Author Topic: guns dispersion, D9 tested (Read 1769 times)

GODO · « **on:** August 01, 2004, 10:38:52 AM »

Did some tests with 190D9 guns at 275 conv. Firing shot by shot, the dispersion is so extreme and random (tracers rarely passing near gunsight center, most below and to the left) that default gunsight is useless, calibrated and marked sights are even more useless. Historically, these sights were all calibrated and marked for a clear reason.

More tests done with conv at 550 yards (historical conv for 190 guns was 550m), and same results. Firing shot by shot, dispersion before convergence point should be minimum for guns placed in a very rigid placement as wing roots or hub (dispersion induted by gun vibrations). On the other hand, dispersion due wind or other outside factors rarely will affect the rounds well before historical convergence point.

Dispersion should be a factor of gun tube heat, substaining the fire should end in clear dispersion even for rigid mounts. But our current system shots the very first tracer to anywhere but where you are aiming.

eta32 · « **Reply #1 on:** August 02, 2004, 03:11:57 PM »

don't know what you said.. but I second that motion.

actually... I have noticed that I am a terrible shot in AH2 when I was very accurate in AH1.. lots of guys complain about this... any clues??

JB73 · « **Reply #2 on:** August 02, 2004, 08:45:49 PM »

yes findings similar, also noted rounds drop very badly.

convergence set to 350, target to 350, auto polit level due north, rounds all fell lower than gunsight dot (HTC default sight)

set the cannon to 450 and target to 350 rounds hit alos closer to where they shoudl IMHO.

BenDover · « **Reply #3 on:** August 02, 2004, 08:51:58 PM »

Remember the target moves away from you.

Kweassa · « **Reply #4 on:** August 02, 2004, 10:31:26 PM »

Think AoA JB73.

Autopilot should not be used when testing the hit dispersion.

JB73 · « **Reply #5 on:** August 02, 2004, 11:03:43 PM »

even when wepped at 375 on the deck?

my aim not good so i cant hold it on the target in 1 place without auto personally

oh well guess that ends my ammo testing lol

TequilaChaser · « **Reply #6 on:** August 02, 2004, 11:41:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa
Think AoA JB73.

Autopilot should not be used when testing the hit dispersion.

is reason I use Shift X for these test,

also depending on size of cannon 20 mm, drops around 25 to 50 so if you want to hit at 300 set convergence to 350, for a 30mm or 37 mm if you want to hit at 300 set convergence to 375 or 400.

I ran a test for Ghosth in regards to nose mounted guns and the convergence does play a part in where your gun solution hits, the heavier cannon rounds does drop a good bit, alot say the 38 needs no convergence, it is fine, to that I say, the person flying the plane is just accustomed to where the target is when he pulls his trigger, he isn't really mentally thinking I got to wait til he is 350 then fire, he is mentally thinking size of target......

I have the opinion of the better hit ratio players are shooting the target by where it appears size wise / lead wise rather than shooting to the icon counter. ( all this has been discussed many many times btw)

as for the gunsight being off, well that is very possible if someone got it off centered when they made the gunsite file, alot of people prefer the center DOT site, all be it Red color, yellow, white, black etc..........

hitech · « **Reply #7 on:** August 03, 2004, 11:44:21 AM »

People tend to think of ranges as static. But they are not. The guns convergance is adjusted for sea level with the plane stationary. Changes in altitiude or changes in speed all will effect where the pullets land on the target. For a test to see the effect take a b17, and shoot the target at the same speed from both the chin gunner ,shooting forward, and the tail gunner, shooting backwards.

HiTech

GODO · « **Reply #8 on:** August 03, 2004, 09:03:59 PM »

hitech, the point is not where will the bullets converge, the point is that they dont converge. I did the tests stopped at runaway, and at 370 mph near sea level (stable AOA with the target perfectly centered vertically). The bullets exit the gun with dispersion already applied. It seems that the dispersion is not build up as the bullet advances, but from the very beginning. Just select a D9 and from the runaway using max zoom start shooting one by one and look at the tracers, some exit the gun high, some low, some to the left. IMO, with the current system, gunsight is useless, at least for 190D9, guns seem random trajectory generators.

bustr · « **Reply #9 on:** August 04, 2004, 07:35:21 PM »

GODO,

I set my D9 convergence as follows:

13MM - 400
20MM - 425

I pull the trigger at 400 =< . Enemy planes go BOOOOMMMMM!!!!!!

Rather than presenting an observation supported with testing to show the obvious in an attempt to get the ballistics\gunnery model changed. Adapt to the new environment. Hitech promised a more realistic flight model. And now you got a more challenging gunnery model to. Majority of WWII pilots who got regular kills all point to getting as close as possible before pulling the trigger.

Wassa Matter,, don't like the smell O'their exaust fumes?

Thats Da smell O'victory......enjoy its fruity arrrrrroma:D Shane does and lands our skins laughing all the way to the perk bank.

GODO · « **Reply #10 on:** August 04, 2004, 08:00:40 PM »

bustr, in the last 3 tours (have no patience to check more), you have 6 "BOOOOOOOMMMMM!!!!s" in D9 (with a maximum hit% of 5.682%). Well, in these 3 tours, I have 457 kills in D9 and not exactly 6% hit%. May be I know very well what I'm talking about, this is not only an observation supported by some tests.

Karnak · « **Reply #11 on:** August 05, 2004, 01:46:25 AM »

I just ran a test using the Fw190D-9 and Fw190A-5. Convergence set to 275 and the target at 275.

I could not tell a difference between them. The Fw190D-9 may have been slightly more dispersed, but I'd have to run more tests to be sure.

The Fw190A-5 felt a little more stable to me, but once again that is very subjective.

GODO · « **Reply #12 on:** August 05, 2004, 12:15:59 PM »

G10 1x20 tested also, similar results to D9 (most down and to the left), then tested Mg131 and the result was even worse, not a single tracer passed near the gunsight center before going down (most up and left and right). My conclusion is that random dispersion is being applied to every bullet as soon as it is fired, doesnt matter whether you are stopped, firing one by one, which cannons you use, etc ... Gusights are useless.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #13 on:** August 05, 2004, 02:06:50 PM »

I just did a few quick tests and it does "appear" (meaning just what I observe) that there is a higher number of rounds spinning to the left. This was in the 190A5, 190D9, and 109G10. Rounds more or less averaged around the gunsite center, but few actually passed through it.

I then tried the P38, thinking it'd show the least dispersion given the set up (nice rigid fuselage mount). The 20mm wasn't bad - but when one a 20mm goes wild, it really goes wild. The .50's looked weird - I had to go back and make sure my convergence really was set at 600 because it looked like a couple guns were crossing at 400 or under for some bursts.

This was all done while parked and with the engine off.

I haven't played AH in a while, so I don't have an accurate frame of reference anymore. I don't think 100% bore-signed guns would be at all realistic, but what I saw today kind of feels like dispersion may be dialed up a little too high.

Karnak · « **Reply #14 on:** August 05, 2004, 02:08:09 PM »

What are your specific test procedures?

Lay it out step by step, every single thing that you are doing.

I'd like to try to duplicate your tests.