Gun Convergence Settings

Not only for the Mustang, but for all WW2 planes.

 

Are we ever gonna be able to set our guns convergence and select which ammo types we'd like to use?

 

Maybe there's a way to do that in the game's files and I don't know about it?

 

Completely unrelated but, I've seen a video on Youtube of a guy flying the A8 on the Burning Skies server, the title said "New Damage model" Has that been implemented already? :huh:

Are we ever gonna be able to set our guns convergence and select which ammo types we'd like to use?

I don't think we'll get that ever. It's been widely discussed here. That's a fake feature in many previous so called simulators, but IRL an aircraft got out of factory with a guns harmonisation already done and it wasn't supposed to be messed up with it all of the time. Of course it's not like they couldn't adjust or re-adjust after maintenance works or something in the field, but ground crews had better things to do that fiddling with guns harmonisation every day.

 

 

It's an opposite job which has to be done. Instead of adjusting the guns to your liking, know the harmonisation pattern of your guns and how to measure distance to target with your sight so you know where you have to open fire. Don't know yet what is it for A-8, but D9 and K4 had a 600m harmonisation pattern IIRC so probably A-8 had the same. P51 has a 1000 feet harmonisation, quite appropriate and effective if you get used to set your sight properly.

 

S!

So for max gun convergence on the P51D should I set my Gyro scale to 1000 feet?

 

That's nice to know. Thanks!

So for max gun convergence on the P51D should I set my Gyro scale to 1000 feet?

 

That's nice to know. Thanks!

Welcome :thumbup:. That's why the control is there. And it works pretty well indeed, have a go a you'll see how effective guns are shooting at the correct distance.

 

 

S!

Welcome :thumbup:. That's why the control is there. And it works pretty well indeed, have a go a you'll see how effective guns are shooting at the correct distance.

 

 

S!

To be honest I was using the scale as a poor man's rangefinder, like you do with the ranging radar in the Sabre but manually.

 

I guess I will be more successful if I just set the scale to 1000 and wait the proper time to hit the fire button.

 

I will surely give it a go this evening.

I don't think we'll get that ever. It's been widely discussed here. That's a fake feature in many previous so called simulators, but IRL an aircraft got out of factory with a guns harmonisation already done and it wasn't supposed to be messed up with it all of the time. Of course it's not like they couldn't adjust or re-adjust after maintenance works or something in the field, but ground crews had better things to do that fiddling with guns harmonisation every day.

 

 

It's an opposite job which has to be done. Instead of adjusting the guns to your liking, know the harmonisation pattern of your guns and how to measure distance to target with your sight so you know where you have to open fire. Don't know yet what is it for A-8, but D9 and K4 had a 600m harmonisation pattern IIRC so probably A-8 had the same. P51 has a 1000 feet harmonisation, quite appropriate and effective if you get used to set your sight properly.

 

S!

Sad day when DCS players are cheering the lack of features compared with literally every other sim ever made. Sad day indeed.

Sad day when DCS players are cheering the lack of features compared with literally every other sim ever made. Sad day indeed.

The sad day was the day somebody decided to put fake things there and call the game a "simulator" so now people long for things that never ever happened IRL :huh:.

 

 

 

S!

The sad day was the day somebody decided to put fake things there and call the game a "simulator" so now people long for things that never ever happened IRL :huh:.

 

 

 

S!

Almost every single biography from ace's during the time mention changing their convergence, keep toting the line.

just read the Wikipedia page on gun harmonisation. its reference material is of a pretty high standard.

 

and Ala13_manowar provides no references..

Almost every single biography from ace's during the time mention changing their convergence, keep toting the line.

So you're and ace, I guess :lol: . ED could do the same, only allow for real aces to change their "convergence", right? The majority of the people wouldn't still be able to change it, like IRL. Will you be one of the chosen? :thumbup:

 

 

 

… and Ala13_manowar provides no references...

As I said it's been discussed before so many times. Use forum search, I've nothing to prove, it's not my war :smilewink: .

 

 

 

S!

This is a pretty late response (on my part), but not adding features that would benefit pilots just because they weren't that common IRL isn't a good excuse.

 

Having planes shooting their guns at different convergence settings wouldn't hamper immersion at all, nor would changing the ammo belts.

 

But whatever, I guess that's not the main point of the thread, and I got the answer to my main question, so thanks.

Yeah, realism in a hardcore simulation is overrated, right? :doh:

 

S!

Yeah, realism in a hardcore simulation is overrated, right? :doh:

 

S!

 

Not that I particulary care about setting the gun convergence but this argument is pointless.

 

One definition of a simulation:

"An as realistic as possible replication of events of reality."

 

So let's see.

Gun convergence could be changed in real life: Check

It was done in real life: Check

 

So in a hardcore simulation it should be possible, just because it was possible in reality. In a hardcore simulation it just doesn't matter if it wasn't done commonly.

 

Other points:

Will it breake the emersion? No

Will it hurt other sim pilots? No

Is it possible in the engine of the simulation? Don't know, but I guess it is.

Sometimes one might wish some of these "hardcore" guys would take a more realistic approach to pilot modeling and never post again after they die in the "simulation".

Sometimes one might wish some of these "hardcore" guys would take a more realistic approach to pilot modeling and never post again after they die in the "simulation".

Yeah, and I sometimes wish those newcomers thinking they know it all and the World was invented by them the day they arrived would shut up for a change :lol: , might be, and this is a wild idea, even read something before opening their mouths for and even more bewildering change :doh:. But I guess it's the consequences of postmodern World we live in and people think nobody else thought nothing before them despite all those previous "thoughts" being there in public for everyone to see, right? :dunno:

 

 

S!

Not that I particulary care about setting the gun convergence but this argument is pointless.

 

One definition of a simulation:

"An as realistic as possible replication of events of reality."

 

So let's see.

Gun convergence could be changed in real life: Check

It was done in real life: Check

 

So in a hardcore simulation it should be possible, just because it was possible in reality. In a hardcore simulation it just doesn't matter if it wasn't done commonly.

 

Other points:

Will it breake the emersion? No

Will it hurt other sim pilots? No

Is it possible in the engine of the simulation? Don't know, but I guess it is.

You want WT options? CHECKED

So go there for them CHECKED

 

 

:lol: :thumbup:

 

 

S!

Yeah, and I sometimes wish those newcomers thinking they know it all and the World was invented by them the day they arrived would shut up for a change :lol: , might be, and this is a wild idea, even read something before opening their mouths for and even more bewildering change :doh:. But I guess it's the consequences of postmodern World we live in and people think nobody else thought nothing before them despite all those previous "thoughts" being there in public for everyone to see, right? :dunno:

 

 

S!

 

This might help your symptoms.

 

ED has said they model the aircraft how they come off the production line.

 

Default convergence is fine for ground attack since the guns are already so close together. But it would help air to air combat if there were an option to converge a couple of the guns much closer in.

And a setting to remove 2 of the guns in favor of more ammo would be neat, but would anyone really use that? I wonder if that was ever actually done (kinda doubt it). It's so painful when you get down to just 4 guns.

 

But it would be nice to at least get a "no tracers" setting like the Hornet has.

This might help your symptoms.

Yeah, things aren't always like you want it right at the moment you want it. Get over it millennials :lol::lol::lol:.

 

S!

I wouldn't mind seeing it eventually, but in the grand scheme of things, priority wise it's not huge. It's been shown that it wasn't really something most pilots spent time tweaking.

 

I agree.

If DCS were doing the early half of the war (pre-1942) I'd be fighting pretty hard for convergence customisation (within 100-400 yrd ranges). There's plenty of evidence that RAF pilots at least were experiementing a lot with it, especially during April to Agust 1940.

 

RAF Fighter Command Pilot: The Western Front 1939–42, By Mark Barber, pg 55

"As early as spring 1939, No. 1 Squadron had conducted their own experiments with harmonizing their guns to converge on a point only 230m in front of their aircraft"

The Battle of Britain: Five Months That Changed History; May-October 1940, By James Holland,

"In may (1940) Fighter Command was setting the harmonization range at 400 yards. By July, 250 yards had become the prescribed distance. Pete Brothers had his guns harmonized even closer than that, even though, strictly speaking it was against RAF rules. He was not alone; many of the experienced pilots did the same... Tim Neil soon reset his guns at 150 yards"

 

The Story of the Spitfire: An Operational and Combat History ,By Ken Delve

Spitfire II, 145 Squadron at Catterick - "As a rule these harmonization patters were planned for an impact grouping at 250 yards or 300 yards, creating a circle 3 feet in diameter. Different harmonization patters were used for special purposes. Minor variations were allowed to individual pilots who requested it"

Spitfire: The Illustrated Biography: By Jonathan Glancey

"The pilots who fought over France and survived had, however, learned a few useful tips on how to take on the Messerschmitts. The trick was to get the fitters back at base to "harmonize" the Browning machine-guns so that their combined fire met their target in one concentrated burst just 250 yards ahead of the wings, instead of the official 400 yards"

 

Their Finest Hour: Stories of the Men who Won the Battle of Britain, By Nick Thomas

615 Squadron, May 1940 in France, "Following their first combat, many pilots re-adjusted the harmonization of their machine guns from the recommended 350 yards to 200 yards"

However, by 1944, convergence tweaking documentation/ evidence is almost impossible to find. Some time in 1942 (likey to be March 17th 1942), it seems, Sholto Douglas effectively ordered Fighter-Command wide standardisation of convergences (after a meeting with key Fighter Leaders like Douglas Bader and Stanford Tuck in Jan or Feb 1942).

Instead of allowing for complete and full customization of the guns harmonization, maybe they could allow for certain "presets" of certain ranges. Say 150, 200, etc...

 

Same thing for ammo belts. I really doubt anyone was doing a full customization of which type of ammo round was in their belts, link by link. There more than likely would have been certain sets available depending on the need: armor piercing, incendiary, balanced, etc.

Instead of allowing for complete and full customization of the guns harmonization, maybe they could allow for certain "presets" of certain ranges. Say 150, 200, etc...

Same thing for ammo belts. I really doubt anyone was doing a full customization of which type of ammo round was in their belts, link by link. There more than likely would have been certain sets available depending on the need: armor piercing, incendiary, balanced, etc.

 

 

 

 

3 or 4 "set" options might be a nice compromise, if DCS were to go down this path.

Aww bless, some people still think they might get this. How cute!

Aww bless, some people still think they might get this. How cute!

 

 

Which people?