169th_DedCat Posted June 17, 2005 Posted June 17, 2005 It seems to me that the AAA systems in LOMAC should be a little better at aiming than they are. Even the more advanced Gepard and Tunguska have as much a hard a time as the Shilka and Vulcan in hitting anything that isn't in level flight and heading directly away or towards it. Shouldn't these systems be able to compute for beaming targets or targets in subtle predictable banks at very close ranges? Play Hard - Play Fair Squadron Leader "DedCat" 169th Panthers - http://www.169thpanthers.net
GGTharos Posted June 17, 2005 Posted June 17, 2005 It seems to me that the AAA systems in LOMAC should be a little better at aiming than they are. Even the more advanced Gepard and Tunguska have as much a hard a time as the Shilka and Vulcan in hitting anything that isn't in level flight and heading directly away or towards it. Shouldn't these systems be able to compute for beaming targets or targets in subtle predictable banks at very close ranges? Actually at closer ranges you may run into an angle tracking rate problem ... but otherwise I agree. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
crazyleggs Posted June 17, 2005 Posted June 17, 2005 Barring ECM, radar controlled AAA should be spot on. I think it's a game play/balance issue.
169th_DedCat Posted June 18, 2005 Author Posted June 18, 2005 It should be fixed. Watching someone do slow predictable laps around an airfield while a Gepard fires a constant stream of tracers way behind him the whole way really irks me. Play Hard - Play Fair Squadron Leader "DedCat" 169th Panthers - http://www.169thpanthers.net
Recommended Posts