Gun convergence

[Roland_HUNter]

Hello all!

I already know in the game if u change your gun convergence, it ll be changed in horizontally and vertically.

Can we ask the developers to separate those 2 things? Because I dont like vertical convergence, its useless. I think.

[AndyJWest]

If it is 'useless', why did they do it on the real aircraft?

[Legioneod]

What they really need is separate convergence for each pair of guns, I'd like my guns spread out over the whole aircraft and not converged at one point.

[Gambit21]

2 hours ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

Hello all!

I already know in the game if u change your gun convergence, it ll be changed in horizontally and vertically.

Can we ask the developers to separate those 2 things? Because I dont like vertical convergence, its useless. I think.

 

I don't think you understand what convergence is.

 

 

44 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

What they really need is separate convergence for each pair of guns, I'd like my guns spread out over the whole aircraft and not converged at one point.

 

A 10x10 box pattern was used by some squadrons/pilots...which I'm guessing you already know.

[Roland_HUNter]

Example In real life A-8 FW 190- ad 800 meter horizont, and 300 vertically. But u have to aim high to hit something after 300 meter.

[Mauf]

Completely free gun convergence settings ala CloD should not happen. They are unrealistic and allow very weird settings that could already be described as exploits. For example, you could set the E1 wing MGs to a 1km vertical convergence which allowed you to shoot at planes in turnfights easier. Very gamey stuff and BoX is just too nice to have such crap.

 

I would prefer the current slider plus a pattern selection with point convergence and some box patterns all according to some historical settings. Maybe even limits to what is available according to mission type and the defaults used at the time.

 

Edited November 24, 2018 by Mauf

[AlphaHasen]

On 11/24/2018 at 5:55 PM, Mauf said:

I would prefer the current slider plus a pattern selection with point convergence and some box patterns all according to some historical settings. Maybe even limits to what is available according to mission type and the defaults used at the time.

 

 

I want to fly with historical convergence. But this is currently not possible with the sliders. A separation of the horizontal / vertical convergence would be helpful. For example, the BF 109 E7. (MG H: 400m / V: 400m, MG/FF H: 200m / V: 400m)
Or FW-190-A3. (MG H: 300m / V: 450m, MG151/20 H: 300m / V: 450m)

 

But if you say that the historical convergence is set, then I would have no problem with it. Because the aircraft were delivered according to specifications. Changing the convergence was prohibited.

Edited December 18, 2018 by JG4_RuckZuck

[Ehret]

The split vertical and horizontal convergence settings would  be nice. Not enough, thought - we should be able to set guns harmonization to get results like in the video.

Edited December 18, 2018 by Ehret

[AlphaHasen]

On 11/24/2018 at 4:40 PM, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

Example In real life A-8 FW 190- ad 800 meter horizont, and 300 vertically. But u have to aim high to hit something after 300 meter.

 

Luftwaffenarchiv: FW-190 A6 ( MG H: 300m / V: 500m , MG151/20 H:300 / V: 550m )

 

For example http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/f/FockeWulf/Fw 190/Luft _T_2190_A6_Teil_8A.pdf  page 21.

Edited December 18, 2018 by JG4_RuckZuck

[MiloMorai]

[CrazyDuck]

Two types of P-47 harmonizations: Single point and spread out. Interesting to see how dispersion cones overlap.

 

 

[69th_chuter]

On 11/24/2018 at 8:55 AM, Mauf said:

Completely free gun convergence settings ala CloD should not happen. They are unrealistic and allow very weird settings that could already be described as exploits. For example, you could set the E1 wing MGs to a 1km vertical convergence which allowed you to shoot at planes in turnfights easier. Very gamey stuff and BoX is just too nice to have such crap. 

  

I would prefer the current slider plus a pattern selection with point convergence and some box patterns all according to some historical settings. Maybe even limits to what is available according to mission type and the defaults used at the time.

  

 

 

Actually, in reality there is a physical limit in how much vertical adjustment can be made and the Manual for Fighter Gun Harmonization (AAF Manual 200-1 dated 30 Jan 1945) in Section A par. a (in part) in certain cases it actually recommends this:

 

"In basic harmonization it is of vital importance to obtain as great an angle of visibility as possible over the nose of the aircraft.  To accomplish this, the sight line has to be raised to its maximum, limited only by the amount that the guns can be elevated.  The guns are elevated to their maximum and the sight is set so as to harmonize with the effective trajectory curve.  This method will give the sight its greatest angle over the nose of the aircraft."

 

Unrelated but of note, in the Foreword of the manual an overview of the sources of the data and how it was compiled is given as well as this interesting bit:

 

"The patterns of harmonization contained herein are endorsed by Army Air Forces but may be amended by each individual station in accordance with local conditions to obtain effective fire power."

 

A very neat manual, 40 pages in total, with the basic data, theory and formulae (as in "Formulae for computing the forces on an aircraft when in a pursuit curve in horizontal flight" --wowzers--) for coming up with your own harmonization as dictated by your specific tactical needs as well as the usual basic harmonization charts for the usual fighters (P-38, P-39, P-40, P-47 and P-51) as well as ... the A-26?!.  Yeah, Baby!  The data section also includes charts for the 75mm (nothing about the B-25 ... oddly).

 

 

 

Google:  Manual for Fighter Gun Harmonization 30 january 1945 - AVIA

 

 

Edited December 18, 2018 by chuter

[Ehret]

1 hour ago, chuter said:

Google:  Manual for Fighter Gun Harmonization 30 january 1945 - AVIA

 

From the chart the P-39 37mm and nose 0.50" have similar trajectories so much that after 2000ft distance the vertical difference between them is only 1ft. The historic fame of "the melon launcher" was false then. Perhaps, the slower pacing of visible cannon tracers gave such impression IRL.

[69th_chuter]

On 12/18/2018 at 1:11 PM, Ehret said:

 

From the chart the P-39 37mm and nose 0.50" have similar trajectories so much that after 2000ft distance the vertical difference between them is only 1ft. The historic fame of "the melon launcher" was false then. Perhaps, the slower pacing of visible cannon tracers gave such impression IRL.

 

There are two 37s, the M4 (2000 fps) and M9 (2550 fps).  For comparison, the M2 0.50 M2 AP (2700 fps) has a drop of 104 inches at 1800 ft (zero speed, sea level) compared to 114 inches for the 37 M9 M54 (2550 fps)* and 188 inches for the 37 M4 M54 (2000 fps).  So a, one may say, HUGE difference between the M2 and M4 and I believe most early US experience was with the M4.  Time of flight to 1800, for curiosity's sake, is 0.77 secs, 0.79 secs and 1.02 secs for the M2, M4 and M9 guns respectively for the previously mentioned rounds.  Later in the war 0.50 M8 API became the standard aircraft round and it has notably better performance due to its 2870 fps initial velocity.

 

*I believe this is your reference. 

[Ehret]

39 minutes ago, chuter said:

*I believe this is your reference. 

 

I'm aware about the M9 and my reference is the page 32 section H of the Fighter Gun Harmonization book. The harmonization charts for the P-39Q shows the that synchronized 0.50"s and the 37mm have very similar trajectories - relative drop between them is about 1ft at 2000ft.

 

 

The Airacobra hadn't M9 mounted at any point of time as far I know; there was one Kingcobra prototype, thought. If the guns are set properly the relative drop should be close between the 37mm and synchronized 0.50"s. Of course they will not be hitting at the same time.

Edited December 20, 2018 by Ehret

[69th_chuter]

You're very right about the flight time, at 300 mph at 7000 ft (the chart you show above) the cannon rounds are ending up not that far below the .50s at 2000 ft (note the difference in arc though) but the flight time under said conditions to 1800 ft are 0.41 seconds for the .50s and 0.81 seconds for the 37.  Throw in the rate of fire, 150 rpm, and the 37 was frustrating at range.  The Russians thought it was great, though;  they used it at basically point blank range where flight time and trajectory are less meaningful, something Americans weren't willing to try against Japanese aircraft  --  If you miss or it jams, the Japanese plane is on your tail.

[Voyager]

On 11/24/2018 at 10:55 AM, Mauf said:

Completely free gun convergence settings ala CloD should not happen. They are unrealistic and allow very weird settings that could already be described as exploits. For example, you could set the E1 wing MGs to a 1km vertical convergence which allowed you to shoot at planes in turnfights easier. Very gamey stuff and BoX is just too nice to have such crap.

 

I would prefer the current slider plus a pattern selection with point convergence and some box patterns all according to some historical settings. Maybe even limits to what is available according to mission type and the defaults used at the time.

 

 

Depends on whether it involves the gun moving out of its physical limits. I'd have to dig up references, but modern fighters have their guns aligned with an extreme uptilt, to the point that the aiming point is usually right at the top of the HUD. 

 

Building in a high gun zero is no more gamey than using any other modern era ACM tactics in a WWII sim.