What are we going

[Kingpin]

If I've read this correctly, the puffy ack model might have some flaws if it is only checking G-load to determine if a target is maneuvering.

Does the calculation use an instantaneous G-load reading or does it take in account your HIGHEST G-load over the previous 3 seconds (the period since box calculation was last made)?

If it is only measuring instantaneous G-load every 3 seconds, then it may not even be aware you are jinking.  A jinking aircraft is not making a continuous high-G turn, but rather is making course and/or altitude changes every few seconds to throw off the gun solution of the ack (possibly even using negative G-s to do so, which raises that issue as well).  So, if the puffy ack system happens to take a G-load reading at the moment you are in an unloaded state (between jinks) then you are getting no benefit out of maneuvering.  It also appears changes in altitude don't seem to be factored in at all.

The system should be taking into account CHANGES in the target's state (speed, altitude, and course) since the system last checked (3 seconds prior).

If my conclusions above are all true, it certainly explains why typical jinking methods don't seem to be very effective against puffy ack, and only putting your nose down and increasing speed (a continuous state that the ack box calculation detects) seems to be effective.

This would also explain why bombers can come in fast, but straight and level (with no added G-load) and don't seem to take the additional punishment they should from ack for being a much easier target to get a solution on.

If the system took an actual reading of course CHANGES (direction and altitude) in to account, perhaps we could have much more realistic puffy ack and hopefully see more realistic doctrines used in game as a result – i.e. dive bombing would become more effective than level bombing a moving CV!

<S>

[FLS]

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.

[kvuo75]

Why 3000MSL is the magic alt is still a mystery to me...  Why not 200 or 1000 or 8000?

[Kingpin]

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.

FLS sir,

I think that is kind of my point.  How you fly doesn't seem to matter much.  But shouldn't it?

G-load is factored into the equation, so wasn't how you fly supposed to matter?

My point is course and altitude changes as key factors (in addition to range and speed) would make the ack model less random and more realistic than it seems to be now.  The target box should actually become smaller over time as you maintain course and make yourself a more predictable target.  Jinking would reduce your chances of being hit (while not eliminating the possibility) and flying straight and level would increase the chances.  G-load as a factor doesn't seem to be doing this.

Actually, I think a change of this nature could have TWO very positive results on game play.  First, it could reduce ack effectiveness against maneuvering fighters who are dogfighting (and are really non-threats to the CV).  Second, as a side benefit, it could increase ack effectiveness against level bombers (the true threat to a CV as the game is played now).  In my opinion, anything that reduces the effectiveness of level-bombing CV's is a good thing, even if it takes ack to do it.  Level bombing moving ships by heavy bombers was largely unsucessful in WWII and the method was virtually abandoned as a doctrine by axis and allies alike.  In Aces High however, it is the most successful method.  This has always stood out as a major flaw in the game in my mind.

I'd like to see more historically acurate methods of CV attack (torpedo and dive bombing) become the preferred methods over the gamey one-pass one-kill CV level-bombing we see now.  If changing the ack code also has that second effect, that would also be an improvement too.  (Two birds with one 5" shell, as it were.  )

<S>

[FLS]

G load and distance do make a difference. But because most of the misses are already so far away from you they don't make the difference you're taking about. 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. 

Bombing effectiveness in WW2 vs AH is about bombing accuracy and ship steering not puffy ack effectiveness. Different issue.

[Wiley]

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.

[grizz441]

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.

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.

[moot]

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.

[grizz441]

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.

Yep, I've had allies telling me they are getting blasted by the puffy ack and I don't see it on my end, then I pop 3k and I am getting blasted on my end and they are still getting hit on their end, when we are both further than 1.5k apart.

[Wiley]

Grizz- That's something I'm intending to check out with a squaddie or two.  I wasn't noticing it last night, but I didn't get to put a lot of time in. Actually, if any interested parties are going to be on this weekend, maybe we can hook up to knock around the MA with film rolling and see what we can see.

Wiley.

[moot]

You probably want as large a sample population as you can manage.

[Wiley]

I'm thinking 3-4 guys at least, separated around 1.5-2k all in range of the puffy and recording, and seeing what we can see.

The tricky part will be understanding if the guys in the 5" are doing their thing.

Wiley.

[Shuffler]

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

If you have a better implimentation spit it out.

If you have a film post it.

I'll doubt you'd find any bomber crew stating flak was inaccurate in WWII.

[Lusche]

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.

[Vinkman]

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.

Lusche, who is the guy in your avatar?