The collision model SUCKS I hate it.

[Bronk]

Lusche excuse me here maybe i'm being ultra stupid. but........the timings on the films are different, so how is it exactly the same time.?

Cut-n-paste for teh slooowww types.

Tangle's external from his front end the moment of impact.





Same basic angle external, tangle's view from my front end moment of impact.




How would you feel taking damage looking at your film and seeing tangles front end view, hmmmmmm?


I know I'd be pretty POed.

Bronk

Edit: This also works nicely for the "none should take damage" people.

Yea I should be able to put the nose of my ac through another.

Look it over and let it sink in.
2 different films of the same collision. You will have 2 different times stamps on the moment of impact.

[Lusche]

Lusche excuse me here maybe i'm being ultra stupid. but........the timings on the films are different, so how is it exactly the same time.?

It's exactly the moment when the Pony impacts on the P47. You could notice it on the 47 players film by sudden appearance of smoke from the Pony as well as seeing the "XXX has collided with you message"

Strictly speaking the timing isn't different, just the locations. The time display in the film viewer of course doesn't match because the two players didn't start to film at the same moment.

[E25280]

You have no idea what I'm suggesting. I really haven't discussed it yet.

And here I thought you were the expert communicator in here.   

You said:

If one FE determines a collision, query the other to see how close it was. Average it out... if it doesn't average to a collision on both FE's, no collision. Calculation wouldn't take any longer than computiong bullet travel. Both planes must either take or not take damage. No other way makes sense.

It sure sounds like you either want to have the front plane in bronk's first picture to take damage because the "average distance" was close enough, or you want the back plane in bronk's second picture to get off scott-free, even though he clearly collided with the other plane -- neither of which makes any sense.

[Steve]

And here I thought you were the expert communicator in here.   

You said: It sure sounds like you either want to have the front plane in bronk's first picture to take damage because the "average distance" was close enough, or you want the back plane in bronk's second picture to get off scott-free, even though he clearly collided with the other plane -- neither of which makes any sense.

I briefly mentioned it but didn't bother going into detail because griefers like you wouldn't read it anyway. You think it makes sense that when two planes collide only one should take damage. Then you try to tell me what does and does not make sense. There's no discussing with you and your ilk.  There's arguing and ignoring, nothing in between.

[CAP1]

I briefly mentioned it but didn't bother going into detail because griefers like you wouldn't read it anyway. You think it makes sense that when two planes collide only one should take damage. Then you try to tell me what does and does not make sense. There's no discussing with you and your ilk.  There's arguing and ignoring, nothing in between.

steve,
you're right. i don't know exactly what our idea is.

but for just a second, try to imagine this. i'm assuming you may have collided with someone, and went in, whlst he continued on his merry way.

 picture that you've just gotten out of a furball, and are low fuel and ammo, with a pilot wound. you're in a good turner, so you're not that fast. here comes a guy in a spit16 chasin ya down, you jink and avoid his shots, but he's just finished his ammo on you. now he's pissed cause he didn't kill ya, and you can go home. so he decides to kamakazi you. now you've just lost a good 5 kill run. and why? all because this guy decided you shouldn't be able to go land your kills.
 
 if people KNOW for fact that you are going to take damage along with them, they will exploit that. i think this is a part of why it is left as it is. none of us like rammers or getting rammed. most of ud just deal with it.

 also.......why don't you put in here exactly what your idea is? it may help.

[Steve]

steve,
you're right. i don't know exactly what our idea is.

but for just a second, try to imagine this. i'm assuming you may have collided with someone, and went in, whlst he continued on his merry way.

 picture that you've just gotten out of a furball, and are low fuel and ammo, with a pilot wound. you're in a good turner, so you're not that fast. here comes a guy in a spit16 chasin ya down, you jink and avoid his shots, but he's just finished his ammo on you. now he's pissed cause he didn't kill ya, and you can go home. so he decides to kamakazi you. now you've just lost a good 5 kill run. and why? all because this guy decided you shouldn't be able to go land your kills.
 
 if people KNOW for fact that you are going to take damage along with them, they will exploit that. i think this is a part of why it is left as it is. none of us like rammers or getting rammed. most of ud just deal with it.

 also.......why don't you put in here exactly what your idea is? it may help.

You can already ram people.

[CAP1]

You can already ram people.

I thought i had mentioned before about the guy that rammed me 3 times in one run. i was flying EW, in JU88's, and this guy comers along, dives on me, i'm shooting at him, but not seeing as many hits as i'd like.....well, he passes on my aircrafts right side, and i get a message in orangs, saying XXX has collided with you. he went down. he reupped, and caught me, and did the same thing. twice more.  after the third hit, he apologized to me, telling me that he was learning the aircraft. i took ZERO damage from his collisions. none. nada. zilch. zippo. and i was watching him the whole time. on the one occasion, i though i was going to take damage as it looked to me like he flew through my wing, but i didn.t

 to ram someone and make them take damage, you have to time it so their fe sees it the same as yours i think.

either way, it isn't really broken, so it doesn't need fixen.

BTW..i went back and read your original post......most likely, he was trying to avoid you shooting him down, and in the process bled off speed. if you had better control of your aircraft at the time, ou might've missed him.
 i did the same diving a p40 on lancs..i got so fast, that when i tried pulling out, i couldn't. i took my own wing off on them.

[Steve]

either way, it isn't really broken, so it doesn't need fixen.

We simply have  a difference of opinion.  Because I think it needs fixing, I'm  a whiner.

[CAP1]

We simply have  a difference of opinion.  Because I think it needs fixing, I'm  a whiner.

whelp,

not that it matters to you, but i don't view you as a whiner.......and i don't think i called you that in any of my other posts, did i? if i did, i do apologize for that.

[E25280]

I briefly mentioned it but didn't bother going into detail because griefers like you wouldn't read it anyway. You think it makes sense that when two planes collide only one should take damage. Then you try to tell me what does and does not make sense. There's no discussing with you and your ilk.  There's arguing and ignoring, nothing in between.

Actually, it is you and "your ilk" that refuses to see that it is NOT always two planes colliding that continue arguing and ignoring.  Despite the best efforts of people like Bronk and Lusche (who both posted pictures for cripes sake), you choose to remain ignorant of how the collision model works, and attack anyone who tries to explain it to you rather than try to learn.  The fact people who understand the model keep trying to explain it isn't griefing, it is hoping against hope you and those like you may finally get it.

You still haven't answered the basic questions:

1) Why should the front plane in Bronk's first picture take damage?  After all, he did not collide.  That is exactly what his computer saw -- a plane well behind him, pulling up, and missing him by a wide margin.  No collision, no damage.  All is right with the world.

2) Why should the rear plane in Bronk's second picture NOT take damage?  After all, he DID collide.  That is exactly what his computer saw -- he pulled up, and the front of his plane hit the enemy plane.  So, he DID collide, and took damage.  All is right with the world.

If you have no problem with the front plane taking no damage and the rear plane taking damage, then you have no problem with the current collision model, and you are arguing without a point.

If you do have a problem with that situation, then you haven't articulated why, nor how your "opinion" of how things should work would make things better.

[Steve]

Actually, it is you and "your ilk" that refuses to see that it is NOT always two planes colliding that continue arguing and ignoring.  Despite the best efforts of people like Bronk and Lusche (who both posted pictures for cripes sake), you choose to remain ignorant of how the collision model works, and attack anyone who tries to explain it to you rather than try to learn.  The fact people who understand the model keep trying to explain it isn't griefing, it is hoping against hope you and those like you may finally get it.

You still haven't answered the basic questions:

1) Why should the front plane in Bronk's first picture take damage?  After all, he did not collide.  That is exactly what his computer saw -- a plane well behind him, pulling up, and missing him by a wide margin.  No collision, no damage.  All is right with the world.

2) Why should the rear plane in Bronk's second picture NOT take damage?  After all, he DID collide.  That is exactly what his computer saw -- he pulled up, and the front of his plane hit the enemy plane.  So, he DID collide, and took damage.  All is right with the world.

If you have no problem with the front plane taking no damage and the rear plane taking damage, then you have no problem with the current collision model, and you are arguing without a point.

If you do have a problem with that situation, then you haven't articulated why, nor how your "opinion" of how things should work would make things better.

umm you have once again foolishly and incorrectly assumed things. I know how the collision model works. I don't like it. Get it?  I have a problem with only one plane taking damage, since the damaged plane had to hit something .

This was Bronk's first effort here in this thread: 

Ahh the collision whine. 

I haven't read anything he posted beyond that sentence, nor am I interested.

[Lusche]

umm you have once again foolishly and incorrectly assumed things. I know how the collision model works. I don't like it. Get it?  I have a problem with only one plane taking damage, since the damaged plane had to hit something .

The last sentence is proving again that in fact you did not understand the collision model at al, or at least ignore an important part of it: The fact that you have to cope with two independent, differing realities in this game.

If you run into me on your FE you are indeed running into something. You ran into the representation of my plane on your screen. But you may not have rammed me on my screen.. so why should I go down?

A simple straight question: Assume you are the P-47 in this picture. You see at the bottom the "Lusche has collided with you!" Note the distance between the planes. The 47 did fly unharmed away from this collision. Question: What would you say if you (the P47) would now explode without enemy fire? ()

[Steve]

The last sentence is proving again that in fact you did not udnertsand the collision model at all.

Wrong. If I hit something, it must take damage.

[Bronk]

umm you have once again foolishly and incorrectly assumed things. I know how the collision model works. I don't like it. Get it?  I have a problem with only one plane taking damage, since the damaged plane had to hit something .

This was Bronk's first effort here in this thread: 
I haven't read anything he posted beyond that sentence, nor am I interested.

Truth be told this was.

DAMN IT !!!!!
Lusche is stealing my fun.

Thanks for playing.

[Lusche]

Wrong. If I hit something, it must take damage.

I would like you to answer my question.