Author Topic: Ram model needs changing (Read 5046 times)

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #120 on:** June 06, 2006, 01:20:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SlapShot
Dok ... what you propose would render the situation where someone has definately flown THRU another plane ... and while waiting for lag to catch up on the server ... he continues thinking that all is OK ... then with the other plane out of sight ... his wing falls off ... which will generate a WTF !!!

HT is between a rock and a hard place on this and no matter what solution is used ... there will always and forever be those who just don't understand it and will scream bloody murder and WTF.
...

The more that understand ... the less noise that is generated.

What I propose was a 1-second window for a collision response.

I agree it's a situation with few viable solutions for HT. I wouldn't even be adding to the din were it not for the way I see ramming increasing in the MA. That, to me, is a bad trend.

The more than understand the inner workings of the system, the more that will try to game it. I know it's a cynical view.

Simaril · « **Reply #121 on:** June 06, 2006, 01:21:49 PM »

Actually I find it a bit more immersive. Those are large chunks of metal flying around near me, and if I clip one I'm going to get a world of hurt. Fortuantely its a great big sky, adn it doesnt take much to keep out of its way -- just think of the imaginary bubble defining its possible (or if I'm feeling bold) its likely position as I come near, and dont enter that space.

The approach adds adrenaline to those times you figuratively yell "Banzai" and fly through what you *HOPE* will be post explosion debris before you get there....

SlapShot · « **Reply #122 on:** June 06, 2006, 01:27:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
So, in other words, bring the whole game down to the level of people who "win" by ramming and HO'ing. Force the people who know what they're doing to go out of their way to avoid the dweebish tactics of those who don't. That may indeed be "the answer" but it don't sound like much fun.

Well ... I always anticipate the HO ... so pre-merge, I cause as much offset as possible causing them to have to really work hard to come nose in. While they are doing that, I am pulling lead turn.

This gets me thru and by %99.9999 of HOs. If they stick around, they are dead within 1 turn and at the most 2 turns.

I love to see someone trying to HO ... at that point, I know it's total pwnage at that point.

Ramming ... well I have to admit that I have been involved in more rams this year than all other years combined. But I have to say, I do like to get as close to my enemy as possible on the merge because it's important for the first merge as far as I am concerned ... YMMV. So, since I choose to walk this line, I am willing to accept the occasional ram and live with it. I could care less what his plane looks like after a ram ... I made the choice ... I can live with outcome.

SlapShot · « **Reply #123 on:** June 06, 2006, 01:33:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
What I propose was a 1-second window for a collision response.

I agree it's a situation with few viable solutions for HT. I wouldn't even be adding to the din were it not for the way I see ramming increasing in the MA. That, to me, is a bad trend.

The more than understand the inner workings of the system, the more that will try to game it. I know it's a cynical view.

I hear ya Dok ... but how far does a plane travel in 1 sec at 300+ mph ? ... WTF will still be the result.

If the data arrives at 1.001 seconds ... is it ignored ?

So the glass is always half-empty for you ? ...

Elfie · « **Reply #124 on:** June 06, 2006, 01:37:06 PM »

Slapshot, while I already understand what you took the time to explain, I do appreciate your effort to explain w/o being an arse and flaming.

(Dont think I didnt see you get on text calling me a HO dweeb though

)

Maybe I just havent been communicating very well here. I think there has to be a better way to do collisions. Maybe Edbert is onto something with his post. I dont know how to write coad nor have I ever been involved in designing a game. Maybe HiTech can look into Edberts suggestion?

HiTech, from your response to me, you sounded irritated. (I could be wrong on this since it is so difficult to tell intent/emotion from mere text). However, if that was the case, my apologies as my posts were not intended to irritate anyone. I actually meant to say this in my response to your post but it slipped my mind, for that I apologize as well.

Elfie · « **Reply #125 on:** June 06, 2006, 01:41:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SlapShot
I guess you chose to not read my long-winded response to you .

I tried.

I actually posted that before I read your response

Retired · « **Reply #126 on:** June 06, 2006, 01:50:57 PM »

So? can we remove the messages so everyone can go back to crying about being HOed?

Elfie · « **Reply #127 on:** June 06, 2006, 01:56:27 PM »

Let me try to explain what I meant by:

A collision is impossible if only one plane is involved.

On my FE I have to hit an enemy plane or vehicle for a collision to occur. Or, an enemy has to hit my plane on HIS FE for a collision to occur. When a collision occurs, I expect BOTH aircraft/vehicles to take damage. Anything less is kinda gamey is it not?

I do understand that the collision model we currently have may be our best option atm due to the limitations of technology. We also may have to wait for technology to advance further so that collisions can be done in a more realistic manner. Otoh I dont think we should stop looking for a better way to do collisions.

Ten or so years ago a player named Caligula came up with the idea for our current collision model. Who knows....maybe another player will come up with a new idea for a collision model that will work even better? Or maybe an idea will surface and HiTech will be able to modify the idea a bit and make it work? Just never know.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #128 on:** June 06, 2006, 01:58:26 PM »

Yeah, Slap, I should probably get out of 190's and Pony's and start using the HO-bag's tactics against them more. Not meant to sound snide ... just I really love the 190, but turn-fighting of any sort ain't exactly it's forte - especially against La7's and Spit16's.

Elfie · « **Reply #129 on:** June 06, 2006, 02:02:20 PM »

Quote

The approach adds adrenaline to those times you figuratively yell "Banzai" and fly through what you *HOPE* will be post explosion debris before you get there....

I have destroyed more Tempests doing just that. Fire those 4 Hizookas *knowing* you have a 99% chance of exploding the enemy........then the enemy, while still taking catastrophic damage.....DOESNT explode!!

*edit* Btw Simaril, I was a member of the 4th Tactical Fighter Wing in the mid '80s. The 4th TFW is the direct descendants of the 4th FG.

I didnt get to fly the planes though, I was just a bomb loader.

JMFJ · « **Reply #130 on:** June 06, 2006, 02:04:43 PM »

It takes two for a collision.

Both planes should take damage.

With exception of bullets being fired, I find it hard to believe that when two planes cross (+) & slap wings that one would fly away.

Last week me and a plane were acm'n and we came back at each other, I was banked vertical, and he was horizontal. Neither of us fired our wings crossed only, I flew away and he died that seems that would not happen in actual events. We should of both been pistol fighting the whole way down.

Two planes hitting each other no matter what speed or angle should send them both to the ground. Unless you want to get into metalergy and the thousands of different scenarios of wing v.s. tail, wing v.s prop, tail v.s. tail, wing v.s. body, etc.........

Although it's probably happened before due to probability, there is video to support the theory that when planes collide they both go down. Do a search on google of plane to plane crashes, 95% of the video you will find both planes blow to pieces and the pilots are lucky if they can bail out. I could not find one where one plane disentigrates and the other fly's away unscathed.

I realize most of those films are not old school prop planes, and going 200-600 miles per hour faster. But consider car wrecks going 80 miles per hour, can they run into one another and drive away.

More times then not they both go to the junkyard.

If collisions more times than resulted in both going down, it would probably reduce the blatant HO's.

JMFJ

Elfie · « **Reply #131 on:** June 06, 2006, 02:11:20 PM »

Quote

Two planes hitting each other no matter what speed or angle should send them both to the ground.

Key word in that sentence is [bold]should[/bold].

The vast majority of the time that is exactly what should happen. I did see an F4-D Phantom II from the Michigan ANG that actually survived a mid-air collision with a private jet. The Phantom limped home missing its starboard wing all the way to the inboard pylon. The private jet was not so lucky however.

SlapShot · « **Reply #132 on:** June 06, 2006, 02:13:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by JMFJ
It takes two for a collision.

Both planes should take damage.

With exception of bullets being fired, I find it hard to believe that when two planes cross (+) & slap wings that one would fly away.

Last week me and a plane were acm'n and we came back at each other, I was banked vertical, and he was horizontal. Neither of us fired our wings crossed only, I flew away and he died that seems that would not happen in actual events. We should of both been pistol fighting the whole way down.

Two planes hitting each other no matter what speed or angle should send them both to the ground. Unless you want to get into metalergy and the thousands of different scenarios of wing v.s. tail, wing v.s prop, tail v.s. tail, wing v.s. body, etc.........

Although it's probably happened before due to probability, there is video to support the theory that when planes collide they both go down. Do a search on google of plane to plane crashes, 95% of the video you will find both planes blow to pieces and the pilots are lucky if they can bail out. I could not find one where one plane disentigrates and the other fly's away unscathed.

I realize most of those films are not old school prop planes, and going 200-600 miles per hour faster. But consider car wrecks going 80 miles per hour, can they run into one another and drive away.

More times then not they both go to the junkyard.

JMFJ

I guess you decided to skip past my wall of text.

You are trying to apply real life physics and real time circumstances to a non-real life virtual world that will never be able to simulate real life physics and real time circumstances ... at least in my lifetime.

Simaril · « **Reply #133 on:** June 06, 2006, 02:13:48 PM »

You're confusing reality with the computer game on your desktop.

Time passes as electrons run the internet -- and at simulated speeds of 300mph (or closure rate of 600 mph with nose to nose) you'll see 200-500 FOOT differences in aircraft positions between the 2 computers involved in the 1/4-1/2 sec lag.

JMFJ, you are therefore saying that YOU would rather take damage when soem dweeb hits you on his front end, even though you've managed to get FIVE HUNDRED FEET AWAY by flying well on your front end?

Is that really what you want? You want to take damage when you are far away, adn you've done everything right?

Not me.

The alternative is the current system, where at least you have some control over what happens -- dont get close and you dont hit them.

SlapShot · « **Reply #134 on:** June 06, 2006, 02:16:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Yeah, Slap, I should probably get out of 190's and Pony's and start using the HO-bag's tactics against them more. Not meant to sound snide ... just I really love the 190, but turn-fighting of any sort ain't exactly it's forte - especially against La7's and Spit16's.

I apply the same tatics when flying a pony ... I very rarely fly German Iron ... but it should still work the same. A lead turn in any plane is always a good thing.