha, I never said I was quitting. I said I probably wont come back to view your responses.
Which by the way were for the most part exactly what I expected.
Newsboard trolls always act the same. With the "dont let the door hit ya in the behind mentality", which is why players leave and dont come back.
I did have to look though, cause I knew how many of you would act. Thanks for restoring my faith in my opinion of NG trolls :neener:
As to the damage model, no matter if I understand how its "supposed to work" to quote someone.
Its fubar none the less.
And a "hider" is a seperate account you use so that no one knows who you are.
Just as the double account or triple account spies in this game.
-
Now how about answering my question? :)
-
AoM owns me?
I beg to differ...
-
Y'know... I'd really hate to see what it must look like when some of these "I'm leaving" posters get an overcooked steak at the local Applebee's.
Wiley.
-
AoM owns me?
I beg to differ...
I own you like a red headed step child :noid
-
Rants from people who don't understand how the collision system works are dime a dozen, the really great part about this thread is the "cheats that are everyone knows to exist and are let go"
I guess it's probably the same 'everyone' that is talking so knowledgeably in this video = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awqPvL1Fs14
-
Now how about answering my question? :)
We'll see that along with his apology any minute now. :lol
-
Players in the game collide intentionally, all the time, they know half the time they get a kill and nothing happens to them.
The result is a whole bunch of ho tards.
Boy I would love to win 1/2 my collisions.
99% of my collisions, no matter who hits who, I am killed...period.
Sometimes after a collision and death, sitting in tower, will get the message "XXXXXX collided with you"....yea that's just a bit too late.
I don't know what collision model timing is, but could you tweak it to give some more time for collisions to be processed?
(edited...changed the word "reported" to "processed")
-
I own you like a red headed step child :noid
Receipts :old: we must see the receipts!
-
Boy I would love to win 1/2 my collisions.
99% of my collisions, no matter who hits who, I am killed...period.
Sometimes after a collision and death, sitting in tower, will get the message "XXXXXX collided with you"....yea that's just a bit too late.
I don't know what collision model timing is, but could you tweak it to give some more time for collisions to be reported?
Your collisions are detected on your PC. The message is sent imediately. Any lag is from the internet.
-
Your collisions are detected on your PC. The message is sent imediately. Any lag is from the internet.
so you're saying because of lag, I lose more collisions than win?
-
so you're saying because of lag, I lose more collisions than win?
No he isn't. You don't "win" or lose collisions.
Lag is responsible that you and the other player are appearing to be in slightly different positions on each screens. That affects you both the same, overall there's no "advantage" for any player in this, as it's basically the combined lag of you both determining how big that difference is, for you both.
Because of that displacement, it's very much possible that there is a collision on player's A screen, but not on player B's. If so, only player A will take damage. See the picture I posted earlier.
That's all.
Oh, and if you don't see the "YOU have collided message", any damage to you did not come from the collision. You have been shot.
-
No he isn't. You don't "win" or lose collisions.
Lag is responsible that you and the other player are appearing to be in slightly different positions on each screens. That affects you both the same, overall there's no "advantage" for any player in this, as it's basically the combined lag of you both determining how big that difference is, for you both.
Because of that displacement, it's very much possible that there is a collision on player's A screen, but not on player B's. If so, only player A will take damage. See the picture I posted earlier.
That's all.
excuse me but if I get a message after going to tower that says so and so has collided what exactly does that tell me? Especially after so and so flies away apparently undamaged?
I have read the posts on collision model.
-
Let me say something and I will be very clear!
Some of us are biased against by the collision model in combination with all the things that can influence it. And of course it's constantly fluctuating in intensity.
I am one of those players who is constantly killed by collisions. I have a fairly fast internet connection.
It's not worth it to me to try to decompose the situation, this is not my game.
I only know that it is happening to me.
I still play and enjoy the game, but again the collisions are biased against me for whatever reason.
Please allow me to say what happens without being attacked....Thank You
-
excuse me but if I get a message after going to tower that says so and so has collided what exactly does that tell me? Especially after so and so flies away apparently undamaged?
'apparently' is a key word ;)
If you only read "Lusche has collided with you" it means there was a collision on my side only, and only I took damage from it. But occasionally that damage can be non catastrophic and hard for you to spot especially if you are sent to tower (which happpened in this case because you were shot).
-
This is a actual online collision, from the P-47 pilot's point of view. It's the very moment of collision, the 51 never get's closer than this (from the P-47 pilot's view):
(http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/9027/ramotherfeen9.jpg)
(See the white collision message: "Lusche (P-51 pilot) has collided with you")
If you were the P-47 pilot, would demand that your plane takes collision damage from this?
Is this screenie from the 47's film?
Doh I should read the post properly
-
I am one of those players who is constantly killed by collisions.
We all get constantly killed by collisions, it's the nature of the beast that one rarely survies one. There is no one "winning".
-
Is this screenie from the 47's film?
Yes. And this is the one from the Pony pilots film:
(http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/2236/rammyfeve9.jpg)
Same moment as in the Jug pilot's picture.
The P-51 got an oil leak from it, the P-47 was (of course) undamaged, as there was no collision on his front end.
-
Don't go nose to nose looking for a HO shot and suddenly the number of collisions you are involved in is greatly reduced. At least that has been my experience.
-
Don't go nose to nose looking for a HO shot and suddenly the number of collisions you are involved in is greatly reduced. At least that has been my experience.
stop making so much damn sense :O
it goes over the heads of 99% of the people anyways. :rofl
-
We all get constantly killed by collisions, it's the nature of the beast that one rarely survies one. There is no one "winning".
ok....
player collides with me from behind
get message that I have collided with player
I am killed, or plane is unable to fly on (killed)
I am towered or bail immediately and go to tower
while in tower get message that player has collided with me
player flies away
?????
Now if both players were killed I wouldn't have much to complain about, it's the other player flying away that annoys me. And it happens all the time to me.
Snailman it's not your fault that my computer goes spaz when you fly near me. You're in Europe. When that happens I get fair warning and avoid you like the plague. :neener:
-
I don't understand why someone would come in here to obviously fish for flames, then claim he
"probably" won't be around to reply. Amazingly enough, they always seem to come back. :lol
Does the wonk-wonk not count if everyone can't read about it?
-
Now Snailman it's not your fault that my computer goes spaz when you fly near me. You're in Europe. When that happens I get fair warning and avoid you like the plague. :neener:
Never had a problem with Lusches Ping, and I am in Australia. I don't even remember seeing him warp once. :headscratch:
-
Well first off...collisions are what they are...frustrating and sometimes hard to swallow...especially when you are the front plane and have no control of the plane behind...but still get a you have collided and they fly off unharmed.....They are what they are and I have a that was bollocks moment/man that was not a fair call moment when I come out better. from time to time.. but ultimately understand.
that said.....the film viewer is wrong.... the distance shows 0 which to me indicates between 100 and 0 sure...but to take it from thew film viewers perception can only be a guide...many know the clicks and ticks of the film viewer... the distance though...that should be a telling factor which is quite possibly overlooked because the picture shows a better outcome when it suits the moment
Perhaps it could be in the distance parameters that a small issue can arise when factoring internet connections meet... could having smaller increments when you get within the D600 mark help...
To be fair it doesn't happen all that much ..to me that is...and I get really close to people very often when fighting
it would be interesting to see a picture from two players of a jeep and tank from when the jeep could do the unmentioned..... this too would be a 0 in distance....would it show this sort of distance also
-
ok....
player collides with me from behind
get message that I have collided with player
I am killed, or plane is unable to fly on (killed)
I am towered or bail immediately and go to tower
while in tower get message that player has collided with me
player flies away
?????
Now if both players were killed I wouldn't have much to complain about, it's the other player flying away that annoys me. And it happens all the time to me.
Snailman it's not your fault that my computer goes spaz when you fly near me. You're in Europe. When that happens I get fair warning and avoid you like the plague. :neener:
You may have read about collisions but you don't understand them. Every player that collides gets damage. What likely confuses you is thinking that the player you collided with also collided with you. That may or may not have happened but you can't see it on your PC. All you can see is one or both of the two possible collision messages.
Lag works both ways, no one has an advantage or disadvantage.
-
that said.....the film viewer is wrong.... the distance shows 0 which to me indicates between 100 and 0 sure...but to take it from thew film viewers perception can only be a guide...many know the clicks and ticks of the film viewer... the distance though...that should be a telling factor which is quite possibly overlooked because the picture shows the better picture when it suits the moment
I have a hard time understanding what you are trying to say. :headscratch:
-
I have a hard time understanding what you are trying to say. :headscratch:
same...I have to keep editing....my mind runs faster than my fingers...and the two of them get all confused hahaahahaha
-
(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w246/fieldsofink/collision1.png) (http://s178.photobucket.com/user/fieldsofink/media/collision1.png.html)
:banana:
-
I have a hard time understanding what you are trying to say. :headscratch:
He's saying he doesn't understand the AH collision solution. ;)
-
Ok... we all know there are bugs with the film viewer and how it shows what was copied.
So to take a screenie although it gives a general depiction it may not actually be a true representation.
The distance is the same in both pics... it shows 0
Now I know with the current settings this could mean anywhere between D100 and D0 so I had a thought that if the distance increments were set smaller when it got to D600-D0 if it could change the games perception of closeness ingame.
-
He's saying he doesn't understand the AH collision solution. ;)
No not at all
I am saying that the film viewer can skew perception
-
Ok... we all know there are bugs with the film viewer and how it shows what was copied.
So to take a screenie although it gives a general depiction it may not actually be a true representation.
The distance is the same in both pics... it shows 0
Both pictures from the film viewer show the reality exactly as it happened in the arena for both players. I know that, because I was there. It was a deliberate, controlled collision test to get some footage and pictures for threads like this. The P-47 flew straight and level and the P-51 rammed it from behind.
Both players saw exactly happening what you can now see on the pictures.
By "distance 0" I believe you are referrign to the icon? Well, keep in mind that icon distance was displayed as a rounded value in case of enemy cons. That doesn't change the fact that the planes are exactly in the same place in each film as they appeared for that film's pilot when it happened.
-
Aye but if you look at the range at the collision moment it shows only 2 foot of separation P47 is 71 and P51 is 69...
Does the Jug driver remember seeing as much distance as the screenie shows......
Please understand I am not disagreeing with how collisions are modelled...I was just trying to point out that that particular screenie and others like it could be a flawed example.....
trust me i could be and am probably totally wrong... but the numbers and pictures don't match...the P51's view does however coincide with each other...
oh nevermind I see what you are actually showing....I just looked at it from the wrong angle
-
Aye but if you look at the range at the collision moment it shows only 2 foot of separation P47 is 71 and P51 is 69...
LOl.. that's the distances to both players from the camera view point :)
-
No not at all
I am saying that the film viewer can skew perception
As Lusche explained, the film viewer shows if you collided or not. The only significant position bug I know of in films is the CV location.
-
LOl.. that's the distances to both players from the camera view point :)
Oh true bro hahaha
walks of red faced hahahaha
I feel a bit like this now
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zqjwXZAfVzo/Tm2ZQu7D-8I/AAAAAAAAAGQ/_9_n_eDqT_Q/s1600/Dumb.gif)
-
As far as collisions go, I get about 90% of my collisions from getting too close in a scissor with a con, not HO, and about 10% from accidentally hitting a set of buffs I've made a guns pass on.
Yama, we all get frustrated. I hate it when a con rams me and flies off. It happens. Good thing about this game is that planes are free, and we never die. You're a good guy and I've flown around ya, just play for fun, man.
Don't sweat the small stuff.... that's what drives people away.... focusing too much on the 2% that maybe needs work, and not looking at the 98% that, well, just freaking rocks about this game.
-
Here are the two films loaded one over the other.
(http://www.gstelmack.com/Collision.gif)
If you look close you can see the 2 P47s one right over the other.
-
Here are the two films loaded one over the other.
(http://www.gstelmack.com/Collision.gif)
If you look close you can see the 2 P47s one right over the other.
Well that pretty much explains a collision model right there, what one person sees is not exactly what the other person sees. But I'm sure there'll be some that just don't understand.
-
I try not to crash. Sometimes two pilots planes get too tight and it happens :aok
:cheers: Oz
-
And you can flame all you want because I likely wont come back in here to see it.
This game has the hands down worst collision model of any flight game out there. It rewards colliding. I know Hightech doesn't care what anyone thinks about it.
Couple that with the cheats that are known to exist and are let go.
Packet loss at the servers resulting in unregistered hits of ammo.
Its hard to keep playing. I can take a week off and it doesn't take an hour to be pissed off again.
This game is on a downward spiral, I have seen it before.
I was a test coordinator for 9 years for a now defunct flight game.
They didn't listen either, the vocal loyalist finally got their way. Nothing changed, that's how they wanted it, and the game died as a result.
Yes there will be a core group of people that will remain loyal, always is.
But they will either die off or lose interest to, games all have a shelf life.
Without new players games become unable to support themselves and go away.
Planes that hit each other should BOTH be damaged. No fighter plane flys away completely unscathed from a midair collision. Perhaps one can land both they both sustain damage.
Players in the game collide intentionally, all the time, they know half the time they get a kill and nothing happens to them.
The result is a whole bunch of ho tards.
Perhaps Hightech is one in a hider nick, perhaps that's why it stays this way. :devil
You should quit the game and go take an english class, cause your spelling is awful. :rolleyes:
-
You should quit the game and go take an english class, cause your spelling is awful. :rolleyes:
Show that sentence to an English teacher. :lol
-
Odd. It's never rewarded me for a collision I caused to happen. EVER.
Just sayin'.
-
Odd. It's never rewarded me for a collision I caused to happen. EVER.
Just sayin'.
I'm rewarded each time I have a collision. The game rewards me by removing a wing, an elevator, or some other vital part I need to keep flying.
ack-ack
-
ok....
player collides with me from behind
get message that I have collided with player
I am killed, or plane is unable to fly on (killed)
I am towered or bail immediately and go to tower
while in tower get message that player has collided with me
player flies away
?????
Now if both players were killed I wouldn't have much to complain about, it's the other player flying away that annoys me. And it happens all the time to me.
Snailman it's not your fault that my computer goes spaz when you fly near me. You're in Europe. When that happens I get fair warning and avoid you like the plague. :neener:
There are three types of collisions, with two possible outcomes for two of them, and four possible outcomes for the third type.
Type 1, aka "Its your fault".
YOU see a collision on your screen, and due to lag, the other guy does not.
This is indicated by the message "you have collided"
The other guy will always keep flying in 100% of these types of collisions, no ifs ands or buts, end of story.
YOU will either take damage but keep flying, or you will begin to start to tumble and fall from the sky, no other possible outcome, quit whining.
Type 2, aka "its his fault"
Enemy player sees a collision, but due to lag, you do not.
Indicated by the message "Xxxx has collided with you"
YOU will never, ever, ever take damage from this. Period. Thats all.
HE will either take damage and keep flying, or start to tumble and fall from the sky. That it, shut up, nothing else happens.
Type 3, aka "you both f**ked up"
BOTH you AND the enemy see a collision.
Indicated by the presence of both previous messages
1st possible outcome: You both take damage, but keep flying.
2nd possible outcome: you both take damage, and both fall to the ground
3rd possible outcome: you both take damage, he keeps flying, you die. Its logical, shut up and deal with it.
4th possible outcome: you both take damage, he dies, you keep flying. Its logical, shut up and deal with it.
Now theres some standard procedures when you collide, with action taken depending on how you answer the questions.
1) Did you keep flying?
y: The collision model works, and you got lucky. RTB and get a new plane.
n: The collision model works, and you're unlucky. Shutup, get a new plane, and deal with it.
2) Did he keep flying?
y: The collision model works! Quit whining, get a new plane, and go kill him.
n: The collision model works! Congratulations on your luck! Now you won't have to hunt him down.
3) Are you unhappy about the outcome of the collision?
y: Shutup, its fair, deal with it.
n: Congrats, you're able to deal with bad luck! Reup and get back out there soldier, the war continues!
3) Do you think it was unfair?
y: Shutup, you're ignorant and don't know what happened. Go educate yourself with the many resources available.
n: Congrats, you're not a confused, sniveling tard!
-
Here are the two films loaded one over the other.
(http://www.gstelmack.com/Collision.gif)
If you look close you can see the 2 P47s one right over the other.
This clip right here should be a stickie
-
Here are the two films loaded one over the other.
(http://www.gstelmack.com/Collision.gif)
If you look close you can see the 2 P47s one right over the other.
Best illustration I have ever seen of how and WHY the collision model is how it is.
I second that it should be a sticky.
-
I own you like a red headed step child :noid
:noid :bolt: :joystick:
-
:noid :bolt: :joystick:
:D
hope life is good for ya :salute
-
I'm rewarded each time I have a collision. The game rewards me by removing a wing, an elevator, or some other vital part I need to keep flying.
ack-ack
Oh my rewards are usually much greater. I'm almost always in the tower before I understand what part(s) of my plane are no longer attached. :D
-
Thank you for the nice words Reaper90.
Yes Reaper it is a great game, best one out there currently for an WWII based flight game, I do believe that. As well I like 90% of the pilots in this game.
If in fact as folks are saying "lag" is the reason only one plane sustains damage in a collision then the games ability to handle players in close proximity is more fubar than I thought.
After 12 years in another flight game this was never an issue there.
So your saying one player collides but the other doesnt?
That its connection related?
Then people with a crappy connectioin are rewarded with a lessened chance of their position being reported at the point of the collision?
That is a game issue my friends.
The problem remains that an opposing plane can fly right thru you without sustaining any damage. If the aircraft positions are that far off, then the game is flawed in this area, period.
That would be the actual game engine, because it can not handle aircraft positions as well as say the "Conductor" game engine Fighter Ace ran on.
Isnt the small word "Lag" so powerful? It can be used as an excuse for so many things.
Internet lag, server lag, client lag.
-
So your saying one player collides but the other doesnt? Yes
That its connection related? Yes, but not in the way you think. It applies to both parties involved in the very same way, so nobody gains an 'advantage'
Then people with a crappy connectioin are rewarded with a lessened chance of their position being reported at the point of the collision? no
The problem remains that an opposing plane can fly right thru you without sustaining any damage. Nobody can
In the end, you are still misunderstanding the collision model.
And you still didn't answer my initial question. :)
-
Thank you for the nice words Reaper90.
Yes Reaper it is a great game, best one out there currently for an WWII based flight game, I do believe that. As well I like 90% of the pilots in this game.
If in fact as folks are saying "lag" is the reason only one plane sustains damage in a collision then the games ability to handle players in close proximity is more fubar than I thought.
After 12 years in another flight game this was never an issue there.
So your saying one player collides but the other doesnt?
That its connection related?
Then people with a crappy connectioin are rewarded with a lessened chance of their position being reported at the point of the collision?
That is a game issue my friends.
The problem remains that an opposing plane can fly right thru you without sustaining any damage. If the aircraft positions are that far off, then the game is flawed in this area, period.
That would be the actual game engine, because it can not handle aircraft positions as well as say the "Conductor" game engine Fighter Ace ran on.
Isnt the small word "Lag" so powerful? It can be used as an excuse for so many things.
Internet lag, server lag, client lag.
NO, NO, NO!!!
Read these words very carefully. The AH collision model states if YOU don't collide, YOU won't take damage.. period... Due to lag it is possible for the other guy to take damage and you not because from his perspective he hit you. From your perspective (I.E. where your plane was positioned relative to his plane), you didn't hit him/her. Conversely, If YOU make contact with another plane, and HE doesn't then YOU take damage, and HE/SHE won't.
Moral of the story, don't hit stuff, and you won't take damage.... It's that poop simple.... The connection is irrelevant. Control YOUR aircraft to prevent a collision, and if the other guy hits you, if you miss, you're good...
-
After 12 years in another flight game this was never an issue there.
Was that a server-based game (the server made all the calculations and kept track of everyone all the time), or was it a client-based game like AH (the server only acts as an in-between and all the calculations of where you are is done on your own computer and passed along by the server to everyone else around you)?
Have you ever seen guys take off or land on a carrier, but they were 50' or more away from the carrier deck? Same thing there as with the collision model. On their computer, they trapped the 3 wire for a safe landing - on your computer they are hovering in mid-air off to the side of the ship.
-
Thank you for the nice words Reaper90.
Yes Reaper it is a great game, best one out there currently for an WWII based flight game, I do believe that. As well I like 90% of the pilots in this game.
If in fact as folks are saying "lag" is the reason only one plane sustains damage in a collision then the games ability to handle players in close proximity is more fubar than I thought.
After 12 years in another flight game this was never an issue there.
So your saying one player collides but the other doesnt?
That its connection related?
Then people with a crappy connectioin are rewarded with a lessened chance of their position being reported at the point of the collision?
That is a game issue my friends.
The problem remains that an opposing plane can fly right thru you without sustaining any damage. If the aircraft positions are that far off, then the game is flawed in this area, period.
That would be the actual game engine, because it can not handle aircraft positions as well as say the "Conductor" game engine Fighter Ace ran on.
Isnt the small word "Lag" so powerful? It can be used as an excuse for so many things.
Internet lag, server lag, client lag.
Actually, it's not an 'excuse' .... it's an explanation. Are you going to keep 'not coming back' to your thread to behave this way? You are your problem. Spend more time practicing collision avoidance and less time doing the arse-hat dance on the forum. :aok
-
I'm rewarded each time I have a collision. The game rewards me by removing a wing, an elevator, or some other vital part I need to keep flying.
ack-ack
About sums up my experience, but you forgot to add in the vomit inducing spin! :uhoh
-
I was around when going to a friends house to play Pong was a big deal. I suppose thats why graphics and little imperfections in the game aren't a big deal to me.
-
the left paddle in pong was way over modelled :mad:
-
I was around when going to a friends house to play Pong was a big deal. I suppose thats why graphics and little imperfections in the game aren't a big deal to me.
Dad and I thought this was the bomb:
(http://thesportshernia.typepad.com/blog/images/2007/08/28/atari_football_2.jpg)
We were very competitive. I whupped him consistently. He practiced the entire time I was in boot camp. Guess what I had to do the first five minutes back in the door on my first leave home? ;)
The collision model was horrible, though, and if there was an Atari forum (or even internet) back then I would have started a hissy thread. :lol
-
the left paddle in pong was way over modelled :mad:
:rofl
-
Was that a server-based game (the server made all the calculations and kept track of everyone all the time), or was it a client-based game like AH (the server only acts as an in-between and all the calculations of where you are is done on your own computer and passed along by the server to everyone else around you)?
Have you ever seen guys take off or land on a carrier, but they were 50' or more away from the carrier deck? Same thing there as with the collision model. On their computer, they trapped the 3 wire for a safe landing - on your computer they are hovering in mid-air off to the side of the ship.
Yes it was a server based game. This explains a lot.
This is why players can induce lag intentionally and get away with it also, not that anyone would do something like that. (with a switch built from Radio Shack parts easily)
This also is why lag is such an issue in AH.
It does take much less server power and bandwidth to run a game this way = cheaper to produce. More cost effective although much more subject to latency between players.
With a server based game you can hold latency tolerances much tighter. The way AH works if you tried to tighten that up it would disconnect to many players ( which is what we did to players with to high a latency).
Truth is if I wasnt so "into it" (with the Track Ir on it almost seems like I'm inside the game).
Then it wouldn't matter.
I dont really try for score but seem to end up in the top 50 every month anymore.
I take my combat seriously I guess.
Now I get it with the design of the game its as good as its gonna get.
-
Yes it was a server based game. This explains a lot.
This is why players can induce lag intentionally and get away with it also, not that anyone would do something like that. (with a switch built from Radio Shack parts easily)
This also is why lag is such an issue in AH.
It does take much less server power and bandwidth to run a game this way = cheaper to produce. More cost effective although much more subject to latency between players.
With a server based game you can hold latency tolerances much tighter. The way AH works if you tried to tighten that up it would disconnect to many players ( which is what we did to players with to high a latency).
Truth is if I wasnt so "into it" (with the Track Ir on it almost seems like I'm inside the game).
Then it wouldn't matter.
I dont really try for score but seem to end up in the top 50 every month anymore.
I take my combat seriously I guess.
Now I get it with the design of the game its as good as its gonna get.
Okay, all that said, given that you are in control of damage you take from collisions (i.e. don't hit stuff, and you won't take damage), what is the advantage to you if it was a server based vs. client based? IMHO, knowing that the other guy may not take damage if I run into them decreases my inclination to ram them. In other words, if I knew I would damage the C47 getting ready to drop troops, I would ram them. Knowing I will 100% take damage, and they likely won't makes me work harder to get the shot.
See where I am going with this? I say advantage client based game...
-
Yes it was a server based game. This explains a lot.
This is why players can induce lag intentionally and get away with it also, not that anyone would do something like that. (with a switch built from Radio Shack parts easily)
This also is why lag is such an issue in AH.
This is complete BS,it's the same as saying the player is a cable puller.... :rolleyes:
I suggest you try it yourself and see what exactly happens because if I told you that al that would happen is AH would shut down you wouldnt believe me.
Have you ever gotten the message"lost TCP switching to UDP"? This happens when packet loss is exsessive and a last resort before you loose connection to AH,often after you receive this message you loose conection anyways and get kicked to your desktop.
If you tried your socalled "switch" you would get the same result!
AS to packet loss,this cant be blamed on HTC either,run pingplot to see how many hops you have and where the packets are being dropped,I bet you wont find it on HTC's end at all.
Lag is just a fact of physics,it takes time for the signal to run around on the internet and until we can transfer information faster than the speed of light,it always will be.
I've played "other" games like you mentioned and it's relatively easy to track 16 players,now multiply that by 20 or 30 times and use a map the same size and then tell me those other games dont have issues.... Ha they wouldnt even run but hey HTC's games all messed up because I dont understand how all this works so it's just easy for me to blame the game...... :rolleyes:
:salute
PS: I usually stay out of these type of things but I have to deal with the fallout of players saying stuff that just isnt true.
-
Thanks for the explanations of collision models. I noticed an awful lot of comments about collisions and then the other guy flying away unharmed. That's certainly not my experience. If I happen to be the plane flying away I'm usually anything but unscathed and looking for the nearest airfield to land.
-
Fighter Ace was not a pier to pier game. With only 16 players.
It was a MMOLG, with 1000 people online in its heyday at Microsoft.
Arenas with 400 to 500 players were common.
"the switch" is a momentary button, they work.
You I guess didnt get the part that I worked on the game. As such I have a bit of an understanding as to what is possible.
As well as the limitations.
As to hops, nodes between net backbone carriers etc. Yea I know about those to.
I used to troubleshoot it for players with issues.
As I said initially, I expected a flak run thru a barrage of puffy ack :)
-
This is complete BS,it's the same as saying the player is a cable puller.... :rolleyes:
I suggest you try it yourself and see what exactly happens because if I told you that al that would happen is AH would shut down you wouldnt believe me.
Have you ever gotten the message"lost TCP switching to UDP"? This happens when packet loss is exsessive and a last resort before you loose connection to AH,often after you receive this message you loose conection anyways and get kicked to your desktop.
If you tried your socalled "switch" you would get the same result!
AS to packet loss,this cant be blamed on HTC either,run pingplot to see how many hops you have and where the packets are being dropped,I bet you wont find it on HTC's end at all.
Lag is just a fact of physics,it takes time for the signal to run around on the internet and until we can transfer information faster than the speed of light,it always will be.
I've played "other" games like you mentioned and it's relatively easy to track 16 players,now multiply that by 20 or 30 times and use a map the same size and then tell me those other games dont have issues.... Ha they wouldnt even run but hey HTC's games all messed up because I dont understand how all this works so it's just easy for me to blame the game...... :rolleyes:
:salute
PS: I usually stay out of these type of things but I have to deal with the fallout of players saying stuff that just isnt true.
Morph,
Thanks I've been too lazy to build one just to see if it timed out your connection by letting my squad mates shoot at me in the DA. ATT on my end is messing with my stream though because the wife got me a SONY Blue Ray BX510 and I've been watching a lot of free movies since Thanksgiving. I have to reboot the router to get a new IP sometimes before playing the game. Once I started watching free movies my hop addresses changed to the game server even if my connection is still 60-85 average. The new ATT address in my route now spikes with periodicity up to 200. If I reboot my router, I don't get that hop until I start watching movies again. ATT must not like I'm not subscribing to their movie network.
What bothers me, and I haven't tested it, is internal system lag inducing apps from a hotkey. I've seen one out there being talked about and the creator's web sight now admits most people are downloading it for their FPS games. It was originally a networking tool to induce latency to test PC on networks. Will the results be the same to your game connection as a physical lag switch if you can chug your system out on demand? If the game is client based processing but, Internet lag will time out your persistent connection. Then it doesn't matter where the lag is introduced? Your PC bogged down on purpose, a physical lag switch, or your fugulated by ATT internet connection.
Sometimes a player will seem impervious to damage while being able to damage everyone of us chasing him around. When that occurs, you hear the players involved asking each other if they all experienced the same results on their end when they unloaded half their rounds into that player's fighter. Last night drano, I, and another player went through this to finally shoot down a Ki84. Each of us from our monitors saw our rounds lighting that Ki84 up with very little happening. We were comparing notes on it as we took damage from him every time he passed by and how many rounds we were pouring into him with bright sprites to very little effect. He was never micro warping like a laggy connection hallmarks. Eventually he went down with us expending enough rounds to have knocked down another 5 planes between us. His ACM sucked, and we all reported good hit sprites on him to each other down to the end.
Over the years I suspect this is the scenario repeating itself that causes most of the accusations of dweebery. With out the obvious warps from a laggy connection in front of multiple witnesses. What accounts for the con's apparent imperviousness that seems like almost none of the hit sprites seen from our side are being received by his game client? If I remember from a few years back, hit packets are transmitted by TCP and not UDP to make sure they do get there.
-
Ki84's can absorb a huge amount of damage and continue on :aok
-
Thanks I've been too lazy to build one
Build one? Sir thats old school, modern day lag switching or lag hacking is done with simple computer programs.
-
Only if it's 1000lb's of paintballs.
We were lighting this guy up point blank while reading the kanji note on his pilot relief tube vent that says:
Don't suck on, don't look in, or place fingers in this smelly hole.
Everyone runs into one like this and the conversation on range goes about the same each time over the last decade or so.
Blu,
Color me old school curious to know if it's me or him ruining my night........ :angel:
Hey BluBerry did you ever do a peace sign gunsight or a Happy Face gunsight? One of my squad mates was trying to talk me into making them. I don't hold a candle to your John Wayne rendering skills. My biggest concession to visual effects was those dots I posted....... :)
-
Hey BluBerry did you ever do a peace sign gunsight or a Happy Face gunsight?
Never did but I can if he still needs it. :cheers:
:salute
-
If you can, it would appeal to his Washington state wood burning stove, old school Grateful Dead kinda heart.
He's never asked me for a gunsight before with all the historic packs and other kinds I've posted at the POTW members forum. I could not do justice to your style of overlay effects.
-
If you can, it would appeal to his Washington state wood burning stove, old school Grateful Dead.
I'm in Washington state.. I know his type very well...
(http://i.imgur.com/GTnlhHz.jpg)
-
I'm in Washington state.. I know his type very well...
(http://i.imgur.com/GTnlhHz.jpg)
I'm so very sorry for you. I only had to deal with that crap for 5 years before I escaped away to college.
-
The only part that I still think about after quite a bit of thought is when you get the collision from a ftr attacking your bombers as he flew too close to you on your end but not on his end. In this example you're the bomber and have no way to evade how close he gets to you, but he doesn't see that, you get the damage yet you had no way to control it. Some ppl call this ramming, I know it is not, I know that if he actually intentionally tried to ram you and succeeded there would be damage on his end.
What I'm saying is, of course if you see damage on your end when a ftr comes in too close, you get the damage. But should you get the damage? There is no way for you to avoid what he's doing, while in the gunners position, you can't control the elevators and attempt to cause him not to collide with you. If I've overlooked something like a way this could be exploited, which is quite possible, since I have given it "quite" a bit of thought, but not a thorough study of, then maybe you should get the damage. Of course in real life you would get the damage if you saw it, regardless, but what I'm asking is, would there be a reason/exploit if HTC were to remove code where bombers get damage from ftrs colliding from near direct 6'oclock? - IF both don't collide. <---this because if both collide, of course both should get damage as in rl.
Although this above doesn't happen a lot, it does happen enough. A rough estimation over the past 16months is 1:15 sorties. That ratio could be a bit higher, and if lower, not by much.
If I've missed an obvious way to abuse removing the coding for this, it wasn't intentional to gas on any fires here...
-
Rot, it's near impossible to intentionally ram and give damage and not receive damage due to unknown lag differences. Since planes are free and nobody really dies, intentional rams would increase if both took damage every time. Dweebs will be dweebs.
-
Fighter Ace was not a pier to pier game.
'peer to peer'
Piers are for fishing.
-
'peer to peer'
Piers are for fishing.
"Dammit Jim, I'm a network expert not an English Professor" ;)
-
Rot, it's near impossible to intentionally ram and give damage and not receive damage due to unknown lag differences. Since planes are free and nobody really dies, intentional rams would increase if both took damage every time. Dweebs will be dweebs.
I know, I stated that; that if someone tries to ram they will get damage if they succeed. I'm not saying both should take damage.
What I'm saying is bombers, unless you are 999/Snail, are at a pretty good disadvantage. What happens is a guy comes in full bore, pulls away at last second, his angle was to high/speed to great for gunner to track him, bomber gets a collision on his end, ftr doesn't. The bomber can't do anything about it, why should he get the damage?
-
"Dammit Jim, I'm a network expert not an English Professor" ;)
(http://fakeplus.com/pictures/jpg/-dammit-jim_20120518141604.jpg)
:lol
-
'peer to peer'
Piers are for fishing
Way to pick the petty, persnickety and petulant path rather than addressing the substance of what he has to say...... Basically proving one of his points in his original post...
Yama, I feel your pain..... whether it's Goofy Tricksters 101 stick-stirring subterranean flights or trying to saddle up on warpy warpsters..... Sadly those who haven't seen seemingly seamless enemy flight paths on a server based flight sim won't ever get the disparity we're talking about. But, alas our beloved Fighter Ace is gone and rather than dwell on AH's comparative shortcomings, I choose rather to accentuate its positives.
:salute Nishizwa
-
(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w246/fieldsofink/collision1.png) (http://s178.photobucket.com/user/fieldsofink/media/collision1.png.html)
LOL :aok
-
Way to pick the petty, persnickety and petulant path rather than addressing the substance of what he has to say...... Basically proving one of his points in his original post...
Yama, I feel your pain..... whether it's Goofy Tricksters 101 stick-stirring subterranean flights or trying to saddle up on warpy warpsters..... Sadly those who haven't seen seemingly seamless enemy flight paths on a server based flight sim won't ever get the disparity we're talking about. But, alas our beloved Fighter Ace is gone and rather than dwell on AH's comparative shortcomings, I choose rather to accentuate its positives.
:salute Nishizwa
You should have been a writer :aok
-
You should have been a writer :aok
:D as long as my literary musings can hold up to anal Arlo's exemplary English scrutiny ... I'm satisfied. :aok
:salute Nishizwa
-
Way to pick the petty, persnickety and petulant path rather than addressing the substance of what he has to say...... Basically proving one of his points in his original post...
Yama, I feel your pain..... whether it's Goofy Tricksters 101 stick-stirring subterranean flights or trying to saddle up on warpy warpsters..... Sadly those who haven't seen seemingly seamless enemy flight paths on a server based flight sim won't ever get the disparity we're talking about. But, alas our beloved Fighter Ace is gone and rather than dwell on AH's comparative shortcomings, I choose rather to accentuate its positives.
:salute Nishizwa
Well said Nishizwa and I like your attitude. I've always enjoyed my fights with you and you're deadly in those maneuverable planes if I lose the speed and E advantage.
-
:D as long as my literary musings can hold up to anal Arlo's exemplary English scrutiny ... I'm satisfied. :aok
:salute Nishizwa
Just be glad he didn't post a picture of a pier when he posted that. I was shocked. :O
-
Way to pick the petty, persnickety and petulant path rather than addressing the substance of what he has to say...... Basically proving one of his points in his original post...
Yama, I feel your pain..... whether it's Goofy Tricksters 101 stick-stirring subterranean flights or trying to saddle up on warpy warpsters..... Sadly those who haven't seen seemingly seamless enemy flight paths on a server based flight sim won't ever get the disparity we're talking about. But, alas our beloved Fighter Ace is gone and rather than dwell on AH's comparative shortcomings, I choose rather to accentuate its positives.
:salute Nishizwa
Who the hades are you and how long have you been his mommy?
(http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4683250666704166&pid=15.1)
-
Just be glad he didn't post a picture of a pier when he posted that. I was shocked. :O
It's not shocking just a bit sad that we all can't be a little more respectful to each other. If anything ever stops me from logging on to the game it would be the attitudes of some of the folks here. My time is limited and I'm discerning with respect to whom I'll spend it with. Luckily there are far more decent good sports here than Rumal and Phaelen types.
-
What are these better flight simulators? What are these well known cheats that nothing is done about? How much did fighter ace cost and why is it out of business? If collisions are so aggravating would it be better to just turn them off? How do I deliberately collide with someone on there FE, why would that be easier than using guns? Am understanding correctly that a server based game means that a player's control inputs travel to the server and the changes in position come back?
-
It's not shocking just a bit sad that we all can't be a little more respectful to each other. If anything ever stops me from logging on to the game it would be the attitudes of some of the folks here. My time is limited and I'm discerning with respect to whom I'll spend it with. Luckily there are far more decent good sports here than Rumal and Phaelen types.
Very sad. Very sad, indeed.
:salute
-
Net code may be smoother to avoid warping, but it cannot get around lag causing different apparent positions on different front ends. Physics doesn't offer a method to do so at this time.
Frankly, everything having to check in with the server and then the server sending OKs back would, if anything, increase the effects of lag. It would make gunnery a nightmare too.
-
YamaRaja :salute
I've winged up beside you a many a flight sir and I know you to be a good guy. Most of those in here, like you, are good guys too. Those snapping at your frustration on the collision model are also frustrated because they do understand how and why the way it works and most of us for think it's the best possible model available. Don't be discouraged by their frustration, keep playing. It took me awhile to understand it myself but I believe, once you embrace it and understand it you will also be ok with it.
Happy landings sir.
-
:salute Triton. I've had some really fun fights with you. It's always a pleasure to encounter you in the MA, win or lose. On topic, I squawked once about the collision model on our Knight channel and I apologize to all for crying like a baby then. ;) It doesn't bug me at all now.
-
It's not shocking just a bit sad that we all can't be a little more respectful to each other. If anything ever stops me from logging on to the game it would be the attitudes of some of the folks here. My time is limited and I'm discerning with respect to whom I'll spend it with. Luckily there are far more decent good sports here than Rumal and Phaelen types.
You now understand why I've almost quit the game....twice. Luckily my status as a AH addict won out and I returned...but it still bothers me so I've made changes while ingame to minimize distractions (e.g. stay off 200, squelch if I get a PM whine, etc). Not saying I'm going to do this forever but for the time being I am.
Chest thumping and trash talking will always happen....but I agree it's gotten a bit much lately...it's either that or I just have less tolerance for it as I've gotten older...I admit it's completely possible I've become a grumpy old man just shy of 48. :old:
NOW GET OFF MY DAMN LAWN!!!
-
I do the same now, including muting fellow Knights who complain too much. I really enjoy this game and on a few occasions have allowed myself to get dragged into mud slinging on .200. No more for me. So if you're calling out the Pony "running away", it just might be me leaving because you've wounded me and I keep blacking out. And if I push negative g as a last ditch effort to escape your excellent surprise attack , know that I didn't pull the cables to a avoid a shoot down. Although I still don't know what that means Phaelan. And if I ho you it's only because I've been hoed by the twelfth Rook that day and I'm fed up and not inclined any longer to giving you the benefit of the doubt. It's a great game and I look forward to battling you Bish and Rooks tomorrow in my Debden ponies. :cheers:
-
... I've made changes while ingame to minimize distractions (e.g. stay off 200, squelch if I get a PM whine, etc). Not saying I'm going to do this forever but for the time being I am.
Works for me. Years now. :) :salute :cheers:
-
Not reading 8 pages this far. I've played other sims and games with a damage model for a flying game. I have burried my plane into others in here when just as i hit the guns the other plane and mine shutters for a few seconds and i come out of the dive with damage. Call it video card problems or lag problems, it sucks either way. When in a straight up street fight with someone though and then to lose because the other guy crashes in to your plane in some rolling scissors yeah that takes the credibility of the model to the out house. At the same time, it's a game and the internet has a mind of it's own more often than not.
The fanbois will say you are whining, the not so fanbois will say break out a different bottle opener. I say try and find a happy medium sir. Don't consider the one fight you have with someone the end of the world. If that were the case none of us would have any perk points.
-
I lost a 262 yesterday to a guy i shot down , crashed into me :rofl
200 perks :cry
1800 left :rofl
Its a outrage
Dirtdart asked 10 minutes later where my 262 was? :rofl
It was that important i forgot to mention it :rofl
Hack got his perk plane shot down by a TBM by the way in the same sortie, it must stated he has been in The GFC for only a week and is still in a probation period :old:
-
I admit it's completely possible I've become a grumpy old man just shy of 48.
No one said you are old.... Sir.
-
If you don't deack in a 262 then you have not experienced fun. :old:
-
You now understand why I've almost quit the game....twice. Luckily my status as a AH addict won out and I returned...but it still bothers me so I've made changes while ingame to minimize distractions (e.g. stay off 200, squelch if I get a PM whine, etc). Not saying I'm going to do this forever but for the time being I am.
Chest thumping and trash talking will always happen....but I agree it's gotten a bit much lately...it's either that or I just have less tolerance for it as I've gotten older...I admit it's completely possible I've become a grumpy old man just shy of 48. :old:
NOW GET OFF MY DAMN LAWN!!!
48 is NOT old. :old:
-
Who the hades are you and how long have you been his mommy?
(http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4683250666704166&pid=15.1)
I am merely the man ( Thusly making it impossible for me to be anyones "mommy") who is compelled to call people out on disrespectful treatment of fellow players offering their equally valid opinions. I am the man who can hold my own verbally jousting on these boards, jousting in the virtual air, on the virtual ground and enjoy a feisty debate almost as much as I love a zero on zero 1 on 1!
Yama was someone I shared the virtual skies of Fighter Ace with for many years and someone who's opinions shouldn't be marginalized nor dismissed because of a few spelling or homophone errors.
I am Nishizawa. :aok
-
Well said Nishizwa and I like your attitude. I've always enjoyed my fights with you and you're deadly in those maneuverable planes if I lose the speed and E advantage.
Thank you sir, I do enjoy the challenge that staying alive (in a paper plane) long enough to equalize E states presents.
I'm curious, is your name in game a closely guarded secret?
:salute Nishizwa
-
I am merely the man ( Thusly making it impossible for me to be anyones "mommy") who is compelled to call people out on disrespectful treatment of fellow players offering their equally valid opinions. I am the man who can hold my own verbally jousting on these boards, jousting in the virtual air, on the virtual ground and enjoy a feisty debate almost as much as I love a zero on zero 1 on 1!
Yama was someone I shared the virtual skies of Fighter Ace with for many years and someone who's opinions shouldn't be marginalized nor dismissed because of a few spelling or homophone errors.
I am Nishizawa. :aok
Nishi is one of the classiest players in the game, bar none. And take it from a fellow lover of Jiro Horikoshi's wonderful compromise of performance, range and agility over pilot protection and fuel safety.....Nishi will beat you badly in most rides...but he will absolutely crush you while flying the Zeke. Hide your Spitfire and K4s, parents! :lol
Modesty aside...I'm good in a Zeke....but Nishi's Da Man. :salute
< --- Fulcrum will now detach himself from Nishi's leg. :D
-
48 is NOT old. :old:
Tell that to my back in the morning when I get up. :old:
-
I am merely the man ( Thusly making it impossible for me to be anyones "mommy") who is compelled to call people out on disrespectful treatment of fellow players offering their equally valid opinions. I am the man who can hold my own verbally jousting on these boards, jousting in the virtual air, on the virtual ground and enjoy a feisty debate almost as much as I love a zero on zero 1 on 1!
Yama was someone I shared the virtual skies of Fighter Ace with for many years and someone who's opinions shouldn't be marginalized nor dismissed because of a few spelling or homophone errors.
I am Nishizawa. :aok
Well, hiya. I'm Arlo. Yama isn't being marginalized or dismissed for a spelling error. I merely mentioned it in passing.
Given his claim of authority when it comes to game design and internet technology it just seemed a bit amusing ...
but that's ok, Dale's spelling is heralded here as a mark of genius. Yama is being marginalized and dismissed (by me ...
and some others) for his own disrespectful treatment of this game, it's developers and this community over something
he apparently didn't fully understand. When many tried to help him understand what he's apparently upset about, he
stood his aggravated ground with very little reason. He started this thread expecting to be marginalized and dismissed
for such. You came into this thread to defend him. Missions accomplished.
Having said that, both of you appear to be grateful that you have found a new home in Aces High and amongst its
community. He just seems to still have a bone or two to pick in public. That's ok, this isn't new. Even amongst those of us
who found our way here from Air Warrior or Warbirds. The Muppets appear to be absorbing more and more former FAers.
I have friends in that squad (and others there who aren't so much). Here's to less being lost in emotional translation, no
matter who starts it, who adds to it or who reconsiders it. :aok
-
Dog pile on page 5. Display righteous anger by calling OP an arse hat. Post pics. Get owned (in writing). Post nonsensical response.
It's not easy being Arlo. :old:
-
Dog pile on page 5. Display righteous anger by calling OP an arse hat. Post pics. Get owned (in writing). Post nonsensical response.
It's not easy being Arlo. :old:
Actually, it's very easy. I know you bear resentment from my having taken the time
to embarrass you on the forum once or twice (which was a waste of said time) but you
really need to learn to let go. I mean, there we were, flying in an event last night, my
watching over your six. I thought maybe you managed to turn a maturity corner. :aok
-
What about the bombers??? :furious
:lol
Doesn't happen to anybody else? :noid
-
What about the bombers??? :furious
:lol
Doesn't happen to anybody else? :noid
I'm sure it does. Alas, bomber formations don't generally maneuver all that much.
Fighter vs. fighter, however, if it's a tight knife fight then you're just tempting fate. Never get
closer than 200 and chances are you'll never collide. Of course, there's times when one or both
lose sight of each other until the collision happens on one or both FEs. I suspect that most players
that are experiencing a lot of collisions are hard yanking tail-chasers. Which is fine, just don't whine.
:D :salute :cheers:
-
Actually, it's very easy. I know you bear resentment from my having taken the time
to embarrass you on the forum once or twice (which was a waste of said time) but you
really need to learn to let go. I mean, there we were, flying in an event last night, my
watching over your six. I thought maybe you managed to turn a maturity corner. :aok
You hippies are so cute with your vivid imaginations. :)
-
This could have been much simpler with less bum hurting all around if it were posted to the Wishlist forum asking Hitech to recode the game from collisions being controlled as a client centric function, to collisions controlled as a server centric function.
And even more elegant, as one master programmer and game designer to another, in an e-mail to Dale Addink discussing his choice of collision handeling in the face of other available solutions.
Anybody bothered to bone up on Shader Technology and how your video card will respond to it with the next game release? Our resident gurus might be able to help the forum understand why Shader will benefit them.
-
I see my the margaritas and several beers I drank at dinner will not be enough for this evening. Cracking open another now...
:rolleyes:
-
You hippies are so cute with your vivid imaginations. :)
Are you gonna follow me around for days again?
(http://imageshack.us/a/img35/2151/be.png)
:lol
-
Arlo, your shirt has arrived.
(http://www.teaseshirt.co.uk/images/caution.jpg)
The others were given to Midway, MANaWAR, Handsolo and Grayclif. Enjoy.
-
Arlo, your shirt has arrived.
(http://www.teaseshirt.co.uk/images/caution.jpg)
The others were given to Midway, MANaWAR, Handsolo and Grayclif. Enjoy.
How did you get irritated in all this?
Here's yours, amigo:
(http://rlv.zcache.com/humor_fun_confused_question_mark_t_shirt-rd839cf972b3940e1864f3629243e96bb_804gy_512.jpg)
:lol
-
Over/under for Arlo pics for the remainder of this thread = 4
I'm taking the under because that's how I roll. :rock
-
Over/under for Arlo pics for the remainder of this thread = 4
I'm taking the under because that's how I roll. :rock
So the answer was yes. :lol
-
Tell that to my back in the morning when I get up. :old:
I would but I've fallen and apparently can't get up :old:
-
What I meant, as I wrote, what about the bombers colliding when a ftr comes in too close, how is the bomber pilot supposed to avoid that?
This thread is so far gone, prolly start my own about ^
-
What I meant, as I wrote, what about the bombers colliding when a ftr comes in too close, how is the bomber pilot supposed to avoid that?
This thread is so far gone, prolly start my own about ^
Alas, bomber formations don't generally maneuver all that much.
And if a player flying a fighter is resorting to ramming them then its a stupid tactic
and he (or she) needs more practice shooting down bombers. Avoiding a collision
with a bomber ain't that hard (no matter the FE collision system). Avoiding their
guns should be the focus.
-
I regularly HO bombers waiting for 100d before pulling the trigger. Then pulling up so close I can see the pilots eyeballs. I've never gotten a collision message. But, lots of dead pilots.
-
I regularly HO bombers waiting for 100d before pulling the trigger. Then pulling up so close I can see the pilots eyeballs. I've never gotten a collision message. But, lots of dead pilots.
If you get within D100 of me guaranteed I get the collision when I'm in bombers :noid, many responses seem to indicate they didn't read my posts and they think I'm whining cause I attacked bombers. Other way around.
-
If you get within D100 of me guaranteed I get the collision when I'm in bombers
You better send in your film to HTC then because that isn't how the collision model works.
-
FOR GODS SAKE PLEASE JUST STOP!
-
FOR GODS SAKE PLEASE JUST STOP!
Like that ever works here.
-
Haven't played in over 5 years it never changes lol.
I wonder if Sudz is rocking in a corner somewhere.
-
I've killed more than one bomber by zooming up in front of their nose after I ran out of ammo. On games point of view it looks like a rear collision and the bomber goes down :ahand
-
If you get within D100 of me guaranteed I get the collision when I'm in bombers :noid, many responses seem to indicate they didn't read my posts and they think I'm whining cause I attacked bombers. Other way around.
I am quite convinced it's almost impossible under normal MA conditions to intentionally ram someone so the other player takes damage, but you don't So, I have a challenge for you... I will be in the MA at 8PM EST this evening 12/09. If you like, I will up bombers in a private arena for you to make as many passes as you like. Goal, you try to cause me damage, but you take none via a ram. The only condition is that you have to be making a pass typical that one would make when attacking bombers. You may be able to get this ram by hanging super close wiggling around, but in the MA you would be gunned down in an instant doing that.
This is a "no guns" experiment, lets just test the ram. Deal?
-
I've killed more than one bomber by zooming up in front of their nose after I ran out of ammo. On games point of view it looks like a rear collision and the bomber goes down :ahand
Are you saying you know how to make the collision happen on the buff pilot/players FE but not yours (consistently)?
How do you know what it looked like for the buff player?
Huh. Perhaps Scca's challenge would apply to you, as well. :aok
-
It could be done.
-
It could be done.
Prove it. Scca is providing the opportunity. :aok
-
I am quite convinced it's almost impossible under normal MA conditions to intentionally ram someone so the other player takes damage, but you don't So, I have a challenge for you... I will be in the MA at 8PM EST this evening 12/09. If you like, I will up bombers in a private arena for you to make as many passes as you like. Goal, you try to cause me damage, but you take none via a ram. The only condition is that you have to be making a pass typical that one would make when attacking bombers. You may be able to get this ram by hanging super close wiggling around, but in the MA you would be gunned down in an instant doing that.
This is a "no guns" experiment, lets just test the ram. Deal?
Did you read all of my posts in this thread? I don't know how you could of and still state that I am talking about someone trying to ram. I said that I am not talking about ramming at least twice, I understand they would take damage. As I've said prolly four times now, I'm talking about a ftr coming in on my bombers fast, he shoots and tries to pull away, on his end he doesn't see a collision. On the bombers end they see a collision and the bombers get a collision. What is the bomber pilot supposed to do to avoid that?
-
Prove it. Scca is providing the opportunity. :aok
I'm game to try.. I am sure it can work, but with any consistency, I have my doubts...
I could be wrong, but I am willing to spend the time to try it out.
Sig has in game name.
-
Did you read all of my posts? I don't know how you could of and still state that I am talking about someone trying to ram. I said that I am not at least twice.
Easy now. Yes, I read what you posted, perhaps though I misunderstood. What I got was you didn't like the current collision model as at times one flys away with no damage and the other gets damage. Is that correct?
If no, then sorry, my bad...
If yes, then I will restate if both took damage, it would be unfair because it's possible that one didn't hit the other plane based on their perspective. If both took damage because half of the two that hit saw it, and the other didn't, imagine the complaints? If both took damage in every collision event, then intentional rams would be the norm for those who will do anything to win. Since the system works like it does now, and if I am correct in that intentional rams are not likely successful a majority of the time, then I feel it's a better system.
Regarding your edit:
Collisions will happen, and if someone gets lucky to hit a bomber, but not take damage themselves then it's pure luck. I ask you, how many times has it happened?
-
I'm for sending in a film of each and every perceived claim to prove
a point and request a fix. I'm not so much into sympathizing with an
exaggerated claim, however. Not that it's my job, which goes back
to the sending in a film thing.
-
Did you read all of my posts in this thread? I don't know how you could of and still state that I am talking about someone trying to ram. I said that I am not talking about ramming at least twice, I understand they would take damage. As I've said prolly four times now, I'm talking about a ftr coming in on my bombers fast, he shoots and tries to pull away, on his end he doesn't see a collision. On the bombers end they see a collision and the bombers get a collision. What is the bomber pilot supposed to do to avoid that?
Rotbaron, relax my friend.
You want to meet somewhere Sunday ? I'll buy you a beer.
-
(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w246/fieldsofink/collision1.png) (http://s178.photobucket.com/user/fieldsofink/media/collision1.png.html)
That's pure gold
-
I am quite convinced it's almost impossible under normal MA conditions to intentionally ram someone so the other player takes damage, but you don't So, I have a challenge for you... I will be in the MA at 8PM EST this evening 12/09. If you like, I will up bombers in a private arena for you to make as many passes as you like. Goal, you try to cause me damage, but you take none via a ram. The only condition is that you have to be making a pass typical that one would make when attacking bombers. You may be able to get this ram by hanging super close wiggling around, but in the MA you would be gunned down in an instant doing that.
This is a "no guns" experiment, lets just test the ram. Deal?
did you see the video explaining how the collision system works. it was deliberate made to show that you can actually cause a collision.
semp
-
did you see the video explaining how the collision system works. it was deliberate made to show that you can actually cause a collision.
semp
Which video, the one with the 47 or the other one?
-
Which video, the one with the 47 or the other one?
Unless I missed something, there is only 1 video in this thread posted by Fugitive. It was made by me from the two films I posted the stills from. Pony flies into the Jug's tail and get's damaged, while the Jug flies away undamaged because on his screen no collision happened.
-----------------
For a successful "ram", the Pony would have needed to fly to a certain (and unknown!) point ahead of the P-47. Such things can happen, but mostly by freak chance and less likely by intentional maneuvering.
-
did you see the video explaining how the collision system works. it was deliberate made to show that you can actually cause a collision.
semp
Um. No.
-
Only once in all the collisions I have been part of did someone collide with me, and it didnt look like it on my end. ALL others,some with just me taking damage, some with just enemy(few),and some with both of us taking damage, ALL looked liked we hit on my end. Put another way because I just read that and it confused me, its just inconsistant. Ive often asked the other guy after a collision on my end, "Did it look like we collided?" and the answer was yes, although he didnt take damage.
I can see a glancing blow going to one guy or the others server view, but when spinner to spinner and one guy pops while the other flies on seems odd. If the view is that far off how do we hit eachother with bullets?
-
Two things I've noticed;
I've been hit from behind on several occasions, taken damage and went down while the other plane flew on. There's nothing I could have done to avoid this. I think this is the same experience Rotbaron was describing in his buffs. If that's the case then there should be a 3-9 line modification to the collision model. Take a hit in front of that and you go down, take a hit from behind and you don't.
Secondly, on my old computer on dial up several years ago I almost always survived every collision. Since I got a faster computer with cable internet I've only survived a very small handful. My ping is typically in the 30-50 range now vs 130+ (sometimes 300) when I was surviving collisions.
I know how the model works and largely agree with it but there's some tweaking that could make it immensly better and most of that seems to be caused by lag.
When there's a collision one player sees "... has collided with you" while the other sees "You have collided with ..." or both see both messages. Given that, what you "see" on your front end doesn't really matter. It's what the servers see. They are, after all, meating out the punishment. I'd have no problem with collisions being treated more fairly by a server decision rather than being penalized because I have a better, faster connection to the servers regardless of what I "see".
Alas, everyone thinks this is the greatest solution since sliced bread so it will probably never change.
-
I guess I don't take issue with the collision model. I get the arguments why it is th e way it is and has been discussed ad nauseum. What I don't get is why bullet hits have to be managed by the server. Why not locally? Wouldn't this cure the rubber bullet issue. I'm shooting at what I see, not what my opponent sees or is...
Cheers
The only solution that would make this work would be to play the game through a remote desktop directly from the server. And we all know that's not possible.
-
Are you saying you know how to make the collision happen on the buff pilot/players FE but not yours (consistently)?
How do you know what it looked like for the buff player?
Huh. Perhaps Scca's challenge would apply to you, as well. :aok
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that rear collisions win on AH. So if you manage to manouver yourself in a way that makes the buff fly to your rear even though you intentionally put your plane there, the buff loses the collision. In my end I zoom just in front of the buffs nose without colliding, the lag will cause my plane to hit the nose of the buff on his end.
It's not 100% proof naturally if I judge it wrong I may hit the buff also on my end or pass him too far away but I've succeeded in doing that more than once after I ran out of ammo. Historically it was not uncommon to ram other planes in this situation so I accept it as a viable tactic just as HOing :)
-
Easy now. Yes, I read what you posted, perhaps though I misunderstood. What I got was you didn't like the current collision model as at times one flys away with no damage and the other gets damage. Is that correct?
If no, then sorry, my bad...
If yes, then I will restate if both took damage, it would be unfair because it's possible that one didn't hit the other plane based on their perspective. If both took damage because half of the two that hit saw it, and the other didn't, imagine the complaints? If both took damage in every collision event, then intentional rams would be the norm for those who will do anything to win. Since the system works like it does now, and if I am correct in that intentional rams are not likely successful a majority of the time, then I feel it's a better system.
Regarding your edit:
Collisions will happen, and if someone gets lucky to hit a bomber, but not take damage themselves then it's pure luck. I ask you, how many times has it happened?
Plenty, over the past ~18 months, I originally said 1:15, rethinking that my be overestimated. To be more conservative, lets say 1:25 or somewhere in between. If HTC tracked collisions we could say more accurately. I'll keep track from now on.
Sorry gents if I sounded loud there. I was only trying to point out that responses to me or in general toward my posts were not what I was referring to. I'm not talking about an intentional ram. I'm asking what is a bomber pilot supposed to do to avoid a getting a collision with a ftr if he fails to gun him down? In almost all of the cases I'm referring to it isn't the intention to ram the bombers but they come in at such great angle/speed that when they fail to get the bomber to explode, they end up colliding on the bombers end, yet on their end they just cleared.
What BaldEagl said is exactly what I mean.
I think the collision model is fine other than in bombers. I don't see any way they can maneuver out of the way to avoid a ftr colliding with their rear area. Nor do they really have the ability, or at least I don't as my one hand is controlling where the gunner's sight is pointing and the other is on either the zoom or the twisty stick. Rudder pedals might free up a hand, but gunner's position doesn't allow control of the elevators.
-
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that rear collisions win on AH. So if you manage to manouver yourself in a way that makes the buff fly to your rear even though you intentionally put your plane there, the buff loses the collision. In my end I zoom just in front of the buffs nose without colliding, the lag will cause my plane to hit the nose of the buff on his end.
It's not 100% proof naturally if I judge it wrong I may hit the buff also on my end or pass him too far away but I've succeeded in doing that more than once after I ran out of ammo. Historically it was not uncommon to ram other planes in this situation so I accept it as a viable tactic just as HOing :)
Film on. :)
-
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that rear collisions win on AH. So if you manage to manouver yourself in a way that makes the buff fly to your rear even though you intentionally put your plane there, the buff loses the collision. In my end I zoom just in front of the buffs nose without colliding, the lag will cause my plane to hit the nose of the buff on his end.
It's not 100% proof naturally if I judge it wrong I may hit the buff also on my end or pass him too far away but I've succeeded in doing that more than once after I ran out of ammo. Historically it was not uncommon to ram other planes in this situation so I accept it as a viable tactic just as HOing :)
:headscratch: Way to represent the LD's... I am sure Save is a proud papa...
Anyhoo... I personally don't feel my game play is negatively effected by the current collision model. It happens, not often so I shall move on to better topics.. :salute
-
For everyone who dislikes the current collision model... How would you like it to be changed?
Would you like...
1) Plane appears to collide on my computer, but not yours... We both take damage?
I'm pretty sure that would make you mad....
2) Turn collisions off, so no matter what appears on screens, nobody ever takes collision damage...
Just wait for a whole new class of dweebs that will do nothing but try to fly through you with guns blazing.
3) Plane appears to collide on my computer, but not yours... I take damage, you do not. (what we have now)
While it may suck when somebody flies through you on your screen but takes no damage, you have to remember that on their screen they did not hit you. They did it right, from their perspective. Put yourself in their shoes now. How are you going to like it when you make a pass on an enemy plane, do not collide on your screen, but take damage because on his screen the lag states made it so you hit him.
Is there another possible option for the collision model that you guys complaining would like to have?
In all of my years here, I have read numerous complaints about the collision model, but have never seen a SINGLE proposal for something better.
-
Now that you've all read and understand the collision model. Go practice one sided collisions with bandits and see if you can master it. :D
Tip: think of it as towing a drone. The bandit will always collide with your drone not with you. How far your drone is behind you is directly related to the amount of lag. So if you cut across a bandit's path, such that he will fly at close proximity behind you, along your flight path, he might hit your drone and you will be the victor of a one sided collision. I have found that you need to be within a plane length which is very dangerous for all involved. You can't count on the lag being big enough to provide a long enough "tow" cable to make with possible or practical.
But remember, collision damage is not awarded to either plane, so to get the kill, you need to be in proximity range, or you must have damaged the plane prior to the collision.
Good Luck :aok
-
And if you are following Vinkman's advice, hope it's not my bombers, you will be shot down before your drone hits me :bolt:
-
Wow...this thread is still active? :huh
-
I know how the model works ........
Obviously not 100%.
When there's a collision one player sees "... has collided with you" while the other sees "You have collided with ..." or both see both messages.
So far so good.
Given that, what you "see" on your front end doesn't really matter. It's what the servers see.
This is where you go wrong.
What you see on your front end is the only determination what happens to YOU. The serve has nothing to do with collisions. The messages you see are brodcast from the front ends not the server.
They are, after all, meating out the punishment. I'd have no problem with collisions being treated more fairly by a server decision rather than being penalized because I have a better, faster connection to the servers regardless of what I "see".
And again the connection speed has absolutely nothing to do with the determination if you collide or not. If your front end sees/detects your plane touching another plane, your plane will take damage. Your front end then display the message on YOUR screen "You have collided". It also sends a message to the person you collided with saying "BaldEagl has collided with you".
HiTech
-
And if you are following Vinkman's advice, hope it's not my bombers, you will be shot down before your drone hits me :bolt:
I meant it as a challenge to those that complain. Maybe if they go try to go it, they will realize how nearly impossible it is to do "on purpose".
-
Now that you've all read and understand the collision model. Go practice one sided collisions with bandits and see if you can master it. :D
Good Luck :aok
Link to post of film and screenshots showing no pings, a one sided collision, and proxy kill. This one was not on purpose.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,356897.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,356897.0.html)
-
I'm ALFAMEGA, and I approve this message
-
Retards should be banned from the internet
-
For everyone who dislikes the current collision model... How would you like it to be changed?
Would you like...
1) Plane appears to collide on my computer, but not yours... We both take damage?
I'm pretty sure that would make you mad....
2) Turn collisions off, so no matter what appears on screens, nobody ever takes collision damage...
Just wait for a whole new class of dweebs that will do nothing but try to fly through you with guns blazing.
3) Plane appears to collide on my computer, but not yours... I take damage, you do not. (what we have now)
While it may suck when somebody flies through you on your screen but takes no damage, you have to remember that on their screen they did not hit you. They did it right, from their perspective. Put yourself in their shoes now. How are you going to like it when you make a pass on an enemy plane, do not collide on your screen, but take damage because on his screen the lag states made it so you hit him.
Is there another possible option for the collision model that you guys complaining would like to have?
In all of my years here, I have read numerous complaints about the collision model, but have never seen a SINGLE proposal for something better.
I still haven't seen anyone take this one on. I guess it's simpler to say "it sux" than respond with an actual workable solution that won't cause other problems. :salute
-
I guess it's simpler to say "it sux" than respond with an actual workable solution that won't cause other problems. :salute
Oh, they usually do present a solution "Both should go down. PERIOD."
And then you post this picture of an actual, standard MA collision:
(http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/9027/ramotherfeen9.jpg)
...and ask "If you were the 47 pilot, would you really want to take collision damage from this?"...
And wou will NEVER get any actual answer. But you can take it for granted that they will continue day in, day out on CH 200 and start a similar thread after a few months, as if the last one never had happened :bhead
Facts and reality must be quite irritating to some people
-
My hope snail is that "some" will get it, realize how it works, and how it's the best we can do.
IMHO, the way it works now is the best compromise we can ask for. Sure, there will be a few collisions you will end up on the losing end of and have zero control of the outcome (Rot's bomber situation for example), but so far any other idea would come with a larger percentage of problems or a dweebery factor no one really wants.
YMMV
-
:headscratch: Way to represent the LD's... I am sure Save is a proud papa...
Anyhoo... I personally don't feel my game play is negatively effected by the current collision model. It happens, not often so I shall move on to better topics.. :salute
Uh.. say what? If I run out of ammo and a buff is about to drop our town or hangars of course I'm going to do whatever it takes to finish the job. The manouver is just as risky for me as it is for the buff.
-
My hope snail is that "some" will get it, realize how it works, and how it's the best we can do.
IMHO, the way it works now is the best compromise we can ask for. Sure, there will be a few collisions you will end up on the losing end of and have zero control of the outcome (Rot's bomber situation for example), but so far any other idea would come with a larger percentage of problems or a dweebery factor no one really wants.
I agree 100%
-
Uh.. say what? If I run out of ammo and a buff is about to drop our town or hangars of course I'm going to do whatever it takes to finish the job. The manouver is just as risky for me as it is for the buff.
:headscratch:
No words...
-
Retards should be banned from the internet
But then the intertubes would be empty...
-
But then the intertubes would be empty...
Well... I don't know about you... But I would still be here! :bolt:
-
Just lastnight in a fight with Lazer, we collided. Actually it said just he collided. I recieved no alert that I had. However, I saw him AND I meet in a definate collision. We were both dead slow in scissors and ended up flopping into eachother. Why, if I "saw" the collision, did I not get a notice that said that I too had collided? If my eyes arent in sych with the FE,server, or what have you, why not? It wasnt a near strike, but a definate rolled right into type collision.
-
Just lastnight in a fight with Lazer, we collided. Actually it said just he collided. I recieved no alert that I had. However, I saw him AND I meet in a definate collision. We were both dead slow in scissors and ended up flopping into eachother. Why, if I "saw" the collision, did I not get a notice that said that I too had collided? If my eyes arent in sych with the FE,server, or what have you, why not? It wasnt a near strike, but a definate rolled right into type collision.
Those were good fights too, thanks for that. :cheers:
-
Just lastnight in a fight with Lazer, we collided. Actually it said just he collided. I recieved no alert that I had. However, I saw him AND I meet in a definate collision. We were both dead slow in scissors and ended up flopping into eachother. Why, if I "saw" the collision, did I not get a notice that said that I too had collided? If my eyes arent in sych with the FE,server, or what have you, why not? It wasnt a near strike, but a definate rolled right into type collision.
If your planes definitely made contact on your FE and no colission message appeared, your film should go to HTC to figure out where the bug is. :old:
-
Well... I don't know about you... But I would still be here! :bolt:
I'm still here too!
-
If your planes definitely made contact on your FE and no colission message appeared, your film should go to HTC to figure out where the bug is. :old:
Speaking of film ... think it may have been a close miss on your FE but not on his?
-
Speaking of film ... think it may have been a close miss on your FE but not on his?
I'm not sure what you are referring to now... :headscratch:
-
Im not sure which collision he is speaking of. We had several low swirling fights, in which i think there were multiple but I think I have the film if its really worth digging it up.
-
Just lastnight in a fight with Lazer, we collided. Actually it said just he collided. I recieved no alert that I had. However, I saw him AND I meet in a definate collision. We were both dead slow in scissors and ended up flopping into eachother. Why, if I "saw" the collision, did I not get a notice that said that I too had collided? If my eyes arent in sych with the FE,server, or what have you, why not? It wasnt a near strike, but a definate rolled right into type collision.
Speaking of film ... think it may have been a close miss on your FE but not on his?
-
I was looking today after I posted this, but the film I saved came after that I think...not done looking, but if you have it Lazer please send it in if it would be of any help.
-
My hope snail is that "some" will get it, realize how it works, and how it's the best we can do.
IMHO, the way it works now is the best compromise we can ask for. Sure, there will be a few collisions you will end up on the losing end of and have zero control of the outcome (Rot's bomber situation for example), but so far any other idea would come with a larger percentage of problems or a dweebery factor no one really wants.
YMMV
The thing I do realize however, is that a solution could create more headaches or more severe than the one that already exists. :(