AAA truth or myth

[SkyRock]

SkyRock<---owns ack!

[Simaril]

Originally posted by Traveler
Ingress and egress routes and  altitude would help limit the number of rounds that could be put on target,  It’s line of sight, so if they can’t see you, they can’t hit you.  If there are enough objects such hangers, tower, hills, trees, or valleys to use for cover the ack can’t hit you.  because you are exposed for a shoter period of time.

I think that's what Tiger is alluding to and in that respect it would be fact not myth.

That is NOT correct, not at all. Base ack is NOT software aimed ack, its determined by area probablity...according to the guy who wrote the code.

In other words, if you're in the area, you have a defined probabilty of gettng hit -- based on your speed, your range from the firing gun, and the number of G's you're pulling. If you've been here even a short time, you must have seen threads complaining about ack hitting guys on the far side of a hill, and this explains why it happened. (I suspect extra code was written for longer ranged puffy ack that checks for landscape obstructions, because the issue doesn't come up much anymore.)

If you assume you know what's happening, you may end up frustrated when it "doesn't work well." On the other hand, if you think about what the guy who WROTE THE CODE says happens, you might find ways to make your outcomes even better than what they are now.

I'm just amazed that HT himself has said Tiger's explanation is false (here), and thoroughly explained the ack system (elsewhere) -- but people still argue that their idea is right, and ignore the guy who wrote designed the game, who set up the rules.

       

[lyric1]

Originally posted by SkyRock
SkyRock<---owns ack!

 You must be one of the wealthiest individuals on the planet with all that you own. Kidding of course.

[Tachus]

Originally posted by Simaril
That is NOT correct, not at all. Base ack is NOT software aimed ack, its determined by area probablity...according to the guy who wrote the code.

In other words, if you're in the area, you have a defined probabilty of gettng hit -- based on your speed, your range from the firing gun, and the number of G's you're pulling. If you've been here even a short time, you must have seen threads complaining about ack hitting guys on the far side of a hill, and this explains why it happened. (I suspect extra code was written for longer ranged puffy ack that checks for landscape obstructions, because the issue doesn't come up much anymore.)

If you assume you know what's happening, you may end up frustrated when it "doesn't work well." On the other hand, if you think about what the guy who WROTE THE CODE says happens, you might find ways to make your outcomes even better than what they are now.

I'm just amazed that HT himself has said Tiger's explanation is false (here), and thoroughly explained the ack system (elsewhere) -- but people still argue that their idea is right, and ignore the guy who wrote designed the game, who set up the rules.

       

Let me get this right, your saying, that all the time, I've been flying inverted at 100ft at speeds of 300mph or greater, weaving in and out of hangers, always in a figure 8 around the base (never in an oval). Making sure this is done only in the first 15 or last 15 minutes of an hour, and never while it is Dusk in the game, while eating crackers and whistling the Battle Hymn of the Republic, doesn't having any effect on my chances of getting hit by AAA? And you expect me to believe that just because the guy who wrote the code said so.

Yeah right. Who do you think your dealing with here Bozo the clown, I don't believe it for a minute.


Best regards,
--Tachus

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Simaril
That is NOT correct, not at all. Base ack is NOT software aimed ack, its determined by area probablity...according to the guy who wrote the code.

In other words, if you're in the area, you have a defined probabilty of gettng hit -- based on your speed, your range from the firing gun, and the number of G's you're pulling. If you've been here even a short time, you must have seen threads complaining about ack hitting guys on the far side of a hill, and this explains why it happened. (I suspect extra code was written for longer ranged puffy ack that checks for landscape obstructions, because the issue doesn't come up much anymore.)

If you assume you know what's happening, you may end up frustrated when it "doesn't work well." On the other hand, if you think about what the guy who WROTE THE CODE says happens, you might find ways to make your outcomes even better than what they are now.

I'm just amazed that HT himself has said Tiger's explanation is false (here), and thoroughly explained the ack system (elsewhere) -- but people still argue that their idea is right, and ignore the guy who wrote designed the game, who set up the rules.

       

Of course it's software aimed.  it's a computer program. It’s all software.  Yes, it's an "area probability"  and that’s my point.  If the auto ack can’t see you, it can’t hit you anything else is a game bug. It’s line of sight.  If a hanger is between you and the auto ack.  That gun will not hit you.  

By selecting routes into and out of a target that provide cover and using that cover, you reduce the amount of time that you are exposed to the “area of probability”
 

Rounds fired from the auto ack at an airfield, do not go thought objects,

[dedalos]

Sim,

you need to understand the difference between what something was supposed or meant to do, and what it does.  I can guarantee you that the users of my software know better than me what it does after the have been using it for a few months.  Imagine using something for 5 years.  In any case, there is really no point of arguing this.  Try it or dont, I dont care.  Myth or no myth, it is what I do when I chase people through the ack and I always come out fine.  Why?  I don't really care.  i just posted my observations and i think after 5 years in this game I kind of understand a few things about it.

It takes a few minutes to give it a try.  if it does not work for you thats fine.  If it does, thats fine too.

[Tachus]

Originally posted by Traveler
Of course it's software aimed.  it's a computer program. It’s all software.  Yes, it's an "area probability"  and that’s my point.  If the auto ack can’t see you, it can’t hit you anything else is a game bug. It’s line of sight.  If a hanger is between you and the auto ack.  That gun will not hit you.  

By selecting routes into and out of a target that provide cover and using that cover, you reduce the amount of time that you are exposed to the “area of probability”
 

Rounds fired from the auto ack at an airfield, do not go thought objects,

Not to be nit picky, but aiming, really isn't the same as "area probability" Yes they are both software, but the "way" it's done is completely different.

Point is "area probability", "May" or "May Not" take into account line of sight (Where "aiming" most certainly should, or at least the term would imply it did). If "area probability" does take into account line of sight, then it appears you are correct. However, nothing in the term "Area Probability" necessarily lends itself to that conclusion. (it could mean, if you are in the area, this is the chance you will be hit, regardless of where in the area you are) So if it does not take into account "line of sight" then it appears you would be wrong.



Best regards,
--Tachus

[CAP1]

Originally posted by dedalos
pwn or not, give it a try.  Thats how I get the ack runners, but you have to be scraping the floor with your prop.  You do get hit occasionally but nothing like what happens if you are up high.  Ack seems to be firing short.

Oh, and don't clime till you are out of range

i've watched ack runners try to lure squaddies into their ack, from my bombsite......so i simply remove the ack......it's really easy on small and medium fields......harder on large fields, but it can be done. it's very funny to watch the guy run for cover of the ack, and nothing happens.....except that he starts to lose important parts of his airplane:D

[Simaril]

Dedalus --


Not meaning to argue with your experience, just talking about the REASON you see what you see. Low Alt High Speed would significantly reduce hit likelihood regardless of whether its because of line of sight aiming, or area probability. Keep in mind that there is a HUGE logical difference between data you observe, and theories to explain the data. Wrong theory doesn't mean wrong data, after all.


I understand what you're saying about the effects of software being sometimes unpredictable. But, doesn't it make sense that IF the software had NO aiming algorithm, but only a probability modified by variables, that aiming wouldn't matter? And even if your "aimers can't see" explanation were wrong, that wouldn't change the effectiveness of your tactic, right? It works regardless of why it works...which I think is the core of what you're saying.


At the same time, HT has outright said that he couldn't make aiming based systems work while maintaining the right degree of effectiveness in game. He said point blank that the variables he used were range, speed, and G forces. I've never read him saying that line of sight was a factor, in the convention discussion or in the Readme that comes with each update. It wouldn't shock me if that was added, but as far as I know that has not been documented.


And for the arguers in the thread....

Even with the line of sight question theoretically still open, I don't get how some of you folks can be so dead on certain that your explanation for the observed data is right, when the guy who wrote the code says there's a different explanation....Do you really think he's lying to you?

[Murdr]

Originally posted by Simaril
At the same time, HT has outright said that he couldn't make aiming based systems work while maintaining the right degree of effectiveness in game. He said point blank that the variables he used were range, speed, and G forces. I've never read him saying that line of sight was a factor, in the convention discussion or in the Readme that comes with each update. It wouldn't shock me if that was added, but as far as I know that has not been documented.

That applies to puffy ack.  Auto ack is subject to the physical restrictions to line of sight, auto ack is not, and they work differently. I read the starting post, and much of the subsequent discussion as referring to the 20mm auto ack.  

With that being the case I agree that an NOE egress can limit the number of guns able to fire on you, and better your chances for a clean egress.  What a low ingress and egress does is limit the amount of time you're exposed to the most guns.  That betters your odds by being exposed to less guns, but I believe the myth part would be that it in any way affects the accuracy of the auto-ack.

Edit:  I re-read the quote, and noticed I misinterpereted what you had said about line of sight.  My bad, no harm no fowl.

[Ghosth]

Sorry but I disagree.

You've never seen ack shooting at a tank with rounds hitting a slight ground rise between the ack and the tank?

So obviously the ack doesn't care about the hill. Its going to shoot if there is something that trips its proximity sensor. The tank however can use that hill.
The tank is fine as long as it has that hill for cover. However as soon as it comes out from its shadow its going to get hit.

In some respects your both saying the same thing, just not in the same way.

So, same as the tank, if you get LOW, if your FAST, your odds improve.
Same with jinking as "long as you don't lose speed".  So small roll changes with very smooth pitch changes can increase your odds.

By the same token if you have the speed, a high Gee pullout should also work, and maybe work better because of the increased G load. As long as your pulling substantial gee's while in ack range you should have greatly lowered hit %.

[dedalos]

Originally posted by Simaril
Dedalus --


Not meaning to argue with your experience, just talking about the REASON you see what you see. Low Alt High Speed would significantly reduce hit likelihood regardless of whether its because of line of sight aiming, or area probability. Keep in mind that there is a HUGE logical difference between data you observe, and theories to explain the data. Wrong theory doesn't mean wrong data, after all.


I understand what you're saying about the effects of software being sometimes unpredictable. But, doesn't it make sense that IF the software had NO aiming algorithm, but only a probability modified by variables, that aiming wouldn't matter? And even if your "aimers can't see" explanation were wrong, that wouldn't change the effectiveness of your tactic, right? It works regardless of why it works...which I think is the core of what you're saying.


At the same time, HT has outright said that he couldn't make aiming based systems work while maintaining the right degree of effectiveness in game. He said point blank that the variables he used were range, speed, and G forces. I've never read him saying that line of sight was a factor, in the convention discussion or in the Readme that comes with each update. It wouldn't shock me if that was added, but as far as I know that has not been documented.


And for the arguers in the thread....

Even with the line of sight question theoretically still open, I don't get how some of you folks can be so dead on certain that your explanation for the observed data is right, when the guy who wrote the code says there's a different explanation....Do you really think he's lying to you?

How can I make this clear to you?  I dont care why it happens and never tried to explain why.  I just said that it happens.  Sounds like  you agree with both me and HT at  the same time on your post.

BTW, line of sight is kind of simple.  No reason to calculate in the probability algorithm.  If the gun cant see you it should not fire.  If it does not fire, no questions about line of sight or anything else

[NoBaddy]

Sim...

I believe HT was talking about the puffy ack. It does use proximity (and a freakin randomizer...which just loves to piss me off ). The field auto ack uses different coad and does track targets. It basically tries to predict where the target is going. That is why guys whine about flyin through the ack at 500 mph and dying. Constant changes to your flight path will throw it off. Fly a zero into ack and turn hard and often, you will live a long time (as long as you don't fly directly over an ack).

[Simaril]

Murdr, NB --

I think you're right. Thanks for the clarification! My info applies to the puffy, and I'm not sure how much it applies to the base ack. I assumed that it was "aimed" the same, but now I'm not sure of that at all.



Simaril

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Tachus
Not to be nit picky, but aiming, really isn't the same as "area probability" Yes they are both software, but the "way" it's done is completely different.

Point is "area probability", "May" or "May Not" take into account line of sight (Where "aiming" most certainly should, or at least the term would imply it did). If "area probability" does take into account line of sight, then it appears you are correct. However, nothing in the term "Area Probability" necessarily lends itself to that conclusion. (it could mean, if you are in the area, this is the chance you will be hit, regardless of where in the area you are) So if it does not take into account "line of sight" then it appears you would be wrong.



Best regards,
--Tachus

I don't know if line of sight is taken into consideration or not, but my observation and experience has been that I can hide behind objects and field ack will not hit me.  

I have flown to an nme base and dive bombed a ground target from altitude, I continue the dive down past the target and hug the ground on my egress.  putting as may tall objects between me and the field as I can.  When I am able to make attack runs in this fasion I take far fewer hits.