Jump to content

Adjustable gun convergence, Ammo type


Moafuleum
 Share

Recommended Posts

Using Tacview, I came to the conclusion. that max concentration for the Spitfire, is 830 to 860 feet.

 

..

I7 2600K @ 3.8, CoolerMaster 212X, EVGA GTX 1070 8gb. RAM 16gb Corsair, 1kw PSU. 2 x WD SSD. 1 x Samsung M2 NVMe. 3 x HDD. Saitek X-52. Saitek Pro Flight pedals. CH Flight Sim yoke. TrackIR 5. Win 10 Pro. IIyama 1080p. MSAA x 2, SSAA x 1.5. Settings High. Harrier/Spitfire/Beaufighter/The Channel, fanboy..





..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Well then their must be a bunch of False advertising going around then on its the most accurate this and that, i dont see the logic in resistance to this feature being added. Will add some real Air Marksmanship and personalization to your airframe just like it happened in a War these tail draggers are meant to represent to DCS Standards.

Intel 8700k @5ghz, 32gb ram, 1080ti, Rift S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

maxresdefault.jpg

 

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.

 

Fact and well said!

Intel 8700k @5ghz, 32gb ram, 1080ti, Rift S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No way. First of all, all American pilots got serious training in air shooting including deflection fire. Then, there were serious investigations conducted to determine the best dispersion patterns and they showed that the best approach is to have dispersed patterns.

 

Yes way.

When I was doing my research for armaments for Team Fusion, I studied the P51.

 

First, we both agree that the pattern was a dispersed pattern rather than a point pattern. And I also agree that evaluation resulted in the decision for a dispersed pattern. One of those reasons was pilot efficiency in the early stages of volume recruitment.

 

I'll have to go through my notes but what I recall in one article was that one of the reasons for the dispersed pattern was to increase the probability of hits with respect to the type of energy fighting the P51 would likely be engaged in, and another observation was that . . . . . with the increased volume of pilots being quickly trained and thrust into service for the European and Pacific theatres, the dispersed pattern set for 1,000 ft was more effective for them as they would not have sufficient initial combat experience to be as effective with a point pattern. Not the main reason, but one of them.

 

Here are some bits from my notes:

 

The normal vibration of the guns as they fired would also spread the shots; an intended point convergence was at best a somewhat larger grouping of shots within a circle. At a distance of 1,000 ft (300 m), the tightest practical grouping of shots would range throughout a circle about 4 ft (1.2 m) wide.

 

Various distances that were employed in World War II by American fighters using .50 inch (12.7 mm) heavy machine gun rounds include 500 ft (150 m), 750 ft (230 m), 900 ft (270 m) and 1,000 ft (300 m), with the longer distances favoured later in the war.

 

Some American air units also converged their guns in a rectangle. USAAF Major James White described how the Mustangs of his 487th Fighter Squadron were harmonised to fire their six guns into a wide rectangle 10 by 6 ft (3.0 by 1.8 m) at 450 ft (140 m).[15] The outer guns of the Mustang were 15.846 ft (4.830 m) apart, so this ten-foot box narrowed in width as the firing distance increased.

 

Some pilots preferred more than one point of convergence. In 1944 operating out of England, American Lieutenant Urban "Ben" Drew set the .50 in guns of his North American P-51 Mustang "Detroit Miss" to converge at three points: 600 ft (180 m), 750 ft (230 m) and 900 ft (270 m), with the inboard guns aimed closer and the outboard guns farther away. Drew felt that this gave him a suitable concentration of fire over a deeper envelope of engagement distance.

 

Cheers

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 is landing the Spitfire so "realistic" than you end up in the grass upside down.

 

By your definition, there should be no problems with engine management, torque, slip, etc. etc. etc. (which are calculated in DCS aircraft), and we can all zip around the sky with unlimited fetters and shoot laser guns.

 

Ah, but according to you, guns are different! No they are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Ian, the default labels readings (when set to imperial) update every 0.1 of a nautical mile I believe (not sure, I use metric anyway)? Which would be about every 600 ft. Hardly accurate - one can always "catch" the moment of switching from one one-hundredth to another when engaging air targets, but I wouldn't even try doing it when diving towards ground targets, because at high closing rate a fraction of a second can yield tens, if not 100+ feet of difference.

 

For comparison, in mission editor, when zoomed in, the ruler tool measures distances down to single feet, so if there's any tall building nearby, I would choose taxiing and stationary shooting method for more much accurate estimates (though one would have to measure the building height itself and calculate slant distance to be really accurate :D).


Edited by Art-J

i7 9700K @ stock speed, single GTX1070, 32 gigs of RAM, TH Warthog, MFG Crosswind, Win10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pilot he copied was not high ranking, famous or well known at all. If a Wing Commander of a squadron, like Johnnie Johnson, studied gun cam footage of his subordinates in order to decide which convergence to best use himself, then I think that speaks volumes. It shows that lower ranks were able to use custom convergence and that different convergence was used by different pilots.

 

+1

 

Maybe we could have an option like "custom gun convergence" in the misc. options? If someone finds it "unrealistic" then he can forbid it on his server.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1

 

Maybe we could have an option like "custom gun convergence" in the misc. options? If someone finds it "unrealistic" then he can forbid it on his server.

 

Ya would be nice to have under special options like the 109 has the rudder and aileron trim adjustment tabs...

Intel 8700k @5ghz, 32gb ram, 1080ti, Rift S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Yes, I agree with these guys. To me, the Spits guns do not seem anywhere near 300 meters out. If I set the gun site to that distance and try it on a straight flying enemy the rounds don't even hit. They pass right by the plane after converging way before it.

As someone else pointed out we do already have the ability to change these settings offline and I have moved my convergence out to what appears to be the same as the Mustangs and it is awesome. I don't even need to change out the ammo just the convergence.

It is very frustrating flying online and needing to try and sneak up so close to an enemy plane to even have them in range. Every time I get that close the guy can hear my engine and starts jinking all over before you can get a shot in. I have not even been able to provide support to my wingman in the Spit because every time I try to cover him my guns won't even reach the enemy attacking him.

 

I don't think it needs to be overdone with a million different options. I would be happy with a few different load outs and convergence distances to choose from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I tested it out and can post the video and screenshot evidence if need be but the guns on the spit are not converging at 300 yards.

 

At least not as the Spitfires gunsight is concerned. The guns on the Spitfire are currently converging at the distance of 250 yards. This distance is true if you set the Spits gunsight distance to 250 yards and then set the wingspan dial to the red mark on the wingspan gauge just to the right of the 40-foot mark. There is no 30-foot mark on the site and the red mark on that gauge appears to be as close to 33 or 32 feet as you can get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the controversy on this topic, I'd like to see a "limited" convergence customization made available to the player.

 

Here'd be my suggestion:

 

3 "convergence" range options

1. Short - 250yrds (228m)

2. Medium - 300yrds (274m)

3. Long - 350yrds (320m)

 

And, TWO pattern options.

1. POINT convergence (all guns converge horizontally and vetically on the point)

2. BOX PATTERN convergence (guns are slightly staggered by 5 to 10m each to provide a small shotgun spread at the convergence point)

 

That would give a total of 6 convergence options/ permutations - which seem to all be within reasonable historical uses.

On YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/philstylenz

Storm of War WW2 server website: https://stormofwar.net/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Given the controversy on this topic, I'd like to see a "limited" convergence customization made available to the player.

 

Here'd be my suggestion:

 

3 "convergence" range options

1. Short - 250yrds (228m)

2. Medium - 300yrds (274m)

3. Long - 350yrds (320m)

 

And, TWO pattern options.

1. POINT convergence (all guns converge horizontally and vetically on the point)

2. BOX PATTERN convergence (guns are slightly staggered by 5 to 10m each to provide a small shotgun spread at the convergence point)

 

That would give a total of 6 convergence options/ permutations - which seem to all be within reasonable historical uses.

 

Yes, I agree. Options like this would be good enough. With one caveat, if they continue with this default ammo load then we need options for ammo load as well.

 

Currently, we are firing useless observer rounds out of a MkIV that never carried such rounds and were completely removed from the RAF by 1944. Yet, at the same time, we are being told historical accuracy is the main objective (just ignore those completely unrealistic special settings for both the German warbirds in DCS).

 

I removed the observer rounds from my Spits ammo load and the guns are far more effective, but of course, none of us can use them online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently, we are firing useless observer rounds out of a MkIV that never carried such rounds and were completely removed from the RAF by 1944. ..

I removed the observer rounds from my Spits ammo load and the guns are far more effective, but of course, none of us can use them online.

 

 

 

Yes!

Why the hell are we shooting dud rounds?

 

 

If they actually did what an observer round was supposed to do, then it might make sense, but

1 - we have tracer rounds

2 - the de Wilde did the job, which is why it replaced the crappy observer rounds

3 - The hit GFX in DCS are rubbish for the WW2 guns anyway.

 

 

Remove the observer rounds ED!

On YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/philstylenz

Storm of War WW2 server website: https://stormofwar.net/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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