What are we going

[FLS]

Man just go up from a base where the CV is parked right off shore and film it yourself. Your reguest for a film is ridiculous. You're just grasping at straws and you know it.

When somebody tells Hitech that the code he wrote for puffy ack doesn't work the way Hitech thinks it works then film is exactly what is required.

[uptown]

When somebody tells Hitech that the code he wrote for puffy ack doesn't work the way Hitech thinks it works then film is exactly what is required.

FLS, no one is saying that. What we're saying is his thinking is unrealistic. Why don't one of you show us a  film of puffy ack above Tokyo or Iwo Jima where American planes are flying around in it unscathed while the Jap planes are held down on the deck by it. Until that is done we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the subject of CV ack.   

[grizz441]

FLS, no one is saying that.

I am saying that.  

Hitech, respectfully, your puffy code does not work as intended.

[uptown]

I am saying that.  

Hitech, respectfully, your puffy code does not work as intended.

I'm not ready to suggest I know what the man intended when he and his staff developed this feature in the game. But you go right ahead. This should be good.

P.S. You might want to stay away from CVs for awhile...just saying  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8gHii2CHes

[FLS]

It looks like we're all on the same page now. 

[grizz441]

I'm not ready to suggest I know what the man intended when he and his staff developed this feature in the game. But you go right ahead. This should be good. (Image removed from quote.)

P.S. You might want to stay away from CVs for awhile...just saying  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8gHii2CHes

He said just two pages ago that his puffy code targets the CLOSEST aircraft to the the CV and above 3k and I should have learned that in Reasons 101.  Since that is not true and it targets anyone above 3k simultaneously, then there seems to be a misunderstanding, or it is not working like he intends for it to.

[uptown]

oooo snap. That one I missed. 

[FLS]

oooo snap. That one I missed. 

You should read what Hitech was actually responding to.

If you go above 3k then you are fired at.  This is on your front end.  So it reasons that if 100 planes are above 3k they will all be being fired at on their front ends by a carrier that does not have 100 guns.

Hmm you may have to go back and study reasons 101.

Because you seem to miss the piece where it targets the CLOSEST plane above 3k.

HiTech

[grizz441]

You should read what Hitech was actually responding to.

My post which is 100% accurate as to how the current set up works.  If you don't believe me go test it and see for yourself.

[uptown]

I'm not buying it FLS. The boat ack still singles out just the enemy aircraft while the planes from the boat are unaffected by it. This is a HUGE advantage, especially when you're stuck below 3k above your own base. I have no idea what HiTechs' intentions were when he came up with the puffy ack model, but it's effect is indeed incorrect IMHO. I just don't know what else has to be said to make you understand that point.

I'm not here to insult HiTech's intellengence in any way. I just don't understand his reasoning. From my way of thinking it would be both easier to model/coad and more realistic to give to power of puffy ack to the players and allow it to hit any aircraft it comes into contact with. That's the only point I'm trying to make here.  

[hitech]

I took a look. And it does target the closest enemy, but there is/was a bug where it would only target the closest enemy with in 3 mile radius. If no one else is in a 3 - 4 mile radius it would target you.

HiTech

[FLS]

I'm not buying it FLS. The boat ack still singles out just the enemy aircraft while the planes from the boat are unaffected by it. This is a HUGE advantage, especially when you're stuck below 3k above your own base. I have no idea what HiTechs' intentions were when he came up with the puffy ack model, but it's effect is indeed incorrect IMHO. I just don't know what else has to be said to make you understand that point.

I'm not here to insult HiTech's intellengence in any way. I just don't understand his reasoning. From my way of thinking it would be both easier to model/coad and more realistic to give to power of puffy ack to the players and allow it to hit any aircraft it comes into contact with. That's the only point I'm trying to make here.  

Friendly aircraft being damaged is a different issue from puffy targeting 100 aircraft all at the same time instead of targeting the closest aircraft. Mixing issues doesn't move the conversation forward. Hitech said the puffy damages any aircraft that is too close to it. Friendly or enemy. If you want player controlled puffy that is able to damage friendlies then you need to think about the potential for abuse. 

[Ardy123]

I took a look. And it does target the closest enemy, but there is/was a bug where it would only target the closest enemy with in 3 mile radius. If no one else is in a 3 - 4 mile radius it would target you.

HiTech

Are you opposed to improving it so that objects (such as mountains) that obscure the puffy ack shells (and aim), are accounted for?

[hitech]

Are you opposed to improving it so that objects (such as mountains) that obscure the puffy ack shells (and aim), are accounted for?

Yes I am opposed.

HiTech

[CAP1]

Are you opposed to improving it so that objects (such as mountains) that obscure the puffy ack shells (and aim), are accounted for?

 they would obscure the aim.....but the shells would be "lobbed".