Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Odee on December 22, 2008, 01:06:37 PM
-
Please, reduce the AAA target signature on these planes. It buggers me no end when Otto Ack clobbers my 38 or Mossie like they were a lumbering B25 or Lancaster.
In the 38's case, it isn't that much larger than a P-51 to warrant guaranteed damage for flying near AAA at high speed. Heavier, yes... Larger, no.
I'm not sure how HTC handles the target boxes on the planes these days, but in the 38, it doesn't matter if your side profile to the ack, or presenting your belly, you still get hit.
-
Throw the 262 in as well if you happen to blunder to close to a CV the first round that pops near you is nearly always a hit of some sort. Even when you drop away the puffy seems to be right on you no matter how fast you get the jet humming.
-
You stole my smiley Odee, how dare you! :furious
<S>
-
Agreed. I dove in on a town trying to get rid of my bombs because enemy fighters were upping. Was still at 6000 feet doing 400ish and one ack hit me giving me a PW. I never got below 5000 feet...sorta pissed me off. Never had that happen in any other plane.
-
I used to shrug this off, but I'm glad it has been brought up.
Somewhere, there must be some formula HTC used to devise the "signature" of each plane. One can only surmise it was developed by some sort of "volume" measurement. They proably dipped the entire plane into one big bathtub and whatever was the amount of water that was displaced was converted ino a score and assigned to the aircraft.
Take that score, throw in a speed factor, a pitch factor, and distance from the gun factor... and *poof* there is a formula.
I bet the differences are large enough for our Mossi, Destroyer, and Lighting pilots to think far more thoroughly about diving through the ack on an attack run than if they were in a ever so slightly smaller aircraft (please reference single engine fighters). I'd also be willing to bet that the amount of hits scored vs one of the 3 said aircraft are disproportionately higher than they should be or actually were in the real deal (WWII). If we take a Mossi, dive it through ack under as close to exactly circumstances vs a Fw190F-8, any bets on which aircaft takes more hits? Any bets on how much faster the Mossi has to travel though the ack to receive the same number of hits as the Fw190F-8?
I know I dont take the Mossi anywhere near ack unless I'm 400mph+ and able to stay low and extend using the terrain as cover (another gaming the game tactic, really).
Whatever the formula is, I too think it needs to be adjusted a wee bit in favor of the larger planes. I dont think anyone believes those larger built planes deserve the same scoring, but it does seem as if those larger planes are getting ack raped a bit worse on average than in relation to their small jump in size over the smaller single engine fighters.
-
I think HTC does it by who they hate most, I get pinged all the time, why I don't go near the ack at all :lol
I'm on to you Skuzzy
:noid
-
Please, reduce the AAA target signature on these planes. It buggers me no end when Otto Ack clobbers my 38 or Mossie like they were a lumbering B25 or Lancaster.
In the 38's case, it isn't that much larger than a P-51 to warrant guaranteed damage for flying near AAA at high speed. Heavier, yes... Larger, no.
I'm not sure how HTC handles the target boxes on the planes these days, but in the 38, it doesn't matter if your side profile to the ack, or presenting your belly, you still get hit.
Totally agree. I thought I noticed this as well :aok
-
I completly agree...
The p-38's PW's seem to be off too...
I had a screenshot (till my comp crashed and I had to run the oEm disc...) of a shot BY the cockpit, but I still have a PW, no bullet hole in the cockpit or anything. The p38's seem to PW and Ack 'friendly'... ;)
-
I used to shrug this off, but I'm glad it has been brought up.
Somewhere, there must be some formula HTC used to devise the "signature" of each plane. One can only surmise it was developed by some sort of "volume" measurement. They proably dipped the entire plane into one big bathtub and whatever was the amount of water that was displaced was converted ino a score and assigned to the aircraft.
Take that score, throw in a speed factor, a pitch factor, and distance from the gun factor... and *poof* there is a formula.
I bet the differences are large enough for our Mossi, Destroyer, and Lighting pilots to think far more thoroughly about diving through the ack on an attack run than if they were in a ever so slightly smaller aircraft (please reference single engine fighters). I'd also be willing to bet that the amount of hits scored vs one of the 3 said aircraft are disproportionately higher than they should be or actually were in the real deal (WWII). If we take a Mossi, dive it through ack under as close to exactly circumstances vs a Fw190F-8, any bets on which aircaft takes more hits? Any bets on how much faster the Mossi has to travel though the ack to receive the same number of hits as the Fw190F-8?
I know I dont take the Mossi anywhere near ack unless I'm 400mph+ and able to stay low and extend using the terrain as cover (another gaming the game tactic, really).
Whatever the formula is, I too think it needs to be adjusted a wee bit in favor of the larger planes. I dont think anyone believes those larger built planes deserve the same scoring, but it does seem as if those larger planes are getting ack raped a bit worse on average than in relation to their small jump in size over the smaller single engine fighters.
Huh? Why would hit detection be made any differently from a2a gunfire? The client just computes those the same way it computes hits on a2a shots. You guys need to come up with something more objective than anecdotes. That's scant evidence.
-
In the 38's case, it isn't that much larger than a P-51 to warrant guaranteed damage for flying near AAA at high speed. Heavier, yes... Larger, no.
It is larger except when viewed from the side. The side aspect is very small and makes for a much tougher target...
I have a picture at home comparing the sizes but at work I can't post it. Here is a site with roughly the same argument.
http://home.att.net/~ww2aircraft/Profiles.html
As for how hit bubbles are measured, I don't know and I don't think anyone does unless they work for HTC so the argument really can't be made. I agree with Moot on this one...
That said, the propensity for P38s to suffer pilot wounds is higher than it should be imho.
-
Wowsers! I never expected to see this many responses. Thanks guys! :rock
You stole my smiley Odee, how dare you! :furious
<S>
This is because I admire you so, m'man. :salute
Huh? Why would hit detection be made any differently from a2a gunfire? The client just computes those the same way it computes hits on a2a shots. You guys need to come up with something more objective than anecdotes. That's scant evidence.
We're talking Flak, AAA, ACK... not air to air... Which is another beech complaint entirely.
Take some time and look at the silhouette of the 38, Mossie and 110 some time and compare those to the 51, Spit, Jug, 190 etc. which can get by the AAA pretty dang well without a critical hit on them in the first high speed pass.
-
Can anyone point to a factual statistics page on the percent of time that aircraft were shot down over a base from ACK? It might vary per arena (MA etc.).
It just seems too aggressive to me. Then again, HT DID bump the number of ACK at bases significantly about a year or so ago. This may have increased getting killed by base ACK way past the actual real war average.
WT
-
Can anyone point to a factual statistics page on the percent of time that aircraft were shot down over a base from ACK? It might vary per arena (MA etc.).
It just seems too aggressive to me. Then again, HT DID bump the number of ACK at bases significantly about a year or so ago. This may have increased getting killed by base ACK way past the actual real war average.
WT
:o Just spent a couple hours looking up USAAF Archives DB's on this, and came up with several "individual" combat reports, but no large DB of how many and what types aircraft were downed by AAA in WW2. However, there was one report that made all those combat films of AAA shots stand out. He expended his entire ordnance, including reloads, from a bofors 40mm and only downed one plane. :O What's important here is that this was usually the case, instead of the exception.
Granted certain weapon platforms like the Wirblewind will be more accurate, or at least put out a LOT more rounds per minute than say the bofors, but the general consensus off WW2 AAA that we have modeled in game, was pretty inaccurate for the time period.
Am going to see if a research analyst buddy of mine can come up with better info.
-
Ground attack was the most dangerous mission in WWII. AA fire was murderous. It wasn't that one gun was murderous, but that 50 just put up so much fire that something was going to get hit.
In one of my Mosquito books an attack is described. After making the surprise pass the author's pilot started to roll in order to turn and make another attack, but his element leader ordered him to level out and follow out of the area due to the likelyhood of being shot down making another attack. These guys were in 418 squadron, a very high scoring unit.
-
I recall that story... Excellent reading!
Now, as you say and I'm sure history will prove it out... Ground attack against a well defended target such as a factory, capitol, or airbase was indeed murderous. And for those very same reasons you mentioned; the sheer number of guns shooting.
By that same assessment then, would you agree that every plane in the game should be hit with equal chance as nailing a buff at 6.5k.
-
I did a rough count of my Mosquito stuff - I've been able to identify 146 losses to enemy aircraft in all theatres, and 159 to flak. However, there's 400-odd still just listed as "Missing". Given the state of research into Luftwaffe air-to-air claims, I'd be willing to bet the most of the missing Mossies were accounted for by flak.
The coastal strike aircraft in particular seem to have had a hard time - not surprising really.
-
The thing that it feels like in AH is that the larger volume of empty space in these aircraft doesn't seem to be accounted for. Whereas in a Spitfire the pilot pretty much filled the cockpit in a Mosquito's cockpit there was a significant amount of "non-pilot" for the round to travel through.
-
Bah, belay my last, I'd set up the columns incorrectly in some cases.
Should be:
Mosquitos definitely lost to aircraft: 159
Mosquitos definitely lost to flak: 235 (includes from ships, uboats, etc)
Not yet clarified: 371
This is a work in progress - I know for a fact I've not yet adressed some of the Banff wing losses in 1945, mostly flak.
-
I recall that story... Excellent reading!
Now, as you say and I'm sure history will prove it out... Ground attack against a well defended target such as a factory, capitol, or airbase was indeed murderous. And for those very same reasons you mentioned; the sheer number of guns shooting.
By that same assessment then, would you agree that every plane in the game should be hit with equal chance as nailing a buff at 6.5k.
Any data that ack fire in AH is wrong, anecdotic evidence aside?
-
If anything, from all the accounts I've read attacking an airfield in AH is far safer than attacking one in Germany in 44/45. They had more guns, some radar controlled, and heavier ones as well.
-
If anything, from all the accounts I've read attacking an airfield in AH is far safer than attacking one in Germany in 44/45. They had more guns, some radar controlled, and heavier ones as well.
Probably true, as they went down, they didn't hit the SW button and get a new plane...
BUT we're not arguing and comparing with RL, what we're saying is that the p-38 seem to have an ack-magnet on them in the game, whereas planes only slightly smaller (i.e. p51) can rage through a CV group, drop bombs and rockets, and maybe need a new paint job...
Our arguments in game, not IRL.
-
Where is your supporting evidence?
-
Where is your supporting evidence?
The experiance and cries of the many fine sticks here... Should be enough.
-
The experiance and cries of the many fine sticks here... Should be enough.
NO it shouldn't. Too many biases.
-
NO it shouldn't. Too many biases.
How would you suggest it be tested? Players don't have any way to run controlled tests on this. All we can do is say that something seems to be a bit off to us and let HTC decide if there is anything wrong. They do have the tools to test it.
-
It's not a matter of how hard they hit fighters.
It's a problem with the inconsistencies in how Hitech has described the system "should" work vs how it "really" works (compare bombers vs fighters, he describes it SHOULD theoretically hit them many times over, but in fact they are all but untouched, whilst faster manuvering fighters get the majority of lethal hits)
THAT, to me, is the key issue. Bombers skate through at 10k unharmed after multiple passes, whereas a fighter pulling 6 Gs twisting and turning while diving from 27k to 20k and takes multiple hits, eventually being killed.
-
How would you suggest it be tested? Players don't have any way to run controlled tests on this. All we can do is say that something seems to be a bit off to us and let HTC decide if there is anything wrong. They do have the tools to test it.
Off line, standard ma settings, multiple passes with all AC and at diff alts. Then check the number of hits on each.
You up for it?
-
I have not been killed by auto-puffy ack in a bomber since around 2000 or 2001. Not counting manned 5".
On the other hand I've had a 262 at over 25k doing 500mph get popped on the second hit over a barracks strat or some such thing in the MA. Just one of many many countless personal observations.
It just doesn't work the way HT says it does. He needs to recode it from scratch as to how it determines what is hit and when.
-
Off line, standard ma settings, multiple passes with all AC and at diff alts. Then check the number of hits on each.
You up for it?
Given that you'd have to do 1000+ passes in exactly the same path, exactly same speed for each aircraft to get meaningful data, no.
Besides, my concern isn't with the number of hits, but rather the effect of the hits.
-
That said, the propensity for P38s to suffer pilot wounds is higher than it should be imho.
I agree again :aok
-
I have not been killed by auto-puffy ack in a bomber since around 2000 or 2001. Not counting manned 5".
On the other hand I've had a 262 at over 25k doing 500mph get popped on the second hit over a barracks strat or some such thing in the MA. Just one of many many countless personal observations.
It just doesn't work the way HT says it does. He needs to recode it from scratch as to how it determines what is hit and when.
hyperbole....
What is your buff to fighter ratio? What is more likely to take crippling damage from puffy?
-
Besides, my concern isn't with the number of hits, but rather the effect of the hits.
See my above reply to krusty. Whats a offers a bit more protection? Small fighter or large multi engined buff?
-
The large buff, which the Mosquito is compared to a Spitfire, yet it seems to take "critical" hits to the cockpit far, far more often.
That is my point as well. Thank you for supporting me.
-
The large buff, which the Mosquito is compared to a Spitfire, yet it seems to take "critical" hits to the cockpit far, far more often.
That is my point as well. Thank you for supporting me.
Underlined for the hyperbole impaired.
-
Underlined for the hyperbole impaired.
Your point? That none of us have done a careful study to determine rates of pilot wounds?
You're being silly. Many of us used these things enough to notice that twins have a much higher pilot wound rate.
-
IMO the pilot hits and aircraft size:AAA hits ratio are two separate things. I sort of agree that the pilot hits seem to happen more often than not, but I dont agree at all that there's anything special happening with 38s and mossies catching flack, compared to other planes. I can dodge ack with 38s and 47s and mossies just as well as any other fighters. There's maybe just a bit of extra flack caught, but it doesnt seem disproportionate to the difference in target area that these larger planes do have over the rest.
So the simplest explanation could be that pilot wounds in mossies & co are from part of the damage code where ack splash damage propagates more easily to the mossie pilot. Effectively; I don't know any more than Trigger2 or Krusty what the code is like and whether it needs to be rewritten from scratch or just has a single digit typo somewhere in it.
And it's not exceedingly difficult to test ack magnetism, if there is one. Fly a same trajectory thru ack with all planes concerned and a couple of controls.. Repeat for enough sample size. If the effect is down in the error range's noise, it's probably nothing worth complaining about.. And you'd also have to account for plane shape, on top of plane size. Because ack dispersion probably isnt homogeneous around the target's anticipated position (where the gun aims, the lead) - so a plane with a large area (e.g. the 38 when it's facing the ack - something anyone with common sense doesnt do when dodging ack) but less of it in the middle (the 38 has that gap between cockpit and elevators and nacelles), you could have a relatively minor gain in hits despite the much larger area (compared to e.g. a yak).
And you guys arguing that the ack code is somehow wrong... Where is your evidence (on top of hard evidence for 38s & co being odd) that the ack hit detection is anything different from the code that handles air to air hit detection? My guess would be that, keeping code simple, AAA auto is the same thing as what's in players' hands, except aimed by AI.
-
And you guys arguing that the ack code is somehow wrong... Where is your evidence (on top of hard evidence for 38s & co being odd) that the ack hit detection is anything different from the code that handles air to air hit detection? My guess would be that, keeping code simple, AAA auto is the same thing as what's in players' hands, except aimed by AI.
I'll try and get the video up when I get home, flyin, if I remember right, p47's at alt, one burst of flak, and eagle flight lead goes down, and Eagle2 needs a new paint job...
-
You're being silly. Many of us used these things enough to notice that twins have a much higher pilot wound rate.
I agree 100%, why I don't go near puffy or field ack if at all possible. I even stray away from buffs sometime
-
Let's make sure there's no misunderstanding between puffy and regular ack.
-
First, in reference to what some people are calling a "hit bubble", HiTech has said on several occasions that the hit bubble is the shape of the aircraft, period.
Second, with regard to multi-engine fighters being more prone to pilot wounds, I think several of you are not taking into account the configuration of the aircraft.
Consider a P-38 diving on a base vs. a P-51. The P-51 pilot has a large engine block in front of him. Hits by small-caliber rounds impacting the front or underside of the front of the aircraft hit this engine block, possibly doing no appreciable damage to it, and certainly do not reach the pilot. In the P-38, no engine block to shield the pilot. Small caliber rounds are therefore more likely to pierce the thin skin of the aircraft and impact the pilot's compartment.
Now consider those same planes after the dive and on pull-out. Fire coming from behind the P-51 pilot has the rudder, elevators, vertical and horizontal stabilizers, and a good portion of fuselage that is in the way, and can all be hit / damaged before reaching the pilot. The P-38 pilot's compartment by comparison is very exposed.
A legit question IMO is whether the pilot's compartment is the target "object" that needs to be hit for there to be a pilot wound, or is the pilot himself modeled into the aircraft as a separate hit object. My belief is that the pilot is modeled, but I do not recall having heard a definitive answer on that subject. If it is not, then any aircraft with a relatively large-volume pilot compartment (read - Mossie) would be at a disadvantage.
Finally, I am a bit perplexed at the claims that the P-38 isn't that much bigger than a P-51.
LOCKHEED P-38J LIGHTNING:
_____________________ _________________ _______________________
spec metric english
_____________________ _________________ _______________________
wingspan 15.85 meters 52 feet
wing area 30.42 sq_meters 327.5 sq_feet
length 11.53 meters 37 feet 10 inches
height 2.99 meters 9 feet 10 inches
NORTH AMERICAN P-51D (MUSTANG IV):
_____________________ _________________ _______________________
spec metric english
_____________________ _________________ _______________________
wingspan 11.28 meters 37 feet
wing area 233.2sq ft
length 9.83 meters 32 feet 3 inches
height 4.16 meters 13 feet 8 inches
The P-38 is about 40% larger wing span and wing area -- that alone says it should be hit much more often than a Pony given any standard dispersion of ack fire.
-
I don't feel the Mossie takes more flak hits than it should, and it definitely takes them better than the Spitfire, other than the pilot wound thing.
-
I guess I must have a SAPP Special P-38 because I rarely get pilot wounds from puffy acks, usually damage is to my wings or flight surfaces. So, I really can't agree that P-38s suffer an usually high rate of pilot wounds from puffy acks.
ack-ack