Collisions

[EVZ]

Please elaborate on the "dependencies".

Nothing elaborate about the collision model I'd prefer ... If a collision occurs BOTH planes go down.

[Lusche]

Could you please answer my question above, EVZ?

[Skuzzy]

Nothing elaborate about the collision model I'd prefer ... If a collision occurs BOTH planes go down.

That makes what I stated true.

You expect your plane to be damaged when you avoid a collision.  True?  If not true, then please elaborate.

EVZ, I would really like to hear how you think collisions currently work in the following scenarios.

1)  You collide and take damage and the other plane flies away.
2)  You do not collide but the other plane takes damage and you fly away.
3)  You both collide and take damage.

Please be as detailed as possible.

[fuzeman]

I quit reading at page 15, my brain was going to explode fromt the nutrinos colliding with it.

I for one accept the collision model as it is and understand why it it what way. Am I a yes man, no!

Unless you ask me if I want mayonnaise on my sammich.
Then I say  YES!!!

[SIK1]

I find it unlikely that such an event would occur during game play ... maybe if the 47 pilot was AFK ... But yes, the 47 would go down.
It is a contrived manipulation, mechanically created and assembled to illustrate a precovcieved concept ... it's not a factual reality any more than a kiddy cartoon is.

Your statement leads me to believe that you do not actually understand the collision model as you claim that you do.

Not only have I experienced an event very similar to the one depicted in the films, I've been on both sides of it.

Personally I find it far more disconcerting when the plane you are flying against suddenly becomes disabled and crashes to the ground when to me he appears to be a safe distance away.

When I crash into other planes I don't get bent out of shape about it as it's my bad, and I know I'm that close, or at least I should know I'm that close.

[EVZ]

That makes what I stated true

Does it ...? Did I say it wasn't ? If you mean - am I personally willing to accept damage under the collision model I propose ? Sure.

[grizz441]

Does it ...? Did I say it wasn't ? If you mean - am I personally willing to accept damage under the collision model I propose ? Sure.

You sure are good at avoiding answering questions that show how bass ackwards your logic is.

[EVZ]

I quit reading at page 15, my brain was going to explode fromt the nutrinos colliding with it.

Nutrinos ... ? I don't think I've ever encountered him, is he a Knight or a Rook ... I know he's not a BISH as we never collide with anything ...

I for one accept the collision model as it is and understand why it it what way.

So do I ... I just don't LIKE IT...

[Skuzzy]

Does it ...? Did I say it wasn't ? If you mean - am I personally willing to accept damage under the collision model I propose ? Sure.

I said exactly what I meant to say.  If you understand how collisions work, then the answer should have been very simple.  

You are proposing to have the game damage your plane, when you avoid a collision, if the other player does not avoid a collision.  You propose to give another player control over whether or not you have a collision and take that control from you.

You have backed that up by stating you would not mind your plane being damaged, even when you avoid the collision, if another player does not avoid the collision.  You have further stated most players would prefer it that way.  I have not heard anyone who would prefer their plane be damaged when they avoid a collision, regardless of what the other player does or does not do, except for you.

You point at a factual representation of exactly how and why collisions currently work and claim it as being a "precovcieved concept".  This does not illicit confidence in your understanding of how the collision system works.

Everything you have stated is predicated on a complete understanding of the current collision system, yet you refuse to answer any questions about that.

[EVZ]

You sure are good at avoiding answering questions that show how bass ackwards your logic is.

Easier to avoid than a collision ... BS STINKS ...

[Karnak]

I suspect EVZ has the concept of how the systems works, but not the scale of the differences in position.  I suspect he believes the P-47/P-51 collision illustration of the system shows an exceptionally large difference.

Easier to avoid than a collision ... BS STINKS ...

Collisions in AH are pretty easy to avoid in my experience.

[EVZ]

You are proposing to have the game damage your plane, when you avoid a collision, if the other player does not avoid a collision.  You propose to give another player control over whether or not you have a collision and take that control from you.

I wouldn't necessarily say that's invalid, but I would note that it's a VERY limited perspective on the MUCH broader implications of having BOTH PLANES crash in the event of a Mid-Air. Limiting the perspective thus doesn't provide a true picture of the actual event (collision) ... or the process leading to it. Flying against players intentionally attempting to create and escape mid airs yields as much, if not MORE, "Control" over a victim's choices. 

I have not heard anyone who would prefer their plane be damaged when they avoid a collision, regardless of what the other player does or does not do, except for you.

You've never heard (seen) ME say that either ... tho you've tried to get me to plenty of times. What you DO HEAR (on a regular basis) are a few brave souls who DARE to post their desire that BOTH PLANES CRASH after a mid air, and are subsequently called names and subjected to personal insults when they decline to be "RE-EDUCATED" ... like good little drones. We've witnessed one such attempt in this thread already ... and a couple of B & Z runs by guys smart enough to get well away from the ensuing insults.

Everything you have stated is predicated on a complete understanding of the current collision system, yet you refuse to answer any questions about that.

I've answered at least several, if not many, questions about the current collision model. I have not answered personal or "loaded" questions intended to provide the asker with a "Selling Point." Unlike at least SOME of the participants in this thread, I am NOT playing a game or keeping "Score."

[Lusche]

I have not answered personal or "loaded" questions intended to provide the asker with a "Selling Point."

Is my question I asked now repeatedly personal or loaded?

[Wiley]

I wouldn't necessarily say that's invalid, but I would note that it's a VERY limited perspective on the MUCH broader implications of having BOTH PLANES crash in the event of a Mid-Air. Limiting the perspective thus doesn't provide a true picture of the actual event (collision) ...

It provides a complete picture of what happened on both ends.  On one computer, the two aircraft missed.  On the other, the two aircraft hit.  You want the plane that didn't experience a collision to go down.  That's all that needs to be said.  Why do you have no desire to say the words, and instead dance around it?

Wiley.

[Karnak]

EVZ,

You are stating that if Player A's computer detects a collision of Player A's airplane with the representation of Player B's airplane on Player A's computer then Player B's airplane should take damage even though the image of Player A's airplane on Player B's computer never got closer than 150ft to Player B's airplane.

That is exactly what Skuzzy is laying out and you are objecting to it despite your repeated statements saying it is what you want.  Either you don't understand something or are flip flopping or you object to language being used to describe the system you want in other than favorable terms.