Collision Model, How does it work?

[Wiley]

It would also be an acceptable solution to deactivate collision damage unless both airplanes register a collision. Less complaints for sure.

Nope.  Just different complaints as people stop needing to aim while attacking other aircraft and just fly through them guns a blazing.  The location difference would make the attacker's plane miss on the other guy's end almost every time.

It would have the net effect of turning collisions off except in limited circumstances.

Wiley.

[Lusche]

Honestly I think that deactivating the back half of an airplane from collisions could be a slight improvement from a game play/fairness standpoint, assuming it's possible and simple enough to code.

Then I'd try to force more a collision than an overshoot against a superior enemy on my six. After all, I#m immune vs collision damage

It would also be an acceptable solution to deactivate collision damage unless both airplanes register a collision. Less complaints for sure.

I don't think so.
I am a Euro player with a much higher 'time differential' than US players. With that knowledge in mind, I'd fly guns blazing through enemy bombers because I know the chance of both registering a collision is quite small. US players couldn't do that this easily.

[grizz441]

Then I'd try to force more a collision than an overshoot against a superior enemy on my six. After all, I#m immune vs collision damage

I don't think so.
I am a Euro player with a much higher 'time differential' than US players. With that knowledge in mind, I'd fly guns blazing through enemy bombers because I know the chance of both registering a collision is quite small. US players couldn't do that this easily.

Perhaps, but then again perhaps not, it is speculation. I question whether the collision potential would be "quite small". Could still be high enough to incentivize trying to avoid a collision.

[Wiley]

Perhaps, but then again perhaps not, it is speculation.

Not really.  It would simply not count collisions that are currently one-sided.  I don't keep close track, but I believe I can safely say literally over 40 of the last 50 collisions I've been involved in the guy on the other end didn't collide.  It is very rare when I collide the other guy takes damage.

Wiley.

[grizz441]

I won't accept biased accounts. It's natural to remember the one sided accounts in greater detail, like bad beats in poker. Only htc posting the percentage breakdown of one sided vs two sided collisions will quell my curiosity

[Lusche]

Perhaps, but then again perhaps not, it is speculation. I question whether the collision potential would be "quite small".

Not speculation, but experience. About every time I run into bombers and collide, it's on e sided (on my client only) - a result of the relatively high 'time difference' between me and other AH players.
If I were a US player, this time difference would generally be much lower.
So yes, I could totally game that by flying guns blazing through the bombers. Very little risk of a mutual collision.

[Wiley]

I won't accept biased accounts. It's natural to remember the one sided accounts in greater detail, like bad beats in poker. Only htc posting the percentage breakdown of one sided vs two sided collisions will quell my curiosity

That's your choice, but it's something that interests me, so I do pay attention when it happens.  I notice 2 sided collisions far more as an oddity, like a bad beat, than a one sided collision.

Wiley.

[wil3ur]

It's actually been a long time since I've had a one sided collision.  The most recent was my 262 flying through a flopping N1K that my cannons apparently couldn't hit, but my nose could...  Lost half a wing and a flap, he had no damage.  I still managed to wrassle it around for a landing.

More often than not recently, I get the you have collided/so and so has collided with you dual message.

Oh, and the guy ramming me on the runway when I just spawned in saying I collided with him.  That's just silly though.   

[grizz441]

I honestly can't recall the breakdown when I flew often. It seemed around 50/50 or at least in that realm.

But let me ask lushe and Wiley this: what would the percentage need to be for a two sided collusion model to be more ideal? Ballpark it I'm not trying to get you to commit to a single digit number.

[Lusche]

I honestly can't recall the breakdown when I flew often. It seemed around 50/50 or at least in that realm.

In dogfights I could not give any number either. While most of my collsisions are still one sided, I could not say by how much, any number I'd give would be a fuzzy anecdotal thing for sure.
But it's completely different when I attack bombers. When I collide there, it's basically always because of a badly timed high speed slashing attack of mine. In these cases I almost never experience a mutual collision. 'Almost' means I can't even remember when I had a mutual collision the last time - And I always look at those messages.
I'm a Euro player with a much higher ping than the average US player. so I know my 'leash' is much longer. See the picture I posted earlier in this thread, the Mustang who collided on his Front End was me. Look how far I was away from the Jug on his FE.

But let me ask lushe and Wiley this: what would the percentage need to be for a two sided collusion model to be more ideal? Ballpark it I'm not trying to get you to commit to a single digit number.

I don't think I can give a reasonable answer here. I know how it is for me vs bombers, and that I could easily game that. You can't change the underlying physical time difference.

[grizz441]

Okay well then let's make this more complicated. Bombers are still set to be one ended collisions then. Unless you are in the bomber, then it's two.

Still anecdotal that you never have double ended collisions with bombers. I doubt you would try to ram bombers if there was even a 10% chance of there being a collision.

[Wiley]

You're effectively saying "how much less than 100% of the time would you like to have what you see on your end be correct?"  My number is 0, personally.

Same logic applies in a high speed bounce of a fighter.  The same way it could happen with a bomber, it would happen with a fighter, except the thing my plane on his end has to hit is even smaller.

Wiley.

[FLS]

its an acceptable solution, it's not perfect. How can something be perfect when you die from a collision and your opponent doesn't take damage? It could be the best solution, it's certainly 100% a logical and acceptable solution. Honestly I think that deactivating the back half of an airplane from collisions could be a slight improvement from a game play/fairness standpoint, assuming it's possible and simple enough to code.

It would also be an acceptable solution to deactivate collision damage unless both airplanes register a collision. Less complaints for sure.

Your opponent doesn't take damage only when they don't collide. You are apparently hung up on punishing the player that didn't hit you on their PC. You see an imperfect situation and can't see that we have the perfect solution to the problem.

Your proposed solution would let people fly through you while firing at you with no downside for them. That would be worse than what we have now.

Punishing the player that didn't hit you on their PC seems to be the motivation of every collision complaint.

Currently you only take damage when you hit something. What is better than that? There are no one-sided and two-sided collisions. There is only contact or no contact. If you don't understand that then you don't understand collisions in Aces High.

[grizz441]

Your proposed solution would let people fly through you while firing at you with no downside for them. That would be worse than what we have now.

It would allow that sometimes, the exact percentage of the time is based on how many one-ended vs two ended collisions occur. There is clearly a downside, there is a chance, that both players will register the collision and go down. You are so quick to talk down to me that you aren't reading and comprehending my posts. I understand how the collision model works, it is unclear how you don't understand that. 

[FLS]

It would allow that sometimes, the exact percentage of the time is based on how many one-ended vs two ended collisions occur. There is clearly a downside, there is a chance, that both players will register the collision and go down. You are so quick to talk down to me that you aren't reading and comprehending my posts. I understand how the collision model works, it is unclear how you don't understand that. 

You seem to believe "one-sided" collisions are a problem. There is no "registering" a collision. There is only contact or no contact on your PC. I don't see you understanding that.