Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Pand on September 06, 2012, 08:20:00 PM
-
Another instance---
Diving on B26's attacking friendly carrier --- Kill all 3, but the computer doesn't realize the last B26 is missing half it's wing and continues to fire, blowing me out of the air.
Never seen computer controlled puffy actually kill an enemy bomber flying straight and level before, but it sure is good at killing maneuvering fighters, enemy or friendly! Sweet!
-
LOL A whine I have never heard before has been recorded.
HiTech
-
Erhmm... :noid I think this "whine" has been going on for quite some time.
-
it happens all the time to me hitech.............me thinks you do it on purpose lol :devil
-
LOL A whine I have never heard before has been recorded.
HiTech
Signature worthy!!!! :O
-
I have a lot of them recorded from vox but I dont think you really want to hear them. :devil
-
Nothing beats whoever it was who flew a 262 and chased Lancs trying to stuka a CV only to get killed by Puffy on the first pop.
-
LOL A whine I have never heard before has been recorded.
HiTech
This response makes me rethink any future communications regarding potential improvements to your game. You obviously know what you are doing and I have overstayed my welcome here in the wishlist. :salute
-
hitech was just being funny. he's heard this whine before many a time. a couple of years ago he gave an explanation over why it happens if I remember correctly.
semp
-
Nothing beats whoever it was who flew a 262 and chased Lancs trying to stuka a CV only to get killed by Puffy on the first pop.
once 3 of us got killed trying to shoot down lancs I believe while the lancs went on to sink the cv and fly away undamaged.
semp
-
Nothing beats whoever it was who flew a 262 and chased Lancs trying to stuka a CV only to get killed by Puffy on the first pop.
I abandoned an attack on a set of lancs and a pony bombtruck in the same jet sortie this week for exactly this reason. Like a wise man once said "Fool me once, shame on, shame on you. Fool me ... uh ... you can't get fooled again!"
-
I abandoned an attack on a set of lancs and a pony bombtruck in the same jet sortie this week for exactly this reason.
Yesterday I didn't. Did cost me my Me 163 :lol
That doesn't stop me from defending thei feature though. Flying into AA fire is dangerous, as countless friendly fire victims of WW2 could attest to.
-
hitech was just being funny. he's heard this whine before many a time. a couple of years ago he gave an explanation over why it happens if I remember correctly.
semp
Nope, I never have heard this particular whine, I have heard whines about dieing from puffy ack many times. I have heard a lot of request that puffy ack should kill friendly's (to which I have responded it all ready does) but I have never heard a whine about following an enemy into your own ack, and that the ack is to deadly on the friendly but never hits the enemy and hence please change it to not hit friendlys.
HiTech
-
A Smoking Hand Grenade, HAS NO FRIENDS!
-
Hitech,
If a Friendly player defending his Carrier tries to intercept an enemy around the Puffy ack, he has 50/50 chance of getting hit as well and blowing up being in the "BOX" of puffy ack.
Not sure what my stance on this is, I want to say make friendly players of the CV invisible to the puffy ack, then again this leads to someone sitting in the puffy ack all day hoping someone chases to get blown up.
Any chance we can tone it down for players friendly flying around a CV? maybe cut the puffy damage in half vs players enemy to the CV?
-
I'm sick of finding enemy carriers by way of canopy pizza while I'm cruising over the ocean at 25k.
-
I'm sick of finding enemy carriers by way of canopy pizza while I'm cruising over the ocean at 25k.
It is what it is, I learned to simply not fly around water - especially in a perk plane, does matter how high or fast you still get mike tyson'ed by Puffy ack.
-
LOL A whine I have never heard before has been recorded.
HiTech
Why have a feature so many people detest? No one likes wasting their time getting owned by ai
-
It is what it is, I learned to simply not fly around water - especially in a perk plane, does matter how high or fast you still get mike tyson'ed by Puffy ack.
I never said my complaint was right. I'm just exercising my right to complain.
-
Fly 10 formations of buffs over strats... MAYBE get one fuel hit (actually saw a friendly B-29 die to strat ack the other day)
Fly escort for buffs over strats: 3 fighters insta-killed by auto ack.
This isn't a whine, it's an observation.
Also: If friendly puffy is deadly, can it please follow the same killshooter rules the rest of us have to?
-
LOL A whine I have never heard before has been recorded.
HiTech
You're just sore because he called you out on your abysmal documentation. It's alright, sir... I loathe writing documentation as well. :salute
-
We did a nice squad mission to the enemy strats - trying to enjoy the new features.
Our 3 B29's sets made their 2 passes untouched by the puff ack, but the 2 escort P51 died to it, flew 30mins just to get shot by a random IA.
Having such a crappy feature in the game is bad enough - make fun of the players that complain about it tops the tank.
-
After many times defending Strats/HQ, I can remember only one enemy bomber going down from AI puffy (a B-29, of course). Lately I am wary of going after them until the "friendly" puffy stops, as it has been fatal to me on many occasions. Nothing like climbing above a set of 30k bombers and getting insta-towered on your first pass. :bhead
-
It should be equally dangerous to everyone no matter who they are, what they're flying or how high/fast they're flying.
I'd like to see it changed so that there are actual shells coming from the actual guns (as if a human player were firing). The longer you spend flying a straight line at contant speed, the more accurate the "gunner" becomes. We can still have a field of puffy (since all guns would be firing).
-
Puffy Ack, since the last update, seems to be less effective on the fighters twisting and turning through it at 30,000 feet since I was able to actually make it through to chase snailman's b29s with a yak.
Sadly, snailman is more dangerous on the defensive B29 guns than the puffy ack.
I've always thought that the puffy ack, as it applies to fighters or bombers, is reversed in that it would allow bombers to bomb the cv and land undamaged while one ping killing a fighter passing overhead at 30,000 feet outside of visual range.
It would be cool to see how it works if the puffy ack modeling for the fighters and bombers swapped places.
-
Nope, I never have heard this particular whine, I have heard whines about dieing from puffy ack many times. I have heard a lot of request that puffy ack should kill friendlies (to which I have responded it all ready does) but I have never heard a whine about following an enemy into your own ack, and that the ack is to deadly on the friendly but never hits the enemy and hence please change it to not hit friendlies.
HiTech
um hitech a lot of players don't attack buffs in puffy flak because the puffy is more deadly to the fighter attacking the bombers than to the bombers being targeted.
Ive died so much to friendly puffy flak that I avoid friendly carriers as much as enemy carriers.
let me say that again...
I avoid playing on what would be an enjoyable area to experience player vs player combat because of an unenjoyable AI mechanism that governs puffy flak.
-
Proxi fuzes cant tell the differance between friend or foe in RL, so why cry. :rolleyes:
-
Proxi fuzes cant tell the differance between friend or foe in RL, so why cry. :rolleyes:
In that case nobody would intercept buffs heading towards a CV since its suicide. Whats point of having CV's or Combat air Patrol?
edited:
I have an idea, tonight I am going to fly some missions over friendly CV's and enemies (ill ask someone where their CV is and simply jsut do so fly overs) and film it. Different Alts, planes etc.
-
In that case nobody would intercept buffs heading towards a CV since its suicide. Whats point of having CV's or Combat air Patrol?
when i was playing our squad regularly flew cover for CV's and i think of the hundreds of times we did it only a few of us got popped by it, not enough to say get rid of it. after all whats wrong with a little realism, fratricide did happen.
-
hundreds of times we did it only a few of us got popped by it, not enough to say get rid of it.
A little realism would be just fine, I am not asking to get rid of it completely, just be looked into. If HTC comes back and says its fine, then so be it.
-
Taking a wag here...
RESULT : I have never lost a single buff on a bombing mission to the cv ack since I have been playing this game.
OUTCOME : I still take buffs to bomb cv's.
RESULT : I have lost several "in the 50's" fighters to cv ack regardless of maneuvering or alt.
OUTCOME : I don't intentionally fly my fighters anywhere near a cv.
Why do I think it is set up this way?
To keep cv's from being vulched as well as to allow the cv's to still have some vulnerability.
If this were altered cv's would be dead fish in the water and obsolete.
-
I fly CV cap all the time. Yeah, I get pinged and popped some but ack did not discriminate and should not for aircraft type. I don't mind low and medium alt auto ack, but the higher alt auto ack should be more radar controlled and only shot by a player...it is ridiculous sometimes taking clouds and terrain into consideration. :cheers:
-
The issue isn't so much getting nailed by friendly puffy, but the fact that enemy bombers you were shooting at skate right through the same ack that just killed you.
The solution would be to make the ack more dangerous to planes flying a predictable path. This could be done with several seconds of delay from when the shot leaves the gun, to when it hits the target area. Bombers flying straight and level will take damage more easily than maneuvering fighters.
edit: of course if implemented, a fighter in close proximity to enemy bombers could be hit (maybe almost as much as with the current system ;)) but less likely to be hit while in a dogfight at 3,001 feet.
-
I didn't know chunks of metal hurtling through the Sky knew Friend from foe. Puffy ack should be deadly to everyone I don't think pilots of defensive fighters flew into their own ack very often. Now having the OTHER guy skurry though the flak in BUFF untouched is annoying.
-
I didn't know chunks of metal hurtling through the Sky knew Friend from foe.
I would agree with this if it can be proven the radar guided puffy could hit me-262s at 24,500 ft doing 500 mph chasing a set of lancs which are 2.5k front.
Maybe 999000 was the gunner, I doubt it - but first batch of puffy pinged, me - I tried to reverse to get the hell away from it and got set on fire on second puff.
1 in a million? maybe... I'd risk another 262 just to prove it can happen in one sortie.
-
I would agree with this if it can be proven the radar guided puffy could hit me-262s at 24,500 ft doing 500 mph chasing a set of lancs which are 2.5k front.
Maybe 999000 was the gunner, I doubt it - but first batch of puffy pinged, me - I tried to reverse to get the hell away from it and got set on fire on second puff.
1 in a million? maybe... I'd risk another 262 just to prove it can happen in one sortie.
Thing is I really don't think a RL pilot would fly his 262 into the Flak in the first place but you did agree with me that the bombers being unscathed is pretty damn Midway.
-
It should be equally dangerous to everyone no matter who they are, what they're flying or how high/fast they're flying.
I presume what your saying is that, as a fighter pilot, I shouldn't try to defend the CV from attacking bombers because it is the acks job to defend it. That's fine and realistic except for one thing: I gun on the CVs under attack many many times and I have NEVER, not even ONCE, seen the auto ack kill all three bombers before they drop their bombs. NEVER. In DECADES of playing. In fact, 90% of the time they do NO VISIBLE DAMAGE WHATSOEVER to ANY of the three bombers in the formation. So the outcome: high level bombers + CV = CV under water.
-
I presume what your saying is that, as a fighter pilot, I shouldn't try to defend the CV from attacking bombers because it is the acks job to defend it. That's fine and realistic except for one thing: I gun on the CVs under attack many many times and I have NEVER, not even ONCE, seen the auto ack kill all three bombers before they drop their bombs. NEVER. In DECADES of playing. In fact, 90% of the time they do NO VISIBLE DAMAGE WHATSOEVER to ANY of the three bombers in the formation. So the outcome: high level bombers + CV = CV under water.
First of all, calm down. ;)
Second of all, I said the puffy should not be turned off/down for friendlies just because friendlies get hit by it...equally dangerous to everyone.
The way I remember HT explaining it:
There is a "hit box" area around each player, that extends x units/percent/whatever around said player's plane.
Puffy is randomly distributed within this hit box.
Bomber formations are larger, so the hit box is larger - thus the ack bursts are more spread out.
Fighters are smaller, so the hit box is smaller - thus the ack bursts are more concentrated.
So I would guess this is why puffy ack seems more lethal to fighters. Perhaps a solution would be to have fewer ack bursts inside a fighter's hit box?
-
actually having hi cover for the CV while the radar is up can really help eliminate some of those hi buffs so the ack is only trying to shoot 1 or 2 instead of 3. But that means you have to take the time to get up there and wait on the possibility of seeing squat.
-
Bomber formations are larger, so the hit box is larger - thus the ack bursts are more spread out.
Fighters are smaller, so the hit box is smaller - thus the ack bursts are more concentrated.
100% not true. Bomber vs fighter or size of plane has nothing to do with the size of the box.
The factors that make the box bigger or smaller are.
Gs
Distance
Speed.
HiTech
-
Funny, I was in a CV battle a few weeks ago. Broke 3K trying to climb to a con, maybe 4-5 seconds later, poof, insta death.
I say screw it, I'll go somewhere else.
I found out a friendly port is flashing with 2 cons in the area. I take off and head over there. Two 190s that took off from a nearby base is porking the field. Kill one, the other is climbing while I fought the first one. I climb up to the second 190, start fighting, with friendly puffy ack all around. Maybe...30-40 seconds into the fight, poof, insta death. I PM the guy asking wth just happened....and you can figure out the rest.
-
100% not true. Bomber vs fighter or size of plane has nothing to do with the size of the box.
The factors that make the box bigger or smaller are.
Gs
Distance
Speed.
HiTech
Can you shed some light on the equation or atleast how all 3 correspond to the size of the box? would I be wrong in saying a Stuka with a 4k bomb with dive brakes out and no throttle = cv doom tif auto ack is up?
-
Nope, I never have heard this particular whine, I have heard whines about dieing from puffy ack many times. I have heard a lot of request that puffy ack should kill friendly's (to which I have responded it all ready does) but I have never heard a whine about following an enemy into your own ack, and that the ack is to deadly on the friendly but never hits the enemy and hence please change it to not hit friendlys.
HiTech
hey boss we have posted this getting killed by our own ack while chasing a con many a time. I think most threads about ack always mention how funny it is to get killed by our own ack.
semp
-
think of it as darwinism Semp, although I dont know why a high speed turning fighter further away would possibly have a smaller box then a slow,straigh flying bomber that is closer. The g's from the turns at speed from a fighter make sit more of a threat then a slow close straight flying bomber?
-
100% not true.
My faulty memory; thanks for refresher. :salute
-
100% not true. Bomber vs fighter or size of plane has nothing to do with the size of the box.
The factors that make the box bigger or smaller are.
Gs
Distance
Speed.
HiTech
So to avoid death in a fighter....flight straight and level @ 15k and slow down to bomber speed.
-
maybe the AI stresses out when firing at buffs?
-
maybe the AI stresses out when firing at buffs?
or it relaxes I mean how cna ya miss such big targets when you can nail a fighter?
-
Should run some tests. Have someone fly a group of B17s in a strait line at an enemy CV with a teammate flys cover in a fighter. Meanwhile have a friendly flies circles around the the buffs and fighter thought the whole pass.
See who gets hit how often.
-
Should run some tests. Have someone fly a group of B17s in a strait line at an enemy CV with a teammate flys cover in a fighter. Meanwhile have a friendly flies circles around the the buffs and fighter thought the whole pass.
See who gets hit how often.
The bomber will. Problem is, they get hit but don't die. :)
-
I avoid playing on what would be an enjoyable area to experience player vs player combat because of an unenjoyable AI mechanism that governs puffy flak.
x2
:aok
-
LOL A whine I have never heard before has been recorded.
HiTech
Add my glass of red whine. As it has happened to me on at least one instance defending the CV where the bomber is dead but so am I. Also as the community points out, the friendly ack kills me often enough while the bomber is approaching the CV which is why I'm more careful attacking the bomber knowing I could die and he won't.
Besides, why stoop as low as to come out swinging 'slap in the face' neener responses? That's reserved for the level of the overall community. Better to see more responsible responses such as "Will look into it" or "100% untrue" . Hurling remarks like that toward people that contribute toward your bank account? Lame.
As for size of box, the box should be adjusted so as to be more accurate for slower bombers vs. faster aircraft. As the faster I fly as an enemy I have seen the puffy ack more accurate and closer to my aircraft in all maneuvers (not realistic, humans were not quick to adjusting trajectory). When I die, the moron in the CV gets the kill credit, which also should not happen!
Looks like someone needs to do their homework on addressing the issue if more people are whining.
-
So to avoid death in a fighter....flight straight and level @ 15k and slow down to bomber speed.
Yup!, time to game the game. :aok
-
Yeah, they need to make box bigger for slow aircraft and smaller for faster aircraft. Don't arcade this game up.
-
Yeah, they need to make box bigger for slow aircraft and smaller for faster aircraft. Don't arcade this game up.
I think you mean the opposite
-
Another instance---
Diving on B26's attacking friendly carrier --- Kill all 3, but the computer doesn't realize the last B26 is missing half it's wing and continues to fire, blowing me out of the air.
Never seen computer controlled puffy actually kill an enemy bomber flying straight and level before, but it sure is good at killing maneuvering fighters, enemy or friendly! Sweet!
:airplane: I think all are missing pand's point. He and I can fly head on into one another and no damage. Now I understand why AH has it programed that way, because there would constant mid air collisions and everybody worrying about midair's instead hunting for the kill. The puffy ack should not damage a aircraft on the CV's side or country, but on the other hand, when you check the stats for WW2, a lot of bombers and fighters were downed with friendly fire. But, in the end, I agree with Pand, if damage is neutral for each countries aircraft, then the puffy ack should be also.
-
He and I can fly head on into one another and no damage.
no you cant, but that is an entire other conversation and would be a thread hijack.
-
I think you mean the opposite
And it already does becomes bigger the faster you fly.
And it becomes bigger the farther you fly from it.
And it becomes bigger when you turn.
Besides, why stoop as low as to come out swinging 'slap in the face' neener responses? That's reserved for the level of the overall community. Better to see more responsible responses such as "Will look into it" or "100% untrue" . Hurling remarks like that toward people that contribute toward your bank account? Lame.
As for size of box, the box should be adjusted so as to be more accurate for slower bombers vs. faster aircraft. As the faster I fly as an enemy I have seen the puffy ack more accurate and closer to my aircraft in all maneuvers (not realistic, humans were not quick to adjusting trajectory). When I die, the moron in the CV gets the kill credit, which also should not happen!
Looks like someone needs to do their homework on addressing the issue if more people are whining.
So on the research and why I LOL. Becasue you care complaining that it is to deadly for the person it is shooting at. Which is one I have seen many times.
The original whine is now whining that it is NOT accurate enough against the enemy, and too accurate against friendly, so he is asking exactly the opposite of you.
And almost always people ask for it to do more damage to friendly's and this IS the FIRST time I have seen it asked for differently.
HiTech
-
See rule #4
-
I think I understand the OP's wish. Make it so friendly puffy ack doesn't harm aircraft if the same country.
To me, that it has it's pros & cons.
Pro: If I'm dragging an enemy across our cv, sure I want the puffy ack to only target the red guy.
Con: If I'm pursuing an enemy aircraft over his cv, I want him to be vulnerable to puffy ack as well.
Can't have both. I like it how it is now.
Coogan
-
It should be equally dangerous to everyone no matter who they are, what they're flying or how high/fast they're flying.
I'd like to see it changed so that there are actual shells coming from the actual guns (as if a human player were firing). The longer you spend flying a straight line at contant speed, the more accurate the "gunner" becomes. We can still have a field of puffy (since all guns would be firing).
Amen to both.
-
wouldn't rule #4 apply to the first response to the OP???
Just checking...
-
#4 :aok
-
So this brings up a question I have...
Did fighters follow Japanese Kamikaze's into the AAA zones of ships?
-
The original whine is now whining that it is NOT accurate enough against the enemy, and too accurate against friendly,
HiTech
what happens boss is for people like me that fly b26's at 6k to sink the cv and I almost always comes out with very little damage, but if there's a fighter chasing me over the ack, for some reason the ack will kill it faster then it will kill me.
semp
-
If you fly from high twelve and attack bombers in puffy ack for some reason you get away with it a lot more often then a high six attack. Puffy loves to lag just behind bombers from my experience and its not where you want to be. I really thought Hitech was trying to teach everyone how its done! :D
-
So this brings up a question I have...
Did fighters follow Japanese Kamikaze's into the AAA zones of ships?
Yes, and yes we did lose some to our own ack. If your only landing strip is being attacked by a kamikaze, I don't think him getting close to the ship is a reason to peel off and hope the swabbies get him with the AAA. That is why they spread out the escorts and the radar coverage to give the cap more time to make the intercept.
I'm just finishing up the 14th volume of the history of the USN in WW2, and the Japanese got pretty tricky with the kamikaze attacks. NOE, coming out of the sun at dawn or dusk, night attacks using float lights to guide the bombers in, etc.
-
Yes, and yes we did lose some to our own ack. If your only landing strip is being attacked by a kamikaze, I don't think him getting close to the ship is a reason to peel off and hope the swabbies get him with the AAA. That is why they spread out the escorts and the radar coverage to give the cap more time to make the intercept.
I'm just finishing up the 14th volume of the history of the USN in WW2, and the Japanese got pretty tricky with the kamikaze attacks. NOE, coming out of the sun at dawn or dusk, night attacks using float lights to guide the bombers in, etc.
Then it stands to reason that if you fly into your own ack, it might kill you.
My question followed by your answer was to make a point. :) In other words, AI friendly puffy should STAY right where it's at. If you get hit by it, you may die. :aok
-
AI friendly puffy should STAY right where it's at. If you get hit by it, you may die. :aok
YUP
-
See rule #4
-
reupped my account this weekend and flew in and out of ack with out a problem. just file it under s**** happens
-
what happens boss is for people like me that fly b26's at 6k to sink the cv and I almost always comes out with very little damage, but if there's a fighter chasing me over the ack, for some reason the ack will kill it faster then it will kill me.
semp
Well heck we need to just get rid of you and your B-26s then. :D
-
Why can't we remove auto puffy and instead add more guns to a manned position. So that one player can control 5-6 guns. That way, if you get killed, it's because some one had good aim and deserved the kill. Getting killed by auto puffy is a giant slap to the face.
-
~S~ Gentlemen!
Why remove this at all. In the RL of WW2, the German intercepters waited for the flak to end before they attacked the Bombers.
So if you are intercepting enemy aircraft wait till they are out of the flak, then attack. Why make AH2 like an arcade game. Leave some
of the realism in the game. So the main thing don't attack till the enemy aircraft is away from the flak.
That my $.02 for whatever it is worth.
-
~S~ Gentlemen!
Why remove this at all. In the RL of WW2, the German intercepters waited for the flak to end before they attacked the Bombers.
So if you are intercepting enemy aircraft wait till they are out of the flak, then attack. Why make AH2 like an arcade game. Leave some
of the realism in the game. So the main thing don't attack till the enemy aircraft is away from the flak.
That my $.02 for whatever it is worth.
Because the flak won't kill the bombers, the bombers WILL kill the CV, then who cares if you intercept them or not?
You want realism? Make 88 gunners have to move to the fusing station to change the altitude on their shell bursts, make 88's, 5", and field guns hit friendly aircraft... the absurdity is that it's computer controlled, it one shots fighters, and it's not even projectile based (i.e., watch an 88 fire, you can see the shell) - it just "happens".
-
Because the flak won't kill the bombers, the bombers WILL kill the CV, then who cares if you intercept them or not?
You want realism? Make 88 gunners have to move to the fusing station to change the altitude on their shell bursts, make 88's, 5", and field guns hit friendly aircraft... the absurdity is that it's computer controlled, it one shots fighters, and it's not even projectile based (i.e., watch an 88 fire, you can see the shell) - it just "happens".
agreed
-
Because the flak won't kill the bombers, the bombers WILL kill the CV, then who cares if you intercept them or not?
You want realism? Make 88 gunners have to move to the fusing station to change the altitude on their shell bursts, make 88's, 5", and field guns hit friendly aircraft... the absurdity is that it's computer controlled, it one shots fighters, and it's not even projectile based (i.e., watch an 88 fire, you can see the shell) - it just "happens".
thats why you intercept the bombers long before their drop. if your sitting over your cv waiting your doing it wrong. AA Flak is fine and if you make it all man guns then there will be no defense for cv's in lo population hours.
-
Carrier ack is horribly represented in the game. With that said, no, I know when I am going after something in my own ack that I am running a risk. That is why I do not engage there, only outside of the ack. I do like the idea of the 88 getting everyone. I am also all for CV ack being dumbed down.
-
wouldn't rule #4 apply to the first response to the OP???
Just checking...
It's ok tho Skuzzy is off on vaction or something so by the time he gets around to MODding these forums this thread will be burie don page 5.
-
Hitech,
If a Friendly player defending his Carrier tries to intercept an enemy around the Puffy ack, he has 50/50 chance of getting hit as well and blowing up being in the "BOX" of puffy ack.
Not sure what my stance on this is, I want to say make friendly players of the CV invisible to the puffy ack, then again this leads to someone sitting in the puffy ack all day hoping someone chases to get blown up.
Any chance we can tone it down for players friendly flying around a CV? maybe cut the puffy damage in half vs players enemy to the CV?
99% of statics made up on the spot are false.
-
Another instance---
Diving on B26's attacking friendly carrier --- Kill all 3, but the computer doesn't realize the last B26 is missing half it's wing and continues to fire, blowing me out of the air.
Never seen computer controlled puffy actually kill an enemy bomber flying straight and level before, but it sure is good at killing maneuvering fighters, enemy or friendly! Sweet!
:airplane: Don't know if Hi Tech was aware of what the German Ack Ack crews were doing during bombing raids, during WW2. Take Vienna, which in 1944 was one of the heaviest defended area's in Europe. They purposely "built" a flak "box" 2500 feet across and 2,000 feet deep, from 19,000 to 21,000 feet, as they knew that was the usual altitude of the B-24's, (20,000) coming out of Italy. American pilots knew this going in and as soon as they released their bombs, they would dive out to the left, in most cases and descend to around 12,000 feet to escape the dangerous flak. The German pilots knew where the "box" would be and avoided it completely. I am glad Hi Tech has NOT built a auto flak box around the CV's, using auto guns, so all in all, I guess its one of the hazards of this computer genrated game!
-
99% of statics made up on the spot are false.
its more like 104%to 94% to allow 5% veriance + or -
-
Because the flak won't kill the bombers, the bombers WILL kill the CV, then who cares if you intercept them or not?
You want realism? Make 88 gunners have to move to the fusing station to change the altitude on their shell bursts, make 88's, 5", and field guns hit friendly aircraft... the absurdity is that it's computer controlled, it one shots fighters, and it's not even projectile based (i.e., watch an 88 fire, you can see the shell) - it just "happens".
I have been shot down twice by Enemy CV fleet. Not because I was trying to hit them, just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I was caught by surpised not knowing they were below me. The 1st time I was shot down I was at 17k, the 2nd time I was at 20k. So do not
say they do not shoot down Bombers. About the 88's and the other guns hitting friendly fighter or aircraft, don't fly in to it. Thats why the German Pilots
waited till the Bombers flew out of the flak fields, then they attacked. As for Fleet defending, then be carefull when you intercept enemy bombers or
enemy aircraft attacking your fleet.
-
See rule #4
-
I have been shot down twice by Enemy CV fleet. ... So do not say they do not shoot down Bombers.
So how come in hundreds of engagements I've never seen the CV auto puffy ack destroy any bombers before they drop? Perhaps it'll smoke one out of the three, but even then only after they have dropped. It's a question of probability, and in my experience the probability of the CV flak stopping a set of high bombers from dropping their bombs, and thereby protecting the CV, is very close to zero.
-
(http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/a/a0/Go_stand_in_the_corner.jpg)
-
Wow, since you went ahead and rule 4'd me for being sarcastic to someone, why don't you take some of you own medicine?
:aok
Amen!
-
:salute well sometime back i shot zenzen down with a 5". we where both rooks. i thought it was crazy to do that. dont have the film anymore.
-
(http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/a/a0/Go_stand_in_the_corner.jpg)
:) Should've left the original post, I would love to have seen what our lead game dev would've done
-
:) Should've left the original post, I would love to have seen what our lead game dev would've done
We had a chat!
-
Lyrics from the AH version of the "Badger" video:
"Puffy puffy puffy puffy puffy puffy puffy puffy - Pilot Wound! Pilot Wound! puffy puffy puffy puffy puffy puffy puffy puffy
Oh Insta-Kill! Insta-Kill! You're in the tower! puffy puffy puffy puffy..."
-
LOL A whine I have never heard before has been recorded.
HiTech
Recently thought about reactivating my account. I instantly thought about this post (why I canceled the last time). I think I am going to keep my money instead.
Rule #4.
Don't flame the people keeping you in business.
-
You all need to read some history. Operation Husky: 23 American C-47s shot down by friendly fire.
-
Recently thought about reactivating my account. I instantly thought about this post (why I canceled the last time). I think I am going to keep my money instead.
Rule #4.
Don't flame the people keeping you in business.
It's only been a few months. I'm sure you'll eventually get over Hitech joking with another player who's still here.
Have a nice holiday.
-
You all need to read some history. Operation Husky: 23 American C-47s shot down by friendly fire.
:rofl :aok
I haven't seen Pand hovering too closely near enemy CVs lately, lesson learned maybe (finaly)?
-
I haven't seen Pand hovering too closely near enemy CVs lately, lesson learned maybe (finally)?
Since ineffective automated puffy firing at enemy bombers is more likely to kill a friendly fighter defending the carrier group, I now just let the enemy buffs sink the CV. Lesson learned--- WTG team.
-
:rofl
Funny how it would seem that this post...
LOL A whine I have never heard before has been recorded.
HiTech
...directed as someone else, who still plays, caused this guy...
Recently thought about reactivating my account. I instantly thought about this post (why I canceled the last time). I think I am going to keep my money instead.
Rule #4.
Don't flame the people keeping you in business.
...to quit. :noid
At least this is how it reads to me. :rofl
-
well in lmxar's defence puffy ack is the most irritating "feature" of this game (close behind the flipping tank trees), and when you have been hoping for a change for years, seeing that kind of answers from the programmers is a bit disappointing, if no frustating :(
-
Recently thought about reactivating my account. I instantly thought about this post (why I canceled the last time). I think I am going to keep my money instead.
Rule #4.
Don't flame the people keeping you in business.
If you decided not to reactivate because of a 2 month old thread, obviously you were looking for a reason not to reactivate. It is called burnout.
HiTech
-
If you decided not to reactivate because of a 2 month old thread, obviously you were looking for a reason not to reactivate. It is called burnout.
HiTech
Maybe it’s because the problem as described and discussed in this thread has been around for a very long time.
And almost always people ask for it to do more damage to friendly's and this IS the FIRST time I have seen it asked for differently.
HiTech
Not sure where you been, but I’ve seen this request raised many times, by many different OP’s. Flak over a CV group, any CV group, friend or foe should pose a threat to any aircraft in the area, friend or foe.
It’s been my experience that I can fly B17’s directly on a straight line course directly to an nme carrier, directly over and directly away from , and never get touched by flak. If I do the same thing in a single fighter type aircraft I’m dead meat.
-
Traveler you are changing the topic, to a general complaint about puffy ack. Obviously that has been around for a long time, and just like your re posting of the great myth that fighters are hit more then bombers (pure and utter nonsenses).
I have seen many complaints about flack that then also state, well if it going to shoot at me, it should also be able to hit the plane following me, to which we respond it all ready does.
So I can remember many request for it to hit friendly's.(the exact opposite request of the OP) I may have missed them, but before this thread, I can not remember one post requesting the flack not to hit friendlies.
I still see humor in these request, you are complaining that ack is to accurate and kills you to much when you fly into it with a fighter. Pand is complaining that the ack is not accurate enough, because it hit him when the ack was aiming at a different player.
HiTech
-
I still see humor in these request, you are complaining that ack is to accurate and kills you to much when you fly into it with a fighter. Pand is complaining that the ack is not accurate enough, because it hit him when the ack was aiming at a different player.
HiTech
Clarification... flak is not accurate enough when attacking straight and level enemy bombers... Fighters get vaporized.
-
Clarification... flak is not accurate enough when attacking straight and level enemy bombers... Fighters get vaporized.
Again great myth, there is zero, nada, nothing different about shooting at bombers vs fighters. Bombers can simply survive more hits.
HiTech
-
First I’m not making a complaint and I’m sorry if you see my observation as a complaint. I only stated that flak around a CV should be a concern to any pilot of any aircraft . That’s why German pilots remained away from the flak zones because they took as much damage as the bombers. While you state that fighters being hit more than bombers as pure and utter nonsense I have to point out, that it’s been my observation and experience that I have flown bombers formations directly at a CV group and kill that CV group and never took a hit . I’ve attempted to do that with P38L and took lots of damage. So while you say that is nonsense, my direct experience has been different. Again, that’s not a complaint. That’s my observation.
-
I have never been hit by friendly player controlled 5 inch puffy ack.
I didn't know it was possible.
-
I have never been hit by friendly player controlled 5 inch puffy ack.
I didn't know it was possible.
I'm pretty sure it isn't possible. This discussion is about the auto-puffy, not player-controlled 5" puffy.
I have flown bombers formations directly at a CV group and kill that CV group and never took a hit . I’ve attempted to do that with P38L and took lots of damage.
Maybe we need a new dot command or clipboard display that shows your plane's damage points: 873/1250 (your plane has taken damage even though you may not have actually felt it or lost any important parts).
-
:rofl
Funny how it would seem that this post...
...directed as someone else, who still plays, caused this guy...
...to quit. :noid
At least this is how it reads to me. :rofl
To simplify further, I think he wants to be coddled by his entertainment developer(s).
Traveler you are changing the topic, to a general complaint about puffy ack. Obviously that has been around for a long time, and just like your re posting of the great myth that fighters are hit more then bombers (pure and utter nonsenses).
I have seen many complaints about flack that then also state, well if it going to shoot at me, it should also be able to hit the plane following me, to which we respond it all ready does.
So I can remember many request for it to hit friendly's.(the exact opposite request of the OP) I may have missed them, but before this thread, I can not remember one post requesting the flack not to hit friendlies.
I still see humor in these request, you are complaining that ack is to accurate and kills you to much when you fly into it with a fighter. Pand is complaining that the ack is not accurate enough, because it hit him when the ack was aiming at a different player.
HiTech
Hey now, finding humor in the complaint box, even if only after digging really deep into its corners, isn't acceptable! ( :rofl :aok )
Again great myth, there is zero, nada, nothing different about shooting at bombers vs fighters. Bombers can simply survive more hits.
HiTech
<insert gripe about getting insta-jibbed/killed/wronged "every time" by that 0.1% golden auto-puffy round>
-
I've never been hit by computer controlled friendly puffy ack.
I don't hide in any ack.
coincidence?
-
coincidence?
Probably.
Every time I was hit by friendly puffy, I was trying to shoot down enemy buffs ib CV or factories. :)
-
sorry about the edit
I meant that I don't hang out in friendly cv ack but I forgot about the HQ and city ack where I spend much time.
Still haven't ever been hit by any friendly puffy ack.
I was wondering if our puffy ack has a similar issue as the bismark had with the swordfish and slow speed targets.
-
That is bizarre because I spend much of my time over HQ and the strats. complex and still haven't been hit yet.
I usually lose about one fighter per tour to that. Last tour it happened to be a Me 163 :lol
-
There is no such thing as friendly fire. why do you think the fighters did not follow the bombers on their bomb runs. Ever know that neither did the enemy fighters in Europe.\
-
IMHO All friendly auto-ack should be able to hit you. If you follow the enemy into your own ack your more than likely to get hit by it. This now brings up another concern. CV puffy is not nearly up to snuff. :salute :noid
-
IMHO All friendly auto-ack should be able to hit you.
it already can.
-
BAM! Another wish granted! hehe
-
So to recap.
Bombers are as likely hit as fighters from puffy ack. (assuming the same speed, G'loading and distance)
But bombers are "tougher" than fighters, and as such are less likely to be destroyed.
Bombers also fly in formation and as a result they have numerical superiority over a single plane.
but...
Fighters are faster than bombers (speed decreases the chance of being hit)
Fighters can pull more G's than bombers (decreases the chance of being hit)
Fighters as a result of their faster speed can keep distance from ack better than bombers (decreases the chance of being hit)
Additionally Damage in a bomber VS a fighter is different. Losing an elevator or aileron as an example, is hardly a concern in a heavy bomber, but could be crippling in a fighter. So as a result even non destroying damage is taken more seriously in a fighter than a bomber.
-
Fighters are faster than bombers (speed decreases the chance of being hit)
Fighters can pull more G's than bombers (decreases the chance of being hit)
Fighters as a result of their faster speed can keep distance from ack better than bombers (decreases the chance of being hit)
All are bad assumptions.
Record a few flights of buffs passing through puffy and what you will find is that the worst approach on a bomber formation while it is in puffy is from the rear. The reason is simple. Your merge speed is greatly reduced coming from the rear even when you are diving. You also have to pass just as much ack as the bomber has. Because you are covering more ground and/or pulling G's you also are more likely to run smack into puffy precisely because you increase your exposure time to the aiming box around the bomber.
Just as any other time the only way you should attack a bomber is from the front and concerning puffy you should avoid the stuff like the plague. Either hit the bombers before they enter puffy or hit them after.
-
Ack does not discriminate, and friendly planes were shot down by friendly ack on many an occasion.
True story -
22 February 1945 - after Admiral Mitscher ordered Enterprise to take Saratoga's place in close night support. (This was after Saratoga had been damaged in a Kamikaze attacks the day before) -
Early on 22 February she launched 8 planes to search for Sara's missing pilots. Unfortunately, two of these planes broke through a low 500-foot cloud ceiling right over the fire support ships during an air alert,
were mistaken for enemy aircraft and shot down. One crew of three was lost, the other piloted by Ens. Henry G. Hinrichs USNR was picked up by a patrol craft which also mistook the men for Japanese and had the
rail lined with armed bluejackets in view of the enemy's propensity to toss hand grenades at would-be rescuers. Fortunately, the "loud, continuous, and explosive use of strong American invectives convinced them otherwise";
so much so that the PCs skipper jumped over the side to aid in the rescue.
-
I can fly a spit 14 over enemy strats at 415mph at 34,000 feet wildly changing altitude and heading yet get killed by the first or second puffy ack hit but I rarely ever hear any ack hits while in a bomber going slow.
I will try the high spit 14 going slow like a bomber and see if it is any different than while going fast.
-
Just tossing bits of thought's in on this matter.
The buffs survival rate vs auto puffy is fairly good. So, this being said as Fighters survival rate vs auto puffy is fairly poor (trick is stay out of it :D ).
So If the Bombers are IB to the Carrier and the Auto Ack fails to kill them, then is that not a dead CV by default? (not counting enemy pilots ability to Miss the target)
Now stick with me here.. If bombers are unable to be completely destroyed..i.e. puffy ack fails as both a deterrent and defense. How do you stop said bombers?
Ya hit them from beyond the ack range on their way in! <-----Not entirely feasible 100% of the time? Your right. Fighters spotting bombers and diving in or climbing out to engage
is the only way to guarantee that the bombers do not do their thing and receive an easy kill on the CV and end what ever epic fights may be abound.
Issue is the Friendly fighters that go in and do the ack's job get fairly chewed up in the process. Many a tower have quickly followed attempting to kill Buff's b4 they dropped on a carrier.
To sum it up. The CV actually works against the defending pilot and to the advantage of the higher damage receiving Buffs. Its funny that the friendly fire will clear the enemies 6. :rolleyes:
Whats the fix guys? Say tata to the cv's every time? Or hope u got a skipper on board that knows his stuff?
-
To sum it up. The CV actually works against the defending pilot and to the advantage of the higher damage receiving Buffs. Its funny that the friendly fire will clear the enemies 6. :rolleyes:
This
-
If you decided not to reactivate because of a 2 month old thread, obviously you were looking for a reason not to reactivate. It is called burnout.
HiTech
If I hated AH and never wanted to reactivate, then why would I be on the forum? I made a reply, and just checked it. I am going to stick with IL-2 single player. Any person that owns a business in this economy that is this abrasive towards players will get absolutely none of my money. I loved AH. Too bad the coder can't even follow his own forum rules.
If you would have responded with a non-flaming, and coherent response, I would have re-subscribed. To be honest, I was never shot down by puffy ack. But the fact that you responded to a loyal customer this way made me reconsider my options. Rule #4, and enjoy -$15/month
-
See rule #4.
-
lmxar:Where in my response to you is there even a hint of a flame.
My guess would be, is that you feel you wish you could come back and find the excitement you used to have when you first began.
But every time you try you just can't get yourself started. And soon you find something that prevents you from flying.
lmxar: I really have seen your behavior a lot of times. The symptoms are always the same.
They normally have the following characteristics stated by the player.
1. I used to have a lot of fun playing AH, almost to the point of addiction.
2. I no longer feel the excitement and drive to play like I used to,or I quit and wish I could feel that excitement again.
3. It must be HTC's (or some other group or play style) fault that I no longer have fun like I used to, because I have not changed since I started, hence I will go vent my frustrations.
So lets take a real look at the beginning of this thread in a wish list forum.
Another instance---
Diving on B26's attacking friendly carrier --- Kill all 3, but the computer doesn't realize the last B26 is missing half it's wing and continues to fire, blowing me out of the air.
Never seen computer controlled puffy actually kill an enemy bomber flying straight and level before, but it sure is good at killing maneuvering fighters, enemy or friendly! Sweet!
This post could very easily have been moderated, it breaks many rules. It is not even a wish, posted in the wish list forum. It is not respectful. What would you like to call it? A completely over stated complaint in stead of a "whine"? How am I supposed to respond to some one complaining that they got shot down by friendly ack when they were flying in friendly ack, when I designed the game to have a possibility of shooting down friendly's?
So Instead of moderating it, I respond with the humor I found in the post.
As to my response to you, what would you have preferred me to do? Instead of responding to you with what I believe?
HiTech
-
It is not even a wish, posted in the wish list forum.
Correction:
The wish was in the topic subject: "Computer controlled 5" puffy should not damage friendly aircraft"
The rest of the post was my reasons for wanting the wish :)
-
When the friendly ack hit Pand, the friendly ack should have blown up.
Just like the friendly 80hd blows up when he hits friendlies =(
-
This
Correction:
The wish was in the topic subject: "Computer controlled 5" puffy should not damage friendly aircraft"
The rest of the post was my reasons for wanting the wish :)
You sure it isn't something as mortal as flawed logic? Getting to less than 300 meters from your target's 6 has it's own logic to it and for it's own very valid reasons. Those get thrown out the window when you also plug in the logic that friendly 5" auto-puffy DOESNT differentiate between friend or foe - if it connects, something is gonna feel some boom.
I know of some players I'd classify as "professional" CV defenders, the most successful I've observed have adopted (for the most-part) very long-distance convergences and they utilise those convergenes at relatively far and (coincidence?) safe distances from friendly 5" auto-puffy surrounding the target.
(http://standupforamerica.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/spock-logic-begninning.jpg)
-
You sure it isn't something as mortal as flawed logic?
Where is my logic flawed?
Simple points:
1. Auto CV Puffy is ineffective against bombers. Why have it even fire at them if it's not going to get the job done?
2. Auto CV Puffy is more effective at killing fighters defending the CV than killing the bombers attacking it. The CV group is hurting itself by shooting down friendlies that actually have an opportunity to destroy the threat.
3. Everything that is considered friendly fire in the game does not hurt other friendlies, except for computer controlled anti-aircraft.
Possible options:
To point #1 and #2:
if [[ $planetype = "fighter" ]]; then
autopuffy = "on"
else
autopuffy = "off"
fi
To point #3
Keep everything consistent and friendly fire does not kill friendlies (review topic subject).
-
2. Auto CV Puffy is more effective at killing fighters defending the CV than killing the bombers attacking it. The CV group is hurting itself by shooting down friendlies that actually have an opportunity to destroy the threat.
Your error in logic is that it appears you did not use any. Logic constitutes a series of facts that then using the (if a implies b, and if b implies c, then A implies c rule) to support a conclusion.
You start by stating a conclusions with zero facts.
" Auto CV Puffy is more effective at killing fighters defending the CV than killing the bombers attacking it." Is not a fact, this would be a conclusion. So what exact fact do you have to use logic to support your conclusion.
This is just plane silly, for you to be hit by friendly ack, you must be close enough to an enemy to be with in side the "Ack Box". ( A fact)
Hence you can fly all day in range of friendly ack , and never even have the possibility of being hit.
(a conclusions because you are not inside the box, implies B there is no ack with in range to hit you.)
(and b if no flack is in range to hit you , you will C never be hit)
The enemy on the other hand, is inside the flack box when ever he is in range of the box unless another enemy is closer to the flack. (A Fact)
Once you are inside the flack box , your chances of being hit are the same as the enemy. So on a normal attack the bomber would be inside the flack box for for how many minutes? Maybe 5 minutes? And how long is the attacking fighter inside the box? Maybe 15 secs? So that alone would make a difference in chances of getting hit by flack 20 to 1.
2nd it completely ignores that there also are enemy fighters that get shot at by ack.
HiTech
-
2. Auto CV Puffy is more effective at killing fighters defending the CV than killing the bombers attacking it.
Aren't fighters less massive than bombers, and thus easier to damage? A "near miss" would (and should) do more damage to a fighter than a bomber and chances are greater for a fighter "insta-death".
-
Statement: Auto CV ack will likely never take down a bomber formation before or after it drops its ordnance to kill a CV.
Logical Conclusion: Shooting Auto CV at a bomber formation is useless.
Statment: Friendly fighters actually have a chance to kill the bomber formation before or after it drops its ordnance to kill a CV.
Logical Conclusion: Don't risk shooting at enemy bombers with Auto CV ack since you can't kill it anyway, and put friendly fighters that could kill the bombers in harms way.
2nd it completely ignores that there also are enemy fighters that get shot at by ack.
HiTech
I included an if/then statement that references enemy fighters specifically in my previous post... keep shooting at them because it almost never misses; however, don't bother shooting at enemy bombers because it's not going to take them down.
Possible options:
To point #1 and #2:
if [[ $planetype = "fighter" ]]; then
autopuffy = "on"
else
autopuffy = "off"
fi
-
Again Not 1 fact in your posts. You start with conclusions.
HiTech
-
You're right, I don't have back end data--- just my experience.
How many videos of buffs would we need flying over CVs taking auto puffy and surviving to make it a fact?
I ask that question in the most respectable way possible. :salute
-
Videos would do absolutely nothing. A video would only show that a bomber can live. Has nothing to do with the % of times it is killed vs not.
Simply doing some real testing, I.E. make multiple passes, log altitude, time in ack, times hit, times died, times lived.
Btw all this is a moot point as far as your request goes, because I will not be changing the fact that ack will kill friendlies. But right now you are asking for ack to be made more accurate is that correct? Because you are claiming it never kills bombers.
-
Btw all this is a moot point as far as your request goes, because I will not be changing the fact that ack will kill friendlies. But right now you are asking for ack to be made more accurate is that correct? Because you are claiming it never kills bombers.
I'm saying that I've personally died more times to friendly auto CV ack shooting at enemy bombers, than I've seen auto CV ack down enemy bombers. I think that auto CV ack should be more accurate for straight and level bombers not deviating course or altitude, or don't bother firing at all.
:salute
-
I did those tests and posted the results in another TF ack thread. B17s at 6800 ft alt. No other targets and no manned gunners (did offline). Data results from ten trials:
Number of times TF protected itself and stopped all three bombers before they dropped their bombs: zero.
Number of times TF killed two out of three bombers: zero.
Number of times TF killed one out of three bombers: once.
-
I would run such tests if I had something like a 'flak alley' terrain. Several strats in a row, maybe 3-4 sectors long, so I could simply fly in a straight line (different speeds/altitudes/planes) and take notes.
Second thought: Maybe I can create a similar setup using several CVs... :old:
-
I would run such tests if I had something like a 'flak alley' terrain. Several strats in a row, maybe 3-4 sectors long, so I could simply fly in a straight line (different speeds/altitudes/planes) and take notes.
Second thought: Maybe I can create a similar setup using several CVs... :old:
But if you continue on from one TF to the next you are biasing the results because you might have taken some damage from the previous TF.
I was going to set up an air spawn near the TF but I'm too stupid to know how to do that so I just took off and climbed out ten times.
-
But if you continue on from one TF to the next you are biasing the results because you might have taken some damage from the previous TF.
In my opinion it makes results much more meaningful and easier to conduct. When I place 8 TG's in a row, evenly distanced and driving in tight circles, I can simply fly in a straight line over them and note the time when the plane is finally going down.
That way it's much easier to compare the "resistance" different bomber types, different speeds or altitudes for example.
I think I will give it a try tomorrow.
-
But I thought the point was to assess the probability of the TF flak defending against a fresh set of bombers (not a damaged set).
-
But I thought the point was to assess the probability of the TF flak defending against a fresh set of bombers (not a damaged set).
No. The point of my tests would be much more far reaching, goign one level higher: To see the effect puffy ack has on different type of planes, at different altitudes and different speeds.
The setup I outlined above should enable me to do so.
-
No. The point of my tests would be much more far reaching, goign one level higher: To see the effect puffy ack has on different type of planes, at different altitudes and different speeds.
The setup I outlined above should enable me to do so.
Your plan would put a lot of philosophers out of buisness (and right before the holidays).
My guess is you'll find an average of three categories, within a zero to fatal distance (or near-fatal distance to bombers - but that's siding with the crowd that thinks they're notabley tougher than fighters) around your aircraft, superficial to medium and moderate distances, and ones too far out to possibley damage your ac but are potentialy lethal to others. Whatever it comes to, I'll be interested in your results.
-
So no one has gone offline on say NDisles and flown a bomber low over an enemy CV, pulled up the damge list and see if it accrues system damage as you pass over the CV?
-
So no one has gone offline on say NDisles and flown a bomber low over an enemy CV, pulled up the damge list and see if it accrues system damage as you pass over the CV?
I wouldn't argue that nobody has done anything similar or like this - but I would argue to what detailed extent. For conclusively settling the debate on auto-puffy treating bombers differently than fighters I think it would require setting up a flak alley and then reviewing the film of your runs for damage incurred to your plane (and drones) and to what extent and from what type of puffy-impact (direct, near-direct, close, far, etc.).
I've only hypothesised about it myself - I don't think it treats any aircraft differently. I suspect bombers are notabley tougher and more resilient than most fighters. I also suspect that bombers, given they're 2x or greater a fighter's size, get hit by the puffy ack a lot more than a fighter does for the same amount of time exposed to it. Fighters thus getting hit less often, but when they do they suffer greater - sound familiar?
-
Unless Hitech is speaking Martian, he plainly said that a few pages back. Then the house accused him of prevaricating his answer versus their personal busted kesters in fighters or lack of in bombers. One might infer they don't beleive his verasity on the subject of his own programing results as he designed them to function in the game. At least no one has gotten banned yet by trying to speak their situational truth to his personal relationship with his own coad in terms he might not be on top of his game.
I guess Lusche's experiment would define the operational parameters of the ack and what can be generaly expected, creating a more specific language to dialogue Hitech with.
So do we want our AI ack to auto target us like the enemy or continue damaging and killing us if we venture into the targeting feild of the enemy con being hit by our AI ack? So does anyone know the safe distance to not be included in the AI AAA targeting function for different sized aircraft in the game?
In WW2 ack didn't care what side you were on when it went off or hit you. Maybe Our manned and AI ack should be set to act the same way to give us a real subject to complain at Hitech over. Setup a new monthly player stat of shame for the most freindlies shot down. So did anyone dive after a doodlebug when the AAA guys were firing at it in WW2? Did our CAP dive after japanese planes when the ships AAA was firing at them? I've read after action reports from the ETO of german planes diving through their own AAA trying to loose allied fighters and getting killed themselves by the triple AAA.
-
So no one has gone offline on say NDisles and flown a bomber low over an enemy CV, pulled up the damge list and see if it accrues system damage as you pass over the CV?
In my testing, described above, the B17s did occasionally pick up system damage. In only one trial out of ten, with only one out of three planes, was that damage enough to kill the B17 or render it unable to drop its bombs.
-
In my testing, described above, the B17s did occasionally pick up system damage. In only one trial out of ten, with only one out of three planes, was that damage enough to kill the B17 or render it unable to drop its bombs.
So 3 bombers times 10 trials = 30 bombers .... with only 1 bomber becoming disabled, that's 3.33% of all the bombers flying over the CV getting downed. The test might be more valid if we only used 1 bomber (instead of a formation), because the puffy firing at the primary aircraft might have randomly hit and downed a drone with an actual miss.
I wonder if the same test were done with 30 individual trials of a fighter flying over the CV how the numbers would turn out.
I look forward to all of the testing results! :salute those spending the time!
-
Let's not forget the damage potential of a single flak burst. How many "damage points" does a bomber have? How about a fighter? How much bigger is a bomber than a fighter, and how much closer are critical components on a fighter as compared to a bomber? Given a flak burst of equal distance, it seems reasonable that the fighter would suffer greater and possible catastrophic damage from a single burst than would a bomber.
How do you propose to measure how many damage points are being dealt out during any kind of testing, unless a part gets damaged? Just because a bomber doesn't go down or doesn't get a major part get destroyed, doesn't mean it isn't getting hit.
I personally would like to see manned 5" puffy damage friendlies...they always seem to up off the carrier and fly straight up towards the incoming bombers, blocking my shots. They almost always can't get up to the bombers in time, and then the CV goes down because all of my shots got nerfed right behind the friendly instead of blowing up in front of the bombers.
-
Try this idea on for size.
After the attack on Pearl Harbor, several American pilots were shot down, being mistaken for more Japanese attackers.
If I remember correctly, on D-Day Normandy, Jimmy Doolittle flew over the area to see how the invasion was going. He flew a P38 because of its unique shape; i.e. "Hey Guys, I'm not the enemy, don't shoot at me."
Therefore, P38s should be the only plane immune from friendly puffy ack. OK, not immune but a Lightning should only have a 10% chance of being hit. Anything else, it stays the way it is. :old:
Now is this my sense of humor :neener: or do I have a valid point :headscratch:
-
Wonder if Hitech could add a damage counter output option to the films so you can watch it count up for every impact on each aricraft listed in the right hand speed and distance ledger. That might help in general with some of the "I saw (x, y, z), you saw different (c, d, g)" whizzing matches, where Hitech's verasity gets challenged when he attempts to referee and help players understand what happened.
Then the players could be told to stop whizzing about it unless they have a film. No filmy, no whiny for youy......
-
I know this is more puffy ack in general, and I am not pissing and/or moaning, just genuinely curious because this matches up EXACTLY with what I have seen...
These are screenshots from Scherf... please note the hit ALWAYS occurs at the exact same spot (and pardon my ignorance here, again just asking, but isn't he in what amounts to a fighter model?) These are all taken over the strats, and each time he's in a single mossie going 350-380 TAS.
(http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad212/mhuxt/zap2.jpg)
(http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad212/mhuxt/zap3.jpg)
(http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad212/mhuxt/zap6.jpg)
(http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad212/mhuxt/zap1b.jpg)
(http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad212/mhuxt/zap22.jpg)
Now, the point here is that it's ALWAYS in that spot in a fighter. On a single mission, escorting buffs long range to enemy strats in the MA, we passed over a CV task force... the first or second puffy burst blew our fighter lead out of the sky. We continued on, taking no more one shot kill casualties... until we got to the strats. In 2 minutes of dogfighting cons over the target, we lost our second fighter lead, again one pingBOOM puff - he said "it blew up right outside my window". This moved ME into the lead slot. About 2 minutes later, I got my own pingBOOM, and I saw it for a split second right off my port side. Reviewing the film, it was just like the pics above (though I was in a Pony, so it wasn't in the wing itself.)
Now, I am not saying or implying anything at all here, just that it SEEMS like when you are in a fighter there is an inordinate chance for that very specific and unfortunate point in space to be selected for an ack burst.
I don't want puffy ack gone anymore, I see its purpose... but I would rather see it cause massive buffeting effects for fighters and bombers alike, and wound fighters more often than it kills them outright.
This being said, all of the events (including the Scherf pics) happened several months back. My most recent encounters with puffy ack have been far, far less lethal... fuel hits, general damage, etc. Dunno if I am getting lucky, or the bribes are paying off.... :P
-
Maybe those complaining are not asking Hitech the right questions so he can talk with them about his version of puffy ack.
1. - We know that the black puff ball is not the killing part of an ack explosion unless you receive a direct hit.
2. - Only until we see frames from films are we aware of the general method by which puffy ack damages a plane. (Small Shrapnel Shards.)
3. - Fighters are smaller than bombers and the damagable areas are condensed into a smaller space.
4. - Becasue of (3.) fighters are more susceptable to killing by single small shards of flack shrapnel.
How do you describe puffy ack as a fragmentation weapon in this game?
1. - What is it's initial explosive force?
2. - What is the effective range of this force?
...a.) What is the effective near range that the explosion itself will kill a fighter, a bomber?
...b.) What is the effective range and pattern of the shrapnel cloud after the blast effect?
...c.) Number of fragments per explosion?
...d.) Which caliber gun round are the shards equal to in damage counting?
...e.) Is a fixed shard number and pattern used for each explosion?
...f.) Is the round proximity fused or calculated against the alt and travel of the con?
...g.) What is the trigger range for the proximity fuse? Does it trigger off center mass or the nearest edge of the aircraft outline? The trigger source could well be some of the reason fighters are more vulnerable to ack due to their size versus blast and shrapnel radius. 100ft wingspan versus 30-40ft.