Jump to content
OnTheHouse

Adjusting Point of Impact for gun sights

Recommended Posts

How do I raise the point of impact for the mg / cannon sight? Did the devs incorporate this into the sim?

Really tired of firing in a turn while my tracers are way under my nose in a turning dogfight.....any gun sight has the means to raise line of sight to meet point of impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can change you convergence which will take this in to account to a degree but you probably want to concentrate on learning deflection shooting which while is an art form is very rewarding.


This is the sort of thing I mean.

post-10861-0-32572100-1432161464_thumb.jpg

post-10861-0-87848200-1432161467_thumb.jpg

post-10861-0-55140300-1432161470_thumb.jpg

post-10861-0-80743500-1432161472_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can change you convergence which will take this in to account to a degree but you probably want to concentrate on learning deflection shooting which while is an art form is very rewarding.

This is the sort of thing I mean.

I know deflecting shooting very well, but BoS models the projectile trajectory way more sloped than other sims I've been in front of over the 20 some years.....also begs the question about the actual muzzle velocity being coded. As you look at AI firing their guns, the tracers really don't model average mach 3 performance (~3000 fps muzzle velocities)....but let me allow some room for error here....what was the muzzle velocity of the mg and the cannon projectiles? Then take into account the terminal velocity of those bullets and the time of flights- since I've been a fixed target and wing shooter for over 40 years, I see an issue worthy of discussion.  It can be said that learning the firing pattern of a given shooting system can and will affect  your real world mental focus of weapons you're accustomed to shooting.  I doubt very seriously any programmer today spends time at a rifle range....I, in fact, do! 

 

Also, convergence won't address the point of impact that I'm looking for. When I line a target up in my sights, and I see the impact is below or above my intended point of impact, was there never a calibration setup used in these sighting mechanisms for aircraft during this period. You take the typical infantryman's rifle. It has means of adjusting for both vertical drop and horizontal shifts since each barrel is unique to itself...setting convergences deal with adjusting the muzzles to direct projectiles so they meet at a desired distance but that doesn't have anything to do with elevation settings. In short, did fighter aircraft have ability to adjust their elevation settings for their guns? 

Edited by CuMelter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do I raise the point of impact for the mg / cannon sight? Did the devs incorporate this into the sim?

Really tired of firing in a turn while my tracers are way under my nose in a turning dogfight.....any gun sight has the means to raise line of sight to meet point of impact.

In short: You can't, and neither could real WW2 pilots. Their small reflector sights did not allow for any significant raising of the aiming point. Heck there wasn't even enough headroom under that small canopy to properly look out over the nose at all let alone through the sight. With very few exceptions almost all WW2 fighters left the pilot completely blind at 12 o'clock low, where modern fighter jets have sloping noses that allow much better view downward.

 

RL WW2 reflector sights could ofc. be adjusted for range and often also for target wingspan to help firing at the proper convergence point, neither if which is available in BoS (yet) but it really wouldn't help you in the case of deflection shooting.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Convergence should be raising the bullets up so they hit where your crosshair is pointing at the distance you set. So they will rise above on close targets and drop below on far targets.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know deflecting shooting very well, but BoS models the projectile trajectory way more sloped than other sims I've been in front of over the 20 some years.....also begs the question about the actual muzzle velocity being coded. As you look at AI firing their guns, the tracers really don't model average mach 3 performance (~3000 fps muzzle velocities)....but let me allow some room for error here....what was the muzzle velocity of the mg and the cannon projectiles? Then take into account the terminal velocity of those bullets and the time of flights- since I've been a fixed target and wing shooter for over 40 years, I see an issue worthy of discussion.

Tbh. BoS seems to model ballistic trajectories just fine. Most MGs and autocannon of the period had muzzle velocities within the range of 600 - 900 m/s - a bit lower than you Mach 3 standard - and would experience notable bullet drop at ranges over 300m. I usually set my convergence to 400m when hunting bombers and I can reliably hit a He 111 at 600m at that conversion by alignung my crosshair with the upper tip if the tailfin.

 

I haven't done the calculations as I have no charts on period projectiles ballistic performance, but it certainly seems within the ballpark of what you'd expect at those distances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make a track of your guns at 100, 300 and 600 convergences. You will see a noticable difference in bullet arc and drop. The sight in the game has adjustable horizontal convergence only and the vertical point of impact is calculated from what you input. After that there is a harmonization factor. Your rounds will impact the center of the sight in level flight at the range you input. Any deviation from level flight will affect your rounds in relation to your aircraft. You cannot set it separately for each gun or weapon type which is ahistorical. All guns are calculated to hit at the harmonized convergence point. While it is a compromise, it works for most except the extreme rivet counters. There are a dozen threads on the subject from the early access period.

 

It may not be that other design house, but in reference to convergence............................."it's in the game!"

Edited by HerrMurf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The actual sighting of these aircraft guns is actually a complicated subject. I have no doubt someone will chime in with the specifics. I'm sure they modeled bullets right since it's rather an easy calculation compared to the flight modeling. Simple physics.

Generally the guns were sighted to fall on your target at a set range and converge in the case of wing mounted guns. The game allows a game like adjustment that may or may not have been available to the pilot but it's fine. The actual drop of a .30 cal bullet over 300 yards is about 25-30" so lost of the "drop" you're seeing when shooting is from pulling Gs not range.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes its crazy how much you have to lead when pulling some heavy G's on the edge of the flight envelope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As others have mentioned, reflector sights can't really be adjusted in the way that one might adjust a rifle sight to compensate for different  target ranges.  Instead, a harmonization range is selected along the pilot's line of sight where the projectiles will momentarily converge as they climb or fall through the sight-line.  To ensure the pilot has some idea where that convergence point is in relation to his target, the sighting reticlue in a reflector sight is typically graduated with marks of various kinds.  When the wing tips of a standard fighter ( for example - about 30m) fall inside these marks the pilot knows it is at a certain range - say 200 m.  If the wings only fill half the space between the marks, the aircraft  is approximately twice that range etc etc.   So, select a convergence range (100, 200, 300 etc) and then use your reflector sight to determine the appropriate time to shoot.

Edited by Wulf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes its crazy how much you have to lead when pulling some heavy G's on the edge of the flight envelope

I thought so as well, bit then I tried to do some calculations (it's simple triangulation) BoS gets it quite right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do I raise the point of impact for the mg / cannon sight? Did the devs incorporate this into the sim?

Really tired of firing in a turn while my tracers are way under my nose in a turning dogfight.....any gun sight has the means to raise line of sight to meet point of impact.

Hi Coppermelter !.. I have always thought that the Verticle Convergence for cannon in BOS seemed very low. I can only compare to other Sims,I have no evidence,just a Feeling. I may be wrong.

But it does"nt really matter...Like any Weapon/sight,as long as you know where the rounds land when aiming at a specific Spot,you can adjust your aim)left/right/up/down to put rounds on your target. All you need is consistency. My cannon rounds drop quickly.

That's the cannon sorted. I aim Higher when firing the cannon.

Machine guns : much higher velocity, so quicker to reach the target ! (with a totally different Verticle  convergence).

How to overcome this without the ability to adjust Horizontal/Verticle  Convergence for all onboard weapons ?

I practiced "NOT" squashing my two sage trigger. I fire MGs (and I have lots more of them to waste) in low probability shots. I use the Cannon up close and personal !

Hope this helps mate !

Edit : Hv rounds are always going to impact before Lv rounds(cannon). You cannot have one Aimpoint(Sight) that will have all rounds landing at the same time following your (Pilots) line of sight....Now add some Gees to your firing solution !

Edited by jaydee
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All you need is consistency. My cannon rounds drop quickly.

That's the cannon sorted. I aim Higher when firing the cannon.

Machine guns : much higher velocity, so quicker to reach the target ! (with a totally different Verticle  convergence).

 

Nope.

 

When fired from level flight, all rounds drop at exactly the same rate (thanks to G. Galilei). The difference is how far they get in the meantime.

 

Also: while there might be some truth to the idea of MGs having a higher muzzle velocity than cannon in a Battle of Britain scenario, where the main German autocannon was the low velocity MG FF, it doesn't really apply to the Eastern Front anno 1942:

 

The guns in BoS have the following muzzle speeds:

 

ShKAS 7.62mm: 775 - 825 m/s 

 

MG 17 7.92mm: 855 - 905 m/s

 

UBS 12.7mm: 814 - 850 m/s

 

ShVAK 20mm: 750 - 790 m/s

 

MG FF 20mm: 585 - 700 m/s

 

MG 151 15mm - 20mm: 750 - 785 m/s

 

VYa-23 23mm: 905 m/s

 

NS-37 37mm: 880 - 900 m/s

 

BK 37 37mm: 780 - 1170 m/s

 

As you can see, the MG FF cannon is an outlier with its low muzzle velocity. All the other guns fall neatly within a 750 - 850 m/s range except for the AT guns and the MG 17 which are just a bit faster.

Edited by Finkeren
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Fink ,where did the Op mention "Level Flight" ? read his post again. NOPE !..IF I have a sandbag under my rifle I can hit a  "STATIC"  target out to 600 m. Can I do it whilst hes moving.?

How often do we have combat in LEVEL Flight ? All your numbers are meaningless !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter. It still doesn't make the MG bullets fly faster than the cannon shells. Gravity accelerates all projectiles downwards at the same rate regardless of caliber, and the heavier shells of the cannons will mostly have a better ballistic coefficient than the lighter MG bullets (because doubling the dimentions of a projective quadrubles its cross section but increases its volume eight times) which means the cannon rounds lose speed slower and fly farther than similarly shaped and equally dense MG bullets (that's why you can fire a 105mm howitzer shell a distance of 11 km, but can't do the same with a bullet from an M1 Garand despite the latter having almost twice as high muzzle velocity). Even if the cannon rounds start out with a slightly lower muzzle velocity they can actually catch up to the MG bullets over the course of their trajectory.

 

Generally speaking, the autocannon will have slightly flatter trajectories than the MGs, not the other way around.

Edited by Finkeren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 37 mm AT guns on the Ju 87, IL-2 and LaGG-3 are the extreme examples in BoS with their high muzzle velocities and 600 - 700g projectiles. If you try the out against the MGs you'll notice they have visibly flatter trajectories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 37 mm AT guns on the Ju 87, IL-2 and LaGG-3 are the extreme examples in BoS with their high muzzle velocities and 600 - 700g projectiles. If you try the out against the MGs you'll notice they have visibly flatter trajectories.

 

I made an effort to answer a post ?   So have you answered the OPs Post ? Or do you want to just  prove your Point ?

And you wonder why our  Simming is declining ?... Lots of unhelpful "Know alls" that will throw up charts and Graphs without helping anybody. Like you !

Thanks for your constructive and helpful response . (sarcasm)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter. It still doesn't make the MG bullets fly faster than the cannon shells. Gravity accelerates all projectiles downwards at the same rate regardless of caliber, and the heavier shells of the cannons will mostly have a better ballistic coefficient than the lighter MG bullets (because doubling the dimentions of a projective quadrubles its cross section but increases its volume eight times) which means the cannon rounds lose speed slower and fly farther than similarly shaped and equally dense MG bullets (that's why you can fire a 105mm howitzer shell a distance of 11 km, but can't do the same with a bullet from an M1 Garand despite the latter having almost twice as high muzzle velocity). Even if the cannon rounds start out with a slightly lower muzzle velocity they can actually catch up to the MG bullets over the course of their trajectory.

 

Generally speaking, the autocannon will have slightly flatter trajectories than the MGs, not the other way around.

Gravity accelerates all projectiles downwards at the same rate regardless of caliber:...... Does it ? I think you better change E=MC Squared !

Ever heard of VECTOR mate ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made an effort to answer a post ?   So have you answered the OPs Post ? Or do you want to just  prove your Point ?

 

If you look at post #5 you can see that I actually did answer his question. The answer was pretty much: "Nope, you can't adjust the height of the sight, and yeah it kinda sucks, when you're trying to hit something at a deflection angle, but you're really no worse off than RL WW2 pilots."

 

The other discussion stems from the OPs casting doubt about whether or not the ballistic trajectories in BoS are realistic, and I argued that they are.  

 

Then you came in with the strange claim, that the autocannon rounds suffer greater bullet drop than MG rounds, and I argued that this is not the case.

 

Where's the problem?

Gravity accelerates all projectiles downwards at the same rate regardless of caliber:...... Does it ? I think you better change E=MC Squared !

Ever heard of VECTOR mate ?

 

Please do enlighten me as to why I'm mistaken about gravity accelerating all objects with mass at the same rate (To my knowledge gravitational acceleartion on Earth can vary slightly with altitude and latitude but not from object to object)

 

I'm most curious to hear about that.

Edited by Finkeren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do I raise the point of impact for the mg / cannon sight? Did the devs incorporate this into the sim?

Really tired of firing in a turn while my tracers are way under my nose in a turning dogfight.....any gun sight has the means to raise line of sight to meet point of impact.

 

 

If you really want to raise the point of impact, (so your projectiles remain above your line of sight for longer) just extend your harmonization range.  That will sharply increase the trajectory of the projectiles but at the same time, increase the projectile spread at ranges closer to your aircraft.  What is your current convergence range?  If you have it set too close, hitting targets at extended ranges becomes very difficult because the projectiles drop down below your flight path very quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flight Sims and Gun Buffs....the subject is always fevered!!! Luv It! Anywhoo....thanks for getting me on the straight & narrow. I've worked with 3 convergence figures to determine what works for me- 140, 180, 230, 320.....longer distance convergence for straffing ground targets.....with most sims, 180 yards seemed to work well in my AC experience with 1946 and BoBII WoV...Naturally that number should be doubled for ground attack scenerios.  I've found that (in a tight turning engagement with speeds of about 230 mph) when I see my target enter the lower part of the amber sunshade, that's about the time to send some rounds down field.  Roger all of the input....its does the body good to see a topic alot of us ponder~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Fink ,where did the Op mention "Level Flight" ? read his post again. NOPE !..IF I have a sandbag under my rifle I can hit a  "STATIC"  target out to 600 m. Can I do it whilst hes moving.?

How often do we have combat in LEVEL Flight ? All your numbers are meaningless !

It doesn't matter if the OP mentioned level flight. The convergence is set for level flight whether he wants them to be or not. Deviating from level flight or having a moving target changes your aiming point.

Flight Sims and Gun Buffs....the subject is always fevered!!! Luv It! Anywhoo....thanks for getting me on the straight & narrow. I've worked with 3 convergence figures to determine what works for me- 140, 180, 230, 320.....longer distance convergence for straffing ground targets.....with most sims, 180 yards seemed to work well in my AC experience with 1946 and BoBII WoV...Naturally that number should be doubled for ground attack scenerios.  I've found that (in a tight turning engagement with speeds of about 230 mph) when I see my target enter the lower part of the amber sunshade, that's about the time to send some rounds down field.  Roger all of the input....its does the body good to see a topic alot of us ponder~

I have found 270 seems to work well for me for most AC. I have learned to hit bomber and ground targets out at around 700-800m by aiming high. And thanks Fink, for the tip of the vertical stabilizer trick. I'm gonna try that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at post #5 you can see that I actually did answer his question. The answer was pretty much: "Nope, you can't adjust the height of the sight, and yeah it kinda sucks, when you're trying to hit something at a deflection angle, but you're really no worse off than RL WW2 pilots."

 

The other discussion stems from the OPs casting doubt about whether or not the ballistic trajectories in BoS are realistic, and I argued that they are.  

 

Then you came in with the strange claim, that the autocannon rounds suffer greater bullet drop than MG rounds, and I argued that this is not the case.

 

Where's the problem?

 

Please do enlighten me as to why I'm mistaken about gravity accelerating all objects with mass at the same rate (To my knowledge gravitational acceleartion on Earth can vary slightly with altitude and latitude but not from object to object)

 

I'm most curious to hear about that.

Finkeren. I hope you accept my apologies. I had a bad Day, I was drinking and my Tone was Rude to you. I am sorry mate. ~S~

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finkeren. I hope you accept my apologies. I had a bad Day, I was drinking and my Tone was Rude to you. I am sorry mate. ~S~

 

No problem at all :) We all say things in a way we wish we hadn't once in awhile.

 

I'm curious though: Do you actually think there's something wrong with what I said about the influence of gravity on projectile trajectory?

 

I'm not a RL shooter myself, and if there's something wrong with my perception of it, I'd like to correct it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ballistic coefficient (air resistance) will tell us how fast the round will decelerate until it tumbles.

 

Higher mass objects have more gravitational pull and can accelerate object faster.... But it's such a small difference for most earthly objects that it doesn't matter. 

 

An object with more mass will be harder to change direction with gravity/force due to inertia.... (Hence lighter grain bullet affected more by wind)

Edited by 361fundahl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ballistic coefficient (air resistance) will tell us how fast the round will decelerate until it tumbles.

 

Higher mass objects have more gravitational pull and can accelerate object faster.... But it's such a small difference for most earthly objects that it doesn't matter. 

 

An object with more mass will be harder to change direction with gravity/force due to inertia.... (Hence lighter grain bullet affected more by wind)

Anyone care to argue with a man from TEXAS about guns 'n stuff?? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ballistic coefficient (air resistance) will tell us how fast the round will decelerate until it tumbles.

 

Exactly, and when we compare two similarly shaped and similarly dense rounds, the larger one will have a better BC.

 

Higher mass objects have more gravitational pull and can accelerate object faster.... But it's such a small difference for most earthly objects that it doesn't matter. 

 

This I don't agree with. It's true that an object that has more mass relative to cross section will accelerate faster and have a higher terminal velocity, but that's purely because of lower drag relative to gravitational pull, not because of the gratational pull itself. In a vacuum the accelleration will excatly the same no matter the mass, desity or form of the object (on the Moon a feather and a bowling ball fall at precisely the same acceleration and have no terminal velocity - except for the speed of light :unsure: )

 

 An object with more mass will be harder to change direction with gravity/force due to inertia.... (Hence lighter grain bullet affected more by wind)

 

This is true for wind, yes (though in the case of projectiles fired from a plane, they are not really affected by wind except as drift)

 

But for gravity, this is not true. The gravitational acceleration is the same regardless of how much mass the object has, only the drag from the surrounding air is different.

Edited by Finkeren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay.... So you are telling me a black hole will accelerate you at the same speed that the moon will towards its center?

 

Why do you weigh less on the moon?

 

You accelerate towards the ground slower on the moon because it has less mass to pull you with.

 

When you jump you are also slightly trying to pull the Earth towards you.


Yes, two objects in a vacuum on the same planet will fall at a similar rate. That is because the gravitational pull on them is similar because they are on the same planet. The Earth's mass is causing the acceleration... (The spin is involved too I believe)


Gravity is not a constant... I had a problem with that in school growing up because they taught it as a constant.

 

Time is affected as well apparently

Edited by 361fundahl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with all that, but nothing you said there is in conflict with anything I wrote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good lord.........!

 

What has E= mc² to do with acceleration speed of gravity >.>

 

S = 1/2 * a * t²    WAY

S'= V = a * t       SPEED

S''=V'=a = g       ACCELERATION

 

Sure is g dependent on the place where you are, on earth it can be seen as constant though.

 

BUT: do you see any mass in this most important 'rule' of physics? Well, I don't..

The only thing that prevents things from falling with same speeds is air resistance.

 

to fundal: well, if you would put 2 earths next to each other that increased gravitational pull would probably be measurable  :P  (would it...? What about action/reactio evening that out.. not even sure anymore..will give that some thoughts later :D )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But for gravity, this is not true. The gravitational acceleration is the same regardless of how much mass the object has, only the drag from the surrounding air is different.

 

Let's take air/drag out of the picture.... I believe you will have different acceleration depending on the masses involved... Hence the reason you fall to the ground slower on the moon than the Earth. (Moon less dense/less pull)

 

Can you explain how gravitation acceleration is constant but different between the earth and moon? (I'm not saying that to be rude)

Yes it can be seen as a constant for a certain area if you limit resolution.... But the fact is gravity has been seen to NOT be constant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more mass the more gravitons....


That vaccum experiment doesn't prove anything except that we aren't seeing enough resolution to see the difference and/or the mass change isn't great enough to observe.


It's really obvious guys, if you read and think about what I'm saying....

Edited by 361fundahl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are trying to find the molecules in the cinderblock hurtling at your head. It's Physics 1a, not string theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you can look at gravity as a constant on earth for ease of computation and you likely will have enough resolution to get your desired result.... But gravity IS dependant on mass which DOES affect acceleration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I see where you're coming from. In principle you're correct, but since the Earth outweighs even the heaviest projectile in BoS by a factor of more than 10 to the power of 24 (i.e. is more than 1000000000000000000000000 times more massive) the projectiles pull on the Earth is going to be so miniscule, that the difference in accelleration between the heavier and the lighter projectile is going to be not just insignificant but completely imposible to even measure with current technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes!!! That's exactly what I'm saying and I feel much better hearing it explained that way. Thank you


People get stuck on the vacuum experiment in school and then falsely say that mass doesn't affect gravitational pull


I was so bothered by it in school because it didn't make sense to the space scenarios in my head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is: You'd normally completely ignore a factor that is imeasurably insignificant.

 

It's a funny discussion, but for the purpose of BoS it's enough to assume gravitational acceleration to be constant (even though it technically isn't) because there's insufficient changes in altitude or latitude to justify to have it change in the simulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...