Better Targets for Convergence Setting

[Bullethead]

What I want is a picture of the rear end of a fighter or buff in the bullseye that comes up with the .target command.  I'd like to see 2 new .target commands, actually.  Keep the current .target for the plain, blank target we now have.

However, if you typed in .targetf, it would give you this:


And if you typed in .targetb, you'd get this:


I had this idea back in March and sent these files in to HTC.  Skuzzy said it was a good idea and that he'd pass it on to HT, but that was the last I heard.  So how 'bout it?

NOTE:  I made these targets by flying a spit and a 17, and setting the target for a range of 1 yard, which stuck the plane through the center of the target.  Then I took screenshots from dead 6 external view, and made these pics from them.  Thus, the drawings of the planes here are the correct relative size to the target as a whole.

[Sable]

Now that is just a cool idea!

[viper215]

[Kurt]

Why is this a 'Cool Idea?'

If you want your fire concentrated at a certain distance then you want it concentrated... The target is unimportant...

If you've got your guns set for 500 and your target at 500 the holes will be concentrated at the aimpoint.

No matter what the target might be... Fighter or Bomber you're going to do the most damage when you have that fire concentration.  So you aim at the center and you do the deed.

The only real purpose that I've found in the .Target command is that you can set it to a given distance and then determine how a particular bullet drops if you extend the target beyond the convergence distance... This is especially handy for working out things like the difference between the German 20mm versus the British and so on.

Anyhow, point is... Regardless of the target aircraft, fighter, bomber... Hanger for that matter... all you need to do is make sure your convergence and the distance you like to open fire at.. are in concert... as long as that is true you will do maximum damage...

Unless of course your preferred distance is beyond the range of the gun...

[Ghosth]

Ok Kurt, so you let off a burst, which at the given range, you think should shred the plane your shooting at. It doesn't, he fly's merrily away.

So you pull up the .targetf 300, firse the same burst.

Then when you see the results you see why he flew away.

Because of dispersion, etc you have a shotgun pattern scattered over the target.

The plane is only a small part of that pattern. In short, all your rounds don't hit the plane. You have an Epiphany, go OHHHHHH, Ok.

Next time you  get in closer like 200, and start dropping em like flys.

In short, its a tool to understanding, grasping the concepts. Understanding whats happening and why  is what air combat is all about.

In short, less whines, less frustration, less ranting on 200.

This is a GOOD thing.

[hammer]

This is the target at 200, full zoom, superimposed on P-51 at d 203, full zoom. It at least gives you the idea.

[Kurt]

I still don't see how having an airplane graphic changes anything... Its no secret that the hits are more leathal close in, and the target will show you the dispersion.

Its like shooting a paper target with Osama on it versus a regular bullseye target, it don't make any difference, its just something different to look at.

Give me a AH practice target with Osama on it and then I can get motivated.

[Jester]

Damn Good Idea!

!  

[DREDIOCK]

I'd be happy with a better way to set convergance in the hangar

[Knegel]

Hi,

a better way would mean that we would be able to insert different setting for the distance of horizontal convergence and vertical convergence!
Only then the planegraphic could make sence.

With the current possibilitys i dont see a reason for the planegraphic.
I think its clear that dispersion increase with distance, so a more close convergence increase the shotgun effect, while it decrease the hitprobability much on longer range. So we need to distinggush between a real shotguneffect on a more short  distance or a more constant hitprobability over a more wide distance before the flight anyway.

Edit: Actually the planegraphic dont will help at all, cause the damage model of the current target, not its size determine which setting is the best.
Example: Many Japanese planes only need some lucky hits to get bad damage, vs such planes i always would use a very long range convergence. But planes like the 109E or F can take a punch, here i would preffer a more close convergence, specialy if my plane only carry wingmounted .30cals.
(In AH this seems to count mainly for the smal MG´s, cause all other guns kill a enemy very fast, so i prefer the most long convergence).


Greetings, Knegel

[Kweassa]

Frankly, what I don't understand is the fact that some people fail to grasp concepts so obvious that it'd actually be difficult to try and explain it.

 Years of experience usually tell you that when people react like that, they are either;

1) dense

 or

2) begging for attention

 

 If adding in a plane picture to the target doesn't seem much of thing to you, then what are you disagreeing about in the first place, oh Kurt? Since its not much of a difference to you, then why should you care in the first place? What's your purpose? To make Bullethead say, "you are right, its no difference. I'm wrong, so I'll cancel my suggestion"? For what? To cancel out an idea that you don't even think has any kind of impact in the first place?

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Knegel
Hi,

a better way would mean that we would be able to insert different setting for the distance of horizontal convergence and vertical convergence!

It doesn't work that way. The vertical convergence is LEVEL for all guns in the center of the gunsight. The bullet arc and trajectory for the guns can NOT be changed per-gun. That's silly! Some have gotten around it by making nose guns at the distance they want, and then making the wing guns or cannon set for a further distance (so the round hasn't "fallen" all the way when it's at the same distance as the other guns).

Rounds go up. Rounds come down. Convergence says "at this point the round ALWAYS falls on the crosshairs" (just to phrase it one way). Otherwise there's no freaking POINT to a crosshair/aiming sight, eh?

EDIT: And I agree with Kurt on this one: Doesn't matter at all if there's a plane or not on the target. Adding separate targets for the plane and the bomber won't really help anything, and will only add new confusion for some.

Hell most don't even know we HAVE a .target command anyways.