Just have to say

[Vinkman]

Now that you've all read and understand the collision model. Go practice one sided collisions with bandits and see if you can master it. 

Tip: think of it as towing a drone. The bandit will always collide with your drone not with you. How far your drone is behind you is directly related to the amount of lag. So if you cut across a bandit's path, such that he will fly at close proximity behind you, along your flight path, he might hit your drone and you will be the victor of a one sided collision. I have found that you need to be within a plane length which is very dangerous for all involved. You can't count on the lag being big enough to provide a long enough "tow" cable to make with possible or practical.

But remember, collision damage is not awarded to either plane, so to get the kill, you need to be in proximity range, or you must have damaged the plane prior to the collision.

Good Luck 

[Scca]

And if you are following Vinkman's advice, hope it's not my bombers, you will be shot down before your drone hits me 

[Fulcrum]

Wow...this thread is still active? 

[hitech]

I know how the model works ........

Obviously not 100%.

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.  

So far so good.

Given that, what you "see" on your front end doesn't really matter.   It's what the servers see. 

This is where you go wrong.

What you see on your front end is the only determination what happens to YOU. The serve has nothing to do with collisions. The messages you see are brodcast from the front ends not the server.

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".

And again the connection speed has absolutely nothing to do with the determination if you collide or not. If your front end sees/detects your plane touching another plane, your plane will take damage. Your front end then display the message on YOUR screen "You have collided". It also sends a message to the person you collided with saying "BaldEagl has collided with you".


HiTech

[Vinkman]

And if you are following Vinkman's advice, hope it's not my bombers, you will be shot down before your drone hits me  

I meant it as a challenge to those that complain. Maybe if they go try to go it, they will realize how nearly impossible it is to do "on purpose".

[Drane]

Now that you've all read and understand the collision model. Go practice one sided collisions with bandits and see if you can master it. 

Good Luck 

Link to post of film and screenshots showing no pings, a one sided collision, and proxy kill. This one was not on purpose.

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,356897.0.html

[ALFAMEGA51]

I'm ALFAMEGA, and I approve this message

[MickDono]

Retards should be banned from the internet

[Scca]

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.

I still haven't seen anyone take this one on.   I guess it's simpler to say "it sux" than respond with an actual workable solution that won't cause other problems.   

[Lusche]

I guess it's simpler to say "it sux" than respond with an actual workable solution that won't cause other problems.  

Oh, they usually do present a solution "Both should go down. PERIOD."

And then you post this picture of an actual, standard MA collision:



...and ask "If you were the 47 pilot, would you really want to take collision damage from this?"...


And wou will NEVER get any actual answer. But you can take it for granted that they will continue day in, day out on CH 200 and start a similar thread after a few months, as if the last one never had happened  


Facts and reality must be quite irritating to some people

[Scca]

My hope snail is that "some" will get it, realize how it works, and how it's the best we can do. 

IMHO, the way it works now is the best compromise we can ask for.  Sure, there will be a few collisions you will end up on the losing end of and have zero control of the outcome (Rot's bomber situation for example), but so far any other idea would come with a larger percentage of problems or a dweebery factor no one really wants. 

YMMV

[MrRiplEy[H]]

  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..   

Uh.. say what? If I run out of ammo and a buff is about to drop our town or hangars of course I'm going to do whatever it takes to finish the job. The manouver is just as risky for me as it is for the buff.

[PFactorDave]

My hope snail is that "some" will get it, realize how it works, and how it's the best we can do. 

IMHO, the way it works now is the best compromise we can ask for.  Sure, there will be a few collisions you will end up on the losing end of and have zero control of the outcome (Rot's bomber situation for example), but so far any other idea would come with a larger percentage of problems or a dweebery factor no one really wants. 

I agree 100%

[Scca]

Uh.. say what? If I run out of ammo and a buff is about to drop our town or hangars of course I'm going to do whatever it takes to finish the job. The manouver is just as risky for me as it is for the buff.

No words...

[blkblade]

Retards should be banned from the internet

But then the intertubes would be empty...