convergence

[TnDep]

I use offline missions to practice gunnery. A good one imo is Coogan's Endurance mission. It's basically an AI furball and you get plenty of shot opportunities. Give yourself 10x ammo and shoot at the dumb drones turning all over the place for half an hour and you'll see improvement. It helped me get that repetition I needed that flying in the TA or DA or MA doesn't. Learning how to really fight is best done with a real person, but learning how to shoot is better done with two dozen drones.

Can this be done with aim bot on? haven't never done it to begin with but seems to be a good thing, where do you download Coogan's Endurance mission?

[morfiend]

Can this be done with aim bot on? haven't never done it to begin with but seems to be a good thing, where do you download Coogan's Endurance mission?

 I don't see why not,the LCG is in arena settings so I don't think it would affect a mission.

   Look for flightmodeflags,hilite and click change,then check the box and Bob's your uncle!




   

 PS: Bustr,I agree with Mntman,no need to apologize,you put alot of work and effort into this and it's been a great source of information for the whole community to use.

[Dichotomy]

Can this be done with aim bot on? haven't never done it to begin with but seems to be a good thing, where do you download Coogan's Endurance mission?

http://www.mediafire.com/?c4i8luccucw2c

[bustr]

Having gotten my grasp of the games gunnery physics straightened out now via MtnMan and Morfiend's kind assistance. I've gone back in and pulled data for all of our fighters to help players accomplish seeing the results of their convergence settings as if their aircraft was on leveled static stands at a bore sighting range.

My assumption is that when the center of the aircraft is aligned with the center of the target during auto level cruise,  this is the equivalent of placing the aircraft on a leveled static stand at a bore sighting range. Oh,,, and try flying inverted level and test your guns. I hear it's an eye opener these days........

Data Collection Method:
Data was collected by flying each aircraft at 1000ft North with the offline Target set between (.target xxxx) 2, 2.5, 2.75, 3, 3.5, 3.75, 4, 4.5. The target command will accept fractions and will display the target down to 1 yard. These small number values made it possible to show a small part of the nose, prop spinner or prop hub through the target on it's back side.

1.} By using F3 mode, zooming in and then the NumPad_Key1 the back side of the target can be observed. As your speed increases the nose of the aircraft lowers.

2.} When the nose/spinner/prop hub was bisected by the target horizontal center line I noted the speed from the E6B. The next step is to return to F1 mode, move the target to 100 yards, make sure the aircraft is auto level at the noted speed or using that speed to make finer adjustments to center the aircraft's nose/spinner/prop hub while using the F3 mode and numkeypad_1 process.

3.} Having made sure the aircraft is at the correct speed, then goto full zoom and note the distance in Mil the center of the gunsight is above or below the target center horizontal line at 100 yards.

4.} Now 2 refrence values have been collected for each aircraft to assist in leveling the plane in it's flight path before testing your guns against the offline target.


Excpetions:
1.} The Spit-XIV's Griffon engine is down angled from the center line of the aricraft by 2-3 degree.
2.} The F6F's engine is down angled from the center of the aircraft by 2-3 degree.
3.} The Me163's nose in auto level will not at any speed aline with the horizontal line of the target. It stops at about positive 1 degree high.
4.} The SpitI's level cruise speed tops out at 285 true off WEP which leaves the prop spinner about 1/2 degree high.

I have provided a Mil calibrated gunsight to help in testing your own convergence settings. Copy both files to your sights directory.

http://www.mediafire.com/?8705o7b7grhx2a5

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Mil @ 100yds = 3.6 inches
1Mil @ 150yds = 5 inches
1Mil @ 200yds = 7 inches
1Mil @ 300yds = 11 inches
1Mil @ 400yds = 14 inches
1Mil @ 600yds = 20 inches
1Mil @ 1000yds= 36 inches
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: All WW2 engine mounted cannon were lock bolted in line with the hollow prop shaft and could not be tilted to achive elevation. The closest convergence setting in the game to the gun barrel being locked parallel to the engine line is 150. The game does tilt the line of sight down for the Revi gunsights in the 109's like the WW2 armeror's diagrams. Setting any convergence other than 150 will result in shooting unexpectedly high and a bit gamey since the real guns could not be tilted in the engine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of tested aircraft, cruise speed, and Mil number.

Mil numbers with a (+) are above the target horizontal red line. Mil numbers with a (-) are below that line. The number zero(0) means on the line. Use the E6B from the clipboard when adjusting your rpm's and throttle to achive (xxx) true speed while in auto level.

United States

Aircraft----Speed-------Mil
F4F--------250 true----+11
F4U1------260 true----+16
F4U1A-----260 true----+20
F4U1C-----260 true----+20
F4U1D-----260 true----+18
F4U-4-----280 true-----+13
F6F-5-----260 true----- 0 Target Horizontal Line
FM2-------225 true-----+16
P38G------250 true-----+2
P38J------250 true-----+6
P38L------260 true------ 0 Target Horizontal Line
P39D------250 true-----+8 <--37mm T9 cannon Motor Cannon
P39Q------250 true-----+8 <--37mm T9 cannon Motor Cannon
P40C------220 true-----+16
P40E------240 true-----+10
P40F------245 true----+10
P40N------250 true----+6
P47D11----290 true---+10
P47D25----290 true----+12
P47D40----290 true----+12
P47M------290 true----+12
P47N------290 true----+12
P51B------283 true----+15
P51D------285 true----+17
----------------------------------------------------------------
Great Britain

Aircraft----Speed-------Mil
HurriI-----210 true----+10
HurriIIC---220 true----+10
SpitI------285 true---(-10)
SpitIIc----290 true---(-8)
SpitV------280 true---(-10)
SpitVIII---255 true----+3
SpitIX-----250 true----+3
SpitXIV----260 true----+6
SpitXVI----260 true----+2
MossiVI----255 true----+8
TempestV---280 true----+5
TyphoonIb--270 true----+6
----------------------------------------------------------------
Germany

Aircraft----Speed-------Mil
Bf109E4----240 true----+8
Bf109F4----240 true----+12<--Mg151/20 Motor Cannon
Bf109G2----280 true----+2 <--Mg151/20 Motor Cannon
Bf109G6----280 ture----+2 <--Mg151/20 Motor Cannon
Bf109G14---280 true----+3 <--Mg151/20 Motor Cannon
Bf109G14---290 true----+2 <--Mk108 30 Motor Cannon
Bf109K4----290 true----+3 <--Mk108 30 Motor Cannon
Bf110C4b---220 true----+5
Bf110G2----250 true----+3
FW190A5----275 true----+10
Fw190A8----280 true----+8
FW190D9----280 true----+12
FW190F8----282 true----+12
Ta152H1----275 true----+10 <--Mk108 30 Motor Cannon
Me163------420 true----+26
Me262------300 true----+17
----------------------------------------------------------------
Italy

Aircraft----Speed-------Mil
C.202------265 true----+12
C.205------295 true----+10
----------------------------------------------------------------
Russia

Aircraft----Speed-------Mil
I16--------255 true----+6
La5--------275 true----+12
La7--------275 ture----+12
Yak9T------275 true----+6 <---NS-37 Motor Cannon
Yak9U------275 true----+8 <---ShVAK20 Motor cannon
----------------------------------------------------------------
Finland

Aircraft----Speed-------Mil
Brewster---230 true----+10
----------------------------------------------------------------
Japan

Aircraft----Speed-------Mil
A6m2-------210 true----+5
A6m3-------215 true----+5
A6m5-------220 true----+5
Ki61-------255 true----+15
Ki84-------265 true----+13
N1K2-------260 true----+16

[mtnman]

I'm missing something here Bustr, sorry.

What is your list showing?  The Mil # for the F4U-1A for example, is +20.  What does that mean exactly?  Is that how high above the center of the aircraft the LoS is in level flight at 260?

[bustr]

The speed and Mil numbers give you two data references that you are auto leveled as close to placing the aircraft on a static stand leveled at a bore sighting range as I can think of. HiTech has not coaded a feature like a static bore sighting range into the game from which you are in your cockpit and can use zoom to see the results. This is the best I can come up with to aproximate the process.

Aircraft-----Speeed-------Mil
F4U1-A-----260 true----+20

F4U1-A is cruising auto level at 260mph true from the E6B at 1000 feet North at the target. Then the center of the gunsight will be (+-)20Mil above the red horizontal line of the target at 100 yards. I used a map with a base that allowed me to take off and fly north over water for a long time.

I provided that calibrated gunsight with Mil markings for this purpose. Once the speed and 100 yard gunsight position is roughly in place. You can set the target to various ranges to see the results of your convergence at those ranges and even determin your dipersion or drop with the inches to Mil conversion table provided. I got the insperation for this method from the 301mph bore sighting instructions on the inside of a P51-D gun cover hatch.

The problem with 301mph in the P51-D is it pitches the nose down below the center of the target horizontal center line at 1000 feet. Was I in error aligning the center line of each plane with the center line of the target to perform this testing procedure? I was attempting to level the gunsight line in refrence to the aircraft's level line against the target's level line before shooting.

[mtnman]

The speed and Mil numbers give you two data references that you are auto leveled as close to placing the aircraft on a static stand leveled at a bore sighting range as I can think of. HiTech has not coaded a feature like a static bore sighting range into the game from which you are in your cockpit and can use zoom to see the results. This is the best I can come up with to aproximate the process.

Aircraft-----Speeed-------Mil
F4U1-A-----260 true----+20

F4U1-A is cruising auto level at 260mph true from the E6B at 1000 feet North at the target. Then the center of the gunsight will be (+-)20Mil above the red horizontal line of the target at 100 yards. I used a map with a base that allowed me to take off and fly north over water for a long time.

I provided that calibrated gunsight with Mil markings for this purpose. Once the speed and 100 yard gunsight position is roughly in place. You can set the target to various ranges to see the results of your convergence at those ranges and even determin your dipersion or drop with the inches to Mil conversion table provided. I got the insperation for this method from the 301mph bore sighting instructions on the inside of a P51-D gun cover hatch.

The problem with 301mph in the P51-D is it pitches the nose down below the center of the target horizontal center line at 1000 feet. Was I in error aligning the center line of each plane with the center line of the target to perform this testing procedure? I was attempting to level the gunsight line in refrence to the aircraft's level line against the target's level line before shooting.

I think so, for several reasons.  I'm not arguing with you here, just simply explaining why I don't think that is a good idea.  I could be wrong, but I'd need some countering evidence to swing my opinion.

For starter's, I don't think the center line of the airplane really matters at all when it comes to this discussion.  I'll elaborate on that in a minute.  I think the LoS is the end-all reference point, and having the LoS as close to level with the center line of the target is infinitely more important and relevant than the center line of the aircraft.

The number one reason I say that is because that's what I believe the actual pilots would have used, and it's the only reference they would have had while in the air.  It's also the only reference WE have while in the air.  And again, I think that's ok, because it's also the only one we need, or that matters.  We simply need to know how the bullet trajectory "behaves" in relation to a line from my eye, out through the sight, and out into space.  If I have that reference point (line) and know how my bullets act in relation to it, I can make adjustments to manipulate that trajectory to intercept a target.

Now, there are definite advantages to having that line (LoS) as "level" as possible, for reasons already stated.  However, given a choice of being perfectly level or pointing directly at the "bulls eye" I think the BE is the answer.  Maybe the best way to state it would be "as level as possible while also pointing at the BE".  And actually, that's how most people sight in rifles, etc.  Find a pretty level spot, and place a target out there.  Avoid sighting-in while shooting up or down hill, etc...

Looking at a photo like this, I bet the pilot was in there saying "bring the tail up/down a little" until his LoS was straight through the sight to the target.  I doubt there was any real effort to establish the CL of the plane, or whether it was perfectly level or not.  There may have been an effort to make sure the pilots seat was at the right level though, so he wasn't looking up/down through the sight.  The ground was probably less than perfectly level, and I doubt they made sure the center of the target lined up exactly with the center of the plane height-wise.



Having jumped into the TA to do some testing with your numbers, I also see that HTC made some changes to the .target.  I like the crosshairs through it!  It also seems to be slightly lower now, in relation to the plane?  I'm not sure I like that as much.

[mtnman]

Other reasons I doubt the validity of the plane CL as a reference point-

- How is it established?  Just as a line drawn through "where".  Is a line through the center of the front and the center of the back really the center?

- The AoA changes with speed, but also with weight.  A heavier plane (or the same one with more fuel or ammo) will require a steeper AoA to maintain level flight than a lighter (but identical) plane.  The 260 you mention for the F4U would depend on whether it was fully fueled or not.

- The AoA also changes with altitude for the same reasons...

- Drawing a line through the "center" of the plane may not properly represent the angle the fuselage is at in flight, unless the angle of incidence of the wing and also that of the horizontal stabilizer are taken into account.  An example I'll give is of a popular RC F4U kit (Topflite) which has the angle of incidence between the wing and tail correct, but between the wing and fuselage wrong.  As a result the fuselage of the RC version always appears to be too nose-high by a few degrees.  It flies good, but doesn't look "right".  While building the plane, this can be corrected by altering the wing saddle slightly, but the tail angle also needs to be adjusted.  The AoI of the wing and tail need to remain as planned, but the angle of the fuselage needs to be changed...  If a CL was drawn of either version and compared to the other, they'd differ (even though both versions fly very well, so could be considered "correct" in their own rite...

-Motor-mount incidence also varies, and will effect the angle of the fuselage in flight depending on speed and throttle setting.  It's common to mount engines angled slightly up/dn/lft/rt on various planes, even though the "spinner" is still centered.  I'm not sure how this would effect each WWII plane.

But again, even though all of those variables come into play, the LoS remains constant (especially in AH).  There's still a line from the eye, through the sight, and out into space.  If I know how my trajectory behaves around that line, I can adjust and get hits.

Lastly, I think you'd still have to "translate" your CL results against the LoS to make the numbers meaningful and useful?  Is there a valid reason to use the airplane's CL vs the pilot's LoS for testing?

[bustr]

Yes and very simple.

Until you yourself comes up with better speeds and Mil numbers or HiTech takes pity on me and posts the correct speeds for me to use in leveling each aircraft. As far as I can tell I'm the only person who thought of using the offline target this way and tested all of the fighters with it to produce some kind of numbers. Especially the part about pulling the target in until I could micro adjust the tip of the nose of each aircraft to be bisected by the target.

This method is probably the closest aproximation in general for everyone in the game to having HiTechs lookup table speeds in my hands or he coads a bore sighting range to pull each plane up in and shoot from the cockpit. When I tested the K4 with this method it was painfuly obvious how hokey pulling the convergence out past 150 was. Now you can see tater rounds hitting way too high than the the real gun was physicly capable of achiving by being lock bolted in line with the airscrew shaft.

Instead of finding a death by 1000 nit picking cuts wrong with this. Come up with something better. After all I've just handed you and the community a tool.

My insperation:






From the inside of the gun hatch.

[mtnman]

Yes and very simple.

Until you yourself comes up with better speeds and Mil numbers or HiTech takes pity on me and posts the correct speeds for me to use in leveling each aircraft. As far as I can tell I'm the only person who thought of using the offline target this way and tested all of the fighters with it to produce some kind of numbers. Especially the part about pulling the target in until I could micro adjust the tip of the nose of each aircraft to be bisected by the target.

This method is probably the closest aproximation in general for everyone in the game to having HiTechs lookup table speeds in my hands or he coads a bore sighting range to pull each plane up in and shoot from the cockpit. When I tested the K4 with this method it was painfuly obvious how hokey pulling the convergence out past 150 was. Now you can see tater rounds hitting way too high than the the real gun was physicly capable of achiving by being lock bolted in line with the airscrew shaft.

Instead of finding a death by 1000 nit picking cuts wrong with this. Come up with something better. After all I've just handed you and the community a tool.

My insperation:


(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

From the inside of the gun hatch.
(Image removed from quote.)

I'm not trying to cut you 1000 times, honestly, lol!  Maybe I just don't understand the value of your tool, or how to apply it?

Please explain it further, I really just don't understand it.  I also suspect that what I'm looking for/at, and what you're looking for are different.  That may easily be why we're on different pages.

I don't see how your tool matches the P51 example.  I don't understand how you can use the P51 as a model, find your theory doesn't work with it, and call it good for all the other models though?  Am I missing something?  I don't see how the P51 CL applies, or why you've used it in reference to your tool?

What I see from the P51 example (very cool BTW, thanks for sharing) is essentially the same as sighting in a rifle with a bore sight, or on a 25 yard target.  A tool that's used to get an acceptable "starting point" for sighting in.  With the P51, they're saying that if you align the plane and target the way they show, and align the gun bores the way they show, the bullet streams will converge at the LoS at the ranges shown at the speed shown.  Pretty sweet, really, and a great way to set up the P51 in the factory to be "fairly close" without actually firing any bullets.  It could be done indoors...  It wouldn't be as accurate as actually firing at a target at 300 yards, but it would be a good starting point, particularly if ammo was at a premium.  Bore sighting isn't considered "final", it's just a "good start" prior to actually sighting-in.

I suspect your tool could be used to test how close HTC models the gun mount location compared to the real planes?  As in, see if the bullet is actually modeled to fire precisely from the wing, or spinner, cowling, or somewhere else?

I don't see the need to actually bore sight the guns when it comes to AH?  The same result occurs as you slide the convergence in/out in the hanger, even though the method is easier?

What I'm doing is using the .target to learn about the trajectory of the rounds, and how convergence effects that.  I'm also able to compare the trajectory in AH to RL, and see if it's acceptably close.  I'm not using it to bore sight, or "sight-in" my guns.

And I've posted all the "numbers" anyone would need for that.

[bustr]

When I was taught to shoot, sight picture and visulisation was the mantra. Post and Pumpkin. Then a dope sheet that would choke a horse. Now that depends are fashionable I mostly remember what the sight picture looks like.

It's blatantly obvious any angle of attack, of speed slower or faster than what I determined will make changes in the trajectory. But, if you never have a base of reference to begin with, that you make the effort to create visulised indelibly in your mind. You have absolutly nothing but guess work each time you pull the trigger. Most males are Kinesthetic/Visual learners afterall.

The germans didn't produce the trajectory diagrams for the 109 and 190 to simply entertaine the troops and generations of computer gamers over the subsiquent decades. The bore sighting sheet would have sufficed if that was the case. The ballistics sheets were produced from a static level to the aircraft and it's releationship to it's Reflexvisier's "visierlinie" for some mysterious reason.

Let's see....FW190A8 gunsight line is 110 centemeters above the engine line. MG/Cannon Bullets at 250 Meters are 48 centemeters above the gunsight line and is the patterning sweet spot for fighter to fighter. Cannon 300-400 Meters 84 centemeters above the gunsight line is the longrange sweet spot for bombers. Fly the FW190A8 from my numbers with MG set to 400 and Cannon to 550 and set the target to 250, 300 and 400 and you will see that pattern emerge on full zoom. Knowing yards being longer than meters your elevations a tad lower above the gunsight centerline than the german balistics diagram.

So any player having trouble with his gunnery going offline and following my instructions. Once at level speed and the gunsight showing the proper center relative to the target. Then they can dial in any distance and start creating a basic sight picture visual image basis for their gunnery. And if they graph it as a dope sheet those old german manual makers would be proud.

[Krusty]

The thing about the .target command is you don't have to match the center crosshair. No matter what speed you're at. You could be aimed at the left of center and slightly high, so that you have a nice white patch to shoot at. You look at the crosshairs and then you see where the hits land. It doesn't have to be centered and it doesn't have to be level. It's an instant feedback situation. "Oh, my rounds are low" or "Oh, they're high, I should bring my convergence in a big"

I, also, don't see the need for such over-thinking of the situation. The rounds are not calibrated to the center of the plane, but to the gunsight. Unless you're testing it at some pretty extreme angles the results won't change. There is randomly programmed cones of dispersion in by the guns already.

[mtnman]

The thing about the .target command is you don't have to match the center crosshair. No matter what speed you're at. You could be aimed at the left of center and slightly high, so that you have a nice white patch to shoot at. You look at the crosshairs and then you see where the hits land. It doesn't have to be centered and it doesn't have to be level. It's an instant feedback situation. "Oh, my rounds are low" or "Oh, they're high, I should bring my convergence in a big"

I agree with you for the most part on this Krusty.  The real advantage I see with aiming at the center is that it allows you to calculate an actual measurement when it comes to "how high" or "how low".  That could be done with any known reference point though (i.e. aiming at the top or bottom of one of the rings).

The issue I see with the ultra-simple "oh I'm high" idea is that people also think "I'm just above the 10 ring, which ain't 1/2 bad".  In reality, that's 15 to 20 feet high!  Even hitting the top of the ten ring is bad (if you're aiming at the center), when you realize the center ring is 20 feet in diameter you could be shooting 8-10 feet high (or low) and still hit the ten ring.

When I first started, I tried the .target and found I could easily hit the ten ring, and I thought that was plenty good.  In reality, there's still more room to "miss" an airplane inside the ten ring than to hit one.  I quickly found out that I still had trouble hitting other planes, even if they appeared stationary right in front of me.



The value of the .target isn't in sighting in, it's in learning how different convergence settings perform at the various ranges that aren't at convergence.

This doesn't look 1/2 bad...



Until you see that if there'd been a plane there, it was really just a bunch of misses...



And, if I hadn't been "locked onto" the center of the ring, I easily could have missed the up/down aspect, and assumed I'd be hitting my opponents wings.

I think it really comes down to how well you want to shoot, and whether or not you want to put any effort into it. 

In my case, getting good at shooting was easily the number one thing that raised my success level in the MA's.  It let me win more fights (even against guys that flew better than me) and it kept me alive long enough to learn to fly/fight.  It's effect on my overall SA was astronomical, because fights lasted just a few seconds for the most part, and I really only needed one shot opportunity.

[B-17]

I don't care. If there are hit sprites, I'm happy.

[Krusty]

Mtnman, we don't disagree on the issue, but I never had a problem noticing "I'm high" or "I'm low" when not locked into the center. Because wherever I was aimed was my center, and I could tell from my relatively-stationary crosshair that it was high or low. Same example as you but I just never needed the center to tell that.

IMO the trajectory of the guns is one thing, but shooting involves knowing when NOT to shoot more. Knowing the timing and positioning... I don't think convergence alone ever cost me a kill. If I truly had the kill my guns wouldn't matter 100 yards or 650. 'Course the trick for me is REALLY having the kill 

(that's the part I still work at!)