collision model

[Zimme83]

You cant do that. not on purpose at least. what's happening is that the fighter guy turns to avoid a collision (on his end) and narrowly misses the bomber, however this last second maneuver isn't transferred to your computer in time so you will see him ram you.. 

[Vinkman]

You cant do that. not on purpose at least. what's happening is that the fighter guy turns to avoid a collision (on his end) and narrowly misses the bomber, however this last second maneuver isn't transferred to your computer in time so you will see him ram you..

You can do it on purpose. I will post the film I made yesterday a little later today. 

[Randy1]

Here is a good case for one sided collisions.  We were trying to capture a town.  A b25 broke through and was near town.  I dove, with throttle off trying to not to over shoot.  I did collide with the B25.  I went down and he stayed up.  That was fair.

[BowHTR]

Here is a good case for one sided collisions.  We were trying to capture a town.  A b25 broke through and was near town.  I dove, with throttle off trying to not to over shoot.  I did collide with the B25.  I went down and he stayed up.  That was fair.

Now if only others could understand WHY he stayed up and you went down.

[AAIK]

After reading this, it is clear that the damage model is probably in need of some work.

Not the detection of the model, but the actual physics rendered during said collision.

How many years has it been since it was updated?

[Wiley]

After reading this, it is clear that the damage model is probably in need of some work.

Not the detection of the model, but the actual physics rendered during said collision.

How many years has it been since it was updated?

In what aspect?  Based on what's been explained in the thread on how it works, what have you seen that shouldn't have been?

Wiley.

[Zoney]

After reading this, it is clear that the damage model is probably in need of some work.

Not the detection of the model, but the actual physics rendered during said collision.

How many years has it been since it was updated?

FAIL!

[puller]

After reading this, it is clear that the damage model is probably in need of some work.

Not the detection of the model, but the actual physics rendered during said collision.

How many years has it been since it was updated?

 

What's your in-game name again?

Did you come to this conclusion after playing for a couple of years?

[AAIK]

Looking at the past and present posts about it, people deeply feel there is something wrong.

If you look at it just from a detection point of view, we can talk about the FE all day.

But people feel there is something wrong, and I usually subscribe that if you feel something is wrong, there is: Now the big thing about that is being able to correctly analyse what is bothering you and express it properly.

Currently people have just been scratching the surface with all the FE talk, whereas the real issue is the actual physics applied to the FE that calculates the result from a collision.

This applies to the negative comments towards me on this thread as well, meaning which there is something I am lacking in my posts. Care to lend a hand or are empty responses all the rage these days?

[Zoney]

AAIK your post had no specifics and now your post is about how you "feel" again with no specific details about exactly what you think is wrong so I therefore submit to you that my previous post was appropriate.

[Wiley]

But people feel there is something wrong, and I usually subscribe that if you feel something is wrong, there is: Now the big thing about that is being able to correctly analyse what is bothering you and express it properly.

Because they either don't understand how it works, or they want magic.

Currently people have just been scratching the surface with all the FE talk, whereas the real issue is the actual physics applied to the FE that calculates the result from a collision.

Explain in detail what you mean by that.

Wiley.

[puller]

AAIK your post had no specifics and now your post is about how you "feel" again with no specific details about exactly what you think is wrong so I therefore submit to you that my previous post was appropriate.

He doesn't have first hand experience with multiple collisions...He cannot explain...

[Skuzzy]

Looking at the past and present posts about it, people deeply feel there is something wrong.<snip>

Just because there are people who do not understand how it works, does not mean there is anything wrong.

Currently people have just been scratching the surface with all the FE talk, whereas the real issue is the actual physics applied to the FE that calculates the result from a collision.<snip>

There is no issue, other than a lack of understanding.

[AAIK]

Explain in detail what you mean by that.

Wiley.

We have been talking about the *when* considering collisions, not the *how*. People are getting their panties in a knot trying to make sense(?) of collision detection but we haven't been talking about how (the in-depths of the physics modelling that takes place). My suspicion is that people are more aggravated by the how then the when.

Zoney, you have no idea what you are talking about, if anyone feels greatly; it must be you since you keep putting up these negative responses over and over with little or no details. Its kind of a waste of time actually addressing you: How far its gone.

Skuzzy, I agree, a lack of understanding greatly magnifies the subject matter at hand.

[Wiley]

My suspicion is that people are more aggravated by the how then the when.

What "How"?  Pieces of the plane that intersect with the other plane take damage.  What more needs to be done?  What leads you to that conclusion?

Wiley.