Convergence.

[Praetor]

Is there any way to adjust it right now?  It's killing me not to be able to adjust it.  Both horizontal and vertical.

 

 

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

I don't think thats been turned on yet. From the looks of it, it will be like ROF just a slider no horizontal or vertical, that is all in one.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Blackwolf

[SharpeXB]

Why would you want horizontal and vertical convergence set separately?

[naiboo]

I´m ok with 200m. I don´t think i´ll change it once you are able to do so.

[Leaf]

Why would you want horizontal and vertical convergence set separately?

Personally I would use the closest possible/no vertical convergence. 

Say I have set vertical convergence to 300m, that means that if the enemy is farther away, I would still have to aim above it, whereas if the target is fairly close, say 100m, then I would actually have to aim underneath it.

Personally, this confuses me a little; if I have my sights on something close, then I don't really want to aim underneath it. 

I'd rather learn how much I would have to aim above the enemy for each unit of distance between us, than have one "sweet spot" but aiming complications outside or within that particular convergence.

Matter of taste of course, I guess it's just a personal quirk of mine.

[LLv44_Mprhead]

I think I would adjust it a bit, but as long as we don't have 190 it doesn't make that big a difference...

[Praetor]

Vertical convergence is good for your cannons if you're on someone, you don't have to lead them as much.  In a 109 that turns like a rock, it can help you in a quick turn with an EZ mode Yak.

[SharpeXB]

Personally I would use the closest possible/no vertical convergence.

Say I have set vertical convergence to 300m, that means that if the enemy is farther away, I would still have to aim above it, whereas if the target is fairly close, say 100m, then I would actually have to aim underneath it.

Personally, this confuses me a little; if I have my sights on something close, then I don't really want to aim underneath it.

I'd rather learn how much I would have to aim above the enemy for each unit of distance between us, than have one "sweet spot" but aiming complications outside or within that particular convergence.

Matter of taste of course, I guess it's just a personal quirk of mine.

Was that ever done historically?

I know different aircraft had various solutions for this. For example British planes were originally set at 400 yards to attack bombers, they didn't think fighter vs fighter combat was likely. I heard one Spitfire pilot comment he had his guns set deliberately close.

The P-51 was "harmonized" at the factory and not adjustable by the pilot, certainly due to its advanced gunsight. I haven't heard of h and v convergence set differently though.

Horizontal convergence is obviously more important with wing mounted guns, which most WWII planes had.

Edited July 4, 2014 by SharpeXB

[Gambit21]

The P-51 was "harmonized" at the factory and not adjustable by the pilot, certainly due to its advanced gunsight. I haven't heard of h and v convergence set differently though.

Horizontal convergence is obviously more important with wing mounted guns, which most WWII planes had.

P51 ground crews adjusted/set gun convergence all the time.

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

I think the H and V convergence is more for the wing mounted cannons. You can set H and V the same for MG's nose or close mounted and change it up for the bullet drop of a bigger cannon in the wing. I'm no expert, just my thought on it.

[PostumusAgrippa]

Vertical convergence has advantages and disadvantages no matter what the setting, while horizontal convergence is just more of a tactical choice.  For example, while on a fighter I would definitely want horizontal convergence set at 200-300 meters for shooting down other planes, flying a plane like the Il-2 it would be more advantageous to set convergence at 400-800 meters for attacking ground targets.  A longer convergence for ground attack allows you to open fire sooner, which is good because it is much easier to aim at ground targets which are either stationary, or moving in a straight line at relatively low speed.  It also reduces the risk of pancaking.

 

Vertical convergence, on the other hand, is either "on" or "off", set so that the bullets actually arc upwards from your plane, descending through your target at the set range.  Depending on whether your target is closer or farther away than your set convergence distance, you will either have to aim above or below the target to hit it.  If the target is closer, you have to aim below it, so that the bullets actually shoot up through it.  However, the distance that you have to aim above a target that is farther away than your convergence distance will be less with vertical convergence than without, potentially making deflection shooting easier by reducing the necessary lead.

 

The main benefit of vertical convergence in my opinion isn't that you can aim directly at what you want to hit if it is at the convergence point, but that multiple guns of varying caliber, velocity and arc can be synchronized to hit at the same point.  So, for example, if a target is at the set vertical convergence point, and you fire at it with both your machineguns and cannon, all of the shells will hit on average in the same area.  Without vertical convergence, even with compensation for bullet drop, the higher velocity machinegun rounds are going to hit higher up than the cannon rounds.  In a situation like a chase, where the aspect of the target is the smallest, that can mean that either your machinegun bullet stream will go high, or the cannon rounds go low, completely missing the plane with half of your fire.

[SharpeXB]

P51 ground crews adjusted/set gun convergence all the time.

According to DCS the P-51D's gun harmonization (the term convergence isn't correct) was not changeable. It was set to work with the K-14 gunsight which was a gyro computing device. There were different charts used to adjust them but the sighting pattern was set.

[Sokol1]

Why would you want horizontal and vertical convergence set separately?

 

Maybe due different vertical trajectories for MG and cannons...?

 

http://i60.tinypic.com/2n99ndc.jpg

 

Sokol1

Edited July 4, 2014 by Sokol1

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Why wouldn't you set all of your guns to the same convergence? I wouldn't set my cannon to 300m and my wing guns to 200m and/or with diffferent vertical convergences. All you really need is to set the overall (horizontal) convergence and let the program calculate/determine the drop/vertical. You want the bulk of your rounds to strike the same point for maximum impact.

 

I think this type of customization is a hold over from CloD. It was nice to play with the different convergences in that game but not really necessary or historically accurate. The other thing that is rediculous is selecting custom ammo load-outs. No pilot got to say every third bullet was this, every fifth bullet was this, and every tenth bullet was that. The loadout is the loadout as dictated by command (or in our case the pull down menu). I know some units pulled the tracers for tactical reasons. The convergence is set by the manufacturer.

 

Maybe a top ace could do this but I find it very unlikely the average pilot could dictate such things.

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

Good point Murf but I'd would guess you would want a longer range on the MG's and a higher one on cannons to count for the drop so that if you did fire all at once the would hit in the same spot. Or you could hit first with the MG's then use that to walk your cannons to your target. Again I'm an armchair pilot so I don't know. thats my best guess.

[PostumusAgrippa]

Why wouldn't you set all of your guns to the same convergence? I wouldn't set my cannon to 300m and my wing guns to 200m and/or with diffferent vertical convergences. All you really need is to set the overall (horizontal) convergence and let the program calculate/determine the drop/vertical. You want the bulk of your rounds to strike the same point for maximum impact.

 

I think this type of customization is a hold over from CloD. It was nice to play with the different convergences in that game but not really necessary or historically accurate. The other thing that is rediculous is selecting custom ammo load-outs. No pilot got to say every third bullet was this, every fifth bullet was this, and every tenth bullet was that. The loadout is the loadout as dictated by command (or in our case the pull down menu). I know some units pulled the tracers for tactical reasons. The convergence is set by the manufacturer.

 

Maybe a top ace could do this but I find it very unlikely the average pilot could dictate such things.

 

1.  Pattern convergence vs. Pinpoint - on planes with high caliber cannon, sometimes the guns were tuned so that they converged in a patterned spread (I.E., converged at different distances in both horizontal and vertical) at the convergence distance, instead of converging in as small a circle as possible.  This is because it isn't necessary for more than one or two 20/30mm shells to land in the same exact spot in order to destroy the target, so a spread actually increases the chances of a kill.

 

2.  Ground crews could certainly set the convergence distance, and I'm sure the guns were periodically zeroed back in after X sorties or Y number of rounds fired, so it isn't really a stretch to let people select their own distance.

 

As far as inputting a single number for both planes of convergence, great idea, as long as there is also a checkbox to turn vertical convergence on and off.

[SR-F_Winger]

I´m ok with 200m. I don´t think i´ll change it once you are able to do so.

I would certainly experiment. Especially with the FW around the corner it becomes important.

For the BF 109 however its negligible. The guns are so close to each other anyways. To be able to change vertical convergence would come in handy here.

[Creepermoss]

1.  Pattern convergence vs. Pinpoint - on planes with high caliber cannon, sometimes the guns were tuned so that they converged in a patterned spread (I.E., converged at different distances in both horizontal and vertical) at the convergence distance, instead of converging in as small a circle as possible.  This is because it isn't necessary for more than one or two 20/30mm shells to land in the same exact spot in order to destroy the target, so a spread actually increases the chances of a kill.

 

2.  Ground crews could certainly set the convergence distance, and I'm sure the guns were periodically zeroed back in after X sorties or Y number of rounds fired, so it isn't really a stretch to let people select their own distance.

 

As far as inputting a single number for both planes of convergence, great idea, as long as there is also a checkbox to turn vertical convergence on and off.

The horizontal convergance is adjusted by physically adjusting the gun's mounts, I have no idea why you think doing the same thing vertically wouldn't be the same. Adjusting the windage on a rifle's sights doesn't alter the elevation, you have to adjust it seperately. A crew adjusting the guns would have to set the vertical convergance manually, just like the horizontal. A checkbox for "on or off" makes little sense, I have a feeling you pulled this straight out of War Thunder.

Edited July 4, 2014 by [JG2]Creepermoss

[Matt]

The planes that really suffer from the lack of convergence settings now are the Il-2 and Ju-87. Pretty tough to attack vehicles with 200 m convergence, especially with the BK37 on the Stuka.

 

I don't think i would change it for any of the current fighters.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Matt

[=LD=Hethwill]

I might be a bit overboard but harmonization doesn't care about horizontal and vertical elements.

 

As a basis your max convergence point is defined by ballistics, right ? A big area in front of your plane where all the projectiles converge in a close pattern both in width and height.

 

Harmonize the guns for a closer convergence point and there you go. A more dense pattern both in vertical and horizontal planes.

 

But some models had indeed some tiny degree of vertical adjustment apparently, and well documented and not only the ground crews tinkering

 

IIRC .50 cals and .30 cals ( and similar slug shots ) had their maximum convergence at 400m - 450m.

 

Personally give me 180m at max. Works perfect when in fighting through rolls and tumbles.

Edited July 4, 2014 by =LD=Hethwill_Khan

[Gambit21]

According to DCS the P-51D's gun harmonization (the term convergence isn't correct) was not changeable. It was set to work with the K-14 gunsight which was a gyro computing device. There were different charts used to adjust them but the sighting pattern was set.

Ground crews did it routinely - I even have pictures of them doing it. 

Either you misunderstand what DCS says, or DCS is incorrect. Further, a lot of the Mustangs were retrofitted with the K14 in the field.

Crews often changed the harmonization to fit the pilots needs - not every pilot wanted a large box dispersion at 300yds, which was the factory setting.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Do you have sources for, "Crews often changed the harmonization to fit the pilots needs"?

 

Crews often maintained and sighted in the weapons, yes, and there are tons of pictures of aircraft on turnstiles or field jigs doing that. Routinely changing the factory settings at a pilots whim is highly unlikely. It is counterintuitive from a military standpoint and the maintenance officer would have a cow.

 

I don't mind changing convergence in the game. I set the Mustang in '46 at 212 yards at a teammate's suggestion and ran the Fw at 185 to great success in fortress hunting after some experimentation but to say any of that is historically correct is, well.........incorrect.

 

Aircraft were set so that the gunsite was used as a sort of rangefinder. When the wingtips were at a point within the gunsite your convergence was (approximately) correct.

 

No one explains it better than Dart:

 

 

Edited July 4, 2014 by A1FltTrn=HerrMurf

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

PS I really hope Dart comes over to BOS. I'd like to meet him and pick his brain. Anyone know him?

[Gambit21]

Do you have sources for, "Crews often changed the harmonization to fit the pilots needs"?

 

 

It's knowledge I've had for a long time from a lot of different sources over the years - pretty common knowledge honestly if you're into this stuff.

,

I'm sure I could find reference if I cared to look. 

I've interviewed my share of P51 pilots from the 352nd as well as other squadrons (book project) and have notes on the subject as well.

The pilots were not "stuck" with the factory setting, they had a choice

and especially with the more experience pilots and better marksmen, that factory setting was sometimes changed. I can't speak to how often, or

by how many pilots. Across the entirety of the 8th and 9th Air Forces however, it wasn't exactly rare.

Quite a few pilots preferred a closer convergence - 200 or 250 yards. P47 pilots often had the guns converging at a much further distance due

to strafing - 800 to 1000 yards or more after the K14 was in common use.

 

No I don't thin any pilots were going "hey Chuck, I'd like to try 212 yards today - make it happen"

 

This is fairly well documented and doesn't take much research, even on the web which lacks much of the info.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Gambit21

[SharpeXB]

Ground crews did it routinely - I even have pictures of them doing it. 

Either you misunderstand what DCS says, or DCS is incorrect. Further, a lot of the Mustangs were retrofitted with the K14 in the field.

Crews often changed the harmonization to fit the pilots needs - not every pilot wanted a large box dispersion at 300yds, which was the factory setting.

There's obviously a big discussion on this subject over on the DCS forum. They know everything about that plane, it's all explained there.

[Gambit21]

There's obviously a big discussion on this subject over on the DCS forum. They know everything about that plane, it's all explained there.

I got the same impression from the pilots I interviewed.

[=CFC=Conky]

Hello all,

 

With respect to HerrMurf's comments re convergence settings on the 190, I downloaded a FW190 manual a while back. It was WW2-era and in German. Anyway, to make a long story boring, the convergence for the nose/inner wing cannon was 400m and if I recall correctly, the outer cannon were set to 450m. Or was it the other way around?

 

In IL2 1946 I usually set the convergence for nose mounted weapons to 400m. For wing mounted guns I usually use 200m except for cannon with little ammo, i.e. 109E, A6M, Spit MKVa, etc. For those kites I use 150m and try to get in close. 

 

For moving mud I use 400m.

 

Hmmmmm, I wonder if we'll be able to bounce .50cal/12.7mm rounds off the ground and into the belly of a Tiger....

 

Good hunting.

Edited July 4, 2014 by CFC_Conky

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Again, there is a huge difference between a unit, whose multi-role mission is primarily strafing, changing the convergence as a unit to fit the mission and a statement that imply's individual pilots could change their harmonization. We've had arguments over these types of generalizations before. I just don't think the broad statement is historically accurate and unless you are a Gentille, Galland or Sakai, I don't see it happening. A specific counter example is in the Pacific where naval aviators were not assigned a specific aircraft until pre-flight. Multi-convergence would been utterly impossible there.

 

But back to the west - any sources?

 

And Conky; good to know re: FW, LOL Tigers and ~S 

Edited July 4, 2014 by A1FltTrn=HerrMurf

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

And we've drifted a bit from the OP by now. The answer is - it's not implemented yet. I don't think convergence will be nearly as complex as was available in that other title. In fact, after firing up the game for 30 seconds I don't see the convergence slider anymore. I may have missed it in my haste. Is convergence adjustable in ROF?

[SharpeXB]

Is convergence adjustable in ROF?

Yes you can set it with a slider, similar to the BoS menu.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Cool, I'm down with a simple slider for this feature.

[MikeDitka]

The planes that really suffer from the lack of convergence settings now are the Il-2 and Ju-87. Pretty tough to attack vehicles with 200 m convergence, especially with the BK37 on the Stuka.

 

I don't think i would change it for any of the current fighters.

 

Absolutely. Would love to set a further convergence for both planes' heavy cannons.

[=CFC=Conky]

Again, there is a huge difference between a unit, whose multi-role mission is primarily strafing, changing the convergence as a unit to fit the mission and a statement that imply's individual pilots could change their harmonization. We've had arguments over these types of generalizations before. I just don't think the broad statement is historically accurate and unless you are a Gentille, Galland or Sakai, I don't see it happening. A specific counter example is in the Pacific where naval aviators were not assigned a specific aircraft until pre-flight. Multi-convergence would been utterly impossible there.

 

But back to the west - any sources?

 

And Conky; good to know re: FW, LOL Tigers and ~S 

 

In IL2 I set the convergence of all guns on the 190 to 400m and it works very well 

[IIN8II]

200 is where I generally set it anyways lol, so I am happy.

[=CFC=Conky]

I guess we'll just have to see how it goes once it's implemented, who knows, maybe 200m is the best setting...

 

Good hunting

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

My settings are always within about 15m of that anyway.

 

Good hunting, indeed.

[PostumusAgrippa]

The horizontal convergance is adjusted by physically adjusting the gun's mounts, I have no idea why you think doing the same thing vertically wouldn't be the same. Adjusting the windage on a rifle's sights doesn't alter the elevation, you have to adjust it seperately. A crew adjusting the guns would have to set the vertical convergance manually, just like the horizontal. A checkbox for "on or off" makes little sense, I have a feeling you pulled this straight out of War Thunder.

 

I get that it would be possible to tune vertical and horizontal convergence separately, but there is no reason whatsoever for tuning them separately in real life (or in a sim), unless you wanted to get a shotgun effect at the vertical convergence point.  A checkbox would simplify the aircraft setup.  Just pretend that the checkbox actually stands for a separate order to the ground crew telling them to synchronize the elevation of the guns with the windage or horizontal convergence.

 

What WOULD be cool, is if there was an option to use pattern convergence.  That way, when we start getting some more heavily armed german fighters (30mm gunpod R-kits), we can turn soviet bombers into confetti in the most efficient way possible.  It would look a bit different than just out of alignment vertical/horizontal convergence though.

Edited July 5, 2014 by PostumusAgrippa

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

And we've drifted a bit from the OP by now. The answer is - it's not implemented yet. I don't think convergence will be nearly as complex as was available in that other title. In fact, after firing up the game for 30 seconds I don't see the convergence slider anymore. I may have missed it in my haste. Is convergence adjustable in ROF?

I'll quote myself.."I don't think thats been turned on yet. From the looks of it, it will be like ROF just a slider no horizontal or vertical, that is all in one."   

Edited July 6, 2014 by Blackwolf

[RydnDirty]

Why would you want horizontal and vertical convergence set separately?

 

Well this image is from the pilot handbook for bf109E1 -E3 

As you can see we would want horizontal convergence and vertical convergence for EACH weapon as they have different weight projectiles with different muzzle velocity  with different trajectory. Also as you can see in this diagram all four weapon converge at a point above the eye line. When the plane is pulling lead on a manoeuvring enemy the target is often obscured below the engine cowling. The convergence above eye light makes it easier to see what you are aiming at while pulling G. vertical convergence is historically important.

 

[RydnDirty]

Looking at this diagram it occurs to me that if you don't use vertical convergence you will have a convergence below the eye line as the bullets and canon start to drop as soon as they are fired.

 

Also they will have a MG convergence just below eye line (red cross) and then below that a canon convergence (blue cross).... The drawing is now to scale but the difference is clear.