What's your convergence?

[ShamrockOneFive]

I've got mine set at 270 meters. I figured that was my best range for a wide variety of purposes back in IL-2 Forgotten Battles days and it's still my ideal convergence now.

 

It works out to 295 yards which is 5 yards off the US Navy standard at the time so it works fairly well for wing guns.

[Props]

19 hours ago, Rjel said:

 

I think that's a fallacy that has been around a long time. If both aircraft are at a similar wing level attitude and given the distance even the outermost gun is located from the centerline on a P-51, if your convergence is set to 200m your guns will still pepper a 190 or 109's wings to the point of failure. The picture below states the sighting target for a 250 yard convergence to be set 1000 inches in front of the fighter. That's about 83 feet. The bullet stream at it's outermost will only be about 14 feet apart. It'll be less obviously as the distance to the target increases. The only time the bullet stream spreads out so much that one might shoot around a target is at longer ranges.

 

I agree to some extent to your comments, but when one is within less than 100 feet and directly behind the target fighter those wings are very thin and even a small angle off can send most of your rounds above and below the wing and this is what I see in practice in GB. Sure I see a few hits but nothing that is substantial. When I get that close it's time to peel off to avoid collisions so a quick rudder kick and a bank away during my last squirt usually produces more damage, especially to the the fuselage which is generally my preferred target area anyway and I can see rounds from the guns on one wing or the other doing the serious damage as rounds from the other wing guns are off target and on there way to killing some farmer's cow in the pastures below. Aiming for centerline fuselage, or in the case of bombers centerline engine nacelles, usually guarantees hits somewhere on the aircraft. If the enemy is turning in front of me in a full profile I can do a lot of damage to the wings in close just like you point out. Most of my experience with this applies to the P-51 admittedly and I also hate to waste ammo, so most of my shooting is short bursts unless I can hold a good tracking solution in a turn, so I have to make those .50 cal rounds count. In the Tempest I use super short squirts and those 20mm just shred away anything in front of me with great satisfaction on my part. 

 

I do not spend anytime while aiming thinking about the technical aspects, I use my inherent shooting sense, practice a lot of deflection shots and treat it like clay pigeon shooting. I don't claim to be the best shot in the sky, but I do alright against the AIs?, real humans are a lot tougher, duh!

 

I did play with a convergence of 100m but that did not really help much when I get in real close and made my ground strafing and bomber attacks less effective so I finally settled on 200m for any wing mounted AC. 

 

Side note: reading many accounts of flyers in the Pacific lately it seems that the US Navy and Marines leaned towards a 400 yd. convergence, with unit variations obviously, in the Wildcat, Hellcat and Corsair on average which seems a little far for my style of flying, but seemed to serve them very well in that theatre. Not sure about the USAAF fighters though.

Edited February 13, 2022 by Props

[40plus]

400 for air combat,  600+ for ground attack

[56RAF_Roblex]

I use 200m because that seems to be the point where I most often find myself opening fire naturally unless I am taking a desperation shot from long range.  It probably comes from a long history of flying British fighters where the Mgs are not really that effective unless you shoot at convergence.  At 200yds it is quite easy to use the rings of the British gunsight to estimate when you are at the correct range for 109s, 88s and 111s without having to reset the wingspan bars for each. Yes I know 200m is nearer 220yds but if you are gaining on your target, reaction time and closing speed means you will usually be at 200yds within a second.

[KodiakJac]

I've been running my convergence at 350m, but think I'll try the 230m number that everyone is coming up with ?

[percydanvers]

I'm constantly agonizing about this. Right now I seem to be having good results with 250m, which is a pretty good average of all of the ideal convergences of all of the aircraft and I can't seem to remember to adjust it for the plane I'm currently flying. Anything with wing mounted MGs (spitfires, mustangs, p-40s, etc) you generally have to use 200m, and in ground attack you want the range a little longer, so I just split the difference and go with 250.

 

I mostly fly 109s though, and there the 400m convergence is really excellent because it gives you convergence at both 200m and 400m. 

 

 

[Jaws2002]

On 2/12/2022 at 4:03 PM, Avimimus said:

I wish there was a way to hard-code historic convergence... it'd be interesting to see in a sim of this fidelity.

Well, It wasn't locked in place in real life, so why would it be locked in game? The vertical convergence was also useful to zero the guns, if ammo performance changes. 

Edited February 14, 2022 by Jaws2002

[[CPT]Crunch]

 I do believe one of the upgrades to the game not so long ago was locking the AI into historical convergence, they used to use the same setting the player selected, which was sort of a disaster for certain plane match ups.  Think hurricane spraying .303's beginning at 700 meters until empty.  It was a very good and necessary fix.  The AI was confused in deflection shooting also since it was using your convergence specs with different trajectory ammo, was quite noticeable.  Not so much any more, so convergence does make a difference, it's vital to good gunnery, especially for beginners and those who aren't naturals. 

 

 

[percydanvers]

1 hour ago, Jaws2002 said:

Well, It wasn't locked in place in real life, so why would it be locked in game? The vertical convergence was also useful to zero the guns, if ammo performance changes. 

 

I myself wouldn't want it hard coded but having the option to set specific convergences for different planes would be majorly nice

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

230 meters I think. 

[Avimimus]

2 hours ago, Jaws2002 said:

Well, It wasn't locked in place in real life, so why would it be locked in game? The vertical convergence was also useful to zero the guns, if ammo performance changes. 

 

Well, often it was locked in as a result of orders  Pilots often couldn't pick their own convergences.

 

Also, I'd want some type of hard-coded presets so that I could quickly select a historical convergence without having to change vertical and horizontal convergence for each gun individually (perhaps for different units/time periods?)

[the_emperor]

For your interest some historic convergence settings four the Bf109 G5/6 and Yak-3 (probably combarable to Yak-1b;7/9)

 

Edited February 14, 2022 by the_emperor

[[CPT]Crunch]

That's quite revealing on how far out they set the gun pods as compared to the internal guns.  Kind of confirms their primary usage was meant to reach out and touch bombers from afar.  Would be nice some day to have that ability for this specific planes set up.

[Tipsi]

420 ?

[the_emperor]

 

 

14 minutes ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

That's quite revealing on how far out they set the gun pods as compared to the internal guns.  Kind of confirms their primary usage was meant to reach out and touch bombers from afar.  Would be nice some day to have that ability for this specific planes set up.

Indeed, and beeing able to set horizontal and vertical convergence for invidual guns... I realy dont understand why that is not in the game since its predecessor already had that option. The current mode beeing able to only set the same convergence (horizontal and vertical alike) for all guns is still the same setting as in the first IL-2 series...

[[DBS]TH0R]

220m for most fighters, 270m for ground attack role. With IL-2 I may even bring it up to 300m. But most of the time I fly with 220m.

 

Now I have to try 230m... ?

 

On 2/12/2022 at 6:21 PM, Rjel said:

 

I think that's a fallacy that has been around a long time. If both aircraft are at a similar wing level attitude and given the distance even the outermost gun is located from the centerline on a P-51, if your convergence is set to 200m your guns will still pepper a 190 or 109's wings to the point of failure. The picture below states the sighting target for a 250 yard convergence to be set 1000 inches in front of the fighter. That's about 83 feet. The bullet stream at it's outermost will only be about 14 feet apart. It'll be less obviously as the distance to the target increases. The only time the bullet stream spreads out so much that one might shoot around a target is at longer ranges.

 

 

If only we had gun harmonization so that not all guns point to a single point in front of the plane, then this above picture would apply in-(this)-game as well.

[Rjel]

1 hour ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

220m for most fighters, 270m for ground attack role. With IL-2 I may even bring it up to 300m. But most of the time I fly with 220m.

 

Now I have to try 230m... ?

 

 

If only we had gun harmonization so that not all guns point to a single point in front of the plane, then this above picture would apply in-(this)-game as well.

I thought that was exactly what we got a couple of patches ago? The guns on USAAF fighters were changed to a box type pattern instead of the pin point pattern we’d had from the beginning. Is that not the case? 

[357th_KW]

The dispersion of the AN/M2 was increased to match historical data, but they are still set to a point convergence.

[Rjel]

3 hours ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

220m for most fighters, 270m for ground attack role. With IL-2 I may even bring it up to 300m. But most of the time I fly with 220m.

 

Now I have to try 230m... ?

 

 

If only we had gun harmonization so that not all guns point to a single point in front of the plane, then this above picture would apply in-(this)-game as well.

 

2 hours ago, VBF-12_KW said:

The dispersion of the AN/M2 was increased to match historical data, but they are still set to a point convergence.

 

This from the 4.064 update.

 

10. M2. 50, M2 .30, Browning .303, Hispano Mk.II, Hispano Mk.V, Vickers Class S, M4 machine guns and cannons installed on aircraft (including turreted weapons) have their dispersion corrected according to newly found reference data;

 

Unless there is some graphical representation shown sometime of the bullet pattern, I guess it's all supposition. To me though, dispersion by it's very definition doesn't mean the bullets are all going to a single point. Since that patch though, firing the .50s at crossing targets has seemed to garner me more hits with very short bursts. I've been using 270 meters (about 300 yards) which has been effective. I think though, reading the many comments that so many are using 230 meters I think I'll give it a try.

 

 

[Gambit21]

On 2/12/2022 at 1:03 PM, Avimimus said:

I wish there was a way to hard-code historic convergence... it'd be interesting to see in a sim of this fidelity.

 

Nope that's about the last thing you'd want 'hard-coded' as there's not such thing as "historic convergence"

"Edit" Although I see now that you said "pre sets" meaning the pilot would be able to choose more than one...which would be OK I suppose.

 

Despite 230 meters/250 yds being common, this is not necessarily the only harmonization parameter that was utilized by 8th and 9th Air Force squadrons during the war nor by the RAF.

At times it might be set differently by the Group or Squadron CO, and other times according to pilot preference, or the focus of the Fighter Group itself. P-47's would often have their guns harmonized to out beyond 350 meters. (250 is a bit tight for ground attack)

 

This chart shows 2 convergence patterns just for the Jug alone, and this is without any modifications by the pilot.

Some pilots wanted as much of a "point" convergence" as possible...others stuck with more of a 'shotgun' pattern.

 

 

There was the "manual" and what actually happened in the field. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 15, 2022 by Gambit21

[the_emperor]

Here is an  examples from a FW 190 manual that show, that vertical conversion does not always match the horizontal conversion as it is currently in the game, and should be a an option for us to change indivually:

[Yogiflight]

2 hours ago, the_emperor said:

Here is an  examples from a FW 190 manual that show, that vertical conversion does not always match the horizontal conversion

Interestingly this mainly counts for the gondola guns. The wingroot guns have their horizontal crossing only 50m further away than the vertical convergence.

[the_emperor]

1 minute ago, Yogiflight said:

Interestingly this mainly counts for the gondola guns. The wingroot guns have their horizontal crossing only 50m further away than the vertical convergence.

Yep, same for the D-9. Probably because  the gondolas were for engaging heavy four engined bombers, though have not seen the horizontal convergence for the BF109 gondola settings

[354thFG_Rails]

Best advice I can give to most is go in quick mission with icons on and see when you are starting to fire on a target. It’s a good starting point to adjust after that. I’ve been running 320 meters for all aircraft. I find this is the best balance for air combat and ground attack. I don’t like switching between convergences because it throws me off from what I’m used to for my sight picture. I used to run 270, I upped it because I’m flying the P-47 for the whole month. 

[Crocogator]

What do people use for the la5?

[[CPT]Crunch]

I've done that in the past, put the pause button on a controller so you can hit it as soon as you open fire, pause and than turn on the icons and see the range, examine angles and the bullet stream, it works much better if your not actively seeing, tracking, or using the known displayed range.  You might be surprised at what the reality is, and not what you thought or tried to make it.

[Gambit21]

It's an interesting topic, but historically I just set to 230 for most aircraft and then I learn to compensate on either end of it without thinking about it.

It's messing with/changing it around that screws you up.

[BlitzPig_EL]

I've run mine at 300 meters forever.  Works for me.

[S10JlAbraxis]

Good question, I always wondered about this topic.  I set mine to 250 and leave it there for all air-to-air missions.  For missions where most of the action will be ground strafing, I set it to 400 since it makes it easier to hit ground targets at the best convergence without needing to get too close to the target/ground.  While flying into a ground target is a very effective way to take it out it is not particularly beneficial to the pilot's health!

[KevPBur]

I may well be wrong but I thought most pilots didn't get a plane asigned to them uniquely. The exeption being senior officers.

In this case I would assume all planes within a unit would have the same convergence as otherwise every time you went up you'd be guessing when to fire.

 

I also assume that changing convergence on a plane is not a 5 minute job for ground crews in the field and a lot harder than for us in the pre-flight screen.

 

Therefore, I would assume that although it is perfectly possible to alter convergence on any plane in the same way you can adjust your car headlights. In reality I would expect there to have been a consistant and common convergence, perhaps plane type and intended usage and would remain constant to pilot training.

[=GW=seaflanker819]

I hate vertical convergence, why I cant set vertical and horizonal separately?

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, KevPBur said:

I may well be wrong but I thought most pilots didn't get a plane asigned to them uniquely. The exeption being senior officers.

In this case I would assume all planes within a unit would have the same convergence as otherwise every time you went up you'd be guessing when to fire.

 

I also assume that changing convergence on a plane is not a 5 minute job for ground crews in the field and a lot harder than for us in the pre-flight screen.

 

Therefore, I would assume that although it is perfectly possible to alter convergence on any plane in the same way you can adjust your car headlights. In reality I would expect there to have been a consistant and common convergence, perhaps plane type and intended usage and would remain constant to pilot training.

 

There was no “all the time”

I’ve already mentioned a few examples how it worked much of the time.

 

Pilots in the 8th and 9th Air Force normally flew the same aircraft each time, which means most (but not all) of the time. Newer pilots were assigned whatever aircraft was available for a given mission. 

 

[the_emperor]

@KevPBur indeed, changing such things is not a 5 minute Job and as easy as in the game (same for Loadout settings). A newly assigned rookie would not likely have any say in how his plane would be set up. But higher ranks did indeed change convergence/loadouts/ammo belt composition for the squadron according to the mission profile and experience. The manuals give us a default setting at which everyone could and should be able to set up the plane and operate it.

But as  we are each ower own commodore, we should be able to set our plane  up to our liking, except maybe in a campaign where, we lack the rank.

In quick missions/Multiplayer those settings should be open for us. Not having such an option, to set up each gun individually (and choose our ammo) feels a bit outdated for a combat sim in 2022.

Edited February 15, 2022 by the_emperor

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

22 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

That's quite revealing on how far out they set the gun pods as compared to the internal guns.  Kind of confirms their primary usage was meant to reach out and touch bombers from afar.  Would be nice some day to have that ability for this specific planes set up.

 

I was playing around with this last night in QMB - player vs. 2 flights of 4 bombers.   640m (700yd) is the farthest out the ranging sight goes on the Spitfire and for targets expected to stay on-course and not move too much, it's a very safe and effective range to shoot from.  Works pretty well with the Mustang D too, but visual ranging is a bit more guess work.   

 

Obviously, it doesn't work as well in close, turning combat as you have to hit with one wing or the other. That said... hitting an enemy fighter with 3x .50 cal. straight-on close range or any one-wing salvo from any plane that should have very good one-wing hitting power (Spit, 47, 51 etc.) seems way underpowered.  Sometimes I swear that if the enemy plane is close inside the convergence range, the bullets phase right through the target or are nerfed for power the same as bullets that hit a target well-beyond the convergence point. 

I recall seeing at least one P-51 pilot interview (I forget which pilot) where they stated that they were so close to the target, they had to adjust their aim to purposely hit with only one wing worth of guns. The pilot also said that even though it was half the firepower, at that range with .50s, it didn't matter.   I would imagine that this would apply to ANY plane with decent damage output in the wing guns, but it doesn't seem to be the case at close or point blank ranges. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

In shooting rifles or handguns the vertical point of aim/impact is called your elevation or "zero", any variation to the left or right is termed "windage". There is of course no convergence when shooting a single weapon.  I bring this up because I am having trouble with the term "vertical convergence". Convergence is a separate thing from the vertical, or distance, zero of the weapons.  It's a bit pedantic I suppose, but being a firearms enthusiast, and former competition shooter (back when my eyes were a lot younger) it's just something that bugs me a bit.

[Irishratticus72]

12 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

In shooting rifles or handguns the vertical point of aim/impact is called your elevation or "zero", any variation to the left or right is termed "windage". There is of course no convergence when shooting a single weapon.  I bring this up because I am having trouble with the term "vertical convergence". Convergence is a separate thing from the vertical, or distance, zero of the weapons.  It's a bit pedantic I suppose, but being a firearms enthusiast, and former competition shooter (back when my eyes were a lot younger) it's just something that bugs me a bit.

Grassy knoll much? 

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

In shooting rifles or handguns the vertical point of aim/impact is called your elevation or "zero", any variation to the left or right is termed "windage". There is of course no convergence when shooting a single weapon.  I bring this up because I am having trouble with the term "vertical convergence". Convergence is a separate thing from the vertical, or distance, zero of the weapons.  It's a bit pedantic I suppose, but being a firearms enthusiast, and former competition shooter (back when my eyes were a lot younger) it's just something that bugs me a bit.

 

Same, but in context here it was easier to stick with convergence, and in the field I think they just said “harmonized?”

[[CPT]Crunch]

5 hours ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

 

I was playing around with this last night in QMB - player vs. 2 flights of 4 bombers.   640m (700yd) is the farthest out the ranging sight goes on the Spitfire and for targets expected to stay on-course and not move too much, it's a very safe and effective range to shoot from.  Works pretty well with the Mustang D too, but visual ranging is a bit more guess work.   

 

If your familiar with the Mk 8 style sight the Navy used, it's excellent with wing guns, but you can use the same principle on any sight.  You use the angled lines as your wing gun path, keep one of the angled lines center mass on your close up target and let her rip, you won't miss. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

6 hours ago, Irishratticus72 said:

Grassy knoll much? 

 

Nah, that's far too obvious.

 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2022 by BlitzPig_EL

[SCG_Tzigy]