Author Topic: Rams (Read 2374 times)

GunnerCAF · « **Reply #30 on:** January 22, 2006, 10:57:33 AM »

It takes 2 to HO. I avoid them and I'm not all that good. I like to hear them guns firing on the merge. This tells me skill level of the enemy. I worry more when I don't hear the guns fire because I know he is turning for position. If you don't fly directly at them at the merge, it is rare to get hit by a HO. So, here is a way to use the HO to your advantage

Last night I was HOed by a Hurri, but I wasn't mad about it because it was my mistake. There were 2 of us on the low Hurri. I had a P51, with pleny of E to go up. He did a nice job of turning into both of us that made a shot for me almost imposible without a HO. I got tired of this and went for HO and lost. This was not a good move on my part.

This Huri driver did it right. When an emeny dives on you, turn into him. I should have waited for a better shot. Big deal, die and learn

Gunner

Oleg · « **Reply #31 on:** January 22, 2006, 12:31:08 PM »

I see only one wrong thing in collisions - damage from ram way too little. Then i hit with my forehead right in center of enemy plane, flew through him and lose wingtip, rudder and leak oil i feel what something wrong in it. I must be dead just in time i collide.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #32 on:** January 22, 2006, 02:13:23 PM »

Ok heres the part I dont understand.

We've been over this time and time again. "Your front end Vrs. my front end"

If the front ends and lag is that far off.
How the hell do bullets manage to hit in the precise locations on moving objects we manage to do?
Such as shooting a wing off.

Wouldnt the bullet rounds and what your aiming at be subject to the same lag?

It would seem to me that if bullet hits can be modeled into the game correctly. then so should collisions.

If not then IMO to be fair to everyone then collisions should just be turned off.

Now I dont mind so much when it looks like I collided on mny end and I get damage.Makes perfect sense.
BUT
I've had instances where it looked on MY front end where we collided or should have and either didnt or the other guy receved the damage, and other times where it looked on my front end that we didnt collide and yet I get all the damage.

IMO damage should either be taken by both sides, or none at all

GunnerCAF · « **Reply #33 on:** January 22, 2006, 07:43:29 PM »

Your bullets hit were you see them hit. You only colide when you see a colision. I wish the real world could be so perfect.

Gunner

E25280 · « **Reply #34 on:** January 23, 2006, 08:45:07 AM »

To respond:

"How the hell do bullets manage to hit in the precise locations on moving objects we manage to do?
Such as shooting a wing off.

Wouldnt the bullet rounds and what your aiming at be subject to the same lag?"

The way I understand it, when you shoot the plane on your "front end", your system registers the hit, and sends that hit result to the other users "front end". This can take some time. Before reading these and related posts, I used to get very upset because of times where someone would fly right by me, appear to have missed, then suddenly my wing comes off. I thought before it was some kind of "aim cheat" allowing him to hit me even though he was pointed away or already past. Now I realize it is a result of the "lag time" between when I perceive he has passed and missed, and my system receives the data that he perceived a hit.

"It would seem to me that if bullet hits can be modeled into the game correctly. then so should collisions."

But if you view the very informative picture above posted by Donzo, you see why you can not model the two systems (shooting and ram) exactly the same. Donzo did not see a ram. Donzo received no damage. On the other person's front end, he did see a ram. He received damage.

I personally would not like it if I avoided a ram only to have it happen a quarter second later anyway only because the other guy "saw" it. You can not avoid such a situation as I described with gunnery (otherwise no one would ever hit ANYTHING), but you can make it so that no one receives a ram when he didn't "see" it.

"So-and-so collided with you and you die even though he looks to be 200 ft away" would not be an improvement IMHO.

I should also add that the delay I am referring to (he's already passed, and NOW I feel the hit) used to be a common occurence for me while I was playing via a dial-up service. Since I got DSL the frequency has seemed much less, I am assuming due to the much more efficent data transfer.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #35 on:** January 23, 2006, 09:22:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GunnerCAF
Your bullets hit were you see them hit. You only colide when you see a colision. I wish the real world could be so perfect.

Gunner

Ok fine. But as I've repeatedly said before. I get alot of instances where this isnt the case.
I dont "only collide when" I "see a collision"

I also often dont see a collision or what IMO is anything near it and yet still have gotten a collision message.

And other ties I have seen what to me clearly looked like we should have collided and yet either didnt. or got the message that he collided with me and he took all the damage while I received none.

What Im saying is I often get collisions when I see em. and I often get collisions when I dont see em.

Annnd
I often dont get collisions when I see them

And the instances of these seems to be WAY up over the last few months.
And Im not one who is big on HOing people so its kinda hard to blame it on that

hitech · « **Reply #36 on:** January 23, 2006, 09:39:07 AM »

Quote

I also often dont see a collision or what IMO is anything near it and yet still have gotten a collision message.
.

I belive you are mistaken.

Quote

or got the message that he collided with me and he took all the damage while I received none.

Once again you are mistaken. He took damage if you got this message.

Quote

I often dont get collisions when I see them

This can happen on very rair occasions. Do to how collision points are modled on the planes. Basicly you need a small slice of a wing going threw somthing very thin.

But isn't this what you wish to happen every time?

Quote

And the instances of these seems to be WAY up over the last few months.

Nothing has changed in the collision model with the exception of adding the text message for a very long time. So I have a realy hard time beliving it has any thing to do with the system, but wrather somthing you have changed in your flying style.

HiTech

dedalos · « **Reply #37 on:** January 23, 2006, 11:33:33 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech

Nothing has changed in the collision model with the exception of adding the text message for a very long time. So I have a realy hard time beliving it has any thing to do with the system, but wrather somthing you have changed in your flying style.

HiTech

I think the difference is the message. Before, when I took damage after a close pass or after flying too close to a Tiger, I would think that I either got HOed or the tiger took a shot at me.

Now, when I get the message that I colided with the Tiger, I know why I am missing the aleron and therefore, I think that colisions happen more often than before, witch is false

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #38 on:** January 23, 2006, 12:31:43 PM »

Maybe this new message has exposed the way some players are exploiting the collision code.

dedalos · « **Reply #39 on:** January 23, 2006, 01:05:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Maybe this new message has exposed the way some players are exploiting the collision code.

Nah, sometimes it is a combo of a HO and a Ram. Before you only thought it was a HO since you only lost a small part of the plane. Now, you see the message and you think the damage is from the colision instead of the HO.

Either way, coliding with something, especially a Tiger and losing an aleron is just funny

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #40 on:** January 23, 2006, 01:58:27 PM »

I've seen people do deliberate tail-on collisions. Multiple passes of 'em ... I was in a Sturmi which is how I survived it, so did they ... curious, huh?

dedalos · « **Reply #41 on:** January 23, 2006, 02:10:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
I've seen people do deliberate tail-on collisions. Multiple passes of 'em ... I was in a Sturmi which is how I survived it, so did they ... curious, huh?

What is a tail on colision?

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #42 on:** January 23, 2006, 02:16:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
I belive you are mistaken.

HiTech

No disrespect intended.
But I know what Im seeing. or not seeing as the case may be. Unless something is happening after the pass and behind me that I dont know about.

In which case I should be seeing damage to the tail and not the wings

GunnerCAF · « **Reply #43 on:** January 24, 2006, 03:36:26 AM »

I film just about everything. Many times my opinion of what I saw in the heat of the battle changes after I review the film.

Gunner

wrag · « **Reply #44 on:** January 24, 2006, 07:03:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I get that.
What I DONT get is when I DONT SEE a ram on my and and get one anyway

That has been happening to me repeatedly!!!!!!!! Got a slow connect. 37k about dialup.

Lost a wing today when a spit came up under me and I rolled to avoid. We were like 20 ft apart flyin parallel me high and the spit low. On my FE I avoided but on the spits FE we hit. AND down I went.

This new collision model SUX IMHO. Smoothing code thing or what? IMHO the problem is in the sync! Many of us are soooo far out of phase it makes for some terrible collisions that in the older versions didn't happen.

That's my $0.02