Aces High Bulletin Board
Help and Support Forums => Help and Training => Topic started by: AHLong on November 05, 2011, 02:42:09 PM
-
ok--here we go again
:bolt:
when I set my convergence in the hanger to 200 is that yards or feet
when I am behind an enemy plane and it says 600 is that yards or feet
in the offline practice I set a target at 400 set convergence to 400 I am hitting at 400(converging) and when it says 400 on the plane in front of me my tracers are converging at 400 :headscratch:
I have been told the convergence I set in the hanger in yards and the icon in the game is feet--thus set convergence to 200 and my point of aim is then 600 on a plane in the game
so my question is -- is the convergence set in yards or feet and is the game showing yards or feet on the plane in front of me
Thanks Folks!!
-
Distance is shown in yards.
Altitude is shown in feet.
If you're on the ground at a base, and see bombers overhead that show 3k, they are 3,000 yards (or 9,000 feet) above you.
The altitude shown for the base on the map is in feet.
-
yards in both cases :old:
-
Doesn't really matter. When you're 400 behind your foe, and you are set (in convergence) at 400 then you will be ready to rock and roll. The bigger question is what do you set your convergence for 50's & 303's, versa Cannon rounds. Be advised, cannon rounds are heavier and drop faster than the lighter rounds. My point being, you cannot set lighter rounds & cannon rounds to the same convergence.
<S>
Rokit
-
Doesn't really matter. When you're 400 behind your foe, and you are set (in convergence) at 400 then you will be ready to rock and roll. The bigger question is what do you set your convergence for 50's & 303's, versa Cannon rounds. Be advised, cannon rounds are heavier and drop faster than the lighter rounds. My point being, you cannot set lighter rounds & cannon rounds to the same convergence.
<S>
Rokit
Technically, all rounds drop at the same rate due to gravity. Its the speed of the round that determines how much it drops over a certain distance. Faster rounds will appear to drop less because they cover a greater distance than the slow rounds do in the same time it takes both to hit the ground. Yeah..im nitpicking.
When it comes to setting convergence, If im in a plane that has a mix of cannon and machine gun, I usually base my machine gun convergence on whatever I have my cannon set at. This ensures i have maximum damage at my ideal cannon firing distance. Some people will set their machine gun convergence at a much higher distance so they can use them to get guys to rev when they are running, and then when they rev, they can use their cannon at a closer distance. It really depends on how you use your guns.
If you have nose mounted guns, IMO its best to set them at a very high range. That way you can hit up close and far out.
-
Technically, all rounds drop at the same rate due to gravity. Its the speed of the round that determines how much it drops over a certain distance. Faster rounds will appear to drop less because they cover a greater distance than the slow rounds do in the same time it takes both to hit the ground. Yeah..im nitpicking.
Yes Sir Issac Newton's Laws of gravity you are correct. You forgot one other variable. The aerodynamics of the round is the other factor that is affected by the wind. Just nitpicking :D
-
All distance values you see are given in yards.
when the icon says 1K, hes 1000yds away, or 1km if you're metric.
Altitude is always given in feet
speed in MPH
rate of climb in feet per minute
-
when the icon says 1K, hes 1000yds away, or 1km if you're metric.
Uh, not quite right. Just so someone doesn't use this thread as a reference, 1 km (kilometer) is not 1,000 yards. It's 1,000 meters, which is about 1,094 yards. ;)
-
You would also be incorrect in assuming if you see 400 on your screen your rounds are going to converge exactly where you're pointing on target. His speed and flight angle relative to yours will dictate how far the bullet actually has to travel before it hits.
-
And don't forget, when the distance counter changes from 600 to 400, the target is at 500.
-
I say that if you're convergence is set at 400 Yards that your 50 Cal, and 20 MM will hit the bull's eye at the 400 yard mark. The lighter bullet will be flatter and the heavier bullet will have more of a arc to it. Your rounds will be high at 200 yards and low at 600 yards. :neener:
-
I say that if you're convergence is set at 400 Yards... Your rounds will be high at 200 yards and low at 600 yards. :neener:
That is not necessarily accurate. With wing-mounted 50's set to converge at 400yds, your rounds will be LOW at 200, and HIGH at 600.
-
And don't forget, when the distance counter changes from 600 to 400, the target is at 500.
along these lines.
when your the icon says 400, it is actually anything between 300 and 500 yards.
if my memory is correct.
-
Can you explain mtnman why that would be true? I am curious how bullit path would arc down then up.Is it Site height to muzzle?
-
Can you explain mtnman why that would be true? I am curious how bullit path would arc down then up.Is it Site height to muzzle?
On a low winged plane like a P-51 or Spitfire the rounds have to travel up to reach the level of the gunsight, thus at 200 yards they would still be on the upward part of the arc to be at the gunsight's level at 400 yards.
-
Can you explain mtnman why that would be true? I am curious how bullit path would arc down then up.Is it Site height to muzzle?
Maybe these illustrations and quote from another website will help:
Begin quote: We have a tendency to get the "line of sight' mixed up with the "line of bore." The line of sight is always a straight line from the eye through the scope to the target. The line of bore is also a straight line from the chamber through the bore to infinity. It's plain to see these two lines are always straight, but it's common to confuse the bullet's path, which is always a curved line, with the line of bore.
It's fair to say the bullet's flight path is a down-curving line from the rifle's muzzle; it falls faster as the bullet moves forward. Now, if the sights were aligned parallel with the bore line, it would be impossible for them to ever intercept the path of the bullet which is falling below the line of bore all the time.
I have to point out here that if this couldn't be remedied, the hunter would have to aim somewhere above the target on long shots. It would be a game of guesswork. Fortunately, this dilemma can be corrected by adjusting the sights so the line of sight intercepts the bore line instead of being parallel to it.
When we adjust the sights for longer ranges, the rifle's muzzle is tipped upward when the sights are aligned on the target. This causes the bullet to pass through the line of sight a short distance from the muzzle, travel in a curved line above the line of sight, and then fall through it at whatever distance the rifle is sighted in for. Note that the bullet never rises above the line of bore. Actually, the rifle is sighted in for two distances. One a few yards from the muzzle, the other where the bullet comes back through the line of sight.
The arc of flight is not a true curve; it's an elongated arc. A rifle sighted in for 250 yards may be two inches high at 100 and three inches high at 165. The bullet then begins a downward journey passing through the line of sight at 250 yards. The highest part of the flight is called the maximum ordinate, and it usually is around two thirds of the distance to the sight in point. With today's open terrain hunting, trajectory or the arc of the bullet is something every hunter should be concerned about. The popularity of the riflescope puts hunters on watches where very long shots are possible. It's almost a waste of time to take one of these stands with a rifle zeroed in for a 100 yards. Knowing the path your bullet follows, and sighting in to take advantage of it is a sure formula for success.
(http://i42.tinypic.com/1zwjdbd.jpg)
(http://i39.tinypic.com/z50me.gif)
-
Maybe these illustrations and quote from another website will help:
Begin quote: We have a tendency to get the "line of sight' mixed up with the "line of bore." The line of sight is always a straight line from the eye through the scope to the target. The line of bore is also a straight line from the chamber through the bore to infinity. It's plain to see these two lines are always straight, but it's common to confuse the bullet's path, which is always a curved line, with the line of bore.
It's fair to say the bullet's flight path is a down-curving line from the rifle's muzzle; it falls faster as the bullet moves forward. Now, if the sights were aligned parallel with the bore line, it would be impossible for them to ever intercept the path of the bullet which is falling below the line of bore all the time.
I have to point out here that if this couldn't be remedied, the hunter would have to aim somewhere above the target on long shots. It would be a game of guesswork. Fortunately, this dilemma can be corrected by adjusting the sights so the line of sight intercepts the bore line instead of being parallel to it.
When we adjust the sights for longer ranges, the rifle's muzzle is tipped upward when the sights are aligned on the target. This causes the bullet to pass through the line of sight a short distance from the muzzle, travel in a curved line above the line of sight, and then fall through it at whatever distance the rifle is sighted in for. Note that the bullet never rises above the line of bore. Actually, the rifle is sighted in for two distances. One a few yards from the muzzle, the other where the bullet comes back through the line of sight.
The arc of flight is not a true curve; it's an elongated arc. A rifle sighted in for 250 yards may be two inches high at 100 and three inches high at 165. The bullet then begins a downward journey passing through the line of sight at 250 yards. The highest part of the flight is called the maximum ordinate, and it usually is around two thirds of the distance to the sight in point. With today's open terrain hunting, trajectory or the arc of the bullet is something every hunter should be concerned about. The popularity of the riflescope puts hunters on watches where very long shots are possible. It's almost a waste of time to take one of these stands with a rifle zeroed in for a 100 yards. Knowing the path your bullet follows, and sighting in to take advantage of it is a sure formula for success.
(http://i42.tinypic.com/1zwjdbd.jpg)
(http://i39.tinypic.com/z50me.gif)
That is what's going on, but it can be misleading to compare the scoped rifle to the aircraft, because the scope is mounted so close to the rifle bore.
Redraw the picture with the scope mounted @ 5ft above the rifle barrel, and you'll be close to the situation presented by firing the wing-mounted guns on a P51, corsair, etc...
-
That is what's going on, but it can be misleading to compare the scoped rifle to the aircraft, because the scope is mounted so close to the rifle bore.
Redraw the picture with the scope mounted @ 5ft above the rifle barrel, and you'll be close to the situation presented by firing the wing-mounted guns on a P51, corsair, etc...
The concept of bullet "arc" is the same regardless if its shot from a hunting rifle or a wing mounted .50cal. Line of sight (looking through the gunsite) and line of bore (down the barrel) would be the same.
-
The concept of bullet "arc" is the same regardless if its shot from a hunting rifle or a wing mounted .50cal. Line of sight (looking through the gunsite) and line of bore (down the barrel) would be the same.
The concept is the same, yes. The results vary tremendously.
Aiming a bullet by using a scope mounted directly above the barrel yields vastly different results compared to aiming a bullet by using a gun sight mounted several feet above the barrel (when it comes to where the bullet is in its trajectory BEFORE and AFTER it hits the "bull's eye" at whatever the convergence is set at.
With a rifle, it's off by inches (for the most part); with a wing-mounted gun it's off by feet. With a rifle, it's "intuitive"; with the plane, it's generally counter-intuitive. It's compounded by the long ranges as well (plus a whole lot of other factors).
-
The concept is the same, yes. The results vary tremendously.
Aiming a bullet by using a scope mounted directly above the barrel yields vastly different results compared to aiming a bullet by using a gun sight mounted several feet above the barrel (when it comes to where the bullet is in its trajectory BEFORE and AFTER it hits the "bull's eye" at whatever the convergence is set at.
With a rifle, it's off by inches (for the most part); with a wing-mounted gun it's off by feet. With a rifle, it's "intuitive"; with the plane, it's generally counter-intuitive. It's compounded by the long ranges as well (plus a whole lot of other factors).
Yes i would agree but, the illustration (borrowed) was giving a visual reference explaining bullet "arc" which would be the same with any line/bore sighted weapon.
Basically answering this quote with a picture:
Can you explain mtnman why that would be true? I am curious how bullet path would arc down then up.Is it Site height to muzzle?
-
Ok after rereading Karnak at least 3x I get it! Bullit still on upward path but still low at 200yds,hits bulleye at 400 yds. Explains alot of misses at 200yds
-
Yes i would agree but, the illustration (borrowed) was giving a visual reference explaining bullet "arc" which would be the same with any line/bore sighted weapon.
Basically answering this quote with a picture:
It would/does, but using that diagram also leads to a whole lot of confusion when it comes to gunnery and convergence settings in AH. This is an example-
I say that if you're convergence is set at 400 Yards that your 50 Cal, and 20 MM will hit the bull's eye at the 400 yard mark. The lighter bullet will be flatter and the heavier bullet will have more of a arc to it. Your rounds will be high at 200 yards and low at 600 yards. :neener:
And diagrams like these (borrowed from the Trainers site) add to the confusion, because none of them show accurate trajectories (particularly for wing-mounted guns)-
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/image003.gif)
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/image002.gif)
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/Image2.gif)
The "Aim Point too close/too far trajectories are particularly inaccurate. The "Too Far" picture should go with the "Too Close" title, and the "Too Close" picture should really be deleted, as it doesn't work with either description. The crossing diagrams aren't bad though.
A trajectory like the one shown at the bottom is achievable, but only with certain settings. It's not a good a "general" guideline.
-
Ok after rereading Karnak at least 3x I get it! Bullit still on upward path but still low at 200yds,hits bulleye at 400 yds. Explains alot of misses at 200yds
Yup, the difference is that with the "rifle" diagram, the bullet comes up through the LoS before it gets to the target, and hits the target on it's way back "down".
With wing-mounted guns, you'll often hit the target at convergence with the bullets still on their way "up" through the LoS. With some settings you'll hit the target while the bullet is at the top of its arch.
You'll only get the "up through the LoS and back down to the target" effect shown in the rifle diagram if you shoot very far (600-800yds+). Even then, it'll be very difficult to get hits on those shots (with that type of "intuitive" trajectory) unless you also have your convergence set within a certain span (approx 1/2 the distance to the target).
Note- This is with wing-mounted guns! Nose-mounts have a much more "intuitive" trajectory (like the rifle diagram illustrates).
I posted a gob-full of screen shots to depict this, but cannot find the post for the life of me... Still looking...
-
hows this one?
(http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii253/maddogjoe_photos/convergence.jpg)
-
The only place multiple calibers impact differently is anywhere other than the point of convergence. The 190A-8 literally is firing a shotgun group of projectiles unless at the point of convergence. The 13mm and 20mm are rather close, but not perfect. The 30mm's drop like a bowling ball.
There is something to be said for the 6/.50's or quad 20mm's.
-
hows this one?
(http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii253/maddogjoe_photos/convergence.jpg)
Same problem Fugi!
With a convergence set to 400m target at 200, the bullet will be low, and will not have come up through the LoS yet.
Really, it is kind of confusing, and no wonder that the average Hit% in AH is less than 3%. Gunnery isn't all that intuitive, and doesn't mirror what we learn with our shoulder-fired weapons.
With a 400yd convergence, you'd need to aim slightly high at 200 yards, and possibly even slightly low to hit at 600 (probably not though, I'd have to look back at my screen shots. I think with a 400yd convergence the bullets don't come up through the LoS much, if at all). Opposite of what you'd expect. And again, this is just the vertical component, and doesn't take into account the L/R crossing component.
I did most of my testing with convergence settings of 150, 300, 450, and 600yds, and consider a setting of 300 to be optimum.
-
Just fly a 38 and be done with it :D
-
Just fly a 38 and be done with it :D
Lol, yup! Anything with nose-mounts is easier, more intuitive, and the effects of trajectory are minimized. There's also no L/R crossing aspect to toss in, which makes things even worse, particularly if you fire while your wings are banked.
Even with the ill-spoken-of 109-type cannon rounds there are few surprises when it comes to aiming. The thing that makes those tough is the time between rounds and the low velocity, which make it tough to hit anything with a perceived motion (crossing shots, etc).
-
Yup, the difference is that with the "rifle" diagram, the bullet comes up through the LoS before it gets to the target, and hits the target on it's way back "down".
With wing-mounted guns, you'll often hit the target at convergence with the bullets still on their way "up" through the LoS. With some settings you'll hit the target while the bullet is at the top of its arch.
You'll only get the "up through the LoS and back down to the target" effect shown in the rifle diagram if you shoot very far (600-800yds+). Even then, it'll be very difficult to get hits on those shots (with that type of "intuitive" trajectory) unless you also have your convergence set within a certain span (approx 1/2 the distance to the target).
Note- This is with wing-mounted guns! Nose-mounts have a much more "intuitive" trajectory (like the rifle diagram illustrates).
I posted a gob-full of screen shots to depict this, but cannot find the post for the life of me... Still looking...
Aha! Found it....
The last few posts of this thread are full of screen shots showing how convergence settings actually effect the trajectory at various ranges. At the end I even super-imposed life-size images over the targets to show where the bullets would hit or miss, to give better perspective.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,291146.0.html
-
hows this one?
(http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii253/maddogjoe_photos/convergence.jpg)
The problem is that if the firing point is ~5' below the gunsight the upward arc would have to be extreme in order for the bullets to have come down to the gunsight's level by 400 yards. Even if it were physically possible to elevate the guns that much, which I doubt, the bullets would likely be tens or hundreds of yards above the gunsight at the peak of their arc. There just isn't enough drop in 400 yards otherwise.
-
hows this one?
(http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii253/maddogjoe_photos/convergence.jpg)
You can get the bullet trajectory to have a similar path to your drawing if you set the convergence point way in.
Look at the screen shots I linked to with the 150yd convergence setting. It behaves similarly to the one you've drawn. The downside is that in that case once the bullets come up through the LoS they're effectively out of the picture as far as effectiveness goes, because you're going to shoot over the top of anything all they way out past 1000 yards or so, at which point you'll also have a L/R spread of around 120ft (with a big empty spot in the middle).
So, although you can get that type of a trajectory, it'll probably be accidental, ineffective, and non-intuitive (i.e. I'd wager that if you set someone up with a 150yd convergence, they'd compensate for it on a 600yd shot by aiming HIGH, when in reality they'd need to aim LOW...). They'd also need to aim off to one side as well, when intuitively we're probably more likely to really use the gun sights and refine our aim as much as possible at longer ranges. Doing that would practically ensure a miss!
-
Oh great... mntman is giving away the secrets of gunnery. Now everyone's gonna' be a hotshot. ;)
(Good to see your text, mntman <S>)
-
Oh great... mntman is giving away the secrets of gunnery. Now everyone's gonna' be a hotshot. ;)
(Good to see your text, mntman <S>)
Ha!
<S> Rolex!
-
Is this more like it?
(http://www.telemail.fi/petrin.atk-apu/conv.GIF)
Original image courtesy of Fugitive
-
What's the command in game for showing a target to the north? And what distance is it?
-
What's the command in game for showing a target to the north? And what distance is it?
.target X, where x= desired distance in yards
.target 0 removes target.
-
We 38 drivers have never had an issue with convergence..... are we just smarter or what? :D
-
This is gunnery in a computer program. I've written about this before with all the gunsight tools for offline testing and resulting graphs of impact points at known distances on the offline target.
1. Offline change the arena time to 01:00 so that the white of the target dosent cause your gunsight to dissapere at full zoom.
2. Takoff and head north about 1-2k alt.
3. Allow your fighter to achive max cruise or the speed at which the gunsight center stops dropping on the target at full zoom.
4. The center of your gunsight will drop below the red center line of the target. The center of the target is your fighters center line.
5. Test with your guns set to 150, 250, 350 convergence with the target at 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600 yards.
6. If you are using a gunsight that is 512x512 1Mil will equal 2pixel.
7. At each range fire then record how far below or above the gunsight center your rounds pattern. Keep track of the dispersion diameters also.
Here are some results I pulled from the 2.25 release offline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gunsight Data Collection by: bustr
Aces High 2 ver 2.25 - 8/6/11
Gunsight data collection was performed in (Mil Units) from a gunsight constructed on a 512x512 bitmap mask where 1Mil = 2Pixel. Data was collected at 150, 200, 300, 400, 600 yards. Each aircraft was tested with all guns convergence set to 150, 250, 350. Bullet impact data was collected at each distance in auto level. All values are to the closest whole number due to visual limitations of Full Zoom and dispersion patterning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Mil @ 150yds = 5 inches
1Mil @ 200yds = 7 inches
1Mil @ 300yds = 11 inches
1Mil @ 400yds = 14 inches
1MIl @ 600yds = 20 inches
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.}Pos or neg numbers are relative to the gunsight center(0)& earth(-)=down.
2.)Wing mounted guns cause a 2-5Mil nose drop during extending firing.
3.}HUB cannon fighters, P38, Mosquito, A20 have no nose movement.
4.}A6m have a very small nose movement down when firing.
5.}La5/7 have a 2Mil nose up when firing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft
P51D - Spit16 - La7 - 190D9 - 109K4 - Yak9U - Typhoon - A6m5 - N1K2J - Ki84 P38J - 109G6 - HurriI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
P51D -----150-----200-----300-----400-----600-----Auto Level
150------(-2)----(+2)-----(0)----(-1)----(-1)
250------(-2)----(-3)-----(0)----(-1)----(-2)
350------(-3)----(-4)----(-1)----(-2)----(-3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spit16----150-----200-----300-----400-----600-----Auto Level
150------(-4)----(-2)-----(0)-----(-1)----(-5)
250------(-5)----(-3)-----(0)-----(-1)----(-5)
350------(-5)----(-4)----(-2)-----(-3)----(-5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
La-7-----150-----200-----300-----400-----600-----Auto Level
150-----(+2)----(+2)----(+2)-----(0)----(-5)
250-----(+2)----(+1)-----(0)----(-2)----(-6)
350-----(+1)----(+1)-----(0)----(-1)----(-6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
190D9----150-----200-----300-----400-----600-----Auto Level
150------(0)----(-1)----(-3)----(-3)----(-8)
250-----(-1)-----(0)----(-2)----(-2)----(-7)
350------(0)-----(0)-----(0)----(-2)----(-7)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
109K4----150-----200-----300-----400-----600-----Auto Level
150------(0)-----(0)----(-2)----(-5)----(-15)
250------(0)-----(0)----(-2)----(-5)----(-16)
350-----(+1)----(+1)-----(0)----(-2)----(-17)
All data for 109K4 taken from MK108 30mm impact points.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yak9U----150-----200-----300-----400-----600-----Auto Level
150------(0)-----(0)-----(0)----(-1)-----(-5)
250------(0)-----(0)-----(0)----(-1)-----(-7)
350------(0)-----(0)-----(0)----(-2)-----(-7)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Typhoon--150-----200-----300-----400-----600-----Auto Level
150------(0)-----(0)-----(0)-----(0)-----(0)
250-----(-2)----(-1)-----(0)-----(0)----(-5)
350-----(-5)----(-2)----(-1)----(-2)----(-5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A6m5-----150-----200-----300-----400-----600-----Auto Level
150------(0)----(-1)----(-1)----(-2)----(-5)
250------(0)----(-1)----(-1)----(-3)----(-6)
350-----(-1)----(-1)----(-1)----(-4)----(-7)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
N1K2J----150-----200-----300-----400-----600-----Auto Level
150------(0)----(+1)----(+1)----(+1)-----(0)
250-----(-3)----(-2)----(-1)----(-1)----(-4)
350-----(-4)----(-3)----(-2)----(-2)----(-5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ki84-----150-----200-----300-----400-----600-----Auto Level
150------(0)----(+1)----(+1)-----(0)----(-4)
250-----(-2)----(-1)----(-1)----(-2)----(-6)
350-----(-4)----(-2)----(-1)----(-2)----(-8)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
P38J-----150-----200-----300-----400-----600-----Auto Level
150------(0)----(+1)----(+1)-----(0)----(-1)
250-----(-1)-----(0)-----(0)----(-1)----(-2)
350-----(-2)----(-1)-----(0)----(-2)----(-3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
109G6----150-----200-----300-----400-----600-----Auto Level
150------(0)-----(0)----(-1)----(-2)----(-5)
250-----(-1)-----(0)-----(0)----(-2)----(-6)
350-----(+1)----(+1)-----(0)----(-1)----(-7)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HurriI---150-----200-----300-----400-----600-----Auto Level
150------(0)-----(0)----(+1)----(+2)----(-5)
250-----(-2)----(-2)-----(0)----(-2)----(-6)
350-----(-4)---(-2.5)---(-1)----(-1)----(-7)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data Collection Tool.
(http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/5765/mrad.jpg)
-
We 38 drivers have never had an issue with convergence..... are we just smarter or what? :D
:lol
-
If you leave the POV on Full Zoom and check from 200-1000 yards with the target (.target xxxx), you will notice that the center of the gunsight stays below the red centerline of the target. This is in all aircraft that use a pilot position gunsight to aim fixed forward firing guns. As you change the convergence the gunsight line is changed slightly to reflect the the IP. But, past Convergence 150 for the most part the gunsight line is below the center line of the target. If you set the target to (.target 7) and use F3 mode you will see the target center is the aircraft center.
You might want to redraw that picture of the P51. Place the center of the target locked with the center line of the P51. Angle the gunsight line down 6Mil below target center at 1000 yards while the ballistic arch of the guns only just touches it from underneath at the convergence point you set from the hanger. From testing I did October of 2010 the numbers came out to the following at 1000 yards on the target.
P51D - convergence - 650
Gunsight Center relative to Target Center @ 1000yds = -6Mil(18ft)
Bullet IP relative to Gunsight Center @ 1000yds = -12Mil(36ft)
Test any fighter by going to full zoom and noteing the relative positions of the target center line to the gunsight center line. As the aircraft is on auto level you can watch the gunsight center drop below the target center line as the plane gets closer to full speed on militairy power.
From my testing your picture may want to look more like this example below. You guys are free to perform your own offline testing and graph the data. I could be completely wrong here.
The 109 has a sweet spot between 150M and 300M where all of the guns should be firing up to 48cm above the gunsight line and dropping back below it about 300-350M per all Bf109F/G/K manuals. Never happens in the game.
I'm not the worlds best artist......but, I can plug numbers into a graph.
(http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/9674/ahhowgun.gif)
-
hmm so basically the AH sight is angled such that the converging point is always below the nose?
-
I'm agnostic about whether it's authentic or not. The game has been too much fun for me all these years. Snap shots in wing mounted guns might be eaisier with the guns pointing higher to cross a leveled gunsight line while you pull lead. Though you can accomplish that sort of now by pulling your convergence into 150. But, the rounds still never travel higher than the centerline of the aricraft. Just closer to centerline level than say 350conv.
Wonder what would happen to our wing mounted gun gunnery if it was changed to the gunsight view line level and rounds angled up to cross that line while traveling upwards at 300yds? In the manuals that was your vertical convergence. Then they set horizontal convergence or the distance at which they wanted the streams from each wing to cross. I think the center of the gunsight is the key to how we are presented the AH universe.
-
All this math gives me a head ache! No wonder my aim sucks! LOL!!
So Bustr, what your saying then is that if I'm following a plane flat and level, with the both of us at the same alt I have to aim 6 mil above his plane to get hits, right?
-
All this math gives me a head ache! No wonder my aim sucks! LOL!!
So Bustr, what your saying then is that if I'm following a plane flat and level, with the both of us at the same alt I have to aim 6 mil above his plane to get hits, right?
In theory if your ponies convergence is 650 and he is 1000 yards away when you fire. But, you will miss if you are in a pony because your streams will probably be wider than his wings if you are aiming dead on him.
Take up a pony offline or a spit or whatever. Let it come up to cruise speed and look at the center of your gunsight every 100 yards from 200-1000. Change the arena time to 01:00 so you can see your gunsight against the target. If the line of sight is level then the center will be above the center line of the target at all distances. You will notice it stays below the center line of the target from 200 out.
It dosent really matter. You still have to learn to get your pipper onto the con how ever HiTech chooses to angle the gunsight line.
-
If you leave the POV on Full Zoom and check from 200-1000 yards with the target (.target xxxx), you will notice that the center of the gunsight stays below the red centerline of the target. This is in all aircraft that use a pilot position gunsight to aim fixed forward firing guns. As you change the convergence the gunsight line is changed slightly to reflect the the IP. But, past Convergence 150 for the most part the gunsight line is below the center line of the target. If you set the target to (.target 7) and use F3 mode you will see the target center is the aircraft center.
You might want to redraw that picture of the P51. Place the center of the target locked with the center line of the P51. Angle the gunsight line down 6Mil below target center at 1000 yards while the ballistic arch of the guns only just touches it from underneath at the convergence point you set from the hanger. From testing I did October of 2010 the numbers came out to the following at 1000 yards on the target.
P51D - convergence - 650
Gunsight Center relative to Target Center @ 1000yds = -6Mil(18ft)
Bullet IP relative to Gunsight Center @ 1000yds = -12Mil(36ft)
Test any fighter by going to full zoom and noteing the relative positions of the target center line to the gunsight center line. As the aircraft is on auto level you can watch the gunsight center drop below the target center line as the plane gets closer to full speed on militairy power.
From my testing your picture may want to look more like this example below. You guys are free to perform your own offline testing and graph the data. I could be completely wrong here.
The 109 has a sweet spot between 150M and 300M where all of the guns should be firing up to 48cm above the gunsight line and dropping back below it about 300-350M per all Bf109F/G/K manuals. Never happens in the game.
I'm not the worlds best artist......but, I can plug numbers into a graph.
(http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/9674/ahhowgun.gif)
You can fix these apparent inaccuracies by adjusting your throttle. This will allow you to see rounds that travel above the LoS in their trajectory. The "trick", is to make your LoS go through the gun sight straight to the center of the target on a level plane. As soon as you deviate from level, you're going to see problems (they're not really problems, so much as realistic effects that will cause the issues you're seeing).
Keeping your plane at full throttle and allowing the AoA to lower the nose makes it look like the rounds are always going on a downward slope, when in reality they don't always do that. They look like they are in your test because your LoS is slanted downward.
Simply adjust your speed to keep the sight centered on the bullseye. Once you figure out the right speed/throttle setting, it'll stay there hands-off. Of course, firing your guns will have an effect, but that can be almost eliminated by firing in tiny bursts. If you fire a long stream you'll skew your results...
The effect you're seeing is due to the changing AoA of the wing. Flying slower requires the wing to have a higher AoA to maintain level flight, flying faster requires less... Now, you could of course argue that HTC doesn't have quite the correct amount of incidence built into the wing mount, or how that incidence compares to the stabilizer, or that the airfoil shape is slightly (or a lot) off, but that's a whole different can of worms. Or you could argue that the angle of the LoS isn't quite correct for a given plane (although it would depend on how the plane manufacturer/gunsight-installer set them up in reality). In reality, the AoA of the real planes would change with speed too, so you'd need to figure out at what speed the LoS was "level", because it would do the same thing it does in AH. Would the gun-sight be level at top speed? Or at some lesser speed (maybe based on what they thought the average speed would be while firing? It's probably not worth going down that path.
Let's stick to the gunnery aspects instead (in this thread at least).
Firing the guns while the LoS will have the effect of flattening the trajectory (max arc across horizontal space will be found with the guns level (which is probably pretty close to where you are with your nose down). Firing straight up or straight down on the other hand would make the trajectory the most flat.
Firing up or down at an angle also makes the trajectory do some strange things in relation to your LoS as well. Firing with the LoS vertical straight up would cause the trajectory to quickly cross the LoS (appearing to go way high from your perspective) and they'd never come back "down" to it. LoS straight down would have a similar visual effect (from the pilots seat).
Firing upside down does some weird things too, very similarly (but more extreme) to firing with the LoS straight up.
The bullets in AH really do fly pretty close to reality. I originally thought there were some problems too, but I was making the same mistake you are. It took Rolex and I a while testing in the TA to see where we were making mistakes with the tests that were skewing our results.
Your seeing the beginnings of these effects by doing your test with the LoS on a downward angle.
-
Some diagrams to give a visual to what I'm describing...
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/Effectofsettingconvergenceclosewith.jpg)
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/FiringInverted.jpg)
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/Firingstraightup-1.jpg)
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/Firingstraightdown.jpg)
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/MGonlyInverted.jpg)
-
I'm not sure I've ever read over the years how HiTech and Pyro decided to make the gunnery work. Unless you have had that privilege.
The autocanon and motorkanon are allowed to be tilted slightly in the engine to interact with the convergence app in the hanger since convergence and the gunsight line seems to be tied to a logical primary weapon. So thats a comprimise with reality and game function. What I've graphed simply looks like the gunsight line relationship to gun trajectories was chosen from the 109F/G/K armeror handbooks to fit within the limits of a computer screen will giving you the illusion of depth of feild. The target is locked to the center line of the aircraft so your only real refrence is remembering your patterning sight picture at whatever range you set (.target xxxx). Pull up the target on the tarmak and drive your ride right up to it. The center of the target will touch your spinner.
It looks like AH gunnery is a comprimise with our computers, not an exact replication of the manner in real life each fighter had it's guns and gunsight line set to. But, it's a very convincing comprimise. Ala this graphics art competition we are engaged in......
-
I'm not sure I've ever read over the years how HiTech and Pyro decided to make the gunnery work. Unless you have had that privilege.
The autocanon and motorkanon are allowed to be tilted slightly in the engine to interact with the convergence app in the hanger since convergence and the gunsight line seems to be tied to a logical primary weapon. So thats a comprimise with reality and game function. What I've graphed simply looks like the gunsight line relationship to gun trajectories was chosen from the 109F/G/K armeror handbooks to fit within the limits of a computer screen will giving you the illusion of depth of feild. The target is locked to the center line of the aircraft so your only real refrence is remembering your patterning sight picture at whatever range you set (.target xxxx). Pull up the target on the tarmak and drive your ride right up to it. The center of the target will touch your spinner.
It looks like AH gunnery is a comprimise with our computers, not an exact replication of the manner in real life each fighter had it's guns and gunsight line set to. But, it's a very convincing comprimise. Ala this graphics art competition we are engaged in......
Nope, the target isn't locked to the center of your aircraft. Point your nose up or down, the center of target isn't lined up with your spinner anymore.
It's center is tied to the altitude of your aircraft (and likely a certain part of your aircraft, maybe the spinner). It's "level" with your aircraft/spinner. This allows you to place your LoS level with the target, and see that the rounds really do come above the LoS.
The effect you see would occur with any airplane in the RW as well. The LoS will change angle as the wing of the plane changes AoA with varying speeds.
-
I only set convergence for the vertical and ignore horizontal convergence by using the target.
I also spread convergence very slightly (minimum difference possible without being the same convergence) in any plane that has many same type guns like the p47.
-
I'm not sure I've ever read over the years how HiTech and Pyro decided to make the gunnery work. Unless you have had that privilege.
The autocanon and motorkanon are allowed to be tilted slightly in the engine to interact with the convergence app in the hanger since convergence and the gunsight line seems to be tied to a logical primary weapon. So thats a comprimise with reality and game function. What I've graphed simply looks like the gunsight line relationship to gun trajectories was chosen from the 109F/G/K armeror handbooks to fit within the limits of a computer screen will giving you the illusion of depth of feild. The target is locked to the center line of the aircraft so your only real refrence is remembering your patterning sight picture at whatever range you set (.target xxxx). Pull up the target on the tarmak and drive your ride right up to it. The center of the target will touch your spinner.
It looks like AH gunnery is a comprimise with our computers, not an exact replication of the manner in real life each fighter had it's guns and gunsight line set to. But, it's a very convincing comprimise. Ala this graphics art competition we are engaged in......
I don't think I understand what you're questioning?
Of course the game is designed to fit within the limits of a computer screen while giving the illusion of depth of field. The gunnery is just one aspect of that (as are the buildings or the mountains)...
I've heard your argument regarding the idea that the 109 through-engine mounts shouldn't be adjustable, and don't question that. I'm unsure of whether the engine was mounted with any positive, negative, or side/side incidence. Should the guns even point straight forward? Or should they point up and to one side, etc?
The "remembering your sight picture" is a no-brainer too. I'm not sure what you mean by that?
Other than the fact that the gun angle is adjustable, I haven't seen any "surprises" with the 109 projectile trajectory?
-
From past discussions ranging all the way back to the beginning, I think Bustr has a wrong idea of how AH models the convergence. It used to be the convergence point was the apogee of the bullet arc, then after one point somewhere down the line I believe they changed it to reflect more accurately so the bullet went up and then fell down through the convergence point.
The gunsight does not change. You can tell this by simple screenshot comparison of the same plane with 100yd convergence vs 650 yard convergence...
Really... such a funny notion! Sorry Bustr but I'm pretty sure if you do a LOT more reading on the forums you'll find all your answers. Search kind of works now, so have at it.
-
Actually I've made a large scale arse of myself from trying to determine if the convergence app in the hanger tilts the motor mounted/historicly locked cannons in the game to allow you to hit gunsight center at the ranges past 150. Thats another story. While pulling data to support my assertion I went beyond motor mounted guns assuming the results would be transferable. I apologise to everyone.
I re-did all of my data collection yesterday at 250mph TA auto leveled. That appears to be a consistant speed for all of the fighters to duplicate putting them up on blocks and leveling them at a firing range. Using bore sighting diagrams or manuals for different aircraft I was able to duplicate within tollerances all of the expected trajectories because not all countries use yards.
Many of the historic diagrams we use are visually missleading in how high above the gunsight center line MG and auto cannon rounds travel in their ballistic arch. At 300-400 yards 9inches to 2ft is only about .25-1.5 Mil or roughly the width of a 2-3 pixel thick tick mark in your gunsight. As a consolation prize the gunsights I've been attempting to recreate in {512x512 (1MIl = 2Pixel )}as accuratly as possible seem to work like the manuals and other sources have described now.
I wish an offline static convergence and ballistics testing module was available with your aircraft leveled on blocks on a 90ft cliff or mound while you shoot at the 180ft dia. target. I don't think shooting at a 50 or 100 yard target leveled on the ground would be very helpful for most players visulisation of thier down range bullet streams considering the way the game is played and ranges many open up from or try to stop runners at.
Again my apologies.
-
Aww hell. If we had anything important to be doing we wouldn't have been following the thread anyway. No sweat. Enough with the apologies! ;)
-dtrip
-
Actually I've made a large scale arse of myself...
I certainly don't see it that way... No need to apologize either...
Just healthy discussion about a pretty dang confusing subject. The fact that we're working in a simulated environment with simulated tools and conversing through an easily-misunderstood media doesn't help. And believe it or not I came to the same conclusions you did when I started digging into all of this a few years back!
You're right, I think it would be nice to have a bore-sighting range set-up, where anyone could learn about trajectories and convergence settings with little variability. Maybe something to toss into the Wishlist forum?
-
I set my convergence at 300. I try not to shoot until the range drops to 200. How many airplane lengths do I lead 90 degrees off, 45 degrees off, and strait 6 shot? Were talking horizontal and vertical lead here. What are your suggestions?
I need a darn light on the dashboard that flashes "SHOOT NOW !" :x
-
I set my convergence at 300. I try not to shoot until the range drops to 200. How many airplane lengths do I lead 90 degrees off, 45 degrees off, and strait 6 shot? Were talking horizontal and vertical lead here. What are your suggestions?
I need a darn light on the dashboard that flashes "SHOOT NOW !" :x
It's going to sound like a smart-azz comment, but here it is...
It all depends!
I don't think there's any real point in giving you any real numbers when it comes to that, because it depends on too many factors, and too much judgement, at a time when you won't likely be able to run all the factors through your mind, make good judgements, recall the correct number/distance, and then apply that number/distance to your shot.
As an example, I've figured out how much to lead a running deer in order to hit it with my muzzleloading rifle. I know that if it's running broadside at 100 yards at full speed, I need to lead it by "x" feet to hit it in the ribcage.
That may be interesting, but how practical is it in the field? Not all that practical, unfortunately, because there are too many variables in reality, and I don't have time to think about them in the brief opportunity I have to get a shot off.
Is the deer really 100 yards out? Is it really running full speed? Is it really running broadside, or is it quartering a bit? Is full speed over a hayfield the same speed as full speed through soy beans? Is that lead amount based on me swinging the rifle, or holding a set point in front of the deer? Am I swinging with the deer, or did I start swinging from behind the deer and I'm pulling the muzzle out front?
Is it still running full speed after I've made those calculations/judgements? Still broadside? What was that number again? And was that "x" number of feet in front of the deers nose, chest, or ribs?
Good thing I'm not excited, nervous, cold, or need to take a leak! Good thing it's not a monster buck, just to distract me! Good thing I haven't missed the last 3 deer I've shot at, to shake my confidence! Or hit the last three, which could make me over-confident.
Now, that's standing with a rifle. That doesn't include the complexities of an aircraft... I'm I closing on him? Or is he pulling away? Am I banked? Pulling G's? Pointed upwards, downwards, or level?? Are you holding a sustained lead? Or firing a snapshot as he crosses? Is his apparent crossing speed due to his flight path, or mine instead?
-
I think there's very good reason to become very familiar with how my tools/weapons work, and then pay attention to how different variables effect my/their performance. I don't think anyone could give me a set of calculated numbers to help me out, or shorten the learning curve. It takes "good" practice and a high level of dedication to really advance in skill.
Without a solid understanding of the how's and why's of the ballistics of your weapon, you really have no foundation or base to learn from. But once you have that basis, it's time to forget about thinking about the numbers too much.
Besides, I really don't know the answer to your question... The situation always deviates from the ideal.
We've got a pretty good QB playing for our team here in WI. Do you think he watches his target before he throws, and says to himself "Self, I need to lead this guy by thirteen body widths when I throw him the ball, because he's this far away, and running that fast, and he's moving away at a 32 degree angle"? I bet he doesn't. I bet he concentrates really hard on what he's doing, and relies on muscle memory and past experience to get the job done. Think how often he'd get sacked if he ran the numbers through his head each time he threw... he knows how hard to throw, and how much lead he needs, because he's done it a bunch of times before, and his mind "just knows" how to do it again.
It's the same thing with gunnery. It takes a lot of practice, and time, and paying attention to the results as you go. You need to miss low, to learn how not to miss low. You need to see your tracers pass behind your target, so you can remember to lead a bit more the next time this exact same shot presents itself. You won't "remember" that you need to lead by "x.xx" body lengths to hit him though, you'll "just know" when it's right.
And you won't get better at shooting by reading about lead amounts, once you learn the basics of how the hardware works. The hardware is a pretty solid "constant" though. It behaves the same, following the same rules in given circumstances. Learn it inside and out so it becomes a variable you can eliminate.
One tip- "Aim small, miss small. Aim big, miss big". Pick a small target on your target, and try really hard to hit it. If you just aim at the other guys plane, you'll miss his plane. If you aim at the front edge of his canopy, you may miss the canopy but still hit his wing, or tail, or engine, etc...
-
Ya I figured you were going to say everything you did.... well except the deer part :P
I'm sure that my biggest problem, I just don't have the time to practice and get better. I'm just looking for some ballpark ideas.
-
I don't post much but I read the BB a lot & I must say this has probably been the most informative thread on the BB that I have read since I joined game in 2001. Mtnmn you are the bomb.(compliment) I have the worst gunnery & get easily frustrated on trying to get a kill shot. I have tried different convergence settings & usually what happens to me is that I move my plane so much trying to get a shot and wind up burning all my E. My confidence gets shot & then basically after 1 firing pass I wind up extending. If I ever could get my gunnery skills up I know my kills will rise. I need to work on throttle management but heck, if keep missing my target I'm scared to slow down to try & make a shot.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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!
:salute
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/boresite.jpg)
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.
-
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?
-
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:
(http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/8440/p51sightalignment.gif)
(http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/3172/p51bsd.gif)
From the inside of the gun hatch.
(http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/5853/61072106.gif)
-
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:
(http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/8440/p51sightalignment.gif)
(http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/3172/p51bsd.gif)
From the inside of the gun hatch.
(http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/5853/61072106.gif)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/F4Utargetsizecomparison41ftspan-1.jpg)
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...
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/Convergence150target300.jpg)
Until you see that if there'd been a plane there, it was really just a bunch of misses...
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/Convergence150target300hits.jpg)
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.
-
I don't care. If there are hit sprites, I'm happy. :D
:bolt:
-
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 :D
(that's the part I still work at!)
-
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.
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/F4Utargetsizecomparison41ftspan-1.jpg)
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...
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/Convergence150target300.jpg)
Until you see that if there'd been a plane there, it was really just a bunch of misses...
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/Convergence150target300hits.jpg)
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.
109, problem solved :airplane:.
-
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 :D
(that's the part I still work at!)
I think we're pretty much on the same page.
I guarantee convergence issues have cost me kills, time, SA, etc, though. I know that simply because the convergence settings I use now are radically more effective than the ones I used in the past. It is a combination though of having the right settings, and making shots that use that setting to its maximum advantage.
The combination of setting, distance of shot, and timing of shot all play together. Even the length of the trigger pull is a factor (for me at least). In the end, you still need to hit what you're shooting at, but you need to know where your bullets are going (and when) to do that consistently.
-
109, problem solved :airplane:.
For one or two of the 109 pilots I've run into, you're correct! :aok
For the rest... It doesn't appear to be the case :devil
-
Poor accuracy runs rampant in the MA's it seems. I've had people saddle up on me, fire at D400, and miss entirely. I suspect they would have continued to miss if I didn't start manuvering when I saw the mass of tracers pass by my left wing.
-
Poor accuracy runs rampant in the MA's it seems. I've had people saddle up on me, fire at D400, and miss entirely. I suspect they would have continued to miss if I didn't start manuvering when I saw the mass of tracers pass by my left wing.
Sometimes, people expected you to turn or break in the direction they were aiming at. I sometimes do that if I can see that my target is about to turn. Fire ahead so they turn right into my bullets. They just didn't expect you not to do anything at all. :cool:
-
IDK, I think I was pretty blatantly unaware of them. Its not like this was in the middle of a crowded furball or anything, this was during transit about 1/2 way between bases.
-
Could be just newbies. You never know. Maybe even a warning shot by guys looking for a fight?
I know I once found an AFK guy. Flew as close as I could next to him. 2 minutes later and he suddenly breaks and goes into a stall. Guess he must've came back and saw my plane and jerked the stick. :D Had a fun fight after he recovered.
-
I remember going afk, and comming back to see a "you have collided with" message. upon PM, I'm informed that my plane plowed into the side of some poor Panzer IV driver while i was on autopilot.
-
How about someone print a standard convergence for .50. .303, 30 mm, etc. for each plane.
Example: The Standard would be: All things being constant, Plane A traveling in a straight line, 250 MPH, to hit a target dead center (or to get a kill with most % of rounds hitting target) at 400 yards would set the convergence for Armament A to 350 .
This way we can print off the table like all the other tables we have. Don't worry about different AOAs, other plane traveling at you, wind, weight of bullet...just make a standard printable table.
With all of the posters knowledge (bstr, mtnmn, krusty, and all others) I know it can be done. Someone can make it simple.
Will it be exact?...NO, but it will give us noobs a good place to start.
Thanks
-
How about someone print a standard convergence for .50. .303, 30 mm, etc. for each plane.
Example: The Standard would be: All things being constant, Plane A traveling in a straight line, 250 MPH, to hit a target dead center (or to get a kill with most % of rounds hitting target) at 400 yards would set the convergence for Armament A to 350 .
This way we can print off the table like all the other tables we have. Don't worry about different AOAs, other plane traveling at you, wind, weight of bullet...just make a standard printable table.
With all of the posters knowledge (bstr, mtnmn, krusty, and all others) I know it can be done. Someone can make it simple.
Will it be exact?...NO, but it will give us noobs a good place to start.
Thanks
What do you need a table for?
A good standard to start with is 300yds. Fire when the icon counter changes to D200 (which is at 299yds).
That's a good, effective range for all the guns in the game. There aren't any where this would be a "wrong" or "bad" setting (although some will of course argue for different settings preferences; I have a definite preference for 275 myself). There are a few rounds where 300yds is probably on the "long" side (.303's, etc). There aren't any where it's too close though.
It'll work for wing-mounts, and it'll work for nose mounts. MG's and cannons. Axis and Allied planes.
Effectively, there are 3 "sweet spot" ranges within the AH convergence limits; 100yd, 300yd, and 500yd. These are sweet spots because you have the ability to "know" when you are that far from your opponent, because this is the distance where the icon counter changes. Firing at your opponent when he's at the right distance makes a huge difference (if you can hit him). This includes the .303's. Setting them in closer may make them more effective, but it's overshadowed by the ability to know when your target is at convergence IMO. These rounds are really the only ones I'd be tempted to set in to 150-200yds or so (and then wait until I'm close enough to fire at that range).
Setting it to 100yd will cause you problems. And setting it to 500 will never give you the power that 300 will, because even at convergence (max effectiveness) the 500yd setting is giving you a wide pattern due to the dispersal modeling (and that's assuming you're an absolutely, devastatingly accurate shot). A 300yd setting give you more "power" at convergence, while still being fine for closer and further shots.
Hitting a plane at 500yds with a 500yd convergence isn't appreciably more effective than hitting him at 500yds with a 300yd convergence setting. But hitting him at 300 with your convergence set to 300 is more effective by far than hitting him at 300 with a 500yd setting.
Nose mounts are more forgiving, and you won't really be penalized for setting them way out as far as they'll go. There really isn't much difference between a nose mount set to 650 vs one set to 300 though, so 300 certainly won't hurt you.
With a setting of @300yds, if you're still not finding the guns as effective as you think they should be then convergence isn't your problem and adjusting it in or out isn't going to help.
-
It really is as simple as that.
The value of studying convergence isn't in tailoring a "custom" trajectory to suit your needs. And the difficulties many claim to have with cannons isn't going to go away with all the convergence tweaking in the world.
The value of studying convergence is knowing where your rounds will be at different distances and bank angles, which allows you to mentally compensate for those shot opportunities where placing your gun sight right on your target would cause you to miss (which is almost every single shot you'll ever take in AH, BTW).
IMO, you'd be best served by setting your convergence distance the same for every gun on every single plane you fly, and learning to shoot them that way.
-
What do you need a table for?
A good standard to start with is 300yrds. Fire when the icon counter changes to D200 (which is at 299yrds).
That's a good, effective range for all the guns in the game. There aren't any where this would be a "wrong" or "bad" setting (although some will of course argue for different settings preferences; I have a definite preference for 275 myself). There are a few rounds where 300yds is probably on the "long" side (.303's, etc). There aren't any where it's too close though.
It'll work for wing-mounts, and it'll work for nose mounts. MG's and cannons. Axis and Allied planes.
Effectively, there are 3 "sweet spot" ranges within the AH convergence limits; 100yd, 300yd, and 500yd. These are sweet spots because you have the ability to "know" when you are that far from your opponent, because this is the distance where the icon counter changes. Firing at your opponent when he's at the right distance makes a huge difference (if you can hit him). This includes the .303's. Setting them in closer may make them more effective, but it's overshadowed by the ability to know when your target is at convergence IMO. These rounds are really the only ones I'd be tempted to set in to 150-200yds or so (and then wait until I'm close enough to fire at that range).
Setting it to 100yd will cause you problems. And setting it to 500 will never give you the power that 300 will, because even at convergence (max effectiveness) the 500yd setting is giving you a wide pattern due to the dispersal modeling (and that's assuming you're an absolutely, devastatingly accurate shot). A 300yd setting give you more "power" at convergence, while still being fine for closer and further shots.
Hitting a plane at 500yds with a 500yd convergence isn't appreciably more effective than hitting him at 500yds with a 300yd convergence setting. But hitting him at 300 with your convergence set to 300 is more effective by far than hitting him at 300 with a 500yd setting.
Nose mounts are more forgiving, and you won't really be penalized for setting them way out as far as they'll go. There really isn't much difference between a nose mount set to 650 vs one set to 300 though, so 300 certainly won't hurt you.
With a setting of @300yds, if you're still not finding the guns as effective as you think they should be then convergence isn't your problem and adjusting it in or out isn't going to help.
It really is as simple as that.
The value of studying convergence isn't in tailoring a "custom" trajectory to suit your needs. And the difficulties many claim to have with cannons isn't going to go away with all the convergence tweaking in the world.
The value of studying convergence is knowing where your rounds will be at different distances and bank angles, which allows you to mentally compensate for those shot opportunities where placing your gun sight right on your target would cause you to miss (which is almost every single shot you'll ever take in AH, BTW).
IMO, you'd be best served by setting your convergence distance the same for every gun on every single plane you fly, and learning to shoot them that way.
straight and simple explanation, you've presented us Mtnman,
I would also suggest that regardless of convergence distance or what the Icon counter says, is to practice on learning the size of the Aircraft in your boresite ........
practice this, in-vision it, take account of the size and burn this image into your Brain.... then regardless of what convergence you use ( but yes 300, and myself 350 specifically for every single plane ) is a great starting point. Even though every person will have their own preferred convergence as Mtnman has posted earlier.
I personally am not looking for what the Icon is telling me, I am looking for how large the plane appears to me ( or parts of certain planes ie- P38 "wide wingspan" )
when I get that mental image................let me back up........ when I played regularly and I had closed to within enough range to obtain that specific mental picture size of the plane in my boresite or if in a banking turn practicing & learning how much lead for a specific deflection or crossing shot is what helped me most....
starting out in the earlier stages when trying to hone your gunnery skills......... I agree with Mtnman about starting with his theology of convergence set to 300 and when icon changes 400 to 200 FIRE ( enemy at 299 yrds ), I also think as you continue to improve on ones gunnery skills to go through a session of turning off tracers, possibly even.......
but in the end, for me I am looking for that over time burned-in image of plane size that is cataloged into my brain/memory to tell me "hey, time to snap off a "FEW" rounds! Noticed I said a few rounds...... you should not be holding the trigger down for longer than 2 or 3 seconds max tops...... if you are you are wasting your ammo....
not sure if what I have posted helps, but it is pretty much what I was taught and practiced.....
also, using your stats on gunnery hit percentage can help you, to let you know if you yourself are improving, but be sure if you do like some of us and fire off "spook shots" to spook your individual to breaking hard and giving you a broader plane view for a deflection shot...... to allow a small drop in your hit percentage for throwing your ammo away on purpose but for a purpose of opportunity.....
maybe someone might get something out of what I have added here......... (to this very in-depth topic, that was interesting to read through)
cheers
TC
-
A personal statement:
(most of it has been written in this thread already, but I think the importance justifies the redundancy ;))
I'm a fervent believer in "knowledge is power", a numbers fanatic and staunch supporter of diligent methodology.
But when it comes to gunnery, there is the danger of overdoing such things.
One should have a good idea of ballistics and the specific problems of airborne gunnery, but in the end it's much more about getting the right feel for it than anything else.
Sometimes players tweak their convergences endlessly, even setting up very different patterns for different planes, sortie types and so on, constantly in search for the legendary "best setting" that will make them great shots and their enemies fall from the skies in droves.
Been there, done that.
But there is no such thing. :old:
Extreme settings aside, convergence doesn't matter as much as it's sometimes propagated, particularly for new players or average gunners. If you can't kill your targets with conv=350, you won't kill them with conv=300.
A reasonable middle-of-the-road setting that is kept for a long time (such as the AH standard setting in the hangar) and perhaps flying planes with the same armament only will help you a lot. It allows you to get a mental picture, to get the right feel for shooting. Get out and practice as much as possible, in the TA with lead computing sight as well as in "live combat" (try not to get used to the lead computing sight too much). Film your fights and then review them afterwards to find out by how much you really missed and how much more you will have to lead next times.
Stick to the (already mentioned) basic principles: "Get close, then even closer" / "Aim small, miss small" / "Estimate the necessary lead, then double that distance"
Only once you have become a really good shot I would recommend reviewing your convergence settings again. You will then be able to tweak them based on your actual experience and knowledge about your own fighting style. And only then you may actually utilize the advantages.
Just two cents from someone who can shoot :devil
p.s:
my own personal settings: 350 for everything in all planes, except for:
Me 262 - Extreme shotgun pattern, 600 & 200 yards
Planes with rifle caliber armament (for example Hurricane and Spit 1), in which I only shoot at close ranges: 250.
-
along these lines.
when your the icon says 400, it is actually anything between 300 and 500 yards.
if my memory is correct.
Neg. When the icon says "400", that means it is somewhere between 400 and 201 yards. :) The icon says the longer of the 2 steps. When an enemy icon says 2.5k, that means it is somewhere between 2500 and 2000 yards.
-
Neg. When the icon says "400", that means it is somewhere between 400 and 201 yards.
No, dkff49 was right. D400 = 300-499. D600 would be 500-699, and so on.
-
I've heard conflicting info about icon distance since I've started this game, finally decided to just find out for myself and share the proof here.
http://www.mediafire.com/?a40e7j2t9y741bk
(http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/4436/range501.png)
(http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8559/range500.png)
(http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/6730/range400.png)
(http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/9328/range300.png)
The number displayed on the icon is the median of a 200 yard range.
400 = 300-500
600 = 500-700
800 = 700-900
etc.
-
I've heard conflicting info about icon distance since I've started this game, finally decided to just find out for myself and share the proof here.
The number displayed on the icon is the median of a 200 yard range.
400 = 300-500
600 = 500-700
800 = 700-900
etc.
Nice!
That is the basis of the three "sweet spots" I mentioned above--
"Effectively, there are 3 "sweet spot" ranges within the AH convergence limits; 100yd, 300yd, and 500yd. These are sweet spots because you have the ability to "know" when you are that far from your opponent, because this is the distance where the icon counter changes. Firing at your opponent when he's at the right distance makes a huge difference (if you can hit him)." I think 150 may actually be the minimum allowed in AH.
By setting your convergence to either 100, 300, or 500, and firing as the icon counter changes you're assured of getting the most bang for your buck. Better yet, do as TC mentions and just learn to fire when your target is the correct size.
As mentioned above (based on the testing I've done) 100yds is too close and 500yds is too far (for max effectiveness), which is why I recommended 300yds as a solid place to start.
-
Sometimes, people expected you to turn or break in the direction they were aiming at.
Other times it's done to force the bandit to break in the opposite direction so they fly into your next burst.
ack-ack
-
Other times it's done to force the bandit to break in the opposite direction so they fly into your next burst.
ack-ack
well that's just downright sneaky :furious
-
VERY hard to do though. Some aircraft break in certian directions better, and you'll have to memorize which one breaks which way to even know which direction the bandit is LIKELY to break.
And then theres the fact that each player has his own unique flying style. Some, instead of breaking right or left, will split-S or Immelman. Some will high yo-yo, some will low yo-yo. Some will dive to the deck and try to run, others will go for a rope (depending on the range).
-
Other times it's done to force the bandit to break in the opposite direction so they fly into your next burst.
ack-ack
VERY hard to do though. Some aircraft break in certian directions better, and you'll have to memorize which one breaks which way to even know which direction the bandit is LIKELY to break.
And then theres the fact that each player has his own unique flying style. Some, instead of breaking right or left, will split-S or Immelman. Some will high yo-yo, some will low yo-yo. Some will dive to the deck and try to run, others will go for a rope (depending on the range).
out of all the different theorys of what the bandit being chased might do, only one ( well 2 counting the dive, but this can sometimes offer a belly shot ) - the split ess, would offer the lowest probability of getting a "broader view" of the plane........ and even then most will yaw their plane giving a larger target as well as telegraphing their intentions when they go to do the split ess
all the other directions still offer the attacker a chance at a top view or close to it once the bandit decides to break into a hi or low yoyo or decides to go into a immelman....... instead of just doing a break turn to the right or left
hope this helps
TC
-
Yes, but I took AKAK to mean that sometimes they will try to guess with you, and, after firing that first burst, begin to aim where they've calculated you're most likely to go. This would mean any deviation from what they expect results in the target being further away than if they'd not tried to guess with you. They then have to shift their nose further to get a shot (by which time the target profile may have gone past its apex :bhead).
In otherwords, there would be the possibility of the bandit shooting himself in the foot.
-
I'll tell you what I did to get a noticeable improving in my gunnery effectiveness:
1. Go to the MA and fly as usual. Film every sortie.
2. Then watch the film.
The important work here is JUST study the "firing style" you used for those enemies you shot down through your most "usual and successful way" for shooting them down. Just study your perfect kills, you must have one here and there..
3. For those "your often personal-style-perfect kills" speed down at minimum the speed of the film, and watch in the right window the EXACT distance you started to fire.
4. Set the convergence for that distance.
By this methods you are setting your gunnery to the situations where you shoot the most, and when you get your kills in the easier more personal-fit ways.....
Once you have set your optimum convergence for your optimum way of killing enemies. You must work further and further of this optimum point. Then you have to decide if it is still advisable for you or not, shooting at the enemies at those differents distances.....
Example:
Studing my more comfortable and common kills in the films, I found out that I start shooting enemies over 150-250.
So I set my convergence to 225. After doing this, I started to literally go the tough hogs off with just 0.5 sec burst.
After studying this convergence that works fine for me, I realized that shooting planes closer than 225 is fantastic as well. So I will go for every manoeuvre that puts my plane between 50-225 yards for a devastating shot.
Also I realized that, with this personal convergence, shooting enemies within 300-400 range won't work UNLESS they are flying very steady and I can get a 1-2 secs solution on them. So with my style and personal convergence I will only shot planes further than 300 if I'm pretty sure I can hold them centered about 2 seconds.
And I have discovered, that, shooting further than 400, won't hurt much planes. SO I don't shoot them at these distances and I'll try to fly my plane to get close to the enemy under my personal range.
So, my suggestion is: Study your convergence for your style, and then, study your style to maximize your convergence.
:salute