Can't help but notice that AA guns can't actually target anything directly above them. I'm not really sure why you would limit an anti-aircraft gun from being able to fire you know... UP! Anyone else feel this should be the case?
probably, but then lib guns cant fire straight down either, its a feature, makes you think about positioning and angles rather than just sitting in a flat field
If an aircraft can be exactly straight up above an AA turret, the turret should be able to hit it. That's literally their only purpose, right? Shooting at aircraft?
FigM nailed it. a more noticeable Gimbal lock is better than some very confused movements and rotations.
a 89.9° upwards shooting would be possible at every system of coding and enought to hit everything over your head (especially with a stationary AA turret) - however, the devs in their great wisdom and enlightenment decided something else...
No. If a plane is straight above your AA gun, you should have spotted them sooner. Likewise, if a plane is above your AA gun, it's not straight above the other 1-7 AA guns around the base you're defending. ITT: 'I play alone and my gun isn't good enough, buff it. Friends? I don't have any to play with.'
A galaxy can hover above the tech plants gun deck and be immune to all 4 of it's aa turrets. Two AA turrets won't kill a galaxy before it gets in position, the other two can't fire at it on approach.
As someone who likes ESFs, it would make sense for them to have a full rotation. What i dont understand is why you cant just reverse slightly, its not that hard
It's not a gameplay thing folks. It's a user interface thing. We use a method similar to a gimbal as previously mentioned. If we didn't then continuing to aim up would eventually make left/right become reversed. So don't do that right? Just keep it to a max of 90 degrees. Even then you'll get into an odd state where if your target goes to the left or right of your crosshairs, turning left/right won't actually do anything, just rotate in place. Bump it down just *ever so slightly* to say 85 degrees and you are still *mostly* just spinning in place but there is a subtle left/right movement. From a user interface perspective this gives you a much better sense of what you're doing in this somewhat disorienting position while trying to track a (*almost* always) moving target. When the target flies past you'll pull crosshairs downward and continue tracking it and it feels very natural. If at full 90 degrees then when a target flies past (remember, talking *directly* overhead) you'll pull down but likely be off for a moment before you get the rotation spot on. I'm sure this isn't a very satisfying answer but the downside of that very tiny deadspot is worth the "feel" when tracking something that goes directly overhead and past you. Something being directly overhead in the deadspot *and* stationary is very rare Play around tracking targets (imaginary if you can't get a real one) and see if you get what I mean.
I suspect you're exaggerating a bit to prove a point. Two AA turrets firing in unison will rip up a galaxy. The deadspot you describe at max altitude is very tiny and the edges of it can only be really discovered when taking fire reveals that you're off a bit. The other deadspot is at low altitude and that's caused by a techplant roof, not gun limitations.