What are we going

[moot]

It doesn't "fire" into that box.  In the sense that there is no time of flight as in real ballistics.  The explosions are simply spawned within that box.

[TheDudeDVant]

It doesn't "fire" into that box.  In the sense that there is no time of flight as in real ballistics.  The explosions are simply spawned within that box.

I think that is what kingpin is saying in so many words.. Is his reason as to how the puffy does not 'lead' its target.. Its just like the puffy ack in Air Warrior..


Sure seems though a 'lead time' based on distance to target would be a nice addition.. But hey, whats good enough for a long dead 15yr old game is good enough for us!

[Kingpin]

The only problem I see with the puffy ack is a fighter is faster and more likely to be maneuvering a lot more than a buff. This should make hitting the fighter much more difficult, unless the fighter is flying strait and level or diving strait at the CV group.

Yes, this was precisely my point.  If the ack system compared how much you changed course between calculations of the ack box and then reduced or increased the box accordingly, this would be a far more realistic "aiming" method.

I think that is what kingpin is saying in so many words.. Is his reason as to how the puffy does not 'lead' its target.. Its just like the puffy ack in Air Warrior..

Sure seems though a 'lead time' based on distance to target would be a nice addition...

Actually, distance is a factor in the equation currently that determines the size of the ack box. 

I'm asking to get a maneuvering componant added in.  I suggested a function that would increase/decrease the ack box size over time if the target is/isn't maneuvering.

[TheDudeDVant]

Actually, distance is a factor in the equation currently that determines the size of the ack box. 

ahh did not know that.. i've been wrong then.. ah puffy > aw puffy...   

[Vinkman]

So the puffy ack only shoots at one person per furball near carrier?  I have such a hard time believing that I would only be able to convince myself of it.

I tried it last night. Dipped below 3k no puffy. Popped up above 3k I got puffy. Plane got closer to the carrier than me and he was above 3k he got puffy I got nothing. He dipped to the deck I got puffy again.

No one in the 5" manned guns. 

[hitech]

Yes, this was precisely my point.  If the ack system compared how much you changed course between calculations of the ack box and then reduced or increased the box accordingly, this would be a far more realistic "aiming" method.

Actually, distance is a factor in the equation currently that determines the size of the ack box. 

I'm asking to get a maneuvering componant added in.  I suggested a function that would increase/decrease the ack box size over time if the target is/isn't maneuvering.

Direction changing is also already a factor.

HiTech

[Kingpin]

Direction changing is also already a factor.

HiTech

Thanks for the reply, HT.  I am unclear on this though, based on how it was explained earlier in the thread.  It was explained as being dependent on G-load.  

Is some other measure of "direction change" being used?  

If G-load is the only measure of direction change, I felt it could be flawed, as an aircraft could have changed direction and then have unloaded G by the time the system calculates the box again.  

As explained, it seemed speed was more important than course change, and flying straight and level came at no risk WRT ack.  Do jinking AC actually have a bigger box than those flying straight and level?

Perhaps as a "wish list" item:  include a dynamic component that reduces the size of the ack box over time if you continue to fly roughly the same course and speed.  In other words the flack could be more accurate the longer you fly the same predictable course.  And conversely, jinking AC would have a relatively lower probability of being hit.

<S>

[FLS]

Because you've explained how the system works and made it clear that ack DOESN'T lead the target.  (It should, but it doesn't.)  You've said it fires into a box CENTERED on the target.  Clearly that's not leading a target.  You've explained that flying a predictable course doesn't make you easier to hit, because the system is making no effort to predict a course -- it doesn't aim.  It's more random than anything resembling aiming, which is exactly what you've said earlier in this thread. 

I thank you again for explaining how the ack system works.  Based on your information, I offered a suggestion of how the system could actually factor in course changes (maneuvering), and how that might make it more realistic.  You seem to want to argue that I am wrong in my suggestion somehow.  You appear to be going to great lengths to do so, including contradicting yourself.

My intention was simply to offer an idea: a relatively easily implemented change to the ack system that could make it more realistic with regard to maneuvering.  Others seem to agree that maneuvering vs. flying straight and level should make a difference.  Apparently you don't agree.  OK, then, we'll leave it at that.
 
<S>

Maneuvering already makes a difference compared to flying straight and level and I agree it's better that way. 

[Kingpin]

Maneuvering already makes a difference

Not if it is only checking G-load every 3 seconds. 

[FLS]

Not if it is only checking G-load every 3 seconds. 

That is not correct and I've already explained why.
 

[Tank-Ace]

Guys, don't forget that hundreds of guns would have been shooting at hundreds of bombers. IRL, AAA defenses didn't usually aim for individual aircraft, they aimed at the formation and started blasting away. If your course change brought you out of the fire of one gun, it would also bring you into the fire of another.

[Kingpin]

I expect that unloading G makes the box smaller but I don't know what the limits are.
Maneuvering does make the box bigger when maneuvering increases G.

Referring to your explanation above, being G-unloaded at the time the ack box calculates (at that 3 second interval) means the ack box is smaller.  A maneuver/direction-change you just completed 1 second ago provides no benefit (WRT ack) if you are unloaded at that moment.  You would have to either be pulling constant G's, or G's at the precise moment the ack box is calculated, for maneuvering to be effective against this ack system.

Please explain how this interpretation of your explanations is not correct.

[FLS]

What size is the box? We know that the box size and therefor the hit probability changes with speed, distance, G load, and Hitech also mentioned direction change. If you don't know the minimum size of the box then why do you think your idea would give a different outcome than the current system?  

You might also consider where the 3 second update comes from. I don't think Hitech just pulled it out of his hat.

You want maneuvering aircraft to be hit less often. That is what we have now.

[hitech]

Kingpin: I agree that a small change could be made to the way direction changing is handled. Basically I could increase the box size with a direction change, and then shrink it back over time if you do not again changed direction. I have been considering implementing this along with a change to the ranging distance. The max range would stay the same, but it would be changed to a domed cylinder instead of a hemisphere.

But also understand that I believe the lethality (I.E. how often the ack hits you) is fairly reasonable at the moment. So if I would implement a change that would by itself decrease its effective lethality, I may also raise  the chances  (shrink the box from where it is now) of being hit if you are not changing directions.

Also the 3 secs has nothing to do with where the ack aims, but simply how often it looks for a different target.

HiTech

[FLS]

But also understand that I believe the lethality (I.E. how often the ack hits you) is fairly reasonable at the moment. So if I would implement a change that would by itself decrease its effective lethality, I may also raise  the chances  (shrink the box from where it is now) of being hit if you are not changing directions.

HiTech

That sounds like it would increase hits on the bombers.    Should be fun balancing the hit probability on the maneuvering fighters with the current reasonable lethality.