Author Topic: Conversion theory  (Read 834 times)

Offline Getback

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6364
Conversion theory
« on: April 20, 2009, 05:19:14 PM »
I took a moment to see how far out I could set the conversion points for a 50 caliber on the F4-1a and the P51d. It was 650 yards. For some reason I thought it might go to 800yds. Here's my theory. If you set the conversion out as far as it will go then the bullets would have to arc some to hit their target assuming level flight. More importantly the MG itself has been tilted up in it's seating position. Now suppose your target turns. I theorize that if the conversion is set at it's max then the pilot will have a longer view of the target opposed to the setting at the minimum.

Any thoughts?

  Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter

Offline Motherland

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8110
Re: Conversion theory
« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2009, 05:29:50 PM »
It will also be set to converge farther out and thus be useless. It doesn't matter with .50s or Hispanos anyway, the things are laser beams. However I see your point :)

Offline WMLute

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4512
Re: Conversion theory
« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2009, 05:58:27 PM »
I actually gave this some thought in the past.

What I ended up figuring out was yes, you won't lead as much the diff. is very marginal btw), BUT the bullets are not going to converge and hit all in the same spot.  It is better to set your converg. to the distance you typically find yourself hitting the nme at and all your bullets slamming into 'em in a tight group vs. spread out all over the bad guys airframe.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2009, 06:00:00 PM by WMLute »
"Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity."
— George Patton

Absurdum est ut alios regat, qui seipsum regere nescit

Offline Getback

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6364
Re: Conversion theory
« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2009, 06:05:09 PM »
I actually gave this some thought in the past.

What I ended up figuring out was yes, you won't lead as much the diff. is very marginal btw), BUT the bullets are not going to converge and hit all in the same spot.  It is better to set your converg. to the distance you typically find yourself hitting the nme at and all your bullets slamming into 'em in a tight group vs. spread out all over the bad guys airframe.

It was just an idea. Realistically most of my kills were from picks on unsuspecting targets. Therefore a more normal convergence is preferred. Still I wanted to throw it out there for thought.

  Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter

Offline Helm

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 600
Re: Conversion theory
« Reply #4 on: April 20, 2009, 07:26:39 PM »
  I flew a campaign in the zeke one month.  I found I had an very hard time hitting anything with the guns.  I would be all over somebody's "6" and could not kill him (range of 400 -200).  I would use a whole "clip" to get one kill.  Sometimes I would use a whole clip and get nothing but a few pings.

 I asked other players for advice and everyone told me to shorten my convergence.  So I did.  Still no results.  Eventually, I had shortened my convergence down to 250, still no improvement.  I was totally frustrated, in fact I was mad as hell.

  On a whim I decided to set my convergence as far out as it would go which was 650.  BINGO!!  I started to hit people. 

   I do not know the "science" why setting my range that far out helped me improve my gunnery in the zeke.  I just know that it helped....alot

Helm ...out
XO of ^"^Nazgul^"^
Proudly serving since campaign #13
"No Rain?" ...."No Rainbow, baby!" ....Bootsey Collins 2009

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Conversion theory
« Reply #5 on: April 20, 2009, 07:30:46 PM »
Works most notably in worse-trajectory guns, like big-bore cannons.

In 50cals and hispanos, as mentioned, the bullets fly so "flat" as to not be helpful.

However, you don't want to ONLY cater to impossible-odds deflection shots, because when you want to hit a target flying level you can't.

On the 30mm Mk108 cannons, if you set the distance to 650 and fire at 300, your rounds may fly right OVER the target. The problem is you're screwing with your "round goes here" mental picture, and the round is really going somewhere else.


Best to set convergence at the range you most find yourself shooting. Chances are this is 300, 250, or even LESS.

Offline mtnman

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
Re: Conversion theory
« Reply #6 on: April 20, 2009, 08:03:09 PM »
An interesting thing I found when I was really paying attention to experimenting with convergence was that setting convergence "way out" at 600yds didn't actually appear to result in an appreciable difference in long-range effectiveness (in percentage of hits anyway) vs having convergence set at 300 and aiming high for that same 600 yd shot.

The group size that I came up with for a 600 yard shot didn't change much for convergence set at 300 vs 600. The required "aim point" changed, and the group shape changed, but the dispersal of the bullets was such that the density of hits didn't noticably change (using the "dot" target, and imposing a life-size image of a plane over the center).

My testing was all done with the F4U, and wing-mounted .50's.  I would expect nose-mounts may be slightly different.  The end result of my testing led me to believe that for a 600 yard shot, there is negligable value in having your convergence set to 600 yards vs having it set at 300 yards.

However, here's the kicker-

Setting my converegence to 600 seemed to hurt me at closer ranges, because I wasn't ever really able to pack my bullets into a tight, effective pattern.  Setting my convergence to 300 yards gave me a tight, effective pattern at a range that's easy to hit fighters at, without handicapping my long shots any more than the modeled dispersal rate does anyway... Setting for 600 yards didn't evr give me a decent pattern.

In the end, I found a setting near 300 to be optimal, and to have obvious benefits vs a setting of 600, where I never really saw any benefits.

But, having your guns set at an effective convergence distance is only part of the answer.  In order to realize the full effectiveness of your guns you also need to be able to fire on your target from that distance.  Beyond the skill needed to get there, you also need to know when you're at the right distance.

That's another place where a convergence of 600 hurts you, and a convergence of 300 helps you.  That's because the icon counter will tell you when you're at 300 yards, but won't tell you when you're at 600 yards.  When the icon counter says "D600", you're somewhere between 500 and 700 yards from your target.  That's a pretty big window.  But it's easy to know you're at 300 yards, because as you close in on your target the counter switches from D400 to D200 at 300 yards.

In the context presented by the OP (raising the convergence distance in order to compensate for leading)-  the difference in elevation for a convergence of 600 vs a convergence of 300 is only going to be a vertical difference of a couple feet (at most, for poor ballistic rounds).  That may seem like a lot, but in reality it isn't enough to matter all that much in the scenario presented.  And, as Krusty mentioned, it will hurt you in any other application than that one particular type of shot.  And it's going to be most pronounced at 1/2 of your convergence distance.  In a shot where you don't lead enough to make a hit normally, setting your guns that way might yield a hit on the enemy planes elevator, if you're lucky.
MtnMan

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not". Thomas Jefferson

Offline Getback

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6364
Re: Conversion theory
« Reply #7 on: April 20, 2009, 08:13:05 PM »
Good info. Mtmn.

I'd like Zazen to step in here. He has a bit of a different theory unless it has changed. He suggested a staggered setting for wing mounted guns.

  Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter

Offline StokesAk

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3665
Re: Conversion theory
« Reply #8 on: April 20, 2009, 09:50:07 PM »
Do you mean having you bullets come down on somebody when they turn cause of the angle of your guns? In kinda confused :(
Strokes

Offline Wingnutt

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1665
Re: Conversion theory
« Reply #9 on: April 20, 2009, 10:03:50 PM »
In the german cannon birds i have mine set to 200.. not for any magical reason, but because at 200 when leading a target the rounds go where I "feel" they will.. is hard to explain.

Offline Getback

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6364
Re: Conversion theory
« Reply #10 on: April 20, 2009, 10:07:26 PM »
Do you mean having you bullets come down on somebody when they turn cause of the angle of your guns? In kinda confused :(

Yes

  Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter

Offline StokesAk

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3665
Re: Conversion theory
« Reply #11 on: April 20, 2009, 10:29:53 PM »
+1 Then.
Strokes

Offline mtnman

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
Re: Conversion theory
« Reply #12 on: April 20, 2009, 11:49:04 PM »
See, the thing about that, is that when you bank the plane the bullets don't do what they're "supposed" to do anymore. 

The gun barrels are tilted up when the plane is level, so the bullets start off in an upward arc to compensate for gravity.  In addition, the barrel are pointed inward so that the bullets will converge at a given point.

As soon as you bank the plane, that fails to be the case.  If you fire while banked 90 degrees left, the barrels aren't pointed upward anymore, so aren't compensating for gravity anymore.  A bullet begins falling the instant it leaves the barrel, unless the barrel is tilted upward.  If you fired a round from a level barrel, over a level surface, at the same time as you dropped a bullet from the same height as the barrel, they'd both hit the ground at practically the same time.  One would be downrange and one would be right next to you.

The result of that is that if you tilt the plane 90 degrees to the left the bullets will hit low, because the barrel isn't tilted to compensate for gravity anymore.  Not only that, but the tilt initially put into place to compensate for gravity, is now tilting left instead of up.  End result, bullets hit low and left of where the sight says they'll go.  In fact, the guns from the right wing will go extra-low, and the guns from the left wing won't be quite as low as expected (because the barrels are pointing inward, which is now a nearly vertical tilt...).

Go further, and roll the plane inverted.  Now, the upward tilt to compensate for gravity is actually a downward tilt, opposite of what it "should" be.  The effect here is that your bullets will appear to hit high from the perspective of the pilot, which is actually low.

Those effects get worse the farther the sight-line is from the level of the barrel(s).  A scope-mounted rifle will do exactly the same thing, but it won't appear as bad (but trust me, you'll still miss).  The effect is worse in a plane, because the bullets are aimed to hit a target, at convergence, in your line of sight.  Draw a line from your eye, through the sight, to the target.  Now realize that in an F4U the guns are roughly 5-6 feet below that line!  But at 300yds (or wherever you have you're convergence set), the bullets will cross through that line (or at least meet that line).  That's actually a lot of upward tilt!  If they come through the line they'll actually hit high immediately beyond the set convergence, before eventually coming back down through the line of sight and hitting low.  I never found that to occur with the .50's though.

Coming into this game, I doubted that HTC had modeled the guns/ammunition that accurately, but having done a bit of testing on my own, I'd have to say the modeling is pretty dang close.  Those effects occur!  They can be tough to detect, but they still occur.  They're tough to see sometimes because it's tough to fly on "knife-edge" to fire rounds into the dot-target, and the same is the case for testing inverted.  Your nose needs to be tilted upward to fly knife-edge, which means in aleft back you're already aiming high (appears to be aiming to the right).

Effects also get magnified or masked depending on whether your flying level, or pulling any G's.  If you tilt the nose up or down, your bullets will strike high, assuming your wings are level with the horizon, for example.

Firing at the dot-target can be misleading too.  Hitting in the "10" ring looks good.  In realty though, that ring is 20ft in diameter.  You can fit several fighter fuselage backsides in there!  You actually can consider anything other than the center of the "10" ring to be a miss.

When you actually sit back and think about it, it's no wonder the "average" hit percent is so dismal.  Gunnery is complicated, and it gets worse when you're moving at high speed, not level, pulling G's, etc...  Understanding the "how's and why's" is really the first step in being able to get the effect you want.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2009, 11:51:49 PM by mtnman »
MtnMan

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not". Thomas Jefferson

Offline AWwrgwy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5478
Re: Conversion theory
« Reply #13 on: April 20, 2009, 11:51:18 PM »
Good info. Mtmn.

I'd like Zazen to step in here. He has a bit of a different theory unless it has changed. He suggested a staggered setting for wing mounted guns.

IIRC if you stagger your guns in increments, shortest convergence furthest out on the wing to a longer convergence closer in on the wing, you essentially create two spots where the bullet streams converge.

For instance, I do this on P-47s only:

600 575 550 525                525 550 575 600

You get a convergence with the four guns on each wing at around 300 yards and you get a shotgun like convergence out at the max.  Not all so concentrated at max, but not so bad either.

I figure with my crappy aim, a P-51B's firepower on each wing at 300 yards plus a P-47's firepower at 600 yards is a good compromise.



wrongway
71 (Eagle) Squadron
"THAT"S PAINT!!"

"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."
- General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay

Offline Cajunn

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 723
Re: Conversion theory
« Reply #14 on: April 21, 2009, 12:16:11 AM »
I set my convergence at 250 in everything fighter, and if I'm coming in with more energy I start shooting at 400 and usually that's all it takes, and in the case if I'm cutting a corner I find that between 200 and 400 is the distance I usually run them through. Now that being said I set the convergence in any plane I use for attack at 650 for knocking out ack and turrets on flacks so I can start shooting further out......
“The important thing [in tactics] is to suppress the enemy's useful actions but allow his useless actions. However, doing this alone is defensive.â€

Miyamoto Musashi (1584-1645)
Japanese Samurai & Philosopher