Convergence on wing mounted 50s

[TheWarsimmer]

Curious to hear people's thoughts on this. I typically use a 300m convergence for most lufty and nose mounted planes, but with the wing-mounted 50s on planes like the 51 and 47, I go much lower- sometimes even 150. I often find myself coming up point blank on enemy planes, and it's nice to be able to hit them right at convergence up close. The only issue is leading the target in high-g turns, which I try to circumvent by positioning my head where I have a view of them to the side of my nose until right before they cross the line of fire and I shore up for the correct lead, but boy do you have to lead! With ground pounding, 400m, but I'm curious what people think with air to air. Nothing is more frustrating to me than pulling up right behind a 109 with a long distance convergence set, and only being able to spray him with one side of my wing.

 

With 50s being fixed in the Normandy update, I think it would be nice to discuss. It's my first time back with U.S. planes in a LONG time.

[=X51=VC_]

I haven't had as much stick time as I would like with the new .50 cals, but I generally don't find the lead value of convergence that useful. I used to run 200m convergence on everything, and have now reduced that to 150m (on everything) as I focus more on getting close for kill shots instead of spraying. With the wing mounted gun planes I have been using a lot recently (Spitfire XIV, Fw 190A-8), I have been getting great results. I think this is the correct way to maximise the impact of the new .50s as well, saturate the target at convergence. The situations where you'll get good use out of long range convergence are in my experience far rarer than those where you can blast someone up close.

 

If you need to pull lead, it depends on situation, but if the target goes under the nose I hold the trigger and keep pulling, and usually this "walks" at least some of the shots across them if the lift vectors are aligned. Or just wait until the target is point blank, then you only need to pull a tiny bit of extra lead to hit (which in my experience is also a good way to get shots clean into the cockpit). For very high deflection shots, I instead try to set them up as the target is passing across my view, so the bullets going high would be more likely to mess up my aim than help in that situation. In both cases though, these deflection shots have very short firing windows and the kill bursts are usually at very close range, so again to me that's an argument for close convergence not far.

[=X51=VC_]

@TheWarsimmer I flew a couple of good sorties on Combat Box in the P-51B last night, 3 kills. I am very happy with my 150m convergence setting with the .50s as well.

 

Note that the default fixed US gunsight has (I believe) a ring diameter of 70 mils. This means a 10.5m wingspan target (Fw 190) will be at 150m when the wingtips touch the circle, very helpful! The 109 is a tiny bit smaller so will be at 140m, but this means your shots go into the wing roots/radiators as well as the fuselage/cockpit, which is nice. It's also much easier to see the hits from the .50s at close range, much less obvious than with cannons.

 

The gyro gunsight doesn't go below 200 yards (~180m) unfortunately, but I generally find with the Mustang's very zoomy style that I'm not turning after people anyway.

[TheWarsimmer]

2 hours ago, =X51=VC_ said:

@TheWarsimmer I flew a couple of good sorties on Combat Box in the P-51B last night, 3 kills. I am very happy with my 150m convergence setting with the .50s as well.

 

Note that the default fixed US gunsight has (I believe) a ring diameter of 70 mils. This means a 10.5m wingspan target (Fw 190) will be at 150m when the wingtips touch the circle, very helpful! The 109 is a tiny bit smaller so will be at 140m, but this means your shots go into the wing roots/radiators as well as the fuselage/cockpit, which is nice. It's also much easier to see the hits from the .50s at close range, much less obvious than with cannons.

 

The gyro gunsight doesn't go below 200 yards (~180m) unfortunately, but I generally find with the Mustang's very zoomy style that I'm not turning after people anyway.

 

Yeah that's a great reference tool. I'll either set my convergence at 150m like you, and know to open up when they fill the circle, or do something like 230m and know it's about half the circle. The only issue I run into with setting these low convergences are on missions where you might BOTH be ground pounding and dog fighting. Something like 400m is perfect for ground targets, but anything below 300m is way too close.

[CrazyhorseB34]

Bud Anderson said they harmonized at 300 yards point. But when they got the K-14 8th AF policy was 300 yards in a box pattern to give more dispersion. You can't do a box pattern in the game so try 270 meters with no tracers. No matter what you have your game settings either standard or metric, in this game convergence can only be set in meters. 300 yards is 274 meters. But the game convergence setting is only in tens. So if you round down, 270 meters is close too 300 yards. ?

Edited September 25, 2022 by CrazyhorseB34

[CrazyhorseB34]

For the 109 the nose guns where set at 400 meters. I use 400 meters on both 109 and 190 works as advertised at all ranges. This pic explains the 109 set up. 

[=X51=VC_]

Thank you that very interesting diagram.

 

I know it's not to scale and the angle is very small, but I'm actually a bit surprised the REVI line of sight is angled downwards. A similar diagram for the Fw 190 suggests it's horizontal for that plane at least.

 

Found this as well showing 200m horizontal convergence with 400m vertical for the wing cannons of a 109E:

 

Edited September 26, 2022 by =X51=VC_

[Traffic]

I find .50s with high muzzle velocity dont drop very much so Im able to engage targets 500-600m away. For ground strafing, I use 450m convergence and 300 for air to air. 

 

[TheWarsimmer]

On 9/24/2022 at 7:41 AM, CrazyhorseB34 said:

Bud Anderson said they harmonized at 300 yards point. But when they got the K-14 8th AF policy was 300 yards in a box pattern to give more dispersion. You can't do a box pattern in the game so try 270 meters with no tracers. No matter what you have your game settings either standard or metric, in this game convergence can only be set in meters. 300 yards is 274 meters. But the game convergence setting is only in tens. So if you round down, 270 meters is close too 300 yards. ?

 

I'd love to have a box pattern like the other sim. And no tracers, that would be the day

[Hook_Echo]

6 hours ago, TheWarsimmer said:

 

I'd love to have a box pattern like the other sim. And no tracers, that would be the day

 

 

[CrazyhorseB34]

In WW2 they really didn't have an air or ground mode. 

 

To constantly reboresight and zero guns for specific mission types would be a very difficult thing too do. 

 

The N-9 sight was 100 mils. Measured in feet. So it coincided with the optimum engagement range of 300 yards. 

 

270 meters is probably the most historically accurate way too set it up. 

Edited September 28, 2022 by CrazyhorseB34

[LukeFF]

11 hours ago, CrazyhorseB34 said:

In WW2 they really didn't have an air or ground mode. 

 

To constantly reboresight and zero guns for specific mission types would be a very difficult thing too do. 

 

The N-9 sight was 100 mils. Measured in feet. So it coincided with the optimum engagement range of 300 yards. 

 

270 meters is probably the most historically accurate way too set it up. 

 

To be fair, it did vary a bit, and one P-47 manual says that common convergence settings included 250 and 350 yards.

[CrazyhorseB34]

Correct. By no means am I saying this is the only set up but the most by the book method. 

 

The USN had some rather interesting gun convergence set ups as well.?

 

 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

I set mine to 240M. Works well online

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

On 9/27/2022 at 4:58 PM, TheWarsimmer said:

 

I'd love to have a box pattern like the other sim. And no tracers, that would be the day

 

You can use a 'no tracer' mod but, it would be nice to select in-game (no mods).  

About a year or so ago, there was a lighting overhaul update version that only lasted about a week before it was patched-out.  The tracers were kind of faint to see but, the impacts on the target were easier to see.  It was much easier for me to get solid hits at convergence.  Unfortunately, many more people hated it, so the tracers were reverted to the brighter version.

[CrazyhorseB34]

Online.

 

260 yards...?

[=X51=VC_]

Do you guys actually shoot at 250-300m against fighters online? Maybe my aim is just terrible, but I find this a pretty useless waste of ammo and usually it just scares the target and gives away my approach.

 

I know these longer convergences are realistic and found in various manuals and pilot accounts, but most of the best pilots (on all sides) advise shooting only at very close ranges to ensure hit/kill.

 

In game we have the luxury of not worrying about real life compromises like how difficult it is to reset converge for different pilots and situations, so we don't need to use standardised real life values except for immersion.

 

Of course if it works for you then carry on, but I'm just asking if you really make efficient use of long range firing as often as you think to justify it.

[TheWarsimmer]

2 hours ago, =X51=VC_ said:

Do you guys actually shoot at 250-300m against fighters online? Maybe my aim is just terrible, but I find this a pretty useless waste of ammo and usually it just scares the target and gives away my approach.

 

I know these longer convergences are realistic and found in various manuals and pilot accounts, but most of the best pilots (on all sides) advise shooting only at very close ranges to ensure hit/kill.

 

In game we have the luxury of not worrying about real life compromises like how difficult it is to reset converge for different pilots and situations, so we don't need to use standardised real life values except for immersion.

 

Of course if it works for you then carry on, but I'm just asking if you really make efficient use of long range firing as often as you think to justify it.

 

Unless I manage to bounce someone, I never fire unless a fighter takes up half the reticule. And then, often, once we get into some high g turns, they're taking up the entire reticule. 200-150m

[CrazyhorseB34]

Too tell the truth. I like to fly Typhoon with guns set at 150m... Wreck shop. 

 

So online play is different. But. Using "proper," historical techniques and settings, are more immersive in non-online play. 

 

The historical settings. Basically, "doing it like they did," sets the base level standard too work from. 

 

Plus it adds a degree of realism if you don't always do online play. 

 

I really like too use this as a "simulator." As opposed too a FPS game. 

 

Half the reticle. On N-9 sight is one radius. Thus 1000 ft.  For an average fighter sized target. Proper engagement range. By the book. 

 

We are all saying same thing.?

 

 

Edited October 1, 2022 by CrazyhorseB34

[CrazyhorseB34]

I think that USAAF aircraft in this game should have " Tracer Options."  For example...

 

#1: Standard 4/1 mix.

#2: No Tracers.

#3: Only last 50 rounds each gun tracers.

#4: Standard 4/1 mix. Plus last 50 each gun tracers. 

 

Each one. Historically accurate. 

 

[=X51=VC_]

Tracerless ammo would be great, I had some really fun flights online with e.g. MiG-3 shooting people that never knew I was there.

 

Yes, I think we agree in principle, I only play online so I optimise for that. I might experiment with longer convergence too while also using the Gyro gunsight.

Edited October 2, 2022 by =X51=VC_

[Leftenant_Soap]

On 9/25/2022 at 2:42 AM, CrazyhorseB34 said:

<picture>

Very interesting! Maybe I'm not understanding it, but with such bullet drop the 400 m convergence point is well underneath the pilot's line of sight? So wouldn't a 400 m convergence setting make it difficult to hit something accurately... well, right in front of you? For what it's worth I use 150 m convergence and feel that it's good enough so I don't mess with success.

 

I read that the RAF used 230 m convergence at some time, I'll try that for now.

Edited November 28, 2022 by DD_Soapy