Ram model needs changing

[Retired]

I vote for Ed.  A head on colision should not result in the loss of my rudder or give me a PW

Remove the messages so we can go back to complaining about HOs please.

[JMFJ]

Originally posted by hubsonfire
Well, there's a useful post offering all sorts of interesting insight and technical knowledge.

Campers = wasted carbon.

Way to get back to what you do best hub, flamin posts.



Who was campin last night?  Hmmmmmmmmmmm

[Clifra Jones]

Originally posted by Edbert1
Here's a screenie of a double collision, I started the film after the fact, it shows my plane with both horizontals and rudder missing (funny how I lose my tail in a HO) spinning in and the other player RTBing with a smoking engine. His E-state must have been quite high because at the start of the film he was almost 5K above me.


FWIW I have no problem with taking catastrophic damage when I collide, I just expect the other guy to when he does.

It does make sense.

1. On your PC the enemy made contact with the tail of your aircraft with his nose. Yo take damage to your tail.

2. The enemy's PC detects a collision to his nose from a very fragile part of your aircraft, your tail. He only take engine damage.

This is a rare occurrence where both FEs see the collision quite similarly.

Another Hugh misconception here is that every collision results in catastrophic damage. They do not.

[DoKGonZo]

Originally posted by JMFJ
...

It would be nice if peoples suggestions wouldn't be caked with personal gain incentives, most suggestions seem to be full of things that benefit that particular players abilities or lack there of.

...

Oh is that why I'm spending time trying to figure this out?

What a rancid load of crap.

[JMFJ]

Originally posted by Simaril
You do not understand the software at all.

I don't think I ever stated I had a full grasp of the software of this product.

Keep in mind i'm not trying to suggest software capabilities, what is or is not.  I'm suggesting outcome concepts, i'm just saying if the truth of the matter is when collisions occur it is usually mass damage to both parties involved so why not in the game.

If something can't be implemented to be a fair/logical outcome, then it would be better if it was never implemented at all.  If plane location is random computer to computer it seems that the collision model no matter how it is set up will be based on chaos theory.  So maybe it would be best to be removed until something that was more predictable was in place.

Besides it's rare to have a collision, more times than not it usually involves me participating in a head on balls to the wall guns blazin HO, or when I come in with way to much E on a set of bombers and don't pull out in time.  I've only had it happen once in a turnfight of which case I died, and herblife lived.

Question:  If your plane isn't where my computer says it is, should my bullets also not do damage?  Seems that would also be in the same realm of debate.  Whether it's my plane hitting your plane, or my bullets hitting your plane.  If your not really there, well it probably shouldn't do any damage.

JMFJ

[JMFJ]

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Oh is that why I'm spending time trying to figure this out?

What a rancid load of crap.

Did I point that finger at you, or do you just have a guilty concience.

Besides what have you figured out?

JMFJ

[Boxboy]

The facts are that not only COLLISIONS but in fact ALL things "hit" are detected on your FE.

How many times have you been shot down by a guy who on your FE had no solution???  Well on HIS FE he had a solution and send a hit packet to the host who then applied damage to you.  I never see any whinning about this.

I find it kind of unusual for folks to accept the "facts" except when comes to collisions.  I have been playing these games since 1989 or so and "warp" has always been some kind of factor, I think Dale has come up with the best "smoothing " code in the business but like all things it is not perfect.

As far as I can see the choice on collisions is simple either it's ON as is or it's OFF period.

[Clifra Jones]

Originally posted by Elfie
Because a collision involves 2 planes and not just one?

Actually if a collision is registered on both FEs it involves 4 planes but I'm not going to explain it.

[Simaril]

Originally posted by JMFJ


...snip...

If something can't be implemented to be a fair/logical outcome, then it would be better if it was never implemented at all.  If plane location is random computer to computer it seems that the collision model no matter how it is set up will be based on chaos theory.  So maybe it would be best to be removed until something that was more predictable was in place.

...snip....
 

Please read the entire post. It explains how the system works. It isnt hard, it is 100% predictable, it is thoroughly fair, and it isnt based on chaos theory.

What happens on my computer -- whether its bullets or collisions -- gets reported to the server. The server spreads teh info to anyone who needs it, like my target. Resolutions like kills or damage are applied to my target when the info reaches his computer.

Thats it.

Now, if you're paying attention, you might have realized that there is a very simple, non-chaotic way to avoid collisionis: DON'T COLLIDE If you dont get close enough on your computer to hit someone on your computer, you wont collide.

Period.

End of concept, nothing more to explain. NO chaos, no secondary goal, no self serving, entirely fair. Your collisions are 100% your fault (except for the unfortunate situation when a fighter hits a bomber on the bomber's computer).

 IN fact, I've let you in on the almost 100% effective system for not colliding, and that was downright selfless of me

Originally posted by JMFJ


Question:  If your plane isn't where my computer says it is, should my bullets also not do damage?  Seems that would also be in the same realm of debate.  Whether it's my plane hitting your plane, or my bullets hitting your plane.  If your not really there, well it probably shouldn't do any damage.

JMFJ

See above. It all happens on your computer, and gets reported to the server.

If you really want to understand, the answers are simple, and obvious from the many posts in this thread. Just read them and think about it.

[JMFJ]

You don't have to get snippy (pun intended) I asked these questions nicely.

What does FE Mean?

I did state that when I collided I felt like it was my own fault, no need to continue that angle we agree.  Anytime I collide whether I die or they do I still know it was my own damn fault for getting that close to the plane or involving myself in a ho in the first place.

P.S. A good jedi master does not talk down to his padywon, unless you are trying to train me for the dark side.  hehehe.  hmmmmm....................... i would make a good darth vader.

JMFJ

[Clifra Jones]

Originally posted by JMFJ
You don't have to get snippy (pun intended) I asked these questions nicely.

What does FE Mean?

Front End, acronym for your Computer (the server is the back end).

[JMFJ]

Originally posted by Clifra Jones
Front End, acronym for your Computer (the server is the back end).

Thank you Cliffra Jones

I will as requested reread the entire post, and see if I can't re-educate myself.

JMFJ

[Elfie]

No, gamey is when Elfie passes straight down at d400 in front of me, and suddenly my tail falls off because of it.

Eh?

[DoKGonZo]

Originally posted by JMFJ
Did I point that finger at you, or do you just have a guilty concience.

Besides what have you figured out?

IntardNet 101 technique don't fly well in this BBS. The "I wasn't speaking about anyone specific" backpeddle is a 10 yard penalty. Play on.

[Simaril]

Originally posted by JMFJ
You don't have to get snippy (pun intended) I asked these questions nicely.

JMFJ

Sorry that I came on too strong....was frankly a bit irritated when you said:

Originally posted by JMFJ

It would be nice if peoples suggestions wouldn't be caked with personal gain incentives, most suggestions seem to be full of things that benefit that particular players abilities or lack there of.

Oppinions should not come out of both sides of your mouth. Supporting realism when it's a change in your favor, but not supporting it when it's not in your favor.

Having reread your entire post (irony noted: I am eating Crow Pie), I see that the quoted paragraphs (that I read completely the first time) sounded more aggressive than the rest of your post.

Apology extended for any offense incurred.


Simaril