Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: 33Vortex on March 03, 2012, 01:27:11 PM
-
Just a humble request that HTC listen to what Vilkas has to say about the Flak36/37 "88" characteristics and ballistics. After all he has real life experience of the weapon (in action) and still has (despite his respectable age) a very keen eye for and sense of ballistics. You should also be able to find actual data for the AT rounds of this weapon, somewhere(?).
It is just that I hate to see the man who really looked forward to this weapon addition (and spend much much time gunning btw) turn away from it in disgust because of the ballistics. We love Vilkas, and want him to be happy shooting the crap out of stuff with red tags, so would you please check your data for us, please? :)
Perhaps a helpful link (http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1-03.htm)?
:salute & (http://hem.bredband.net/turnik/icons/icon_bow.gif)
(http://www.models2u.co.uk/Shop/contents/media/l_6260.jpg)
-
Just a humble request that HTC listen to what Vilkas has to say about the Flak36/37 "88" characteristics and ballistics. After all he has real life experience of the weapon (in action) and still has (despite his respectable age) a very keen eye for and sense of ballistics. You should also be able to find actual data for the AT rounds of this weapon, somewhere(?).
It is just that I hate to see the man who really looked forward to this weapon addition (and spend much much time gunning btw) turn away from it in disgust because of the ballistics. We love Vilkas, and want him to be happy shooting the crap out of stuff with red tags, so would you please check your data for us, please? :)
Perhaps a helpful link (http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1-03.htm)?
:salute & (http://hem.bredband.net/turnik/icons/icon_bow.gif)
(http://www.models2u.co.uk/Shop/contents/media/l_6260.jpg)
What's wrong with the current ballistics?
-
What's wrong with the current ballistics?
Fair question... :aok
-
What's wrong with the current ballistics?
Same question.
-
At the very least, I'd like to see the flak guns have the radar guidance they had nearer to the end of the war. How would that be best represented? Maybe by a lead computing site for the flak guns? I don't know...
-
At the very least, I'd like to see the flak guns have the radar guidance they had nearer to the end of the war. How would that be best represented? Maybe by a lead computing site for the flak guns? I don't know...
How can you have a radar guided bullet? You can't really turn it after launch.
-
How can you have a radar guided bullet? You can't really turn it after launch.
he said the flak guns not flak bullets. kinda like how the tail guns in B-52s are radar controlled. it uses radar to identify and calculate the threat along with dist,angle,speed,blah blah in order to shoot down the threat. that doesnt mean the bullets are guided, just the gun that does the shooting.
so with the flak in game, it would be almost like using an aimbot
-
Radar guidance is not the issue I believe we have enough of that with the CV groups. What is questioned is the AT round ballistics and it is not a major issue in the game just a misrepresentation of the quite spectacular ballistics of the 88 in the AT role.
-
deleted
-
Radar guidance is not the issue I believe we have enough of that with the CV groups.
That isn't a good comparison... I feel strongly the problem with the 88 guns isn't the damage output but it is the accuracy, which is very similar to how it was historically at longer ranges.
I'm not asking for the 88 to be proximity fuzed, I'm suggesting that the gunner be given cues on where to aim and what range to set the fuzing to emulate the radar controlled guns the Germans had. Below 10k, and within 8,000 yards it would be deadly, while at the higher altitudes and ranges it would be less dangerous except to aircraft that are slow and have a predictable flight path (like bombers). This would make vulching more dangerous, and very hazardous to a bomber under 12k.
I played with the 88mm guns and fired approx 35 rounds at a horde mission at an airbase. I found I only killed 1 aircraft with the actual explosion from the shell, the other 2 I killed was by the shell impacting the plane. On the deck, low and slow with predictable flight paths (ie up and down the runway) it should of been complete carnage.
edit: I'd like the radar be able to be destroyed but would be spread around the airfield like fuel tanks are. Either way, the 88 would be available to be manned, radar available or not.
-
That isn't a good comparison... I feel strongly the problem with the 88 guns isn't the damage output but it is the accuracy, which is very similar to how it was historically at longer ranges.
I'm not asking for the 88 to be proximity fuzed, I'm suggesting that the gunner be given cues on where to aim and what range to set the fuzing to emulate the radar controlled guns the Germans had. Below 10k, and within 8,000 yards it would be deadly, while at the higher altitudes and ranges it would be less dangerous except to aircraft that are slow and have a predictable flight path (like bombers). This would make vulching more dangerous, and very hazardous to a bomber under 12k.
I played with the 88mm guns and fired approx 35 rounds at a horde mission at an airbase. I found I only killed 1 aircraft with the actual explosion from the shell, the other 2 I killed was by the shell impacting the plane. On the deck, low and slow with predictable flight paths (ie up and down the runway) it should of been complete carnage.
edit: I'd like the radar be able to be destroyed but would be spread around the airfield like fuel tanks are. Either way, the 88 would be available to be manned, radar available or not.
Bump. +1.
-
How can you have a radar guided bullet? You can't really turn it after launch.
Lead computing sights do not guide the bullet, they predict where the target will be when the bullet arrives.
-
Still haven't been told what's wrong with the ballistics.
-
I gotta dig up the pictures of my mother in law with her gun crew. She's there in the battery with this huge range optic unit, with a half dozen 88's in the background. They'd get the alt., then lay up a curtain in their path.
-
I'm not sure what is wrong either. ATM I'm quite happy with 88 as it is and I'm not ready to agree with any kind of extensive automation that would make it easier to score hits with it. The current modeling of 88 makes the bomber approaches to bases quite dangerous and I'm not sure why we should be able to shoot down furballing fighters as that was not what 88 did in WW2. While IRL it was not a good idea to enter flak defended areas the density of 88 defended bases in game maps we have now would make any approach of bases a pain and I don't like the idea as we now got a great addition to game it would be made too lethal and again neutered because of increasing whines. While I was surprised that it was added after all I was further surprised that it had the ability to shoot also ground targets.
Been already shot at in game by 88s I can tell when there is a person with good aiming skills as the flak blasts will come uncomfortably close rather quickly after a few ranging shots making it a necessity to take evasive action. I can imagine that there is a new dimension also in scenarios as downed pilots will take 88 positions and make the flak defense more realistic.
Only thing that I find difficult is the ranging. For some reason I lost the way to link it to controller so I either have a rough adjustment from keyboard of fine adjustment in mouse wheel so that I use only the rough adjustment. Also as the range is displayed in the side of the display it is difficult to track your range setting and your reticle at the same time. If other people find this a problem too I have a solution to suggest: Make the target selection box available and after the target has been selected there could be an additional arc around aiming reticle showing the difference between set and actual ranges so that the shooter still has to decide what is the needed difference to make the fuse trigger at the right time. If there is something more that could be added is the marker for drop that could be calculated from set target distance and angle of the gun.
Was it actually that slow to traverse?
However the 88 is one of the best additions to game for long time, IMO. :aok
-C+
-
...
Was it actually that slow to traverse?
...
Vilkas says that the real thing was much, much faster to move in both azimuth and elevation than the 88 in AH now.
-
you should not be able to kill radar tower with 20mm < aeroplane guns in the first place.
It would more than a rocket too.
-
you should not be able to kill radar tower with 20mm < aeroplane guns in the first place.
It would more than a rocket too.
How about an hardened ammo bunker... :rolleyes:
-
Charger: We purposely didn't put the range in the center of your view to make is slightly more difficult to range.
HiTech
-
you should not be able to kill radar tower with 20mm < aeroplane guns in the first place.
It would more than a rocket too.
I seem to recall somewhere it was said that HTC coad took into account the differing types of rounds, some of them being inciniary, but as far as WE can SEE the weapon's lethality has components such as armored hard or soft. Objects have hardness. I could imagine fuel powered generators, heaters, electrical shortages or wooden and fabric furnishings causing fires in the radar structure.
How about an hardened ammo bunker... :rolleyes:
We see wonderful art work in this game. I was very impressed when I looked at an old photo of Duxford Field and noticed the suprising resemblence of the tower there to the one in the game. Also, the HQ building has a great resemblence to one of the Zoo Flak Towers. With this in mind ammo bunkers as pictured in the game, I would agree would be impenetrable by simple plane rounds. I could imagine that a lesser structure however may very well be vulnerable to the varying rounds carried in aircraft. Also, chain reaction explosions from nearby vehicles, debris, electrical shortages ......etc...... (I have a good imagination :cool: )
Look familliar?
(http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u354/Cab0liver/flaktower.jpg)
How about this?
(http://gb.fotolibra.com/images/previews/208848-control-tower-raf-duxford.jpeg)