Adjustable gun convergence, Ammo type

many people think that the convergence is a magic pill to be a sniper... .

YoYo, your whole reply seems to be based on the assumption that Reddog wants a "magic pill to be a sniper". By making this erroneous assumption, you risk completely missing his point - which was this: "you add another layer of complexity and option to the mission makers arsenal."

Not everyone is here to be an "ace" and "get kills". A lot of us just love complex details and have geeky passion for aviation. Don't forget a lot of us stayed with cliffs of dover for a long, long time because that software presented so many complex options for server owners in terms of planeset, assets, mission design, scripting, AI etc... it really looks like DCS could surpass that (which is why so many of us are now buying DCS modules and spending less and less time in other sims), but poo-pooing such options on the basis of not understanding your customer's motivations might put that in jeopardy...

Point convergence is more lethal than pattern. This is why it was used by experienced combat pilots in WWII and was facilitated by the technical design function of aircraft armament systems.

PC pilot customers, particularly with thousands of hours of experience, that can make good use of point convergence would like to do so.

Point convergence was used historically, as well as pattern. Therefore, customers would like the option of being able to choose pattern or point convergence to meet their preference in line with the technical design function of the aircraft armament system.

There is an old saying: 'There is more than one way to skin a cat'.

Different ways of skinning the cat are built into the design function of the aircraft armament system and different ways of skinning the cat were used by pilots in WWII.

Customers are asking to be able to use different ways to 'skin the cat' in line with historical use and technical design function.

This would appear to be a perfectly reasonable request. But I stand to be corrected if someone can explain why this is not a reasonable request.

Happy landings,

56RAF_Talisman

So should I wait many minutes for unpacking of rockets and fuel truck to come each time I change my loadout? Or wait 10h before my mustang gets repaired and its parts replaced after hitting "request repair" button? No. And DCS already has simplifications like that.

 

It seems my ground crew knows me and switching those convergence settings should be possible just as much as possible it is for them to repair my wingless airplane within 120 seconds after a crashlanding.:pilotfly:

+1. Hit the nail right on the head.

IMO.....The whole "adjustable convergence" is a lost argument. It's not practical and DCS has never had it, and it's never been much of an issue until the Spitfire came out. After playing around with the plane's guns for a bit, I can plainly see why. It's hard to be effective with it.

It seems that when trying to down an adversary, you have to be at a very specific distance or your just wasting rounds. As far as I (mind the "I" here) can tell, it's not anything close to 300 meters. It's much closer. I do not see this problem so much with the Mustang. It's guns are spread out on the wings also yet the convergence isn't so difficult to use as a tool.

I did a very simple test to try and figure this thing out. I'm not a person who cares much for charts, and tons of research on the internet because you could argue all day long about stuff that in a computer sim just isn't practical or cannot fully be reproduced due to the fact that there is nothing physical about a computer image. I go by what I see and experience. It's that simple. After doing some ground attack and realizing that I had to be mighty close for the guns to actually hit anything due to the convergence, I flew toward some buildings. I opened fire at the buildings until the rounds merged on the side of the building. Mind you I'm going around 220 mph. As soon as the rounds converge on the building, I pull up to avoid hitting the building. The time that I have to avoid hitting the building is much, much shorter than the time I would have in any other WWII plane. It looks more like 500 ft. than 300 yards. It's no where near 300 yards as far as I can tell.

For me.......this explains why there is such a wide spread both going in to the crossover point and coming out of it. And again.....it's just my way of determining why this plane has such a wide spread.

In my mind, the idea that there are only two guns may come into play also. The P51 has 6. This could account for why it's so much more accurate. However, it's convergence seems to be at a much better distance than the Spitfire.

My philosophy is to wait and see where this thing goes. I'm sure that it'll get set up to everyone's satisfaction at some point. But if it comes down to making it adjustable, I'll likely not use that feature.

It is a useful way to make the armament mounted in wings more powerful at certain distances. If it was irrelevant nobody would have bothered to adjust them at all. But truth is that if you set high dispersion or no convergence at all, you will make the airplane less effective and lengthen time to kill ratio.

Is it a pill to become a sniper? No. But it is useful to create comfortable firing pattern for the shooter to maximise the weapon's effectiveness, that is otherwise inferior to a center mounted weapons of the 109 and 190.

It looks more like 500 ft. than 300 yards. It's no where near 300 yards as far as I can tell.

Yes, visually give the impression is that is closer, but the developer say that is "300 meters" (328 yards). :huh: ???

Then the question: are you confident that your opponent will give you the chance to shoot from 100-170 m ONLY? The brutal reality is that fighting with Dora or 109K the most real distance Spitfire can achive will be not less than 300 m.

Well, can Dora and 109K keep Spit at arm's length like a jet fighter? There are always tactical situations where even the expert pilots will be bracketed in at close distance. After all, the performance differential between spit9 and German birds is not generational.

The whole point of adjustable convergence is that different people have different habits, preferences and tactical acumen. Some people are good at making long distance shots. For them, longer convergence works better. Some people prefer closer range. Some like the destructive power of point convergence, some like to scatter bullets all over the sky like shotguns.

From my past experience with other WWII sims, convergence does make a big difference. Take IL2 for example. One of my friend has bad aim but quick muscle reflex. He set his convergence at 100-150, and devastating at scoring kills at short range. Another friend is terrific at killing at ranges well beyond 300. It took me a while to figure out my personal favorite setting at 260. Not only that, different aircraft and weapons have different preferable settings for me. A 260 works well for me in mustang but really bad in Fw190A8. You may argue Il2 and DCS are completely different sim. True. But there are no other options besides 300 to compare with in DCS. So you can't really argue adjustable convergence is pointless in DCS.

Current Preset Harmonization

After doing some ground attack and realizing that I had to be mighty close for the guns to actually hit anything due to the convergence, I flew toward some buildings. I opened fire at the buildings until the rounds merged on the side of the building. Mind you I'm going around 220 mph. As soon as the rounds converge on the building, I pull up to avoid hitting the building. The time that I have to avoid hitting the building is much, much shorter than the time I would have in any other WWII plane. It looks more like 500 ft. than 300 yards. It's no where near 300 yards as far as I can tell.

I performed a simple ground based measuring test for convergence on the DCS Spitfire LF Mk IX.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2990755&postcount=24

Catseye's testing made if 250yds also.

I went on to test the Mustang - 300yds

These figures would make historical sense for the default convergences for the RAF and USAAF in ETO at that time.

That's not to say that there weren't deviations at Individual and Squadron levels.

It looks more like 500 ft. than 300 yards. It's no where near 300 yards as far as I can tell.

Yes, visually give the impression is that is closer, but the developer repeatedly say that is "300 meters" (328 yards). :huh: ???

Yes, visually give the impression is that is closer, but the developer repeatedly say that is "300 meters" (328 yards). :huh: ???

During a Twitch chat conversation with a Dev, a couple of days after release, he said he "thought" it was 300yds for the Spitfire as with the Mustang.

That uncertainty prompted me to check in-game for myself...

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2990755&postcount=24

TLDR - 250yds Spitfire, 300yds Mustang

p.s.

I wouldn't want to drag that Dev into this without asking him first so I refrain from naming at this point.

You spent so much time shaking the forum... but those guys who really wanted to try different convergence patterns ALREADY DID IT, because you already have all means to do it.

 

Just do it... and you can share your offline experience here, it will be very interesting. Much more interesting than to read tons of lamentations.

It would be very interesting as well how many users actually would prefere the exotic patterns.

How do we do that please?

How do we do that please?

I believe Yo-Yo post is in regards to this mod.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/2319994/

You spent so much time shaking the forum... but those guys who really wanted to try different convergence patterns ALREADY DID IT, because you already have all means to do it.

 

Just do it... and you can share your offline experience here, it will be very interesting. Much more interesting than to read tons of lamentations.

It would be very interesting as well how many users actually would prefere the exotic patterns.

I did it a while a go for the Dora, modding vertical convergence so that at around 250m Mg 151 shells would cross the gunsight instead of the stock 600m. It was a world of difference, i didn't have to guess where the shells would go, just put the gunsight on the target and boom. Also, it was much easier to hit when the aircraft was rolled to 90°, as the shells fly closer the the aim line. Anyone with exentended WWII sim time knows that convergence is very important to aerial gunnery.

Too bad i can't use that setting online, as right know i miss half of my point blnk shots because shells fly over the enemy cockpit.

OK....It is my opinion based on the test I just completed that ED has somehow miscalculated the convergence numbers. Any of you can do this test so I'm not going to bother posting pics. It's a pain in the butt.

Set up a ground target (unarmed hopefully) put your labels on, and shoot at the ground directly next to it when you get to about .7 mi. away.

You will clearly be able to see the convergence point. And to me, it is obvious that the Spitfire's convergence point is around .2 of a mile. This puts it at 1056 feet, or 352 meters. So it seems that it's exactly what they say the specs are.

However, if I'm not mistaken, the Mustang's convergence was around the strong side of .4 of a mile. This puts it at 2112 ft. or 704 meters. Maybe someone can do the same test and check me on this.

If this is the case......hmm.

The big thing I notice between the two is that the Spitfire's convergence looks like an X as the tracers go down range, and the P51's are stretched out much more and are much less spread immediately before and after convergence. This makes plenty of sense given the substantial difference in their convergence distance.

One thing is certain. The distance in the Mustang is much greater than in the spitfire, and the spitfire's dispersion rate before and after convergence is vastly different than the Mustang's.

I think that if this were not the case, we would not be having the adjustable convergence debate. People are use to the convergence of the other WWII planes.

I will stick with my static measuring test which I think holds better accuracy than an eyeball estimate from a moving plane.

I believe Yo-Yo post is in regards to this mod.

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/2319994/

Thank you Krupi but my understanding is that wont work in multiplayer :(

I will stick with my static measuring test which I think holds better accuracy than an eyeball estimate from a moving plane.

It's not an eyeball estimate. The label tells you exactly how far you are from your target. Therefore, it's pretty accurate. You can even go back and review the distance as much as you like via the track. Mine was very easily the numbers I gave. It's not rocket science.

OK....It is my opinion based on the test I just completed that ED has somehow miscalculated the convergence numbers. Any of you can do this test so I'm not going to bother posting pics. It's a pain in the butt.

Set up a ground target (unarmed hopefully) put your labels on, and shoot at the ground directly next to it when you get to about .7 mi. away.

 

You will clearly be able to see the convergence point. And to me, it is obvious that the Spitfire's convergence point is around .2 of a mile. This puts it at 1056 feet, or 352 meters. So it seems that it's exactly what they say the specs are.

However, if I'm not mistaken, the Mustang's convergence was around the strong side of .4 of a mile. This puts it at 2112 ft. or 704 meters. Maybe someone can do the same test and check me on this.

If this is the case......hmm.

 

The big thing I notice between the two is that the Spitfire's convergence looks like an X as the tracers go down range, and the P51's are stretched out much more and are much less spread immediately before and after convergence. This makes plenty of sense given the substantial difference in their convergence distance.

One thing is certain. The distance in the Mustang is much greater than in the spitfire, and the spitfire's dispersion rate before and after convergence is vastly different than the Mustang's.

I think that if this were not the case, we would not be having the adjustable convergence debate. People are use to the convergence of the other WWII planes.

Mustang was 1,000 ft. with a large pattern to aid inexperienced pilots.

I believe Yo-Yo post is in regards to this mod.

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/2319994/

What about the Mustang? Can anyone explain how to change those lua files to get correct results?

A larger more complete graphic can be found here, https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=72410&d=1351164787

You see.....Here we go again. People bringing all of the charts and research into this. They don't mean much because DCS isn't reality. It's computer generated and by no means perfect.

Believe what you personally experience within the simulator. Make some tracks, watch them and post them as to what's really going on within the sim. Charts and real world facts do not come in to play here. What something is suppose to be in the real world and what is happening in game are not the same. All of you guys have these expectations that this is somehow a real plane. You will never be happy with it if you maintain that level of expectation.

You see.....Here we go again. People bringing all of the charts and research into this. They don't mean much because DCS isn't reality. It's computer generated and by no means perfect.

Believe what you personally experience within the simulator. Make some tracks, watch them and post them as to what's really going on within the sim. Charts and real world facts do not come in to play here. What something is suppose to be in the real world and what is happening in game are not the same. All of you guys have these expectations that this is somehow a real plane. You will never be happy with it if you maintain that level of expectation.

So, why do you play simulators? Maybe you should reconsider playing some better suited games for you.

Mission of a simulator is to simulate, if you negate that factor, you negate the purpose of its existance.

Also nobody negates the realism of current convergence patterns. They are realistic and done according to the chart above. Just it is not the only convergence pattern that can be categorised as realistic, as there were many configurations.

Not to mention that those "expectations" were met by other simulations in the past. You just do not have the experience to judge it properly.