Collisions

[grizz441]

I think the SAME standards should be applied to COLLISION LAG as are applied to SHOOT DOWN LAG ... is that any more comprehensible ? It's consistant.

You're right that it is inconsistent from a front end perspective but it is still the best solution.  

Look at the alternative for guns for example...if it only mattered what your opponent sees on his end, most bullets you shoot would miss.  You could potentially empty an entire round before you killed someone, or, you could completely miss someone on your end and would randomly hit them on their end.  The aiming game would be entirely a crap shoot relying completely on latency to estimate where someone actually is relative to where you see them.  The fact of the matter is, the way it is now is perfectly acceptable because 99.9% of the time someone shoots you, they have a gun solution on you on your end.  Yeah, his nose might sometimes be pointed one degree off of where you think his gun solution is but you learn to expand what you view as a gun solution and it really works out great as a player knowing that as long as you hit somebody, they will take damage.  Do you question this setup?

As for the collisions, you keep saying that fighting close quarter combat is too risky and both players should receive penalty for it.  That's quite absurd.  You can learn to fight close and avoid collisions very easily with a little practice.  Two skilled players can stall fight for hours without colliding one another.  Collisions happen when someone gets greedy for a gun solution that simply is not there without a collision.  If two skilled people can fight with full flaps in a stall fight in distances ranging from 50 yds to 200 yds for hours without colliding, there is something to be said about that.  Why should someone be penalized for a ram if he did not see it on his end?  Clearly there is skill in avoiding collisions, why should he be penalized for avoiding collisions when the other guy is not skilled enough to do so?  And before you say that he should be penalized for fighting too close, please reread my example about how skilled pilots can fight for hours without colliding.  

So to sum it up, just because shooting and collisions are technically "inconsistent", as you put it, each one examined individually shows that the current system is the best way to do it.  The inconsistency is absolutely immaterial when the intent is to make the game run as effectively as possible.

[EVZ]

See Rule #4

[Skuzzy]

icepac do you want damage assigned to your plane when you avoid a collision?

[EVZ]

You're right that it is inconsistent from a front end perspective but it is still the best solution.  - as a gun solution and it really works out great as a player knowing that as long as you hit somebody, they will take damage.  Do you question this setup?

For the Guns, No, works fine, popular, not many complaints heard from those who fall victim to being killed by planes that aren't in any position to hit them ... I've been the victim a few times, but it's easily understood and shrugged off as ... "just the way it is".

As for the collisions, you keep saying that fighting close quarter combat is too risky and both players should receive penalty for it.  That's quite absurd.

Tell that to the FAA controllers who start freaking out when 2 planes get within a mile of each other ... I DIDN'T SAY it was -TOO RISKY- I said that it involves RISK, which is ACCEPTED by everyone flying ... I think the risk should be equalised and applied to BOTH parties when a collision occurs ... I don't think you can assign BLAME when BOTH parties participate willingly ... Kind of a "Her Fault She Got Pregnant" situation ... (try that one in court sometime!).
 

So to sum it up, just because shooting and collisions are technically "inconsistent", as you put it, each one examined individually shows that the current system is the best way to do it.

You're NEVER going to convince the expectant mother of that ... or the judge ... maybe the guy who's been paying child support for the last 15 years?

[Karnak]

Redacted

[LCADolby]

From icepac as a private message as I guess he didn't want to expose himself to the forums with it:
You may claim to know such, but if you think the A6M actually takes no damage when it collides with your bomber you either don't understand it or you have fundamental disagreements with the priorities that are used to make the decision to set it where it is.

His mother's CIA, his Fathers Naval Intelligence and appeared on Dogfights, his sister works in the UK in Blackwater and can trace your ip to your home.
(However I dont see how a shopping centre can do that.)

He's privvy to information about MD millitary jet crashes when he was a interveiwee.
Now he can exploit the smoothing code and collision model on a whim to suit any situation.

I've been smelling that BS for months; BBs and ingame.

As always FRAUD.

[grizz441]

. I don't think you can assign BLAME when BOTH parties participate willingly

This right here is the crux of your failure.  Both parties are not willingly participating as you say, only the ones who see the collision are the ones participating. In real life if one person was trying to collide with another while the other was trying to avoid, it would be difficult for a collision to ever take place.  Not the same in aces high. Just avoid the enemy you are fighting and u don't have to worry about colliding. It's so simple and perfect. How can you not grasp this?

[EVZ]

Just avoid the enemy you are fighting

Gee ... either I missed that page in the fighter pilots text book ... or you slept thru the AGRESSION 101 lecture ...

[grizz441]

Gee ... either I missed that page in the fighter pilots text book ... or you slept thru the AGRESSION 101 lecture ...

Ha, you apparently missed a class or two. Aggression does not mean colliding with your opponent, that has another term, it's called bad flying.  I can see now why you feel slighted by the collision model if you have not yet learned how to fly aggressively without colliding

[Drano]

Griz this guy would have to fly to fly bad. Fact is hardly flies at all and as such is hardly an authority here. Check his stats. He's in a tank or gun the vast majority of the time. I think a collision in a tank would be a trick.

[EVZ]

Aggression does not mean colliding with your opponent

It most assuredly does NOT mean AVOID THE ENEMY as you suggest ... and I'm pretty sure that's NOT what HT has in mind. If you'd like to check the stats pay particular attention to the RANKING for Bombers and Tanks ... My Squad has a SURPLUS of premium fighter jocks so I generally apply my talents where they are most needed. Personally I'm very pleased with the steady improvement they show in my fighter skills ... Now if I could ONLY get better at dodging the Ack ... Not to many experts around teaching THAT ...

[EVZ]

I think a collision in a tank would be a trick.

You've obviously NEVER been run over by a truck.

[Drano]

Yes I certainly have. While sitting on the runway too. But that's a bug in a terrain that not all terrains have, I'd guess were corrected as it hasn't happened to me in years, and is something that would happen beyond rarely anyway. That has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. A collision yes--but not with any "opponent" that would also be connected to the internet. But in any case I saw the trucks hit me so I took the damage while they merrily kept on truckin. I'm sure the AI trucks were oblivious to my existence as their part in the terrain is to drive a certain route on a certain time interval. I simply clicked .ef,  landed safely, had a good laugh about it and took off again. I got over it in about 4 seconds.

If you're having collisions in MW--which is the only place you play the game according to your stats--it's got to be you. There's like next to no one in there, relative the other arenas, (where most of "us" play btw) almost all of the time. 20 guys would be a lot in there. Some nights when I pop in to see what's goin on I see no darbars anywhere. Because you're all in GVs! How is it possible to have collisions in such an empty arena? It boggles the mind. I fly in the big pond and in events *all the time* and have for *years and years* and I have a couple of collisions a week maybe with all kinds of stuff going on around me. And that's not because I have some magic internet that nobody else has. It's because I generally don't fly **right into** the other planes. Try aiming ahead, taking the shot, and then passing **behind** (behind being anywhere in the rear hemisphere) your target--not **through**. It'll work. Trust me.

There's no bug here. There's no coding that will fix this. For what you seek to be a reality the **entire planet** would have to have a simultaneous, perfectly stable connection to the internet right through to the game servers and then--back to them-- and also for each and every player logged on. Does that sound like something that exists anywhere else in the world today? Do you think HTC is just gonna wave a magic wand and make it so? Seriously?

[W7LPNRICK]

Until there is some way to send digital information around the globe, faster than the speed of electricity/RF/microwaves/fiberoptics, et al, then this is as good as it gets.   

[EVZ]

But that's a bug - I'd guess were corrected.

Nope, not corrected ... Trucks are VERY nasty ... Like to weaponise them and go on a rampage.

MW--which is the only place you play the game according to your stats--it's got to be you. There's like next to no one in there, relative the other arenas, (where most of "us" play btw) almost all of the time. 20 guys would be a lot in there.

25  - 30 players this sat. afternoon, probably a little busier tonight ... Mostly Regulars ... (around 200 total) some come and go. Many of whom are EXCEPTIONAL Players BORED with latewar, some of whom are there to LEARN from them ... Competition can get a bit intense. NO - superplanes to fall back on ... unless you include unperked lancasters. Cheap Tigers when you are out-numbered ... My Squad is based there and trains a lot of noobs that show promise (late night, nearly empty arena. is very good for that.)

There's no bug here.

Did someone say there was? What there IS here is an inconsistancy that most players don't care for. It angers players who watch the guy they CRASHED WITH fly away, and is OFTEN a BIG Suprises to those guys who are flying away. No improvement of the internet is required to CHANGE this, a simple adjustment to the program is all that's needed to send BOTH pilots who participated in a Mid air down.