Jump to content

Convergance and gun options.


Jordan4

Recommended Posts

  • ED Team
Actually, it is the AAF Manual 51-127-5 give me the thought that custom converge of P-51D/K was available in WWII.

Even the converge is set to a piont on the ground, there still will be a spreading during the flight due to the elasticity of the wings, especially in a high G turn. Bad habit or not, I just think its a way to improve the guns efficiency.

 

No problems. Make a student's project calculating the patterns, move your own bullet hit circles as you wish.

All that you need to do I wrote above.

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

 

It's not a real boresighting target.

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

 

You as a Pilot would have been unable to do it in WWII and you as Virtual Pilot is unable to do it now. Modelling is historically and factually correct with the current convergence setting complying with the setting utilized for the real birds and thus does not require re-setting/retuning/refining.

 

It really is as simple as that.

 

Once again: the guns MUST BE ADJUSTED. That's right.

 

But the way they were adjusted was only one (or have 1 or 2 alternative charts).

 

Once again: the way they are managed in Il-2, CloD, Star Wars, etc, etc HAS NOTHING IN COMMON with reality. They never used real harmonisation charts and converged all weapons in one point that made possible simplified calculation of bore angles. And never gives real bullet hit area.

 

 

 

And the last point: there is no advantages if you try to tune the guns yourself because the patterns were carefully optimised.

By the way, FW-190, Bf -109 never had alternative charts to harmonize their weapons.

Take it easy men, every sim, from IL-2 to DCS, has its own limit. For myself, I believe that the guns option cannot follow the manual is due to the limit of the platform. That reality is not the problem.

 

Obviously, the real pilots in WWII would NOT have the "authority" to set their Mustang to "Immortal","Unlimited Ammo/Fuel" state. But it still can be set in the Mission Editor. I can also find no such convergence setting Options in the GAME MODE for less-reality care players.

 

I know you Dev team will not change your mind. That's OK. I suggest add a commentary in the Manuel in page.48 that "the function of different convergence points setting is not implemented in the sim". Other wise there will be more and more player confused by this part of manual.

 

For those HAVE the convergence point's sims, it doesn't mean that every shot from a gun will pass a same point ervery time. It's a compromise between reality and efficiency. IL-2 has more than 10 years of history. I just dont want to see anyone would comment the DCS "HAS NOTHING IN COMMON with reality" ten years later, OK?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just dont want to see anyone would comment the way they are managed in [DCS] HAS NOTHING IN COMMON with reality" ten years later, OK?

which is why it's handled the way it is - it's set as it would be IRL, and if people want to mess with it in an unrealistic way, they can do so by editing the .lua, but the sim tries not to provide built in options that weren't available normally IRL (as it's never had AIM-54 as a loadout on F-15C, though I think it was tested by the AF on F-15, and people have edited files to allow this).

If you really want to be able to change the convergence between missions, you could edit yourself a couple of files and swap them out as you see fit...

But it won't be more realistic ...

 

In IL-2, even the convergence of rockets can be adjusted, and in CLoD, every single gun can be adjusted for Vertical and horizontal convergence....But if the convergence can be adjusted, it will make the DCS:P-51D a better simmulator.

 

I think the point that people have been trying to make is that it might make it a more fun game, but would make it a less realistic simulator...


Edited by Weta43

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

which is why it's handled the way it is - it's set as it would be IRL, and if people want to mess with it in an unrealistic way, they can do so by editing the .lua, but the sim tries not to provide built in options that weren't available normally IRL (as it's never had AIM-54 as a loadout on F-15C, though I think it was tested by the AF on F-15, and people have edited files to allow this).

If you really want to be able to change the convergence between missions, you could edit yourself a couple of files and swap them out as you see fit...

But it won't be more realistic ...

 

 

 

I think the point that people have been trying to make is that it might make it a more fun game, but would make it a less realistic simulator...

Or you may show me some historical information or hard evidence to prove that the AAF Training Manual was wrong on this part. Otherwise many simmers and I will not simply agree with you in this setting.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case of the convergences and ammo beltings, what is able to do so in other sims, it is a nice feature, but in most cases it is unrealistic.

 

95% of all planes used the same yard setting, and ammo belts, in the hole wartime. In CLOD you have the fantastic ALL AP or HE ......etc, option, this was never the case in RL, there was always a mix of it. Made in the factory, and what was aviable at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case of the convergences and ammo beltings, what is able to do so in other sims, it is a nice feature, but in most cases it is unrealistic.

 

95% of all planes used the same yard setting, and ammo belts, in the hole wartime. In CLOD you have the fantastic ALL AP or HE ......etc, option, this was never the case in RL, there was always a mix of it. Made in the factory, and what was aviable at the time.

Partially agree. In the wartime, most pilots have to fly the aircraft they brought back last time, not a totally new one.

These options just provide the POSSIBILITY to try an all AP or tracer belt etc. Just like the Unlimmited Ammo option, a good sim shall not kill this possibility.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think convergence is important anyhow as getting rid of those clownish tracers ATM... ED, I hold you reponsible.. :(

AWAITING ED NEW DAMAGE MODEL IMPLEMENTATION FOR WW2 BIRDS

 

Fat T is above, thin T is below. Long T is faster, Short T is slower. Open triangle is AWACS, closed triangle is your own sensors. Double dash is friendly, Single dash is enemy. Circle is friendly. Strobe is jammer. Strobe to dash is under 35 km. HDD is 7 times range key. Radar to 160 km, IRST to 10 km. Stay low, but never slow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'v got one about boresight and harmoniz info. But it was for the P-47N, for reference only.

AAF Manual 51-127-4, Page 56.

"The guns are boresighted and harmonized to obtain the proper pattern of fire as viewed through the sight. The harmonization used will vary under different conditions and in different combat theaters. Determine the alignment of your guns before taking off on a firing mission."

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
I'v got one about boresight and harmoniz info. But it was for the P-47N, for reference only.

AAF Manual 51-127-4, Page 56.

"The guns are boresighted and harmonized to obtain the proper pattern of fire as viewed through the sight. The harmonization used will vary under different conditions and in different combat theaters. Determine the alignment of your guns before taking off on a firing mission."

 

You are right. P-47 has 2 predetermined charts and thus TWO different boresight targets.

Please, find maintenance manual and read carefully HOW harmonisation was performed. People are trying to explain you that any harmonisation work began from the CAREFULLY CALCULATED BORESIGHT TARGET. And this work was done not by pilots and even not by the ground crew. Ground crew draw the target of 1:1 scale using chart drawings that was CALCULATED in specialised labs.

 

Demanding harmonisation option in ME you want us to make a tool for it. Rather complicated tool, by the way. And all these efforts are for the opportunity to move the slider and to make sure that the best pattern is already invented 70 years ago.

 

Anyway, if somebody wants to simulate white suit men work - welcome!

2070506605_P51gunsdispersion.thumb.jpg.dff20abe788b80c5c0ea9f597575e00b.jpg

1450795256_P51harmonization.thumb.jpg.e1f9a3b8c0c225321ca2b0ef670af0a6.jpg


Edited by Yo-Yo

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know about the target, and I also notice the FORWARD part of the AAF Manual 200-1. The last sentence:

"...The patterns for harmonization contained herein are indorsed by Army Air Forces but may be amended by each individual station in accordance with local conditions to obtain effective fire power."

 

For me, due to the DCS missions now are mostly ground attacks with much more dangerous AAA fire than WWII, I am just seeking the chance for the maximum harmonization. And other dogfight fans may prefer the minimal one.

 

Your working in this sim is admirable. I meant no unrespect of your hard working. Now I konw there would be a complicated work behinde the change. And since the guns setting now just can do most jobs, perhaps I can let it go.


Edited by billeinstein

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
I know about the target, and I also notice the FORWARD part of the AAF Manual 200-1. The last sentence:

"...The patterns for harmonization contained herein are indorsed by Army Air Forces but may be amended by each individual station in accordance with local conditions to obtain effective fire power."

 

For me, due to the DCS missions now are mostly ground attacks with much more dangerous AAA fire than WWII, I just seeking the chance for the maximum harmonization. And other dogfight fans may prefer the minimal one.

 

Your working in this sim is admirable. I meant no unrespect of your hard working. Now I konw there would be a complicated work behinde the change. And since the guns setting now just can do most jobs, perhaps I can let it go.

 

Thank you for your attitude to our sim! Now I understand what you want. :) Yes, it seems reasonable regardles the possibility that you can be intercepted by an aircraft. The problem could be solved inside the community. You have all adjusting screws - the pattern can be calculated using even Excel.

 

I think our community has good potential and the program or spreadsheet will be ready soon.

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so with dispersion and harmonization charts that Yo-Yo provided, I was able to draw a 3D sketch of the bullet trajectories in one of my CAD programs.

I am getting the same dispersion patterns so I guess it's correct.

 

This is the harmonization pattern that I can observe from this:

 

  • No.1 guns converge at 1,000 feet / at sight line
  • No.2 guns converge at 1,100 feet / 11 inches below sight line
  • No.3 guns converge at 1,200 feet / 18 inches above sight line

- so that's a clear 10% increase in horizontal convergence, and 1:1,65 above/below sight line convergence ratio for No.3 and No.2 guns.

 

 

So now I have the bullet trajectory, and azimuth and elevation for the machine guns.

 

 

I could scale this harmonization pattern to lets say 50%, so "500" feet.

 

 

Are guns azimuth and elevation all that is needed for someone to test it?

I don't have P-51 installed, nor do I know which lua parameters are needed.


Edited by hegykc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
OK, so with dispersion and harmonization charts that Yo-Yo provided, I was able to draw a 3D sketch of the bullet trajectories in one of my CAD programs.

I am getting the same dispersion patterns so I guess it's correct.

 

This is the harmonization pattern that I can observe from this:

 

  • No.1 guns converge at 1,000 feet / at sight line
  • No.2 guns converge at 1,100 feet / 11 inches below sight line
  • No.3 guns converge at 1,200 feet / 18 inches above sight line

- so that's a clear 10% increase in horizontal convergence, and 1:1,65 above/below sight line convergence ratio for No.3 and No.2 guns.

 

 

So now I have the bullet trajectory, and azimuth and elevation for the machine guns.

 

 

I could scale this harmonization pattern to lets say 50%, so "500" feet.

 

 

Are guns azimuth and elevation all that is needed for someone to test it?

I don't have P-51 installed, nor do I know which lua parameters are needed.

 

Yes, if you have exact coordinates of the gunsight and the muzzles. I think that more interesting is to scale to 1500-1700 ft for ground attack. Harmonising at short distancies you ruin firing to the most useful distancies 1000-1500 ft.


Edited by Yo-Yo

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, if you have exact coordinates of the gunsight and the muzzles. I think that more interesting is to scale to 1500-1700 ft for ground attack. Harmonising at short distancies you ruin firing to the most useful distancies 1000-1500 ft.

 

I read that many of the WWII aces had a golden rule : When close (to shoot), get closer. So I figured 500 feet for close convergence, 1,000 medium and as you say 1,500 and 1,700 for far convergence. All mimicking the same harmonization pattern seen in the charts, no need to invent the wheel again.

 

As for gunsight and muzzles coordinates, how do I go about these? Aren't those in the lua files? What I have now is just X and Y coordinates, taken from the charts.


Edited by hegykc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
So this is how it's setup now:

 

dispersionpatterns.jpg

 

That's right but could you draw a target plane at the position you see it when you are shooting in a turn?

 

the point is that clean 6 hours firing is not typical for close ranges.

 

And there will be very interesting to see what happens if you harmonise at 500 ft, for example.


Edited by Yo-Yo

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In some other sims my friends prefer the convergence of 120m-150m(394ft-492ft) for those .cal guns aircraft. One reason may be the .cal in those sims can do much less damage than other cannons. So they will fire extremely close in a boom-zoom attack, kill the enemy in a single pass and avoid TNB combats. Another reason may be the K-14 sight is not as useful as that in DCS, for no axis control of k-14 range control.

In DCS, I tried the 1v1 quick mission and killed the AI with 105 rounds hit on it.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

The idea to have 600-1500 ft optimal harmonisation is that you can aim carefully and the target has no significant angle velocity relating to the attacker-target vector. You can aim and track the target to use K-14. At low distancies you never shoot to the point - you drag the target across the bullets path. Anyway, if you have time to carefully take an aim at the close target you can take in account that hit points are below the target.

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
dispersionpatternsyawpi.jpg

 

Very interesting, but do not forget apply the same bank for the attacker to be closer to the real turn shooting.

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...