Jump to content

(Hopefully not so complex) Complex Gun Harmonisation


Recommended Posts

I'm well aware the work behind implementing a complex gun harmonisation system is fairly massive and it's unrealistic to expect it any time soon in the sim.

 

As I understand it the ballistics calculation for each range setting has already been computed and are available for us to select every 10m across all the aircraft. Unfortunately the current system puts aircraft with multiple wing mounted guns at a significant disadvantage as their firepower is trained at a single, perfect point in the sky.

 

My suggestion would be to allow such planes to select a "Pattern Harmonisation" check box where by they would select their convergence range as usual but this would only be applied to the inboard guns. The sim would then set each preceding outboard gun at a further (e.g.) 50m of convergence.

 

Example:

P47

400/350/300/250   250/300/350/400

 

I've made some fairly sweeping assumptions about how the current system works but I'm hoping this is something that would be much easier to implement and would create the desired effect.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

That wasn’t really how harmonization worked. The guns were set so their dispersion created overlapping circles. Indeed they were all not fixed to fire exactly at the same point. More like a shotgun than a rifle. Whether or not IL-2 does this, I don’t know. 

3C5B2903-8E44-4CF7-9C90-C5A7D07218C5.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that. In sim currently we have point harmonisation where all the guns are trained at a certain point.

 

Creating historically accurate harmonisation would be a massive challenge for the dev team. I thought this solution would get us close to the "shotgun effect" utilising the calculations already available.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure there is some dispersion built in. Sit on a tarmac and fire six or eight .50's and they do not all follow the same path. Unless you are dead on to your convergence you are getting spread either becuse the bullets have not merged yet or are past the point of merging. I do think the tail gunners need to have more dispersion on their flexible mounts FWIW.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course yes, there is a level of dispersion built into the guns. But as it is it's very minimal at normal ranges and regardless it's completely different to gun harmonisation. If you fire outside of the current convergence from dead 6, the rounds will only impact the wings, which are a very small target from the rear and you're unlikely to score many hits.

 

With the way it's implemented currently you are restricted to a very narrow window where the weapons are their most effective.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think just opening up the dispersion gives you largely the same effect for less programming work as dispersion is already a value they work with. Plus it would benefit (in a properly negative way) the above mentioned flexible mounts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a 'per gun' dispersion of a small amount, and if you overheat the guns from firing for too long, the dispersion appears to increase substantially, at least to me.

I suppose you could get crude pattern harmonization by increasing the dispersion but I'm not sure it would make the same effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

I think just opening up the dispersion gives you largely the same effect for less programming

I've suggested this as well. Looking at the reference in the files, it does appear to be too low. 

 

I think it would have a similar effect, however you would still be quite limited unless you increased the dispersion levels unrealistically. Overheating the guns does increase dispersion but also reduces the muzzle velocity massively so the guns become even more ineffective. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, what the Devs modelled is the dispersion of a gun on a fix mounting on the ground, not a gun in a flying propeller aircraft with all the vibrations of a high power propeller aircraft. I also support HerrMurf's oppinion, that guns which can be moved by the gunner, should have a much larger dispersion. Yes, they are mounted, too, but they are mounted in the middle of the gun and the most dispersion gets caused by the ammunition belt getting drawn in from the side and the running bolt of the gun, both behind the mounting. And those aircraft guns didn't have shoulder rests to control them with the body. So the fix mounted turret guns, like in the B25/26 for example should definitely be shooting more precisely than the guns of the Ju88 or He111 or Pe2 and all the ground attackers.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2021 at 8:45 AM, Yogiflight said:

I think, what the Devs modelled is the dispersion of a gun on a fix mounting on the ground, not a gun in a flying propeller aircraft with all the vibrations of a high power propeller aircraft. I also support HerrMurf's oppinion, that guns which can be moved by the gunner, should have a much larger dispersion. Yes, they are mounted, too, but they are mounted in the middle of the gun and the most dispersion gets caused by the ammunition belt getting drawn in from the side and the running bolt of the gun, both behind the mounting. And those aircraft guns didn't have shoulder rests to control them with the body. So the fix mounted turret guns, like in the B25/26 for example should definitely be shooting more precisely than the guns of the Ju88 or He111 or Pe2 and all the ground attackers.

 

Very much agree that turret guns should be much more accurate than others.  Turret guns were developed with a lot of work and valuable resources for the very reason of providing greater accuracy.  I would suggest that the accuracy of defensive guns should be toned down a lot if they are not turret guns.  I think that this would be more logical and realistic.

 

Another factor producing poor accuracy for defensive guns is the effect of gravity on a gunner trying to operate a gun while his aircraft is manoeuvring if he is not in a turret.  In-game defensive gunners not in a turret are crazy over the top accurate in away impossible in real life IMHO.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

 

Edited by ACG_Talisman
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please add it so that pairs of guns of the same type can be adjusted to have separate convergence ranges so that gun harmonization can be done. This would also be a request for allowing planes with cannons and MGs to be set at the same or different ranges. I cannot imagine that this would be too hard to implement, as preferably it would just be different range slider (like the ones we already have) for each pair of guns in wings or for each different weapon type. So for a 109, yak, or spitfire each pair of MGs would have their own slider and the cannon or pairs of cannon their own slider for range adjustment. For a planes like the P-51 or P-40, each pair to .50cal machine guns would have their own slider.

 

This should be added for the following reasons:

 

1) IRL each pair of guns was adjustable to different ranges, and pilots were known for sometimes adjusting these to whatever they desired.

 

2) Harmonized convergence of guns was the standard in American aircraft and its current omission plays a large role in the under performance of the fifty caliber as a weapons system in the game. Gun harmonization would make it easier (realistically so) to get hits on targets and reduce the need for extreme range precision. This is because harmonization places each pair of guns to converge at a different range which creates a bullet cloud with different percentages of rounds passing though a certain space instead of what we have right now in the game which is all of the guns aiming at a single point. Additionally, the creation of this shot gun effect not only results in a better chance of getting hits in general, but also results in a greater dispersion of hits across the air-frame of the target.

 

3) This is a clear cut historical inaccuracy in the sim

 

harmony2.jpg

  • Upvote 2
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...