"Scissoring" Convergance?

[RTHolmes]

Ive been pondering this and I'm leaning towards pattern (which is how I have my Jugs set up anyway). reason being that it produces a narrow tunnel of bullets over a range of distance to target.

IRL point will be more effective at exactly the convergence range, either side of that distance it will be less effective than pattern. ie. if you only ever fire at exactly 250yd, point will be more effective. if you fire between 200-300, on average you will get higher density of fire using pattern. this is what the USAAF document quote above is saying.

if you look at the patterns in that doc, the tunnel is actually quite narrow. given the size of the targets in the AH damage model (wing tip, wing inner section, stabs etc), the effect of using pattern in AH is the same as having point but over a much wider range of target distances.

[morfiend]

Lusche sry it took so long to get back to this,if I was wrong and it appears I was I'm sorry for calling your graphs into question.   As always your stuff is on the mark and a great learning tool.

 again sorry for thinking you were wrong.


   

[Ghosth]

Great discussion guys, and lots of good points by all.

Only one thing I'd like to mention.

If you don't have a minimum of at least 6 months in AH, flying daily, leave convergence at the default settings until you do. It is possible, to truly screw yourself up, lose your confidence, to the point that you end up getting with a trainer to find out whats wrong.


When in doubt, leave convergence set close to the 300 yard mark, at least until you've really got a handle on ACM etc. Then you can start working on the little details that will make a difference. But concentrate on the big stuff first.

[Sonicblu]

That's correct. It's more effective to have your fire concentrated on a single area instead of making single holes all over the plane.

Get close (for better hit probability, less spread and more energy per bullet) and concentrate your fire (if possible on a vital part).

Sorry to get a little sidetracked but Hitting a " vital part" just reminded me of a scene from Galaxy Quest where he is fighting the rock monster and they tell him to hit him in the vulnerable spot.

" He is a rock he has no vulnerable spot"  was the answer 

Sometimes it seems like there is no vital part when hitting another aircraft.

[caldera]

"Never give up, never surrender!"   

[Lusche]

 again sorry for thinking you were wrong.

Way too much "honor" for me. no need to be sorry for that. I have been wrong more than once on this BBS.
Particularly anything with more math than simply counting to three has a high risk of being messed up by The Snailman  

 

[Malice]

This was very helpful guys thanks for the info.

[katanaso]

I switched to 200 for convergence a while ago for one big reason:  It felt very awkward to aim below something when I had a convergence that was further out, say 650, and the con was closer to me, say 200.

To me, it feels much more natural to aim higher at a target that is further away and account for bullet drop than to aim lower at a closer target and account for the bullet rising.

I also do what Batfink explained as far as pinging cons at 800-1000 to try and get them to turn.


mir

[mtnman]

I switched to 200 for convergence a while ago for one big reason:  It felt very awkward to aim below something when I had a convergence that was further out, say 650, and the con was closer to me, say 200.

To me, it feels much more natural to aim higher at a target that is further away and account for bullet drop than to aim lower at a closer target and account for the bullet rising.

I also do what Batfink explained as far as pinging cons at 800-1000 to try and get them to turn.


mir

If you're talking about wing-mounted guns, you should look the 150 yd convergence screen shots form this thread, because your 200yd convergence will act similarly...

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,291146.0.html

For shots out at 400-800yds, you may need to aim well under your target (6-10 feet!) to hit it with a close-in convergence like that, which is the opposite of what many people expect (and as you describe).

[katanaso]

Very interesting, Mtnman.  Thanks for pointing out the other thread where you did those tests.

I never thought of the fact that the gun placement was factored into the equation, so the wing mounted guns would need to fire upwards...

I appreciate it.


ETA:

I just tested in a Spit 9, and it's not working the same way it showed in your tests on the F4U.

With all guns set to converge at 200, all of the shots were hitting on the horizontal plane of the pipper.  At 200, they were bullseyes.  At 300, 400, 500, and 600, the shots just spread, and slightly dropped.  Actually, the shots were not dropping much until I hit the 800 yard mark, where the drop was significant.

However, unless I'm reading the results wrong, I would've not had to aim under the target at any point from 200 out.  I'll take some screenshots if you'd like me to run the tests for the individual ranges like you did.

Could it be the difference in calibers?  (303's and 20mm vs 50's?)





mir

[mtnman]

Very interesting, Mtnman.  Thanks for pointing out the other thread where you did those tests.

I never thought of the fact that the gun placement was factored into the equation, so the wing mounted guns would need to fire upwards...

I appreciate it.


ETA:

I just tested in a Spit 9, and it's not working the same way it showed in your tests on the F4U.

With all guns set to converge at 200, all of the shots were hitting on the horizontal plane of the pipper.  At 200, they were bullseyes.  At 300, 400, 500, and 600, the shots just spread, and slightly dropped.  Actually, the shots were not dropping much until I hit the 800 yard mark, where the drop was significant.

However, unless I'm reading the results wrong, I would've not had to aim under the target at any point from 200 out.  I'll take some screenshots if you'd like me to run the tests for the individual ranges like you did.

Could it be the difference in calibers?  (303's and 20mm vs 50's?)





mir

It could be several things, or a combination of all of them.

For starters, the guns on the spitfires are mounted closer to eye-level, so the upward cant will be less, resulting in what looks like a flatter trajectory (even if it actually isn't).  It'd be closer to (but not identical to) nose-mount type vertical trajectory as viewed from the pilot (not counting the inward cant).  This is actually enough to matter a whole lot.  As the distance between the eye and the muzzle increases, things quickly get confusing and non-instinctual, so to speak.

Another possibility (which I initially had trouble with) is that if you use auto-level to aim, your speed will shift.  This means your nose comes down due to less required AoA.  This means that your gunsight will actually be aiming lower and lower on the target.  This will have the effect of making it look like the bullets are only converging/spreading left/right, and you'll see very little up/down aspect.  You'll still hit the bulls-eye, but may not realize you're aiming at (or near) the bottom of the 10-ring.  If that's where you're aiming, your bullets are actually hitting 10 feet high....

I haven't looked closely at the spits myself (they have guns?)   I'm OMW to work now, but may have time to tinker tonight...

[katanaso]

I was using auto-trim for angle, then letting the plane settle for a few seconds before firing.  I wasn't using the the auto-level setting.  So the nose and pipper were steady once I started firing.  I was aiming at different parts of the same target, but all were with auto-trim for angle.

If you have time to try it, that would be cool.  I'm going to try it in some other planes that I play with so I can see where the shots are hitting!

Thanks again.

[SAJ73]

I fly mostly 50cal F4U's, and have my convergence set to 325 for all guns. And I try to make my shots within the 600, above 600 I notice it takes alot longer bursts to make damage. But I don't notice much of that bullet drop, or spread even.. Here the other night I was climbing up to a single B24, but I could not get my speed up to get close. After a while the distance was 1k between us, and I figured "what the heck" and gave him a 5second burst just to see if I made any pings at all. I had my view zoomed, and my aim dot placed right at his tailsection. But what amazed me was that all my rounds made hits, the bomber's tail and wings were sparkling, parts flying off, then a fuel leak, then there was flames. And eventually a boom. That was with a 325 convergence setting in a F4U1A.

And I also remember one other time I was climbing after a P51, and the distance between us was 1k. I was flying the F4U1C, and aimed about 2-3 plane lengths infront of the 51 and gave him a few seconds burst. The result was a direct hit and the P51 exploded instantly when hit. That time I had my convergence set at 350 for the 20mm..

I don't use tracers anymore, I did before but now I just find them distracting. I have had alot of issues with my aim, I had a pretty good aim a while back. Then I was away from the game for a few months, and the aim was gone.. 
Now I start to feel its coming back to me, and I see more and more often I can make pretty good hits 800 or more away. But it has taken me about 6 months just to get back at where I was, mostly because I don't play as many hours now as I did before..

But in general I don't shoot that far out if I am not in a chase of a faster plane, then I might do it just to make some kind of damage before he gets away. If I know I can catch up with him, I will save my ammo till I get closer. 

The 50cals can really do alot of damage if they get concentrated to one spot, alot more damage than if they get spread over a bigger area.

[Muzzy]

Well here's what this Advanced Noob has observed:

I've been slowly moving my convergence back in to the 200-225 range, largely because I'm finding I can't hit much past that range, and at 200+ you can actually control where the bullets strike on the enemy plane.  However, this causes some problems with bomber shooting, because getting that close to a bomber for anything more than a second or two is just plain suicidal.

It occurred to me that the closer the convergence is set, the wider the dispersal pattern will be past the convergence point. Close in, the bullets will disperse at a greater angle, while further out, the bullets will form more of a narrow cone.  I'm wondering if a longer convergence (with the guns staggered 400-425-450ish) might be better for killing bombers.

Just thinkin'

-Muzzy

[mtnman]

Well here's what this Advanced Noob has observed:

I've been slowly moving my convergence back in to the 200-225 range, largely because I'm finding I can't hit much past that range, and at 200+ you can actually control where the bullets strike on the enemy plane.  However, this causes some problems with bomber shooting, because getting that close to a bomber for anything more than a second or two is just plain suicidal.

It occurred to me that the closer the convergence is set, the wider the dispersal pattern will be past the convergence point. Close in, the bullets will disperse at a greater angle, while further out, the bullets will form more of a narrow cone.  I'm wondering if a longer convergence (with the guns staggered 400-425-450ish) might be better for killing bombers.

Just thinkin'

-Muzzy

If you have your convergence set for say 300, you can open fire at 600, and your bullet spread will be about the same width as it is when it leaves your plane.  Also, as you close inside 600, on the way to 300, your concentration will improve on the target, and this also allows you to refine the aim-point to a "sweet-spot" as you hit maximum concentration.'

With a plane with 6 50's, quick, one pass kills on bombers are entirely possible, if not probable with practice.