What are we going

[Vinkman]

yours don't...      

I'm sure they do...

[RTHolmes]

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.

thats just not true, the Mk37 (used on DEs, not sure about our fletcher class) had a useful range of ~7500yds and only resolved 3mils. there is no way it could group rounds as close as the AH box, even on an aircraft flying on a constant vector. for a maneuvering aircraft, not a chance of hitting it.


a big improvement to the modelling as I hinted earlier would be to move from a realtime system which depends on speed, Gs etc to a sampled system, which predicts the aircrafts position in a few seconds time (or even in 10-20s time like the very best WWII directors ...)

[grizz441]

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.

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?

[RTHolmes]

for 1) theres one director on every ship, so our typical CV group could track and fire on 7 different targets.

[grizz441]

for 1) theres one director on every ship, so our typical CV group could track and fire on 7 different targets.

In the current code, a carrier group could fire at 40 enemy aircraft at once if they are all above 3k.

[RTHolmes]

for 1) theres one director on every ship, so our typical CV group should track and fire on 7 different targets.

fixed

[FLS]

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.

[grizz441]

1. Where do you see that all aircraft are targeted? I haven't experienced that.

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.

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.

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.

[morfiend]

 If you read HTC's code you will find the answer!

  It appears there is a problem with the puffy ack..........  We have no sheep!  Check the 6th line of code.... Hack for sheep, since the sheep are missing  thats likely the cause of the said issue........................ ...........








   

[FLS]

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.

It doesn't follow that all aircraft are fired at. You are begging the question, i.e. using a conclusion for a premise.

The 3k alt limit is bad coding? You know that's the reason for it or are you begging the question again?

[hitech]

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

[grizz441]

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

How can that be?  Anytime I fly above 3k I am instantly bombarded by puffy ack, regardless of the allies around me or who is closer.  In fact, I cannot remember an instance where I flew above 3k and was not instantly shot at by the puffy, while I was within range.

[grizz441]

The 3k alt limit is bad coding? You know that's the reason for it or are you begging the question again?

Um, what?

[FLS]

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   

 

[SunBat]

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

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.