Aces High Bulletin Board
Help and Support Forums => Help and Training => Topic started by: nrshida on April 04, 2016, 06:17:02 AM
-
In my particular choice of aircraft & flying style I have spent a considerable amount of time at the bottom of rope attempts. Sometimes I have a brief snapshot. I've noticed I have to lead in strange ways. Having never had the occasion to fire a firearm I read that when shooting upwards you have to aim under - because the zeroing point will now be misleadingly below where you need to aim.
My question is, with a convergence set to say 600, by about how much do I have to aim under? Assuming I'm standing on my tail then does shooting over more distance equate to more 'hold under' as gravity is primarily affecting the shot only in a vector opposite to the travel and thus affecting velocity only? So the two vectors continue to diverge at a linear rate?
I have done a fair bit of archery, but always suspected on some instinctive level it was unwise to shoot upwards to explore what would happen.
-
nrshida! You're back! :salute
Unfortunately I can't answer your question but remember, it's time to get the mosquito repelling plants in your patio.
-
There's alot of maths involved in answering that question, and variables in bullet calibre as well as diagrams of bullet flight trajectories. :uhoh
But YAY! SHIDA! :aok
-
As stated above, there is math and science. Then there is 'sight picture'.
There is a Gunnery Training course on video from Ryno. I took the live course and the basics of lead and drop became crystal clear to me. I am still an average shooter, but that is not Ryno's fault. It's a great place to start.
Pick a gun sight that meets your needs and stick to it in every plane you fly. I use the US Mark 9 as recommended by Ryno (only because it is his preference). In the process of practice you can develop a sight picture that will guarantee an increase in hit ratio.
The course is on VuduVince's YouTube Channel and is in six parts.
Part One is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoeZIX5TnAI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoeZIX5TnAI)
I hope this helps you at least as much as it helped me.
Good luck.
:salute
-
Have you read T.O. 00-25-35 "Fighter Pilot Gunnery"? It might be worth it to read it. I have a copy, but I'm sure it's on the internet somewhere.
-
This question gets my brain working in interesting ways.
(http://demigod.org/~zak/firearms/optics_1.png)
Here's a good generic illustrative picture. Forget about the specific numbers on the image, just consider the fact that on the one sight in path, the bullet goes above line of sight, while on the other sight path, it doesn't happen to get above the line of sight.
Now if you consider a situation where you're shooting so that your line of sight is exactly vertical, the way the barrels are mounted means the bullets will actually be falling "up" from your perspective, because the gun barrels are pointed past vertical.
What this seems to indicate is for the vertical shooting situation, you'd want your convergence set so that the angle of the guns stays as close to the line of sight as you can get it. It won't be as simple as the shortest or longest convergence, because for the bullet to get there at 650, it's got to travel fairly high over LOS.
It looks to me like a bunch of trial and error testing would be needed to figure out where to put it for specific planes, because the spacings are going to be different. Bustr, I know you must want to do this.
Wiley.
-
I think the replies are missing the OP's question surrounds shooting while in a vertical climb. That is how I read the OP.
-
Offline.
Up your ride and set the target to the following:
.target 200 360 90
[ .target range heading azimuth]
The target will now stay 200 yards directly over you. Pull up vertical and try to hit the center. Then you will see the game relationship to the center of your reticle and your bullet stream.
This turns off the target:
.target 0
I doubt anyone is always going straight up without some amount of motion trajecterally versus just going straight up. And then when you set your convergence, you are angling your guns up from the center line of your ride. Even with "motor mounted" cannons Hitech allows you to elevate the trajectory by lowering the breech mounting which was impossible in the real WW2 rides. Also if you are flying a wing gun only ride shooting inside of your convergence, you need to favor one side or the other to get enough rounds on the con to do any good in some cases.
Unless you want to learn a boring and frustrating way to park your rides facing down hill on a slope off the end of a runway to setup a static bench stand. Just fly your ride at about 300-320 TAS auto level heading north offline. Bring up the target at 100, 200, 300, 400 and 600. Tap the trigger, holding down for a heavy impact pattern will slow the plane down and change your AoA. Then watch the relationship of your reticle center to the impacts at the different ranges.
-
Nish,
Try the lead calculating gunsight! To enable offline goto arena settings,look for flightmodeflags and select change,then check the LCG box then just press tab to enable it.
It's a good way to develop a sight picture and may help with your question.
:salute
-
...at the bottom of rope attempts... I've noticed I have to lead in strange ways.
My question is, with a convergence set to say 600, by about how much do I have to aim under?
Hi Shida, very good to see you!!
First, before you go and watch the film that Vudu did of my Introduction to Gunnery course (Kingpin=RynoRush, for those who don't know), I will point out that there is nothing about vertical shooting in there, as it was a basic course. However, there is a discussion in the videos of using the .target command as a practicing tool, which may come in handy.
There is also mention of the "upward angling" of the guns and that rounds rise from the barrel to reach the pipper at your convergence setting. This is the effect you are seeing. The "hold under" required in your "standing on your tail" shooting position is due to this arcing of the rounds from the guns to the pipper. Essentially, your rounds are traveling in a very steep parabolic curve with you looking up the inside of the curve, so they appear to rise relative to your sight picture.
As far as "how much to hold under", there are too many variables in play, including the aircraft and armament you are using and the range of the target at which you are shooting. That said, these things can be tested and practiced.
I was also going to suggest using the .target command, just as Bustr mentioned above. You can also (offline or in the Training Arena) use the lead computing sight. I would go further and try setting the target to different ranges and angles vertically from 65 degrees up to 90 degrees to see how that affects your ballistics and hold off center. It's also a good flying exercise to get a feel for how much energy you need to get an adequate shot on a target at those angles, how to trim on angle so you can hold more steadily on the target and learn the sight picture for the various angles.
This sounds like an interesting topic to explore and I would be happy to offer to do some live testing and practice shooting with you, with me flying as your "roping target" if you would like to meet up in the Training Arena some time to work on this.
<S>
Kingpin
(Formerly RynoRush)
p.s. Sorry for some redundancy, as I see now some other detailed replies were made while I was typing! Hope to see you in the TA some time.
-
nrshida! You're back! :salute
Hi Bizman. Sorry I'm so appalling at email contact. Has been a very busy time. I always remember your advice! :banana:
Actually I'm back briefly I think. Have this monumental, conceptual, scratch-built, lateral-thought-out joystick project (bit like my throttle but bigger). Just wanted to check myself and see if I still enjoy flying enough to complete it. I don't think my old Mac will run AHIII so I thought I'd get in quick. Otherwise it's the trash can and 6000 tiny problems fewer I have to solve :banana:
So far spent a couple of hours in the MA getting ganged like a poop in a fly storm. I'll let you know :rofl
But YAY! SHIDA! :aok
Yay Dolby! \o/ Have you been behaving yourself?
Thank you everybody for the info. I'll look into all of that. Interesting point Wiley about convergence settings. I don't think convergence goes out far enough to make the shots 'flat' in the vert. The farther the better.
I think the replies are missing the OP's question surrounds shooting while in a vertical climb. That is how I read the OP.
Yes firing pretty well straight up. Not much info on that even on firearms sites.
Bustr I had completely forgotten about the third argument to .target. Thanks.
I'm a bit weird, I suppose I should have mentioned that. I don't actually use a gunsight in the Ki-84. I began by estimating within the framing then learned how a good shot looked. Archery, see. Having a bit of trouble adjusting in the vert though and it's apparently a lot of my shots in the MA.
-
Hi Shida, very good to see you!!
Hi Kingpin, I remember you as RynoRush. Long time. Yes firing upwards is a bit esoteric. When in form and NOT firing in the vert I can often tap 5-6 Ho-5s at 600 yards if the target is slow - on a good day. Lots of trigger time on those.
My schedule's a bit unpredictable. If you see me on please say hello and we can do some testing. I'll in the meantime do some offline testing :salute
-
Did some quick and dirty testing. I tried the Ki-84 - cannon only. P-38J both weapons firing at once, Ta152 - firing both weapons but separately, P-47 (earliest one) - all guns, K-4 - 30-mm only, N1K - all weapons firing at once. I had 600 convergence set for everything and set the target at 300 yards above. Remarkably, they all place about the same distance above the sight!
You don't actually have to hold under as much as I was lead to believe. The biggest issue is that in the vert you have to push forward on the elevators otherwise the aircraft fall steadily onto their backs. This makes the nose a bit bouncy. The shot is hard to keep dense. The P-38 was far and away the most stable standing on its tail.
Interesting.
-
I have enjoyed reading this discussion!
I noticed that within the gunnery videos that Ryno had Vudu aim at the intersection of his coursair's horizontal and verticle stabilizer, when at half "convergence" (harmonization? I know the guns are not converging at a point but spread around the desired shooting distance so not familiar with what one would technically call it), to hit the ring roots of the coursair. In this example it seems that the bullet streams are hitting below the center point of the crosshairs leading one to conclude that they would have to aim slightly above the target, if going by the piper, correct? Yet we are also talking about "Holding Under," does this mean at some point you should aim thd piper below the enemy? Just looking for clarification :salute
To contribute further to this conversation, I have resently begun target shooting with handguns. One of the variables that can throw off the bullets impact point vs where the shooter is sighting is what part of the index finger is pulling on the trigger. To clarify, if you are using closer to the of your finger to pull the trigger, the run will yaw and cause the bullet to be off where you believed you were aiming. Why do I bring this up? Well if someone is using a twisty stick, it is possible that the same principle will have an effect if their stick's yaw is very sensitive, causing them to activate the rudder slightly and throw their aim off to the left or right
-
I have enjoyed reading this discussion!
...when at half "convergence" (harmonization?) the bullet streams are hitting below the center point of the crosshairs leading one to conclude that they would have to aim slightly above the target, if going by the piper, correct?
Yes, I am using the term convergence (rather than harmonization), because that is what the game calls it. You are correct that there is more of a convergence zone/pattern/area, even when you have all guns set to the same distance. This is one reason I had players in the video fire at the target, at convergence distance, while sitting on the ground -- just to give the an idea of how big their bullet dispersion pattern is without any flight control inputs.
At "half convergence" (using a 325 convergence in the Corsair) the bullets have only risen about halfway to the level of the pipper, so you must aim higher when firing in close. This is what that section of the course is meant to demonstrate, so you got it.
Also to be noted, at half convergence with wing-mounted guns, your two bullet streams have yet to meet but the bullet dispersion patterns are tighter. Essentially, you have two very effective bullet streams, if you know how/where to place them.
Important note: This will all vary from 1) aircraft to aircraft 2) from gun-package to gun-package and 3) with different convergence settings. The purpose for that part of the course is not to show how to shoot/aim with the Corsair, but really to demonstrate how to test and see what your bullet stream looks like at various ranges, depending on your convergence settings, for ANY aircraft/gun-package in the game -- because they will all be slightly different.
For example, if you have a 109K4 with a convergence set to 600 yards (as Shida was mentioning in this thread) and you are firing at half convergence distance (300 yards) do you aim high or low...? (Answer below!)
Yet we are also talking about "Holding Under," does this mean at some point you should aim thd piper below the enemy? Just looking for clarification :salute
Yes, there are cases when you should aim below, like firing at a target going straight vertical, as Shida is discussing in this thread.
Another example would be in a 109K4 with a convergence set to 600 yards when firing at a target 300 yards out -- you need to aim low. The 30mm must be arced so high to get it out to 600 yards at pipper level that it is well above the pipper at half convergence. If you test this with the .target command, you will see two distinct bullet patterns at 300 yards for the MGs and the 30mm (tater) -- with the 30mm impacting about 10 feet ABOVE the pipper on a target 300 yards away. So, assuming you are trying to hit with the 30mm, you would need to aim about 10 feet below your target.
Note: Some of this is also dependent on altitude. The results discussed above were tested at and under 10K. As you reach higher altitudes there is less air density and you will see this has an effect on bullet drop. If you plan on bomber-hunting at altitudes of 25K or higher, you may want to test your bullet stream(s) at altitude (there is a nice 30K base in the TA for this). You will notice less bullet drop at higher altitudes, which especially affects your aim for long range sniping.
Hope this info helps!
<S>
-
Is there a cross sectional view of this anywhere for the various planes, I'm flying an LA these days and would love to see the bullet stream from the side at various target distances
-
Is there a cross sectional view of this anywhere for the various planes, I'm flying an LA these days and would love to see the bullet stream from the side at various target distances
I'm not aware of any existing from data within AH. However, you may find historical charts for bullet trajectories and actual harmonization charts, especially in aircraft manuals. I imagine data for the Russian planeset is harder to locate. (Perhaps, Bustr will be along here shortly with something.)
The real problem with creating charts like this is that different convergence range settings will yield different results.
So my first question would be: What convergence do you use (or want to use)?
I suppose you could make a chart at 325 yards (a good firing distance) and another at 650 yards (maximum AH convergence distance) and compare the two.
It wouldn't be all that hard to test and input this into an Excel file and then have it graph the results. In fact I'd be happy to meet up with you to walk you through testing this and making a chart for the La-7, if you like. Reply here or PM me if you are interested in doing that.
-
Appreciate it, let me give it a try first at say 300 - 400 and 500 (500 is my current setting). I'm wondering, I just thought of trying F3 offline and being able to see the changes. Hmmm be back in a bit
-
I'll try to post some pictures later today regarding shooting in the vert, Owlblink and Hungry, anyone who's interested. Kingpin is comprehensively covering harmonisation / convergence I think. About aiming under or holding low - just think of a plane with nose mounted armament to remove the lateral spacing aspects. Indeed in a K-4 with a convergence of 600 (which I gathered from Bustr once was the actual effectively the fixed value in the real aircraft) you will have to hold noticeably low at 2-300 yards otherwise the shot will arch over where your pepper is pointing so it would hit the pepper at 600 yards. This assumes where firing pretty well in the flat.
I think why I noticed no difference between armaments with my quick and dirty testing is that in the vert, the bullet drop as we perceive it - or rather distance travelled over time is the same for all projectiles, velocities and shapes: 50 cals, 30-mm, 20-mm, wheel nut off a 1950 Volkswagen Beetle, what-have-you. Gravity is still there but it's now pointing downwards to the gun barrel it came out of. But the sights are designed to cope with you shooting when flying flat. I'm fairly sure it's one of those things where at an incline of 45 degrees it'll be 0.707 of the drop it is in the flat. Does that make any sense?
There was a time in the Ki-84 when I used to fire all guns at once and I had my cowl-mounted MGs set to 150 and my cannon set to 600. At the time an awful lot of my shots where at an opponent crossing my wing line in planform so I wanted to make the dispersion as 'flat' as possible to stitch down the centreline. Here the 150 convergence of the cowl guns weren't 'lofting the shot' up to reach a harmonisation point at a farther distance on my gunsight and the wing-mounted guns, which are physically lower in the aircraft were. I'm fairly sure I tested this with the dot target thingamajig. I was quite scientific in those days (which can take you to certain points of development).
It's all very interesting but since I've got back I can't hit a barn door with my plane parked inside it, pointing at the doors with the doors closed! I believe H. J. Marseille, for instance, relied more on the kind of 'software' we use for throwing and catching balls. That takes a lot of practice to form the software and a lesser amount probably, to keep it up. So it's a perishable skill. Apparently :mad:
-
:salute great read thank you all :salute :cheers:
-
I did some mucking about with shooting in the vertical in the TA a week or so ago. My conclusion was pretty much inline with what Shida posted last.
What I discovered about shooting in the vertical, though, was that it made virtually 0 difference to my impact point out to about 500 yards. It was hitting as close as I could aim. Beyond that, dispersion was much more of a factor (K4).
So for me, I'm not going to worry about it much. ;)
Wiley.
-
Welcome back shida, I know the pain. Once I lost my aim (that was my only real saving grace when it was -good-) it was all over, but you talking about something like we used to run into in spit 5's back in the DA? I never really put much thought into it beyond "if I don't hit this shot I'm hosed", and got in a bad habit of forcing for the shot early on lol. :salute
-
My aim is improving, slowly. I'm getting back into flying to set up an unloaded crossing shot and reminding myself to pull much more lead, when I must sattle up, so I can ease up on the elevator before letting loose a solid stream of lead.
The chalange is getting the enemy to cooperate in your attempt at getting to your favored range and in the desired sight picture. I prefer shooting at D200 but I'll fire out a stream of bullets at 400 if that's what I have to work with.
-
Something many of use scratch our heads over with lead has to do with how in turns at different alts we miss badly. At low to medium alts we can pull tight with a lot of G in our turns. When you believe you have your lead, the G built up by the turn at those alts requires about 1\3 of a 100Mil reticle radius additional to what you have already pulled for your firing solution. At high alts another 1\2 radius added onto your lead solution. The Air Force only really figured this out after WW2 and entering the Korean war because of the higher speeds and increased G loads from jets.
This comes out of those harmonization charts where the bullet drop in a 60 degree banked turn is calculated for 2, 3, 4 G at 1000ft. An M2 round at 1000ft 1G barely drops. In a 4G banked turn, it drops 20ft at 1000ft. Why BnZ maneuvers gives you better guns solutions.
-
This is also why the cobra roll is considered to be an 'advanced' maneuver. The whole point of the maneuver is to 'force' your opponent into a stall, while simultaneously avoiding any chance that he might have of hitting you. The advanced part of the maneuver is knowing precisely when his aircraft has lost its ability to influence his nose, and it is then that the target fighter offers a nice juicy target that is coincidently turning into position above the shooters nose. When the shooter pulls for the shot his airplane becomes a falling leaf and an easy target for the energy fighter that is now on top and behind.
99.9% of the "top" sticks in this game fall for this 100% of the time, so once you learn it you can kill each and every one of them with ease.
-
99.9% of the "top" sticks in this game fall for this 100% of the time, so once you learn it you can kill each and every one of them with ease.
Oh you great almighty, would you please please please teach me that maneuver?
-
Oh you great almighty, would you please please please teach me that maneuver?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pugachev%27s_Cobra
- oldman
-
99.9% of the "top" sticks in this game fall for this 100% of the time, so once you learn it you can kill each and every one of them with ease.
99.9% of the top sticks in this game do not fall for a common or garden rope 100% of the time in my experience.
-
Oh you great almighty, would you please please please teach me that maneuver?
Think of "Topgun movie"...gonna hit the brakes and he'll fly right by... lol
Hope this helps
TC
-
Thank you for all of the replies. If you see someone hitting the breaks in a 109-G6, that'd be me. :salute
-
99.9% ?
Must be the .1% that realizes IF you even pull that move off I'm just going to climb and pick you to death with my energy advantage. That is only if I don't blast you trying to pull it off first.
-
Challenge isn't talking about any fancy departure manoeuvres with his 99.9% / 100% claim Jo, he's talking about roping people in a superior energy-retaining aircraft. I've seen the video which was hastily removed the last time this was discussed. Unless he's developed a new technique and recycled the same name, which is possible but somehow I think the simpler explanation is more likely :rolleyes:
-
cobra roll
While the "Cobra Roll" is a personal favorite, made by 99.9% of top Japanese restaurants and enjoyed by 100% of diners... how is a sushi dish on topic in this discussion? Wouldn't the O'Club be a better place to start a thread on how to perform a double edamame, followed by ebi tempura and a split rainbow roll, all while staying out of your opponent's bento box?
I think we should stick to discussing WWII ACM, gunnery, and AH game-play tips in the Training Forum.
But that's just my opinion...
:aok
-
:rofl
:aok Kingpin
-
99.9% ?
Must be the .1% that realizes IF you even pull that move off I'm just going to climb and pick you to death with my energy advantage. That is only if I don't blast you trying to pull it off first.
From the guy who pulls a tumbling drop out of the fight.......
-
From the guy who pulls a tumbling drop out of the fight.......
That would be a stall :)
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pugachev%27s_Cobra
- oldman
Watch it now, Oldman. Realism might get someone confused. :rofl. :salute
-
This is also why the cobra roll is considered to be an 'advanced' maneuver. The whole point of the maneuver is to 'force' your opponent into a stall, while simultaneously avoiding any chance that he might have of hitting you. The advanced part of the maneuver is knowing precisely when his aircraft has lost its ability to influence his nose, and it is then that the target fighter offers a nice juicy target that is coincidently turning into position above the shooters nose. When the shooter pulls for the shot his airplane becomes a falling leaf and an easy target for the energy fighter that is now on top and behind.
99.9% of the "top" sticks in this game fall for this 100% of the time, so once you learn it you can kill each and every one of them with ease.
The proper name for the maneuver is "Cobra Turn", which is a variation of "Pugachev's Cobra". Both maneuvers are useless in combat and will 99.99% of the time result in the death of the pilot trying such a maneuver. It's a last ditch desperation move that if you don't pull it off leaves you without E and a nice slow stalled out target. It's also very easy to counter.
-
for the life of me, I am sure Ack-Ack has been nominated to train since 1996...... in other sim's included.........
maybe someone will take notice, if they see this ( unless ack-ack knows, which I'm sure he does know what it entails, and decides better not)....... I have no more nominations to give, I have retired...
TC
-
And then we have all watched how something sudden and absolutely unexpected will often save your kester in this simm because it is not the real world. An example is the Krup tumble because you only see it about twice a year in the MA anymore. If it were used almost every time you entered a furball, it's surprise effect would be gone, and guys would be waiting for it to happen along with talking about how to account for it as an SOP part of discussing ACM in our game.
-
Howdy :salute
yeah, "Party Trick" moves are cool and fun to do once in a while for sharts and giggles (and once in a while give you a kill) but they are usually a last ditch move and show a failure of SA for one and being out flown. Some people have a weird sense of karma and can pull those moves off at a descent rate and everyone is welcome to have fun and try them out but please do realize that it is better to learn to improve your SA and see the big picture, master your E retention and learn when to spend it, learn to fly crisper and cleaner, set up your shots, learn how other planes tend to behave when doing the same, and to have a good attitude when you do get shot down to learn from it. Again, no disrespect to anyones flight style, what works for you works for you, but it is better to teach proper techniques and the general physics involved with airplane combat and flight to give pilots the insight on WHY something may work on occasion and how to outfly others who are missing that knowledge.
-
I use the top of the tail section on the AR234 to aim and stear the plane in the direction I want to fire my shots, even in a dog fight and at the top of a stall! ==<--O--O-->==
-
I stay away from the south end of 234's because of you Nickel. Now I HO or 90 degree lead shoot them. Hitech should just make the rear view on the periscope a key view.
-
I stay away from the south end of 234's because of you Nickel. Now I HO or 90 degree lead shoot them. Hitech should just make the rear view on the periscope a key view.
Lol no worries anymore bustr! Been gone for 8 months now and the AR234 of Doom has been grounded and the out look for a return any time soon looks dimmer and dimmer as time goes on and real life has me busy with 3 grandkids and keeping up with our growing family. Maybe when the grandkids get older I can start a squad and teach them the game .
==<--O--O-->==
-
Lol no worries anymore bustr! Been gone for 8 months now and the AR234 of Doom has been grounded and the out look for a return any time soon looks dimmer and dimmer as time goes on and real life has me busy with 3 grandkids and keeping up with our growing family. Maybe when the grandkids get older I can start a squad and teach them the game .
==<--O--O-->==
Good to hear from you Nickle5, and happy to hear you are enjoying the "grandpa" time, those grand kids are a blessing in our old age, and give us purpose in latter years. Enjoy them while you can, they grow like weeds. May you have many more. :cheers:
-
Bit of progress report in a rust-away stylee, since someone mentioned it was interesting to hear about other player's epiphanies. My ACM was not rusty, plane control not-so-bad, just (still) keep departing a bit more than I should in a higher-speed turning fight, just practice I think. Shooting was absolute toilet. So bad that I even put a gunsight back in, but it didn't seem to help either. Then on a given day I got rid of the gunsight again and blam! shooting seemed to come right back.
What I think I've done over the years is develop a strange technique. My focussed attention when shooting is on the opponent's flightpath and my periphiral attention an awareness of where the boresight is. As I say, never been able to do any real shooting and only watched a lot of Hickock45 videos for technique. I know the pistol-shooting state of the art is to focuss on the frontsight and have peripheral focus on the target and rear sight but for me in AH this way round doesn't work. I'm wondering if what I'm doing is closer to clay pigeon / skeet shooting? Again no experience, knowledge or training in that. Any input welcomed.
Also Kinpin reminded me in game of the difference between tracking shots and 'strafing a point in space' (ambush shot he calls it). Subtle differences but the latter seems to require only one aiming moment and increases density of shot by a lot!
-
I often shoot so early I just hold the plane still (while firing) and just let the enemy fly into my rounds, only do this around 450-900 yards.