What do think of the "New" Flak ?

[jaydee]

I love it  and I think it could be a game changer for BOS in the Game vs Full Real genre !. Its accurate and destructive, so now ,Bomber and Fighter Pilots may have to re-evaluate their tactics !

How many of ye guys that have flown Sims have had this happen to you ?...{1}You spawn and you have a "Basecamper' who has been BNZing  before you even take off !....(2)Your nursing your wounded plane onto the runway and suddenly you are destroyed by a guy that has been Loitering above the airfield for 40 mins....(He's got a great SCORE but)..And that's in a "full Real" server !

With Flak like this any vulcher is going to have to think twice !

Looking to the future of BOS with Multiplayer,Maps, Missions.....Flak might become a Priority for all ,before Targets are attacked ! Bombers(escorted by fighters) may need to Knockout Flak First !...sound familiar in 2014 ?

I Love this Flak ! ~S~....Its a big step to "Full Real" !

 

[Cybermat47]

With Flak like this any vulcher is going to have to think twice !

 

But vulching is my favourite tactic!

 

Even though I never get any kills and either get shot down or crash land at the enemy base

[Cheesepilot]

Totally agree with you Jaydee.

Theres many a time I have just wanted to do a check flight,you know just to get up do a couple of circuits etc,then some git    shoots you down!!!

As annoying it is I suppose there playing there own game.Its a shocker for newbies aswell,remember when all you wanted to do was get airbourne and navigate etc etc.

 

Cheese

[Georgio]

Difficult as it is to say it, I think the flak should stay as it is; it's supposed to be deadly for the unwary and bold and it is. It only seems like a wall at the moment because we've got used to blind gunners in previous builds.

My reason for saying this is that in single player and multiplayer you aren't going to be the only target in the sky and if you are then you deserve to get stripped of your wings.

People need to learn to respect flak and think about the best route into a target area to minmise their exposure. At least we get to start over if we get it wrong, in reality there wasn't a replay option....^^

[HagarTheHorrible]

I like the idea of alertness states for flak, over and above individual battery skills

 

Attack an aifield once = reduced flak and not very accurate, good chance of going home.

 

Attack a second time, or attack an already alerted airfield = more flak but maybe they are still trying to get themselves together, you're really chancing it.

 

Hang around for a third time =  90% chance of having new ventilation holes in both aircraft and bodily parts, very little chance of not taking at least some damage.

[Matt]

I flew the dogfight missions quite a bit yesterday and never got hit. Not even close. When doing ground attacks, it can be a bit more tricky though.

 

It's true that it might be less tough when more planes (potential targets) are flying around, but let's not forget that there are currently also only very few AAA guns on the map.

 

But still, I prefer AAA to be at least somewhat dangerous and not just there for ambient reasons. So I would be ok if it stayed like this, but maybe a AAA skill setting would be useful in SP. In MP, the mission creators can set the AAA skill themselves anyway.

[Rjel]

I was fighting a LaGG near it's own airfield yesterday when I got nailed twice by flak. The first peppered the underside of my 109. The second hit a minute or so later pealed off my left wing. At first I thought I had collided with the LaGG as I passed over him but the replay showed a burst of flak very near my plane. Right now I'm not sure if it discriminates friendly targets from the enemy. I think it is going to make ground work difficult even with multiple aircraft in the area. Great looking flak explosions.

[Nil]

I flew the dogfight missions quite a bit yesterday and never got hit. Not even close. When doing ground attacks, it can be a bit more tricky though.

 

I got shot down 4 times in a row on the dogfight (BF-109) mission, by flak.. when I where so close to my base that I had wheels down!!

Seems like flak triggers a lot more after you have been to dogfight-point B (after being to A shooting Lagg down)

 

Then I turned off the game and watched a movie, went back to the sim.. and flew 5 successful dogfights only to target A

[ParaB]

Light flak is Ok. Heavy flak is too accurate.

[DD_Arthur]

Light flak is Ok. Heavy flak is too accurate.

 

I agree. Light flak around airfields and targets that would need close protection like vital bridges should have plenty of 20 to 40mm. stuff that would make a second run over the target fatal to jabos.

 

We do seem to have heavy flak firing at too low a height and much to low an angle to be realistic.  If you are below around 1500m you should be fairly invulnerable to eighty-eights.  Thats not how it is at the moment. 

Edited February 16, 2014 by arthursmedley

[SYN_Mike77]

I have to disagree with JayDee on one point

 

"With Flak like this any vulcher is going to have to think twice !"

 

They will be dead long before that second think!

[Bussard_x]

Light flak is Ok. Heavy flak is too accurate.

Agree on that, heavy flak should be tuned downed. Light flak is okay as it is now.

[Volkoff]

The ground crews are what goes bump in the night. You always had to look out for what is above you and around you. Now you must mind what is below you. It is all real horror show, like I would expect. You can't just show up to kill someone and not expect that one to make your life Hell, after all.   

 MJ

[LLv44_Mprhead]

Flak is a bit too much now when there is no other players and not so many ai planes. It might be ok for multiplayer or single player campaign, but atm too deadly. It would be great to have missions both with and without flak, imo.

[71st_AH_Cujo]

I've been doing some flying around Stalingrad @1000-2000 trying to spot the landmarks with a real Stalingrad WW2 photos .I noticed if you fly strait and level for a long time the puffs will come closer and closer until they finally get you really quick. But if you Change direction often they have a real hard time hitting their target and I was able to do my recon and come back to base in one peace. I would thing this is quite accurate and the flack it's modeled very well.

[Jaws2002]

I agree. Light flak around airfields and targets that would need close protection like vital bridges should have plenty of 20 to 40mm. stuff that would make a second run over the target fatal to jabos.

 

We do seem to have heavy flak firing at too low a height and much to low an angle to be realistic.  If you are below around 1500m you should be fairly invulnerable to eighty-eights.  Thats not how it is at the moment. 

 

There's a video I can't find right now, where one of the Romanian fighter pilots involved during Tidal Wave (attack on Ploiesti oil facilities) tells how the 75mm and 88mm flak from the airfield was shooting horizontaly right over the city, and the shells would explode in the bomber formation on the other side, at fifty meters above the ground.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Jaws2002

[56RAF_phoenix56]

On a slightly different tack, there don't seem to be enough variations in the flak smoke geometry.

It repeats too often which spoils the immersion a bit.

 

56RAF_phoenix

Edited February 17, 2014 by 56RAF56RAF_phoenix

[sturmkraehe]

I hope that with a FMB we get the possibility to tune the skill level of ack-ack and fire rate (like in original il2).

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

I hate it and I like it.  If you fly striaght, level and low you're cannon fodder. Above a 1000 m or so you can alter your alt and direction enough to not get hit. As Cujo said it does track you and will walk the ack up to you. I'm not sure that it should/could get you at 30m to 50m off the ground but NOE missions will be deadly if it can. A high level, nosebleed section bomber is needed, can we get a rush on that dev's?    My best tactic so far is to avoid the AAA altogether. 

Edited February 17, 2014 by Blackwolf

[FuriousMeow]

AA is apparently not that deadly to me. Played the Il-2 ground attack mission against the airfield and 88s never touched me. Light flak fired at me, definitely got me when I did a run on it but it took a while to focus in on me until I was going straight at it and then it pinged me up. Destroyed it, and egressed. Oil hit, fuel hit, overheated but brought back RPM and that went away. Engine died eventually due to lack of oil. Second mission attempt, took out the AA first. It didn't touch me, but a 109 did. Rear gunner dead, fuel leaking and maybe some engine damage, made a couple passes and RTBd. Landed at home base no problem. The 88s, however, exploded around me a lot but didn't take me out. I also had wingmen, so yeah - I'd suspect if you're going it alone then the AA isn't overdone because you are the only target in the sky.

 

Two passes is pushing it, three is suicide - by WWII standards. Most attack runs were single passes. Unless it's Il-2s against tank columns, but those aren't static objects that can be guarded by AA implacements since they are kind of mobile and either advancing or retreating beyond established/controlled areas.

Edited February 17, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[JG1_Pragr]

As I posted in another thread I'm not sure if the problem with heavy AA accuracy (and all AA in general) will be solved by more planes on mission. Until there will be any option for AI AA gunner not shooting into the fighting planes the current setting kill any activity on multiplayer. Most planes will be shot down by AI and that's no fun I think.

 

I agree the light AA is not a huge problem as the heavy AA is. I have no hard data for eastern front only for US Navy. Anyway it's interesting. Official report of US Navy from 1943 claims 46 killed planes using 27 242 rounds of 5 inch heavy AA guns. That's one kill per some 600 rounds fired. With no place to hide over the ocean the AA batteries have the best opportunity to score hit on the plane. So in general they were way more effective than heavy AA on ground could be. I think I read somewhere German AA needed like 10 000 rounds of heavy AA for one killed plane, but I'm not sure about the exact number. Definitely it's far less effective than I could see in BoS this weekend.

 

Still I think the heavy AA skill for low level should be tuned down a bit. And should include the loss of LoS on plane, loss of ability to track plane flying behind some cover etc.

The heavy AA effectiveness for high altitude (above 1 km) is ok it seems.

[Reflected]

I love the deadliness of the new AA. Finally a sim where you think twice before flying low or going around for another pass.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Reflected

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

If you gents remember the flack in the original IL2, it was quite deadly too. Anyone who hasn't played it can download the free trail version and try out the attack on the Crimean airfield. It is definitely a "one pass, get the heck out" sort of scenario, same as FuriousMeow observed. While there will always be room for improvement, I don't think it is unrealistic not to expect to die if flying low over a place like Stalingrad.

Edited February 17, 2014 by 79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer

[Finkeren]

The deadliness of the flak in the old IL-2 was rather inconsistent IIRC, plus it had a sort of "safe zone" at a certain altitude, where neither the light nor heavy AAA was particularly threatening.

 

Even though I think, that the accuracy of flak in BoS now is pretty reralistic, I would still ike to see it tuned down just a tiny bit for gameplays sake (this is one of the rear instances, where I think gameplay should trump realism) Even if accuracy was toned down by 30% it would still be life threatening to any pilot that lingers too long. 

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

I'm not sure toning it down is the right answer. I think we need to remember that the airspace over Stalingrad was a kind of worst case scenario flack-wise. In the old airfield attack in IL2, the flack was concentrated around airfield. Fly off, and you were pretty safe. As long as the mission in BoS stay away from "flack central" in downtown Stalingrad, it shouldn't be that bad. When on-line multiplayer comes, I suppose dogfight missions could be set up so that they don't stray near Stalingrad.

[Bussard_x]

Lessons learnt:

 

Avoid Flak, and certainly do not attack Flak. Far too risky. 

Avoid Stalingrad, only fly over if you really have to.

When ground attack, stay low on approach and after attack wait before pulling up. 

 

Worked for me.

[Georgio]

So pretty much how it was in Stalingrad circa 1942 for real, in which case job done...^^

 

Lessons learnt:

 

Avoid Flak, and certainly do not attack Flak. Far too risky. 

Avoid Stalingrad, only fly over if you really have to.

When ground attack, stay low on approach and after attack wait before pulling up. 

 

Worked for me.

[FuriousMeow]

Did another run with the Il-2 ground attack mission today. Took off, made my way to target hitting the waypoints. Used manual control most of the way, level auto some of it. Saw one of the LaGGs take damage from 88s en route. Eventually it went down. 109s took off and came at my group, I managed to fire off some light MGs at one of the 109s and succeeded with a few hits, pushed on to the airfield. Attacked the light AA first, took it out. Noticed another AA unit on the otherside of the field firing at me and came around on it, took it out. A few hits, nothing severe. Made several more passes and destroyed 109s, trucks, He111 and a Ju87. Out of ammo and rockets, I made my way towards the next waypoint. I made 6 attack runs, and had an engine overheat, but kept the engine RPM reduced to 1700/1500 for most of the runs. RTBed with 1 LaGG escort left and 1 Il-2 left that was smoking. By the time I landed only the LaGG was left, think the Il-2's engine went out and it ditched. No visible damage on the Il-2 I used, so the hits must have been on heavily armored areas.

 

So that's three missions, and I made it 2 times out of 3. That actually sounds better than the Il-2's record.

Edited February 17, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[76SQN-J0NJ0N]

I agree the light AA is not a huge problem as the heavy AA is. I have no hard data for eastern front only for US Navy. Anyway it's interesting. Official report of US Navy from 1943 claims 46 killed planes using 27 242 rounds of 5 inch heavy AA guns. That's one kill per some 600 rounds fired. With no place to hide over the ocean the AA batteries have the best opportunity to score hit on the plane. So in general they were way more effective than heavy AA on ground could be. I think I read somewhere German AA needed like 10 000 rounds of heavy AA for one killed plane, but I'm not sure about the exact number. Definitely it's far less effective than I could see in BoS this weekend.

 

 

Not sure that a moving, rolling and pitching battery is going to be the best shooting platform available, but I take your point.

[Volkoff]

I'm not sure toning it down is the right answer. I think we need to remember that the airspace over Stalingrad was a kind of worst case scenario flack-wise. In the old airfield attack in IL2, the flack was concentrated around airfield. Fly off, and you were pretty safe. As long as the mission in BoS stay away from "flack central" in downtown Stalingrad, it shouldn't be that bad. When on-line multiplayer comes, I suppose dogfight missions could be set up so that they don't stray near Stalingrad.

 

+1 Yeah, I like that flak is a real danger. I remember reading that on July 3, 1941, Pokryshkin's Mig-3 was shot down by ground fire. He was a thoughtful tactician, but Axis ground fire was no laughing matter. The 1CGS team recommended changing direction a lot and I think this is sound advice. I just posted a video of my evading the ground fire, using an IL2 on the night mission. In the video, I dIve in to hit some trucks, starting at an altitude of about 1.5 km to 2 km. I change directions a couple of times before hitting the trucks, but I probably should have changed direction a few more times. I came seriously close to being hit a few times in the video: 

 

https://vimeo.com/86899665

 

MJ

Edited February 18, 2014 by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

[ShamrockOneFive]

Nice video! Very convincing.

 

I haven't tried the new flak yet... they should be accurate but not snipers one shots all the time. Finding the balance there is difficult.

[Obelix]

Sharp and deadly...

[Finkeren]

The one thing that bothers me is the heavy flak shooting at planes flying very low at distances over 5km. While it seldom hits anything, it is far from realistic. When I cruise at 15 - 30m altitude, I constanly have 88mm shells bursting or digging into the ground around me. IRL that gunner would have been court marshalled.

[DB605]

The one thing that bothers me is the heavy flak shooting at planes flying very low at distances over 5km. While it seldom hits anything, it is far from realistic. When I cruise at 15 - 30m altitude, I constanly have 88mm shells bursting or digging into the ground around me. IRL that gunner would have been court marshalled.

This. Heavy flak actually shot me down when i was flying under treetop over 600km/h   Definitely needs quite lot of tuning. Russian flak also shot down their own Lagg yesterday when i was flying about 15m behind him.

I would appreciate it a lot if flak would not shoot when there is friendlies too. Even if it happened sometimes in real life.

Edited February 18, 2014 by DB605

[Obelix]

Also, receiving some shell bombers during take off, it's quite amazing...

[BraveSirRobin]

The heavy flak is much too accurate.  Even at distances where it would be almost impossible to get a precise range I see nearby flak bursts which track my aircraft perfectly.  I suspect that even radar controlled flak would have trouble attaining that sort of accuracy.

 

They should set up a human controlled flak gun and see how accurate that is.  Then try to model that in the game.

[I/JG27_Rollo]

It's only the second (or third?) implementation of flak since it was introduced - I'm sure it will be revised and refined a lot until final release.

[BraveSirRobin]

Human controlled flak would be pretty cool.  

[Finkeren]

It's only the second (or third?) implementation of flak since it was introduced - I'm sure it will be revised and refined a lot until final release.

I think we all agree that it's already pretty good for a "first try". There's room for improvement and need for some fine tuning, but it's minor issues which will be resolved.

[I/JG27_Rollo]

It definitely keeps you on your toes even during "regular" flight, reminds you that it is a good idea to change course and altitude about every 10 seconds and that it is a bad idea to fly directly towards a 37mm flak.