Stupid Puffy Ack

[lyric1]

While there are some issues with the targeting of the puffy acks, there is nothing wrong with the lethality of the puffy acks.  The OP of this thread seems to be very surprised that puffy acks were able to down an airplane with only one hit.  He's not alone as being killed by a single puffy ack burst cries seems to always go hand in hand with the targeting issue complaints.

I hate to break it to you guys but flak was able to destroy a plane with a single hit and it wasn't all that uncommon either.  I guess you could call it the luck of the draw but it still doesn't take away the fact that AAA was able to and often did kill with a single hit.

B-24 hit by flak burst
(Image removed from quote.)


Here is another shot of another B-24 that was downed by flak.
(Image removed from quote.)

By all means, have the targeting looked at but don't touch the lethality, it doesn't need to be adjusted.  AAA did account for the majortity of downed aircraft during the war.  Should stand to reason they should be just as lethal in game as they were in real life and players should face the same 'luck of the draw' that real pilots faced when flying through flak bursts.


ack-ack

Your second picture is wrong that plane was taken out by a 262 that hit it with it's air to air rockets.
http://flickr.com/photos/21734563@N04/2108503973/

[Marauding Conan]

While there are some issues with the targeting of the puffy acks, there is nothing wrong with the lethality of the puffy acks.  The OP of this thread seems to be very surprised that puffy acks were able to down an airplane with only one hit.  He's not alone as being killed by a single puffy ack burst cries seems to always go hand in hand with the targeting issue complaints.

I hate to break it to you guys but flak was able to destroy a plane with a single hit and it wasn't all that uncommon either.  I guess you could call it the luck of the draw but it still doesn't take away the fact that AAA was able to and often did kill with a single hit.

B-24 hit by flak burst
(Image removed from quote.)


Here is another shot of another B-24 that was downed by flak.
(Image removed from quote.)

By all means, have the targeting looked at but don't touch the lethality, it doesn't need to be adjusted.  AAA did account for the majortity of downed aircraft during the war.  Should stand to reason they should be just as lethal in game as they were in real life and players should face the same 'luck of the draw' that real pilots faced when flying through flak bursts.


ack-ack

Well, if you want historical accuracity, then it should behave as such. In WWII, the high-altitude ack was not aimed at individual planes. They were aimed at an area. They targeted the path of the formation, calculated an imaginary box in that path and saturated that box with proximity fuse rounds. Then, it was an issue of being lucky or unlucky to make it through that "box".

Because of the pre-set nature of the ack, it was easier for fighter formations to avoid ack... Once the ack started to fire, the leader could lead the formation out of the box. For a bomber formation, that was a lot more difficult to avoid, specially if they were on the bomb run.

That's why Germans tried to sneek in captured bombers into the bomber stream, to feed accurate information to the ground defenses. Another note, if you were caught in the box, hardly any plane made it out untouched... with the unlucky ones getting taken out outright. Again, that's why bomber crews flew with all kinds of body protection (body armor, helmets, etc.)... they were easier to kill than to shot down the planes themselves.

Now, low altitude ack was a different story. They did target individual planes, but, they didn't use proximity fuses. Lets face it, in an age of low tech or no tech computers, trying to hit a target a couple miles out was more luck that skill... one hit, one kill is hardly accurate because it would have taken hundreds if no thousands of rounds to fill that box. But, it the round connected, then it would have been fatal for the plane.

[moot]

I'd be glad to be proven wrong, but it seems instinctively true that a 400mph Me163 maneuvering at 10k+ shouldn't be as easy for flak to track as a lumbering formation flying level.

[Marauding Conan]

I'd be glad to be proven wrong, but it seems instinctively true that a 400mph Me163 maneuvering at 10k+ shouldn't be as easy for flak to track as a lumbering formation flying level.

In real life with WWII technology, you would be right.

[Animl]

In real life with WWII technology, you would be right.

With all that you posted, which I believe to be accurate, the puffy ack is as if it's aiming right at the plane with a lead computing sight. In fact there are more burst behind me, then in front as if it were trying to lead me with a pile of shrapnel.

Pointing being, rarely do I fly into range and am not hit at least once within the first 5 burst. More baffling out of visual range of the ship,..same with the ground mounted. What technology did they have in WWII to aim guns at an aircraft they can't see?

It just seems more like modern aimed guns then WWII era...IMO. Irritates me every time. <shrug>

Animl

[Marauding Conan]

With all that you posted, which I believe to be accurate, the puffy ack is as if it's aiming right at the plane with a lead computing sight. In fact there are more burst behind me, then in front as if it were trying to lead me with a pile of shrapnel.

Pointing being, rarely do I fly into range and am not hit at least once within the first 5 burst. More baffling out of visual range of the ship,..same with the ground mounted. What technology did they have in WWII to aim guns at an aircraft they can't see?

It just seems more like modern aimed guns then WWII era...IMO. Irritates me every time. <shrug>

Animl

To answer your question, they didn't. No visual, no firing solution. There were systems used by both the Germans and the British that used a mechanical computer (called predictor systems).  They were not tied to radars, thus, could not track targets outside visual range. Also, they could not compensate for wind speeds and other variables.

Although theoretically possible to hit a single target, the preference in WWII was to use proximity fuses and barometic fuses. I think your irritation is shared by a few people in this forum. And I agree with you, the ack is too accurate and seems to prefer smaller targets.

Perhaps HT should reconsider the setup for high altitude flack. Perhaps concentrate them close to particular targets and change their behavior to reflect the situation in WWII. As to the ships, not all ships had high-altitude flack. Which ships are modeled in Aces High?

[Animl]

To answer your question, they didn't. No visual, no firing solution. There were systems used by both the Germans and the British that used a mechanical computer (called predictor systems).  They were not tied to radars, thus, could not track targets outside visual range. Also, they could not compensate for wind speeds and other variables.

Although theoretically possible to hit a single target, the preference in WWII was to use proximity fuses and barometic fuses. I think your irritation is shared by a few people in this forum. And I agree with you, the ack is too accurate and seems to prefer smaller targets.

Perhaps HT should reconsider the setup for high altitude flack. Perhaps concentrate them close to particular targets and change their behavior to reflect the situation in WWII. As to the ships, not all ships had high-altitude flack. Which ships are modeled in Aces High?

It was a sarcastic question, and in case there was something I was unaware of.

I'm starting to get the image of Paul McCartney on the St. Pepper's album. As of lately, it seems we talk and talk and talk and it honestly seems like no one is listening. I haven't seen any interaction on these subjects from HTC in a long time. Maybe I miss things, but it's starting to feel like talking to brick walls.

How many times can things be talked about for how long with not one thing being suggested or done to alleviate any of them? I'm not upset, but it's starting to become a bit noticeable.

Maybe it's just me <shrug> I mean this puffy ack thing has been an issue for some time now. And >IMO< there's nothing bogus at all about the complaints, they are too accurate,.. period. Maybe it's hard wired in the FE I and we have to wait for an update I dunno. But I would think it's time for HTC to chime in on the subject.

I'm afraid I am starting to see old patterns form.

Animl <scratches head><shrug>