Convergence?

first of all I'm wondering what the default convergence is?

also I took this from the FAQ:

Q: Will we be able to adjust gun settings, such as ammo and convergence range?

A: The DCS P-51D guns are boresighted by default according to standard USAAF guidelines for the Mustang, but adjustment will be possible through a combination of the payload editor and the LUA configuration files.

can anyone explain exactly how this is done? and is it useable in MP?

thank you very much.

BB

Looking forward to this...if you think you're close enough, GET CLOSER! ;)

Looking forward to this...if you think you're close enough, GET CLOSER! ;)

except the default conv seems so far out that getting CLOSER may actually be a bad idea lol

Set at 300 yards IIRC.

Nate

really? so 275M? seems a lot further out

really? so 275M? seems a lot further out

I'm not certain, but that is the figure I remember.

Nate

That's correct. However, the convergence isn't set for a single point, but to cover a small area at the convergence range, so as to maximize the probability of hits at that range.

Thanks Evil, any hints on this?:

A: The DCS P-51D guns are boresighted by default according to standard USAAF guidelines for the Mustang, but adjustment will be possible through a combination of the payload editor and the LUA configuration files.

i looked in the payload editor, didn't see anything glaringly obvious.. also looked through .luas and all i could find was the reference to the A-10 tracer round and the .50 cal round, again nothing that i could really see pertaining to convergence.. any hints on how to change it would be much appreciated

or is it still a WIP? (which is totally cool, just curious ya know?)

Thanks Evil, any hints on this?:

 

A: The DCS P-51D guns are boresighted by default according to standard USAAF guidelines for the Mustang, but adjustment will be possible through a combination of the payload editor and the LUA configuration files.

 

i looked in the payload editor, didn't see anything glaringly obvious.. also looked through .luas and all i could find was the reference to the A-10 tracer round and the .50 cal round, again nothing that i could really see pertaining to convergence.. any hints on how to change it would be much appreciated

 

or is it still a WIP? (which is totally cool, just curious ya know?)

Not sure we will have a GUI for this, so may need to alter that FAQ entry. In LUA, however, it is here:

\x\Config\Weapons\aircraft_guns.lua

awesome! thank you evil

Not sure we will have a GUI for this, so may need to alter that FAQ entry. In LUA, however, it is here:

 

\x\Config\Weapons\aircraft_guns.lua

I am sure I am not understanding how you are using those numbers so I am going to ask what is probably a stupid question.

Why is it that the elevation numbers are different and the azimuth numbers are the same? Should it not be the other way around?

The guns are mounted to converge on a "zone" instead of a single point, so they fire in parallel on each wing, but with slight vertical offset. The idea is to cover the convergence zone with bullets so as to increase the coverage volume over an aircraft at the convergence range.

The guns are mounted to converge on a "zone" instead of a single point, so they fire in parallel on each wing, but with slight vertical offset. The idea is to cover the convergence zone with bullets so as to increase the coverage volume over an aircraft at the convergence range.

Cool. Thanks, that works.:)

Now about that slider.:P

That's correct. However, the convergence isn't set for a single point, but to cover a small area at the convergence range, so as to maximize the probability of hits at that range.

A HA! So, we have zone convergence, instead of point convergence. I think that Yo Yo also mentioned that the damage model isn't finished yet; for the engine and the radiator and maybe some other stuff? I am not sure about the damage modeling stuff, to be sure. Maybe it is a good thing that we don't have point convergence, as it gives the attacked party a chance of surviving a crack shot, while it allows a bad shot, like me, a better chance of hitting something! :megalol::pilotfly:MJ

USAF P51D Pattern Harm with ideal dispersion patterns v range

USAF P51D Pattern Harm with ideal dispersion patterns v range

 

I have a track, have to figure out which one, where you can clearly see the smoke trails cross. I was shooting at a ground target from, obviously, farther away than the convergence. I will see if I can get a screen shot.

Very nice. Thanks.:thumbup:

EDIT: After looking at that diagram for a bit it occurs to me that the convergence (as depicted) is more like 450yds, FWIW, and looking at the dispersion patterns it appears that it would be impossible to achieve those patterns if all six guns are aligned to the same azimuth.

However, it is quite possible that I don't know what I am talking about.:huh:

The standard was pattern harmonization, but a good number of the better pilots changed that to point harmonization because they felt (and I agree) that the pattern harmonization was designed for less experienced pilots and penalized the better shooters.

the figures bivol provided point that it's pattern (and not point) harmonization.

How do we manipulate?? I saw that trajectory chart too, but in numbers for the sim??

Well, I'm no real-life Mustang pilot, but my experiences in the sim so far indicate that 1500 feet is probably just about right; given the turning radii of the Mustang (and presumably, by extension, other contemporaries), it seems that in a turning fight, that's about exactly the distance I end up at when I get the nose around on the target. As to pattern versus point harmonization, I would note the standard pattern puts all guns into a 10 foot x 10 foot pattern at 1500 feet: a pattern just a little bigger than 1/4 the size of a Mustang. That's pretty pinpoint, if you ask me!

The diagram for K-14 is different regarding the diagram in "Guns Harmonisation" manual. Maybe it's a later design...

Both have agvantages and disadvantages... the main disadvantage of the current pattern is two-modal distribution :) at high range. It seems to me that the diagram for K-14 was designed to obtain more effective long range fire. The current pattern gives a higher density at 300 m range

Roger on the above. Would you mind helping me understand Shaw's 'Lethality' thingy?

He had a formula,

FL = fWf X VJA X ID'8

Which, according to him, equates to

Weight of fire of rounds (Bullet weight X rate of fire) X VJA ?? X ID'8

He mentions the lethality FL as follows:

The lethality of a gun can be measured by multiplying the destructive

power of its projectile and the number of hits. For nonexplosive bullets,

destructive qualities are generally proportional to kinetic energy: half the

mass of the projectile times the square of its velocity. To be more technically

correct, the velocity used should be the relative impact velocity,

but for comparison purposes, muzzle velocity will do. The factor FL in

Table 1-1, a measure of the lethality of the gun, is proportional to the

kinetic energy of each projectile and the rate of fire.

FL should be roughly indicative of the lethality of a nonexplosive bullet

fired at the specified rate from a given gun.

Relative to the subject at hand, FL of Browning M3 .50 Cal machineguns in WWII P-51D Mustang is 38, while the M61 vulcan is FL= 145.

250 meters

Relative to the subject at hand, FL of Browning M3 .50 Cal machineguns in WWII P-51D Mustang is 38, while the M61 vulcan is FL= 145.

All that is really telling you it would seem is how much destructive power a gun has per burst of fire.

For example:

If you have a gun with a smaller round and a lower muzzle velocity but a really high rate of fire potentially it's "Lethality", or amount of potential damage, could be higher than a gun with bigger faster round because you are putting more of them on target. That's what this formula takes into account.

If you really wanted to you could even create something along the same lines with this convergence debate, for example to me it would almost seem better to have your rounds more concentrated at a longer range to take into account energy loss over distance. If you are hitting your target when he is 500 ft away 1 round is going to do more damage than that single round would do if the target was 500 yards out, so at 500 yards I want more bullets hitting a single point to take that into account.

Is dispersion modelled? I seem to be able to completely miss ground targets with great precision - but that may just be me. :)

All that is really telling you it would seem is how much destructive power a gun has per burst of fire.

 

For example:

If you have a gun with a smaller round and a lower muzzle velocity but a really high rate of fire potentially it's "Lethality", or amount of potential damage, could be higher than a gun with bigger faster round because you are putting more of them on target. That's what this formula takes into account.

 

If you really wanted to you could even create something along the same lines with this convergence debate, for example to me it would almost seem better to have your rounds more concentrated at a longer range to take into account energy loss over distance. If you are hitting your target when he is 500 ft away 1 round is going to do more damage than that single round would do if the target was 500 yards out, so at 500 yards I want more bullets hitting a single point to take that into account.

Thanks, but I was referring to the formula itself. You see, I'm taking notes as I read the book, but it's not clear what VDJ or ID8 means (the second and third multipliers in the formula).