Just have to say

[Arlo]

I'm for sending in a film of each and every perceived claim to prove
a point and request a fix. I'm not so much into sympathizing with an
exaggerated claim, however. Not that it's my job, which goes back
to the sending in a film thing.

[Zoney]

Did you read all of my posts in this thread? I don't know how you could of and still state that I am talking about someone trying to ram. I said that I am not talking about ramming at least twice, I understand they would take damage. As I've said prolly four times now, I'm talking about a ftr coming in on my bombers fast, he shoots and tries to pull away, on his end he doesn't see a collision. On the bombers end they see a collision and the bombers get a collision. What is the bomber pilot supposed to do to avoid that?  

Rotbaron, relax my friend.

You want to meet somewhere Sunday ?  I'll buy you a beer.

[Vortex]

That's pure gold

[guncrasher]

I am quite convinced it's almost impossible under normal MA conditions to intentionally ram someone so the other player takes damage, but you don't  So, I have a challenge for you...  I will be in the MA at 8PM EST this evening 12/09.  If you like, I will up bombers in a private arena for you to make as many passes as you like.  Goal, you try to cause me damage, but you take none via a ram.  The only condition is that you have to be making a pass typical that one would make when attacking bombers.  You may be able to get this ram by hanging super close wiggling around, but in the MA you would be gunned down in an instant doing that. 

This is a "no guns" experiment, lets just test the ram.  Deal?

did you see the video explaining how the collision system works.  it was deliberate made to show that you can actually cause a collision.

semp

[Scca]

did you see the video explaining how the collision system works.  it was deliberate made to show that you can actually cause a collision.

semp

Which video, the one with the 47 or the other one?

[Lusche]

Which video, the one with the 47 or the other one?

Unless I missed something, there is only 1 video in this thread posted by Fugitive. It was made by me from the two films I posted the stills from. Pony flies into the Jug's tail and get's damaged, while the Jug flies away undamaged because on his screen no collision happened.

-----------------

For a successful "ram", the Pony would have needed to fly to a certain (and unknown!) point ahead of the P-47. Such things can happen, but mostly by freak chance and less likely by intentional maneuvering.

[Arlo]

did you see the video explaining how the collision system works.  it was deliberate made to show that you can actually cause a collision.

semp

Um. No.

[FiLtH]

   Only once in all the collisions I have been part of did someone collide with me, and it didnt look like it on my end. ALL others,some with just me taking damage, some with just enemy(few),and some with both of us taking damage, ALL looked liked we hit on my end. Put another way because I just read that and it confused me, its just inconsistant. Ive often asked the other guy after a collision on my end, "Did it look like we collided?" and the answer was yes, although he didnt take damage.

  I can see a glancing blow going to one guy or the others server view, but when spinner to spinner and one guy pops while the other flies on seems odd. If the view is that far off how do we hit eachother with bullets?

[BaldEagl]

Two things I've noticed;

I've been hit from behind on several occasions, taken damage and went down while the other plane flew on.  There's nothing I could have done to avoid this.  I think this is the same experience Rotbaron was describing in his buffs.  If that's the case then there should be a 3-9 line modification to the collision model.  Take a hit in front of that and you go down, take a hit from behind and you don't.

Secondly, on my old computer on dial up several years ago I almost always survived every collision.  Since I got a faster computer with cable internet I've only survived a very small handful.  My ping is typically in the 30-50 range now vs 130+ (sometimes 300) when I was surviving collisions.

I know how the model works and largely agree with it but there's some tweaking that could make it immensly better and most of that seems to be caused by lag.

When there's a collision one player sees "... has collided with you" while the other sees "You have collided with ..." or both see both messages.  Given that, what you "see" on your front end doesn't really matter.  It's what the servers see.  They are, after all, meating out the punishment.  I'd have no problem with collisions being treated more fairly by a server decision rather than being penalized because I have a better, faster connection to the servers regardless of what I "see".

Alas, everyone thinks this is the greatest solution since sliced bread so it will probably never change.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

I guess I don't take issue with the collision model. I get the arguments why it is th e way it is and has been discussed ad nauseum. What I don't get is why bullet hits have to be managed by the server. Why not locally? Wouldn't this cure the rubber bullet issue. I'm shooting at what I see, not what my opponent sees or is...
Cheers

The only solution that would make this work would be to play the game through a remote desktop directly from the server. And we all know that's not possible.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Are you saying you know how to make the collision happen on the buff pilot/players FE but not yours (consistently)?

How do you know what it looked like for the buff player?

Huh. Perhaps Scca's challenge would apply to you, as well.  

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that rear collisions win on AH. So if you manage to manouver yourself in a way that makes the buff fly to your rear even though you intentionally put your plane there, the buff loses the collision. In my end I zoom just in front of the buffs nose without colliding, the lag will cause my plane to hit the nose of the buff on his end.

It's not 100% proof naturally if I judge it wrong I may hit the buff also on my end or pass him too far away but I've succeeded in doing that more than once after I ran out of ammo. Historically it was not uncommon to ram other planes in this situation so I accept it as a viable tactic just as HOing

[RotBaron]

Easy now.  Yes, I read what you posted, perhaps though I misunderstood. What I got was you didn't like the current collision model as at times one flys away with no damage and the other gets damage.  Is that correct?  

If no, then sorry, my bad...

If yes, then I will restate if both took damage, it would be unfair because it's possible that one didn't hit the other plane based on their perspective.  If both took damage because half of the two that hit saw it, and the other didn't, imagine the complaints?  If both took damage in every collision event, then intentional rams would be the norm for those who will do anything to win.  Since the system works like it does now, and if I am correct in that intentional rams are not likely successful a majority of the time, then I feel it's a better system.  

Regarding your edit:
Collisions will happen, and if someone gets lucky to hit a bomber, but not take damage themselves then it's pure luck.  I ask you, how many times has it happened?

Plenty, over the past ~18 months, I originally said 1:15, rethinking that my be overestimated. To be more conservative, lets say 1:25 or somewhere in between. If HTC tracked collisions we could say more accurately. I'll keep track from now on.

Sorry gents if I sounded loud there. I was only trying to point out that responses to me or in general toward my posts were not what I was referring to. I'm not talking about an intentional ram. I'm asking what is a bomber pilot supposed to do to avoid a getting a collision with a ftr if he fails to gun him down? In almost all of the cases I'm referring to it isn't the intention to ram the bombers but they come in at such great angle/speed that when they fail to get the bomber to explode, they end up colliding on the bombers end, yet on their end they just cleared.

What BaldEagl said is exactly what I mean.

I think the collision model is fine other than in bombers. I don't see any way they can maneuver out of the way to avoid a ftr colliding with their rear area. Nor do they really have the ability, or at least I don't as my one hand is controlling where the gunner's sight is pointing and the other is on either the zoom or the twisty stick. Rudder pedals might free up a hand, but gunner's position doesn't allow control of the elevators.

[Arlo]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that rear collisions win on AH. So if you manage to manouver yourself in a way that makes the buff fly to your rear even though you intentionally put your plane there, the buff loses the collision. In my end I zoom just in front of the buffs nose without colliding, the lag will cause my plane to hit the nose of the buff on his end.

It's not 100% proof naturally if I judge it wrong I may hit the buff also on my end or pass him too far away but I've succeeded in doing that more than once after I ran out of ammo. Historically it was not uncommon to ram other planes in this situation so I accept it as a viable tactic just as HOing

Film on. 

[Scca]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that rear collisions win on AH. So if you manage to manouver yourself in a way that makes the buff fly to your rear even though you intentionally put your plane there, the buff loses the collision. In my end I zoom just in front of the buffs nose without colliding, the lag will cause my plane to hit the nose of the buff on his end.

It's not 100% proof naturally if I judge it wrong I may hit the buff also on my end or pass him too far away but I've succeeded in doing that more than once after I ran out of ammo. Historically it was not uncommon to ram other planes in this situation so I accept it as a viable tactic just as HOing

  Way to represent the LD's...  I am sure Save is a proud papa...

Anyhoo...  I personally don't feel my game play is negatively effected by the current collision model.  It happens, not often so I shall move on to better topics..   

[PFactorDave]

For everyone who dislikes the current collision model...  How would you like it to be changed?

Would you like...

1)  Plane appears to collide on my computer, but not yours...  We both take damage?

I'm pretty sure that would make you mad....


2)  Turn collisions off, so no matter what appears on screens, nobody ever takes collision damage...

Just wait for a whole new class of dweebs that will do nothing but try to fly through you with guns blazing.


3)  Plane appears to collide on my computer, but not yours...  I take damage, you do not. (what we have now)

While it may suck when somebody flies through you on your screen but takes no damage, you have to remember that on their screen they did not hit you.  They did it right, from their perspective.  Put yourself in their shoes now.  How are you going to like it when you make a pass on an enemy plane, do not collide on your screen, but take damage because on his screen the lag states made it so you hit him.



Is there another possible option for the collision model that you guys complaining would like to have?

In all of my years here, I have read numerous complaints about the collision model, but have never seen a SINGLE proposal for something better.