Collision Model

[dedalos]

itt: dedalos backs down

Right, like that could ever happen. 

[IrishOne]

  So, in my opinion, I have not seen any good reasons yet (unless I missed a post).  

you seem to have missed several.  

 

 These threads grow because everyone jumps in to explain how they think collisions work

it's not that i think i know how it works, i know exactly how it works.  where in this thread have you showed any good reason for the collisions to not be in the game?   oh yeah, you said you didn't like them.   well, that sucks.    

itt: dedalos backs down

Right, like that could ever happen.  

is that why you continue to ask a question that has been answered to death??    the only alternative would be to do away with collisions altogether, and it's been stated several times why it's not a good idea, and for several reasons.   i'm not going to go back and quote all of them for you.   if you want to read them, they are contained in this very thread.  (and probably several others)    this is becoming redundant.

[dedalos]

you seem to have missed several.  

 
it's not that i think i know how it works, i know exactly how it works.  where in this thread have you showed any good reason for the collisions to not be in the game?   oh yeah, you said you didn't like them.   well, that sucks.    

is that why you continue to ask a question that has been answered to death??    the only alternative would be to do away with collisions altogether, and it's been stated several times why it's not a good idea, and for several reasons.   i'm not going to go back and quote all of them for you.   if you want to read them, they are contained in this very thread.  (and probably several others)    this is becoming redundant.

First of all, the "think they know" was directed at you personally, although it includes you.

Second, just another no answer post.  I am pretty sure you have not stated a reason other than "needs to be there" or "planes that collide should take damage".  But what does it do for the game?  If I missed a reason I apologize, but you missed my reason.  It is not because I don;t like it, but it leads to me not liking it.  My reason is that it ends a fight that takes a long time to find, and yes, turning them off is what I would prefer.

Third, why is everyone so upset about it?  So what if it has been talked about in the past?  Did I miss a rule about only talking about subjects one time?  I am sure we have talked about everything at list one time already so maybe no more posts in this BBS?  If you want to talk about it you are welcome to, if not, why are you wasting your time in this thread?
 

[Wiley]

The best worded example of why they need to be here:

If the "collision" were to be removed from the game, dog fighting as we know it will no longer exist.

Angle fighting is what it is because of the threat of a collision. Who can get the best angle(s) on their opponent without collision and without getting shot usually equates to a win. Take out the collision and I don't care what angle you throw at me, I can probably get a better angle or counter your angle by simply flying thru you ... now that sucks.

Wiley.

[dedalos]

The best worded example of why they need to be here:

Wiley.

Good answer, thnx

[RTHolmes]

What is the big deal anyway?  Some of us don;t like to have collisions on.  These threads grow because everyone jumps in to explain how they think collisions work and how we don;t understand it, while in reality it is about like it or not like it.

if you look back at these threads its clear that almost all of the OPs dont understand how the dual FE collision model works. or even that collision damage effects the impact point, not the whole plane, and that the damage varies - "it said we both collided but the other guy just flew off and I died!".

when you get over understanding the model you realise there are 3 choices:

1. both take damage when a collision occurs on either FE. this is not fair.
2. neither take damage. this radically alters ACM options in a totally unrealistic and undesirable way.
3. the current model. which avoids both 1 and 3 above.*

* its true that 3 leaves the possibility of people exploiting the lag in the way you described, but really, if you can maneuver a fighter that accurately at high speed, you should have no problem shooting the other guy down anyway using your guns. this is probably why I cant ever recall losing a buff to this exploit.

[guncrasher]

Quite a while because Hitech didn't take our grievance seriously for at least half a year.

I record all my fights but I dont save them all.  i know i have many films with collisions that happened from behind but i dont feel like going thru them.  I'll start getting that data.  perhaps I am misunderstanding but that is to prove to hitech that collisions from behind are not nearly impossible as he stated earlier but happen quite often and normally one plane will fly away with little to no damage when system reports  that a collusion occurred at both ends.

semp

[IrishOne]

I am pretty sure you have not stated a reason other than "needs to be there" or "planes that collide should take damage".  

how much more reasoning do you need?  it is as important to the game as the virtual bullets we fire.  perhaps we should do away with the damage caused by bullets colliding with our airplanes as well.  

Second, just another no answer post.  I am pretty sure you have not stated a reason other than "needs to be there" or "planes that collide should take damage".  But what does it do for the game?  If I missed a reason I apologize, but you missed my reason.  

ok.  all i have posted are reasons.  if i missed your reasoning, perhaps you would elaborate?  as far as "what does it do for the game?"  it's not about pure realism or bust, and i realize that, but it is about being as realistic as possible while still being playable yet challenging to anyone from the 2 weekers to the guys who have been flying 6-7-8 years.  i can't imagine a flight simulation without collision modelling.  i understand making concessions in the name of playability, but IMO sacrificing collisions would be unjustifiable.  what next, after that?   i really hate it when my plane compresses, but hey, it happens.  should we get rid of compression?  of course not.  if i dont want that to happen, i wont fly a p38 straight down from 20k.   same with collisions.   i really hate colliding.  so i try not to collide.   that works for me, as i'm sure it works just as well for countless others.

Third, why is everyone so upset about it?  So what if it has been talked about in the past?  Did I miss a rule about only talking about subjects one time?  I am sure we have talked about everything at list one time already so maybe no more posts in this BBS?  If you want to talk about it you are welcome to, if not, why are you wasting your time in this thread?
 

rest assured, i am far from upset about it      i live for debate.  if i feel i am right about something, which i do 100% in this case, then ill argue it until the point has been driven home.  i do not think this thread is a waste of time, i'm actually rather enjoying it.   isn't that why we're all here, after all?  

[dedalos]

 if i feel i am right about something, which i do 100% in this case, then ill argue it until the point has been driven home.  i do not think this thread is a waste of time, i'm actually rather enjoying it.   isn't that why we're all here, after all?  

  How is this possible when we all know I am right 100% of the time? 

[Wiley]

How is this possible when we all know I am right 100% of the time? 

Pfft.  Only if you agree with me.

Wiley.

[dedalos]

* its true that 3 leaves the possibility of people exploiting the lag in the way you described, but really, if you can maneuver a fighter that accurately at high speed, you should have no problem shooting the other guy down anyway using your guns. this is probably why I cant ever recall losing a buff to this exploit.

Yeah, it is not even about that.  I brought it up as an example of what I don't like about it.  As for the reasons you gave, and I think they kind of match what Slap said, I think that as long as the HO shot threat is present, people will try to avoid those situations.  I also think or should I say in my experience, most collisions I had that I took damage were not intentional or because we were careless during a fight.  They happened when a third party dives in, misses and passes really close.  In that case, two fights end for no reason (in my opinion).

[dedalos]

Pfft.  Only if you agree with me.

Wiley.

Would that make you 99.99999% right?  In that case we are in agreement

[Wiley]

Would that make you 99.99999% right?  In that case we are in agreement

Ah, close enough.

Wiley.

[hitech]

To reiterate.

1. Dedalos backs down from claim that he can collide with a bomber at will, about 50% of the time.

2. He admits people have given reasons why collisions are in the game.


3. Since he has been corned he now try to resort to diverting attention by try to joke he is right 100% of the time.


In conclusion Dedalos is making stuff up to support his desire for removal of collisions.

HiTech

[68ZooM]

i dont think Dedalos even plays the game right now, if so why does it matter to him.