Vertical convergence 1st vs. 2nd crossing

[=X51=VC_]

Does the in-game convergence setting set the vertical for the 1st or 2nd crossing of the sight line, or does it depend on plane and set range?

 

I ask because it seems to be generally accepted by the player base that a longer convergence setting helps you lead the shot in a tight turn, but I want to check my understanding of this interaction. For example, Fw 190A-6 convergence chart:

 

 

The projectile crosses the sight line twice, once upwards and once downwards. Presumably, if I set 550m convergence in game to match the above for the 20mm, this refers then to the 2nd (downward) crossing and so the rounds cross upwards at ~140m. But... if I set the convergence to 140m, this can't phisically be downward crossing as it's way too close for the ballistics, so is it now the upwards? And therefore the "lead assist" effect from your guns pointing slightly upwards would be the same with 140m and 550m convergence setting?

 

And if I set convergence to the minimum 100m, this should point the guns at more or less their maximum possible upward angle to achieve the 1st crossing (upwards) so close, and the 2nd (downward) crossing will be at very long range. Correct? Then this is backwards to the common perception than longer convergence helps lead, at least for typical combat ranges. Maybe if you set 1,000m convergence you can get an upwards crossing closer than 100m. But most people recommend 300m-400m, which logically should be an upwards crossing and therefore it leads less than e.g. a 200m 1st cross.

 

So which is it?

Edited September 20, 2022 by =X51=VC_

[=X51=VC_]

OK, I was thinking about this a bit more. Maybe the vertical convergence in game is much more simplified and is based on when the shots cross the horizontal line through the gun mount.

 

So the 1st up-crossing is by definition alwats at 0m, and the slider just sets the 2nd (down) crossing relative to the muzzle. In this case yes, a longer range setting will always elevate the gun.

 

This might also explain some comments I have seen in other threads that complain of shots passing under the target at convergence, since the sight line is higher than the muzzles. Basically in this case the game isn't allowing you to set vertical convergence realistically and properly relative to the sight picture.

 

Looking at the above diagram, the shots down cross the muzzle line some 50-100m further than the sight line crossing point. This would vary per gun, and would be really good to be able to determine or calculate. You would need to set a longer convergence in game to get the equivalent of a realistic pattern relative to the sight line vertically. But doing this would also mess up the horizontal convergence.

 

Can anyone confirm if this is indeed the case, or if my theory makes sense?

 

Are there any ballistics calculators that can be used to work this stuff out?

 

The next question is, how can this be tested? I feel any in-flight testing would not be precise enough. Is there an airfield somewhere you can consistently spawn pointing at a hangar to shoot the side and see the hits go higher/lower with different settings?

Edited September 29, 2022 by =X51=VC_

[jollyjack]

Well, seems a test needs some thinking.

Lets suggest some important personal requirements one must apply to before being allowed to join this testing:

 

1)  Mental test:

 

 

2) Eyesight; have them properly checked and BTW take these off first:

 

 

3) Be sure you first attended to your essential early morning business:

 

 

4) Also a healthy diet is important:

 

 

5) Take a proper nap first:

 

 

6) If all fails and you sill miss your target? Solution:

 

 

Edited October 6, 2022 by jollyjack

[5th_Barone]

On 9/20/2022 at 12:06 PM, =X51=VC_ said:

Does the in-game convergence setting set the vertical for the 1st or 2nd crossing of the sight line, or does it depend on plane and set range?

 

I ask because it seems to be generally accepted by the player base that a longer convergence setting helps you lead the shot in a tight turn, but I want to check my understanding of this interaction. For example, Fw 190A-6 convergence chart:

 

 

The projectile crosses the sight line twice, once upwards and once downwards. Presumably, if I set 550m convergence in game to match the above for the 20mm, this refers then to the 2nd (downward) crossing and so the rounds cross upwards at ~140m. But... if I set the convergence to 140m, this can't phisically be downward crossing as it's way too close for the ballistics, so is it now the upwards? And therefore the "lead assist" effect from your guns pointing slightly upwards would be the same with 140m and 550m convergence setting?

 

And if I set convergence to the minimum 100m, this should point the guns at more or less their maximum possible upward angle to achieve the 1st crossing (upwards) so close, and the 2nd (downward) crossing will be at very long range. Correct? Then this is backwards to the common perception than longer convergence helps lead, at least for typical combat ranges. Maybe if you set 1,000m convergence you can get an upwards crossing closer than 100m. But most people recommend 300m-400m, which logically should be an upwards crossing and therefore it leads less than e.g. a 200m 1st cross.

 

So which is it?

 

Honestly speaking I'm having the impression that the slider only affect the horizontal convergence and not the vertical.

In clod were you can change the vertical and the horizontal independentely I always set a high value on the vertical.

Here on GB even with the slider at 500m I see no really big effect on that.

Especially on some planes like the spit.

Would be interesting to know more on how it's modelled the convergence in game.

Edited October 11, 2022 by 5th_Barone

[Barnacles]

39 minutes ago, 5th_Barone said:

 

Honestly speaking I'm having the impression that the slider only affect the horizontal convergence and not the vertical.

In clod were you can change the vertical and the horizontal independentely I always set a high value on the vertical.

Here on GB even with the slider at 500m I see no really big effect on that.

Especially on some planes like the spit.

Would be interesting to know more on how it's modelled the convergence in game.

I don't know exactly what's going on, but I'm fairly certain vertical convergence does get changed. 

 

The easiest plane to see the effect in is. The LA5, if you adjust the convergence to the extremes you'll notice a big difference in the trajectory.