Author Topic: How accurate is FLAK (Read 3064 times)

dedalos · « **Reply #15 on:** March 20, 2006, 02:28:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Furball
have i told you lately that i hate AI ack?

Can't recall, but always wondered what your feellings towards the AI ack were

Furball · « **Reply #16 on:** March 20, 2006, 02:45:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by dedalos
Can't recall, but always wondered what your feellings towards Hub were

clear enough?

dedalos · « **Reply #17 on:** March 20, 2006, 04:01:30 PM »

grrrr, it wont change my quotes after I edit them.

You are free to go Furbie

Gato · « **Reply #18 on:** March 20, 2006, 09:19:49 PM »

Why can't we have manned ack plus the AI?????

I have been downed in my b-24s several times by ack and other times it just took out my guns to leave me open the ANY attack. I've even lost an engine at 33k this way.

hitech · « **Reply #19 on:** March 21, 2006, 08:40:25 AM »

Furball: Your missing some,
turning = bigger box also. Farthar away from ack = bigger box also.

The problem with what your sugesting is it would be posible just by turning slightly to never have the ack hit you. And then to make if you were flying level it would nail you instantly.

And as was just tested above for "20 mins", It is not very accurate.

HiTEch

Furball · « **Reply #20 on:** March 21, 2006, 01:36:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
Furball: Your missing some,
turning = bigger box also. Farthar away from ack = bigger box also.

The problem with what your sugesting is it would be posible just by turning slightly to never have the ack hit you. And then to make if you were flying level it would nail you instantly.

And as was just tested above for "20 mins", It is not very accurate.

HiTEch

I said that turning made a bigger box, i didnt know that distance made a bigger box though.

It would still hit you, you would just no longer be center of the box (depending on how far you turn) so less chance of being hit

I just think it would add a bit of realism to the AI ack system. In RL (bear in mind that i am no AA gun expert) they see the target, calculate trajectory/change in trajectory, load, aim, fire, shell takes time to reach the target.

my proposition means that: -

Distance from target = time variable.

i.e. the further you are away from ack gun, the longer the time between the calculated heading and the actual puffy ack burst.

Fighters hanging above CV picking away fighters trying to fly away from the boats would have almost instantaneous ack bursting around them. The poor guy upping from his own field which is under CV attack 6 miles away, passing 3k would no longer get insta-ack-burst around him.

Therefore AI ack would be more like it was historically, level bombers would suffer far more from ack because they will not be moving to throw off aim, fighters jinking about fighting would be nearly impossible to hit.

My test, i was 9k over CV, flying at 130 mph with a 127mph headwind flying level, the box to shoot at my bomber should have been as small as it would possibly go and i didnt suffer any damage. I am by no means saying my test was the most thought out and accurate test ever performed, but i was intrigued to see how ack would fare against a bomber hovering over CV. Of course i should hover over the CV in a fighter to see how long it takes to take damage to make it a fair test.

I really think that this should play a part in TOD as ack was a serious threat to bomber crews, here it is more a threat to the escorting fighters. I understand completely that a complex puffy ack system is stupid, all it will do is hog system resources, why i think just adding a time delay is a simple yet effective solution.

Furball · « **Reply #21 on:** March 21, 2006, 01:49:00 PM »

A picture to illustrate what i mean...

Red box is ack box, i didnt bother changing the size depending on maneuver etc.

ChopSaw · « **Reply #22 on:** March 21, 2006, 02:32:18 PM »

From that, it looks like bombers should get hit regularly. What a neat idea.

Furball · « **Reply #23 on:** March 21, 2006, 04:19:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ChopSaw
What a neat idea.

actually, it would be the same system but less accurate for maneuvering targets, unless HT modified the way the box works.

read up and you will understand.

ChopSaw · « **Reply #24 on:** March 21, 2006, 05:13:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Furball
actually, it would be the same system but less accurate for maneuvering targets, unless HT modified the way the box works.

read up and you will understand.

Soooo.....the same as it is now for bombers, but easier on fighters?

hitech · « **Reply #25 on:** March 21, 2006, 08:59:30 PM »

Point being furball, you end up with the exat same thing, all your realing asking for is a higher gain on the turning part of the equations. I.E. you wish to be hit less by flack than your are now.

HiTech

the Lazy ace · « **Reply #26 on:** March 21, 2006, 09:05:21 PM »

wat the hell kinda town is named grapevine

MOIL · « **Reply #27 on:** March 22, 2006, 02:06:56 AM »

IMO, I still think all ack should be manable. Have "Flak Batteries" just like they did in WWII.
That way if your shot down by "Flak" then it is at least it's from another player and not a computer?

OR

Have deployable Flak batteries, 88's, 5" Guns, 40mm mounts (twin & quad mounts)
Maybe make it a little more time intensive to setup so you can't just "hop in" a gun and start firing. Just a thought.

Karnak · « **Reply #28 on:** March 22, 2006, 02:33:47 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kurt
I don't know where you got that number, but it seems incorrect. The numbers I remember say that it wasn't unusual to lose 1/3rd of the bombers or more on those major raids.

Only in the Luftwaffe's wet dreams.

That would be a 33% attrition. The highest they obtained on an overall basis was, as I recall, about 15% and that is what caused us to pull back and prioritize the aquisition of an escort fighter that could go all the way to Berlin and back.

The highest I am aware of was a 52% loss of B-17s on one mission, but there were only 100 aircraft in the mission and it got swarmed. Any big mission was simply too large for the Luftwaffe's limited power to blunt that heavily.

Furball · « **Reply #29 on:** March 22, 2006, 03:25:24 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
Point being furball, you end up with the exat same thing, all your realing asking for is a higher gain on the turning part of the equations. I.E. you wish to be hit less by flack than your are now.

HiTech

Basically, i want it so that maneuvering has more of an impact on the accuracy of flak so that it is more true to its historical effectiveness. i.e. more of a threat to bombers than to fighters.

In its current form it is reversed and ack is more of a threat to fighters and virtually no threat to bombers.

Either that or AI ack should prioritise targets, i.e. if they are in the sector, shoot at bombers who are intending to destroy the target that the ack is supposed to be defending as a priority. In RL the gunners wouldnt waste ammo on escort fighters if they are flying near to the bomber stream.