PDA

View Full Version : Will BoB fix the ramming/collision exploit?



The_Gog
06-17-2006, 06:33 PM
And yes, it is an exploit, used by lame fighter pilots in all servers to kill bombers that they don't possess the skills to shoot down in a conventional way.

As it stands now, in most cases, you can ram an aircraft, send it spiralling down in flames and continue on your merry way, greedily seeking out more slow bombers that you can ram.

I was hoping that the average skill level of online fighter pilots would eventually get to the point where they would be good enough to know NOT to attack from dead 6 oclock and NOT to press home the attack until they were sitting in the bomber pilots cockpit, but alas no, online fighter pilots are still lacking in the skills needed to bring down bombers honestly and above all, realistically.

So Oleg, is this going to be fixed in BoB? Or are we going to see our beloved Heinkels and Junkers bombers getting rammed by Spits and Hurris all over southern England?

Codex1971
06-17-2006, 07:10 PM
Oleg can't force people to practice gunnery skills before jumping into a DF server...that's the nature of "public" servers.

Besides its not that unrealistic, many fighter pilots collided with bombers during WW2, I grant you most of the time it wasn't on purpose, but it did still happen.

The Luftwaffe even set up Strum Units who were equipped with FW-190A5/A6/A8 - R8 Rammjaggers and signed up to these units knowing full well they were required to ram bombers if all else failed.

http://www.combatsim.com/htm/oct99/sturm2.htm

Cheers!

Feathered_IV
06-17-2006, 10:07 PM
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/508/02005360442005lv.jpg

The_Gog
06-18-2006, 12:51 AM
You know, I just knew it, even as I was typing it, that some bloke would come on here and say,

"You know that ramming bombers did happen in WW2 AND there were even units created to do as much!"

No $h/t Sherlock! Do you know, that on some occasions in WW2, pilots parachuted out of planes without a chute and survived! Some planes even made it all the way back to base with gigantic portions of their plane missing!! Why isn't all this modelled in the game? I'll tell you why because for the most part, it was a rare event, same with idiot fighter pilots ramming bombers!

There exists in the game, a way to kill enemy aircraft by crashing into them, on most cases the rammer will be able to fly away, now tell me how often that happened in WW2!!

It is an exploit, a cheat even, and it is far more important than 3/4 of the topics that get bought up in here because it is used by unscrupulous pilots to get more points when flying online.

How hard would it be to incorporate into the game that any single engined aircraft involved in a collision with a multiple engined aircraft gets all their points removed? And before you say "That's not fair!" Ask yourself when was the last time you were rammed by a Heinkel?

If you push your attack right up to the point that you could hit the aircraft you are attacking by reaching out your cockpit window, then you are flying like an idiot and if you hit that plane and die then it's your own stupid fault, but this game sadly, doesn't know the difference between a good bomber pilot and a **** fighter pilot (that's about 75% of the people on Hyperlobby) and until it does any future titles that are supposed to be interested in the bombers (BoB), will remain arcade games for little boys who wanna fly mens aeroplanes!

The number of in-depth posts in here asking for extremely technical fixes to obscure problems proves that there are some very smart people here but yet there are so many pilots that will happily say nothing or even be part of a problem that makes this game a lot less than it could be.
.
.
.
.
.

zunzun
06-18-2006, 02:45 AM
That happens because everybody have infinite lives to waste.
Back to ww2 the average pilots only has one live so he really take a good care of it.
Cheating? dont think so. Just careless flying because the penalty is not so hard (just to press the refly button). When playing coop people is more cautious because being killed means you are out of the game meanwhile in dog server it doesnt.

zaelu
06-18-2006, 03:41 AM
Fly higher.

Feathered_IV
06-18-2006, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by zaelu:
Fly higher.

Indeed.

Gog, I saw you on a server this evening tootling along in a He111 at less than 500m. Even the butterfies were booming and zooming you.

I don't know why you bother with this sim. You've never been happy about it. Honestly man, you're going to give yourself cancer. Maybe you could go try Target Ware. You could then make your own anti-ram mod or something http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Codex1971
06-18-2006, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by The_Gog:
You know, I just knew it, even as I was typing it, that some bloke would come on here and say,

"You know that ramming bombers did happen in WW2 AND there were even units created to do as much!"

No $h/t Sherlock!...
Well...you should have also known the answer to your question then. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

If you want the 75% of bad fighter pilots in HL to be penalised for ramming your bomber, why don't YOU learn to code in PSP and run your own server with your own scoring scripts? Ask Sparx from War-Clouds for some help I'm sure its feasible.

And if your flying at 500m in He-111 what do you expect? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

WWSensei
06-18-2006, 07:17 AM
This bugged me too but in the last 2 nights I've had collisions where both aircraft took catastrophic damage. Both were unintentional (in one case we were actually on comms together and both of us saw each other about 10m apart but the game though otherwise.) but resulted in both aircraft being destroyed...

Jaws2002
06-18-2006, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by The_Gog:
And yes, it is an exploit, used by lame fighter pilots in all servers to kill bombers that they don't possess the skills to shoot down in a conventional way.

As it stands now, in most cases, you can ram an aircraft, send it spiralling down in flames and continue on your merry way, greedily seeking out more slow bombers that you can ram.

I was hoping that the average skill level of online fighter pilots would eventually get to the point where they would be good enough to know NOT to attack from dead 6 oclock and NOT to press home the attack until they were sitting in the bomber pilots cockpit, but alas no, online fighter pilots are still lacking in the skills needed to bring down bombers honestly and above all, realistically.

So Oleg, is this going to be fixed in BoB? Or are we going to see our beloved Heinkels and Junkers bombers getting rammed by Spits and Hurris all over southern England?

What servers do you fly? I really feel the urge to go ramm your bomber. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

LEBillfish
06-18-2006, 08:58 AM
Odd.....everytime I collide with a bomber I ALWAYS take massive damage often the bomber not.

VW-IceFire
06-18-2006, 09:55 AM
Again...why are we talking about this sort of thing. This shows a complete lack of understanding of the real problem.

The real problem is called the "Internet". It has "lag" and "packet loss" and these problems create the situations we're talking about. You can't wave a magic wand and make it go away. This problem will be solved when the currently research only Internet 2 becomes available to the masses and everyone has ultra high speed connections at 100Mbps or greater. Then you'll be able to cram enough packets down at people to be able to realistically manage to ensure that no unusual lag situations cause multiplayer problems.

MaxMhz
06-18-2006, 11:10 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif Well said IceFire!

WC_Gumby
06-18-2006, 11:36 AM
There is few ways to get around this. PLay a Coop, when u die its over till the next mission. Thats what our squad plays alot. And the Df server can be set up to kick you on death for a little bit..... really keeps you from doind stupid tactics. Im sure it would draw alot of experieced pilots who want to play proper tactics... who wants to die early and get booted?

Just my 2 cents.

_VR_ScorpionWorm
06-18-2006, 01:54 PM
Don't forget, your bomber has gunners. More often than not I get a PK when I jump into the gunner seat and the pilot is on my six, only the ones that know stay from that area. The majority of my PKs ended with them flying into my bomber, why, because the pilot was killed, plane was on my six and headed right for me with no control. Nothing you can really do, heck, there are pilots that boom and zoom me and get real close to my bomber, why again, convergence(which I can't understand they place it so close when attacking a bomber).

Anyhow, I agree with the post above that agrees with the post above. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Where's that .gif that steve_v posted with the man beating the dead horse. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

leitmotiv
06-18-2006, 04:42 PM
Ramming is a desperation tactic. I wanted to see if I could chop the rudder off a Ju 88 like an infuiated Sov pilot in 1941. Most of the time I blow it. My most effective rams were unintentional: the bomber crashes and I'm staggering in with a dead motor. If a junior virtual pilot can nail a bomber and not himself with it, he is pretty good.

JamesBlonde888
06-18-2006, 07:34 PM
I think ramming was a considered tactic by dsome airforces with fighters that flew slower than German bombers? The Germans themselves fiddled with the idea later as well if I recall correctly. Personally I dont like to bend my aeroplanes but sometimes it just happens.

leitmotiv
06-18-2006, 07:48 PM
Some Soviet pilots used, I believe they were called, taran tactics against German bombers---chopping a German bomber with their props when all else failed. The German Rammjager units were sworn to bring down bombers even if they had to ram them, but it wasn't until the bitter end in 1945 that the Germans actually planned a huge ramming assault on American heavies with 109s and 190s. When it went in, it was unsuccessful. The Japanese formed special Kamikaze units for ramming B-29s.

tigertalon
06-18-2006, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by _VR_ScorpionWorm:
Don't forget, your bomber has gunners. More often than not I get a PK when I jump into the gunner seat and the pilot is on my six

That's so true. Whenever I find myself attacked in a He-111, I RUN from the side of the plane that is attacked to the opposite, just not to get PK-ed. I f I "feel very olympic today", only then I move to gunners position and try my luck. Luck not to kill teh fighter, but to survive myself...

_VR_ScorpionWorm
06-18-2006, 09:44 PM
Must have typed different then what I was thinking. Meant I kill the fighter pilot and when they are on my six they ram right into me.

Now looking a few posts up, its not about the REAL tactic. Its about those that RAM because they can not hit the bomber or run out of ammo shooting the fuselage. Some even have this down to an art on where/when and how fast to fly 'through' the bomber that it explodes and they come out relatively unharmed. Thats the problem, they ram and survive.. which is not a cheat or exploit in any case, its a lag/packet loss issue, you can't do this offline.

Codex1971
06-19-2006, 04:24 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Again...why are we talking about this sort of thing. This shows a complete lack of understanding of the real problem.

The real problem is called the "Internet". It has "lag" and "packet loss" and these problems create the situations we're talking about. You can't wave a magic wand and make it go away. This problem will be solved when the currently research only Internet 2 becomes available to the masses and everyone has ultra high speed connections at 100Mbps or greater. Then you'll be able to cram enough packets down at people to be able to realistically manage to ensure that no unusual lag situations cause multiplayer problems.

What he said http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

BaronUnderpants
06-19-2006, 12:40 PM
First of, i would be suprised if 1 in 50 rams is intentional, even in a DF server.

Second, i have never ever been in or even seen anyone else ram a bomber with a fighter and downing the bomber while flying away unscaved, come to think of it, not even fly away...if u dont count spinning towards the ground in 2 or more peices.

Like IceFire said, or something to that effect, the internet, game, pc have a habit of freezing your game up right at the critical moment.

JamesBlonde888
06-19-2006, 09:07 PM
I am with the Baron on this one. So many times I have come in a bit hotter than usual to experience lag at the last moment (when attacking bombers or airfields usually) Leaving me with a nice close up of the target I am about to make a brave attempt at flying through.

If people ram you deliberately then take comfort in the fact that you are frustratingly better than they are.

The_Gog
06-20-2006, 01:23 AM
yeah.....that's great comfort!

Hey feathered IV, your not pi$$ed cos' I shot u down are you, even if I was in a Heinkel at less than 500 m??? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BBB_Hyperion
06-20-2006, 05:47 AM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
First of, i would be suprised if 1 in 50 rams is intentional, even in a DF server.

Second, i have never ever been in or even seen anyone else ram a bomber with a fighter and downing the bomber while flying away unscaved, come to think of it, not even fly away...if u dont count spinning towards the ground in 2 or more peices.

Like IceFire said, or something to that effect, the internet, game, pc have a habit of freezing your game up right at the critical moment.

Well the collision model dewings on some cases http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Will not tell how but it works even with bombers . Tricky but can be done. Without a scratch for own plane.

Feathered_IV
06-20-2006, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by The_Gog:
yeah.....that's great comfort!

Hey feathered IV, your not pi$$ed cos' I shot u down are you, even if I was in a Heinkel at less than 500 m??? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Nah! Thats the only reason I remembered it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
I hope you got credit for it. There was a Hurri that jumped me just after you fizzed my ailerons. I think he may have stolen the glory though.

justflyin
06-20-2006, 09:47 AM
There are many times where my cable and another cable connect, with barely 30mS between us, are flying 1 vs 1 and we collide.

It's a c*r*a*p shoot who is going down, who is only going to lose a rudder or half an elevator, who will seemingly fly away undamaged and if both go down. The collision model has always been dodgy at best and several factors play into this:

1. Relative speed of each at the point of impact.

2. Which parts of the planes actually hit each other.

3. Which plane you are flying at the time.

...etc.

Sure, packet loss and lag play a part, but most of the BS collisions I've witnessed over the past 6 years of flying this series, tells me it's mostly random, however, if I get near a cable connection bomber, and I can't see his gunners shooting and I'm taking hits, or he is dropping bombs with zero-delay fuse from 100m and taking no damage, then I know exactly what he is doing. It's called cheating.

In most other cases, again with minimal lag and zero packet loss (as my server is set for 0.5S MAX LAG), collisions are usually random, but I will admit that there is a tricky technique to surviving one, as Hyperion has alluded to.

BaronUnderpants
06-20-2006, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by justflyin:
There are many times where my cable and another cable connect, with barely 30mS between us, are flying 1 vs 1 and we collide.

It's a c*r*a*p shoot who is going down, who is only going to lose a rudder or half an elevator, who will seemingly fly away undamaged and if both go down. The collision model has always been dodgy at best and several factors play into this:

1. Relative speed of each at the point of impact.

2. Which parts of the planes actually hit each other.

3. Which plane you are flying at the time.

...etc.

Sure, packet loss and lag play a part, but most of the BS collisions I've witnessed over the past 6 years of flying this series, tells me it's mostly random, however, if I get near a cable connection bomber, and I can't see his gunners shooting and I'm taking hits, or he is dropping bombs with zero-delay fuse from 100m and taking no damage, then I know exactly what he is doing. It's called cheating.

In most other cases, again with minimal lag and zero packet loss (as my server is set for 0.5S MAX LAG), collisions are usually random, but I will admit that there is a tricky technique to surviving one, as Hyperion has eluded to.

When it comes to fighter vs fighter i totally agree, who loses a wing/rudder etc. is totally random it seems.

Pumping at least +10 20 mm shells and a sh*t load of mg bullits into a Spits wings/fuselage from a 190 and, due to freeze ramming the Spit only to see it fly away while im bailing tells me something is wrong.

Never happend against a bomber thoug, i allways lose thoose collisions.

IAFS_Painter
06-20-2006, 11:23 AM
Collisions seem to favour the slower moving plane - so if you ram him from his 6, chances are you'll go down.

Quite how anybody succeeds with a taran these days is beyond me.

deepo_HP
06-20-2006, 12:29 PM
even if overall connection-quality has increased during the years, the principles of online-gaming concerning netlag are still the same.
still the same is also the general ignorance of many players about those principles... just for a start it is worth reading the stone-old article of 'hoof' about netlag in multiplayers.

considering positional data (and possible collisions as a result of such) it takes a lot of experience to succeed an intentional ram only (not sure how the game-protocol handles the consecutive damaging of such many parts during a ram).
it depends mostly of where the collision is determined - on hosts or frontends.
many games let the frontend calculate collisions, i'd say just for the reason of one-sided instable connection that's ok. it also makes intentional rams a lot more difficult.
just for example two typical cases:
coming from six the hunter will always be the first to reach collision-position, regardless of anyone's pingtime!
and: in a head-on the faster (speedwise) plane will always be the first one to reach collision-position, regardless of anyone's pingtime!
these 'statements' can easily be checked by everyone, just do some li'l drawings for yourself.

however, there is always big crying about printscreening, warping and other bad intentions, often from people who have no clue about netgaming. not that i do have, but i try to consider the protocols, before i suspect other pilots.
least, i agree with the before said:
someone who claims to love big birds and flies them at low alts on dogfight servers just needs to be rammed as often as possible!

justflyin
06-20-2006, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by deepo_HP:
even if overall connection-quality has increased during the years, the principles of online-gaming concerning netlag are still the same.
still the same is also the general ignorance of many players about those principles... just for a start it is worth reading the stone-old article of 'hoof' about netlag in multiplayers.

considering positional data (and possible collisions as a result of such) it takes a lot of experience to succeed an intentional ram only (not sure how the game-protocol handles the consecutive damaging of such many parts during a ram).
it depends mostly of where the collision is determined - on hosts or frontends.
many games let the frontend calculate collisions, i'd say just for the reason of one-sided instable connection that's ok. it also makes intentional rams a lot more difficult.
just for example two typical cases:
coming from six the hunter will always be the first to reach collision-position, regardless of anyone's pingtime!
and: in a head-on the faster (speedwise) plane will always be the first one to reach collision-position, regardless of anyone's pingtime!
these 'statements' can easily be checked by everyone, just do some li'l drawings for yourself.

however, there is always big crying about printscreening, warping and other bad intentions, often from people who have no clue about netgaming. not that i do have, but i try to consider the protocols, before i suspect other pilots.
least, i agree with the before said:
someone who claims to love big birds and flies them at low alts on dogfight servers just needs to be rammed as often as possible!

Latency and packet loss are two different things. Just because one has a 200mS ping and one has a 30mS ping, the correct packets still get sent and the game's net code, for the most part, handles this well. I've flown with dial-ups that have been rock solid and showed no signs of packet loss or anything more than the occassional quick lag and right back to normal, unlike the "supposed" cable connections that warp all over the sky.

There is a BIG difference between lag warp and what Oleg called, "Maneuvering Warp". It's funny actually, when the "usual suspects" who are on cable are in an offensive position or unthreatened, they don't have a hint of a connection issue.

When they are in trouble or need position, the maneuvering warp starts. I won't go into the myriad of ways that people manipulate this game online, from speed hack tied to a hot key to initiating remote downloads during a DF or printscreen, but MAX LAG in the conf.ini detects packet loss not latency.

IMAO, any cable connection that trips MAX LAG settings has serious quality issues and that person better start doing some pingplotter or trace routes to see where his connection is dropping packets.

deepo_HP
06-20-2006, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by justflyin:
Latency and packet loss are two different things. Just because one has a 200mS ping and one has a 30mS ping, the correct packets still get sent and the game's net code, for the most part, handles this well. I've flown with dial-ups that have been rock solid and showed no signs of packet loss or anything more than the occassional quick lag and right back to normal, ...


very much agree!
my intention was more about the 'intentional rams' in general, though includes what you said about latency (what i meant with netlag) and packet-losses (as a reason for warping).

The_Gog
06-27-2006, 03:36 PM
Gentlemen,

All this talk of latency and lag is nice, if it provides you with an excuse for ramming bombers then good.....but it isn't the reason.

The truth is that too many fighter pilots push thier attack too far, far further than the vast majority of fighter pilots did in WW2.

They need to retrain themselves to attack the bomber from a safer distance and to break off BEFORE such things as latency and packet loss might cause a collision.

Lets stop blaming the technology when the fault lies clearly with ill-disciplined pilots.

deepo_HP
06-27-2006, 04:02 PM
hi gog,

maybe you read again, what has been wrote!
the 'talk about netlag and lag' was not about explaining how rams accidentally happen, but about who suffers in a collision most - and in parts about how difficult it is to intentionally ram without suffering (which was written in your starting post!)
if you have experienced that so much, provide us with some tracks or tell us how it might work. being ill-disciplined us very probable not the techniqur to ram and survive...

Brain32
06-27-2006, 05:17 PM
I think Gog is talking about scenarious such as:
1. A smart@ss dives on to the bombers 6, and shoots, misses like mad and corrects,corrects and BOOM, what he did not understand is that he just dived on a slow moving target, that his closure rate is extreme and that his controls are not as responsive as he is used to.
2. A smart@ss dives on to the bombers 6, and when his engine gets smoked he ramms the bomber intentionally in rage. Those are just 2 examples but there is more...
Gog, there is no fix for that, because a cure for stupidity has not yet been found, change a server.

The_Gog
06-27-2006, 08:52 PM
Thankyou Brain, that is correct.

As for the 'who suffers most' aspect of this conversation, I can tell you that it is a rare event where the bomber flies off unscathed.

I agree Brain, that there is no cure for stupidity but that's why I ask if a way of punishing these people can be introduced into the game.

Bombers do not ram fighters. If you are so close to a bomber and he hits you while he is manouevering, then YOU WERE TOO CLOSE TO HIM!

Fighters have the capability to get out of the way a lot quicker and easier than bombers, so if there is a collision, 99.99% of times it's the fighter pilots fault, so lets see this fixed, it can't be that hard!!!!

actionhank1786
06-27-2006, 11:17 PM
best i've ever done on a ram was taking a wing off a Ju-88 with my vertical stab.
Needless to say, i wasn't in the fighting mood trying to find more targets.
I was trying to keep my plane from flipping itself over.

OD_79
07-01-2006, 04:17 AM
Sounds like you fly in the wrong servers then!
Personally whenever I have collided with a bomber I have come off worst! I don't tend to ram planes intentionally...it's bad for my virtual pilots health. But all you can say is Sh*t happens, be glad you can take another bomber and have another go, if it was real you'd be wondering why that arse hit you and about to crash!
Best to attack from head on...try not to play chicken too much and blast the front of the plane. The thing is I have heard people comment how hard it is to shoot down a Ju88 and occasionally He-111s. The Ju 88 does seem to take a hell of a lot of punishment, Hurricane MkI's struggle to do anything to them, makes you wonder how they did it during the BoB.
Nobody is perfect, and neither is this game, people collide, sh*t happens...unfortunately you just have to live with it.

OD.

Chuck_Older
07-01-2006, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by The_Gog:
And yes, it is an exploit, used by lame fighter pilots in all servers to kill bombers that they don't possess the skills to shoot down in a conventional way.

As it stands now, in most cases, you can ram an aircraft, send it spiralling down in flames and continue on your merry way, greedily seeking out more slow bombers that you can ram.

I was hoping that the average skill level of online fighter pilots would eventually get to the point where they would be good enough to know NOT to attack from dead 6 oclock and NOT to press home the attack until they were sitting in the bomber pilots cockpit, but alas no, online fighter pilots are still lacking in the skills needed to bring down bombers honestly and above all, realistically.

So Oleg, is this going to be fixed in BoB? Or are we going to see our beloved Heinkels and Junkers bombers getting rammed by Spits and Hurris all over southern England?

Fixed? Fix what?

What in SoW:BoB makes this an exploit? Your logic here is flawed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif These is no ramming exploit in SoW:BoB. I can tell you this with 100% surety, because the sim doesn't even exist yet

You are asking about a problem in Il2:FB/PF, not about one in SoW:BoB. This is a non-issue until the problem is actually found to be there.

SoW:BoB isn't Il2:FB/PF. It's a whole new sim. We all know this.

Perhaps instead you could ask if issues such as this are going to be avoided in the new sim? I dunno, but you are asking for a fix to a problem that doesn't exist in SoW:BoB

So I suppose the answer to your question is:

No. BoB will NOT fix the ramming collision exploit in Il2:FB/PF.

Adlerangriff
07-01-2006, 10:18 AM
I can only imagine this thread going downhill from here. With the way the Aussies choked to Italy and all.....

Codex1971
07-01-2006, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by Adlerangriff:
I can only imagine this thread going downhill from here. With the way the Aussies choked to Italy and all.....


It will with comments like that...your playing with fire now... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

The_Gog
07-02-2006, 12:33 AM
You can always count on that Chuck Older clown to deliberatley end a post with one of his INTENTIONALLY disruptive posts.

Ok Older, SOW-BoB doesn't exist yet, my point is IF SOW-BoB borrows a lot of what is in IL2FB, will the collision exploit still exist!

Everyone else could see that that was the meaning behind my post, everyone that is, except you!!

So, instead of hunting from post to post to see which ones you can get closed down, how about you crawl back under your rock!

OD_79
07-03-2006, 02:04 PM
You are getting very touchy and OT...but never mind. Lets not go into who won WW2 hey...or WW1 for that matter.
I think we were talking about whether it was an explot that planes could collide and then fly off ok...short and sweet...no. Wohoo end of topic!

OD.

The_Gog
07-03-2006, 02:58 PM
OD_79,

Firtst things first, you are referring to my sig, which tho true is not part of this conversation thread.

Secondly, if you think that collisions cannot occur without both planes spiralling into the ground as flaming wrecks, then you need to get some time up as it happens everyday on Hyperlobby. If I could post pics here I would as I have dozens of tracks that surprise surprise, prove that you can ram a bomber and get away with it, wow isn't that amazing!!! Who'd a thunk it?

OD_79
07-03-2006, 05:42 PM
Sorry didn't realise that was your sig! lol. But I still don't think it is an exploit.

OD.

BfHeFwMe
07-04-2006, 03:05 PM
I'm sure you'll win loads of sympathy calling fighter pilots lame in all servers. Lame being their average and all.

One has to also ask how much intelligence it takes to be in a server flying a bomber when over 95% of the crowd is flying fighters. You fail to mention in war fighters are the minority in the skies. No **** Sherlock, your going to die! Does the means really matter? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

The_Gog
07-05-2006, 04:41 AM
And there, in black and white, is a prime example of fighter pilot mentality and why this sim and BoB IF it shares these same problems, will never be more than a very good arcade game! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

skycaptain_1
07-05-2006, 12:27 PM
Gog

I think what we need is for a collision with an aircraft to be modelled differently. If someone rams you because they miss-judge their approach speed then both aircraft should at least be damaged appropriatly. Unfortunatly you can't stop collisions, but it should be fair! None of this getting the kill because your opponents plane hit the ground first!

I hope BOB has a different scoring system...one that reflects a pilots skill.

F6_Ace
07-06-2006, 01:59 AM
...will never be more than a very good arcade game! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

What makes you think it will be any different anyway? Same developer, same predjudices, same mistakes, same desire of quantity over quality.

BoB = Problems of Il2 + fancier graphics + more planes in the air (more scope for collisions http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) + "improved" physics (i.e. lots more scope for inevitable modelling errors)

ImpStarDuece
07-06-2006, 03:30 AM
Originally posted by skycaptain_1:
Gog

I think what we need is for a collision with an aircraft to be modelled differently. If someone rams you because they miss-judge their approach speed then both aircraft should at least be damaged appropriatly. Unfortunatly you can't stop collisions, but it should be fair! None of this getting the kill because your opponents plane hit the ground first!

I hope BOB has a different scoring system...one that reflects a pilots skill.

War is not fair, so why should any simulation of war be fair?

'Skill' is a qualatitative value, it a judgement call that is therefor impossible for a computer to make. Its like asking for a system that reflects how nice a person the pilot is or his chivalry.

If I ram someone accidently and we both die, tough. If I ram someone on purpose and we both die, tough. If I ram someone and manage to eject over my own lines, I'm a hero http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

skycaptain_1
07-06-2006, 06:51 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by skycaptain_1:
Gog

I think what we need is for a collision with an aircraft to be modelled differently. If someone rams you because they miss-judge their approach speed then both aircraft should at least be damaged appropriatly. Unfortunatly you can't stop collisions, but it should be fair! None of this getting the kill because your opponents plane hit the ground first!

I hope BOB has a different scoring system...one that reflects a pilots skill.

War is not fair, so why should any simulation of war be fair?

'Skill' is a qualatitative value, it a judgement call that is therefor impossible for a computer to make. Its like asking for a system that reflects how nice a person the pilot is or his chivalry.

If I ram someone accidently and we both die, tough. If I ram someone on purpose and we both die, tough. If I ram someone and manage to eject over my own lines, I'm a hero http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand what you are saying about 'skill' but I meant in terms of scoring hits on a target that damages the plane and having a scoring system that reflects that...not one that rewards a pilot because his plane stayed up slightly longer than his opponents...also don't you think ramming a plane and being able to continue to fly undamaged is unrealistic...or did that happen alot in WWII?

monty66
07-07-2006, 03:04 AM
There is another way to solve this problem,
host your own rooms with only people you know and trust to fly in them,
use a password!
Or try asking online fighters to support
you on your bombing trip,
also tight formation bombers are a real nasty
mass of fire power.
What i am trying to say is.. alot of people dont seem to team up other than in a colour aspect.

Chuck_Older
07-09-2006, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by The_Gog:
You can always count on that Chuck Older clown to deliberatley end a post with one of his INTENTIONALLY disruptive posts.

Ok Older, SOW-BoB doesn't exist yet, my point is IF SOW-BoB borrows a lot of what is in IL2FB, will the collision exploit still exist!

Everyone else could see that that was the meaning behind my post, everyone that is, except you!!

So, instead of hunting from post to post to see which ones you can get closed down, how about you crawl back under your rock!

Sorry I didn't reply sooner. You can count on me to be analytical and thoughtful. You can count on me to actually read what you post and to digest it. You can count on me to have good reading comprehension, and you can also count on me to point out logic flaws when I see them.

Now on to the issue at hand:

As I previously stated in this very thread, I pointed out that we all know that BoB is a whole new sim.

You are telling me, again, that BoB will borrow heavily from Il2 and that this is a concern. I am telling you, again, that BoB is supposed to be all new, and will not use this sim's game engines. You are making an big assumption with your line of questioning, assumptions I see no indication for making and assumptions I do not see backed up by much else besides your own guesswork. I'll ask you a question or two now:

What makes you think that BoB will have the same flaws and exploits that this sim has? What backs up your beleif that the ramming exploit will be 'ported over' to BoB, exactly?

If you'd like more logic and level-headedness, I can pull some more out for you, from under my rock

The_Gog
07-11-2006, 10:00 PM
Older,

You are assuming that Bob WON'T borrow from IL2!

YOU are assuming that they will change/fix an exploit that most fighter pilots, and remember this game caters almost exclusively to them, exploit on a daily basis.

If it's lasted this long without getting fixed, why should anyone expect it to disappear in BoB?

Ok, it's going to be an all new sim, so lets give Oleg the benefit of the doubt, the original question still stands, with this widespread knowledge of the problem is the exploit going to be present in BoB?

I remember a defence Force magistrate telling me once that if the accused's best answer to a critical question is silence, then he's guilty!

I'm yet to see a reply from Oleg or a developer on this topic so will assume the worst for BoB until I see otherwise with my own eyes.

Codex1971
07-12-2006, 06:16 AM
Got any tracks? I'd personally like to see this exploit in action.

Chuck_Older
07-12-2006, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by The_Gog:
Older,

You are assuming that Bob WON'T borrow from IL2!

YOU are assuming that they will change/fix an exploit that most fighter pilots, and remember this game caters almost exclusively to them, exploit on a daily basis.

If it's lasted this long without getting fixed, why should anyone expect it to disappear in BoB?

Ok, it's going to be an all new sim, so lets give Oleg the benefit of the doubt, the original question still stands, with this widespread knowledge of the problem is the exploit going to be present in BoB?

I remember a defence Force magistrate telling me once that if the accused's best answer to a critical question is silence, then he's guilty!

I'm yet to see a reply from Oleg or a developer on this topic so will assume the worst for BoB until I see otherwise with my own eyes.

I guess we have two different outlooks is what it boils down to- I don't say there's a problem until I see the product and find a problem. You are anticipating the problem

if I subscribe to my outlook, you can argue that by the time I find a problem it's too late

if I subscribe to your outlook, you can argue that I'm getting worked up over a non-issue

What I have read from Oleg is that BoB will use 100% new physics, flight, damage, modelling, etc, etc engines. It won't use FB's engines at all. That's what I'm told. Until I'm shown that this is false, I can't go on the assumption it's false. It's not in my nature.

deepo_HP
07-12-2006, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by The_Gog:
I remember a defence Force magistrate telling me once that if the accused's best answer to a critical question is silence, then he's guilty!

I'm yet to see a reply from Oleg or a developer on this topic so will assume the worst for BoB until I see otherwise with my own eyes.

accused? by whom? of what? guilty of not answering?

weia, get redhaired women and children to the underground... the spanish inquisition is here! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

i seriously hope you are underaged, so there is a chance you might grow up!
if this sounds like having a laugh on you, it should so. i am sorry for this, but even if there was some reasonable background in your thread, then it has been gone like smoke after that last post of yours.

clax82
07-12-2006, 08:11 PM
As frustrating as it is, IMO fighters should be allowed to use any means necessary to deny enemy bombers reaching their destinations. It is up to your friendly fighters to defend you, and you to defend yourself by use of altitude and your onboard gunners.

I do see the potential for the inclusion of options to deter or prevent rammings, such as a score penalty or a delayed respawn time as punishment. It could also be an option to disable plane collissions, however IMO I think these type of settings should be opt-in rather than the default since they go against the realism that the sim aims for.

Perhaps these settings could be included for BoB, but I think there are many more important issues that should see consideration before this. Il2 dealt with ramming adequately IMO, anything beyond would be an added bonus but by no means necessary.

Bearcat99
07-13-2006, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Odd.....everytime I collide with a bomber I ALWAYS take massive damage often the bomber not.

Heh heh.. I collide with Zeros and sometimes take massive damage........ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

I doubt we will see any of the current crop of bugs in SoW.... we will get a whole new crop... and the sim will still be great inspite of them..... like this one.

Codex1971
07-13-2006, 05:39 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Odd.....everytime I collide with a bomber I ALWAYS take massive damage often the bomber not.

Heh heh.. I collide with Zeros and sometimes take massive damage........ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

I doubt we will see any of the current crop of bugs in SoW.... we will get a whole new crop... and the sim will still be great inspite of them..... like this one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I think that is what people are failing to understand. Any sim, no matter how great, will just be that...a sim.

No matter how realistic Oleg makes ILFB/PF or SoW, you€re going to get issues like this and if you look at it logically, there is nothing anyone can do.

Rammings will happen, both in real life and in the sim world. You're just going to have to live with it. No amount of points, spawn or any penalties will stop someone from either accidentally or intentionally ramming you because the simple fact is you€re not putting your life in your own hands in a sim.

The only time you€d get people flying with the €œright€ attitude is in real life combat, and as much as it may get up your nose, it ain€t gonna happen here baby!

P.S. Sorry for the double post...clicked the wrong icon... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

WWMaxGunz
07-13-2006, 05:41 PM
1) The instantaneous communications hardware for the web is not working at this time.
Perhaps in the future through the use of coupled quantum states it may become possible.
Until then there is a phenomenon known as lag that makes knowing exactly what is going
on at one PC far removed from any other instantaneously an impossibility.

2) Couple that with while the PC's are fast they are not so fast that every position of
the planes down to the meter is calculated. Perhaps in the future it will be.

3) Try to live with the fact that during WWII in the early months of the invasion of
Russia that Russian pilots did ram bombers out of frustration (gee, those bombers were
killing their relatives in some cases and their people in all cases) and not only live
to tell of it but sometimes went back up and did it again. The record was THREE TIMES
IN ONE DAY. The practice was named after a Russian Lt. who started it, the maneuver is
known as The Taran.

So while what goes on is not utterly realistic there was the like done. What is not
real is that the plane doing the Taran should in most cases but not all be too damaged
to continue flying.

Perhaps there will be a fix except that in cases of LAG the person doing the ramming
does not see anything but a close pass-by while the other person experiences collision.
The same thing will happen with shooting online. It is an internet reality that until
#1 above happens there ain't squat to be done unless maybe every time someone passes
near you there would be a chance that both of you explode into little bits. With enough
(not terribly much) lag the distance can be over 50 meters.

In RB3D I have been shot by planes pointing almost 90 degrees away from me because that
sim operates on the what you see gets acted on the other guy regardless of what he sees.

And b!tching don't help.