<snicker> reduce speed to decrease the chances of getting hitAnd put it on auto. Try and evade and you're a dead man. And forget trying to hide behind that mountain.
Same. That and B-17s :D I shoot the shells before they hit me :P
We had much more puffy ack for many years. It has already been reduced. :old:
Reduce it more. It's needless.
Reduce it more. It's needless.
Somebody posted a link recently to an 8th AF document about flak in WW2. Most of the 8th AF fighter losses were to flak. Most were machine gun and light cannon i.e. 37 and 20 mm but it also mentioned first shot fighter kills at 20000 - 28000 ft from German 75mm guns and stated that the American 3" flak was even more accurate than the German.--I agree :aok
In other words our puffy ack is an accurate representation of flak in WW2.
Somebody posted a link recently to an 8th AF document about flak in WW2. Most of the 8th AF fighter losses were to flak. Most were machine gun and light cannon i.e. 37 and 20 mm but it also mentioned first shot fighter kills at 20000 - 28000 ft from German 75mm guns and stated that the American 3" flak was even more accurate than the German.
In other words our puffy ack is an accurate representation of flak in WW2.
as for the cv ack. just bring a buff and sink the cv, only the fighters seem to be affected by it.
The only thing that needs to be changed for the puffy ack is fixing its ability to track and fire targets on other side of mountains.that, and figure out why small, nimble, FAST fighters at 15k are more likely to get hit than large, SLOW, bombers at 5k
ack-ack
that, and figure out why small, nimble, FAST fighters at 15k are more likely to get hit than large, SLOW, bombers at 5kthat information was posted by hitech or skuzzy right here in the general discussion forum on another puffy ack whine last year...there was mention that the faster you go the higher the probability that you will get hit.
that information was posted by hitech or skuzzy right here in the general discussion forum on another puffy ack whine last year...there was mention that the faster you go the higher the probability that you will get hit.
Its been explained many times how the acks work but it's always falls mostly on deaf ears. What people want is not to make the puffy or even field acks more realistic, it's basically to neuter them for one reason or another.
ack-ack
ni! not for one reason or another.. for the reason i pay to play and shoot YOU and your like down.. Not be shotdown by ai b/c I spent 2.6secs above 3k instead of 2.4secs above 3k.
I am for having all the player manned puffy you can fit on the ship..
uumm...you don't REALLY hafta fly into it ya know. :old:
Puffy ack is very much needed.
uumm...you don't REALLY hafta fly into it ya know. :old:really? Hmmmmm...hadn't considerEd that..... It's the illogical part of it which vexes me. Small, nimble things should be far less likely to be hit than large, plodding things. That, and I NEVER fly over the things, even at 15k, unless I have a mind to bomb it. I've been blown out of the sky by CV puffy that was so far away I couldn't even see any of the ships. But, if that sort of thing is a coading nightmare, so be it.
it adds to the immersion when in bombers, over target, in the bombsight, hearing it go off only a couple hundred yards away....or when i take an occasional hit.Too bad it doesn't do a damn thing to bombers.
really? Hmmmmm...hadn't considerEd that..... It's the illogical part of it which vexes me. Small, nimble things should be far less likely to be hit than large, plodding things. That, and I NEVER fly over the things, even at 15k, unless I have a mind to bomb it. I've been blown out of the sky by CV puffy that was so far away I couldn't even see any of the ships. But, if that sort of thing is a coading nightmare, so be it.
I don't mind the ack, that's part of it. But what I do think is crap, is the planes from the boat can fly through it with immunity. That's not the way it works in real life. Ack, puffy or otherwise can not tell who is friendly and who is not. The way it is now, the enemy can grab all the alt and time they need while the defending side can't get above 3k without risking getting blown out of the sky. I'm all for manned ack but the AI stuff... I ain't so hip on.
This is actually the problem, its ineffective against serious targets and strangely effective against non-threats. Furthermore, it is usually abused and used as a offensive weapon, to prevent the defenders of a base to have a shot at defending. This is done by bringing the CV oddly close to a field such that the defenders of the field can't get above a certain alt to mount an effective defense.It's no fun when people fight back.
Just so I am sure I understand this, you are saying you wish your own attack to intentionally shoot at you?
Because it will already damage a friendly if it hits them.
HiTech
Too bad it doesn't do a damn thing to bombers.it doesn't? i'll hafta search one of my older versions, to see if i can find the film of one of my lancs going down to it.
really? Hmmmmm...hadn't considerEd that..... It's the illogical part of it which vexes me. Small, nimble things should be far less likely to be hit than large, plodding things. That, and I NEVER fly over the things, even at 15k, unless I have a mind to bomb it. I've been blown out of the sky by CV puffy that was so far away I couldn't even see any of the ships. But, if that sort of thing is a coading nightmare, so be it.
Flying faster decreases the chances of a hit. The ack hits a random spot in a box centered on your aircraft. More speed and more G load makes that box bigger. I expect a bigger target might be able to take more damage.I know what doomed the Bismark was the Swordfish was so frikkin slow that the auto-aimed guns couldn't track it. I suppose I would no longer be annoyed with it if the game modeled the puffys NOT changing course in mid-flight to follow your moves, it (seems) quite instantaneous. I prolly get killed by auto-puffy twice a month, not a big deal in the overall scheme of things, though it remains an annoyance
I know what doomed the Bismark was the Swordfish was so frikkin slow that the auto-aimed guns couldn't track it. I suppose I would no longer be annoyed with it if the game modeled the puffys NOT changing course in mid-flight to follow your moves, it (seems) quite instantaneous. I prolly get killed by auto-puffy twice a month, not a big deal in the overall scheme of things, though it remains an annoyance
In response to HiTech,
Well ummm yeah. If all the boat guns were player controlled instead of AI, it would lessen the chances of the planes off the CV to use it as an unfair advantage by staying in it. Yes I know it's possible to get killed by friendly ack now as it's set up, but that is very very rare. I can think of only twice it has happened to me in 5 or 6 yrs.
Ah HA! I've stated many a time that I had been hit by friendly ACK and everybody would tell me that I was just drinking too much. Thank you Dale for clearing my name and sordid reputation. :DThe AUTO CONTROLLED ack yes, but I have fired at friends at point blank range from the ship's guns and they take no damage. If I'm wrong and just can't hit a plane 20 feet away with quad 40s, I'd like to see film of someone doing it. I say do away with computer controlled guns and make it all player controlled. If some putz from your CV shoots ya down just to get his jollys...well that's where the report process begins. :salute
All the Best...
Jay
to have to do to get rid of or update our Air Warrior Puffy Ack (AwpA). I only call it AwpA b/c it is just like that ack of ages ago.. Random puffs and boom.. I guess it's HTC paying homage to the late great Air Warrior.. I can only guess Air Warrior holds a special place in Hitech's special place. I can think of no other reason why Aces High ack is just like AwpA.. :old:
The thing is, you're almost never going to find enough players to make full use of a CV's AAA guns. Which in turn, turns the CV into a floating runway and nothing else.
The CV already has an endless supply of PT boats that could also provide additional protection in close. The way it is now, the CV pulls damned near on the base and the puffy ack keeps the defenders below 3k for almost a whole sector while the invaders can grab alt or run to the boats guns for protection without any risk to themselves. It's like a airbase on steroids. All I'm saying is make it more realistic and player controlled.
You can prob guess I am not a big tank fan but kinda annoys me that they get so much attention in a game thats supposed to be about air combat and nothing has really been changed or improved with the puffy ack.
Same goes for cliche damage modelling I got 8 sorties ended from rad hits on 190d in a row, less tanks more sorting out the annoying parts of the game. While I'm at it PWs so when you get slower it induces a PW how does that work?? :bhead
I know what doomed the Bismark was the Swordfish was so frikkin slow that the auto-aimed guns couldn't track it. I suppose I would no longer be annoyed with it if the game modeled the puffys NOT changing course in mid-flight to follow your moves, it (seems) quite instantaneous. I prolly get killed by auto-puffy twice a month, not a big deal in the overall scheme of things, though it remains an annoyance
The only thing that needs to be changed for the puffy ack is fixing its ability to track and fire targets on other side of mountains.
ack-ack
Imagine if our ack was like this, the whines would be heard around the world.
(http://omgmod.org/wiki/images/8/81/Flak.jpg)
(http://www.hamsexy.com/flak.jpg)
(http://www.oldcmp.net/Images/neilsmith/25.9denh-1.jpg)
Those little white puffs are AAA bursts.
ack-ack
They're also pretty high. Regardless, no one wants to fly a game where you instantly get shot out of the sky by AI guns. Albeit more realistic, there's nothing fun about it.
What you guys want is to make it easier to attack and get close to the CV for whatever reasons without fear of any risk for doing so. Be thankful our puffy AAA isn't as lethal as it was in real life.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-i2pZu-vHOSU/Tgna1tlyulI/AAAAAAAAA7A/IrNvkALUZ0o/s1600/USS-Kitkun-Bay.png)
ack-ack
If your going to play that card, then CVs can't park themselves right up against the shore (without running aground) in RL either but yet AH they do that frequently. OR puffy ack shells flying through mountains, etc...
EDIT: I do appreciate the quest for realism, but if realism is the goal then strive for it.... Bombers flying straight and level at 10k shouldn't be able to get through to a CV as easy as they do, where as 1 fighter at 18k get hit almost every time.
Imagine if our ack was like this, the whines would be heard around the world.
(http://omgmod.org/wiki/images/8/81/Flak.jpg)
(http://www.hamsexy.com/flak.jpg)
(http://www.oldcmp.net/Images/neilsmith/25.9denh-1.jpg)
Those little white puffs are AAA bursts.
ack-ack
Parking a CV right on the shore line has nothing to do with the lethality or other complaints about the puffy AAA, apples and oranges actually.
What you guys want is to make it easier to attack and get close to the CV for whatever reasons without fear of any risk for doing so. Be thankful our puffy AAA isn't as lethal as it was in real life.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-i2pZu-vHOSU/Tgna1tlyulI/AAAAAAAAA7A/IrNvkALUZ0o/s1600/USS-Kitkun-Bay.png)
ack-ack
Parking a CV right on the shore line has nothing to do with the lethality or other complaints about the puffy AAA, apples and oranges actually.
Not saying it's your aim but the majority that want to dumb down the puffy acks want to do so to make it easier for them to attack or approach CVs or strat targets.
ack-ack
Sure it does, as mentioned before, you can't get above 3K without risk of being insta killed by some random AI.
My major complaint is the simplicity of model, 3k being this magical altitude that if below it does not fire and above it does fire with no transition in between.
Taking control of the puffy ack away from AI would fix that I would think. So how does one go about that without making a unmanned boat a easy target? Increase dar ring and have the system put out a country wide alert in the buffer when it's crossed. This would allow enough time for defenders to man their ack guns. And hopfully discourge late night strat milking without atleast someone else knowing about it.
Personally, puffy acks should fire at all altitudes it was capable of. The 5" guns that are modeled in game were capable of firing AA rounds at planes below 200ft. My only issue with the puffy AA is how it is able to track and fire with large obstacles (mountains) between you and puffy AAA.
ack-ack
It doesn't, but you try and use it to help shore up your argument about the lethality of the puffy acks because so far all the other arguments have failed.
Failed how?
Getting killed by random computer generator is fun to you? :huh
This is a game, people look to have fun, not a sim where everything is as realistic as possible.
If the defenders had any intentions of keeping the CV, they would jump in the manned 5" guns, which is probably even more deadly than the AI guns right now. But the fact that I'm being killed by a person and not some random computer makes it "fun" for the shooter, and for the guy trying to kill the CV.
Parking the CV off shore limits the defender's ability to defend. Again, You can't go above 3K without risking getting blown up instantly.
I understand the "box" gets larger with G-load and speed but I was wondering if plane size also dictates box size?
If the fighter starts out with a smaller box, that would explain why a fighter twisting and turning at 400mph at 37,000 feet stands little chance of surviving puffy ack.
ya know? not to side track the thread....but i will anyway.....I'd be terrified. Those young men displayed bravery on a scale I can't even begin to fathom.
can you even imagine having to sit in those aluminum cigar tubes, knowing that those 88mm's are going off all around ya, and there's no possibility of defending yourself against it?
that said, those are great pics.
I'd be terrified. Those young men displayed bravery on a scale I can't even begin to fathom.
What you guys want is to make it easier to attack and get close to the CV for whatever reasons without fear of any risk for doing so. Be thankful our puffy AAA isn't as lethal as it was in real life.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-i2pZu-vHOSU/Tgna1tlyulI/AAAAAAAAA7A/IrNvkALUZ0o/s1600/USS-Kitkun-Bay.png)
ack-ack
Taking control of the puffy ack away from AI would fix that I would think. So how does one go about that without making a unmanned boat a easy target?
It doesn't, but you try and use it to help shore up your argument about the lethality of the puffy acks because so far all the other arguments have failed.
ack-ack
Imagine if our ack was like this, the whines would be heard around the world.
have diminishing amounts of accuracy based on distance/altitude/speed.
Parking a CV right on the shore line has nothing to do with the lethality or other complaints about the puffy AAA, apples and oranges actually.
Be thankful our puffy AAA isn't as lethal as it was in real life.
The accuracy of the box is the problem ...
If your rebuttal to nurfing puffy ack was that it was more accurate in RL, then the context of its use in RL is relevant. Although puffy ack can appear over cities, the most common interaction players have with it are over CVs. That being said, I believe most of the 'nurf it' calls are a reaction to its unrealistic behavior, such as...
1) hitting fighters at 15k which are constantly changing direction and speed but not hitting bombers at 10k which are flying level, at a constant speed and straight.
2) puffy ack tracking planes through mountains and clouds
3) being used as an offensive weapon
4) (this list can go on but you get the point)
As such, some see the solution as relegating it to only being player controlled. Personally I don't think that's the best idea but I do agree that the puff ack logic needs to be revisited and improved.
EDIT: I am not calling for puffy ack to be nurfed, but rather improved as well as the logic around what its mounted on. A simple fix would be to force CVs to be a fixed distance from the shore and have puffy ack's accuracy be effected by the range, alt and speed of the target. Another, would be to make a vector from the puffy gun to the target and only 'track' the target if that vector did not intersect any other objects (such as mountains etc).
in rl, puffy ack wasn't necessarily "accurate" as we tend to use the word within the game. it didn't have to be though. the 88's that the germans used, and i'm sure whatever we used was pretty much the same, were kind of like reverse depth charges.
all they really needed to do, was be close on altitude, and the shrapnel did the rest. they also used fire control systems to aid in aiming them.
An American military observer who had many opportunities to witness this gun in Germany in 1940, speaks of this weapon as follows:
"The 88 MM is basically a gun for firing on moving targets. The crew is also specially trained for firing on highly rapid moving targets, primarily on airplanes. The whole control apparatus is designed for fast moving targets with a very rapid rate of fire: 25 rounds per minute. The gun is capable of great volume fire and extreme accuracy against moving targets of any type. It is equally efficient on targets on the ground as well as in the air. For attacks on armored vehicles, it is provided with a special armor-piercing shell."
bearing this in mind, the allies also used fire control systems, and once again....they needed only be close, as close did count in this instance.
if i recall also, the 8th air force lost more aircraft to flak, than to anything else.......so yea...it was somewhat deadly, and as stated earlier, i could not for the life of me imagine how those young men on all side could sit in those aluminum death traps, with virtually no defense against this. sheer terror would possibly begin to describe it i thinkl.
I understand how RL flack guns worked but.... so you do you want HTC to make the puffy ack to simulate an alt fuse on every puffy ack shell?
I understand how RL flack guns worked but.... so you do you want HTC to make the puffy ack to simulate an alt fuse on every puffy ack shell?
Over strat targets, yes they should be as they're supposed to be 88mm flak guns. However, over the CV, since they are modeled on the US 5", they used proximity fuses.
ack-ack
it already does.
when you fly a bomber into an area of flak, you get constant bursts going off around your flight. if you had a flight of 100 bombers, then it would be constantly going off all around all of them. just as it did in real life.
so you are not interested in improving or changing it at all.
in rl, puffy ack wasn't necessarily "accurate" as we tend to use the word within the game. it didn't have to be though. the 88's that the germans used, and i'm sure whatever we used was pretty much the same, were kind of like reverse depth charges.
all they really needed to do, was be close on altitude, and the shrapnel did the rest. they also used fire control systems to aid in aiming them.
An American military observer who had many opportunities to witness this gun in Germany in 1940, speaks of this weapon as follows:
"The 88 MM is basically a gun for firing on moving targets. The crew is also specially trained for firing on highly rapid moving targets, primarily on airplanes. The whole control apparatus is designed for fast moving targets with a very rapid rate of fire: 25 rounds per minute. The gun is capable of great volume fire and extreme accuracy against moving targets of any type. It is equally efficient on targets on the ground as well as in the air. For attacks on armored vehicles, it is provided with a special armor-piercing shell."
bearing this in mind, the allies also used fire control systems, and once again....they needed only be close, as close did count in this instance.
if i recall also, the 8th air force lost more aircraft to flak, than to anything else.......so yea...it was somewhat deadly, and as stated earlier, i could not for the life of me imagine how those young men on all side could sit in those aluminum death traps, with virtually no defense against this. sheer terror would possibly begin to describe it i thinkl.
We fear change.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PWR3w2VkSZs/TCuEa9mXUDI/AAAAAAAACKg/mRHEt4tcJf8/s1600/ifearchange.jpg)
anacdotal. What does "extreme acuaracy" and "effective" mean?
I guess it means picking off the bad guy in a dog fight at over 3 miles, because that's what we have in game.
Puffy should be accurate against planes with vectors headed towards the carrier as a defense againsts bombers and attack plane. It should be very in-accurate against planes not flying towards the carrier so that it doesn't interfere with dog fights outside of a mile or two from the carrier. The accuracy should grow the longer the plane is on a vector towards the carrier, and the closer it gets.
It's so annoying to fight near a carrier the way it's currently modelled (in combination with the Aircraft Super Snipers in the 5") that I avoid flying near carriers altogther.
anacdotal. What does "extreme acuaracy" and "effective" mean?
I guess it means picking off the bad guy in a dog fight at over 3 miles, because that's what we have in game.
Puffy should be accurate against planes with vectors headed towards the carrier as a defense againsts bombers and attack plane. It should be very in-accurate against planes not flying towards the carrier so that it doesn't interfere with dog fights outside of a mile or two from the carrier. The accuracy should grow the longer the plane is on a vector towards the carrier, and the closer it gets.
It's so annoying to fight near a carrier the way it's currently modelled (in combination with the Aircraft Super Snipers in the 5") that I avoid flying near carriers altogther.
Let me repeat this a few more times. :old: Puffy ack in AH is not accurate. Puffy ack is arguably inaccurate because Puffy ack is random. When you get killed by ack it isn't an accurate shot, it's a random hit. There is no accuracy adjustment that can be made. It can not be made more accurate. It can not be made less accurate. When the box size increases from increasing speed or G load the probability of being hit decreases. Accuracy is irrelevant to the discussion. The variable is probability bbased on box size. If you want a bigger box you can ask for that but there may be a good reason why Hitech set it up as it is now.
In WW2 ack picked off fighters 5 miles above the guns.
As FLS has tried to point out, our 5" CV guns aren't even as accurate in game as they were in real life. The fire control system for the 5" was so accurate that a gunnery control officer could snipe individual soldiers if within sight.
Let me repeat this a few more times. :old: Puffy ack in AH is not accurate. Puffy ack is arguably inaccurate because Puffy ack is random. When you get killed by ack it isn't an accurate shot, it's a random hit. There is no accuracy adjustment that can be made. It can not be made more accurate. It can not be made less accurate. When the box size increases from increasing speed or G load the probability of being hit decreases. Accuracy is irrelevant to the discussion. The variable is probability bbased on box size. If you want a bigger box you can ask for that but there may be a good reason why Hitech set it up as it is now.
In WW2 ack picked off fighters 5 miles above the guns.
Let me repeat this a few more times. :old: Puffy ack in AH is not accurate. Puffy ack is arguably inaccurate because Puffy ack is random. When you get killed by ack it isn't an accurate shot, it's a random hit. There is no accuracy adjustment that can be made. It can not be made more accurate. It can not be made less accurate. When the box size increases from increasing speed or G load the probability of being hit decreases. Accuracy is irrelevant to the discussion. The variable is probability bbased on box size. If you want a bigger box you can ask for that but there may be a good reason why Hitech set it up as it is now.
In WW2 ack picked off fighters 5 miles above the guns.
:rofl
From his perch in the gun director, Lt. Hagen spied a Japanese officer on the beach, waving a saber, rallying his troops to the fight, and thought, Why not? He put the officer in the sights of his slewing device. The fire-control computer clicked and whirred and zipped coordinates to Johnston's five main gun turrets. When Hagen closed the firing key, they all barked as one. The technology lived up to its brutal promise. The five-shell salvo obliterated the man.
"Mr. Hagen, that was very good shooting," called Capt. Evans from the bridge. "But in the future, try not to waste so much ammunition on one individual."
Are you sure the box size varies based on aircraft velocity? What about distance to aircraft? If I am directly above a carrier ~ 5000 feet away, is this the same accuracy as traveling perpendicular to the carrier 10,000 ft away? Does the accuracy take into account relative change of coordinates? If I am flying directly at the carrier in range, the carrier gunner just sees my plane getting bigger and not moving relative to his position, should be an easier shot. If I am diving at a 45 degree angle perpendicular to his line of sight, I am changing directions in two different axes relative to his position. Is the probability of being hit the same? If I go to 3.1k I have a x% probability of being hit yet if I drop .101k I have a 0% probability of being hit. How can you account for the drop in probability over a infinitesimally small change in altitude? How does a carrier shoot me when there is a solid body between me and the carrier such as a mountain or a dip in terrain? If there are 30 planes in range of a carrier, the carrier is somehow shooting at all 30 planes at once if they are above the magic altitude, even though the carrier does not have that many guns to be able to specifically target each and every plane.
How is ANY of this realistic?
The above took place when the destroyer escort, USS Johnston, was taking part in the bombardment of Kwajalein in support of the invasion landings. The Mark 1A fire control computer and the Mark 37 radar that controlled the US Navy 5" guns was far more accurate than is represented in game.
ack-ack
Acuracy of hitting a stationary target is evidence of acuracy in hitting a 300 mph, maneuvering airplane? I don't think it's the same thing Ack. :salute
It shows a degree of accuracy that the 5" gun system was capable of, something that is not reflected in game. Even with manual aiming we have in game that models the fire control system, we do not have that degree of accuracy.
ack-ack
The above took place when the destroyer escort, USS Johnston, was taking part in the bombardment of Kwajalein in support of the invasion landings. The Mark 1A fire control computer and the Mark 37 radar that controlled the US Navy 5" guns was far more accurate than is represented in game.
Are you sure the box size varies based on aircraft velocity? What about distance to aircraft? If I am directly above a carrier ~ 5000 feet away, is this the same accuracy as traveling perpendicular to the carrier 10,000 ft away? Does the accuracy take into account relative change of coordinates? If I am flying directly at the carrier in range, the carrier gunner just sees my plane getting bigger and not moving relative to his position, should be an easier shot. If I am diving at a 45 degree angle perpendicular to his line of sight, I am changing directions in two different axes relative to his position. Is the probability of being hit the same? If I go to 3.1k I have a x% probability of being hit yet if I drop .101k I have a 0% probability of being hit. How can you account for the drop in probability over a infinitesimally small change in altitude? How does a carrier shoot me when there is a solid body between me and the carrier such as a mountain or a dip in terrain? If there are 30 planes in range of a carrier, the carrier is somehow shooting at all 30 planes at once if they are above the magic altitude, even though the carrier does not have that many guns to be able to specifically target each and every plane.
How is ANY of this realistic?
The stuff people shoot is a proximity fuse.
The auto puffy ack randomness varies with speed range and g's.
HiTech
I'm not sure I can because the above is fairly self evident but Ill try.
The system starts with a fixed dimension cuboid, and randomly creates flack bursts inside.
Your plane is positioned at the center of this cuboid.
As you fly faster that cuboid gets bigger.
As you fly father away the cuboid gets bigger.
As you turn harder the cuboid gets bigger.
There idea that a p51 gets target more is simply insane.
Here is the code that chooses a flacks target.
Note the bbs removed the i index after after the word CollideList
for(i=0;i<Cnt;++i)
{
if(CollideList->ObjectClass == obOC_BAD_GUY_OBJECT ||
CollideList->ObjectClass == obOC_USER_OBJECT ||
CollideList->ObjectClass == obOC_USER_DRONE ||
CollideList->ObjectClass == obOC_WEAPON)
{
if(bgclntGetObjectModelType(CollideList) == 32)//Hack for sheep
continue;
#ifndef syscfgAUTO_TESTING
if(AutoGun->ParentObject->Country != CollideList->Country)
#endif
{
maSUB_POINTS(Vec,AutoPnt,CollideList->Pnt);
if(fabs(Vec.y) < _MIN_FLAK_ALT)
{
continue;
}
DistSqr = maVEC_LENGTH_SQR(Vec);
if(DistSqr < MinDistSqr)
{
MinDistSqr = DistSqr;
NewTargetObject = CollideList;
}
}
}
}
HiTech
ya'll too lazy to do a search...
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,312766.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,312766.0.html)
we're not lazy, we knew that and our posts reflect that. :saluteyours don't... :neener: :lol
yours don't... :neener: :lol
The Mark 1A fire control computer and the Mark 37 radar that controlled the US Navy 5" guns was far more accurate than is represented in game.
Grizz you have 3 different issues there. I'm just commenting on the complaints that the ack is too accurate. I don't think ack should shoot through mountains. As for the altitude limit I don't know if that models a fuzing issue or if it's for some other reason.
for 1) theres one director on every ship, so our typical CV group could track and fire on 7 different targets.
for 1) theres one director on every ship, so our typical CV group should track and fire on 7 different targets.
What about the issues of:
1) Simultaneously targeting every enemy aircraft in a given area regardless of how many planes that is, completely neglecting how many guns the ships actually have.
and
2) How in an infinitesimally small change in altitude can the probability of being hit be infinitely larger?
1. Where do you see that all aircraft are targeted? I haven't experienced that.
2. Hyperbole aside, if you go from in range to out of range, whether it's altitude or distance, that seems to explain it adequately. You may disagree with the modeling decisions but they are consistent and apply to everybody equally.
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.
No transition? It's just in range or not in range? This is 2011! I think we can model better than that. Just because bad modeling is the same for everyone doesn't provide validation to the bad modeling.
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
The 3k alt limit is bad coding? You know that's the reason for it or are you begging the question again?
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
for 1) theres one director on every ship, so our typical CV group could track and fire on 7 different targets.
he is not arguing the lethality at all.. calm down ack-ack.. he is simply stating how the cv puffy ack can be used offensively instead of defensively by parking the boat 4 miles from a enemy base..
now akak, do you believe this to be the intended function of the 'AI puffy ack'? for an offensive function?
BLOL (That's Belly laugh out loud, btw.)
I have popped up above 3k out over land when there is a huge CV furball with other planes above 3k between me and the boat and the ack is still stuck to me like stink on Ink.
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
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
The way it is now, the CV pulls damned near on the base and the puffy ack keeps the defenders below 3k for almost a whole sector while the invaders can grab alt or run to the boats guns for protection without any risk to themselves. It's like a airbase on steroids. All I'm saying is make it more realistic and player controlled.
sir, you are wrong in as much as it will not always fire at the closest target above 3k.. Many many a time I have been fired at with others higher/lower but still above 3k between me and the boat.. Now it may not be 'targeting' me as you use the word, but I will make a hefty wager it will fire at me..
Leave the ack alone and make CVs unable to come within 5 miles of an enemy base.
I think this is where film would be helpful.
I bet enough of the player base will back up the claim... I just never realized it was a question so I never thought to make a film of it. I thought it was common knowledge that puffy does shoot at anyone and everyone above 3k if in range...
I bet enough of the player base will back up the claim... I just never realized it was a question so I never thought to make a film of it. I thought it was common knowledge that puffy does shoot at anyone and everyone above 3k if in range...
Given that it's a common occurrence it should be easy for somebody currently playing to post a film. If you're flying near another player's box of ack it might look like you're being shot at but it should be easy enough to see what's going on with film. To me it always looked like only a few players were targeted at any one time but I never thought to count how many were actually being tracked.
Post a film, why? Anyone who flies or has flown in the MA for the past couple years knows the puffy ack acts exactly like kappa, fester, sunbat, uptown, titanic, and I describe it to. That's just the way it is, it targets anyone that pops 3k, with the ability to shoot at everyone at the same time above 3k within range. That's just common knowledge. If you don't believe me go film yourself flying over 3k in range of the carrier with an ally above 3k closer to the carrier than you and with you not being shot at. Putting the burden of proof on us is as laughable as asking us to post evidence that the sun rises every morning. My guess is that you don't fly in the main arena often or you just aren't a very observant person/pilot.
I guess you have a choice. You can post proof of your allegations or you could just attack me in lieu of any sort of convincing argument. :D
I guess you have a choice. You can post proof of your allegations or you could just attack me in lieu of any sort of convincing argument. :D
They're correct, I noticed the very thing many times in the past.
You film it, I already gave enough information to get the issue fixed.
Similar evidence was given for the world being flat. This is becoming a catalog of fallacious reasoning.
I already gave enough information to refute you.
Put your money where your mouth is, comp my account for a year if I'm right, I'll comp yours for a year if you're right. Deal?
Post a film to Hitech so he can see what the problem is. If he's wrong he'll fix it. Deal?
Put your money where your mouth is, comp my account for a year if I'm right, I'll comp yours for a year if you're right. Deal?
Post a film to Hitech so he can see what the problem is. If he's wrong he'll fix it. Deal?
I already told him what the problem is and he tried to zing me instead of taking a look. I take it you aren't taking my bet. :lol
You told him what you think is a problem and he told you why you were wrong. We're done.
I guess you have a choice. You can post proof of your allegations or you could just attack me in lieu of any sort of convincing argument. :D
Post a film, why? Anyone who flies or has flown in the MA for the past couple years knows the puffy ack acts exactly like kappa, fester, sunbat, uptown, titanic, and I describe it to. That's just the way it is, it targets anyone that pops 3k, with the ability to shoot at everyone at the same time above 3k within range. That's just common knowledge. If you don't believe me go film yourself flying over 3k in range of the carrier with an ally above 3k closer to the carrier than you and with you not being shot at. Putting the burden of proof on us is as laughable as asking us to post evidence that the sun rises every morning. My guess is that you don't fly in the main arena often or you just aren't a very observant person/pilot.
On some maps you can park the CV close to the shore so acks can cover the base. However, this has nothing to do with the OP's original argument that ack needs to be toned down.
ack-ack
IMO, give the puffy ack a boost so its actually a deterent (such as increase the density and accuracy, but only let it update the true possition, vector, and speed of the target every 10 seconds), and drop most of the manned guns (from what AKAK has told me in-game, they were slaved to the Radar to improve accuracy, but I'm not sure on this).
If they (the 5" Dual Purpose guns on the ships) WERE slaved to the radar, remove the manned puffy ack entirely, if they weren't (or were only radar DIRECTED) then something needs to be done about them. Perhaps model the inside of the gun sponson, let them look around through the vision slits (you can use your radar to find the bearing of targets, and move the gun accordingly) when they are "unzoomed" and give them the crappy optics that the tankers have to use when they 'zoom in'.
I think this is where film would be helpful.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.
Post a film, why? Anyone who flies or has flown in the MA for the past couple years knows the puffy ack acts exactly like kappa, fester, sunbat, uptown, titanic, and I describe it to. That's just the way it is, it targets anyone that pops 3k, with the ability to shoot at everyone at the same time above 3k within range. That's just common knowledge. If you don't believe me go film yourself flying over 3k in range of the carrier with an ally above 3k closer to the carrier than you and with you not being shot at. Putting the burden of proof on us is as laughable as asking us to post evidence that the sun rises every morning. My guess is that you don't fly in the main arena often or you just aren't a very observant person/pilot.This :aok
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.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. :salute
FLS, no one is saying that.
I am saying that.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. (http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk121/TheAmish/smiley-eatdrink014.gif)
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. (http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk121/TheAmish/smiley-eatdrink014.gif)
P.S. You might want to stay away from CVs for awhile...just saying :bolt:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8gHii2CHes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8gHii2CHes)
oooo snap. That one I missed. :uhoh
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
You should read what Hitech was actually responding to.
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. :salute
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?
Are you opposed to improving it so that objects (such as mountains) that obscure the puffy ack shells (and aim), are accounted for?
How can it always be?
the puffy targets me
no matter how I fly
the ack will make me die
The coding is a mess
but Hitech won't confess
the line put in the code
that makes Grizz soon explode
Grizz finally figured out
and knows without a doubt
no matter how he flies
the ack will make him die
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
Yes I am opposed.
HiTech
I never said they were "radar guided", I told you that the Mark 37 Gun Control Fire System (of which the Mark 1A was a part of) was both capable of optical and radar range finding.
ack-ack
Yes, do this.
I'm sure nobody will mind a two hour LVT run to the beach.
LVTs don't spawn at the task group.
And since you seem to have a fairly deep knowledge of the guns/fire control system used on our ships, would modeling the interior of the gun sponson, and requiring the gunner to either look through a vision slit, or the optical sight similar to the ones used on tanks (i.e., not the infinitly adjustable zoomed view we have from the fire control station we have now, and with the grey haze) be unrealistic.
More specificly, would it be unrealistic for the specific ships used, the specific fire control system, or just inaccurate regardless of the qualifiers?
Surely you've noticed that the closer the TG is to the beach, the closer the LVT's spawn as well.
Surely you've noticed that the closer the TG is to the beach, the closer the LVT's spawn as well.
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.
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.
The poor reasoning Hitech was referring to is that each of the 100 front ends sees the other 99 aircraft and only sees one of those aircraft as being closest to the CV and that one is targeted.
Because relative position information is less accurate the further away the aircraft is from the front end, it's possible that all 100 front ends don't see the same aircraft as being closer but they all see only one as being closest.
Anyone flying close to the targeted aircraft is likely to think they're being targeted too, especially if a miss of the targeted aircraft kills them.
The bug Hitech squashed was only in play when nobody else was within 16000 - 20000 ft of the CV so that's an unrelated issue but obviously that would cause some anomalous behavior which, if somebody had sent in film, could have been squashed earlier.
Are you really still trying to explain to us what we observe in game? Thats kinda funny since you tried so hard to keep our game down and bugged. Lay down the obstruction junction..
I don't mind if you think 100 people all get targeted by the puffy ack at the same time but other people read these posts and they should get accurate information.
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
I don't mind if you think 100 people all get targeted by the puffy ack at the same time but other people read these posts and they should get accurate information.
Yes I am opposed.:bhead (http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk121/TheAmish/Pulling_hair.gif)
HiTech
if someone is within 3miles of the carrier, are you not sure that someone is in a 5inch gun shooting at you, as opposed to puffy ack?
Hmmm. While this is certainly more believable to be the only issue than before, I'm still not convinced. Mainly because of the fact that with this explanation, it would reason that in large furballs close to CV's where everyone is withing 3 miles of the carrier, I would not be shot at by puffy ack when I break 3k but I am every damn time. I have never flown up above 3k and not been shot at in range, period. Had I been above 3k and not been shot at, I would have noticed there were times where my perception of the puffy ack rules were incorrect. If you said the range bug was within 500 ft of the carrier I could believe that a lot more because that plane would die so fast it would never really govern over me being shot at.
Long story short, with your explanation, it would reason that I would only be shot at sometimes while above 3k and not being the closest, but I am shot at every time I am above 3k.
Send a film.
HiTech
Geez, you guys that're making the claims about the ack not working like Hitech says have been in this thread for 5 days, and still no film?
If it happens every time, why is it so hard to head for the nearest CV being attacked, and film what you're talking about? It's such a simple request that I just can't see a good reason for not doing it.
One sortie of flying, all the vindication you could ask for.
Wiley.
It's not hard at all, if you have an active account. It's so common that I am surprised no one has posted film yet either. Maybe you can be the first. :)
I haven't been playing a lot this week (Arkham Asylum is fun) but if I find myself in the position to do it, I will. I was just surprised that out of the 3 or 4 guys saying they're seeing something different, they couldn't take the 20 minutes to group up and prove it but everybody could devote all kinds of time to posting about it. That's not the way to get things fixed or explained around here.
Wiley.
Unfortunately I don't have aces high installed on my work computer. I think only the HTC staff does. :D
So Wiley, weigh in, am I crazy? Or does the ack always shoot at you as soon as you pop 3k? Or am I both crazy and correct?
Wiley: the ack checks if it needs to re target every 3 secs.
Also see my post explaining 1 bug on targets farther then 3 miles out.
HiTech
I haven't paid really precise attention to the specifics of what puffy ack does around me. I have noticed times where I was above a CV group and there were other friendly planes nearby. My perception was that they were closer, and I still got a burst around me as well as seeing one around them.
Does it calculate the distance based on your actual distance from the task group, or from the center of the 'box'?
Say for example the CV is at the midpoint of the west edge of the box, and I am flying toward the CV from due east of it. If I have a friendly that's in the very southwest corner of the box heading north, who should it fire at?
Me, who is ~1 mile from the center of the box, while the friendly is ~1.41 miles southwest from the center of the box.
or
The friendly, who is ~1 mile south of the task group, while I am ~2 miles east of the task group.
If (as I suspect) it is from the center of the box, that offers a pretty plausible explanation for why I'm fairly sure I've noticed guys between me and the CV group are not getting shot at but I am.
Also, based on Hitech's description, is it safe to assume alt plays no factor, that it's purely lateral distance?
Wiley.
Does it calculate the distance based on your actual distance from the task group, or from the center of the 'box'?
Say for example the CV is at the midpoint of the west edge of the box, and I am flying toward the CV from due east of it. If I have a friendly that's in the very southwest corner of the box heading north, who should it fire at?
Me, who is ~1 mile from the center of the box, while the friendly is ~1.41 miles southwest from the center of the box.
or
The friendly, who is ~1 mile south of the task group, while I am ~2 miles east of the task group.
If (as I suspect) it is from the center of the box, that offers a pretty plausible explanation for why I'm fairly sure I've noticed guys between me and the CV group are not getting shot at but I am.
Also, based on Hitech's description, is it safe to assume alt plays no factor, that it's purely lateral distance?
Wiley.
It seems like you're assuming the ack is shooting directly at you. The puffy ack is hitting randomly around you in a box whose size changes according to range, speed, and G load. As far as being tracked by regular ack I agree and it seems to be modeled so jinking is effective. The problem with jinking and puffy ack is that you are as likely to jink into trouble as you are to jink out of trouble. All you have to do is fly close to a CV offline or in the TA and watch where the ack is exploding around you. The ack seems very accurate when it hits you but you'll see that it mostly misses, regardless of how you fly.
Played around a bit last night with it, thought I had an example on film on my first encounter with a CV group, but turned out the closer guy was below 3k. After the reset, I went and played around a CV group porpoising above and below 3k rapidly, it worked as Hitech described. Every 3 seconds if I was above 3k, pop pop pop.
Interestingly enough, during the porpoising, I wasn't taking damage even though I probably was targeted by 4 or 5 bursts. Also as I was heading toward the carrier groups, I was making it a point to fly straight and level until they shot first. No damage.
I film all my sorties, I'll be making it a point to seek out enemy carrier battles the next little while. I'm hoping to play a fair bit this weekend. I believe I can snare a squaddie or two to help me with it some. If I find anything I don't understand I'll post it.
Wiley.
If you mean that CV flak's supposed to target nearest enemy, that "bug" has been around a long time. And... I distinctly remember a couple times where I wouldn't see anyone else being targeted, but friendlies on range saying the same - that they were targeted but without any flak on me on their front end.
Not that it will make any difference at all but the puffy ack implementation in the game is horrible to live with. It takes the fun out of the game and its being used by those who lack skill to get kills they can't get any other way. IMO its is the most seriously flawed aspect of the game and I just won't willingly fly in it. Being killed by a crappy implementation of a random number generator is not my idea of fun. For those of you who enjoy that, may I suggest Russian Roulette? Flying in puffy ack is just that STUPID. At the very least make it so that the CVs can't drive up on shore in an ridiculous way. No admiral would ever risk a CV like that.
If this implementation is good, why don't we just have a random number generator decide that any time you are over enemy territory you can be killed? After all there could be an 88 down there with a good gun crew. Why not? Because its NOT FUN! This is where game departs from reality, the point here is theoretically to have fun. The random number generator is not the customer and doesn't need to feel fulfilled. The players DO or they don't come back.
This discussion seems to have focused on all puffy ack being the same. It wasn't. In this discussion we are being very US centric. German 88s firing at bomber boxes flying on a predictable course from IP and US CV Task Force units with radar guided guns and proximity fuses, and low level field ack have all been lumped in the same bucket. This just wasn't the case. They worked differently and had different results. For CVs alone there was a great deal of difference between US and Japanese flak and the results.
This is my experience, and people can take it or leave it. I don't require you to believe me.
- Ship Puffy ack absolutely will start popping the instant you clear 3k. I've done it so many times I don't need to prove it to myself again.
- Random or not, it is insanely accurate. I can't count the number of times it has killed me instantaneously in one shot the moment I crossed into its space.
To finally demonstrate the anecdotal accuracy of ack, this is a joke that was told in Germany, It is tale of a soldier who had been condemned to death and given his choice of several means of execution. In the story, the soldier chose execution by anti-aircraft fire. He was placed in a tower surrounded by flaks, which fired at him for three weeks. When they checked he was found dead not from flak but from starvation
I don't know what to believe because I have been well above 3k in a horde of allies over a task group before and got bombarded by puffy ack regardless of my location relative to my allies.
I have. A lot of times.
My own experience:
As long as I haven't been targeted by this very CV before, it did work more or less the way FLS and Hitech had stated: If some poor guy was closer to the CV than me, I wasn't attacked by puffy. Unless I was going really close, then it didn't matter - probably due to the bug HT mentioned. Sometimes, at larger battles, I was able to get comparatively close to the CV before ack opened fire at me.
But once I had been fired at, the puffy ack was stuck on me. From that point on distance to the CV didn't matter (much?). Instant puffy when going over 3k, regardless of mine or any other player's distance.
I have. A lot of times.
My own experience:
As long as I haven't been targeted by this very CV before, it did work more or less the way FLS and Hitech had stated: If some poor guy was closer to the CV than me, I wasn't attacked by puffy. Unless I was going really close, then it didn't matter - probably due to the bug HT mentioned. Sometimes, at larger battles, I was able to get comparatively close to the CV before ack opened fire at me.
But once I had been fired at, the puffy ack was stuck on me. From that point on distance to the CV didn't matter (much?). Instant puffy when going over 3k, regardless of mine or any other player's distance.
G load and distance do make a difference.
People complain that maneuvering fighters are hit instantly and bombers flying level aren't hit. Consider that what they're really saying, because the puffy ack is the same in both cases, is that they get hit too often but the enemy doesn't get hit often enough. :D
Lusche, who is the guy in your avatar?
Music for happy snails: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z4m4lnjxkY
Music for happy snails: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z4m4lnjxkY
I like the lyrics. :lol
How does G-load make a difference if you happen to be unloaded (between jinks) when it calculates?
“People” might say that, but that was not MY point. You added the word "instantly" into the argument, which I never once said. It sounds a bit like you are dismissing my point by putting other people's words in my mouth.
What I did say, and you said as well, is that maneuvering (changing course and/or altitude) isn't a factor in ack hit probability. I believe it should be, don’t you?
It seems maneuvering could be added to the current ack system without necessarily overhauling it. "Maneuvering" would simply be resolved by comparing the target’s course and altitude change since the ack box was last calculated. The more the maneuvering factors change, the bigger the ack box gets (just like speed and distance now). The less the factors change, the smaller the ack box gets each time (perhaps halve it’s size each time). This would be far more realistic, as it would represent a firing solution becoming better if you are flying a predictable course.
<S>
So correct me if I'm wrong, but did it not fire at you above 3k when there was an ally between you and the task group that was above? If that's the case, did HiTech already fix the issue he said there was?
I don't know what to believe because I have been well above 3k in a horde of allies over a task group before and got bombarded by puffy ack regardless of my location relative to my allies. HiTech's analysis of the distance bug would not be consistent with this observation I, along with many others, have seen consistently.
I think we have a perfect illustration as to why the progress in improving the game is so mind numbingly glacial. This group is as amazingly effective as the American Congress in deciding things and making improvement :).
FLS- I was contemplating the TA, but the problem is you're not going to get the number of things going on you get in a MA setup. The stuff people are claiming happens, happens in the MA. I'm thinking a decent method would be to try to find a good knock down drag-out carrier battle with a large horde and go among the gorillas to observe and record.
Wiley.
The advantage to the TA is that you can get enough data to get an idea of the hit probability without the data being skewed from a small sample size. If you want to look at the possibility that a larger number of players affects which one is targeted then the MA is probably easier but you know you never find the fight you log on looking for. :lol
The hit probability stuff isn't really what I'm after, I'm more interested in seeing who it's targeting. Assessing the hit probability experimentally would take a pretty big sample size. If it's a relatively consistent 1 hit wonder under certain circumstances, that's interesting. In the TA if it does no damage that won't be apparent though.
What I'm going to be looking for is puffy targeting planes that aren't the closest to the CV, whatever form that takes.
Wiley.
I don't think maneuvering needs to be considered more than it already is. You aren't shooting birds with a .22. You are shooting a shotgun. Precise tracking is not what's getting hits, it's the pellet distribution.
Wiley, do you see a lot of other sources of regular customer feedback for HTC? Just wondering cause I don't.
Of course its well known in the game industry that trying to pull meaningful and usable feedback out of a forum is problematic. Forums can flag problems in a gross way, just by what gets a lot of posts. They just aren't real useful because you run the very real risk of building a product for just the people who frequent the forum, which is sort of path to going over the edge. The actual denizens of a forum are just the tip of one iceberg of users. There are whole sets of users that wouldn't get near a forum for good reasons. Without considering those users you build the wrong thing and you lose them.
I just don't think that there is access other possible avenues like surveys and focus groups which might result in better feedback. So what happens here I guarantee has an effect. The problem for them is to sort it out into anything they can actually do.
Show your data
I used to duck hunt, so I've shot birds with a shotgun. You hit a flying object when you lead it (predicting their course). Any ack gunner (or fire control system) should do the same thing.
I get your point though. You've explained that the Aces High ack system doesn't lead targets – essentially it doesn't aim. It fires into an area and sometimes it gets lucky hits. Aircraft going fast in a straight line are better off than those who are maneuvering.
I really think that system is flawed and I've even offered an idea how it could be fixed.
I’ll leave it at that. But now I’m gonna be really pissed when I get hit by ack at 15K, knowing that a really lousy drunken duck hunter just shot me! :D
It doesn't "lead the target" because there's no such lead system. It's an absolutely instantaneous client-side spawn box. IE there's no aiming & time of flight delay in the flak's aim.
17 pages about puffy ack WOW!!!!!!!my post made it 18 lol
The effect is the same even if the mechanics are different. Making the code more complex wouldn't change the outcome.
Structural damage context
(http://dasmuppets.com/public/dlamb/410/schema_219-410_context.png)
Compare in your mind's eye what 1 tater does, relatively, on each of these airframes.
its not the first long thread about puff ack, yet nothing changed. Consensus within the players won't force HTC to do anything tho, we can only wait in anger :furious
Yes I am opposed.
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.
How can it always be?Did someone quote this yet? :t
the puffy targets me
no matter how I fly
the ack will make me die
The coding is a mess
but Hitech won't confess
the line put in the code
that makes Grizz soon explode
Grizz finally figured out
and knows without a doubt
no matter how he flies
the ack will make him die
How can you look at the ack shooting at an aircraft going 300 mph and claim it doesn't lead the target? It does aim at the targeted aircraft
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Not if it is only checking G-load every 3 seconds. :D
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.
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
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
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