Collision Model

[Busher]

I understand totally why its modelled this way. I appreciate the limits if the internet.

What I don't understand is.... if you can't make it correct, why model collisions at all?

When a Skyhawk can bring down a 727...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_Flight_182

and neither of them saw the other....there was no maneuver to avoid.

So I would like to end the complaints about rammers by eliminating the model.

[The Fugitive]

I understand totally why its modelled this way. I appreciate the limits if the internet.

What I don't understand is.... if you can't make it correct, why model collisions at all?

When a Skyhawk can bring down a 727...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_Flight_182

and neither of them saw the other....there was no maneuver to avoid.

So I would like to end the complaints about rammers by eliminating the model.

You can not be knocked down by a "rammer". You can only be knocked down by RAMMING. Avoid hitting other planes on your screen and you will never have a problem.

[Karnak]

I understand totally why its modelled this way. I appreciate the limits if the internet.

What I don't understand is.... if you can't make it correct, why model collisions at all?

When a Skyhawk can bring down a 727...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_Flight_182

and neither of them saw the other....there was no maneuver to avoid.

So I would like to end the complaints about rammers by eliminating the model.

Because removing collisions causes very gamey behavior, such as flying through your target guns blazing.  It is very difficult to miss from 0 feet.  It would also encourage HOs, more so than they already are.  HOs are the one situation in which both participants take collision damage.

[guncrasher]

You can not be knocked down by a "rammer". You can only be knocked down by RAMMING. Avoid hitting other planes on your screen and you will never have a problem.

been hit way too many times from behind me by somebody that just flies away.  it doesnt happen often but it does happen.  I dont beotch and complain when I ho somebody and I collide and I go down.  that was my choice.

but when I am flying in middle of furball and all of a sudden see a plane flyby and I see the dreaded "you have collided" and I am going down, it is annoying.


semp

[guncrasher]

Because removing collisions causes very gamey behavior, such as flying through your target guns blazing.  It is very difficult to miss from 0 feet.  It would also encourage HOs, more so than they already are.  HOs are the one situation in which both participants take collision damage.

in over 80% of my ho's I get no damage.  the other 20% the other guy is cheating .


semp

[Scca]

Collision model=not obvious

(Collision model+explanation)collision model=obvious

There is no shame in bursting a blood vessel and whining about collisions absent understanding the why and how.

Likewise there is nothing to be proud of in condescension or sarcasm towards someone who is ignorant.

Still and all, red fruit, garden of Eden etc etc potato chips

Agreed.   The sad thing is there is a subset of folks who do understand the mechanics, but still advocate for its removal because they don't like it.  Personally I think it's the best possible solution taking into account all the factors.

Follow the basic theory of "Dont hit stuff, and don't let stuff hit you" and YOU won't take damage. <shrug>

[Busher]

Because removing collisions causes very gamey behavior, such as flying through your target guns blazing.  It is very difficult to miss from 0 feet.  It would also encourage HOs, more so than they already are.  HOs are the one situation in which both participants take collision damage.

Gamey Behavior - well God knows we don't have any of that now  . Who would even notice an increase.
Pardon the sarcasm but in the effort to achieve more realism; what HT likes to call a Simulation, if you cannot model an element of flight and air combat accurately, why do so at all?

[Scca]

Gamey Behavior - well God knows we don't have any of that now  . Who would even notice an increase.
Pardon the sarcasm but in the effort to achieve more realism; what HT likes to call a Simulation, if you cannot model an element of flight and air combat accurately, why do so at all?

So you advocate we only have one life in the game because unlimited lives is so in real as well?

Dude...  If you hit another plane (or get hit) you take damage, it the other plane doesn't hit or get hit by a plane, he doesn't take damage. How much more accurate a model do you want?  It's the internet delay that's causing you to see different results, not the game.

[Busher]

See rule #4

[hitech]

Gamey Behavior - well God knows we don't have any of that now  . Who would even notice an increase.
Pardon the sarcasm but in the effort to achieve more realism; what HT likes to call a Simulation, if you cannot model an element of flight and air combat accurately, why do so at all?

Per your standard there would never be an Aces High or any other simulation based game or product. Because you are trying say if not modeled 100%  accurate then why model it at all. I doubt there is any thing in AH or any other simulation that is 100% accurate.

But to answer you question close is better then not at all.

HiTech

[Scca]

Per your standard there would never be an Aces High or any other simulation based game or product. Because you are trying say if not modeled 100%  accurate then why model it at all. I doubt there is any thing in AH or any other simulation that is 100% accurate.

But to answer you question close is better then not at all.

HiTech

BAM! (mic drop)

[ImADot]

Busher,

This is a client/server environment, not a server-based one.

In a server-based system, which would track and control every aspect of the environment (including plane positions and bullets/ords), what you desire would work. The server calculates everything and sends the results of all data to your front-end. If the server decides two planes collided, they both take damage. The biggest issue with that kind of system is that you never really have full real-time control of your plane. You send inputs to the server, and hope the packets arrive and get processed in time to move your plane where you want it in order to avoid a collision or shoot a bad guy. If the server is busy or otherwise doesn't get the info in time, you sit and watch helpless as your plane runs into something or you miss a shot.

In a client/server system as in Aces High, your front-end calculates and sends all of your data to the server, which then sends that data to others in your immediate area. You fly your plane on your computer (not on the server) and your front-end client sends your positional data to the server, and also gets everyone else's data from the server. The biggest benefit of this kind of system is that you are in complete control over your plane at all times. What you see on your screen is what determines if your plane hits another object (plane, building, ground, etc.). Also, if you shoot at something and hit it (again you see this in real-time on your screen), you get credit for the hit and that data is transmitted across the network to the other guy. One drawback to this system, the positives greatly outweigh the negatives, is that sometimes you get shot by someone from "an impossible angle", or you are involved in a one-sided collision.

I personally much prefer the client/server model of Aces High, and how it is implemented. I am in full control over where I fly and what my plane does.

[Busher]

 

[Karnak]

Gamey Behavior - well God knows we don't have any of that now  . Who would even notice an increase.
Pardon the sarcasm but in the effort to achieve more realism; what HT likes to call a Simulation, if you cannot model an element of flight and air combat accurately, why do so at all?

I would.

The change in tactics that would result would be obvious to all but the most oblivious or ignorant of observers.

[Busher]

I would.

The change in tactics that would result would be obvious to all but the most oblivious or ignorant of observers.

Insult noted.