Aces High Bulletin Board
Help and Support Forums => Help and Training => Topic started by: StokesAk on June 22, 2010, 08:53:14 PM
-
Today I had the idea of putting my convergance at a setting that i have heard to as scissoring.
For example, in the P51D:
Outer MGs: 375
Middle MGs: 400
Inner MGs: 425
I was just wondering if this in an effective method, i seemed to think so.
Also should i bring the distances in farther or closer to my plane?
Is the convergance effective at very close range (D100-D50)?
Any comments would be appreciated.
Thanks!
-
Today I had the idea of putting my convergance at a setting that i have heard to as scissoring.
For example, in the P51D:
Outer MGs: 375
Middle MGs: 400
Inner MGs: 425
I was just wondering if this in an effective method, i seemed to think so.
Also should i bring the distances in farther or closer to my plane?
Is the convergance effective at very close range (D100-D50)?
Any comments would be appreciated.
Thanks!
At D100-D50 this convergence would basically not more or less effective than a pure "all 400" one. IF you do some trigonometry (or simply draw it on a sheet of paper), you will see it makes no big difference.
On a general note, sometimes players spend too much effort on fine tuning their convergences, when the overall effect during actual combat will be minimal, if there is one at all. All 400 or all 375 or staggered 375-425 doesn't matter much, as you will rarely ever be able to fire exactly at the optimum point. And deviations that small do not change things much.
-
Today I had the idea of putting my convergance at a setting that i have heard to as scissoring.
For example, in the P51D:
Outer MGs: 375
Middle MGs: 400
Inner MGs: 425
I was just wondering if this in an effective method, i seemed to think so.
Also should i bring the distances in farther or closer to my plane?
Is the convergance effective at very close range (D100-D50)?
Any comments would be appreciated.
Thanks!
hmm... and for all this time I thought it was refered to as "Harmonization" or Harmonizing the individual sets of guns ( individual sets meaning: outer, middle and/or inner sets )
anyhows..... some here in AH do use this method, while others set theirs to "all fire on same convergence point".......
whatever you feel works best for you, trial & error with practice is the way to go..... everyone is different :aok
edit: using any gun calibers less than the .50s to me would be of no use, for they would not have the impact needed being of lighter ammo.....
a good plane type to practice with would be a "P47 series" since it has "4" sets of 50's ( 8 .50 cal guns )....... and I would think of pushing it to 50 ft increments rather than 25 ft.
if you go for this sort of thing, that is
hope this helps......
-
Since I fly a lot of US planes with 50 cals, I have them converge on one spot since they seem to really benefit from all hitting in one place. Without having that it seems to take a lot of hits to take down a plane but if you hit at the sweet spot you can saw off a wing quite nicely.
With cannon I think its a lesser consideration since the explosive power of the cannon shells are sufficient to take off plane parts if they hit in the right place.
Nose guns are another matter since convergence is really raising and lowering the trajectory and not concentrating fire. Then its really what feels right to you. I noticed that in the La7 it made a big difference to move convergence out for me, because I wasn't really properly figuring in the bullet drop.
Your results may vary :)
-
I personally prefer having them all converge at one distance, particularly on the .50 equipped aircraft. The 'scissoring' or 'harmonized' or what have you, I do not like as well. Your fire is more dispersed, and you have no spot where it's really good, it's just this broad spread of weaker fire.
I realize it sounds simplistic, but your convergence should be set to where you do most of your shooting. I do a lot of BnZ, my convergence on all the .50 equipped planes is 450. This gives me a good 'zone' between 400 and 500 where my fire is quite concentrated, and allows me to put a lot of rounds on them, at those ranges because when I'm BnZing that's generally where I'm firing for effect. At closer range, my bullets go into two groups that I can generally put onto the enemy's wing relatively easily.
The other reason I like the slightly longer convergence is because it allows me to reach further to get a guy to wiggle if he's running away at 600 yards or so but not maneuvering. You can quite often get them to break if you hit them out that far, and a close convergence is much harder to aim out that far.
In a plane I tend to turnfight in a lot like a Spit 9 or something, I bring my convergence in around 250 or so because that's where I'm doing most of my shooting.
The main thing I find is, pick a convergence and stick with it for a while (a couple weeks anyway IMO) to see how it works for you. If you're constantly changing it, you're not giving your brain a chance to adjust to your bullet trajectory and have it become second nature.
Wiley.
-
Here is a quick table with some convergence examples.
I'm assuming 2 guns being 20 ft apart. Table shows the distance between the two bullet streams at various ranges:
(http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/9848/caonvergenceexamples.jpg)
-
Like Wiley said, the main thing is to pick a convergance and stick with it for a while. Personally, since I fly almost all 50 cal planes, I set all my guns to 400. One good burst takes them out almost everytime.
-
Here is a quick table with some convergence examples.
I'm assuming 2 guns being 20 ft apart. Table shows the distance between the two bullet streams at various ranges:
(http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/9848/caonvergenceexamples.jpg)
how can the bullets curve out away from each other at 200 yards with the above graph on the convergences from 450 through 600? at minimum it would be 20 feet, because that is what they are apart at the wing
-
(http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/9848/caonvergenceexamples.jpg)
how can the bullets curve out away from each other at 200 yards with the above graph on the convergences from 450 through 600? at minimum it would be 20 feet, because that is what they are apart at the wing
You are reading it wrong. I have no covergence settings of 450 in this table at all. I have only 200, 375, 400, 425 and 600. See the arrow behind the label "Conv setting"
-
You are reading it wrong. I have no covergence settings of 450 in this table at all. I have only 200, 375, 400, 425 and 600. See the arrow behind the label "Conv setting"
yes sir, I was reading it backwards my apologies. I went left to right instead of top to bottom
-
yes sir, I was reading it backwards my apologies.
Nothing to apologize. :)
Actually I'm waiting for someone proving that my math failed... you can't imagine how bad I'm at math... :uhoh
-
Back to the OP's question. Is there any benefit in having a staggered convergence with the outer guns harmonized closer than the inner guns? Theoretically, this would create a set of "mini-convergences" where the bullet streams from the same wing would be crossing each other.
-
Back to the OP's question. Is there any benefit in having a staggered convergence with the outer guns harmonized closer than the inner guns? Theoretically, this would create a set of "mini-convergences" where the bullet streams from the same wing would be crossing each other.
Here's an example. 3 pairs of guns, each gun one foot away fron the next one in same wing. I gave outer guns the closest convergence:
(http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/6370/stagger.jpg)
Now if you give all 3 pairs the same convergence, you have to take into account (positively) that there will always be 3 guns with there patterns very close to each other (the ones coming from the same wing).
-
Made two graphics, showing the bullet streams on target. Plane has 6 guns (3 pairs of guns 20, 19, 18 ft apart).
Not factored in are the dispersion of individual guns or bullet drop.
First one shows all guns harmonized at 400 yds:
(http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/4755/straightc.jpg)
Second one shows a staggered harmonization at 350, 400, 450 yds:
(http://img532.imageshack.us/img532/4383/staggered.jpg)
-
Nice graphs Lusche,I think you may have a mistake on the first 1 tho.
You show the inner guns in green and I think at the 600 yard range you placed them in the wrong order!
small mistake and I may be wrong but wouldnt the order be black red then green like you have in the 2nd graph or atleast have a reversed order?
Also wouldnt the guns be the same distance as they are apart at 800 yds if they converged at 400,from the looks of the graph you have them same distance apart at 600 yds.
Anyways the graph planely shows that a staggered convergence never acheives the bullet density that a single convergence point does. Your graphs definitely show that!
:salute
-
Nice graphs Lusche,I think you may have a mistake on the first 1 tho.
You show the inner guns in green and I think at the 600 yard range you placed them in the wrong order!
small mistake and I may be wrong but wouldnt the order be black red then green like you have in the 2nd graph or atleast have a reversed order?
I just checked, and no, I did not. The black pair is always the outermost, even past the convergence point. It only that the left & right "black guns" are swapping their position with each other
Quick sketch:
(http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/7479/clipboard01ho.jpg)
-
Also wouldnt the guns be the same distance as they are apart at 800 yds if they converged at 400,from the looks of the graph you have them same distance apart at 600 yds.
The first range group shown is 200, not 0. Thus it's looking like the 600 yards group, both have the same distance from the convergence point at D400.
Anyways the graph planely shows that a staggered convergence never acheives the bullet density that a single convergence point does.
Actually I wasn't really aware of that until this thread came up and I started to do these graphs. I love learning things that way :)
-
Thought I would add a few thoughts to the thread. WW2 aircraft crews used both converged or staggered "box pattern" settings demonstrating it's not quite as cut and dry. Qualitatively single point convergence will give you more concentration of fire while a staggered setting will cover more area. Here is a snippet from a gun harmonization chart for the P-51B:
(http://www.brauncomustangs.org/images/p-51b-1cpt-final.jpg)
(http://www.brauncomustangs.org/images/p-51b-2cpts-final.jpg)
Yes, I used 6 guns vs. 4 (I did this a long time ago for the 412th to think about the P-51D) but the graphic is enough to demonstrate the point. As can be seen single point convergence is concentrated fire (~ 3 ft^2) where spread convergence covers more area. Of course just how much difference does the spread make vs. not? It's hard to see on this diagram though you can see the spread marked off at 5ft increments from the centerline to try and gauge it. I don't have time to blow the picture up so we'll just use a pic from Andy Bush at SimHQ to zoom in a bit:
(http://www.simhq.com/_air/images/air_031a_2.jpg)
This is a gun chart showing convergence for guns at 250 and 350 yards. Notice if the guns are staggered as such there's a diamond hence the "box pattern" between 250 and 350 yards. Using this staggered convergence the bullets are anywhere between 0ft to ~4ft from the centerline (0ft ~8ft spread) between 200 to 350 yards. 0 to 4ft sure sounds like a small number to be fussing about with all this staggered convergence stuff especially for fighters with wingspans around 30 ft. This is true of course but only if we're shooting lasers and at targets that aren't trying to maneuver out of the way :).
Consider a bogey you're trying to gun down who's traveling at a moderate 225 mph. That plane is moving at 330 ft/s, or 33 ft every 1/10th of a sec! The M2 Browning .50 fires at ~800 rounds/min, ~13 rounds/s, ~1.3 rounds per 1/10th of a sec. Muzzle velocity is 2700 ft/s or 270 ft every 1/10th of sec not factoring drag at all of course which would make a difference as well. At 300 yards (900 ft) it would take the bullet 3/10th of a second to get to the plane and by then the plane could be 99 ft away from where the bullet was going. Of course in 1 sec the airplane could be 330 ft away from where the bullet would be. Of course the higher the forward or angular (turning) velocity, the greater the change in position. So we can see some of the logic for why staggering gun convergence would make sense to spread the bullets out in area more in order to increase the odds of hitting another moving plane.
Hopefully this gives some insight as to why aircrews chose to use different convergence settings and it appears just like we do in AH it's a matter of preference. Conceptually trying to land hits at higher speeds and faster maneuvers you might want to spread your gun convergence, but of course you loose the impact of the lethality of a more concentrated burst.
Besides horizontal convergence, people should also remember there's also a vertical component to convergence as well. For grins, here's the full P-51B gun harmonization chart:
(http://www.brauncomustangs.org/images/p-51b-guns.jpg)
Hope that adds to the discussion!
Tango
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Hopefully this gives some insight as to why aircrews chose to use different convergence settings
It does! :aok
and it appears just like we do in AH it's a matter of preference. Conceptually trying to land hits at higher speeds and faster maneuvers you might want to spread your gun convergence, but of course you loose the impact of the lethality of a more concentrated burst.
Yes, this is what it all boils down to. And this is, why I do have only one plane with a staggered convergence setting myself: The Me 262. A single hit is usually lethal, but is hard to get because of the very short firing time vs wildly evading fighters, so I'm trying to maximise spread by adopting a staggered setting resulting in a kind of "shotgun effect" (especially if you are taking vertical harmonization into account)
On the other hand, in a plane like the 51, I'm looking for concentration, particularly at long (600+) ranges where the individual round has lost a lot of it's power. The single point harmonization ensures that even at long ranges the probability is high that it's 3 guns (from either left or right wing) that are hitting my target.
-
Since what we're really talking about here is maximizing the destructive ability of your shot; whether it's by improving your ability to actually hit someone or if you are a good shot by putting all your rounds in one space, shouldn't we also discuss velocity lost over distance?
Dispersion is one factor but I believe that AH models in the reduction of the velocity of the round over distance and as a result the reduction in it's destructive capability. I have a WWII U.S. "aerial gunnery" manual that says the optimum range for the U.S. .50 cal is 250 yards. This is the most destructive distance to fire at, not the maximum obviously. It also says that firing at over 400 yards is a waste as the destructive capability vs. aircraft is substantially diminished after that range.
We've all gotten kills at ranges at least out to 600yds but, it really does seem to take a lucky or a lot more hits at that range regardless of what my aim/harmonization point is for my .50's. I set my convergence to a single point at 250 and if I can get a good "unloaded" burst at that range it works very well. If it's out to 400 it's still very good but it does seem like it takes a little more.
Does anybody have insight as to how AH does this? Maybe I'm drinking too much and I've imagined it all....... :headscratch:
-
Does anybody have insight as to how AH does this? Maybe I'm drinking too much and I've imagined it all....... :headscratch:
You didn't just imagine it :)
AH accounts for the loss of kinetic energy when shooting at player objects (planes, boats, vehicles), but also factors in chemical energy (explosives) for cannon rounds, which thus have an advantage at long ranges.
-
I use a a staggered convergence.
The way I see it is I have a fatal funnel coming out the front of my plane(rarely do I shoot past my furtherest convergence so forget that). With a staggered convergence I dont have to be as accurate because my funnel is bigger. I know Im not going to hammer into one spot on a plane but I just cant do that(poor aim). So I spray away at the plane itself hoping for a critical hit or 2.
I dont know if that is just a bad habit but I can knock them down.
:salute
-
I dont know if that is just a bad habit but I can knock them down.
Like having tracers on or off, convergence long/short/staggered this is one of those "whatever works for you" things :salute
These are mine:
All .50 cal, all cannons (except the Me 262), nose mounted 7.92 (and similar) : 350
Wing mounted .303 (Hurricane I, Spits): 250
Me 262: One pair @200, one pair @600.
-
interesting that most AH players recommend point convergence, when the manual that tangos pics came from states:
It is found that the type known as "Point Harmonization" does not make the most efficient use of available fire power. In it's place, it is recommended that "Pattern Harmonization" be used; that is, that the fixed guns be boresighted so that their trajectories produce a desirable pattern as near uniform as possible in shape and projectile density over the entire range of fire. A range of 2000 feet is considered maximum for harmonization.
-
interesting that most AH players recommend point convergence, when the manual that tangos pics came from states:
We are using many tactics here in AH that weren't recommended in real life.. and they work, for various reasons ;)
For example many AH "vets" are much better shooters within the AH world than our real life counterparts (Partly resulting from having shot literally millions of rounds in combat)
I surely would have used & recommended many different tactics in real life.
-
yeah I think point favours the more experienced accurate shooters which suggests that AH default should be pattern to give newer players a better chance of landing rounds. iirc Shaw says something along these lines.
-
yeah I think point favours the more experienced accurate shooters which suggests that AH default should be pattern to give newer players a better chance of landing rounds. iirc Shaw says something along these lines.
But IMHO it doesn't make much of a difference for the new guys. It probably just increases the number of assists, though of course I can't prove that ;)
That's why I warned a bit in my initial statement about expecting too much from a meticulously devised convergence setting. Unless you really mess it up (setting conv to 150 and shooting at 600+ only), the differences (&gains) are often relatively small, and often pale in comparison to other factors in combat. (Judging angles & speed, giving the proper lead, getting CLOSE, get a feel for crossing shots, using short bursts instead of spraying and so on)
When facing really new players in the TA, I mostly recommended just keeping the default setting and not to worry about it until they really can shoot & hit ;)
-
Good stuff to read and learn, thanks guys. Personaly I have always set my guns to point in anything except multiple 30mm and combinations of 30mm and MGs./20s.
With .50s I think it is far better to set the guns to a single point. Here is a quick example why single point convergence should be more effective at long range 800-1000yrds.
The 190 is at around D1.0 flying level and escaping. The single point convergence can be judged to give a chance of landing slightly more concentrated fire on one piece of sky.
(http://www.freeroleentertainment.com/longrange.JPG)
The aim point in blue aiming to hit a target at around 900yrds - convergence of 300yrds - will give roughly twice the horizontal spread of fire as the distance between the guns when they're fired.....in theory....as obvisouly there are other divergence physics at play on the rounds also. The rounds must be aimed higher, for starters. Using a staggered convergence would only disperse the rounds farther at this range, which is still within the weapons possible damage distance.
(http://www.freeroleentertainment.com/longrange1.JPG)
With a bit of luck, a level flying aircraft can be hit at 900-1000 yards by visualising what your convergence will do to the rounds over that distance.
(http://www.freeroleentertainment.com/longrange3.JPG)
So using any multiple ammount of .50s It is vital to have a point convergence for any long range gunnery, IMO.
S!
-
Im just guessing here but. It might make sense in real life to spread the shot out a little in hopes that any bullet that hits the other aircraft might prove a fatal shot to the aircraft. I.e. the one lucky bullet that hits something vital. I think that the AH model is based on overall damage. So I would think that the more bullets you hit in one spot would do more damage and take a wing off for example where as if you spread them out to much, more of the aircraft absorbs the hits with out reaching a lethal point.
Some one let me know if Im wrong.
-
So I would think that the more bullets you hit in one spot would do more damage and take a wing off for example where as if you spread them out to much, more of the aircraft absorbs the hits with out reaching a lethal point.
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).
-
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.
-
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. :salute As always your stuff is on the mark and a great learning tool.
again sorry for thinking you were wrong.
:salute
-
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.
-
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 :rofl
Sometimes it seems like there is no vital part when hitting another aircraft.
-
"Never give up, never surrender!" :lol
-
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. :uhoh
Particularly anything with more math than simply counting to three has a high risk of being messed up by The Snailman :lol
:salute
-
This was very helpful guys thanks for the info.
-
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
-
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).
-
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
-
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?) :D I'm OMW to work now, but may have time to tinker tonight...
-
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. :)
-
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.. :cry
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. :aok
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.
-
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
-
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.