Evading Archie

[Wayfarer 5]

Since escaping death on a die roll from an AA hit, I have been fairly corkscrewing the B.E. around when caught by AA - Yossarian would be proud! Reading pilots memoirs, they seem to laconically refer to changing altitude to put the AA gunners off, and I'm sure I am being unrealistically frantic (I know that reconnaissance aircraft often had to keep flying straight to get the job done) .

I was wondering what other people do when caught in AA, and how much difference it really makes in OFF as to whether you are hit or not?

 

Wayfarer

[Olham 164]

Flying only scouts, and not crossing the lines as often as you have to, I still have missions like "Airfield attacks",

when I have to go right into it. Flak is sometimes very dense, when there are two airfields close together.

All I can do is to zigzag; I never fly longer than about 10 - 15 seconds in the same direction. And it seems to work.

I can't remember the last time I was hit by Flak.

[Slartibartfast 153]

I must admit I am one of those fidget pilots I never fly straight and level I wander the sky with the whims of the clouds... so far Me and old Mr Archie have never had an arguement... Saying that fidgeting round the sky like I do makes it harder for an opponent to get a line on me and shoot me down... and I an generally seen roaming the wide skies in a Sopwith Strutter...

 

Best plan don't fly straight and level...

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Excellent advice uncleal. That is the practice I follow, and as you say, it's less threatening in the early war, but downright scary by 1918.

 

.

[Wayfarer 5]

Thanks everyone.

I am currently only in May 1915 - I think I'll surrender now!

[Hellshade 110]

If I want to avoid AA, I usually go straight to the bar. I just have to explain where I was at the next meeting.

 

Hellshade

 

 

 

[77Scout 3]

Just curious...does anyone know how AA is actually modeled in CSF3. Does CSF3 actually model the travelling AA-shell (an AA gun aims, shoots, then the shell flies with an actual trajectory and travel-time from gun to explosion). Or is it simply an instantaneous 'spawn' of a flak burst randomly generated around a target plane.

 

If flak is modelled realistically then weaving will help to keep you away from the flak. If flak is just modeled as "instantaneous randomized spawns" then weaving would have no effect, as the 'mosquito cloud' of flak will instantly follow you no matter what maneuvers you try.

 

Any thoughts?

[Wayfarer 5]

Just curious...does anyone know how AA is actually modeled in CSF3. Does CSF3 actually model the travelling AA-shell (an AA gun aims, shoots, then the shell flies with an actual trajectory and travel-time from gun to explosion). Or is it simply an instantaneous 'spawn' of a flak burst randomly generated around a target plane.

 

If flak is modelled realistically then weaving will help to keep you away from the flak. If flak is just modeled as "instantaneous randomized spawns" then weaving would have no effect, as the 'mosquito cloud' of flak will instantly follow you no matter what maneuvers you try.

 

Any thoughts?

 

 

That is essentially what I was thinking. If it is modelled, I was wondering how/if adjustment by the AA crews would be factored in. I don't know if that is possible.

Of course, Hellshade's method gets round the entire troublesome issue!

Edited October 2, 2010 by Wayfarer

[FenrisWlf 6]

Just curious...does anyone know how AA is actually modeled in CSF3. Does CSF3 actually model the travelling AA-shell (an AA gun aims, shoots, then the shell flies with an actual trajectory and travel-time from gun to explosion). Or is it simply an instantaneous 'spawn' of a flak burst randomly generated around a target plane.

 

If flak is modelled realistically then weaving will help to keep you away from the flak. If flak is just modeled as "instantaneous randomized spawns" then weaving would have no effect, as the 'mosquito cloud' of flak will instantly follow you no matter what maneuvers you try.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Well, one thing I know for sure; if it does spawn instantaneously as you say. It does not spawn just around you. I often can find enemy flights by observing friendly AA fire.

[Guest British_eh]

Hi there,

 

The fellow to talk to is Bletchley. He is keenly aware of FLAK and the historical reality of such. He also has a bit of an understanding of what the parameters of it are according to OFF. It would seem it is modeled on the CFS3 WWII FLAK, and unless a Dev can confirm it is different, then we have to assume that is the case. Not sure why it would be different for OFF as it is hard coded.

 

WIth regards to FLAK, good advice here. One other comment. You may wish to consider the Sticky : Survival In the Air Series - OFF- Pilot primers and Workshop Settings . There is currently a Post which does give Workshop Settings for FLAK and such. The current "1915 - June 1916" is being revised, but from what I remember, FLAK has not changed. What may have changed is the Missions that meet the SIA - RSS. This may change what Missions you do fly and thus survival chances.

In addition, a new SIA - RSS for the following time frame is also coming out, July 1016 - March 1917.

Cheers,

British_ eh, with the help of Bletchley

[Olham 164]

Even if the Flak puffs are generated/spawned, they must not appear randomly.

I have been hit twice very early on in P3, after flying straight for a while.

Now I zigzag and have never been shot down by Flak again.

So to me it seems that the spawns (if they are spawned) are getting placed forward of your direction,

with great incorrectness, but concentrating there, where you will fly (when you fly on straight).

 

Of course zigzagging doesn't automatically mean you are safe - one of the rather misplaced shots

might still hit you. But to me it did not happen yet.

[Creaghorn 10]

Just curious...does anyone know how AA is actually modeled in CSF3. Does CSF3 actually model the travelling AA-shell (an AA gun aims, shoots, then the shell flies with an actual trajectory and travel-time from gun to explosion). Or is it simply an instantaneous 'spawn' of a flak burst randomly generated around a target plane.

 

If flak is modelled realistically then weaving will help to keep you away from the flak. If flak is just modeled as "instantaneous randomized spawns" then weaving would have no effect, as the 'mosquito cloud' of flak will instantly follow you no matter what maneuvers you try.

 

Any thoughts?

 

it's modeled realistically, since if standing near an AA gun you can see it move and adjust. also you can see a tracerlike shell fly away if close enough.

i saw it very clearly when i was experimenting with tracersmoke etc. the object i made was 1000 times too big on one test, so i saw it fly away. on that occasion i even saw over nomandsland the trenches actually shooting at each other, something i probably never would have noticed, if not making that mistake when experimenting.

[77Scout 3]

it's modeled realistically, since if standing near an AA gun you can see it move and adjust. also you can see a tracerlike shell fly away if close enough.

i saw it very clearly when i was experimenting with tracersmoke etc. the object i made was 1000 times too big on one test, so i saw it fly away. on that occasion i even saw over nomandsland the trenches actually shooting at each other, something i probably never would have noticed, if not making that mistake when experimenting.

 

Thanks Creaghorn, that is some really good information. Great to know that it is modeled realistically (as I had hoped it was).

[Olham 164]

Wow! This sim can always surprise me again!

[carrick58 23]

I have been hit by Flack 3 times so far in Campaigns, I was flying in line (trying to return to my side of the lines) level and changing altitude ( up and Down) and on the deck but not zig zaging so far ?

[Wayfarer 5]

I was reading that one photo-reconnaissance pilot was compelled to change direction every fifteen or twenty seconds to avoid AA, but it was 'worth the risk' to get good photographs. So that seems to be quite well mirrored in OFF.

Edited October 3, 2010 by Wayfarer

[Bletchley 8]

I don't know the internal mechanics of how OFF (or CFS3) simulates flak, but it seems realistic enough to me - if you change direction or height you will often see a cluster of flak bursts near the point that you would have been if you had continued to fly straight and level.

 

At the beginning of the war (1914-15) flak was relatively inneffective at shooting down aeroplanes (but, in the abscence of effective fighters, were responsible for most shoot-downs over 3000 ft) - the original flak guns were designed to shoot down airships, and were of the low calibre pom-pom variety firing solid shot, tracer incendiary or explosive rounds. These were soon supplemented by field or horse artllery howitzers converted to fit on trucks with elevating mounts. These generally had a low muzzle velocity, were aimed individually with makeshift sights, and they fired mostly shrapnel at first. Shrapnel was found to be less effective than was first envisaged, as it burst mostly along the shell's direction of travel, not in a 360 deg. burst, so an aircraft had to be directly in front and above the bursting shell (or directly hit by it). In 1915 the Germans switched to a HE (TNT) bursting charge, that was found to be more effective. The British did not do so until mid to late 1916, due to difficulties with design and manufacture of the shells, but when they did they used an Amatol bursting charge which, like shrapnel before it, bursts with a puff of white smoke (unlike the German TNT, which burst with a dirty grey/black smoke). Both sides also discovered that HE works better when used to bracket an aeroplane with several simultaneous near-miss bursts, as the blast waves are more effective when combined (rather like the use of depth charges against a submarine). This led to the practice of aiming and firing whole batteries of 4 or 8 guns as one, using more sophisticated aiming and fire-control devices and guns with a higher muzzle velocity, to fire into a three-dimensional 'box' where the target aircraft was predicted to be when the shells burst. Another advantage of this is that any small evasive 'jinking' manouevres would not take the target aircraft out of this 'box', only quite pronounced changes in aircraft direction or altitude. I think that this is modelled well in OFF. I am not sure how well the bursts themselves are modelled though - if the burst-effects are hard coded to their WWII CFS3 counterparts, then the bursts will be twice or even three times as effective as the WWI HE shells, and about ten times as effective as the WWI shrapnel shell. This is because, by WWII, anti-aircraft shells were using a much more effective bursting charge than the TNT/Amatol charge iof WWI. In OFF, a single flak near miss will (to me at least) appear to cause a disproportionate amount of damage - blowing off wings, or completely destroying the aircraft. From the accounts that I have read, the WWI flak was not usually so deadly in its immediate and singular effects, unless a direct hit.

 

Bletchley

Edited October 3, 2010 by Bletchley

[Olham 164]

Thanks a lot for the detailed explanation, Bletchley.

Perhaps the value for the damage effect of the shell's explosion could be found and reduced a bit (if they are still WW2) ?

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

After setting up my OFF/MAW configuration I can tell you that the devs must have dialed down the WWII flak found in CFS3. I had not originally swapped the CFS3 weapons files with those in OFF when I first flew one of the WWI planes in Egypt, and I was hit within five seconds by an AA burst that literally turned my BE2c into confetti. Tried it a few more times before switching and always with the same results, (the sheer volume and intensity of the AA was beyond frightening) . After I swapped the files I had the much more realistic WWI version we see in BHaH.

 

.

[Olham 164]

Good to know, Lou, thanks for sharing!

As I said, I never got hit again after flying zigzag, and don't find it too hard as it is.

[Wayfarer 5]

I just read the RSS for 1915 - June 1916, where the realistic setting for Ground Gun Accuracy/ROF is 'Easy'. It was only after I changed from this to 'Normal' that I began to be seriously bothered by AA. Now I can have a few more 'Easy' months with a clear conscience!

It's the first time I have really read the Realistic Survival Settings. They are very interesting. Thanks to the people who are putting them together.

For anyone who hasn't picked up on them, they're posted in the 'Survival In the Air Series' sticky under General Discussion.

[Wayfarer 5]

Does it also say 'Move up one knotch, when attacking a balloon, or Airfield'. Because the concentration of fire around a miltary target are mind boggeling. Also of interest when you are attacking said object, be it with MG's, Bombs, or Rockets. Your course must remain true, no zig zagging, and those gunners on the ground are totally aware of that fact.

EASY. . as you've grown so fond of is NO AA cannons at all, just machine guns, so stay above 2000 on Easy, and you'll always be safe

 

 

Thanks uncleal. They are good points to bear in mind. Explains why I wasn't being bothered by the big stuff before. Though I have roused some machine gunners now and then.

[Hellshade 110]

Thanks uncleal. They are good points to bear in mind. Explains why I wasn't being bothered by the big stuff before. Though I have roused some machine gunners now and then.

 

After fighting through some Huns, there's a nice clip of taking down an Observation Balloon with rockets towards the end of this video. It's just like Uncleal says too. Bore down straight hard and fast, unleash everything you can and then get the hell out of there. If you catch it fats enough, you'll see an AA burst just in front and to the right of my plane too. Pure damn luck it didn't take me out.

Campaign Video #21 (9:47) 720 HD

 

Hellshade

Edited October 3, 2010 by Hellshade

[Bletchley 8]

"I can tell you that the devs must have dialed down the WWII flak found in CFS3" Louvert

 

Yes, they seem to have changed the accuracy and intensity (rate of fire?) of flak, to give us the EASY, NORMAL and HARD settings - but it is possible that the bursting effect is hard-coded in OFF by CFS3, as it is for rockets?

 

"Does it also say 'Move up one knotch, when attacking a balloon, or Airfield'. Because the concentration of fire around a miltary target are mind boggeling...EASY as you've grown so fond of is NO AA cannons at all, just machine guns, so stay above 2000 on Easy, and you'll always be safe"

 

That is a good idea uncleal, and one that I use myself - intensity and accuracy of fire was always greater around a balloon due to the concentration of dedicated AA guns of all calibre, from AA mounted MGs to small calibre pom-pom types that produced the flaming onions (tracer or incendiary cannon rounds fired a magazine at a time) to heavier calibre AA artillery. In my experience the EASY setting in OFF does not entirely elliminate the flak AA artillery, as I find that I still run into it over the Front in 1915/16 on EASY - it is just less intense and less accurate than the NORMAL or HARD settings.

 

Bletchley