JG13Wulf

109, 190 were used during night. Some were even equipped of little radar. But most of those plane used at night were completely blind and followed what they can to find night bomber. You read some information about the "wilde sau" tactics. Funny scenario but even read that Ju88 equipped with radar were used as beacon to help those fighter to find the enemy. They emit signal that afn2 instrument can detect and follow. So even if they were not built to do that at first they were used for that. Some light for night start up would be great :)

Don't have the possibility to give you the exact source. But member of my virtual squadron who had the possibility to ask to a old ground crew in the French Air Force had the following answer. "It was common and it upset us as it was boring to do. But we had to do it. As the planes get more and more modernised it was less and less common. We do it usually when on F4U Corsair. but with jet plane, it became rare that pilot ask us for it." (I translated it as best as possible). The guy was working in the French Air Force Navy after the War. At this time there was still some warebird in use. The F4U was in use in French Marine. He is no more active in the Army as you can imagine but still come at airport as plane are his passion. ==> Could be interresting to ask to ground crew from war and the period after when warbirds were still in use.

Internal texture is nice. But I feel that the Dora and maybe all the warbirds need to be upgrade to a same level of modelisation. One point I dislike is the difference between the controls in different planes. Would be nice if Bf 109 and both FW 190 get same controls bind possibility when looking at same system (ex safety on stick placed on K4 and A8 but missing on D9). Maybe one day :p

No it's just people keep talking here about that. Not there. ^^

I tried to make the discussion to another toppic but it was a fail ^^ Still I ask this for P47 too :music_whistling:

Know it by name but didn't try. Didn't know there was a firing range to set up gun in it. (Please don't ban my comment because of this : But a similar thing would be awesome in DCS !) But you know, Simulation is similar to other simulation. If not that would be weird. There are Spitfire in every WW2 sim. Since it's not a copy. It's just part of every WW2 sim to simulate this plane. But I don't mean to copy anything from other game. I hope to see just the better way to simulate things as DCS clearly say on each module : "We make simulation of xxx module that never get an equivalent before". About Flight model it's a fact (and it's why DCS is attractive). But about other feature that not the case now. Will be better and better (I believe it as I keep flying and buying new module). And as I previously said, modification of the plane (gun, miror addition, ammo belt, ...) is one of the most iconic feature of WW2. same plane on two different front were so much different.

Where did I mean that ? I ask to have a realistic feature. To make it better if possible than any other sim (that how DCS could become the best) And I said I hope DCS will not do like some other by using level to unlock feature. I just give an alternative possibility ... Where did I say let's copy what they do there ?

That's not explicit, but by reading you can feeel it was common. But we could discuss about that long time without agree with each other. So let's not get stuck on this. I got answer on P47 toppic (create this one to stop talking on the plane one but it didn't work well ^^) As I said there, I agree with the idea to have a preset list. But who could say which preset we will add in game ? We will not have all as it is impossible to find them all. That's why I think the best way is to have for each pilot the possibility to set up personalised settings. But then, the mission maker would have the possibility to lock or not this feature. This mean to unlock it to let player use their setting or to lock it and choose in a list of preset for the plane he set on the map. This would still not be 100% perfect but I really think this would be the better way to simulate this feature. As you could tell in a serie of missions: "No aces in first mission, so no personnalised settings". Then in the 4th mission : "You two have become aces, you get some kills, you earn the possibility to fly with personnal convergence but not the other". You will tell me it's the unlock system you talk about before. The difference there is that it's not the game that choose it but the mission maker. This is a big difference.

The difference it's not that big. But I completely understand your point with head on attack. And I agree there are many more case where the little addition of elevation is not perfect. But the pilot could have the same difficulty with the original fixed settings. As I said I change them to try to see the difference. But as I have years of flying on this one and against it, I know, when flying it, 99% of my air battle are turn fight or end in turn fight. That's why I tried this setting as it seems to follow my way to use Spitfire. And it work and I'm still able to make good AG attack with gun and good 1G shoot. The difference is not big but is far more confortable 99% of the tim I fly it. But I completely agree that it's my personnal preference and I totally agree that you and some other people could dislike this setting completely. The discussion about this could continue similarly with topic like "Blue is the best color ! No I prefer red" :lol: We could have the same argument with the D9 as I just did the opposite. I made it better for 1G close shoot as it wasn't set for this in game. As I have 10+ years using german planes in some squadron with really hard training (following procedure and tactics of this time), I get used to never shoot at distance over 250m. Now I have the capacity to now exactly where to place the sight and when to start to shoot. But the original setting did make shoot almost impossible (for me). I make some flight with the D9 and almost didn't miss a shoot since I modify those valor. Setting the gun to shoot with less elevation because in opposition to Spitfire, I almost never do turn fight with D9 and only 1G shoot is a great thing to me. (It's funny but, yes, I prefer original setting of D9 on Spit and the one of Spit on D9 ^^ ) If I imagine I go ask a squadron leader by telling him I'm used to shoot closer than the plane is actually set, I don't know what he could tell me. And I think only squadron leader of that time would know what to answer. Maybe he would tell no. Maybe he would warn me or try to explain me that is (for him) a bad idea. I don't know. Maybe he could say "Ok, go set your guns and come back before 10Pm" :megalol: On this forum, i think no one could tell a definitive answer about this as all squadron leader are different. It's a difficult toppic to understand how it should be open to modification or lock in some way. I agree. But if you go for the idea of preset. It could end up terribly wrong or be completely nice. There are so many possibilities of variation and so much variation occur during war it's hard to have a game with a complete and correct gun setting preset list. I think there are no solution 100% realist. But we have now the less one. Having no possibility to slightly change those two angles make it not correct. And I think that is a fact. That's why I think pilot should be able to set completely personnalised gun setting** (and maybe yes having some preset to help them). And I think the Mission maker should have the possibility to lock or unlock convergence for each plane in there mission. Unlock so game use pilot personnal one or lock and use a preset the mission maker choose. This would be the best way as you could have preset if you prefer or personnalisation. **By gun setting, I mean the two angles : azimuth_initial elevation_initial (With obvious limitation) Ps : Some talk about having feature lock/unlock linked to a K/D ratio or linked to a level. It's a way to work. But lock/unlock option in simulation world was never a good idea. (almost kill and kill some game/sim not only in aviation). That's why I think it would be a bad idea. Or maybe having the possibility to unlock after flying x number or hours in the plane ? But nothing related to a level or to a K/D ratio. => This turn flight sim into plane FPS :joystick:

For the P47, you are true. Heard that a lot. But as you said it's recommended and not fixed. That the little difference between reality and game for now. But yeah, I agree each plane had recommended setting as not every pilot had exeperience and recommendation was always a good starting point. I agree with you that Spit is used for 1G fire and ground attack. But as my preference, I have generally more time to correct the error in level attack or for ground attack than in turn (even more when I loose target). But I agree it's probably not the setting everyone would love. But the setting now in game is not perfect to me (and for some people) That a question of preference from pilot to another I think.

Yeah I now it cross the sight line as it go up (but that really close of the plane and generally it's not at that point that you find your ennemy ^^ ) I have a pretty good idea of how it work. As part of my study I had to resolve numerous problems of parabolic shoot but it's not that easy for me to make clear explanation of this in english with the perfect terminology. But you can believe me, as a physicist, I have a pretty good idea of the problem. And I really start thinking that people don't understand what I ask because of terminology error. I just tried all the warbirds with slightly modified valor for : elevation_initial value in planes lua. So if I clearly understand the way it work, this value simulate the vertical angle of the gun in the wing. I didn't modify the azimuth_initial. I let that for tomorrow :music_whistling: For in game example : For Fw 190D9 I divided the original value by half and for spitfire I change it from 0 to 0.9 or 1.2 for each gun. This mean for a real life plane adjusting only the vertical "screw" that hold the gun as it was a guess work. But for the 190, it make the plane shoot far better than with original settings. Simply because I always get mad at my gun at close range with original value because the bullet past over the center of sight and I missed a lot of shoot because of that. I shoot lot of bullet over close target before. My general use of the D9 is to come behind with high speed and shoot when closer than 250m from my target. As the EZ 42 don't change the center following gravity (which you explained me thzt it's not a bug), I missed a lot of target because the bullet passed little over the sight center and I sometimes make a bad correction during the fast attack. With my slight modification (changing 0.35 to 0.175), I have my gun that shoot in the middle of the sight at my usual shooting distance. For the Spitfire I used to lost always my target in turn when trying to shoot and never used a lot the gun when leveled. Here I changed slightly and the plane is set better for how I use it in general. Those kind of modification let me think that I do something some sources explained in my big post. Some squadron modify their guns setting to match their usual strategy. I fell like I just done that. The value I put are guessed. But it make the plane better. I don't mean more correct, but I'm more confortable in it as it is set to follow how I use it in general. The only think I hope is to be able to do the same with a correct system that don't allow me to use completely unrealistic angles for gun and allow me to not break integrity check. Thanks for taking time to answer. :pilotfly:

Yes I know that but the goal of this one is to show that convergence setting change the orientation of the cone, not their size (as some believed). Then it was to show the size of the gun covered area. It increase when setting a convergence point that is further. So converging guns are not more precise. But convergence 300m and shoot target at 300m should cause more damage as more bullet are concentrated in this area than convergence 100m and shoot target at 300m. This is all the point of my request. I shoot usually at 200m, why should I keep plane that have fixed setting to shoot at 600m (example with random value I prefer to precise !!!). ------------------------------------ @Yoyo: I just tried to make slight modification with Spitfire elevation. I don't know who tell you it's useless to modify elevation and gun azimuth, but he should make some fire practice. Change the elevation of 7.7mm from 0 to 0.9 and the elevation of the canon from 0 to 1.2. It need some shoot to understande the path of the bullet, but it work better than original setting. I choose to try this set as majority of my combat are dogfight. The little elevation force me to think when shooting while level. But in turn it make lot of difference. Target go less under the nose as I don't need to place the sight too much in front (during smooth turn). It don't change balistic of the bullet. Each bullet still does the same amount of damage. In my spit they just go a bit over the sight at first before going down ... Edit : I use Spitfire as it has tracers on each gun and so I was able to understand faster how valor in the files work.

Really ... You never see any schema anywhere ? Where proportion are not respected ? Please ... I don't even want to try to explain you ...

uh ? You are talking about the scale of the not scaled 1:1 drawing ? Or I didn't understand ?

Ok, I will made some more terminology error, sorry for that. I understand that guns should be adjusted by pair. Ok with that. It's completely logical. Convergence is not the best pattern following the terminology you explained to me. I totally agree. Convergence as I understand it, is an imaginary point where a bullet following perfectly physics theory without any real world error should cross the sight line. To have the point at a desired distance of 200m, it need to have the gun set (elevation and horizontal angle). Convergence point is a point in a 3D world where "perfect bullet" hit the sight line. So I agree with everything you tell until there. So gun are linked by pair (except obviously nose canon). And the pair of gun is set for a theorical convergence point at desired distance on sight line. And guns are set to have an optimised coverage of a consistent areas. And the setting of the gun is made to tweak where this area is (distance from nose) and how big it is. Preset would be nice. A good way to choose between small area, medium area, wide area. As those would simulate unique/close convergence point or multiple convergences points as it as in reality. What I don't like about the preset idea is that the covered area distance wouldn't be modifiable (if i clearly understand what those preset would mean). For example, It would be useless to have a list of preset settings for pattern if we can't set small/medium/large for a desired distance. The same pattern at 500m or at 200m don't have the same size. Maybe more clear with drawing than with "medium" english Hard to clearly explain all of that with the correct word when not english ^^ Hope my text mean what I tried to explain. I rewrite some sentence few time but still not completely sure. :doh:

What do you mean about patern exactly ? The patern for me (as my english is not the best) is the shape of the surface perpendicular, in front of the plane at a desired distance were the majority of the bullet are shoot. If looking at this, picture, the shoot patern at a particular distance is the area were majority of the bullet goes. If all gun are the same and converge to one point, it should look like a circle (like the illustration). With multiple convergence point, it should look like another surface (maybe kind of rectangle or elliptic area). The pattern size for a gun at a particular distance is not something we should be able to modify and I don't think most of people ask about that. As Patern directly linked to gun dispersion and because gun dispersion is something we can't modify. But the patern shape can change only for two reason. The convergence of each gun will modifiy the area were the bullet from all the gun go and and distance we choose to look obviously implied a defferent dispersion area from another distance. The more we go far, and the more the surface is big. This is nothing we have to change. As it is working in game today, it's not perfect but it's really great (can't be perfect as it's not reality). The convergence setting which is asked is only the vertical and horizontal angle of the gun in the wing. I agree it would be nice to have the official list of preset for each plane. But I think you should consider adding at least more preset as there are squadron using personalised convergence settings for all their planes. I don't think those convergences were official manufacturers one, but theses were used. (See my post linked later) But I feel it would be more easier to add the possibility to set manually the convergence but in a limited logic area ("not too close not too far"). Still would be happy with a list of preset, but I'm scared to see only two in game as AA/AG. Pattern modification is a result of convergence settings. But in reality, pattern of each gun don't really change. They just "cross the line of sight of the plane" at variable distance. And as the distance is a parameters of the size the area the gun shoot, convergence is a setting to allow pilots to choose a sector/volume in front of the plane were they want the bullet to go. My way to usually set them is to fire at close range (were gun have less dispersion and bullet are still in almost horizontal path). This mean all my gun shoot in front of me at the same level and I don't have canon shooting over machine gun. But then, at greater distance, canon drop faster and separate for the other bullet. I know some who prefer to set convergence far. That happen more with US plane as these plane have lot of guns (all the same) and a big fire rate, they prefer to fire at larger area. They just need to place plane in an unprecise area in front of their nose and then the gun dispersion allow them to have few hits. But as .50 cal are powerfull and shoot straight and as the gun have a big rate of fire, they can make some dammage to target at good distance. It's a question of way to flight and way to fight. It's sad you follow the thinking of some that say it's useless because they didn't get able to make better results against ennemy fighter (if I clearly understand some of your answer from before). As I used moded convergence years and years ago (mod given in 1.5 for some mission with P51) I can say there is a difference. The first shoot are bad as it's something that need to be set, reset, ... But when you get something that match with your usual way to fight, air combat become another world. I would be really happy if you let me show you how this setting could make a big difference in a plane like Bf109 or Spitfire. Having the ability to set the canon to shoot the same trajectory as bullet (almost) for the 150 / 200 first meters make an enormous difference. (Maybe it's a better idea to talk about this subject there rather than on P47 toppic ?) https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=255399 Ps : I don't think convergence will increase score dramaticaly as it is not the magical thing that make pilot shoot better and better. training, working on deflexion, learning how to use the plane and how to fight the ennemy is the only way to make better result. Then convergence will help by allowing to losing less ammo by having gun shooting the area where we need them to shoot in general air battle.

More for the possibility to set a GCI that can give you some info about enemy formation. Like you can see in battle of britain movie Radar find ennemy (restriction from radar of that time) Info send to control Control send info to plane I simplified it but it would be awesome. But this would be a enormous system I think. Would be really nice for campaing or big ww2 server. Some server have a similar scripted system to give you position of ennemy in some area now.

Too much post with too much discussion with people arguing both way with absolutly no sources. Here is a post with lot of sources that tell it was done and it was common. I prefer to make a new one as I didn't want my research work to drown in those endless conversation. I think you don't even read what I explain AND what is explained by credible sources. Proove me it wasn't common with documentation from official sources or WW2 pilots/mechanics testimony. I found multiple sources that there was squadron personnalised convergence at least. This let think it was a common thing. So thanks for coming but not thanks for doing the same as everybody. Giving what they think without anything to proove. Thinking that what they belive is the only truth. This way to give answer lead to endless conversation and that's not what I want. Please get proof, send documentation then I will be open to discuss anything you want as I'm sure there are precision to add to this topic. I don't say I have all the answer.

Oh ok ^^ Yes the draw was exagerated as all draw who want to attract people attention ^^ Thanks, happy peoples read my big medium english post :lol:

Seriously ??? Don't feel that you take moderation a bit too far this time ... As I'm not english it's I try to use the best terminology but yeah I know that it can confuse people. Lot of guns shoot almost horizontal as the bullet are fast and light (.50 cal, Mg 131, 7.7 mm and even Mg 151/20). But gun like Mk 108 are heavy. Most of the people I know shoot at close range. But at those range, you can feel that the MK 108 or even the 20mm of the spit shoot completely over the target. About the EZ 42, I think as it is a gyro gunsight, the plane should have a factory setting to match the sight. I don't really now well those gyro sight and the way it can be set for various gun set. And I was wrong as I tought there was a bug on it but I belive Yoyo when he answer on my bug report saying Ez 42 didn't pay attention to normal gravity (as the fighter could be upside down and for the sight gravity should normally be under it and not over). So for Gyro I don't know and I couldn't find any information for plane using that kind of sight. I'm more talking about the fixed sight like we have on Spit, Bf 109 and Fw 190A8. With your answer, I don't know if you understand what I mean in my *deleted* post ... But some people think that I'm asking to reduce what I call the fire area (reducing the barrel dispersion) at desired range. But I'm asking to be able to set the angle of my barrel to have a concentrated fire area at the distance I actually shoot plane. Sorry if I use lot of picture but - has I don't speak perfect english I try to illustrate with a maximum of picture (and sometimes yeah I like to make movie reference ... :lol: ) - I'm bored to get only the "No because I think the opposite and I have to be correct not you" usual kind of answer ^^ A picture showing the gun place in wings. The black fastener seems to be movable.

Maybe didn t read them all before but I had read most of them before (first link I made the last answer)

Thanks that was the answer I looking for. Edit : missunderstood (too fast reading on phone !) Will wait for update about this ! Thanks

As mod it break integrity check. But yes it's possible.

------------------------------ Now I will discuss something I IMAGINE FROM SEEING PICTURE OF TARGET AT FIRING RANGE ! So I don't find anything to proove what will follow FROM HERE First let see a target : Those target seems to have been send in kit from the WW2 IKEA shop. I mean, by looking at it, I don't think it would be difficult to modify it to move the target circle on the horizontal support. This made me think it's not that difficult to change the target to change the convergence point following pilot request. The most complicated thing should have been to make the math to now where each circle should be placed. As I do lot of math for my job, this don't seems that terrible (for me). But I can imagine that Armorer and ground crew had a book or a chart with some "favorite" convergence setting. Maybe stupid, but if there was personnalised setting for each squadron, there must have been a chart at firing range to set the target correctly for each squadron. So maybe some pilot could have requested to have the x or y squadron setting. TO THERE (so this part was something I imagine after seeing target and reading what is before. Now another doc to complete my thinking. This is from pilot memories https://books.google.be/books?id=UWncIUNVZ2sC&pg=PT190&lpg=PT190&dq=gun+harmonisation+P51&source=bl&ots=rnqWkVJi0t&sig=ACfU3U3r_X77PmvVPjMEiF6kUTtxpjJsNg&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjN6-COxrniAhWKKlAKHauTDCsQ6AEwEXoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=gun%20harmonisation%20P51&f=false As you can read, the pilot asked for 200 yards convergence and not the original 250 yards convergence. Following what I told just before, I imagine target range crew had a chart to set his P51 to 200 yards. But here we have a pilot who asked for gun convergence modification. But reading wikipedia page, it seems that he was a Battle of Britain ace. So when he asked for his Mustang to be modify he was already an ace. Still We have here a pilot who ask for gun setting modification and it was done. ------------------------------ Finally, I will end up my very long post with 2 interview of Pierre Clostermann (in french). The first one talk about the Spitfire. If I refer to "Ciel de Gloire" website, he had only 6 confirmed kill on Spitfire. That mean he was an aces on Spitfire but only at the end. (He made majority of his kill on Tempest). http://www.cieldegloire.com/004_clostermann.php (See at the bottom of the page the table of kills) So On the first interview he said (I tried to do my best for translation !) If the website Ciel de Gloire is correct, this mean that Clostermann (not an ace at this period) could ask for some modification of the vertical convergence of the gun. And another interview of Clostermann : This time (no quote) he said that he receive a new Tempest. He come at his new home base and find member of the ground crew of 602 (former squadron). And one of the first thing they do is to set the gun on a multiple convergence point parten (he name it "système de l'arrosage"). After setting the gun, he make a flight to test the guns in flight (shooting at german frontline) and he find a Bf 109 that he kill. So he set his gun and make a fill directly after. --------------------- So to conclude. I think all of this could proove that convergence setting was a reality. I can understand that really particular convergence setting could not be done. I hope to see at least convergence preset avaible in DCS. But still, as I think it's impossible to find all the historical pattern, it would be better (and easier) for DCS to allow all convergence (between defined valor). And maybe not precise variation but the possibility to change from 10m to 10m. I think there are lot of doc here. Lot of information that don't come from nowhere. If I'm wrong (possible), but I hope to see some details to explain me how and why. Thanks !

Hi, First, yes I know there are other post about this with long discussion. I prefer to start a new post as in the other we have lot of pages with only discussing for people who think they are both right. All the fact following are linked to a source or are think I understand by reading. I ask everyone who want to answer to read all sources of people before commenting and to come with documentation to prove what they tell. I think it's the best way to sort out this question as it's not as simple as yes we should have this feature or no we should not have it ! -------------------------------------- To begin here is my point and what I think we should ask to have one day in DCS WW2. I think we should have the possibility to change the settings of each of our guns. Selecting the calibration speed and then the horizontal and vertical convergence. This should be an option in the special setting page of the module (the same page where we choose the settings of trims for Bf 109). But I think mission makers should have the possibility to choose to lock or to unlock the convergence. This mean they should get the possibility to set a convergence for each plane and force player to use it or to let the player use the personnal convergence they choose in plane settings. A good way to have an easy set for mission maker should be to make convergence profile (like we can have armement profil now for quick plane set up in FMB) The idea to lock could be used for mission when pilot had to take "another plane than his plane" (mission context) or for setting squadron special gun convergence setting. Ok so that my point. Now I will give you everything I found that make me think I'm right to ask for this feature. I hope to have constructive discussion and not just people coming to say "No that's not what I want in DCS". --------------------------------------------------- First of all, as you can imagine, a warplane who make several missions need some repair and inspection. Guns could be removed, repaired or replaced on home base (or on target range base). So It's easy to understand that warplane with some hours of flight will be different from brand new factory plane. In reality, planes don't get out of factory to then go to fight one hour later. Ok so imagine we have a plane at an airbase. How was the gun set ? Here is some doc about the gun convergence setting procedure : https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc28664/m1/1/ This doc talk about all the gunnery settings. It was written in 1944 and had to replace a 1941 doc (written on this page : https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc28664/m1/3/ ). It is official doc from US war departement. I think we can trust it. So it's a good little book to read but I will only talk about some part of it. In the following page you will find the procedure (step by step) to set gun convergence on a plane (at firing range). You can read too that this procedure could be done with target at different distances (750 - 1000 feet). You can see that there was possibility to use shorter target range (improvised on home base) if there was no firing rang near the airbase. Please note too that on the second page, the document talk about gun converging on multiple point. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc28664/m1/20/ https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc28664/m1/21/ https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc28664/m1/22/ https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc28664/m1/23/ So now I hope we can agree that convergence could be set at firing range or on airbase if needed. And don't forget that the doc talk about the multiple convergence point => That why I'm asking about the setting of each gun seperately. Let's now talk about the convergence setting for a particular speed. In the same doc, you can find this page : https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc28664/m1/17/ If you read it, it talk about the P38E. This plane seems to fly with a 0.11° nose up when at 300 mph. This means that the gun will shoot above the line of sight. So when making the convergence settings, it was needed to choose an airspeed to calibrate the plane. Finally, last thing I took from this doc is the inspection interval of the gunsight : https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc28664/m1/28/ I didn't understand it well at first (thinking it was a all weapon system inspection every 40 hours of flight). But it seems it talk about the gunsight only. But this mean that there was a regular inspection of it and I imagine a regular inspection of the gun too. (maybe other people would have more information about the guns inspection). That's all about this doc. So after reading this, I can sum up with the following. Plane could had a armament convergence setting on airbase or on firing range. If you read between lines, it seems that plane could be set for non-factory convergence setting and even to have gun shooting at different convergence point. As it come from a discussion without source, I can only tell but not proove anything : I read that P47 had the possibility to use 4 gun at a desired convergence and the 4 other at another convergence (the people seems to talk about 250 yards - 350 yards). I got nothing to proove it's right but maybe this could help : ---------------------------------------- To complete the previous doc, here are some screenshot of firing range. Some as you can imagine are "real" firing range and some are improvised one. A video showing the convergence setting procedure for a Spitfire : P47 while setting the gun (just like previous doc explained it) German too had similar procedure to set gun convergence. A german firing range : (seems to be a target in front) Spitfire shooting at (I imagine) an airbase improvised firing range. (I think for this last one they only alligned gun but don't try to shoot at the target because they are some structure behind it). Mosquito at range : P40 at range Hurri at range : P51 at range : And now some page with target for short range : So until now I would agree with anybody telling me that those plane could all have been set with "preset" convergence. So if I stop here I would agree if we had at least a list of preset gun setting for each plane. But let's see if we can go further. A last example of range is this one in the desert : You can clearly see that canon have 2 preset possibility for this target. But I can't proove that the target was created by the squadron. It could have been send by factory to help setting Bf 109 in Afrika to the factory convergence. But you can't tell me that the Bf 109E had 6 guns ! :) So here we are with possibility to set convergence outside factoryu and the possibility to have different preset. But you can still tell me that those preset are factory preset given to the air force. Now let's talk about personnalisation. ---------------------- First of all let's see a post on a webpage. This is a report/summerize (don't now if this is good english term) that say squadron and aces could have personalised convergence for their planes. id-1943, American Marine Fighting Squadron 213 harmonised the six 0.5 in wing guns of their Mk I Vought F4U Corsairs to converge to a point 300 ft (90 m) ahead. The squadron's usual tactic was to dive upon an enemy from the front and slightly to one side (a high-side attack using full deflection) and fire when at the convergence distance.[16] American ace Major Bill Chick of the 317th Fighter Squadron based in North Africa in January 1944 bore-sighted the eight 0.5 in guns of his Republic P-47 Thunderbolt to converge at 300 ft (90 m) because he did not care for deflection shots and instead attacked his targets from the rear at that distance.[6] https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Gun_harmonisation (The quote come from the part about distance & size of the pattern) Another source from https://www.kenleyrevival.org/ tell the following : https://www.kenleyrevival.org/content/history/faces-of-kenley/ground-crew-raf-kenley#section1 So following waht have been explained here, we see that aces could ask for special convergence settings. And squadron leader could choose for squadron "default" convergence setting. At this point I hope you agree with me we should have the possibility to change our gun convergence between various preset at least. Let's keep going.