Jump to content
ST_Catchov

FC gun convergence.

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said:

 

Why don’t you test the SE5a ?

 

 Surely it has the most obvious, or most likely seen, horizontal adjustment, and if it does, is the convergence set, in the game, by adjusting the trajectory of both guns or just one (Lewis?).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pick a number, any number, between...300m works for me with Vickers .303

 

I guess we all want this to work as expected but it just doesn't seem to. 

Time probably better spent learning effective sight pictures and muscle memory - where the bullets are going at different deflection angles and G loads. QMB with time slowed down is good for this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, US103_Baer said:

Pick a number, any number, between...300m works for me with Vickers .303

 

I guess we all want this to work as expected but it just doesn't seem to. 

Time probably better spent learning effective sight pictures and muscle memory - where the bullets are going at different deflection angles and G loads. QMB with time slowed down is good for this.

 

 

This is kind of the way I'm looking at it.  After my own tests, it doesn't really matter to me if it is working, or if I am just making my own adjustments without noticing.  I'm easily hitting targets at the ranges I want to be able to hit them- so good enough for me...wherever they've set it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2020 at 7:28 PM, US93_Talbot said:

https://youtu.be/UtmnBqxjiWk

 

Recordings are slowed down to 75% speed. On its face it seems to be no difference. Certainly a difference between VBG and .303.

 

Case closed. Thanks Talby. If anything (using .303), I think you did marginally better with the 100m convergence setting. But I put that down to the alcohol. Steadies ones nerves what!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2020 at 10:03 AM, unreasonable said:

 You can plot it in the ShootersCalculator.com which is the one I used, adjusting the inputs for a Vickers.  Similarly, you can plot in the angle of fire relative to the horizontal into the calculator.

Which bullet (type of bullet) is taken into account in the calculation of this calculator?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, -DED-Rapidus said:

Which bullet (type of bullet) is taken into account in the calculation of this calculator?

 

Any type you want - have a look. You can choose a preset, but also alter any of the parameters manually.   Fact is it makes no difference - the trajectory change between zeroing for 100m and 1000m should be easily visible to the naked eye, as it is when you change the convergence on one of the BoS 109s.  In the FC planes it is not.

 http://www.shooterscalculator.com/ballistic-trajectory-chart.php

 

 

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, US63_SpadLivesMatter said:

Are you firing the 109's 8mm alone without the cannon?

 

Yes. Check it yourself - all you need is a 109 on the runway in QMB. Fire the MGs with convergence at 100m and 1000m - the difference in the trajectories vs the gunsight reticle is clear and obvious. Only takes a couple of minutes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

Yes. Check it yourself - all you need is a 109 on the runway in QMB. Fire the MGs with convergence at 100m and 1000m - the difference in the trajectories vs the gunsight reticle is clear and obvious. Only takes a couple of minutes.  

 

I don't care that much.  I'm hitting at all ranges- no fix needed.  ;)

 

I was just curious because I expect the cannon would arc even higher, and couldn't tell trom your pics if it was there or not.

Edited by US63_SpadLivesMatter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah I'd rather just know if it works or not so people don't waste time chasing a number that does nothing. But at this point we pretty much know the answer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, US63_SpadLivesMatter said:

 

I don't care that much.  I'm hitting at all ranges- no fix needed.  ;)

 

I was just curious because I expect the cannon would arc even higher, and couldn't tell trom your pics if it was there or not.

 

Actually the cannon is higher if you use the MG151/20, although the 15mm version actually fires flatter than the MG17s - heavier shot making up for slightly lower MV. Easy to see 100m vs 1000m difference when you fire the cannon alone: but then someone would say in FC we only have MGs .... ;)    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know, zero adjustments and ballistic arcs were modeled in ROF, and seem to be here as well, as far as convergence referring to the armament on our modeled aircraft, that is a matter of having your point of aim coincide with the projectiles point of impact at a specified range, the convergence is where those points are identical, it is a purely vertical adjustment made at the time by placing washers under the mounting bolts for the aircraft's guns and was very limited due to the fact the projectiles must pass between the propeller blades,therefore no horizontal adjustment was possible and minimal vertical adjustment or propeller strikes would occur.The British .303 round and German 7.92 or 8mm are not very dissimilar rounds and share a fairly common .30 cal. ballistic arc,this means that when zeroed at 50m the projectile will meet the point of aim at 50m ,however as is common with most 30. cal. rounds the arc brings the projectile to the same point of impact at 300m.Therefore a 50m and 300m convergence will literally yield the same point of impact.Understanding this, and that between 50 and 300m the point of impact will be higher than point of aim, while beyond 300m the point of impact will be below the point of aim, may help explain why some adjustments to convergence may appear to make little difference in point of impact.Whatever convergence or zero you set , stay with it and learn the different deflection shots and lead you need to make hits and after repetition it will become instilled.Just my two cents, for what it's worth.An interesting theory was brought up to me regarding the current damage model comments, could the projectiles we have modeled in the game possibly be closer to ww2 .50 cal rounds and that is the reason for the number of hits that cause catastrophic damage to be lower than seems reasonable, along with the excessive loss of control wires? Additionally along that train of thought couldn't a fix to the damage each 30. cal round does by reducing it, would solve current damage model concerns and be applied only to the ww1 aircraft without affecting the other ww2 aircraft in the game. Thereby restoring playability and enjoyment for those of us who prefer the first war stuff.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@J5_Mueller

Interesting thought but have you seen how many hits it takes to bring down Fokkers now? 

Some fights tonight incl, I think with yourself, are cases in point. There is a huge disparity between planes in how much damage they can take. Look on the parser at the amount of damage rounds Fokkers are taking vs Spads for example. The former can take huge numbers of hits and still fight on with hard turns or diving away hard. The latter taking a few hits and then suffering catastrophic secondary damage.

 

Lessening the .30cal round impact isn't going to address that difference.

Edited by US103_Baer
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Perhaps you are correct, I don't know.I think that constructive feedback to the developers even to the point of offering suggestions is very much preferable to what we are currently seeing with most of it amounting to nothing more than complaining and people discontinuing play along with the side affect of discouraging any new players from coming  into the very small multiplayer community.I for one would love to see more patches with improvements to the current state of the game along with a Channel map and new planes,however it's seems a bit of a rock and a hard place if most of the player base , refuses to fly or quits altogether then new players are less likely and the low income stream will discourage any further development of the ww1 genre.I will stick it out and fly anyway because I still enjoy it and I'm thankful there are others who feel the same way, sorry to go off topic, what was that about convergence? oh yeah, it's when your bleeding out wounded  with a plane falling apart around you facing 6 to 1 odds and one of the attackers still manages to run into your plane lol and  still fault you for the collision  hmmm, now that's some convergence alright. :)

Edited by J5_Mueller
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2020 at 4:48 PM, J5_Mueller said:

As far as I know, zero adjustments and ballistic arcs were modeled in ROF, and seem to be here as well,   <snip>

 

Vertical adjustments are not modelled in FC, as you could check for yourself in less time than it took me to write this post.  

 

The Vickers in WW1 used a Mark VII bullet, 174 grain, 2440 ft/sec MV, ballistic coefficient .467  https://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/518839

 

Put that into a ballistics calculator, an assumed sight height of six inches, G1 Drag function.  (Or you can use G7 where the bullet maintains it's speed better at very long range.  http://www.shooterscalculator.com/ballistic-trajectory-chart.php  

 

That sight height is my guestimate for the Aldis, but you could just look along the iron sights. 

 

The bullet zeroed for 100yds (minimum in the GUI) does go above the sight line between 100yds and 200yds but never more than half an inch, which would be impossible to determine in game.  At 500 yds it will drop 57 inches below the LOS.   If you set the zero to 500yds the bullet goes 25 inches above the LOS at 275 yds and passes the LOS (again) at 500 yds. 

 

This difference - 2ft at the highest point  and nearly 5 ft at 500yds - is clearly visible if you carry out the exercise in the game using the nose mounted MGs in the 109 F-2 -  similar bullet, rifle calibre - as shown in the screen shots, or anyone can check for themselves in five minutes.  It is not visible in the Camel - or the SPAD or Fokker D.VII

 

There is no vertical convergence modelled in FC.    

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, J5_Mueller said:

it's seems a bit of a rock and a hard place if most of the player base , refuses to fly or quits altogether then new players are less likely and the low income stream will discourage any further development of the ww1 genre.

 

If the developers don’t engage with the players and the player experience (gameplay between online and offline does differ) then it really is the only form of protest that might make them sit up and pay attention., if only they would cast a glance in this direction.  It hurts everybody, mainly the players, whether they suspend their playing of the game, or not.  i really miss teaming up with Oliver88, Zatch and the others for an evenings fun, and yes I probably hurt myself more than the developers but I fail to see what else I can do to try and get the message over to the producers.  Don’t worry though, I’ll get over my sulk, eventually, and come back tail between my legs, not that the developers, or anybody else, for that matter, will notice.

 

My one hope, at the moment, is that MSFS 2020 has enough wiggle room to allow for CFS style add-on’s and the developers of OFF take up the torch with an updated engine and VR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of the suggestions have given way to complaints due to the lack of feedback.  When the players hear nothing, even a simple recognition of the current issues, it becomes clear to them (correctly or incorrectly) that the game is no longer being worked on; and that their suggestions will come to nothing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too much panty-wetting going on here.

It's getting like some of us want our own personal dev team to keep us updated after every meeting.

They've jigged the DM with each of the last updates, and I expect they're not finished yet - as well as being fully aware of the current chatter.

They really can't be accused of not being interactive with us. I've never known anything like it, then again I'm not a gamer..aside from this of course.

Maybe we've actually been spoiled in that department down the years, and with that our expectations have become a bit unrealistically high ?

 

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread is about lack of convergence on the wwi crates. It's pretty much confirmed until officially confirmed that there is no difference in setting sights near or far.

 

I've been moving them all about after this and after the video I made. Makes no difference. 

 

Getting good gunnery practice in! +++

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, US93_Talbot said:

It's pretty much confirmed until officially confirmed that there is no difference in setting sights near or far.

 

Lol I'll really wet my panties if they say anything at all about anything let alone convergence (or lack thereof). This is the FC forum. It deserves silence until we all go home through lack or loss of interest. The problem child is then not a problem.

Edited by ST_Catchov
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2020 at 4:17 PM, US103_Baer said:

Interesting thought but have you seen how many hits it takes to bring down Fokkers now? 

Some fights tonight incl, I think with yourself, are cases in point. There is a huge disparity between planes in how much damage they can take. Look on the parser at the amount of damage rounds Fokkers are taking vs Spads for example. The former can take huge numbers of hits and still fight on with hard turns or diving away hard. The latter taking a few hits and then suffering catastrophic secondary damage.

 

Pertinent Baer very pertinent. Now, I see @unreasonable is enjoying (well reveling really) the cut and thrust of a .50 cal discussion over in WW2_JasonWorld, and it got me thinking. Since we inherit the undesirable affects of WW2_JasonWorld updates on FC, why not embrace it. Give the Vickers and Lewis guns .50 cal ammo. Simple. Easy to do and solves the Fokker tank issue.

 

Is it a goer? What do you think? Unreasonable? 

 

Central pilots need not respond.

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...