rotation speed of the triple AAA or Flak guns!!!

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

the flak guns, triple AAA rotation speed is inhuman!! I can be doing 650 Kph, and that flak gun should not keep up with me at all!!

 

Especially when they snap turn to a air target!!

Edited February 16, 2017 by 71st_AH_Mastiff

[Finkeren]

I agree with the sentiment of this post, if not its overuse of explanation points.

 

The traverse time of AAA seems to be on the fast side.

[JaffaCake]

Agreed. I posted a thread about AAA targeting only a single aircraft and ignoring everyone else before. the inhuman and unrealistic AAA tracking is also an issue.

 

In addition the bursting flak commonly used to engage high altitude bombers was supplied with ammo to burst at predetermined altitudes - this means that the target's altitude is fixed at the start of the reload of the gun, while the tracking can only adjust for horizontal movement. Basically bursting flak could not reliably deal with diving targets unless it hit the target directly.

 

With servers like RE and TAW the realism of the AAA fire, tank-killing capability (il2 cannons were questioned in the other thread) and basically any human-AI interactions are taken with a lot more scrutiny as it plays the determining role in who wins the game.

Edited February 16, 2017 by JaffaCake

[Dutchvdm]

I agree as well. 

 

Grt M

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Heres me thinking it was just me or all in my head.. i have often had this.

fly past a AAA @ 50m away and they track you as target.. (that little dude down there would be turning that control for gun like crazy)

I swear some of them track faster than this thing driven by a motor..

https://youtu.be/dSp7CipN1pw?t=1m15s

Anyways im sure maybe the devs could list the exact specified rotational speeds for flak and aaa.

 

Edited February 16, 2017 by =r4t=Sshadow14

[Scojo]

I agree. I also agree with the sentiments on AI targeting logic. They latch on to the first plane that comes into range and seem to have no target priority.

 

 

I don't know much about how different flak guns operated, but I think what Jaffa Cake mentioned should definitely be looked into as well.

[Dakpilot]

These are traverse rates of 20mm Flak 38

 

Traverse is 10° per turn of handwheel in fine gear and 30° in coarse gear; rate of elevation or depression is 4° per turn in fine gear and 12° in coarse gear.

 

with a bit of trigonometry someone good at maths could figure what rate you would need at a certain range to track an aircraft, and check what is plausible

 

some interesting info on AA guns, of note is the gunsights

 

"The gun's traversing gear is coupled to a tachometer-dynamo, which produces electric voltage varying directly with the rate of traverse. The terminals are connected to a moving coil meter which measures the strength of the electric current. A variable resistance depending on range setting is introduced, so that the current is regulated both by the tachometer-dynamo and by the strength of the range resistance. With short ranges the corresponding resistance is low and the deflection large; with long ranges, the deflection is small and the resistance high. The resultant lateral deflection is transmitted to the layer's vertical cross wire, which moves in the direction opposite to the course of the aircraft."

 

http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/german_aa/gaa7_german_antiaircraft_aa_guns.html

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited February 16, 2017 by Dakpilot

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Since Rise of flight arche is in side of arcade not sim at all. Starting as ambient flak (thankful not preset in bos) but speed simulating men operating and accuracy of heavy flak at tree top height is at least frustrating! Well it could be just way devs choose to cope with resources limitation of AI (ten unit with real live accuracy or one with almost laser guided accuracy and unhiuman speed)- probability of both hit you could be similar

[Scojo]

could be just way devs choose to cope with resources limitation of AI (ten unit with real live accuracy or one with almost laser guided accuracy and unhiuman speed)- probability of both hit you could be similar

Good point. Does anyone know what AAA numbers would look like at various targets historically?

 

Even if this is the reason though, I don't think any number of AAA would help if the plane is flying faster than they can traverse to hit it

[JaffaCake]

These are traverse rates of 20mm Flak 38

 

Traverse is 10° per turn of handwheel in fine gear and 30° in coarse gear; rate of elevation or depression is 4° per turn in fine gear and 12° in coarse gear.

 

with a bit of trigonometry someone good at maths could figure what rate you would need at a certain range to track an aircraft, and check what is plausible

 

some interesting info on AA guns, of note is the gunsights

 

At 300m distance such AAA can track ~560kmph target in coarse gear or 180kmph in fine gear. 

 

 

Good point. Does anyone know what AAA numbers would look like at various targets historically?

 

Even if this is the reason though, I don't think any number of AAA would help if the plane is flying faster than they can traverse to hit it

 

Since Rise of flight arche is in side of arcade not sim at all. Starting as ambient flak (thankful not preset in bos) but speed simulating men operating and accuracy of heavy flak at tree top height is at least frustrating! Well it could be just way devs choose to cope with resources limitation of AI (ten unit with real live accuracy or one with almost laser guided accuracy and unhiuman speed)- probability of both hit you could be similar

 

You do not particularly need complex additional calculations to get "realistic" AAA behaviour. First of all - AAA already turns towards the target - look at the models - so the calculations are being performed.

 

And even if proper "tracking" is too expensive - a simple "if plane is faster than current maximum tracking speed - stop firing" would be sufficient as a stopgap.

 

In hindsight something is seriously wrong with the engine and servers if static AAA / tanks are causing such heavy loads - there are plenty of games that handle many more AI and static objects server-side. I believe trees and player collisions are calculated client-side which wouldn't hinder the server.

[Scojo]

At 300m distance such AAA can track ~560kmph target in coarse gear or 180kmph in fine gear. 

Interesting. So I guess the question now is, how far away from the flak gun was Mastiff when doing 650 kph?

[Dakpilot]

Not sure how the tracking calculation was done..how fast can one turn the handle to get 30 degrees of movement with one rotation..this is a factor I do not know

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Scojo]

Not sure how the tracking calculation was done..how fast can one turn the handle to get 30 degrees of movement with one rotation..this is a factor I do not know

 

Cheers Dakpilot

True...

 

Is two turns per second a good assumption?

 

I'm only loosely familiar with the turning of US Navy AAA guns. Nothing on the Eastern front

Edited February 16, 2017 by 71st_AH_Scojo

[hames123]

Maybe one day we will get a Bombing the Reich game, with Flak Towers and massive streams of bombers, flown by mad people like me. Just imagine 8 stories of concrete, covered with 12.8 CM guns and 20mm guns, with searchlights scanning the sky for lancasters.

[Scojo]

Maybe one day we will get a Bombing the Reich game, with Flak Towers and massive streams of bombers, flown by mad people like me. Just imagine 8 stories of concrete, covered with 12.8 CM guns and 20mm guns, with searchlights scanning the sky for lancasters.

What on earth does this have to do with this thread? lol

[bald_eagle]

There is a possibility that while designing short range AA guns the designers took the aiming on a diving fighter as a requirement. There is a chance that they design something that can aim only on ships (slow ships! ) but it is not a necessity.

Edited February 16, 2017 by bald_beagle

[JaffaCake]

Not sure how the tracking calculation was done..how fast can one turn the handle to get 30 degrees of movement with one rotation..this is a factor I do not know

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

I assumed 1 rotation per second for at least some precision in firing - if you try to turn it as fast as you possibly can you wouldn't be able to also keep the lead on the target.

[Aap]

 

 

In addition the bursting flak commonly used to engage high altitude bombers was supplied with ammo to burst at predetermined altitudes - this means that the target's altitude is fixed at the start of the reload of the gun, while the tracking can only adjust for horizontal movement. Basically bursting flak could not reliably deal with diving targets unless it hit the target directly.

 

I think that the bursting flak in game can't deal with diving targets reliably either. In reality, of course, the bomber formations did not maneuver or dive wildly like we see in the game.

What comes to predetermined altitudes, actually there was a member in a gun crew, whose main job was setting fuses for ammo. The distance to target does not depend on altitude alone, but also distance from the gun and as the bombers fly towards/away from the guns, the distance also changes. Determing the altitude of incoming bombers was not an easy job either. In general the outer flak guns of a defended area were used to "calibrate" the correct altitude of bomber formations and that information was forwarded to other guns to help to concentrate the flak to correct altitudes/distances. 

[Aap]

Even if this is the reason though, I don't think any number of AAA would help if the plane is flying faster than they can traverse to hit it

 

If there were 10 AAA stations, then not all the guns would need to traverse equally fast. If the plane was flying directly towards an AAA station, it would not have to turn at all to shoot at the target. So while wome AAA stations could not turn as fast as needed, other stations at different locations/angles, would not need to turn much, while tracking the plane.

Edited February 16, 2017 by II./JG77_Kemp

[JaffaCake]

I think that the bursting flak in game can't deal with diving targets reliably either. In reality, of course, the bomber formations did not maneuver or dive wildly like we see in the game.

What comes to predetermined altitudes, actually there was a member in a gun crew, whose main job was setting fuses for ammo. The distance to target does not depend on altitude alone, but also distance from the gun and as the bombers fly towards/away from the guns, the distance also changes. Determing the altitude of incoming bombers was not an easy job either. In general the outer flak guns of a defended area were used to "calibrate" the correct altitude of bomber formations and that information was forwarded to other guns to help to concentrate the flak to correct altitudes/distances. 

 

Late-war bursting fuses were pressure-activated rather than timed. But you are correct bursting flak was very inaccurate and required multiple guns an minutes of time to zero in on a formation. Diving or abrupt course changes were used in flak evasion though - less so for the american bombers as formations were larger.

[Scojo]

If there were 10 AAA stations, then not all the guns would need to traverse equally fast. If the plane was flying directly towards an AAA station, it would not have to turn at all to shoot at the target. So while wome AAA stations could not turn as fast as needed, other stations at different locations/angles, would not need to turn much, while tracking the plane.

We're not talking about this situation...

 

We're talking about a AAA gun in the game potentially being able to traverse and keep target on an aircraft flying tangentially to it, not directly at it

 

Obviously there are other cases, but we're not discussing issues with those other cases

If you're orbiting an area of AAA in this game, whether there's one or five, they all traverse to keep with you. They aren't using sections of fire

Edited February 16, 2017 by 71st_AH_Scojo

[Aap]

We're talking about one AAA gun in the game potentially being able to traverse and keep target on an aircraft flying tangentially to it, not directly at it

 

Yes I know, I was just adding to 307_Tomcat's point that you replied to: "could be just way devs choose to cope with resources limitation of AI (ten unit with real live accuracy or one with almost laser guided accuracy and unhiuman speed)".

Edited February 16, 2017 by II./JG77_Kemp

[Scojo]

Yes I know, I was just adding to 307_Tomcat's point that you replied to: "could be just way devs choose to cope with resources limitation of AI (ten unit with real live accuracy or one with almost laser guided accuracy and unhiuman speed)".

Ah, I see. My apologies

[BlitzPig_EL]

I'm sure this is just a way to keep AI overhead down, it's not an uncommon strategy in game development.

 

The real test will be how the AAA on US Navy ships will be handled when we get to the Pacific.

 

They could put up a shocking amount of fire, which could be problematic on base spec computers.

[JaffaCake]

I'm sure this is just a way to keep AI overhead down, it's not an uncommon strategy in game development.

 

The real test will be how the AAA on US Navy ships will be handled when we get to the Pacific.

 

They could put up a shocking amount of fire, which could be problematic on base spec computers.

 

 

It is not - look at the AAA models, they turn and track the direction that they are firing at - there is no reason to not implement proper tracking conditions when they already spend resources on moving the model orientation.

 

If you tell me that model is client-side then I'd add that they also handle AAA supression by firing next to it without direct hits.

 

Honestly they already perform calculations for predicting where to fire to hit the aircraft, adding tracking limitations to that in the barest of the forms is just 2-3 extra trig operations.

 

 

Dserver has performance issues and they have nothing to do with simplest mathematical operations that we discuss here. Modern CPU can easily handle ~5-10M trig operations in ~1s

 

Just to prove my point I wrote a quick c++ script to calculate elevation and traverse angles between two 3D coordinates

#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <iostream>


int main()
{
        float x1=1.1,y1=2.1,z1=3.4,x2=0.1,y2=0.7,z2=0.9;

        const clock_t begin_time = clock();

        for(int i = 0; i< 1000000; i++)
        {
                float x = x1-x2;
                float y = y1-y2;
                float z = z1-z2;
                float elev = atan2(y,sqrt(x*x+z*z));
                float trav = atan2(x,z);
        }

        std::cout << float( clock () - begin_time ) /  CLOCKS_PER_SEC;
}

The above code runs in ~130ms on my CPU. Basically we can perform this operation ~10M times a second. Considering each flak only has one target to aim at it really does not cost much to check traverse speeds.

 

And hold on, why did I even bother calculating? The AAA already has to calculate the traverse angles! It just needs to remember the old ones and the new one and make sure that the delta between the two does not exceed the limit. The entire argument regarding performance boils down to keeping 2 extra variables in memory and doing 2 subtractions and an if statement.

Edited February 16, 2017 by JaffaCake

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

You do not particularly need complex additional calculations to get "realistic" AAA behaviour. First of all - AAA already turns towards the target - look at the models - so the calculations are being performed.

 

And even if proper "tracking" is too expensive - a simple "if plane is faster than current maximum tracking speed - stop firing" would be sufficient as a stopgap.

 

In hindsight something is seriously wrong with the engine and servers if static AAA / tanks are causing such heavy loads - there are plenty of games that handle many more AI and static objects server-side. I believe trees and player collisions are calculated client-side which wouldn't hinder the server.

I think that issue it's not about calculation but a mere limitations of numbers of AI. Dozen moving forward trucks can hog dserver or sp mission.

[JaffaCake]

I think that issue it's not about calculation but a mere limitations of numbers of AI. Dozen moving forward trucks can hog dserver or sp mission.

 

 

We weren't talking about adding more AAA just making it so they do not shoot up your aircraft flying 100m directly above them. I guess your other argument is that devs do not wish to implement it as such so that a single AAA represents multiple scattered around, unfortunately they do nothing to counter the increased effectiveness and accuracy of the AAA tracking the aircraft flying closer to it.

 

In reality - fly fast next to / above AAA and they loose track of you - the other AAA emplacements are still firing their inaccurate bursts

in the game - fly fast next to / above AAA and get a full blast at short range and "perfect" precision since you are so "close" to AAA.

Edited February 16, 2017 by JaffaCake

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

We weren't talking about adding more AAA just making it so they do not shoot up your aircraft flying 100m directly above them. I guess your other argument is that devs do not wish to implement it as such so that a single AAA represents multiple scattered around, unfortunately they do nothing to counter the increased effectiveness and accuracy of the AAA tracking the aircraft flying closer to it.

 

In reality - fly fast next to / above AAA and they loose track of you - the other AAA emplacements are still firing their inaccurate bursts

in the game - fly fast next to / above AAA and get a full blast at short range and "perfect" precision since you are so "close" to AAA.

I know, but issue could be more complex, touching game balance and resources...

If not, please tell me the reason why current operation of heavy aaa is so unrealistic?

[Scojo]

I know, but issue could be more complex, touching game balance and resources...

If not, please tell me the reason why current operation of heavy aaa is so unrealistic?

AI latches onto the first target in range and doesn't leave it until out of range

 

There are no "ranging" shots at all. The AAA always starts firing right where it needs to

 

When flying at a speed tangentially to AAA that the AAA shouldn't be able to follow, it follows anyway

 

Now I won't say that these are tremendous issues that should be top priority but they are some things that could be considered in need of tweaking

[JaffaCake]

I know, but issue could be more complex, touching game balance and resources...

If not, please tell me the reason why current operation of heavy aaa is so unrealistic?

 

I don't think my speculation, or anyone's, will do us any good. Devs are not perfect and they can implement things in a simple way simply because they "cannot spend more time" to think through stuff and do it better.

 

Us, players, can only let the devs know what we think would be nice to have or is important to us.

 

Unfortunately some players seem to come to the "defence" of the devs by claiming that certain features are too difficult or resource intensive to implement. Thus the argument has started. Short of the dev explaining why it would be too resource intensive to implement such AAA we would never know the real reason.

 

From my point of view implementing more realistic AAA behaviour is necessary as it is otherwise immersion breaking and precludes players from using actual WW2 tactics to evade AAA fire. Also, from my POV it is not too difficult to implement it and does not require any additional resources beyond the most basic subtraction.

Edited February 16, 2017 by JaffaCake

[EAF_51_FOX]

I don't think my speculation, or anyone's, will do us any good. Devs are not perfect and they can implement things in a simple way simply because they "cannot spend more time" to think through stuff and do it better.

 

Us, players, can only let the devs know what we think would be nice to have or is important to us.

 

Unfortunately some players seem to come to the "defence" of the devs by claiming that certain features are too difficult or resource intensive to implement. Thus the argument has started. Short of the dev explaining why it would be too resource intensive to implement such AAA we would never know the real reason.

 

From my point of view implementing more realistic AAA behaviour is necessary as it is otherwise immersion breaking and precludes players from using actual WW2 tactics to evade AAA fire. Also, from my POV it is not too difficult to implement it and does not require any additional resources beyond the most basic subtraction.

Oh yes m8.. You reached to my conclusion about some people here in this game forum that just feels themself judge instead of dev team 1C, and those people say to you "yes","no" or "there are other priorities.." or "this isn't good for this game engine.." or "we know better than you..because we talk more deeply with Dev Team than you.."  about suggestions/improvements to the game even if in reality they are completely out of dev team.

 

It's a verified sad true thing here that leave just to read only about stuff than waste time to down on the road of polemic where those people always wants to end even if you have your strong and true motivation and try to keep discussion on pleasant manner.

Edited February 16, 2017 by EAF_51_FOX

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Oh yes m8.. You reached to my conclusion about some people here in this game forum that just feels themself judge instead of dev team 1C, and those people say to you "yes","no" or "there are other priorities.." or "this isn't good for this game engine.." or "we know better than you..because we talk more deeply with Dev Deam than you.."  about suggestions/improvements to the game even if in reality they are completely out of dev team.

 

It's a verified sad true thing here that leave just to read only about stuff than waste time to down on the road of polemic where those people always wants to end even if you try to keep discussion on pleasant manner.

 

1CGS isn't the development team, they're a publisher.

[unreasonable]

The vanilla version of RoF has large AA guns rapidly traversing and shooting perfectly fused shells at nearby low flying aircraft.

 

This seems to have been due to the MP needs for base defence: unfortunate for anyone looking for a simulation.

 

Fortunately it was mod-able to a degree - by altering accuracy and minimum elevation it is possible to get a more reasonable behaviour in modded SP. (Unfortunately there does not seem to be a minimum range variable in the file available to mod, so there are still occasions when silly things happen).

 

Assuming that the BoS archie has a similar file structure, it should be possible to alter these files fairly easily, either in the base game or as a mod. 

 

My own view is that elements of the game that affect SP should not deliberately be made unrealistic to balance MP, unless there is a way to mod back to a more plausible behaviour.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Gents, my point is that having uber fast tracking, accurate anti aircraft guns is a way to allow mission builders to simulate large numbers of guns without having to place them in the game, hence saving overhead, as we know this game engine had/has troubles with large numbers of ground units on a map.  It's not about the engine's ability to calculate the weapon's aiming.

[unreasonable]

Gents, my point is that having uber fast tracking, accurate anti aircraft guns is a way to allow mission builders to simulate large numbers of guns without having to place them in the game, hence saving overhead, as we know this game engine had/has troubles with large numbers of ground units on a map.  It's not about the engine's ability to calculate the weapon's aiming.

 

But that is the problem - fast tracking, accurate anti aircraft guns do not simulate large numbers of guns, if they can fire and bring down aircraft in situations where no number of guns could get a shot in the target area.

 

There is a much easier way to simulate large numbers of guns without making their behaviour absurd: simply give 2 or however many bursts per gun fired, spaced with some randomess, hence representing the bursts from a section or battery. But the placement of the bursts should conform to what is actually possible.

[Dakpilot]

Before everyone gets their panties in a bunch surely the most sensible thing to do is actually find out what the realistic traverse/tracking speed is, this is rather crucial to the point, rather than hearsay and assumptions.

 

Are people actually getting tracked and shot down at 50M distance and travelling at 650kmh or is this perhaps a guess? did the hits come from the gun that is this close or maybe another nearby?

 

Traverse seems actually pretty quick in some of the examples here, the crews were pretty highly trained and the gunsight quite sophisticated with lead compute (at least on many German ones, see my post above, not done much proper research)

 

 

There may indeed be many issues, but facts are better than speculation

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I don't think my speculation, or anyone's, will do us any good. Devs are not perfect and they can implement things in a simple way simply because they "cannot spend more time" to think through stuff and do it better.

 

Us, players, can only let the devs know what we think would be nice to have or is important to us.

 

Unfortunately some players seem to come to the "defence" of the devs by claiming that certain features are too difficult or resource intensive to implement. Thus the argument has started. Short of the dev explaining why it would be too resource intensive to implement such AAA we would never know the real reason.

 

From my point of view implementing more realistic AAA behaviour is necessary as it is otherwise immersion breaking and precludes players from using actual WW2 tactics to evade AAA fire. Also, from my POV it is not too difficult to implement it and does not require any additional resources beyond the most basic subtraction.

Ofcurse you don't know the answer. I wanted realistic behavior of AAA since I did started playing 777 titles. Same did others, so ask developers and do not speculate that they don't know how easy is to code it realistically and how low CPU time it take... which is funny as you look how complex is coding flight dynamic, engine, systems etc...and how accurately they are doing that. Edited February 16, 2017 by 307_Tomcat

[Gambit21]

The only valid opinion is that which agrees with Fox (apparently)...

 

Yep

[Trooper117]

RAF Tempest pilots were extremely fearful of the accuracy of flak defences... most of their losses were down to light flak around airfields and vehicle columns etc, and not enemy aircraft action.

These pilots recall diving speeds of between 400-450 +mph at times, and they were still brought down by accurate flak during straffing passes.

 

Still, the dev's may have got something right, airfield protection if done right was a real problem for any attacker.

 

I have Russian airfield defence diagrams for the Kuban period onwards somewhere... the amount of light flack and heavy MG's allocated to a single airfield was quite fearsome.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Trooper117

[Dakpilot]

Traverse speed of 1930's British bofors 40mm L60 was 50 degrees/second, from unreliable sources.... Russian 37mm appears to be between 22-26 degrees/sec and Flak 38 between 26-30 degrees/sec

 

Cheers Dakpilot