I HATE PUFFY FLAK COADING and refuse to fly in areas that have it

[Rich52]

It only evens it out if CV fighters are equally deterred from capping the enemy field they're trying to take and have to allow the enemy planes taking off from it to climb up and gain E.  Field fighters can take off from other nearby (if any) uncapped fields though, right?  So can CV based fighters that bother to bring more than one CV to a fight.

When is the last time you have seen two CVs brought to a fight? Almost everyone playing would consider that a waste of assets.

We dont have Kamakazis in the game and I dont remember actual history where enemy fighters would go out of their way to strafe CV decks. And its not like you cant sink a CV with a little effort anyways. Unless its a mission from a CV I almost always see land based fighters gaining better position, numbers being equal that is. I think the current CV situation is much better then it used to be. Harder to sink = better fights.

[SEseph]

I think that HiTech himself explained how the auto ack worked.  Something like it is programmed to hit in a random area of a box around its target.  The faster the target the larger the box. 

I think a lot has to do with the game play and abuse aspect of how players use and attack fleets and maybe strats (the latter I believe is just an elevated risk level for attacking high profile targets, ie strats). 

Although, I am so feeling the same way about avoiding the stuff, it is just another one of those things like lancstukas, spawn camping, tool shedding, etc... that exists because no better solution for their removal has hit the developers.

If I recall correctly, the box doesn't get bigger or smaller with speed, it is a set size ratio around each plane. That would mean when you are in a fighter the box for puffy is much smaller while it still is receiving the same amount of puffy shots, allowing the ultra fighter killing puffy ack. I'm not sure of the exact dynamics of flying a formation, but it would seem the ratio comes into effect as if it were one plane.

I've lost a 262 myself to puffy. It definitely needs a major revamp.

[SEseph]

When is the last time you have seen two CVs brought to a fight? Almost everyone playing would consider that a waste of assets.

All three sides do this regularly. I need to get myself a private copy of that book, Invented Facts.

[Citabria]

The origional 88mm puffy flak was modelled per round and actually had a travel time.

it was removed right after carrier groups were added because all the flack would just shoot in a black cloud right above the cv and cause huge frame rate hits.

the solution was this rng box of popcorn that gives no true effort to simulate a flak gun aiming at your plane from a great distance. it is simply a box exclusive to your front end that will target your aircraft at all times within a certain area. it gives the impression that because the box is always centered and the way the puffs follow every movement of your plane so that although they apear randomly in the box the box is part of your airplane.

I find this intollerable and unrealistic.

I would rather die over and over to actual ai aimed rounds that have travel time than this popcorn mess that makes my ears bleed and even if it does not kill me annoys the H3LL out of me.

[Yeager]

it took a while but eventually I came to realize I was playing a game.

[Krusty]

This:

Let me provide an example of why the current "puffy ack" coding is, er, unrealistic....


I'm flying at 8,000 feet, the enemy fleet is just visible at the limits of vision. Everything is sunk, except a single destroyer. Yet, the volume of puffy ack is unabated... Moreover, there are at least 6 aircraft closer to the destroyer than I am. A Fletcher class destroyer has five 5" guns. So, explain why I can count dozens of ack puffs near me. Who is shooting? Clearly, something other than that lone destroyer. Where does this amazing volume of fire come from, and why is it present?

... this...

Flak seems to be an individual front end situation. What I mean is, I can be flying with a squaddy in a sector both 5 miles from the CV. I see puffy ack shooting at me but nothing around him. He sees puffy ack around him but nothing by me. Correct me if I am wrong there.

... this...

YES! A 15k 262 streaking along at 550, constantly changing altitude/headng, is more likely to get popped than a formation of Lancs  plodding along at 7k (not that I really GIVE a watermelon about Muppets losing their 262's mind you , but it simply isn't correct)

... and this:

The origional 88mm puffy flak was modelled per round and actually had a travel time.

it was removed right after carrier groups were added because all the flack would just shoot in a black cloud right above the cv and cause huge frame rate hits.

the solution was this rng box of popcorn that gives no true effort to simulate a flak gun aiming at your plane from a great distance. it is simply a box exclusive to your front end that will target your aircraft at all times within a certain area. it gives the impression that because the box is always centered and the way the puffs follow every movement of your plane so that although they apear randomly in the box the box is part of your airplane.

I find this intollerable and unrealistic.

I would rather die over and over to actual ai aimed rounds that have travel time than this popcorn mess that makes my ears bleed and even if it does not kill me annoys the H3LL out of me.

Although I don't think it was ever modeled per-round, the rest of it I agree with.

EDIT: IMO HTC intended one thing but the end result is the exact opposite. He intended a smaller, manuvering target to be harder to hit, and the steady straight one moving slowly to be easy. The results are exactly the opposite, with level bombers only at risk from manned 8" rather than AAA 8". Fighters can and are picked off at extreme ranges with no rhyme or reason and the flack continues to follow well outside of reasonable tolerances as well. You can have a furball near the fleet and be RTB and 10mi out still be tracked by puffy ack when the rest of the furball is 10x closer.

[Citabria]

I don't think I ever experienced the modeled per-round code because I was not there back when this was the case. the rest of it I agree with.

fixed

[Bruv119]

+1 agree 

[Drano]

I don't mind the puffy ack so much as I think it has to exist to defend the carrier groups from attack. The problem I have with it is when I'm getting picked off by it at ridiculous ranges. I used to think it was crazy but now I have better computer hardware and I figure if I can hardly see the carrier group with my machine there should be no reason I oughta be getting hit by puffy. It should be for defensive purposes only. If I'm not attacking the carrier--and being engaged in a fight or just flying past at extreme visual range certainly does not qualify as being in an attack posture--then there's no reason I should be getting not only the attention of an ack gun but even less chance I should be getting hit by it let alone be killed by it. It's on my list of things that need a bit o' tweaking.

[bustr]

Then its not the manner in how the CV is used to take advantage of the current puffy ack programing. But, the current programatical implimentation of CV puffy ack itself that the OP has an issue with?

Was the original implimentation of CV puffy ack a closer representation of real life in it's programatical presentation? If it is, has our hardware evolved past the frame rate problems?

You know if any substinitive changes are made to puffy ack, this forum may look and read like Watts in 65......you gotta have a bit of sympathy for HiTech. He's a new father and all.......

[Wiley]

You know if any substinitive changes are made to puffy ack, this forum may look and read like Watts in 65......you gotta have a bit of sympathy for HiTech. He's a new father and all.......

In every discussion of puffy ack I've ever seen, I can't recall a single post saying, 'It's great as is.'  I've seen ones from HTC saying 'This is why it is like it is.' and I get that, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually defend it as being well modeled or good for gameplay.

I too would love to see it reworked.

Wiley.

[Krusty]

fixed

I seem to recall Hitech himself saying they never modeled it that way when you mentioned this earlier this year or later last year.

[SEseph]

Why not make the 'box' on bombers smaller and the ones on fighters bigger (or maybe a universal 'box' size!!)? I'd take the tradeoff. Better protection, but fighters might go down at a slightly higher rate than actually statistics say it should.

[dirtdart]

Why not make the 'box' on bombers smaller and the ones on fighters bigger (or maybe a universal 'box' size!!)? I'd take the tradeoff. Better protection, but fighters might go down at a slightly higher rate than actually statistics say it should.

^ this, is it possible to distinguish between the two (lone lanc for example vice lone pony)?

[Chilli]

Interesting concept about a formation.  Does the cpu only recognize the player controlled plane or do all 3 planes create their own boxes?  It would reason that only one box would still be created.

On another note, it seems that bombers are faster, or my fighter is getting slower.  I think, sometimes we get guys diving bombers enough to maximize their speed, making their boxes also increase.  I seldom attack bombers co alt unless I am defending a nearby asset.  The result is almost always predictably frustrating.