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.

Glad to see someone doing from the depths stuff. Keep it up

Ah yes the four variables of shooting something. Weapon of choice. Target. Detection. And the aiming system itself.

Annoying Plane TM it is hilarious. I like your Ms Paint Masterpiece

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.

Thanks to your video I have made an autonomous craft for air targets it uses missiles and particle cannons

nice ms painting 😎

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.

Really good guide, thanks

i enjoy this video

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

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.

Mmmm i love using trigonometry to calculate inaccuracy dispersion in my video game

I basically use quad small missile launchers, they shoot at 437m/s with no guidance, insane range, high damage, lovely results

Boost!

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.

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?

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