What are we going

[ARSNishi]

have diminishing amounts of accuracy based on distance/altitude/speed.

^^^^ This

[Ardy123]

Parking a CV right on the shore line has nothing to do with the lethality or other complaints about the puffy AAA, apples and oranges actually.

Be thankful our puffy AAA isn't as lethal as it was in real life.

If your rebuttal to nurfing puffy ack was that it was more accurate in RL, then the context of its use in RL is relevant. Although puffy ack can appear over cities, the most common interaction players have with it are over CVs.  That being said, I believe most of the 'nurf it' calls are a reaction to its unrealistic behavior, such as...

1) hitting fighters at 15k which are constantly changing direction and speed but not hitting bombers at 10k which are flying level, at a constant speed and straight.
2) puffy ack tracking planes through mountains and clouds
3) being used as an offensive weapon
4) (this list can go on but you get the point)

As such, some see the solution as relegating it to only being player controlled. Personally I don't think that's the best idea but I do agree that the puff ack logic needs to be revisited and improved.

EDIT: I am not calling for puffy ack to be nurfed, but rather improved as well as the logic around what its mounted on. A simple fix would be to force CVs to be a fixed distance from the shore and have puffy ack's accuracy be effected by the range, alt and speed of the target. Another, would be to make a vector from the puffy gun to the target and only 'track' the target if that vector did not intersect any other objects (such as mountains etc).

[FLS]

You guys seem to be missing the point that the ack isn't accurate at all. It's random within a box around the aircraft. It works very much like real WW2 human controlled ack. Saying it's too accurate because you got hit is simply a baseless whine.

[RTHolmes]

The accuracy of the box is the problem ...


Edit: and like WWII? you really think 10 WWII gunners could consistenly group rounds within 50yds of a violently manoeuvring fighter manually as far out as the AI does in AH?

[FLS]

The accuracy of the box is the problem ...

I think you don't understand what the word random means. Perhaps you're asking for a bigger box? Maneuvering fighters would still get hit with the first shot and bombers flying straight would still be untouched. The complaints would be the same. The problem is people don't want to get killed by ack and they will complain as long as it happens.

WW2 gunners got first shot kills on fighters at 20,000 ft. They hit fighters at 28,000 ft. Read the 8th AF deacking document posted on this forum. Sorry I don't have a link.

[CAP1]

If your rebuttal to nurfing puffy ack was that it was more accurate in RL, then the context of its use in RL is relevant. Although puffy ack can appear over cities, the most common interaction players have with it are over CVs.  That being said, I believe most of the 'nurf it' calls are a reaction to its unrealistic behavior, such as...

1) hitting fighters at 15k which are constantly changing direction and speed but not hitting bombers at 10k which are flying level, at a constant speed and straight.
2) puffy ack tracking planes through mountains and clouds
3) being used as an offensive weapon
4) (this list can go on but you get the point)

As such, some see the solution as relegating it to only being player controlled. Personally I don't think that's the best idea but I do agree that the puff ack logic needs to be revisited and improved.

EDIT: I am not calling for puffy ack to be nurfed, but rather improved as well as the logic around what its mounted on. A simple fix would be to force CVs to be a fixed distance from the shore and have puffy ack's accuracy be effected by the range, alt and speed of the target. Another, would be to make a vector from the puffy gun to the target and only 'track' the target if that vector did not intersect any other objects (such as mountains etc).

in rl, puffy ack wasn't necessarily "accurate" as we tend to use the word within the game. it didn't have to be though. the 88's that the germans used, and i'm sure whatever we used was pretty much the same, were kind of like reverse depth charges.
 all they really needed to do, was be close on altitude, and the shrapnel did the rest. they also used fire control systems to aid in aiming them.

An American military observer who had many opportunities to witness this gun in Germany in 1940, speaks of this weapon as follows:

    "The 88 MM is basically a gun for firing on moving targets. The crew is also specially trained for firing on highly rapid moving targets, primarily on airplanes. The whole control apparatus is designed for fast moving targets with a very rapid rate of fire: 25 rounds per minute. The gun is capable of great volume fire and extreme accuracy against moving targets of any type. It is equally efficient on targets on the ground as well as in the air. For attacks on armored vehicles, it is provided with a special armor-piercing shell."
 

 bearing this in mind, the allies also used fire control systems, and once again....they needed only be close, as close did count in this instance.

 if i recall also, the 8th air force lost more aircraft to flak, than to anything else.......so yea...it was somewhat deadly, and as stated earlier, i could not for the life of me imagine how those young men on all side could sit in those aluminum death traps, with virtually no defense against this. sheer terror would possibly begin to describe it i thinkl.

[Ardy123]

in rl, puffy ack wasn't necessarily "accurate" as we tend to use the word within the game. it didn't have to be though. the 88's that the germans used, and i'm sure whatever we used was pretty much the same, were kind of like reverse depth charges.
 all they really needed to do, was be close on altitude, and the shrapnel did the rest. they also used fire control systems to aid in aiming them.

An American military observer who had many opportunities to witness this gun in Germany in 1940, speaks of this weapon as follows:

    "The 88 MM is basically a gun for firing on moving targets. The crew is also specially trained for firing on highly rapid moving targets, primarily on airplanes. The whole control apparatus is designed for fast moving targets with a very rapid rate of fire: 25 rounds per minute. The gun is capable of great volume fire and extreme accuracy against moving targets of any type. It is equally efficient on targets on the ground as well as in the air. For attacks on armored vehicles, it is provided with a special armor-piercing shell."
 

 bearing this in mind, the allies also used fire control systems, and once again....they needed only be close, as close did count in this instance.

 if i recall also, the 8th air force lost more aircraft to flak, than to anything else.......so yea...it was somewhat deadly, and as stated earlier, i could not for the life of me imagine how those young men on all side could sit in those aluminum death traps, with virtually no defense against this. sheer terror would possibly begin to describe it i thinkl.

I understand how RL flack guns worked but.... so you do you want HTC to make the puffy ack to simulate an alt fuse on every puffy ack shell?

[Ack-Ack]

I understand how RL flack guns worked but.... so you do you want HTC to make the puffy ack to simulate an alt fuse on every puffy ack shell?

Over strat targets, yes they should be as they're supposed to be 88mm flak guns.  However, over the CV, since they are modeled on the US 5", they used proximity fuses.

ack-ack

[CAP1]

I understand how RL flack guns worked but.... so you do you want HTC to make the puffy ack to simulate an alt fuse on every puffy ack shell?

it already does.

when you fly a bomber into an area of flak, you get constant bursts going off around your flight. if you had a flight of 100 bombers, then it would be constantly going off all around all of them. just as it did in real life.

[CAP1]

Over strat targets, yes they should be as they're supposed to be 88mm flak guns.  However, over the CV, since they are modeled on the US 5", they used proximity fuses.

ack-ack

bolded.....i never knew that.

[Ardy123]

it already does.

when you fly a bomber into an area of flak, you get constant bursts going off around your flight. if you had a flight of 100 bombers, then it would be constantly going off all around all of them. just as it did in real life.

so you are not interested in improving or changing it at all.

[grizz441]

so you are not interested in improving or changing it at all.

We fear change.

[Vinkman]

in rl, puffy ack wasn't necessarily "accurate" as we tend to use the word within the game. it didn't have to be though. the 88's that the germans used, and i'm sure whatever we used was pretty much the same, were kind of like reverse depth charges.
 all they really needed to do, was be close on altitude, and the shrapnel did the rest. they also used fire control systems to aid in aiming them.

An American military observer who had many opportunities to witness this gun in Germany in 1940, speaks of this weapon as follows:

    "The 88 MM is basically a gun for firing on moving targets. The crew is also specially trained for firing on highly rapid moving targets, primarily on airplanes. The whole control apparatus is designed for fast moving targets with a very rapid rate of fire: 25 rounds per minute. The gun is capable of great volume fire and extreme accuracy against moving targets of any type. It is equally efficient on targets on the ground as well as in the air. For attacks on armored vehicles, it is provided with a special armor-piercing shell."
 

 bearing this in mind, the allies also used fire control systems, and once again....they needed only be close, as close did count in this instance.

 if i recall also, the 8th air force lost more aircraft to flak, than to anything else.......so yea...it was somewhat deadly, and as stated earlier, i could not for the life of me imagine how those young men on all side could sit in those aluminum death traps, with virtually no defense against this. sheer terror would possibly begin to describe it i thinkl.

anacdotal. What does "extreme acuaracy" and "effective" mean?


I guess it means picking off the bad guy in a dog fight at over 3 miles, because that's what we have in game.


Puffy should be accurate against planes with vectors headed towards the carrier as a defense againsts bombers and attack plane. It should be very in-accurate against planes not flying towards the carrier so that it doesn't interfere with dog fights outside of a mile or two from the carrier.  The accuracy should grow the longer the plane is on a vector towards the carrier, and the closer it gets.

It's so annoying to fight near a carrier the way it's currently modelled (in combination with the Aircraft Super Snipers in the 5") that I avoid flying near carriers altogther.

[IrishOne]

We fear change.

(Image removed from quote.)

 

[CAP1]

anacdotal. What does "extreme acuaracy" and "effective" mean?


I guess it means picking off the bad guy in a dog fight at over 3 miles, because that's what we have in game.


Puffy should be accurate against planes with vectors headed towards the carrier as a defense againsts bombers and attack plane. It should be very in-accurate against planes not flying towards the carrier so that it doesn't interfere with dog fights outside of a mile or two from the carrier.  The accuracy should grow the longer the plane is on a vector towards the carrier, and the closer it gets.

It's so annoying to fight near a carrier the way it's currently modelled (in combination with the Aircraft Super Snipers in the 5") that I avoid flying near carriers altogther.

 last line.....unless i'm in buffs headed in to bomb the cv, i generally just stay away from them. if the con wants to run into the ack for protection, thenso be it......i'll find another fight, although i will be annoyed for a few seconds, if i have to be honest.