Crumpp

In point of fact it does prove it was not a typical practice. It also proves the Devi should not waste time on it too.

Whose the weapon expert? The pilot or the armorers? It is the armorer milo. There is really nothing to debate nor does it require pages of discussion. Simply look in the instructions for sighting the weapons. instructions for setting "custom" convergences do not exist. If you are curious as to why...visit your local gun store and ask them about the limitations of reflex sights. Which is what those armorers had to explain to the pilots who "tried" to reinvent the wheel and contradict the engineers.

There is no anecdotal evidence for "custom" convergence settings in this video. He simply states some pilots went to the armorer to find out the convegerence settings for their aircraft. He also states he never worried about it and never bothered to ask.

Look at the documents I posted. You cannot change the convergence range without changing the relationship of the weapon ballistics to the line of sight. That is why the data is set up for using either a 1000 inch distance from the standard target to the boresight or a 500 yard firing range to boresight target for the USAAF. One is done in the hanger to align the weapon ballistics to the gunsight and the other is performed on a 500 yard firing range to set the zero. If you are not aligning the weapons to those specific parameters, then the relationship between point of aim and point of impact is changed to unknown parameters and will not hit the target as the sight is calibrated to perform. He will be firing essentially blind with the exception of the single point he zeroed the sight in using his own invention. That is not an effective way to fight. There is a good reason why the data is published and the aircraft weapons zero'd to a standard range. To say that fighter pilots routinely changed this ballistic relationship based on a whim just is not reality. Certainly, there were rare instances of those who felt their own ego superseded the physics and the data compiled by the weapon system engineers. Those instances were rare and despite local misconception.....not as effective as using the data the engineers provided to maximize the effectiveness of the weapon system. In otherwords, not allowing players to adjust the convergence is much more realistic than some silly slider or custom zero. That is simply gamer fantasy. The sights are set to be most effective using standard data.

You have correctly stated the exact reason why there were standard boresighting procedures as well as zero and harmonization ranges. There is no convergence change. The convergence is still set a fixed distance.

https://archive.org/details/NIX-EL-2001-00456

It's purpose was to point out that Yo-Yo explained the camera picture physics and why it was not relevant to keep spamming the thread with pictures. Which is why Yo-Yo replied:

Good point Yo-Yo.... Entry speed makes a huge difference. IRL, it will kill you.

You forgot step 4 which is the most important if you want to do a snap roll. :smilewink: That is why your snap rolls are not smooth in DCS. Try it.

No amount of posting what the camera sees changes the physics into what the eye and brain percieve. This is how flight sims in the past ended up with cartoony propeller animations.

Practice....there is a reason why snap rolls are one of the most difficult aerobatic maneuvers to correctly perform. A lot is going on in a very short period of time!

The FM snap rolls very realistically if you perform the snap roll correctly. Pulling back hard and applying full rudder is not a snap roll nor will a real aircraft do one with that control input. http://www.popularmechanics.com/adventure/sports/a6585/how-to-snap-roll-a-stunt-plane/

Maybe...maybe not...I do not know and unless your flying formation or operating a Mustang paying particular attention to this detail...nobody else does either. :smilewink: What is a fact is only photographic evidence has been presented to illustrate that. What camera perceives and what the eye perceives are not the same. Yo-Yo strikes me as a detail guy and someone who is pretty passionate about getting those details right. I am sure he will check it out and fix it if it is not correct.

Your "standard" looks like the Aeroproducts propeller and not one of the several Hamilton Standard designs used on the P-51 series.

Because as Yo-Yo explained.... DCS models what the eye perceives and not the camera.

The size difference tells you nothing about the effectiveness of the control surface.

Like most aircraft that have a significant amount of service history, the P-51 had multiple propeller designs. Which propeller is used by the Mustang in the photo and which propeller is modeled in DCS?

I agree. Ammunition comes in standard mixes even in the Luftwaffe. iIRC. The standard mixes are in the Schiessfibel. The "according to your own experience" I would think refers to choosing between those mixes without tracer and standard mixes that include tracer. .50 caliber for example came in 5:1 mix (API to Tracer), Ball, or 5:1 mix ball as a few of the standard choices when I was in the Army.

I actually jumped in with a sarcastic attempt at humor but deleted it. :music_whistling: Instead, I will take the opportunity to welcome Heli3 to the community. You will find it is generally speaking a well educated and more mature group of folks. Please clearly state what you think is not correct. You will find the developers communicate with the community and answer most questions with a lot of patience even when it is clear the audience does not understand the answer. Bear with it and you will find this sim is very rewarding. :thumbup:

Yes...it did not participate in any combat.

Not all the German automatic systems are created equally! Although folks like to compare the Bf-109's automatics to the FW-190 series the fact is there is a degree of sophistication in the FADEC like controls of the Kommandogerat that is not present in the recipe linked DB system. The DB system does not have the variable datum linkage.

Some practical experience would help your perspective, Otto. Actually taxing is very different from sitting in the cockpit in the maintenance hanger.

Rudder movement is a consequence of brake application.

The power lever of the FW190 series is not hard linked to the engine. Think of it as an analog FADEC system. Below FTH the same power lever position (dent setting) results in the same engine power irregardless of density altitude.

http://www.avweb.com/news/features/The-Risks-of-Maneuvering-Speed-Myths-222680-1.html http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NTSB_Says_Pilots_Excessive_Rudder_Pedal_Inputs_Led_to_Crash_of_American_Flight_587;_Airbus_Rudder_System_Design_Amp;_Eleme.aspx