PDA

View Full Version : do u think there is a prolem when planes collide



92SqnGCJimbo
04-18-2005, 04:28 PM
just a thought.. as a few people have seen do u guys think it can be sorted so when 2 planes collide (even in headon) the faster plane doesnt always lose...

just a thought.. why not try to implement a randomiser in the code. yes im very well aware that this sentance is dumbing dumbing dumbing dumbing and dumbing it down on what would need to be done.. but its just a idea.

arcadeace
04-18-2005, 05:04 PM
It could be more accurate but I doubt it can or will be improved. I view it as a positive tho, its taught me not to be so cocky flying the sim http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Achilles_NZ
04-18-2005, 05:19 PM
Hehe, yeah it can get pretty weird.
Ive been dumbfounded at the amount of times I've collided quite by accident only to fly on merrily with either just my tail sheared off, prop damaged to make a forced landing or no damage at all.
But on the rare occaision ive been out of ammo, and attempted to gently ram from behind, (allways offline) I nearly always come off second best.

Perhaps it would make more sense (and be easier to implement) to have both aircraft suffer structural failure, as id guess even with the fact that the Russians used the tactic of ramming, it would be extremely rare for a relatively small fighter to fly on after a collision severe enough to bring down another aircraft.

But either way, its not really a big deal to me.

LeadSpitter_
04-18-2005, 05:42 PM
I agree with you jimbo, for example im able to take out 16 b17 b24s b29s with the 109 and 190s just by flying thru thier wingtip, spinner hitting the wing and remain flying,

then trying with aall other aircraft hitting with the nose always kills the engine or explodes the plane.

Another thing is a plane bnzing will usually explode into nothing on a slower planes six giving them the kill which does not exactly make sense, I remember many versions ago they talked about it being added because of the people who would always collide into the bombers tb3 and he111 at the time.

For example heres a p47 I saved when out of ammo. But really a rudder tab should not rip off a whole wing but these are just little problems which will probally require so much work to fix it would not be worth the time and effort by 1c and ubis programmers.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/acespace/f1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/acespace/f2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/acespace/f3.jpg

pourshot
04-18-2005, 05:48 PM
Read this How net lag works (http://www.rdrop.com/users/hoofj/netlag.htm)


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Collisions

Because of net lag and the way the system works, no two FE's see two plane's position in the same place. You can guarantee, unless the other guy is totally still (and so are you) that where he is on his FE is different from where you see him, and vice versa. Thus, if you fly into the other guy so that your FE sees both planes in the same place (collision), the other guys FE might not see this. In fact, the other guy's FE might never see your plane get anywhere near his plane. This is why decisions on collision are made by the FE. If your FE sees a collision, you die. If his FE sees a collision he dies. Your FE seeing a collision does not affect whether the other guy dies and vice versa. *His* FE must see the collision for him to die, and *your * FE must see the collision for you to die. The reason that the system does not kill both if one FE detects the collision is that there is no way to predict what the other guys' FE sees. If it were set up so that both planes were killed if one FE saw a collision, you could die from a collision you never saw. For example, take the classic headon situation. You pull up at range 5, just to be safe. You pull up so hard, you don't come within 200 yards of the other guy from your FE. Remember that 200 yards is two football fields in distance. He barrels right in on his FE into your image (which due to net lag is still headed right to him), without ever jinking. His FE detects a collision. Therefore he dies. With a both-die rule, you would also die, even though you did everything in your power to avoid the collision and didn't come anywhere near his plane on your FE. This is why both planes do not die, as it is simply unfair (and would give dweebs an easy way to ram-kill people, which would make Warbirds no fun to fly *real* quick). The way it is done now (with your FE deciding if you live based on your "perspective" of the world) is a necessary evil of Net Lag, even though in "real life", a collision would most likely destroy both planes.

The responsibility of avoiding collisions rests completely on your shoulders, if you want to live. If the other guy wants to live, he is completely responsible for dodging a collision, not you.

This situation gets nasty in tail-chase situations, since if you run into the other guy, his FE sees you 100-500 yards behind where you see him (depending on speed). You don't even come *close* to him, let alone occupy the same space, on his FE. This is why when one plane rear-ends the other, the guy behind always dies, and the guy in front *never* dies (at least not due to the collision). In order for you to get his FE to collide, you have to fly in *front* of him, about range 1-2 or more. Now if you are too far foreward, you are all of a sudden present a big fat target for him to shoot. Plus it is very difficult to maintain this position, as you almost always cannot see him (that ****ed char/pilot armor in the 6 view http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. It is virtually impossible to intentionally kill someone by a rear-end collision.

Same thing happens in a deflection shot where the shooter hits the target with his plane (intentionally or not). The Target's FE sees you 2-4 seconds behind where you see him, thus will see the shooter pass safely behind him, and thus no collision. The shooter, however, if he messed up and didn't dodge in time, is dead. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dolemite-
04-18-2005, 07:43 PM
Its lag. In a head on collision the plane going the fastest at the time of the ram will be the one to blow up, the slower plane will take less damage or none at all.

Atomic_Marten
04-18-2005, 07:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dolemite-:
In a head on collision the plane going the fastest at the time of the ram will be the one to blow up, the slower plane will take less damage or none at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats the issue here.
And as far as I have experienced it, speedy one is one that takes much greater damage.

Yes, and AFAIK not only head-on. I have been saved by this bug many times, in a way that I have dewinged other people; once on my 6 they try to shoot me down, I deploy land flaps and throttle to 0% -- usually they must pull up, but many of them still try to sghoot till last moment.

And if we by any chance make contact with airplanes, he is going to be on losing side http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

I know that, so now when it is possible to ram the guy in front of me, I pull out on time if I can.

JR_Greenhorn
04-18-2005, 10:03 PM
Even offline collisions can be a bit strange, but I remember reading around here once upon a time that collision modelling is unrealistic on purpose to discourage ramming. I don't know if this is still the case or not, and we've all heard of historical cases of ramming (Taran) attacks.

Badsight.
04-18-2005, 10:10 PM
ive had this too many times for it to have been lag evey time

its coded into FB , collisions are not hurting both parties properly all the time

what leadspitter mentioned about it being worked in due to online behaviour is true , it was stated way back in 2001/2002