Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Nathan60 on October 01, 2014, 01:20:24 AM
-
Collisions yes this again. Simple wish. When someone collides with you from 5 to 7 oclock you should not take damage. Just had a guy run right into my 6 I die instantly he gets oil damage and flys on.
EDIT no he didn't hit me with guns unless his convergence was 0 as I had my wings perpendicular to the ground at the time.
-
The problem is that you both took damage in a collision?
-
The problem is that you both took damage in a collision?
I can see what you are tryng to say(ignoring the bait) but it is a game no need to be that realistic , if soo why aren't friendly collisions on? I'm not saying shut off enemy collisions just the 5-7 area. Kinda sucks when you die in a combat game because someone flys into your 6
-
Not bait, just surprised to see that variation on the collision wish. :lol
Avoiding collisions is part of air combat. Check 6!
-
Not bait, just surprised to see that variation on the collision wish. :lol
Avoiding collisions is part of air combat. Check 6!
I am so gonna ram you next time I see you. I know its part of combat BUT when its 5 v ME and a guy flys into my 6 when I had previously manages to avoid the hos, bnz and other legit things having a guy take me down by colliding with my 6 just isn't cool.
-
Good luck with that. :D
-
Good luck with that. :D
That's why its in the WISHlist.
-
Not all of us have perfect reaction time and perfect monitors that we get a clear view a fast closing plane. I have been hit and I hit someone accidentally. The op assumes it was intentional. My guess, it was not.
No matter how much you dislike the collision model, it is the same for everyone.
The only thing I noticed is bigger fighters have more of a chance of taking damage.
-
Not all of us have perfect reaction time and perfect monitors that we get a clear view a fast closing plane. I have been hit and I hit someone accidentally. The op assumes it was intentional. My guess, it was not.
No matter how much you dislike the collision model, it is the same for everyone.
The only thing I noticed is bigger fighters have more of a chance of taking damage.
No you assume I assume it was intentional, I never said it was intentional I just assumed it really really sucks having a great flight ended by somebody hitting you dead 6. The thing that gets me is I have been hit while flying straight and only I took damage. I am not complaining about that although that sucks awell. If someone flys up my 5 and I die instantly they should take more damage then engine oil
-
Probably what you saw is not what he saw, or in other words there is almost no way to accomplish what you are wishing for.
-
Damn the luck. HT. Fix the pilot luck factor. :D
-
Probably what you saw is not what he saw, or in other words there is almost no way to accomplish what you are wishing for.
that's why I ask for 5-7 area no way he was perpendicular to me when he collided, the difference isn't THAT big is it? And sure there is a way to code no collision damage from5o'clock to 7,oclock
-
Probably what you saw is not what he saw, or in other words there is almost no way to accomplish what you are wishing for.
no I was there, he was rammed from behind, he went down and the other plane kept going with only an oil leak. we killed him later. the point he was trying to make is collisions specially from behind should give the other guy more than an oil leak.
semp
-
NM :)
-
no I was there, he was rammed from behind, he went down and the other plane kept going with only an oil leak. we killed him later. the point he was trying to make is collisions specially from behind should give the other guy more than an oil leak.
semp
You really need to see the collision from the other guy's PC, which is where he takes collision damage, to determine if it was reasonable.
-
Collisions yes this again. Simple wish. When someone collides with you from 5 to 7 oclock you should not take damage. Just had a guy run right into my 6 I die instantly he gets oil damage and flys on.
EDIT no he didn't hit me with guns unless his convergence was 0 as I had my wings perpendicular to the ground at the time.
But what if you are on my 12 0 clock on my screen, yet I'm at your 9 o clock on your screen, how does that work out for ya?
Collision model isn't perfect, and can't be. The internet needs to be perfect for the collision model to change. I don't think either will be any time soon. Don't collide and no issues will be present. :aok
-
But what if you are on my 12 0 clock on my screen, yet I'm at your 9 o clock on your screen, how does that work out for ya?
Collision model isn't perfect, and can't be. The internet needs to be perfect for the collision model to change. I don't think either will be any time soon. Don't collide and no issues will be present. :aok
Are you finally admitting the current system is the best approach and that what you see on your front end determines your damage and what the other guy sees on his front end determines his?
-
No you assume I assume it was intentional, I never said it was intentional . . .
My bad Nathan.
-
Hammy - I can't say I agree. But, this thread did remind me that the doc says next check-up its time to do a prostate exam... :frown:
-
... The internet needs to be perfect for the collision model to change...
If you think about it, with a theoretical 0 travel time connection the current collision model would work just fine. Everyone would see the same thing.
-
If you think about it, with a theoretical 0 travel time connection the current collision model would work just fine. Everyone would see the same thing.
Yaknow, ya got something there. Current model best solution, no matter what.
-
If you think about it, with a theoretical 0 travel time connection the current collision model would work just fine. Everyone would see the same thing.
Give that man a cookie! He is right!
-
But what if you are on my 12 0 clock on my screen, yet I'm at your 9 o clock on your screen, how does that work out for ya?
Collision model isn't perfect, and can't be. The internet needs to be perfect for the collision model to change. I don't think either will be any time soon. Don't collide and no issues will be present. :aok
Again how is it possible for the to be a 90 degree difference?
-
Again how is it possible for the to be a 90 degree difference?
2 tight opposing turns and a fair bit of lag.
Wiley.
-
2 tight opposing turns and a fair bit of lag.
Wiley.
Impossible! No wait ......
-
Got lucky Dolby posted a film of him shooting me down and I had made a film too. So was able to compare.
In my film I never flew in front of him, but he fired away from me and my wing fell off.
In his film, I flew across in front of him at near 90 degree angle and he shot me.
A collision could just as easily occur in this same manner.
-
2 tight opposing turns and a fair bit of lag.
Wiley.
but for someone to be 90 degrees off on your screen from what they see on their screen that's a large discrepancy. Not saying it don't happen per Dranes post but IM not asking for 90 degree no damage IM asking for 5-7
-
but for someone to be 90 degrees off on your screen from what they see on their screen that's a large discrepancy. Not saying it don't happen per Dranes post but IM not asking for 90 degree no damage IM asking for 5-7
Regardless your idea is bad.
Wiley.
-
"When someone collides with you from 5 to 7 oclock you should not take damage"
Dude....Seriously ? :rofl
-
"When someone collides with you from 5 to 7 oclock you should not take damage"
Dude....Seriously ? :rofl
Yes
-
Regardless your idea is bad.
Wiley.
ok you've convinced me.
-
Are you finally admitting the current system is the best approach and that what you see on your front end determines your damage and what the other guy sees on his front end determines his?
I was never really against it :)
-
I was never really against it :)
My bad. Blame my failing eyesight making your avatar resembling Semp's slightly and my not taking note of the name above it. :cool:(cool smiley with blind glasses on)
-
My bad. Blame my failing eyesight making your avatar resembling Semp's slightly and my not taking note of the name above it. :cool:(cool smiley with blind glasses on)
:lol
No problems man. I have my moments. :cheers:
-
Congrats nath a collision request I do not rember hearing before.
It will take some thinking about the unitetional side effects.
Hitech
-
OK ,thought long enough. Will try to draw a picture tomorrow of the issue and how it would increase the complaints and make the explanation of how it works more difficult.
-
Not all of us have perfect reaction time and perfect monitors that we get a clear view a fast closing plane. I have been hit and I hit someone accidentally. The op assumes it was intentional. My guess, it was not.
No matter how much you dislike the collision model, it is the same for everyone.
The only thing I noticed is bigger fighters have more of a chance of taking damage.
With these comments it seems you don't really understand the collision model.
Your view is your view, what you see on your computer screen is what you get. If you see any part of your plane hit another you have collided. Plain and simple. And the only reason you "might" be taking more damage in a bigger fighters is because it IS bigger and so you are most likely hitting with more of your plane.
Don't think about what the other guy is doing/saw, in collisions it is completely unrelated. All that matters is what is happening on your screen. If you dodge and MISS the other plane you will NEVER get a collision. The OP had poor SA. Had he been paying more attention to his "6" and jinked out of the way and avoided the other plane he would not have collided.
-
Congrats nath a collision request I do not rember hearing before.
It will take some thinking about the unitetional side effects.
Hitech
hitech,
I think what upsets people is how much damage one airplane gets while the other goes down. for example in the one requested he was hit from behind. he went down while the other kept flying with just an oil leak.
now shouldnt the plane have a little more damage than an oil leak? I mean how about the propeller getting damaged or perhaps the pilot getting a PW from the crash due to flying parts of the plane that he collided with. even the radiator getting damaged also. that guy kept flying for another good 10 minutes.
I have noticed this when I have collided with other planes, sometimes they go down and all I get is an oil leak.
now I dont think he's arguing about the collision model but the damage model during a collision.
semp
-
Removing a realistic feature would be the last thing to do in a realistic sim... :headscratch:
-
hitech,
I think what upsets people is how much damage one airplane gets while the other goes down. for example in the one requested he was hit from behind. he went down while the other kept flying with just an oil leak.
now shouldnt the plane have a little more damage than an oil leak? I mean how about the propeller getting damaged or perhaps the pilot getting a PW from the crash due to flying parts of the plane that he collided with. even the radiator getting damaged also. that guy kept flying for another good 10 minutes.
I have noticed this when I have collided with other planes, sometimes they go down and all I get is an oil leak.
now I dont think he's arguing about the collision model but the damage model during a collision.
semp
One FE may see a full body contact while on the other's FE the oil pan just barely touched the vertical stabilizer. The difference in outcome comes into play not only when one collides and the other does not, but also when a collision is detected on both as the severity is still at issue.
-
Please don't turn this into a normal collision thread. The OP really did not ask for the normal stuff and appears to understand the collision system.
below are 3 images, for the sake of argument lets assume 0 lag so both computers are seeing the same thing.
Who is suppose to take damage and who not in these 3 cases. It may help you see the problems defining what you are asking for.
HiTech
-
All 3 should take damage. Stinks when its not your fault, but colliding was a real danger in WWII and should be in here. There are plenty of times when I'm trying to force an overshoot, lose track of my opponent and turn into his flight path causing a collision that was at least 50% my fault even though he hit my tail.
I have no idea how realistic the damage is, but my gut says that we fly away from more collisions in AH than folks did in WWII. I get what Hamhawk is after. Its a bummer when the guy that should get the ticket in a traffic accident gets to drive home while you flutter to the ground.
-
Per the OP's request it is hard to say on the first image, but should the computer be able to tell direction of impact the Ki-84 would be damaged and the B-26 undamaged. In the second case the Ki-84 would be damaged and the B-26 undamaged. In the third set the B-26 would be damaged and the Ki-84 undamaged.
However, these are all the same collision with the participants moving in the same directions, positions just changed by less than 15 yards.
-
Please don't turn this into a normal collision thread. The OP really did not ask for the normal stuff and appears to understand the collision system.
...
HiTech
I read it as a variation on two of the normal complaints, no damage if the collision isn't your "fault" and unequal damage from the "same" collision.
-
With 0 lag both planes should take damage. The frustration people have (those who understand the collision model,) is that the phantom plane has no sense of self preservation and its behavior goes unpunished.
As for trying to exclude certain collision types I think that would engender its own issues, the most obvious being an inconsistent collision model from the view of what you see is what you get.
You'd be better off inspiring the phantom plane with some sense of self preservation.
-
How are we to interpret the pictures?
1. - The pilot is in charge of his own direction. So he who's nose is touching the other's plane earns a collision.
2. - The pilot is in charge of his own direction. So he who fails to get his airframe out of the way earns the collision.
Example (1.) is a given if you subscribe to everyone will avoid what they can see the best they can. Aside from your target suddenly pulling up during your diving pass and you earn a collision while he is unscathed. Who is responsible if the target pulled up on purpose? The code in my client says I am.
Example (2.) we would all like to be the innocent victim of others and not have our fun ruined. Why am I responsible for the other player's poor judgment? The code in my client says I am.
I don't know how to measure this against a fairness ruler. I'm sure HiTech had some moments when he decided on the current collision modeling. A micro focused granular solution to taking a collision in your kester. Most states I've driven in say you are in the wrong when your vehicle snuggles the one in front of you in the rear end. As soon as the collision is not flat on in the rear end it's up to the insurance companies to decide. So Hammy specifying such a narrow cone of impact and who is responsible has merit. But, in a very narrow definition.
-
Could we fly inside a B29 from the rear and then pull the trigger? Sorta like when you could drive a Jeep inside a Tiger? That was gamey as heck but did provide some humor.
-
Derned B29 always poop me with a 20mm present.
-
Why am I responsible for the other player's poor judgment?
If there was a zero time differential, then if another has poor judgement then you both would take damage... Life is unfair sometimes. Only due to the limitations of the internet do we have instances of one survivor and one partially damaged (or not at all).
In the end, it's an UNSOLVABLE problem in today's environment, let's all just agree to disagree and move on shall we?
-
The code in my client says I am.