An end to the Puffy ack

[icepac]

In a fighter, I get killed by puffy ack about 75% of the time I fly over a cv at 30,000 feet going 400mph.

I can't even see the ships that killed me.

Then I watch some chump take out our CV in lancasters at 6,000 feet and land undamaged.

[Karnak]

In a fighter, I get killed by puffy ack about 75% of the time I fly over a cv at 30,000 feet going 400mph.

I can't even see the ships that killed me.

Then I watch some chump take out our CV in lancasters at 6,000 feet and land undamaged.

Say the Lanc has 100 hit points in each area except engines which each have 25 hit points.  Lets say your fighter has 25 hit points in each location.  Lets say a flak hit does 35 points on average.  To do damage that actually affects the Lancaster the flak has to hit the Lancaster three times in the same location (unlikely) , hit an engine (which the Lancaster can spare) or hit the pilot.  On the other hand any flak hit does real damage to your fighter.

It isn't that bombers don't get hit, its that it doesn't usually matter to them when they do get hit.

[icepac]

I have ears.....I can hear the hits..........or lack of hits.

I can fly a me110 over city strats at 30k and it will be killed 100% of the time if I fly straight and level.

I can loiter over city strats with an A20 forever at 10k.

The BF110 has a wing area of 414 Sq. feet while the A20 has a wing area of 465 Sq. feet yet the 110 suffers holes all over the wings from ack hits while I sometimes never get hit by an A20 flying the exact same mission profile.

What is aces high using as it's "sizing of the plane" to determine the ack box size?

Is it overall plane area?   

Is it plane weight?

[hlbly]

I have to agree somewhat with op . My odds of getting hit in a maneuvering fighter seem higher to me . Than odds of being hit in straight level buffs at longer ranges . I am going to do a film study ad see if perception matches reality .

[Karnak]

I have ears.....I can hear the hits..........or lack of hits.

I can fly a me110 over city strats at 30k and it will be killed 100% of the time if I fly straight and level.

I get hit every time I fly a bomber over the city.  My Mosquito B.Mk XVI took at least two hits from the flak last night.

[gyrene81]

I have ears.....I can hear the hits..........or lack of hits.

I can fly a me110 over city strats at 30k and it will be killed 100% of the time if I fly straight and level.

I can loiter over city strats with an A20 forever at 10k.

The BF110 has a wing area of 414 Sq. feet while the A20 has a wing area of 465 Sq. feet yet the 110 suffers holes all over the wings from ack hits while I sometimes never get hit by an A20 flying the exact same mission profile.

What is aces high using as it's "sizing of the plane" to determine the ack box size?

Is it overall plane area?    

Is it plane weight?

the answer has been give repeatedly over the years in the forums...i'll make it big and bold so it's not missed.

100% not true. Bomber vs fighter or size of plane has nothing to do with the size of the box.
The factors that make the box bigger or smaller are.
Gs
Distance
Speed.
HiTech

[icepac]

I took 11 hits while chasing a 262 over his strats at over 500mph and 25k feet.

[whiteman]

Three times yesterday out of four trips near`a cv.   Killed by automated ack.  No message kills.   All in a JUg flying high.

should have stayed away from water after the 2nd death.

[Ack-Ack]

I wish for more realistic ack...    

No, what you're realing wishing for is to have ack nerfed, not to have it more realistic.  Fleet AAA in real life was far more lethal than what is represented in game.

ack-ack

[tuton25]

Puffy ack is not a problem for me.....
Its when I fly over a town in a mossie I ALWAYS die and go straight to the tower
Didn't happen till resently

[Butcher]

Jed, for past few years I've stated this more then once - REALISTIC ack would only make the ack 10x stronger in game. 

Someone questioned me and I showed them the stats for a carrier battle group - for example CLAA's, battleships, Cruiser, Destroyers.

Put it this way - what we have in game is nothing near realistic, its for balancing (Game wise) - if it was realism - you'd have HUNDREDS of flak bursts around you, not 8-10 machine guns shooting at you, but Dozens and dozens.

Here's a photo just to give you an idea:

[kvuo75]

for me at least, and I think other people .. the problem is getting killed by AI, instead of an actual player.

I've never in my life complained about getting hit by a gun dweeb. (i am one)

it is immensely annoying to be just cruising along and get popped. and bail, and nobody even gets the kill. 

i'm all for less AI, I always thought make all the 5" guns mannable, but maybve slaving some of the AI 5" to the manned 5" might work as someone mentioned..

[Jed]

Those puffy ack pics are all close,  around carrier.  Not at 20K. 

 I wonder why the Germans didn't take this CV ack and move it to protect their factories? If it was so effective in real life. 

Up close I can see all that ack being devasting, but not at 20K in a fighter. 

[pervert]

Jed, for past few years I've stated this more then once - REALISTIC ack would only make the ack 10x stronger in game. 

Someone questioned me and I showed them the stats for a carrier battle group - for example CLAA's, battleships, Cruiser, Destroyers.

Put it this way - what we have in game is nothing near realistic, its for balancing (Game wise) - if it was realism - you'd have HUNDREDS of flak bursts around you, not 8-10 machine guns shooting at you, but Dozens and dozens.

Here's a photo just to give you an idea:
(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

Thats mighty pretty and all that, but how many times have you been hit by 88mm player controled flak? Make all the puffy player controled I bet they hit squat compared to the random number generator box model.

[tunnelrat]

Thats mighty pretty and all that, but how many times have you been hit by 88mm player controled flak? Make all the puffy player controled I bet they hit squat compared to the random number generator box model.

This.  x10.  Plus tax.  There is something wrong with the number of instant fighter kills from puffy.

What the fuze does is simple. It detects the proximity, or nearness of a target and then detonates the main charge -- in most cases a shell. Before the proximity shell gunners had to guesstimate settings for a time fuze, a piece of clockwork or chemical train, so that shells would go off near their target. Since the five inch shell of the period had a lethal range of 70 yards, a region which a high speed shell would traverse in hundredths of a second, the guesstimate had to be correct to within this value. Not surprisingly the guesstimes were mostly wrong; and the Germans, who were the most methodical and precise of people, estimated it took over 3,300 88 mm shells to sucessfully shoot down a bomber flying straight and level over a city in Germany.

The USN did rather better. Using analog computers, which can be compared to an adjustable mechanical model which simulates a physical system, they could, by adjusting the settings so that the target aircraft's observed position coincided with the position predicted by the mechanical simulation, fire at wildly maneuvering targets like Kamikazes with much better precision than the Germans. But the fact that it took "only" a third of the number of 88s (it took 1,000 5"/38s to down a single suicider) was cold comfort. There wasn't time to fire that many shells at plunging aircraft. But the introduction of the proximity fuze meant a shell didn't have to hit directly, just pass near enough to damage an enemy plane, and that increased the lethality of gunnery once again, this time by a factor of five. It took 200 proximity fuzed 5"/38s to down a single Kamikaze.

But please, continue on with the Herp Derp on how many 88 gunners dropped shells into single engine fighter cockpits...

TONS of fighters were lost to anti-aircraft fire, the question is how many of them were lost to 20mm/37mm/40mm vs the really big stuff that goes boom.