Puffy Ack

[RTHolmes]

puffy is waaay overmodelled, 40mm are waaay undermodelled and CVs come in waaaay too close to shore. sort these 3 things out and planes attaching CVs will have a hard time, and planes nowhere near the CV wont be bothered too much

[grizz441]

puffy is waaay overmodelled, 40mm are waaay undermodelled and CVs come in waaaay too close to shore. sort these 3 things out and planes attaching CVs will have a hard time, and planes nowhere near the CV wont be bothered too much

I honestly don't care if it is overmodeled or undermodeled, realistic or not.  It does nothing positive for gameplay.  It also does nothing positive for my frame rates.   

[RTHolmes]

get a decent GPU

[whiteman]

i think puffy serves a good purpose i'd just like to see it kill a set of buffs for once, or at least stop hitting me while attacking the buffs.

[Saxman]

Part of the issue with Puffy vs. Fighters vs. Bombers, is how it's generated.

Puffy ack is not actually fired by the gun positions like the manned and auto guns are. Puffy ack is generated automatically in a box around the target (this is why puffy ack can shoot through mountains at targets with no line of sight). The reason it's more effective against fighters is that the AMOUNT of puffy ack remains the same, but the size of the bounding box around the target stays smaller. Thus, fighters fly through a MUCH denser amount of ack than a bomber formation with its larger bounding box.

The solutions would be to:

1) Decrease the concentration of ack along with the size of the ack box.
2) Keep the ack box the same size regardless of the type of aircraft
3) Rather than targeting one particular aircraft or formation, make the ack box one large global blanket around the ENTIRE task group.
4) Rework puffy ack entirely so that it's actually fired by the guns, rather than generated around the plane (IMO this is the best and most realistic solution).

[SEseph]

And the point is?

It shouldn't be able to puffy me at 30k plus.

[Lusche]

It shouldn't be able to puffy me at 30k plus.

the 5"/38 AAC Mark 49 shell had an AA ceiling of 37200 feet.

[321BAR]

Part of the issue with Puffy vs. Fighters vs. Bombers, is how it's generated.

Puffy ack is not actually fired by the gun positions like the manned and auto guns are. Puffy ack is generated automatically in a box around the target (this is why puffy ack can shoot through mountains at targets with no line of sight). The reason it's more effective against fighters is that the AMOUNT of puffy ack remains the same, but the size of the bounding box around the target stays smaller. Thus, fighters fly through a MUCH denser amount of ack than a bomber formation with its larger bounding box.

The solutions would be to:

1) Decrease the concentration of ack along with the size of the ack box.
2) Keep the ack box the same size regardless of the type of aircraft
3) Rather than targeting one particular aircraft or formation, make the ack box one large global blanket around the ENTIRE task group.
4) Rework puffy ack entirely so that it's actually fired by the guns, rather than generated around the plane (IMO this is the best and most realistic solution).

YES! +1

[Spikes]

the 5"/38 AAC Mark 49 shell had an AA ceiling of 37200 feet.

And how accurate is it at that alt?

[321BAR]

And how accurate is it at that alt?

aren't they proximity fuses?

[Spikes]

aren't they proximity fuses?

Yes however you are still lobbing shells 7 miles into the air.

[321BAR]

Yes however you are still lobbing shells 7 miles into the air.

Then the gunners are either really good or you can just say these gunners had charts with the mathematics showing speed, altitude, and wind direction in order to place the shells correctly.

P.S. what i really want is for the 8"ers and AA guns not to be able to fire off the same ships the way they do now. IIRC, AA guns couldn't be manned while 8" or 16" cannons were firing due to the blowback and pressure and sound of the cannons going off. People would be washed overboard from the blow alone. If i'm incorrect please correct me... no hard feelings

[Spikes]

Then the gunners are either really good or you can just say these gunners had charts with the mathematics showing speed, altitude, and wind direction in order to place the shells correctly.

P.S. what i really want is for the 8"ers and AA guns not to be able to fire off the same ships the way they do now. IIRC, AA guns couldn't be manned while 8" or 16" cannons were firing due to the blowback and pressure and sound of the cannons going off. People would be washed overboard from the blow alone. If i'm incorrect please correct me... no hard feelings

Beyond this, I understand there is a box and I do think as Saxman said it should be tied to ship guns (ie kill all ships = no puffy). Might give more reason to kill the support ships...less puffy. And it won't shoot through mountains.

[AWwrgwy]

so in AH that would be the max extent of the range, as it's about 9.6mi. As the height of the barrel changes though so does the possible distance. The only way to achieve the maximum distance is to take the entire arc into account, thus giving the distance you quoted. Also, when changing angle, gravity's effects must also be considered. When one points a barrel at a 90 degree angle, the distance is cut in at least half, not only because you can't count the full arc as it's distance, but you also no longer have the kinetic energy you did during the 40 degree arc to get that distance to begin with. Most of it is used up just trying to get to that height. (It's easier to fly around the world than it is to launch straight into space which isn't all that far in relative terms.)

10 miles is 52800 feet.  Half of that is 26,400 feet.

Someone who is a physics pro do the calculations that prove kinetic energy decreases by half.

Yes however you are still lobbing shells 7 miles into the air.

36,940 feet


Striving for accuracy and perspective.   


wrongway

[grizz441]

Kinetic energy does not increase/decrease linearly with respect to changes in velocity.  When velocity has decreased in half, kinetic energy has decreased by 1/4th.

I could figure out exactly how high it would take for it to lose half/.75/etc of its energy except I don't have my big boy calculatard with me right now.

Anyone bored though, have at it:

E_k=1/2mv²
V_f²=v_i²+2ad