P-38's Mossie and 110's

[Odee]

Please, reduce the AAA target signature on these planes.  It buggers me no end when Otto Ack clobbers my 38  or Mossie like they were a lumbering B25 or Lancaster.

In the 38's case, it isn't that much larger than a P-51 to warrant guaranteed damage for flying near AAA at high speed.  Heavier, yes...  Larger, no.

I'm not sure how HTC handles the target boxes on the planes these days, but in the 38, it doesn't matter if your side profile to the ack, or presenting your belly, you still get hit.

[lyric1]

Throw the 262 in as well if you happen to blunder to close to a CV the first round that pops near you is nearly always a hit of some sort. Even when you drop away the puffy seems to be right on you no matter how fast you get the jet humming.

[Bosco123]

You stole my smiley Odee, how dare you! 

<S>

[stroker71]

Agreed.  I dove in on a town trying to get rid of my bombs because enemy fighters were upping.  Was still at 6000 feet doing 400ish and one ack hit me giving me a PW.  I never got below 5000 feet...sorta pissed me off.  Never had that happen in any other plane.

[SmokinLoon]

I used to shrug this off, but I'm glad it has been brought up.

Somewhere, there must be some formula HTC used to devise the "signature" of each plane.  One can only surmise it was developed by some sort of "volume" measurement.  They proably dipped the entire plane into one big bathtub and whatever was the amount of water that was displaced was converted ino a score and assigned to the aircraft.

Take that score, throw in a speed factor, a pitch factor, and distance from the gun factor... and *poof* there is a formula.

I bet the differences are large enough for our Mossi, Destroyer, and Lighting pilots to think far more thoroughly about diving through the ack on an attack run than if they were in a ever so slightly smaller aircraft (please reference single engine fighters).  I'd also be willing to bet that the amount of hits scored vs one of the 3 said aircraft are disproportionately higher than they should be or actually were in the real deal (WWII).  If we take a Mossi, dive it through ack under as close to exactly circumstances vs a Fw190F-8, any bets on which aircaft takes more hits?  Any bets on how much faster the Mossi has to travel though the ack to receive the same number of hits as the Fw190F-8?

I know I dont take the Mossi anywhere near ack unless I'm 400mph+ and able to stay low and extend using the terrain as cover (another gaming the game tactic, really).

Whatever the formula is, I too think it needs to be adjusted a wee bit in favor of the larger planes.  I dont think anyone believes those larger built planes deserve the same scoring, but it does seem as if those larger planes are getting ack raped a bit worse on average than in relation to their small jump in size over the smaller single engine fighters.     

[B4Buster]

I think HTC does it by who they hate most, I get pinged all the time, why I don't go near the ack at all 
I'm on to you Skuzzy
 

[HighTone]

Please, reduce the AAA target signature on these planes.  It buggers me no end when Otto Ack clobbers my 38  or Mossie like they were a lumbering B25 or Lancaster.

In the 38's case, it isn't that much larger than a P-51 to warrant guaranteed damage for flying near AAA at high speed.  Heavier, yes...  Larger, no.

I'm not sure how HTC handles the target boxes on the planes these days, but in the 38, it doesn't matter if your side profile to the ack, or presenting your belly, you still get hit.

Totally agree. I thought I noticed this as well

[trigger2]

I completly agree...
The p-38's PW's seem to be off too...
I had a screenshot (till my comp crashed and I had to run the oEm disc...) of a shot BY the cockpit, but I still have a PW, no bullet hole in the cockpit or anything. The p38's seem to PW and Ack 'friendly'... 

[moot]

I used to shrug this off, but I'm glad it has been brought up.

Somewhere, there must be some formula HTC used to devise the "signature" of each plane.  One can only surmise it was developed by some sort of "volume" measurement.  They proably dipped the entire plane into one big bathtub and whatever was the amount of water that was displaced was converted ino a score and assigned to the aircraft.

Take that score, throw in a speed factor, a pitch factor, and distance from the gun factor... and *poof* there is a formula.

I bet the differences are large enough for our Mossi, Destroyer, and Lighting pilots to think far more thoroughly about diving through the ack on an attack run than if they were in a ever so slightly smaller aircraft (please reference single engine fighters).  I'd also be willing to bet that the amount of hits scored vs one of the 3 said aircraft are disproportionately higher than they should be or actually were in the real deal (WWII).  If we take a Mossi, dive it through ack under as close to exactly circumstances vs a Fw190F-8, any bets on which aircaft takes more hits?  Any bets on how much faster the Mossi has to travel though the ack to receive the same number of hits as the Fw190F-8?

I know I dont take the Mossi anywhere near ack unless I'm 400mph+ and able to stay low and extend using the terrain as cover (another gaming the game tactic, really).

Whatever the formula is, I too think it needs to be adjusted a wee bit in favor of the larger planes.  I dont think anyone believes those larger built planes deserve the same scoring, but it does seem as if those larger planes are getting ack raped a bit worse on average than in relation to their small jump in size over the smaller single engine fighters.     

Huh?  Why would hit detection be made any differently from a2a gunfire? The client just computes those the same way it computes hits on a2a shots.   You guys need to come up with something more objective than anecdotes. That's scant evidence.

[Delirium]

In the 38's case, it isn't that much larger than a P-51 to warrant guaranteed damage for flying near AAA at high speed.  Heavier, yes...  Larger, no.

It is larger except when viewed from the side. The side aspect is very small and makes for a much tougher target...

I have a picture at home comparing the sizes but at work I can't post it. Here is a site with roughly the same argument.

http://home.att.net/~ww2aircraft/Profiles.html

As for how hit bubbles are measured, I don't know and I don't think anyone does unless they work for HTC so the argument really can't be made. I agree with Moot on this one...

That said, the propensity for P38s to suffer pilot wounds is higher than it should be imho.

[Odee]

Wowsers!  I never expected to see this many responses.  Thanks guys! 

You stole my smiley Odee, how dare you! 

<S>

This is because I admire you so, m'man. 

Huh?  Why would hit detection be made any differently from a2a gunfire? The client just computes those the same way it computes hits on a2a shots.   You guys need to come up with something more objective than anecdotes. That's scant evidence.

We're talking Flak, AAA, ACK... not air to air... Which is another beech complaint entirely. 

Take some time and look at the silhouette of the 38, Mossie and 110 some time and compare those to the 51, Spit, Jug, 190 etc. which can get by the AAA pretty dang well without a critical hit on them in the first high speed pass.

[WarTooth]

Can anyone point to a factual statistics page on the percent of time that aircraft were shot down over a base from ACK?  It might vary per arena (MA etc.).

It just seems too aggressive to me.  Then again, HT DID bump the number of ACK at bases significantly about a year or so ago.  This may have increased getting killed by base ACK way past the actual real war average.

WT

[Odee]

Can anyone point to a factual statistics page on the percent of time that aircraft were shot down over a base from ACK?  It might vary per arena (MA etc.).

It just seems too aggressive to me.  Then again, HT DID bump the number of ACK at bases significantly about a year or so ago.  This may have increased getting killed by base ACK way past the actual real war average.

WT

  Just spent a couple hours looking up USAAF Archives DB's on this, and came up with several "individual" combat reports, but no large DB of how many and what types aircraft were downed by AAA in WW2.  However, there was one report that made all those combat films of AAA shots stand out.  He expended his entire ordnance, including reloads, from a bofors 40mm and only downed one plane.    What's important here is that this was usually the case, instead of the exception.

Granted certain weapon platforms like the Wirblewind will be more accurate, or at least put out a LOT more rounds per minute than say the bofors, but the general consensus off WW2 AAA that we have modeled in game, was pretty inaccurate for the time period.

Am going to see if a research analyst buddy of mine can come up with better info.

[Karnak]

Ground attack was the most dangerous mission in WWII.  AA fire was murderous.  It wasn't that one gun was murderous, but that 50 just put up so much fire that something was going to get hit.

In one of my Mosquito books an attack is described.  After making the surprise pass the author's pilot started to roll in order to turn and make another attack, but his element leader ordered him to level out and follow out of the area due to the likelyhood of being shot down making another attack.  These guys were in 418 squadron, a very high scoring unit.

[Odee]

I recall that story...  Excellent reading!

Now, as you say and I'm sure history will prove it out...  Ground attack against a well defended target such as a factory, capitol, or airbase was indeed murderous.  And for those very same reasons you mentioned; the sheer number of guns shooting.

By that same assessment then, would you agree that every plane in the game should be hit with equal chance as nailing a buff at 6.5k.