There is an expectation !!!!!

[HagarTheHorrible]

If I fly as high as I can'ish (15,000 ft) that if I adjust my course, every 20 seconds or so, when in a flak zone, I will have the satisfaction of seeing the fall of shot from the bursting shells end up in the direction of where I should have been  rather than am., but no, the flak follows me around like a love sick puppy.

 

I remain to be convinced that there is much to be gained by doing anything other than flying straight and fast and that you are just as likely to be hit evading. The big guns may not be a great threat, in the scheme of things, but it would be nice to know that evasion has an effect, and I mean visually, rather than statistically.

Edited December 30, 2019 by HagarTheHorrible

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

I understand completely.  Except, my experience has been that the shrapnel and damage I experience increases when going straight and fast at high altitude.  The increasing shrapnel and pin holes in the fabric has always "convinced" me I should do otherwise and in the end I've enjoyed the more immersive act of evasive action.  As does the occasional burst directly in front of my cockpit, which at some point is likely to be in my cockpit (think I've read at least one written report of that somewhere here).   Low its quite a different experience.

PS re your thread title:  there is an expectation?  Of what?

[HagarTheHorrible]

2 hours ago, J5_Baeumer said:

 

PS re your thread title:  there is an expectation?  Of what?

 

Sorry, I thought I’d been quite clear.  There is an expectation, if I adjust my course, sufficiently often, that I will have the satisfaction of seeing the flak bursting closer to where I should have been, rather than where my adjusted course has taken me. So, if the flak is accurate, and I adjust my course to the right, I would expect the majority of the next barrage to burst over to my left, and visa versa.

 

It allows for tactics, a reward for considered flying. At the moment the flak (heavy) is “in the zone”, if mostly ineffectual, regardless of avoidance tactics by the pilot.

[No.23_Triggers]

I've definitely noticed that changing course / altitude throws the shot...not as much as you'd hope, but I've gone from having AAA fire disturbingly close to merely having it scarily close with a bit of jinking...

 

On a slight side-note, I don't think Flak is as 'lethal' as it was in RoF...I've been nicked a few times by it and flown off, as opposed to RoF where any flak hit is a death sentence! 

Edited December 30, 2019 by US93_Larner

[BMA_Hellbender]

Are we talking about WWI or WW2 flak?

[unreasonable]

It takes 20 seconds or more for the shells to arrive at 15,000ft, so if you are changing direction every 20 seconds, assuming the shells are absolutely accurate, the first one aimed after your direction change will be very close, and the others will be out on your predicted track after the next direction change. 

 

The problem is that you are moving rather slowly in a WW1 plane and the shells have a random error, (I think two actually, height and direction), which makes them progressively less accurate with altitude, so the sphere in which they burst gets larger.  So oddly enough, they are more effective against a randomly jinking target at high altitude than they would be if they were exactly accurate.

 

IMHO jinking around is pointless if it increases the time you are in range of the guns, I prefer a slowly changing direction and height: preferably a dive to reduce the time in the danger zone. The other cure against high altitude flak is to have a mission with a very high wind speed. The AI does not take wind into account when aiming.      Edit: this was certainly the case a while back but they are now doing a pretty good job of getting shots on line even with a 30m/s cross wind, so I must have missed an mention of this in an update.

  

Edited December 30, 2019 by unreasonable

[HagarTheHorrible]

WW 1, Archie, Crumps.

 

I just don’t know how easy, or otherwise, it was to track and target an aircraft given the sighting, fusing, and quality of the available kit. 

[J99_Sizzlorr]

19 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender-Sch27b said:

Are we talking about WWI or WW2 flak?

 

Up to this point i think we are talking WW2 flak when we are talking J5 server multiplayer, let's see how the WW1 counter part does. I say it is gonna change things in the archie department. It takes longer to aim and does shoot not as far and in the rapid manner WW2 flak is doing it right now.

Edited December 30, 2019 by J99_Sizzlorr

[HagarTheHorrible]

That might make a difference ?.  I’d thought that WW1 Archie had already been implemented on the J5 server.

[J99_Sizzlorr]

1 minute ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

That might make a difference ?.  I’d thought that WW1 Archie had already been implemented on the J5 server.

 

It was and then it got reverted to ww2 flak, because ww1 flak was bugged...

[unreasonable]

7 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

WW 1, Archie, Crumps.

 

I just don’t know how easy, or otherwise, it was to track and target an aircraft given the sighting, fusing, and quality of the available kit. 

 

Judging from the number of shells needed to hit an aircraft, not easy at all.  Judging altitude could be done if you had excellent optics, but the fuzes were always unreliable, shell manufacturing was variable and guns wear out, increasing the inaccuracy.  Heavy AA is very much an area weapon, not the snipers we had in unmodded RoF.

 

 

[HagarTheHorrible]

Dammed flies on the windscreen eh !!!!  The horror, then again if they ended up in your mouth as you shouted in joyful triumph at your latest victory, I could see that being a bit YUCKY, so better safe than sorry.

[JG1_Butzzell]

S!

 

The WW I flak fires behind and below.  I have not seen it be a real threat. Barges are another mater. They are very deadly.  Machine guns are more of a problem down low than flak.

 

Basically the change is that flack is used to localize enemy. MGs are used to protect ground targets from low level attack. 

 

There is also a delay as the MGs prepare to engage. You can usually make it to the target before they open up. The trouble is getting away alive.

 

Trains can have a car with MGs, so trains can now be very dangerous.

[unreasonable]

I agree: looking at a plane flying over one Flak77 and one 88, it is obvious how the 77 is always too low, while the 88 can bracket the altitude,whatever altitude you set for the target plane.  Something wrong with the ballistics calculation for the 77. I assume someone has done a bug report.

 

They do now both take account of wind speed, which did not used to be the case.   They are also noticeably slower to engage and change targets, which is good in a way since that reduces the low level grouse shoot effect, but it does mean that light AA has the property that it will often not get on target for a plane heading straight towards it, because it is still firing or just pointing at a plane flying away from it at a silly range.    

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

It's more effective to nose down, so you pick up some speed, as well as change altitude- and just make a minor course change every 10 seconds or so.