Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: moot on March 27, 2008, 05:19:47 AM
-
worse than it was in the previous version. It will hit you even when you're in a fighter maneuvering at ~400mph from miles away.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,231354.msg2811357.html#msg2811357
How does that happen HT? Why model it to be completely different from real flak? Real flak obeys the laws of physics, specificaly the time required to travel the distance between two points. WWII flak batteries didn't have faster than light technology, so why give it to AH's?
The only way flak merits the lethality it has now is if it gets time of flight modeled.
-
How about keeping the lethality and burst radius flak has now, and making it so:
Time of flight "T" from gun to target is roughly calculated,
The box of flak happens wherever the plane was going to be (extrapolated), "T" amount of time later.
Would this be a cheap enough calculation? Flak would still shoot through mountains, but at least we'd be able to dodge it, which would possibly allow flak lethality and/or burst radius to be increased a little more.
If CV defense was one of the reasons for beefing up flak, then this would satisfy that need too.
-
And why is it modled diffrent for fighters and bombers? Its still the same gun right?
-
It's modeled the same. All planes have flak magicaly burst around them, hence the "box" nickname. It's modeled this way because it's too expensive for the calculation budget (or something like that).
The problem is like I said above, you can't dodge it because there's no time of flight at all. Flak detonates exactly on target regardless of how fast you're going and how far you are. This means that fighters will take the same amount of damage from far out and zigzaging at high speed, as bombers turtleing along in a straight path and at low speed.
The larger surface area of bombers (x3 with drones) means that, in fact, bombers are more likely to take damage (assuming the flak box is the same size for them as for fighters), but that's beside the point..
-
wow......it STILL shoots through mountians??!!
Is that a "feature" cuz the way I remember things, (most)bugs got squished pretty routinely.
-
Wow. It doesn't need adjustment, it's not close but could use some work, it's just plain WRONG!
I love the new ack. Let's keep it just the way it is...
-
wow......it STILL shoots through mountians??!!
Is that a "feature" cuz the way I remember things, (most)bugs got squished pretty routinely.
it takes to much processing power to make it any better, so we jsut have to deal with it.
oh, and if its that big a deal, hop in a p-38 and dont worry about the hits, they never do any damage :aok
-
Acid, I'm pretty sure it does.. I haven't checked, but IIRC Hitech recently said it was too expensive to calculate ballistics for it.
Wow. It doesn't need adjustment, it's not close but could use some work, it's just plain WRONG!
I love the new ack. Let's keep it just the way it is...
Huh??
-
Well 10k and just close enough to an enemy CV to see the wake will get you killed.
-
Acid, I'm pretty sure it does.. I haven't checked, but IIRC Hitech recently said it was too expensive to calculate ballistics for it.
Huh??
Moot, I just read this is a pretty binary thread, and it cracked me up. Ack is WRONG! It's like...like...six guys sharing a hotel room. The wrongness factor is incalculable!! :eek:
HiTech did, in fact, say calculating the trajectory of every round was too expensive, so the end of every gun barrel has a transporter attached. Seems reasonable to me.
I really do like it better now. You get close (as in five or six miles) to a CV group at your peril. It certainly has its quirks, but I prefer those to the defenseless CV groups of yore, and keeping a carrier barnacle side down is doable.
-
Well 10k and just close enough to an enemy CV to see the wake will get you killed.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
i fly over em all the time.... not to mention RIGHT past em on the deck...
usually get killed byt the guy in the f4u! :aok
-
I somehow remember HiTech also saying that box flak hits were the result of probability calculations rather than projectile/target calculations...and that he also said other methods were problems because each one he tried ended up with either a deadly laser accurate result or a uselessly dumb gunner. I remember that hit percent results decreased with aircraft speed, distance, and G load.
As I recall, the readme stated that the only changes to the model this time were that the hit probability went up slightly and the damage per hit went down. Doesn't seem like that change would have catastrophic "it's wrong" results....
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
i fly over em all the time.... not to mention RIGHT past em on the deck...
usually get killed byt the guy in the f4u! :aok
Are you sure it was the F4U? :confused:
-
Are you sure it was the F4U? :confused:
might have been the zeke or the seaf, but i'm not sure they could catch a 38 going 400+, whereas the f4u can dive well enuff to do that and still manuever, so i assume it was one of those. :rofl
-
I really do like it better now. You get close (as in five or six miles) to a CV group at your peril. It certainly has its quirks, but I prefer those to the defenseless CV groups of yore, and keeping a carrier barnacle side down is doable.
No. I don't want to sound rude but it's the fourth time I say it.. You can fly around in trajectories that would have real flak crews roll their eyes and look for an easier target, and still flak hits you like you were flying straight and steady. This is wrong.
Did you read my suggestion? It could have a scaling factor to the simulated prediction "error" in aiming, so that it never gets too far from the target. = No "dumb gunner". I think for that to really work, there'd have to be more puffs of flak, with a denser distribution in the middle of the cloud of puffs.
"Doesn't seem like that change would have catastrophic "it's wrong" results...." It is catastrophic when you catch fire despite jinking around at 400MPH+ from miles out. How does a flak battery manage that? It couldn't.
It's catastrophic because it absolutely ignores anything you do.. You just bend over and take it anytime you happen to be near it, regardless of whether you try to dodge it or not, regardless of if you're having a good fight.
The suggestion I wrote up there would solve this and still allow for proper CV defense.
-
It was my understanding from what HT posted was that it was too expensive to calculate the trajectory to look for object collisions.
Sit in a 5" gun in a CV group and you can see the time delay of your rounds. Compare that to the autoack that's firing as well and it looks pretty good to me (At least from a timing perspective).
I agree the autoack firing through mountains is pretty buggy but, for now I guess were stuck with it.
-
Well, I gotta admit.....If HT has openly discussed the situation and presented reasons why it is the way it is. I have to assume that HT himself isn't exactly happy with the way it's currently modeled and would improve it if he had a better solution. I can only hope that someday one will present itself.
-
Like I said firing thru mountains isn't a problem. I'm not saying there ought to be collision detection for those or other objects. It's the new lethality and burst radius, combined with instantaneous travel to target, that means you will get hit no matter regardless of how difficult a target you ought to be for the flak guns.
"Sit in a 5" gun in a CV group and you can see the time delay of your rounds. Compare that to the autoack that's firing as well and it looks pretty good to me (At least from a timing perspective)."
There is no timing, besides the ROF pauses. The box flak just detonates exactly where you are, with no delay. A real flak battery would be shooting towards the target's estimated position B, X time later, where X is the time it takes for their shells to travel to B. If a plane changed heading, B would increasingly differ from the plane's actual position, the faster the plane went.
-
No. I don't want to sound rude but it's the fourth time I say it.. You can fly around in trajectories that would have real flak crews roll their eyes and look for an easier target, and still flak hits you like you were flying straight and steady. This is wrong.
It may be wrong, but so is dying and immediately re-upping and flying back out to the same CV from the same base. For that matter so is putting a fast carrier within sight of an enemy airfield.
I don't think you're being rude, I just disagree with you. You're trying to make it easier to dodge flack in an aircraft, I like the idea that aircraft can't dodge flack. Keeps the CV floating a few minutes longer. It also reduced the workload when you're flying around an enemy CV. :)
-
You like the idea that we've got something that would never have happened in WWII or even today? That we've got AI controlled guns that ignore the laws of physics? This is the same as field AAA being made to swivel rather than instantly change targets.
Like I said, and it's the last time I repeat it, the suggestion I made would in fact make things more realistic, by:
Allowing planes to dodge flak if they are far enough and flying fast enough, as they ought to be able to thanks to real world physics,
Still hitting bombers as hard, or hit them harder if need be, because they are predictable targets, as well as nearby fighters (dive bombers).
A fighter that flies around in unpredictable trajectories at over 400 mph while miles away from the flak guns shouldn't have the flak bursts follow him around instantly as though he was flying predictably at a distance short enough for delay in aiming corrections to be negligible.
I don't like the idea that you can't dodge flak because it has no purpose other than to disrupt what you're playing the game for: air combat, not turkey shoot for some AI.
-
You like the idea that we've got something that would never have happened in WWII or even today?
Yup! It's called "Aces High", and is a lovely game for all ages, assuming you can squelch the country channel now and then.
That we've got AI controlled guns that ignore the laws of physics? This is the same as field AAA being made to swivel rather than instantly change targets.
Not entirely unlike the players, who never seem to STAY DEAD! :D
<snip>
I don't like the idea that you can't dodge flak because it has no purpose other than to disrupt what you're playing the game for: air combat, not turkey shoot for some AI.
Moot, I think I see where you're coming from (Thou shalt not be permitted to hide in thine own ack), but here's a nice little bit of still life:
(http://www.ahevents.com/flack.jpg)
There is some reality for you; really I think that would disrupt air combat in the area (despite being time lapse). Engage in air combat all you like, but I'd advise staying away from areas with enemy ack, cuz it's mean.
So, one last time, I LIKE the ack the way it is, and I stay out of enemy ack unless I'm feeling really froggy, and that means sometimes red icons get away.
AI Ack: 2,618, Puck: 0
-
puck, the point m00t is trying to make is that it seem syou are more likely to get hit TnBing in a fighter than you are in a bomber... this is absolutely the oposite of what should happen.
However, with the new update i have infact last 2 or 3 bombers already to AI ack, so its working a bit better. The Ack model has been spoke about alot since AHII began, it just seems to act a bit wierd these days.
For a start surely AI ack should aim at buffs first, jabo's 2nd, and pure fighters last? The box that the ack fires in should be aimed at where the plane will be in lets say 5 seconds. Not exactly around the target where it is now (constantly updated).
-
I'm all for 1/2ing the probability if we can have double the guns. a REAL flak barrage.
-
I'm all for 1/2ing the probability if we can have double the guns. a REAL flak barrage.
yes, for sure. Large groups of buffs should draw alot more attention. (but then the FPS hit?)
-
yes, for sure. Large groups of buffs should draw alot more attention. (but then the FPS hit?)
the only FPS hit i eve sustain is when there are liek 20+ ppl within d400 of me, or when a mossie gets with in d800 of me.... for some reason the mossie lags me :furious
-
the only FPS hit i eve sustain is when there are liek 20+ ppl within d400 of me, or when a mossie gets with in d800 of me.... for some reason the mossie lags me :furious
That's your plane pooping it's pants with fear. :D
I can understand where moot is coming from. It is very frustrating being shot down by something totally out of your control (other than remaining below 3 to 4k). I've not played for a couple of weeks so i don't know how the puffy ack has been recoded. What annoyed me the most was it's targeting me in the middle of furball several miles away whilst completely ignoring the 3 buffs headed directly for it.
-
Ive been in the middle of a twisting turning fight with a spit over my own base, only to be blotted out of the sky by puffy ack far off the coast that was firing at me continually despite multiple friendlies (cons to me) in the area.
-
That's why I've started calling it Anti-Fight Artillery. It's used offensively as much as defensively, and always indescriminately.
-
Anyone who denies that puffy ack needs a fix belongs in 1984. :uhoh
-
I wish there was a way to kill the CV ack, like at a factory.(without sinking all the ships)
-
Anyone who denies that puffy ack needs a fix belongs in 1984. :uhoh
In 1984 I was (by definition) 12 miles off the coat of Petropovlovsk watching Soviet submarines sortie.
Been there, done that, got pictures, worn the T-shirt, like the ack.
-
The other problem is that CV ack only targets ONE aircraft. You could have 20 badguys circling the boat, and all those guns will only be focused on one of them. The same is a problem with ALL auto guns.
-
The other problem is that CV ack only targets ONE aircraft. You could have 20 badguys circling the boat, and all those guns will only be focused on one of them. The same is a problem with ALL auto guns.
not with field ack, the field ack shoots at the person thats closer nomatter how many people.
-
The ack is fine, if anything it should be more lethal. It is much more likely to be a factor than having 4 perked ac attack a low eny base as happened yesterday. If it is so bad, try to slow down and fly straight and you should not be hit at all, according to your observations that is. My opinion only.
-
Hmm stay out of the flak!-------> solved. :rock
-
Puck you seem to have misunderstood - I mean the explosive puffy ack, the short range small caliber ack is no problem.
"Players that indefinitely re-up" - Beside the point.
"(Thou shalt not be permitted to hide in thine own ack)" - Not what I'm talking about.
"but I'd advise staying away from areas with enemy ack, cuz it's mean." - That's the point, you can't stay out of it except by diving below 3kft, flying away from it (and hope you somehow don't get hit, no matter how much you dodge - "There is some reality for you"; bombers did it IRL), or with some luck have some other poor bastage pick up the flak's attention.
Once you're in its reach, it'll hit you across mountains, regardless of whether you are moving faster than its aim could possibly keep up with if it obeyed the laws of physics. Not modeling actual ballistics for cpu budget is fine, but it should at least have a compromise like I suggested.
Once again if it was anything like I suggested, planes flying a predictable trajectory would get hit at least as well as they do now, while planes that don't would stay out of the effective volume of the "box".
-
Puffy ack is fine or at least better now than it used to be... I had a Jug over a base the other day and got hit and set on fire. Oh great I thought, more puffy killing my fighters when it won't hit my bombers...
Then I took a flight of 17's over another factory and got pinged :O AUX fuel leak... Not a big deal but WOW I got hit. Then I was hit again! :O :O and on top of the leak I was on fire so I had to bail...
I can't tell you how long it's been sence I've had my bombers hit let alone taken out by puffy. All in all I do see some improvement.
-
Moot i puffy nailed me last night going 450 in a dora 5k away from the cv, and course changes were made, utterly uber ridiculous lazer ack.
-
Ive been posting about the ack damage model for years. HTC finally put it into a mode that mimicks real life "better". I like it now. Not great, but alot better than it used to be.
-
Completely wrong:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,231354.msg2814778.html#msg2814778
During FSO, by friendly flak no less.
-
is story time over you been putting me to sleep since the first post :rock
-
Do I give a crap what you think? Let's see.. a player that exploits flaws in the game and will talk smack but never back it up.. Hmm...
-
so testy makes me hmmmmmmmmmmmmm never mind
-
How about you stay out of the thread unless you've got some contribution to make to the flak model...Capice?
If you want to start a weenie swingin contest we can do that in the DA, and you can arrange that by PM.
-
I was flying a chog on the deck and I pulled up to fight a seaf, as soon as I hit 3.5K puffy ack killed me...
-
I had always assumed for a long time that the puffy ack model would eventually get a revisit because it was so unsadisfactory IMO. As previously stated, it should calcuate and lead a target based on its course and speed, wait an appropriate delay based on range, and then go off. Given the depth of other models it the game it's counter-intutive that it's a stupid box that follows you around regardless of what you do. Only took my first week in the game to realize that the latter was in fact the case.
-
Thanks Murdr, I was starting to think I was the only one who saw it that way..