From the Depths - Accuracy & Anti-Air Tutorial
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 июл 2024
- My tutorial playlist:
• From the Depths - Tuto...
Timestamps:
0:00 Intro
0:43 Detection
6:20 Lasers
7:39 PACs
10:18 Missiles
12:38 Missile example
15:44 Crams
16:57 APS
19:33 Accuracy & CIWS
19:56 APS vs Planes
Music:
From the Depths' OST 
Игры
Flak Crams are a nice firework display for your enemies and may improve diplomatic relations.
I personally like PAC for very small AA installations - even with just a few pipe pieces an EMP PAC using short-range lenses can easily fry a small plane, because they generally have zero EMP protection, and you can pretty easily fit a few into a 3x3x3 ball turret.
And regarding the more advanced, exact formula... with theta the full cone angle, D the distance and d the diameter at D, d=2*tan(theta/2)*D. However, since tan(theta)~theta for small angles measured in radians, we can, if theta is measured in radians, simplify this to d=theta*D. Since one radian is about 57 (precisely, 360/2π) degrees, each 0.057 degrees inaccuracy correspond to a 1 m CEP diameter per 1 km of range.
Ah yes the four variables of shooting something.
Weapon of choice.
Target.
Detection.
And the aiming system itself.
Thanks to your video I have made an autonomous craft for air targets it uses missiles and particle cannons
Annoying Plane TM it is hilarious.
I like your Ms Paint Masterpiece
nice ms painting 😎
Glad to see someone doing from the depths stuff. Keep it up
and the semester's over, I'm coming back~!
Yeah, i've noticed most of these issues as my long term obsession with making a functioning and compact APS anti air turret that can successfully engage just does not work very well(at least with my current efforts). Its either been gross overkill, or expensive wastes of ammunition. The detection information might improve my results especially the thermal friction note.
I will say that ive had a suprising amount of luck shooting down dodgy small craft with a 200mm flak round going about 700 m/s despite it having a lower rate of fire(wanna say its about 30rpm). The platform ive been testing it with may be a significant factor as i usually have 3 of those small turrets that can engage at a time.(small being 3x3 footprint with about 4-6 below deck depth meat to work with.
Yeah, flak will hit a lot more reliably thanks to the AoE. That said, i'd be curious to run the math in terms of ammo expense + accuracy to see how it compares to missiles and lasers. I wouldn't be surprised if APS turned out to be more expensive to run given the low damage of flak and accuracy struggles...
@@OhmIsFutile My money is on the laser system winning that exchange, consistency of hits and damage should mean more efficient use of those resources provided were not using ill suited samples (from i dont know a laser made for anti ship armor) not sure about missiles.
Wow. I personally prefer lasers for most things but this explains a lot.
Great video! I thought APS were much Better in comparison, but you are right.
I think they are just more fun honestly :D Flak just looks so, so nice with a nice fire rate and what not
Really good guide, thanks
I personally find very fast flak with timers the most effective shell for AA. A lot better than missiles if fast enough.
Now about that formula I did some calculations. The closest target-shell distance is sin(inac) * range. The distance at which timed shells will pop is 2*sin(inac/2)*range which is very very close to your formula but technically this one is the straight line.
I'd say if you stagger the PACs, they become even better than lasers imo
i enjoy this
video
I basically use quad small missile launchers, they shoot at 437m/s with no guidance, insane range, high damage, lovely results
Boost!
7:05 I’m pretty sure it’s actually the frame after, on the discord people say it lags one frame behind target movement which lines up with what I’ve seen in game where lasers above 0Q continually miss small and fast things, always firing slightly behind them. Also, why use multibarrel for a CIWS? It reduces accuracy by a lot.
I'm not sure why you stamped 7:05 when talking about lasers... I've no idea what you're referring to. I don't usually have issues with lasers hitting. They do have inaccuracy though so at long enough range with a small enough target you can miss a decent amount. There's also been issues before when it comes to detection averaging times for AIs controlling lasers. I've personally found non-zero values that are still really low (sub one second) tend to give the best results. As for lagging one frame behind, it's not impossible.
About the multibarrel CIWS, I did not recommend doing that in the video. Granted, I'm showing footage of a multibarrel gun, but it was a fun brrrt build. Do as I say and not as I do kind of thing lol
17:26 Isn't the inaccuracy "after tracer" effects (meaning with each round down range after the first one) -0.11 taking the actual inaccuracy down to 0.11?
Yes, that's correct.
Mmmm i love using trigonometry to calculate inaccuracy dispersion in my video game
Dont forget to use your calculator to find optimal shell damage and effective ranges, calculus to stabilize your craft, and comp sci to make missiles do fancy things with LUA. The creator of this game is a psychopath.
@@dylanrawls3665 legitimately. LOL. I haven't even touched LUA yet because I know very little about compsci. I'm only now starting to understand how the PIDs work because of calculus. 😂
As far as I can tell PAC shots wander once launched, despite be hit scan. It could hit ship behind your target because it wandered up 2m and back down 2m which why their accuracy is list as percent in an area. Once it starts firing lists the average chance at a range, vert lenses using the math of ACs have around .17 inaccuracy with max focus, everything else is less.
I don't feel the lasers are the clear winners in the AA realm. They are far superior to other weapon systems in the 100k or less target bracket but are near worthless against the flying fortress godlys.
I didn't intend to make it sound like they were vastly superior. Lasers and PACs are both good options. That said, I think you underestimate lasers. High AP lasers can definitely deal extreme amounts of damage even if you call your target a flying fortress godly. But then again, that's been nerfed a bit in beta by making laser storage reduce AP.
@@OhmIsFutile I admit it has been a few patches since I used lasers against the SD godlys. Just remember even 500k resource laser systems not being great. Found PACs to reasonably effective and some ACs setups to a limited extent. In my designs for anti-SD missiles and offensive lasers were abandoned.
Well, the AP-stacking potential is about to drop a lot anyway. In beta, storage now counts against AP as well as pumps so it's gonna be difficult to deal with smoke.
While they are hitscan strictly speaking, I think what's going on is that instead of a single raycast it's a series of raycasts where each covers a short distance then the angle that the next ray is cast in is adjusted by some measure (probably modified by the focus variable) which is repeated until it reaches it's maximum range, essentially you have a chain of smaller raycasts and when PACs were first implemented (and I'm not sure if this is still the case but it's still plausible) and you could make them have horrible accuracy, the angle adjustment between each raycast could be so large that the beams would do loops and curl around all over the place.
Crams suck vs air but man when they do hit lol
Just to make things easier, to calculate the inaccuracy of APS (18:36), just:
Tg(Inacc.)×Range