What are we going

[FLS]

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.

Let me repeat this a few more times.   Puffy ack in AH is not accurate. Puffy ack is arguably inaccurate because Puffy ack is random. When you get killed by ack it isn't an accurate shot, it's a random hit. There is no accuracy adjustment that can be made. It  can not be made more accurate. It can not be made less accurate. When the box size increases from increasing speed or G load the probability of being hit decreases. Accuracy is irrelevant to the discussion. The variable is probability bbased on box size. If you want a bigger box you can ask for that but there may be a good reason why Hitech set it up as it is now.

In WW2 ack picked off fighters 5 miles above the guns.

[Ack-Ack]

Let me repeat this a few more times.   Puffy ack in AH is not accurate. Puffy ack is arguably inaccurate because Puffy ack is random. When you get killed by ack it isn't an accurate shot, it's a random hit. There is no accuracy adjustment that can be made. It  can not be made more accurate. It can not be made less accurate. When the box size increases from increasing speed or G load the probability of being hit decreases. Accuracy is irrelevant to the discussion. The variable is probability bbased on box size. If you want a bigger box you can ask for that but there may be a good reason why Hitech set it up as it is now.

In WW2 ack picked off fighters 5 miles above the guns.

As FLS has tried to point out, our 5" CV guns aren't even as accurate in game as they were in real life.  The fire control system for the 5" was so accurate that a gunnery control officer could snipe individual soldiers if within sight.


ack-ack

[RTHolmes]

As FLS has tried to point out, our 5" CV guns aren't even as accurate in game as they were in real life.  The fire control system for the 5" was so accurate that a gunnery control officer could snipe individual soldiers if within sight.

 

[grizz441]

Let me repeat this a few more times.   Puffy ack in AH is not accurate. Puffy ack is arguably inaccurate because Puffy ack is random. When you get killed by ack it isn't an accurate shot, it's a random hit. There is no accuracy adjustment that can be made. It  can not be made more accurate. It can not be made less accurate. When the box size increases from increasing speed or G load the probability of being hit decreases. Accuracy is irrelevant to the discussion. The variable is probability bbased on box size. If you want a bigger box you can ask for that but there may be a good reason why Hitech set it up as it is now.

In WW2 ack picked off fighters 5 miles above the guns.

Are you sure the box size varies based on aircraft velocity?  What about distance to aircraft? If I am directly above a carrier ~ 5000 feet away, is this the same accuracy as traveling perpendicular to the carrier 10,000 ft away?  Does the accuracy take into account relative change of coordinates?  If I am flying directly at the carrier in range, the carrier gunner just sees my plane getting bigger and not moving relative to his position, should be an easier shot.  If I am diving at a 45 degree angle perpendicular to his line of sight, I am changing directions in two different axes relative to his position.  Is the probability of being hit the same?  If I go to 3.1k I have a x% probability of being hit yet if I drop .101k I have a 0% probability of being hit.  How can you account for the drop in probability over a infinitesimally small change in altitude?  How does a carrier shoot me when there is a solid body between me and the carrier such as a mountain or a dip in terrain?  If there are 30 planes in range of a carrier, the carrier is somehow shooting at all 30 planes at once if they are above the magic altitude, even though the carrier does not have that many guns to be able to specifically target each and every plane.  

How is ANY of this realistic?

[Vinkman]

Let me repeat this a few more times.   Puffy ack in AH is not accurate. Puffy ack is arguably inaccurate because Puffy ack is random. When you get killed by ack it isn't an accurate shot, it's a random hit. There is no accuracy adjustment that can be made. It  can not be made more accurate. It can not be made less accurate. When the box size increases from increasing speed or G load the probability of being hit decreases. Accuracy is irrelevant to the discussion. The variable is probability bbased on box size. If you want a bigger box you can ask for that but there may be a good reason why Hitech set it up as it is now.

In WW2 ack picked off fighters 5 miles above the guns.

I do understand all that. I'm saying change the algorythm from random location in changing box size to something that is based on the direction the incoming plane is flying. 

[Ack-Ack]

From his perch in the gun director, Lt. Hagen spied a Japanese officer on the beach, waving a saber, rallying his troops to the fight, and thought, Why not?  He put the officer in the sights of his slewing device.  The fire-control computer clicked and whirred and zipped coordinates to Johnston's five main gun turrets.  When Hagen closed the firing key, they all barked as one.  The technology lived up to its brutal promise.  The five-shell salvo obliterated the man.

"Mr. Hagen, that was very good shooting," called Capt. Evans from the bridge.  "But in the future, try not to waste so much ammunition on one individual."

The above took place when the destroyer escort, USS Johnston, was taking part in the bombardment of Kwajalein in support of the invasion landings.  The Mark 1A fire control computer and the Mark 37 radar that controlled the US Navy 5" guns was far more accurate than is represented in game.

ack-ack

[Ardy123]

Are you sure the box size varies based on aircraft velocity?  What about distance to aircraft? If I am directly above a carrier ~ 5000 feet away, is this the same accuracy as traveling perpendicular to the carrier 10,000 ft away?  Does the accuracy take into account relative change of coordinates?  If I am flying directly at the carrier in range, the carrier gunner just sees my plane getting bigger and not moving relative to his position, should be an easier shot.  If I am diving at a 45 degree angle perpendicular to his line of sight, I am changing directions in two different axes relative to his position.  Is the probability of being hit the same?  If I go to 3.1k I have a x% probability of being hit yet if I drop .101k I have a 0% probability of being hit.  How can you account for the drop in probability over a infinitesimally small change in altitude?  How does a carrier shoot me when there is a solid body between me and the carrier such as a mountain or a dip in terrain?  If there are 30 planes in range of a carrier, the carrier is somehow shooting at all 30 planes at once if they are above the magic altitude, even though the carrier does not have that many guns to be able to specifically target each and every plane.  

How is ANY of this realistic?

When any change is 'a problem' any rational discussion is impossible....

One could start with, how could ack shoot you through a mountain? or one could just hand them a Jello salad and a invitation to a bingo party.

[Vinkman]

The above took place when the destroyer escort, USS Johnston, was taking part in the bombardment of Kwajalein in support of the invasion landings.  The Mark 1A fire control computer and the Mark 37 radar that controlled the US Navy 5" guns was far more accurate than is represented in game.

ack-ack

Acuracy of hitting a stationary target is evidence of acuracy in hitting a 300 mph, maneuvering airplane? I don't think it's the same thing Ack. 

[Ack-Ack]

Acuracy of hitting a stationary target is evidence of acuracy in hitting a 300 mph, maneuvering airplane? I don't think it's the same thing Ack. 

It shows a degree of accuracy that the 5" gun system was capable of, something that is not reflected in game.  Even with manual aiming we have in game that models the fire control system, we do not have that degree of accuracy.

ack-ack

[Vinkman]

It shows a degree of accuracy that the 5" gun system was capable of, something that is not reflected in game.  Even with manual aiming we have in game that models the fire control system, we do not have that degree of accuracy.

ack-ack

Acuracy of a gun, and the effectiveness of puffy ack to disrupt dog fights at 3 miles are different things.  

I'm personally OK with ack shooting down bombers if in real life the fleet had that capability. But applying that to each individual plane that's within 3 miles of the boat is a stretch. But my real beef is the way it attacks enemy planes even if they are in a furball with friendly planes 3 miles from the ship. If a dog fight was going on, do you think the ship guns would open up on the friendlies? The current ack model artificially and unrealistically ruins dogfights. that is counter to good game play, and unrealistic to boot. I'm suggesting a modification to that programming.

How about  ACK won't shoot towards friendly planes?  

[RTHolmes]

The above took place when the destroyer escort, USS Johnston, was taking part in the bombardment of Kwajalein in support of the invasion landings.  The Mark 1A fire control computer and the Mark 37 radar that controlled the US Navy 5" guns was far more accurate than is represented in game.

static, land-based target.

[FLS]

Are you sure the box size varies based on aircraft velocity?  What about distance to aircraft? If I am directly above a carrier ~ 5000 feet away, is this the same accuracy as traveling perpendicular to the carrier 10,000 ft away?  Does the accuracy take into account relative change of coordinates?  If I am flying directly at the carrier in range, the carrier gunner just sees my plane getting bigger and not moving relative to his position, should be an easier shot.  If I am diving at a 45 degree angle perpendicular to his line of sight, I am changing directions in two different axes relative to his position.  Is the probability of being hit the same?  If I go to 3.1k I have a x% probability of being hit yet if I drop .101k I have a 0% probability of being hit.  How can you account for the drop in probability over a infinitesimally small change in altitude?  How does a carrier shoot me when there is a solid body between me and the carrier such as a mountain or a dip in terrain?  If there are 30 planes in range of a carrier, the carrier is somehow shooting at all 30 planes at once if they are above the magic altitude, even though the carrier does not have that many guns to be able to specifically target each and every plane.  

How is ANY of this realistic?

Grizz you have 3 different issues there. I'm just commenting on the complaints that the ack is too accurate. I don't think ack should shoot through mountains. As for the altitude limit I don't know if that models a fuzing issue or if it's for some other reason.

[gyrene81]

ya'll too lazy to do a search...

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,312766.0.html

The stuff people shoot is a proximity fuse.

The auto puffy ack randomness varies with speed range and g's.

HiTech

I'm not sure I can because the above is fairly self evident but Ill try.

The system starts with a fixed dimension cuboid, and randomly creates flack bursts inside.
Your plane is positioned at the center of this cuboid.

As you fly faster that cuboid gets bigger.
As you fly father away the cuboid gets bigger.
As you turn harder the cuboid gets bigger.

There idea that a p51 gets target more is simply insane.
Here is the code that chooses a flacks target.
Note the bbs removed the i index after after the word CollideList

   for(i=0;i<Cnt;++i)
   {
      if(CollideList->ObjectClass == obOC_BAD_GUY_OBJECT ||
         CollideList->ObjectClass == obOC_USER_OBJECT ||
         CollideList->ObjectClass == obOC_USER_DRONE ||
         CollideList->ObjectClass == obOC_WEAPON)
      {
         if(bgclntGetObjectModelType(CollideList) == 32)//Hack for sheep
            continue;

#ifndef syscfgAUTO_TESTING

         if(AutoGun->ParentObject->Country != CollideList->Country)
#endif
         {

            maSUB_POINTS(Vec,AutoPnt,CollideList->Pnt);
            if(fabs(Vec.y) < _MIN_FLAK_ALT)
            {
               continue;
            }

            DistSqr = maVEC_LENGTH_SQR(Vec);
            if(DistSqr < MinDistSqr)
            {
               MinDistSqr = DistSqr;
               NewTargetObject = CollideList;
            }
         }
      }
   }

HiTech

[Vinkman]

ya'll too lazy to do a search...

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,312766.0.html

we're not lazy, we knew that and our posts reflect that. 

[gyrene81]

we're not lazy, we knew that and our posts reflect that. 

yours don't...