What's your convergence?

[[CPT]Crunch]

Those Fw charts explain a lot, been doing some deep analysis on the them and using the G-8 version which has the nose machine guns deleted and only the two wing root cannons my hit percentages went up reaching 23.8%.  Must have been zoning in on the Mg tracers and their arch before, I'm liking that G-8 set up extremely well.  Meanwhile in the A-6 I've got a 8.8% hit rate, which is the mean average on the box.  Amazing how some of this stuff translates extremely well into the virtual.

[the_emperor]

For the Fw-190 A8

Mg131 zero is 400m

Mg151/20 wing roots zero is 550m convergence is 600m

Mg151/20 outboard zero is 550m comvergence is 400m

 

[CAFulcrum]

Would turn and burn vs boom and zoom make any difference in setting convergence?  It seems like in diving attacks, snap shots are more likely and also taking longer shots, vs a turn and burn where you're able to creep up into range on the enemy in a sustained turn, where you'd be better off with closer convergence.

[Gambit21]

37 minutes ago, CAFulcrum said:

Would turn and burn vs boom and zoom make any difference in setting convergence?  

 

IME no.

The important thing is consistency and developing muscle memory with it. That’s one of the things that enables those instantaneous, no time to think snap-shots. If you’re always messing with it you have no hope.

[Yogiflight]

3 hours ago, CAFulcrum said:

turn and burn where you're able to creep up into range on the enemy in a sustained turn, where you'd be better off with closer convergence.

That is a wide spread misunderstanding. Look at the drawing for the FW 190 A8 @the_emperor posted above. The wing guns' trajectory have a maximum height over sightline of 82cm for the wingroot guns and 84cm for the wing guns at about 350m. At 200m it is still about 40cm. This means you need a lot fewer lead to hit the aircraft you are chasing, than with a shorter convergence setting, which gives you a height about the sightline or below, for shorter distances.

[oc2209]

14 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

Those Fw charts explain a lot, been doing some deep analysis on the them and using the G-8 version which has the nose machine guns deleted and only the two wing root cannons my hit percentages went up reaching 23.8%.  Must have been zoning in on the Mg tracers and their arch before, I'm liking that G-8 set up extremely well.  Meanwhile in the A-6 I've got a 8.8% hit rate, which is the mean average on the box.  Amazing how some of this stuff translates extremely well into the virtual.

 

It's exactly for this reason that I very rarely fire cannons and machine guns together, when the choice is available; typically in the 109 or Yak. I expend cannon ammo first, then machine gun.

 

I've never studied my hit percentages. Rather, I go by ammo expenditure. Less than 30x20mm rounds fired per kill is a good performance, anything over 50 is a poor performance.

 

13mm expenditure is, of course, higher per kill. Generally in the 100-200 range.

[oc2209]

A quick series of 109 vs Typhoon fights revealed the following:

 

100 rounds of 13mm fired; 40 hit; pilot kill resulted.

 

18 rounds of 20mm fired, 3 hit, starboard aileron control destroyed, target crashed.

 

70 rounds of 13mm fired, 23 hit; 28 rounds of 20mm fired, 5 hit; engine fire resulted (impossible to determine which ammo type caused fire; multiple overlapping engine strikes).

 

Small expenditure differences between firing all guns and firing one or the other, but a bullet saved is a bullet... earned... or something.

 

Point is that you burn through a lot more ammo firing everything, with no appreciable efficiency gain.

 

This is made even more evident with the limited guns and ammunition in Yaks. That's where I really learned to count bullets and fire separately; despite the fact that conventional wisdom says 'weight of fire' from firing all guns is the way to go.

[Majpalmer]

5 hours ago, oc2209 said:

A quick series of 109 vs Typhoon fights revealed the following:

 

100 rounds of 13mm fired; 40 hit; pilot kill resulted.

 

18 rounds of 20mm fired, 3 hit, starboard aileron control destroyed, target crashed.

 

70 rounds of 13mm fired, 23 hit; 28 rounds of 20mm fired, 5 hit; engine fire resulted (impossible to determine which ammo type caused fire; multiple overlapping engine strikes).

 

Small expenditure differences between firing all guns and firing one or the other, but a bullet saved is a bullet... earned... or something.

 

Point is that you burn through a lot more ammo firing everything, with no appreciable efficiency gain.

 

This is made even more evident with the limited guns and ammunition in Yaks. That's where I really learned to count bullets and fire separately; despite the fact that conventional wisdom says 'weight of fire' from firing all guns is the way to go.

I agree. If I'm not sure about my aim, I'll fire the MGs. Good shot, only the cannon or everything. I like my fire buttons on my throttle. When you're trying fine maneuvering to get that shot with your right hand on the joystick, I don't like to tense up my index finger. I've had my fire controls on my throttle since Air Warrior. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

The A6M "Zero" had it's trigger on the throttle.

[FTC_Woop]

Do you guys think we'll ever get to be able adjust the horizontal and vertical convergence of each gun separately?

 

I remember I had a really good set-up for the Hurricane there, which created a sort of small 'box' in which all bullets would fall at the selected distance. I found my accuracy dramatically increased when the 'point' of convergence became a larger area.

 

For example with the Hurricane IIb I had the following (in yards), if you imagine that the center |||| is the a/c centerline:

 

250 510 ---
245 500 ---
240 490 ---
235 470 ---
230 430 ---
225 390 ---
|||||||||| >
225 390 ---
230 430 ---
235 470 ---
240 490 ---
245 500 ---
250 510 ---

 

 

[oc2209]

17 hours ago, Majpalmer said:

I like my fire buttons on my throttle. When you're trying fine maneuvering to get that shot with your right hand on the joystick, I don't like to tense up my index finger. I've had my fire controls on my throttle since Air Warrior. 

 

I'd probably agree if I ever had a separate throttle, but since my formative sim years were spent with a simple joystick, I doubt I could unlearn the instinctive desire to smash my thumb into the top of it whenever I want to fire.

 

*Edit: I actually prefer thumb firing to conventional index finger trigger setups.

 

8 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

The A6M "Zero" had it's trigger on the throttle.

 

Yeah, if you hadn't mentioned this, I was going to. Was this common on other Japanese planes too? I have several Japanese fighter cockpit layouts from the Osprey Duel series, but I honestly never paid attention aside from the Zero.

 

I can see the logic in it. Throttle hand is always in the same position, while the stick hand can be in various odd and uncomfortable angles depending on the maneuvers.

 

Only downside is the times when you need both hands to move the stick (in real life, obviously not an issue in a sim). But in those situations, especially in a Zero, that would likely mean the plane was going too fast (stick forces too high) to actually get guns on target anyway.

 

*Edit:

 

I just checked my available books, and the Tony and Frank definitely had triggers on the stick. The George's trigger is not listed as in the other books, but it appears as though it's on the stick as well. Which leaves the Zero as something of an oddity, even among the Japanese.

Edited February 17, 2022 by oc2209

[Majpalmer]

When I started eons ago I had a Sidewinder, or something. I think it was Microsoft.  I'm talking late '90s. It had a slide throttle, and the stick would twist to control the rudder. My poor right hand was flying, managing the rudder, and shooting, while the left hand played with the slider and held the stick in place. 

 

An old Cactus Air Force guy, after shooting me down six times one afternoon, took pity on me and offered me some advice. The first thing he asked was about my controls. He told me to get some damned equipment. He pointed out that if you're working the rudder with your joystick, your wrist doesn't bend as far to the right as it will to the left (unless you're double jointed). And if you're trying to go right, and twist the stick to the right, and shoot ... well, your hand is all tensed up. He said that as you close, and need to make fine adjustments, you want your hand relaxed. As soon as you pull the trigger, your hand starts to tense. 

 

I keep the trigger set up to fire all guns. But I have separate bottoms on the throttle that allow me to fire them individually, or simultaneously. I admit that at times, snap passing shots, I do use the trigger. 

[LukeFF]

14 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

The A6M "Zero" had it's trigger on the throttle.

 

As does the Hurricane with the 40mm cannons. 

[Giggles]

I have just been flying the quirky e7 and f4. I am happy with them... 

 

I had set my convergence to 250/260 and things were a problem for me. Switching to 400 meters has helped alot. 

 

But the question is how close do we need to get to the roughly 640 meters that the red aiming star uses for its calculations?   workign with fighters the 400 meter setting increased hits.

[BornToBattle]

400m across the board

[percydanvers]

I've started setting the convergence out to 600m - is this insane? I've found I like having the rounds a little higher in the sights and I don't collide as much in head-ons, but I'm wondering if I'm not re-wiring my muscle memory to something that's going to handicap me

[javelina]

I generally go with 250 for A2A, and 3-400 for ground attack.

[Reggie_Mental]

On 2/12/2022 at 6:38 PM, Voidhunger said:

No need of convergence with MK108

True, you just need to avoid that cloud of aluminium confeeti you've just reduced your enemy to. 

 

Q. Is FOD ingestion (birds, bits of Yak etc) modelled for the Me 262 JJ004 powerplants?

[Gambit21]

22 hours ago, percydanvers said:

I've started setting the convergence out to 600m - is this insane? I've found I like having the rounds a little higher in the sights and I don't collide as much in head-ons, but I'm wondering if I'm not re-wiring my muscle memory to something that's going to handicap me

 

That's almost 2000' so I'd call that a bit silly...look at the charts above and note the arc of the round.

Yes of course you're setting muscle memory and it undoubtedly will impede your ability to make instantaneous snap-shots effectively...how could it not?

250-350 meters tops...but that's me.

 

[oc2209]

1 hour ago, Reggie_Mental said:

True, you just need to avoid that cloud of aluminium confeeti you've just reduced your enemy to. 

 

Q. Is FOD ingestion (birds, bits of Yak etc) modelled for the Me 262 JJ004 powerplants?

 

I made this kill nice and chunky:

 

Spoiler

 

 

And didn't suffer any engine damage from anything. So I'm betting small debris isn't modelled.

 

However, if a piece of rudder went right into the engine, maybe that'd do something. Haven't flown the 262 often enough to witness anything like that, so it's pure guesswork.

[percydanvers]

18 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

That's almost 2000' so I'd call that a bit silly...look at the charts above and note the arc of the round.

Yes of course you're setting muscle memory and it undoubtedly will impede your ability to make instantaneous snap-shots effectively...how could it not?

250-350 meters tops...but that's me.

 

 

Well part of the logic is that 600m is the only convergence you can pick for FW190s in "other sim" so I was experimenting with making aiming more consistent across the board. So far I've got to say it's not going horribly. I can still hit targets at close range pretty decently, although I do switch to 200m when I'm flying anything with 50 cals

[Gambit21]

4 minutes ago, percydanvers said:

 

Well part of the logic is that 600m is the only convergence you can pick for FW190s in "other sim" so I was experimenting with making aiming more consistent across the board. So far I've got to say it's not going horribly. I can still hit targets at close range pretty decently, although I do switch to 200m when I'm flying anything with 50 cals

 

I see...well maybe it makes sense then. I could be totally off the mark.

Typically you're taking shots (and should be) at much closer ranges, but maybe that's correct/historical for the 190...no idea.

 

[Yogiflight]

7 hours ago, percydanvers said:

I can still hit targets at close range pretty decently,

and you should, because the bullets have to cross your sightline at a short distance on their way up to then fall through your sightline at 600m. The biggest advantage is in deflection shooting, as you don't need as much lead because of the higher curve of your bullets.

[percydanvers]

5 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

and you should, because the bullets have to cross your sightline at a short distance on their way up to then fall through your sightline at 600m. The biggest advantage is in deflection shooting, as you don't need as much lead because of the higher curve of your bullets.

 

Yes exactly! I've noticed I've stopped trying to crane my neck over the nose of the plane to see where my rounds are going and I've pulled off some surprising snap shots on turning enemies with it.

The only disadvantage I've noticed is if I forget to change it when I hop in a Spitfire or a Mustang and my guns are essentially useless. Those ones really need to be set to 200-250 I think.

[Panzerlang]

400m in all my LW planes. Nose only, wing-roots, pods, all the same and no problem smushing stuff. 

[Gambit21]

You’ll get accustomed to whatever your setting is. The general idea is convergence at the point where you’re most likely to engage a target.

 

That said there are so many variables.

Historical accuracy,  guns vs cannons, what types of guns and/or cannons, how many are there, where are they, ground attack primarily or air to air, etc.

 

Personally where air to air is concerned, I want my rounds converging on my reticle at a sensible distance, and I will compensate either direction as needed. If I’m normally engaging at 100-300 meters I sure as shti don’t want my guns sited in at 600. meters...that’s just me.

 

Now a Jabo - different story. I want time/distance to get rounds on target accurately.

 

 

[LukeFF]

Most of those more crazy long distance ranges seen in the German manuals are a reflection of the fact they were going to be engaging heavy bombers. You really don't want to be opening fire at a flight of B-17s at 300 meters. 

[percydanvers]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

Most of those more crazy long distance ranges seen in the German manuals are a reflection of the fact they were going to be engaging heavy bombers. You really don't want to be opening fire at a flight of B-17s at 300 meters. 

 

I'm not sure I really even want to be hitting a fighter at close ranges. It's one thing when you're using machine guns and going for a PK or an engine fire, but when I'm hitting something with explosive cannon rounds and pieces are flying off I tend to get a face full of plane bits as often as not. Hartmann and others said to fire at close range, and they were right but I know Hartmann had to force land several times from this very problem! 

[Yogiflight]

3 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

If I’m normally engaging at 100-300 meters I sure as shti don’t want my guns sited in at 600. meters...that’s just me.

The advantage of the long distance convergence is, although it clearly is thought to attack bombers at long range, but with 600m vertical convergence you will be on point somewhere between 100 and 200m, too, when your rounds cross your sightline for the first time.

Of course this mainly counts for fuselage guns, not for wing mounted guns, because of their needed horizontal convergence.

[Halon]

I settled on 150m quite awhile ago on the basis that a RAF Ace I'd seen on telly recommended getting very close, he also rather ruthlessly mentioned it was the kind of tip he kept to himself.

[56RAF_Roblex]

5 minutes ago, Halon said:

I settled on 150m quite awhile ago on the basis that a RAF Ace I'd seen on telly recommended getting very close, he also rather ruthlessly mentioned it was the kind of tip he kept to himself.

 

I fully agree when flying aircraft with only wing mounted guns, especially if they are weak.  I always used 150-200yds back when I flew early spitfires and hurricanes in BoB maps in CLoD.   With nose mounted guns and with more powerful wing guns such as on the Tempest or P51 I have now increased the range to 300.   

[JG1_Shadepiece]

So I feel like I have a lot of anecdotal evidence that is relevant to this conversation, but if you don't want to read then check this video out. It is a bit dated, but the convergence section shows some good comparisons about horizontal convergence.

 

 

I used to mess with my convergence all the time when I was first getting into flights sims. I used to play Counter Strike (a competitive first person shooter if you are unfamiliar), and I was obsessed with finding the perfect mouse sensitivity. The problem is that completely ruins your muscle memory. The same is true with convergence. If you are moving it around a lot trying to get a feel for where you like it then you are constantly resetting you trained muscle memory.

 

When I realized that I decided that it was time to settle on one convergence for every plane in the sim. I eventually settled on 400m because in the early days I flew mostly 109's and that was the historical convergence. The sight picture I need is now the same in every aircraft. I never look at anything besides the very middle dot, and I know where I need to put it in order to get hits no matter what plane I am in, and no matter what target, airborne or grounded, I am shooting at I know where I need to aim.

 

I have used 550m very successfully, I have used 200m very successfully, so all of those are viable options, and it really is a matter of preference. Personally I settled on 400m not only because it is what I was used to in a 109, but because the vertical convergence at 400m is helpful when you are pulling a deflection shot. 200m is incredibly effective horizontally, but with any back pressure on the stick the rounds are falling below the nose. If I could separate the two I would bring the horizontal convergence in a bit maybe, but at this point I am so used to that 400m convergence it might throw me off too much.

 

400m is less than ideal in the P-51 which I fly regularly, but when I have tried to move it in the past I go from somewhat less effective hits to no hits, and that is much more problematic! My recommendation is to use whatever seems to results in rounds on target. Whether or not it is the pinpoint distance you fire at is not as important as your vertical "zero". The zero is where you make your hits, the horizontal is just how condensed those hits are.

[Denum]

4 hours ago, Halon said:

I settled on 150m quite awhile ago on the basis that a RAF Ace I'd seen on telly recommended getting very close, he also rather ruthlessly mentioned it was the kind of tip he kept to himself.

 

 

I'm also in the get close and delete them camp. 

 

Against AI it's not as critical to close kills quickly but against humans time is everything. You can't afford to sit around and take your time shooting. 

 

 

Edited March 15, 2022 by Denum

[fogpipe]

Just yesterday changed mine to 250 meters, used to be 300. First and only career mission i flew after that i came back with 4 spitfire kills when before i was getting 0-1.

Previously i was getting hits, just not good or fatal hits and not getting credit for the kill. Flying a bf 109 g14 and i think im sticking with 250 for a while.

[III/JG52_Speedwulf77]

In BF 109  early ones 400-500  late 500-700 m            In turnfights you notice that more percentage of rounds of the  cannons fall into "lag" behind,(200m-400m)so that screwing up convergence may help a little . With late 109 like K4 or G14 and gunpods (specially K4 rounds) , they "fall earlier" and depending if i am  going for more extrem hi speed deflection shots i even set to 700m .  WHY?     When changing from a F4 to a K4 i  experienced that from 100  rounds 30mm  shot = more than 50% go lagging behind .(at least in Il2 turnfights you have allways more "lag" and less "lead" rounds missing the target)   At hi speed shots i want  to shoot starting  with "lead bullets " , the target/enemy flies into it , gets bursted when he flies out (lag)

So changing from early to late 109 ers , I just screw up my convergence and i get less rounds lagging behind. More hit the target. 

that easy it is.....               ( .... and yes i know .... "it isn´t that *easy.... after a time i put down convergence again , get used to it and start screwing it up again )

 

..and yes, it also depends a lot of how you.re  fly and fight style is...

 

https://youtu.be/T_yedvOz980

 

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by III/JG52_Speedwulf77

[czech693]

Here's a handy ballistic calculator that graphs the trajectory of the bullet.  Also, the chart below shows height above and below the sight line. It has both .30 cal Springfield and .50 cal BMG.  To me, it looks like zero at 250 yards would be the best choice.  450 yards gives you a huge height above the sight line which could mean a miss in the less than 450 yard range.

 

http://www.shooterscalculator.com/ballistic-trajectory-chart.php?t=8ae30bb7

[Jamppa]

I use 150m. I like to get very close before i open fire (in FC too) Many Finnish aces in WWII used 50m or even under it.

Edited May 3, 2022 by Jamppa

[Majpalmer]

Me too. I use 160. But I started out at 200+ and as I play more I keep lowering it. 

[56RAF_Roblex]

What I did is check what is my 'natural' time to open fire and saw that I usually wait until about 200yds or 183m so I set it to that.

Edited May 3, 2022 by 56RAF_Roblex