Collisions

[EVZ]

It is simply not possible to know the net communication delay between you and the other guy.

Not precisely, but it can be approximated (ask Skuzzy) ... AND it's not really necessary to KNOW that ... Collisions (on both ends) aren't HARD to avoid when you REALLY WANT TO.

[EVZ]

if you avoid on your system.....YOU were not involved in a collision,

Your Screen says you were ...

[Karnak]

Nothing random about -if you crash him, you will die-

It will appear to be random to most players as they will die to collisions that they were never closer than 250ft from the guy they "collided" with.

Not precisely, but it can be approximated (ask Skuzzy) ... AND it's not really necessary to KNOW that ... Collisions (on both ends) aren't HARD to avoid when you REALLY WANT TO.

Your idea on how it should be would encourage people to collide intentionally.  You think it would reduce it, but it would massively increase the number of collision deaths.

[Wiley]

Nothing random about -if you crash him, you will die-

Don't make the mistake of thinking the general population at AH is represented here ... There are a LOT of players UNHAPPY with the collision model,

Sure there are.  A lot of people want things to be magically perfect.  Due to the laws of physics, the options are the current way, the way you want it, or a way that effectively means collisions are turned off.

Ok... Once more, for the cheap seats...  The filled in images are what is seen from the P47's point of view.  Notice the P51 about 3 plane lengths back.  The 'ghost' image is the P51's point of view, where it collides with the P47.



If you were in this P47 under your system, you would die.  Under the current system, you live, because the collision did not occur on your end.

Explain again why the way you want it is preferable?

Wiley.

[EVZ]

It would work 100% the opposite, the thought process would be, If I break off and he does not,he will maybe kill me with his guns , I die, he may collide with me, I die. If I don't break off, I may kill him with my guns, I win, If i collide with him, we both die and at least he does not win.

Obviously, I disagree ... This might be Mr. Spock's thought process, or a computers decision ... But humans have this little gut monkey that's REALLY nervous and starts screaming -YOU WILL DIE - YOU WILL DIE- and just won't shut up ... (even in a computer game). We all (mentally healthy anyway) try and keep that monkey QUIET.

I.E. Not breaking off on the merge will win you more fights. (AND add more deaths to your score, cost you perk points? put you back in the tower).

Please note : I said early on that the present collision model was REASONABLE and I DO understand why it was adopted ... But it isn't popular, and the idea that BOTH PLANES Crash -is- the general perception of the result of a mid-air.

[EVZ]

Your hosted image is  ???? kind of weird since it seems to show (maybe it's the angle?) lateral displacement and to be IN FRONT of the original rather than time displaced behind it. (Questionable?Bogus?Faked?).

[ink]

(Image removed from quote.)

Your hosted image is  ???? kind of weird since it seems to show (maybe it's the angle?) lateral displacement and to be IN FRONT of the original rather than time displaced behind it. (Questionable?Bogus?Faked?).

that shows the placement of the planes overlaid one another on BOTH ends.... one there was a collision one there was not...both planes should not go down or get damage when only one collide

due to lag your positioning is not necessarily gonna be exactly "Behind"  could be in any direction

[Lusche]

(Image removed from quote.)

Your hosted image is  ???? kind of weird since it seems to show (maybe it's the angle?) lateral displacement and to be IN FRONT of the original rather than time displaced behind it. (Questionable?Bogus?Faked?).

It's not fake. It's just two different clips of the SAME collision. It's the two films of each pilot superimposed upon each other witht he P-47's (remember, there are two, the "original" /P-47 pilot's film and the "ghost Jug", which is what the pony driver actually sees). I was one of the two pilots and I chose to put them together in this way to demonstrate the huge difference between the players front ends.
The P-51 pilot tried to ram the Jug and - on HIS side - was successful. However, in the jug pilot's world, the pony was still far away and never even touched the P-47.

The pictures I frequently used in threads like this came from the very same event:




Both pics show the very same moment (note the "Lusche(P-51) has collided with you" on the lower picture, taken from the Jug pilot's film).

[Karnak]

(Image removed from quote.)

Your hosted image is  ???? kind of weird since it seems to show (maybe it's the angle?) lateral displacement and to be IN FRONT of the original rather than time displaced behind it. (Questionable?Bogus?Faked?).

The displacement is not just along the path you see the plane take on your FE.  There is some side displacement as well.

[FLS]

Evz's point seems to be that the non-existent problem of deliberate offensive survivable collisions would be less feasible under his system and in his opinion this would more than make up for all the new unavoidable collisions that would ruin dogfighting.

[grizz441]

If it wasn't for the four hundred some posts, I would think this guy is trolling.  Either way, it has been explained to death in this thread how the collision system works, why it is set up the way it is, why it is vastly superior to the method that EVZ suggests, and that it will never change.  /thread?

[VonMessa]

[EVZ]

It's not fake. It's just two different clips of the SAME collision.

Ok ... not accusing you of anything ... It's not perfect, but is illustrative. As for it's implications ... ? Please see message 31.

[titanic3]

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

 

[surfinn]

Grizz its been thouroughly explained in this thread and at least two others that I'm aware of.