What are we going

[lunatic1]

17 pages about puffy ack WOW!!!!!!!

[lunatic1]

17 pages about puffy ack WOW!!!!!!!

my post made it 18 lol

[TheDudeDVant]

The effect is the same even if the mechanics are different. Making the code more complex wouldn't change the outcome.

Actually.. the effect could be quite different if the puffy ack functioned properly with lead times.. With lead times built in, the a/c could potentially be outside the puffy hit box area.. At least a fighter, not so much a bomber.. Being more realistic..

But puffy based off Air Warrior puffy ack gives ambiance I suppose.. 

[kvuo75]

should be 543 pages.

I'm asking again, why not 200msl instead of the current 3000msl?

climb above 200 ft in range of the puffy code, get popped by your own FE.  

[Noir]

Structural damage context

(Image removed from quote.)

Compare in your mind's eye what 1 tater does, relatively, on each of these airframes.

every one of them (dont have the He219 tho) would die first ping, except the A20 that would fly away undamaged....

[Noir]

its not the first long thread about puff ack, yet nothing changed. Consensus within the players won't force HTC to do anything tho, we can only wait in anger 

[moot]

No.. I'm pretty sure the 38 can digest 1 tater elsewhere than to an engine.  The 110 survives a tater if it hits one of its vert stabs and IIRC so does the 38. 

A smaller fighter like the Spitfire is puny compared to something like a 38 or A20.

[The Fugitive]

Last night I was flying around an enemy CV. Normally I couldn't care less how its firering or at who it is firering at. I chase down ack runners  However I paid attention due to this thread. I even maneuvered to put myself closer than others and outside the range of others. The ack seemed to work as Hitech said it does. When I got closer than other the puffy targeted me, and when I move farther out than others it targeted them...sorry for putting them in harms way, but it was neat to see the puffys appear 5k away where the other guy was closing on the CV. It wasn't instantaneous so Im sure that was the 3 second resampling that Hitech talked about.

As for being over 3k, it is an air barrage. Kinda silly to have it explode a few hundred feet off the ground and pepper the water with puffy ack 

As for damage, picture a basketball as the area of damage a 30mm does. If it hits a fighters wing it blows holes in both sides of the wing, in a buffs wing easily blow out only one side. The bigger the plane the more structure that has to built in to get the larger load off the ground and so the more damage needed to cause the same failures. You see buffs fly through puffy without being shot down. Well they are taking damage, it just takes more to take out a buff and it should.

The only problem I see with the puffy ack is a fighter is faster and more likely to be maneuvering a lot more than a buff. This should make hitting the fighter much more difficult, unless the fighter is flying strait and level or diving strait at the CV group. To me it would seem that a fighter flying through a mile stretch of air space maneuvering all over the place....chasing an ack runner  might get hit once. Where a buff traveling the same space flying strait and level lining up a drop should be hit many times. Tracking a steady speed and alt target should be much easier than trying to track one that is all over the place.

At 3k a buff should be hit almost ever shot, at 5k maybe every other shot, at 10k maybe one in 4 shots. It would seem more "realistic" to me.

[FLS]

its not the first long thread about puff ack, yet nothing changed. Consensus within the players won't force HTC to do anything tho, we can only wait in anger 

Hitech found and squashed a little bug. That makes the thread a winner. 

[Wiley]

Well, I spent a fair bit of my online time this weekend seeking out hordes over flattops.

Unfortunately, I was unable to find an instance where stuff worked any different from what Hitech says.  I did learn something for myself though.  I now see that previous instances where I thought multiple planes were being shot at by puffy were in actuality 5" fire on a plane that wasn't being shot at by puffy.

Sorry guys, I was hoping to get something that could be gone over like the Zapruder film, but sadly it was not to be.

Regardless of what I think of the modeling, it does appear as far as I can tell to be working as explained.

Wiley.

[grizz441]

So the puffy ack only shoots at one person per furball near carrier?  I have such a hard time believing that I would only be able to convince myself of it.

[Baumer]

Yes I am opposed.

I am increasingly disappointed with this position.
 

[Wiley]

So the puffy ack only shoots at one person per furball near carrier?  I have such a hard time believing that I would only be able to convince myself of it.

I was frankly shocked as well.  Once I started really paying attention to it, it really did become obvious what was going on around me wasn't what I'd thought I'd been seeing in the periphery of my attention.

Another thing I was looking at was damage on the first shot coming into range.  I had one instance where I took immediate damage not maneuvering as I flew into range.  All the other times, and I was making it a point to fly straight and level on my way in, it missed or just made noise, nothing fell off.

Wiley.

[moot]

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

Did someone quote this yet?  

[Kingpin]

How can you look at the ack shooting at an aircraft going 300 mph and claim it doesn't lead the target? It does aim at the targeted aircraft

Because you've explained how the system works and made it clear that ack DOESN'T lead the target.  (It should, but it doesn't.)  You've said it fires into a box CENTERED on the target.  Clearly that's not leading a target.  You've explained that flying a predictable course doesn't make you easier to hit, because the system is making no effort to predict a course -- it doesn't aim.  It's more random than anything resembling aiming, which is exactly what you've said earlier in this thread. 

I thank you again for explaining how the ack system works.  Based on your information, I offered a suggestion of how the system could actually factor in course changes (maneuvering), and how that might make it more realistic.  You seem to want to argue that I am wrong in my suggestion somehow.  You appear to be going to great lengths to do so, including contradicting yourself.

My intention was simply to offer an idea: a relatively easily implemented change to the ack system that could make it more realistic with regard to maneuvering.  Others seem to agree that maneuvering vs. flying straight and level should make a difference.  Apparently you don't agree.  OK, then, we'll leave it at that.
 
<S>