Convergence.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

WZ: Except, the inference is, the game will calculate the vertical convergence in relation to your selected HC and we won't need to worry about it.

 

BW: Sorry I missed your quote. Simple oversight.

[RydnDirty]

WZ: Except, the inference is, the game will calculate the vertical convergence in relation to your selected HC and we won't need to worry about it.

 

 

I admire your optimism Murf ! Maybe the devs will set it up the way you like it by default maybe they wont...

This issue is apparent is ROF. The SE5a has a slight nose down attitude in level flight at speed and the gun was given a slight tilt upward to compensate. In real lif the angle of the gun gave the pilot a little extra room to see when he is firing at an enemy while pulling G. Unfortunately devs have set up the bullets flying in line with the fuselage rather than the gun barrel.Apparently the AI uses the fuselage to aim for all planes and SE5 is the only one with angled up gun...

So I don't share your faith that the devs will get it perfect. I love theri work but they could get this wrong. and if we can adjust vert and hori well then who cares cause we can fix it ourselves.

 

I like hands on. I like driving manual... Call me a control freak but I relish the detail and enjoy researching things like this. When I first looked at that diagram there was more going on than I had imagined. I think that taking the time to look it up, understand it and set up my convergence in the way that suits my gunnery, gives me an edge over the guy who just assumes vertical doesn't matter and wonders why hit cant hit anything unless he puts his convergence at 150 m. 

 

Anyway now you have looked at the pilot manual...I'm sure we can both see that historically Messerschmitt thought it necessary to set up different vertical convergence for different calibre weapons. 

[ACG_Kraut]

 

 

 

This is almost exactly how I have my guns setup in CLoD. Vertical convergence for all guns at 450m, horizontal convergence for MG at 450m, horizontal convergence on cannon at 150-200m.

 

I need to be able to do something similar here or my aim will just never be the same again.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I admire your optimism Murf ! Maybe the devs will set it up the way you like it by default maybe they wont...

This issue is apparent is ROF. The SE5a has a slight nose down attitude in level flight at speed and the gun was given a slight tilt upward to compensate. In real lif the angle of the gun gave the pilot a little extra room to see when he is firing at an enemy while pulling G. Unfortunately devs have set up the bullets flying in line with the fuselage rather than the gun barrel.Apparently the AI uses the fuselage to aim for all planes and SE5 is the only one with angled up gun...

So I don't share your faith that the devs will get it perfect. I love theri work but they could get this wrong. and if we can adjust vert and hori well then who cares cause we can fix it ourselves.

 

I like hands on. I like driving manual... Call me a control freak but I relish the detail and enjoy researching things like this. When I first looked at that diagram there was more going on than I had imagined. I think that taking the time to look it up, understand it and set up my convergence in the way that suits my gunnery, gives me an edge over the guy who just assumes vertical doesn't matter and wonders why hit cant hit anything unless he puts his convergence at 150 m. 

 

Anyway now you have looked at the pilot manual...I'm sure we can both see that historically Messerschmitt thought it necessary to set up different vertical convergence for different calibre weapon

Any reference to what could or could not be done in CloD is irrelevant. And all guns of different caliber will have different drop just as all bullets of the same caliber but different grain will have different drop. I'm sure the P-39 and La5 had a similar convergence setup.I bet the Fw 190 was a nightmare with different caliber weapons at three different mounting points on the aircraft.

 

It should be important to note that I have yet to hear a single complaint about the convergence (until spread issues after the last update or two ago) in the 109 or La5. But none about the vertical convergence between weapon types, for sure. At this point I think it is fair to say the vertical convergence is calculated already. So, I think your concern is demonstratively unfounded.

 

The problem with the SeE5a is unique to that particular platform. I can't think of any fighter we will fly with the main guns that far off center, vertically. You should fight that battle in a ROF forum.

 

Not being hostile but to put it simply, it's (adjustable vertical convergence) just not going to happen in this game.

[ACG_Kraut]

Any reference to what could or could not be done in CloD is irrelevant. And all guns of different caliber will have different drop just as all bullets of the same caliber but different grain will have different drop. I'm sure the P-39 and La5 had a similar convergence setup.I bet the Fw 190 was a nightmare with different caliber weapons at three different mounting points on the aircraft.

 

No, my reference to CLoD is not irrelevant, it is an example of what is an absolutely necessary feature and how to easily implement it. Your examples of aircraft with different caliber guns is precisely why we need both Vertical and Horizontal convergence settings for each gun on the aircraft. It's simple, you have a chart when you select your load out: 

Gun 1 (MG):  Y Vertical    |    X Horizontal

Gun 2 (MG):  Y Vertical    |    X Horizontal

Gun 3 (CNN):  Y Vertical    |    X Horizontal

Gun 4 (CNN):  Y Vertical    |    X Horizontal

etc

etc

 

There done, not that hard.

 

"Calculated" vertical convergence is simply not OK by any standards, and it will always be incorrect. Did you even look at the chart above with the actual convergences in real 109s?

 

Just because you don't use it (or don't see the importance of it) doesn't mean it's not a critical feature.

It is simply not possible for your aircraft to perform properly if you convergences are completely out of wack, you are kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

 

Another critical feature that goes along with this is being able to select exact ammo types on your belt. Currently, there are way, way too many tracers on the belts for example. Like 1 tracer every 5 rounds on each gun. This is ridiculously inefficient. I normally run one tracer every 20-30 rounds, and only in one gun.

 

PS. The P39 would have had multiple convergences as well. Vertical only for the nose mount 37mm, and then separate Horizontal and Vertical settings for the 12.7mm and 7.62mm guns.

Edited July 6, 2014 by 4./JG26_Kraut

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

No, my reference to CLoD is not irrelevant, it is an example of what is an absolutely necessary feature and how to easily implement it. Your examples of aircraft with different caliber guns is precisely why we need both Vertical and Horizontal convergence settings for each gun on the aircraft. It's simple, you have a chart when you select your load out: 

Gun 1 (MG):  Y Vertical    |    X Horizontal

Gun 2 (MG):  Y Vertical    |    X Horizontal

Gun 3 (CNN):  Y Vertical    |    X Horizontal

Gun 4 (CNN):  Y Vertical    |    X Horizontal

etc

etc

 

There done, not that hard.

 

"Calculated" vertical convergence is simply not OK by any standards, and it will always be incorrect. Did you even look at the chart above with the actual convergences in real 109s?

 

Just because you don't use it (or don't see the importance of it) doesn't mean it's not a critical feature.

It is simply not possible for your aircraft to perform properly if you convergences are completely out of wack, you are kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

 

Another critical feature that goes along with this is being able to select exact ammo types on your belt. Currently, there are way, way too many tracers on the belts for example. Like on tracer every 5 rounds on each gun. This is ridiculously inefficient. I normally run one tracer every 20-30 rounds, and only in one gun.

The only difference is you want to calculate it as opposed to having it calculated for you by the program. It is still calculated to the point of impact regardless of method. You are implying if YOU cant adjust it then it is completely out of whack, which thus far it is not. We are moving closer to the argument Gambit and I had about individual pilots changing their convergence to suit themselves. Only this time it is about doing it in the game as opposed to in the field. I enjoyed that argument, respect him while disrespecting his opinion and learned a little bit about convergence from both him and others. An excellent argument for both of us I think. This argument, however, is more about how two GAMES compare.

 

If the current convergence was completely out of whack there would be a raging tire fire argument about it already. See: Bf 109 rudder for reference.

 

Conky (text) and WZ (diagram) aptly demonstrated the cannons and mg had a different vertical convergence. We don't know if it is modeled this way in the game but probably not. They probably have a single convergence point with some sort of spread.

 

And references to CloD are completely irrelevant as they have no bearing on this game, the GUI, or the developers. Are we going to argue clickable cockpits now?

 

As to tracers, what was the standard for the time period? Not really concerned about what you run in your belts in CloD. I ran NO tracers in Clod, set different ammo types based upon the mission, and changed my convergence for guns in both horizontal and vertical as well. I don't see how that applies to this game. Let's open another thread for tracers, however, if that is your concern because it is drifting pretty far afield from the OP.

 

We can continue to scream at each other but it's not going to solve anything as it just isn't going to happen in this game. The single slider is likely the only option at release and the vertical convergence will be calculated for you to the point of impact. All of your guns (plus calculated spread) will converge in the same general area.

 

The increasingly personal investiture and comparison of games drives us closer to a lock FWIW

Edited July 6, 2014 by A1FltTrn=HerrMurf

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Also, I meant Yak with different weapon types not La5 for convergences but it was too late to edit. And yes, P-39 with three points and three weapon types was probably an even bigger headache. But like the game its just about the maths. Doesn't really matter if we do it or the computer does it. As long as the guns are sighted in properly convergence is still just maths

Edited July 6, 2014 by A1FltTrn=HerrMurf

[ACG_Kraut]

The single slider is likely the only option at release and the vertical convergence will be calculated for you to the point of impact. All of your guns (plus calculated spread) will converge in the same general area.

 

I'm not trying to argue with anyone, I am stressing how important having this feature is, how easy is to implement, and why is unacceptable to not have it. Having all the guns converging in a single point is inefficient and not accurate at any other range than the one set. There is a reason people (historically and in games) set their convergences they way they do.

 

This game is starting too look more and more like a glorified WT by omitting critically important features such as custom convergences and ammo belts among other things. That is not what I payed for. I bought into this as they advertised it as a "sim" and I expect all the features that go along with that.

 

And no, clicky pits are no bother to me, I knew about that going into it and agree with the devs on that one, that it's not so important. Even in DCS I rarely click anything once in the air, that's what HOTAS is for

Edited July 6, 2014 by 4./JG26_Kraut

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

But it was never even implied either of those would be implemented. Fun to tinker with but not absolutely necessary. If your argument is, "The guns historically have different convergences and it should be modeled that way," I'm on board. If your argument is, "I must have this adjustment feature," then I categorically disagree.

 

What is critical to some is not to others and feature creep to still others. It doomed that other title's release and nearly killed a declining genre from a developer's/investor's standpoint.

[PostumusAgrippa]

But it was never even implied either of those would be implemented. Fun to tinker with but not absolutely necessary. If your argument is, "The guns historically have different convergences and it should be modeled that way," I'm on board. If your argument is, "I must have this adjustment feature," then I categorically disagree.

 

What is critical to some is not to others and feature creep to still others. It doomed that other title's release and nearly killed a declining genre from a developer's/investor's standpoint.

 

I think that, from the document posted above showing the separate convergence points (both horizontal and vertical) for the 109, we can safely say that for at least one extremely numerous and important fighter plane of the period, separate convergence points were a thing.  While we don't have a 109 E-3 in game, it wouldn't be a huge jump to speculate that something similar might have been done for later 109's and 190's with cannon pods.

 

So, if it turns out that this was an actual, historical practice, and should therefore be modeled in game, it isn't hard to imagine that a generic convergence system would be programmed, allowing convergence alignment to be made to any gun, since it wouldn't be a duplication of effort to apply the same code to anything that shoots.  This is all speculation, but if I was a programmer, I would want a generic "gun" code object that looks and behaves the same, which I could use variables to make into, say, an MG-17 or a ShVAK.  Adding in two extra fields to the "gun" object as an angular offset from wherever it is mounted would be easier than to have unique MG-17 and MG-151/20 objects with these fields.

 

Assuming some enterprising dev took the time to make independent convergence possible for one plane, which apparently everyone is cool with, that would make it possible to adjust convergence independently for any plane, with just a little copy pasta and a few GUI sliders.

[Capt_Stubing]

Why would you want horizontal and vertical convergence set separately?

Different ammo types for those planes that shoot larger cannon mixed with MGs. larger rounds need more lofting etc.

[PostumusAgrippa]

Different ammo types for those planes that shoot larger cannon mixed with MGs. larger rounds need more lofting etc.

 

Might not be what he's asking.  Assuming that SharpeXB is thinking that a vertical convergence point would be calculated so that all of the MG and cannon rounds end up in the same place, I think he's asking why you would want them to cross the line of sight in the vertical plane at a different distance than the fire streams would cross the line of sight in the horizontal plane. 

 

Good question, and the document showing convergence on a 109 E-3 kind of answers it.  Near as I can tell, in that picture, the aiming point is at 400 meters.  While both MG and cannon are set to converge at 400m in the vertical plane, the horizontal convergence of each is different.  The machineguns have their horizontal convergence set to 400m, so at the aiming point all of the MG rounds will hit the same spot, idealy, which is what you want from low caliber guns - increased density of fire.  However, the cannon have their horizontal convergence set to 200 meters, which means that at the target point, the cannon rounds have a spread about 1/4 to 1/3 the size of a fighter's wingspan.  This is not a bad thing, because the cannon rounds do much more damage than the machinegun rounds, and so diminishing returns from increasing the density of fire happens a lot sooner.  It makes more sense to spread the cannon rounds over the plane to maximize damage.

 

That is why you would want to be able to set both horizontal and vertical convergence for each gun separately.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Also, remember the rounds are on an arc and will pass the vertical plane twice due to angle and gravity. An AR-15 with a sixteen inch barrel does this at 50m and 200m. I think the 20" barrel does it at 50m and 300m but could be wrong, it's been a while. Not sure if this plays a part in the sighting in of aircraft weapons or not. Just a bit of random info for the moment.

Edited July 7, 2014 by A1FltTrn=HerrMurf

[LizLemon]

Bumping this thread because this feature is absolutely vital for people who like to attack ground targets.  Ditto for altering ammo belt composition, but I wont make myself a bother and bump that thread too.

 

This is an important feature. Please add it 777. Pay attention to your market and make good on the Il2 name.

[RydnDirty]

Just tried the FW190 and there appears to be no vertical convergence. Its so clearly not converged that they must have not even looked at this issue yet.  

[Praetor]

No idea why it's set to 500 either.

[VBF-12_Snake9]

Noticed this also.  500 is too far for my liking.  Maybe for attacking bombers?  But still don't like. 

[Gambit21]

500 is perfect for attacking ground targets.

[IIN8II]

I have had a lot of frustrating passes in the 190 landing multiple hits with 4x 20mm and doing little to no damage. Im guessing its a convergence issue. On the flip side it takes almost nothing for the wings to fly off of the 190 but thats a separate issue.

[VBF-12_Snake9]

Just flew some 190 and something is wrong with the cannon convergence.  If you zoom in and follow the tracers, they never meet and cross like they should.  They eventually just fall from the sky without crossing. . . ever.  Maybe they accidently have it at 5000 meters instead of 500 meters.     Makes concentrating fire just impossible.  Like blasting away with a shotgun. 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I haven't experimented yet but from the descriptions it seems there is no convergence set at all, either vertical or horizontal. Sounds like the guns are set to neutral or straight ahead and the physics are correct - they go straight and fall due to gravity. The horizontal convergence wont be much of a problem as the guns are not far off the center line but the vertical would be really noticeable, as described, due to gravity. I won't get to fly until Sunday. Can someone test my hypothesis for me?

[=CFC=Conky]

I try not to over think the gunnery, when convergence is eventually implemented, 400m for nose guns, 150m-200m for wing mounted stuff. End of story.

 

Good hunting,

CFC_Conky

[Gambit21]

Yeah it's not something I've ever thought much about either, and never even thought about vertical vs horizontal convergence for a second - it's just not an issue.

I set the convergence to 230 - 250 meters - I hit my targets - the end.

[MK_RED13]

What´s wrong with FW190 convergence??? Many bullets miss the target due to this error (I think it´s an error)...It's like a shotgun blast

[Matt]

Atleast the cannon rounds go way below the gunsight. They should practically even get above the reticle for some distance and then fall below it again.

 

Iirc the historical convergence for the out wing cannons on the 190 was actually 800 meters. That probably worked when going against heavy bombers. Not sure what options they had to adjust it and to what degree.

[Leaf]

Atleast the cannon rounds go way below the gunsight. They should practically even get above the reticle for some distance and then fall below it again.

 

Iirc the historical convergence for the out wing cannons on the 190 was actually 800 meters. That probably worked when going against heavy bombers. Not sure what options they had to adjust it and to what degree.

 

Personally I hate that; on my plane I'd disable vertical convergence altogether.

[Matt]

Then the bullet would not move upwards at any point and would drop down way below the gunsight, making aiming almost impossible.

 

It has to converge at some point vertically with the center of the gunsight.

[SCG_Neun]

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:

 

 

Thanks for posting....great stuff!

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Giving this one a bump and posting a new thread shortly. As we have entered a final Beta stage prior to release, this is a VITAL topic that has yet to be addressed. Particularly for the Fw190.

[Gambit21]

I'm sure it's on the list of things to address before release.

I'm not worried.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I am.

 

I'm less concerned about adjustable convergence but the historical convergence for all of the aircraft has been an issue since EA started and the Fw neutral or non-convergence has been a thorn for quite a while now. 500m and fixed is wonky to say the least.

[Mikey]

hopefully bomb fuzes and ammo types come out when convergence does

[FuriousMeow]

I am.

 

I'm less concerned about adjustable convergence but the historical convergence for all of the aircraft has been an issue since EA started and the Fw neutral or non-convergence has been a thorn for quite a while now. 500m and fixed is wonky to say the least.

 

Convergence will be adjustable. I'm sure the 190 will also have the inboard 20mms converge at the middle of the site at the appropriate setting. I'm not sure now, I do think the 20mms do touch the 500m convergence point but they drop off very fast after. BUT... HISTORICALLY.... they wouldn't be over Stalingrad. I know, we have a map that will cover the limited operations... I really wish they would have done the MC202 instead, and done the 190 later. I just love the MC.202 and MC.205. I also love the 190, but the attention it has received for this title that really shouldn't have it is fairly disheartening. Certainly a Spitfire, love that plane too!, would be a cry of foul and so would a multitude of several other aircraft - and I love them all.

 

Well, anyway, I am very happy with this title and hope for tremendous success with BoS so the devs can make tons of money, and take a vacation in every amazing place around the globe, and deliver many more aircraft, theaters, enhancements, and etc. I will throw my money at them to see continued development! Even if some of that money goes to them so they can purchase nice things for themselves and their families, live a very nice lifestyle, and <gasp> take wonderful vacations to relax. You wouldn't believe it, but - shamefully - some have thought that last two sentences shouldn't be allowed to happen.

Edited September 6, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

The Fw platform (and all of the aircraft modeled actually) is so narrow I'm fairly unconcerned about horizontal convergence. How wide are the guns? Wing guns maybe 6-8 feet? Nose guns 2-3?

 

The vertical, however, is not modeled on the Fw and the rounds never rise above the tic below center on the sight at any point in their arc. So they start approximately a meter low and continue to fall away from that point due to gravity. They should start that meter'ish low, climb above the center of the sight then fall to the center at the convergence point which is a ridiculous 500m away. I was only able to test the LW fighters this morning before work. The Bf seems to have good convergence and will be my ride in historical servers.

 

I want to test all of the aircraft before forming a proper rant post later.

 

I wish them success, $$ and vacations, sun and tons of alcohol after release. Take a month off, shutter the windows and enjoy yourselves......................then start working on the summer landscape and some other new theatre. My money awaits as well. Overall I am really happy with the development and wish them success and years of additional content.

 

Edited September 6, 2014 by HerrMurf