P-51 gun spread

[Zunzun]

+1

3 preset would suit different combat styles.

[OutOnTheOP]

As someone who also is used to shooting closer than the current convergence setting given for the P51D, I can only second Solty's experience.

 

It feels really awkward to adjust for the different convergence. In my head, there are certain sizes of enemy planes that I react to. This size, this angle means I need to shoot at this spot in front of him. That all doesn't work in the P51D or at least, doesn't work well. You have to fight your own trained reflexes.

 

Yes, if I concentrate, I can adjust but it requires active concentration to do (and I'm not a big fan of the K-14 so far). If there is a case for a closer convergence that was historical, I would gladly take it. I personally wouldn't even request the ability to adjust every gun, 2-3 presets for varying ranges/roles would probably already do the trick so long as there's a convergence setting around 250 yard.

 

I'd be all for a couple historical presets, as that would avoid what I most want to avoid (ED spending a ton of coding time on making an adjustable convergence app); set for 250, 300, and the K14 (1000-1100 foot) setting.

 

My personal advice remains the same, though: get used to the K14 and shooting a bit further. The further in you pull your convergence setting, the shorter your maximum effective range becomes. Generally speaking, about 2.5 times your convergence distance is the most you can expect to get any effect whatsoever on your target (because that far out, the spread is actually worse than if the guns shot parallel), and about 1.5-1.8 times convergence is maximum effective range. That means that if you went with some of the very short 600-foot convergence ranges, you wouldn't have much any chance of damaging a target in the 1200-foot range. Don't expect any effect on ground targets.

 

Besides that, if you don't get used to shooting at slightly further targets, you're probably letting pass on opportunities to get hits in. I've never particularly found the Mustang to be short on ammunition; it has a TON of firing time. Long shots often pay off for me. If nothing else, you can often startle the target into doing something stupid that burns off energy and allows you to maneuver into a better firing position. Quite frequently, I've driven guys into stalls or had them dodge right into the ground because they yanked the stick too hard dodging. ...that's all assuming human opponents, though; AI just calmly ignore your fire.

Edited April 21, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[Solty]

I'd be all for a couple historical presets, as that would avoid what I most want to avoid (ED spending a ton of coding time on making an adjustable coding app); set for 250, 300, and the K14 (1000-1100 foot) setting.

 

My personal advice remains the same, though: get used to the K14 and shooting a bit further. The further in you pull your convergence setting, the shorter your maximum effective range becomes. Generally speaking, about 2.5 times your convergence distance is the most you can expect to get any effect whatsoever on your target (because that far out, the spread is actually worse than if the guns shot parallel), and about 1.5-1.8 times convergence is maximum effective range. That means that is you went with some of the very short 600-foot convergence ranges, you wouldn't have much any chance of damaging a target in the 1200-foot range. Don't expect any effect on ground targets.

 

Besides that, if you don't get used to shooting at slightly further targets, you're probably letting pass on opportunities to get hits in. I've never particularly found the Mustang to be short on ammunition; it has a TON of firing time.

The best fighter pilots of WW2 across all nations went with the same principle.

 

"If you think you are close enough, get closer"

 

-Erich Hartmann usualy said that one should not open fire, unless the target is filling his windshield. He usually attacked in B&Z and shot from around 50m.

 

-Polish fighter pilots were known for comming very close to the target before shooting, thats why 303 squadron during BoB was the highest scoring squadron of all RAF units (126 kills).

 

-Bud Anderson prefered 250yards to shoot and he was a US triple ace.

"I close to within 250 yards of the nearest Messerschmitt--dead astern, 6 o'clock, no maneuvering, no nothing--and squeeze the trigger on the control stick between my knees gently."

 

Of course there were pilots that liked to shoot from far distances like George Beurling who shot so far that his gun camera was not able to record the kill... But those were rare ocasions that somebody was such a good marksman in the air.

 

Please stop refering everything to yourself. Every person has his own range at which he/she feels comfortable at shooting.

 

 

If you want to know my standards for shooting. I always flew 250m conversion both vertical and horisontal. I find that with this conversion I was able to use my ammunition to shoot down 6xBf109s or 4xFw190s.(flying P-51). Of course it depends on many factors but those are the numbers that I usually follow.

 

I also found that shooting at longer distances cuts those numbers in half, because the farther away you are, the more time your enemy has to react. He can see the tracers coming his way and dodge the fire.:pilotfly:

 

 

Also, I doubt that "tons of coding time" is needed for such easy operation like this. I am quite sure that coding an FM, DM and many other aspects of a flight sim are far more time consuming and harder to make than this.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Solty

[NineLine]

Also, I doubt that "tons of coding time" is needed for such easy operation like this. I am quite sure that coding an FM, DM and many other aspects of a flight sim are far more time consuming and harder to make than this.

 

You might as well go ahead and code it yourself and submit it to ED, I am sure they would appreciate it ;)

 

I have never been one to mess with this too much in past examples, I probably wouldnt use it if it were added to DCS. But that's just me...

[Zunzun]

Well, I hardly shoot at longer than 300m and many more times closer than 200m. I don't mind losing the high end distance as more than 80% of my kills probably have being done with lots of closing speed and hardly one with the bandit increasing its distance (long distance shots). For AG I agree that longer distance is require but if you go AA as main mission, well, you want to be effective on it.

Also, I hardly use K14 at all. I find the computing time too long for me and do better on the static one. With more time on it probably I would improve but as most of ww2 planes doesn't have gyroscopic sight I prefer to invest on training on them.

[SharpeXB]

I think people make too much fuss over convergence in these sims.

If you consider that the P-51s guns are about 14' apart, set to an aim pont that's probably halfway between the min and max ranges (250 yards) on the sight ie 600'-1000'

If you draw this horizontal spread to scale (like I just did with a drafting program) you'll see that the bullet spread is right at the size of an enemy engine/cockpit (about 3' wide) for exactly that entire range of 600'-1000' Furthermore such precision is not required some the whole point of the harmonization pattern is to put out a spread like a shotgun.

Just because the convergence is set for 200 yards doesn't mean you can't hit something at 100 yards. It makes very little difference

 

Edit. The bullet drop between 200-330 yards for a .50 cal BMG round is about 18". Once again not so significant as your shooting six of these in a shotgun like pattern at a 3' dia target.

Edited April 21, 2015 by SharpeXB

[msalama]

Ach, yet another tempest in a teapot. If you DESPERATELY, ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO HAVE a different convergence, just find the pertinent .lua file and hack away to your heart's content. As for the rest of us, however - well yeah, a couple of historical and properly modelled presets would be nice I suppose, although as a groundpounder I wouldn't really benefit from them myself; but a cretinous all-in-one slider where you can set it at, say, 134.556m? No way. This is a sim remember ;)

[312_Lobo]

Digital Convergence Simulator :)

[Maulkin]

Not entirely on topic but fun to see anyways:

Here is a picture of a Hurricane having the guns adjusted at night in the winter:

[OutOnTheOP]

Please stop refering everything to yourself. Every person has his own range at which he/she feels comfortable at shooting.

 

Perhaps you should take your own advice then, and stop trying to force your preferences on everyone else. The current harmonization is the USAAF approved harmonization for the K-14A. That is not "catering to personal preference". What you are asking for is catering to personal preference.

 

If you want to know my standards for shooting. I always flew 250m conversion both vertical and horisontal. I find that with this conversion I was able to use my ammunition to shoot down 6xBf109s or 4xFw190s.(flying P-51). Of course it depends on many factors but those are the numbers that I usually follow.

 

I don't really care how good you are or aren't (or think you are or aren't, or I am or aren't); it remains that the current harmonization is the authorized pattern. Full stop.

 

I also found that shooting at longer distances cuts those numbers in half, because the farther away you are, the more time your enemy has to react. He can see the tracers coming his way and dodge the fire.:pilotfly:

 

Maybe you just need to practice long-range shooting more, then. You've said yourself that you have always done it your way, and seem, from the content of this thread, to be ideologically opposed to trying any other way. Perhaps that's holding you back. As to "cutting the number of hits in half", or "the enemy having more time to react", I have found that is not at all the case. In fact, quite the opposite: it's easier to settle into a 15-20 degree deflection shot when a little further behind, and tiny jukes on the part of your target don't cause him to fly wildly around your canopy. The 15-20 degree deflection shot is, in my opinion, MUCH more lethal than the dead-astern chase that seems to be more prevalent in very close pursuit, because in the slight deflection shot, more visible area of the enemy planform is exposed. Larger area to hit.

 

From 1000 feet, I find a half second to one second burst will almost always snap a wing off, because the visible target area and smoother tracking from that distance let me put most or all of my rounds into lethal areas (wing root/ cockpit; engine bay if he pulls harder or is a bit further out).

 

Also, I doubt that "tons of coding time" is needed for such easy operation like this. I am quite sure that coding an FM, DM and many other aspects of a flight sim are far more time consuming and harder to make than this.

 

I have no idea how much coding time it would take, but I guarantee it's not trivial, and would be better spent on, say, getting 44-1 fuel and the associated 72" of manifold pressure in the Mustang.

[SharpeXB]

If you look at the actual geometry and ballistics, convergence does not matter so greatly. There's not enough difference between setting it at say 200 vs 300m

Deflection is what matters.

[GrapeJam]

Perhaps you should take your own advice then, and stop trying to force your preferences on everyone else. The current harmonization is the USAAF approved harmonization for the K-14A. That is not "catering to personal preference". What you are asking for is catering to personal preference.

 

He's not forcing his preferences on anybody, he's asking for the option to adjust the convergence according to one's own preference.

 

 

Maybe you just need to practice long-range shooting more, then. You've said yourself that you have always done it your way, and seem, from the content of this thread, to be ideologically opposed to trying any other way. Perhaps that's holding you back. As to "cutting the number of hits in half", or "the enemy having more time to react", I have found that is not at all the case. In fact, quite the opposite: it's easier to settle into a 15-20 degree deflection shot when a little further behind, and tiny jukes on the part of your target don't cause him to fly wildly around your canopy. The 15-20 degree deflection shot is, in my opinion, MUCH more lethal than the dead-astern chase that seems to be more prevalent in very close pursuit, because in the slight deflection shot, more visible area of the enemy planform is exposed. Larger area to hit.

 

From 1000 feet, I find a half second to one second burst will almost always snap a wing off, because the visible target area and smoother tracking from that distance let me put most or all of my rounds into lethal areas (wing root/ cockpit; engine bay if he pulls harder or is a bit further out).

With weapons that rely greatly on kinetic energy, having the capability to maximize the damage at closer range is a big plus.

 

I have no idea how much coding time it would take, but I guarantee it's not trivial, and would be better spent on, say, getting 44-1 fuel and the associated 72" of manifold pressure in the Mustang.

I don't think writing a script that adjust the lua files accordingly plus making a simple interface bar is anything but trivial.

[OutOnTheOP]

He's not forcing his preferences on anybody, he's asking for the option to adjust the convergence according to one's own preference.

 

When his preference for adjustable convergence leads to developer attention being distracted from something more important like higher-grade fuel simulation, and when it allows people to fly with silly (and potentially game-breaking) settings, yes, that's forcing an opinion on others. I would point out that the same editing that allows adjustments of convergence, could be used to, for example, mimic schrage musik configurations. You don't think it'd be exploited?

 

With weapons that rely greatly on kinetic energy, having the capability to maximize the damage at closer range is a big plus.

 

The difference in kinetic energy between 200 and 300 meters is somewhere in the realm of 8%. There is surplus energy all the way out to 500+ to penetrate anything in the aircraft but the engine block (by which I mean a through-and-through perforation). That's like worrying about 120mm APFSDS running out of energy to penetrate an APC: at any range you can actually *hit*, it won't matter.

 

I don't think writing a script that adjust the lua files accordingly plus making a simple interface bar is anything but trivial.

 

That's great that you think so, but the guys that actually programmed it in the first place disagree.

Edited April 21, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[GrapeJam]

When his preference for adjustable convergence leads to developer attention being distracted from something more important like higher-grade fuel simulation, and when it allows people to fly with silly (and potentially game-breaking) settings, yes, that's forcing an opinion on others. I would point out that the same editing that allows adjustments of convergence, could be used to, for example, mimic schrage musik configurations. You don't think it'd be exploited?

 

This is gotta be one of most straw man things I've read.

 

The difference in kinetic energy between 200 and 300 meters is somewhere in the realm of 8%. There is surplus energy all the way out to 500+ to penetrate anything in the aircraft but the engine block (by which I mean a through-and-through perforation). That's like worrying about 120mm APFSDS running out of energy to penetrate an APC: at any range you can actually *hit*, it won't matter.

That is assume that all of the bullets hits, you're not accounting spread from barrel heat, degraded accuracy with range, maneuvering target, etc....

 

 

 

That's great that you think so, but the guys that actually programmed it in the first place disagree.

And I've seen mods that more complex than this type of thing, done by a single guy, and released one day after the game's just launched, check the Nexus site.

[NineLine]

Guys, the only one that should have an opinion on whether the development of this feature is viable are the guys with the ED Team tag under their name... one of those already commented... so this debate is pretty pointless right now.

[SharpeXB]

It's also a pointless argument because of the actual geometry involved. "Convergence" is a triangle with the base (guns) at about 14' wide and 800' long. That means your shots are grouped into an area the size of the enemy fuselage at any range between 600' and 1000'

Closer than 600' (200 yards) you don't even need convergence because you're at point blank range for 6 .50 cal guns.

[[DBS]TH0R]

While the convergence or harmonization, how ever you prefer it, is much more realistic than in other sims perhaps this video can explain why we would like to engage targets at optimal range less than 1100ft:

 

 

 

Unless engaging bombers or someone who wasn't checking his six, very rarely will you get such an ideal opportunity to fire from 1100 ft. Two reasons: a) planes we currently have simulated and b) poor spotting ability in DCS which makes diving onto a target very difficult.

 

Having a historical convergence option for a closer range (250-300 yards as stated in the DCS manual itself, page 50), would be most welcome.

[SharpeXB]

Where are you getting that the DCS convergence is set at 1100'?

 

Edit: never mind, I see it on the video and charts

Edited April 21, 2015 by SharpeXB

[OutOnTheOP]

Unless engaging bombers or someone who wasn't checking his six, very rarely will you get such an ideal opportunity to fire from 1100 ft. Two reasons: a) planes we currently have simulated and b) poor spotting ability in DCS which makes diving onto a target very difficult.

 

I have lots of opportunity to fire at 1100 feet. Personally, I think 1000-1200 foot shots are easier to set up than closer, by far. I suppose that depends on your flying style and tactics, though.

 

Mathematical proof: assuming a (very optimistic!) 25-second 360 turn rate for a Dora at 300 mph, that makes the circumference of his turn about 3600 meters (25 seconds times 134 meters/ second). This makes the radius of his turn approximately 570 meters (radius=3600/2pi). This means that when he's out around the turn 30 or so degrees ahead of you, at a perfect deflection shot angle, he is, in fact, at 330 meters range. This is, of course, assuming a Dora CAN pull a turn in 25 seconds at that speed; I recall it only pulls 23-24 seconds at max rate, which is somewhat slower airspeed; rate drops significantly as speed increases due to g limits. So, yes, at speeds higher than those found in a stall-fight, you do have plenty of opportunity for shots at that range, given the size of the target's turning circle. 1100 feet is well inside their circle.

 

Granted, you have to have the ability to rate your nose onto him. With combat flaps, not hard against the Dora. Not terribly hard even without flaps. Now, against an aircraft that can out-rate you, yes, you're going to have to get closer. I usually find I have to get to about 900 feet to get the nose onto a maneuvering Kurfurst.

 

Having a historical convergence option for a closer range (250-300 yards as stated in the DCS manual itself, page 50), would be most welcome.

Sure,why not? Have the approved 250, 300, and 330 meter convergence settings. Just not the silly infinitely adjustable ones.
Edited April 21, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[Teapot]

Ach, yet another tempest in a teapot.

 

I most strenuously deny that allegation monsieur!

 

My wife can confirm that for 55% of a daily cycle I am practically 95% flatulence free!

 

Ah .. My first fart joke for 2015 on this forum! :megalol:

[[DBS]TH0R]

I have lots of opportunity to fire at 1100 feet. Personally, I think 1000-1200 foot shots are easier to set up than closer, by far. I suppose that depends on your flying style and tactics, though.

 

Mathematical proof: assuming a (very optimistic!) 25-second 360 turn rate for a Dora at 300 mph, that makes the circumference of his turn about 3600 meters (25 seconds times 134 meters/ second). This makes the radius of his turn approximately 570 meters (radius=3600/2pi). This means that when he's out around the turn 30 or so degrees ahead of you, at a perfect deflection shot angle, he is, in fact, at 330 meters range. This is, of course, assuming a Dora CAN pull a turn in 25 seconds at that speed; I recall it only pulls 23-24 seconds at max rate, which is somewhat slower airspeed; rate drops significantly as speed increases due to g limits. So, yes, at speeds higher than those found in a stall-fight, you do have plenty of opportunity for shots at that range, given the size of the target's turning circle. 1100 feet is well inside their circle.

 

Granted, you have to have the ability to rate your nose onto him. With combat flaps, not hard against the Dora. Not terribly hard even without flaps. Now, against an aircraft that can out-rate you, yes, you're going to have to get closer. I usually find I have to get to about 900 feet to get the nose onto a maneuvering Kurfurst.

 

I didn't say I have a problem with 1100 ft convergence, just that I find lower distance more suitable for my kind of flying. With P-51 you need to keep your speed up. Because of that most of the engagements I try entering will be with my speed higher than target's one. I too have years long experience in online dogfights, be it at a lesser realism than DCS but it still is there, and I have always used 200-250m in combination with the tactic of getting in close, pulling the trigger at the last second and saving my ammo (IL21946 video from the sig).

 

With the wing mounted guns like on P-51 if you get too close, then you can't put all guns on target rather one wing only. It is different for LW planes with mostly nose mounted guns - they need to pay attention to vertical drop or rise if too close. As such, I find pulling deflection shots with a Mustang easier with a shorter convergence.

 

For the example, the scenario where I would be more comfortable with 1100 ft is bomber escort at high altitude. Slower closing speeds and less maneuvering targets.

 

 

Sure,why not? Have the approved 250, 300, and 330 meter convergence settings. Just not the silly infinitely adjustable ones.

 

 

Absolutely. Only historical stuff. No slider to fine tune your convergence, but a separate loadout setting would be ideal.

Edited April 22, 2015 by T}{OR
spelling

[Hubert Bigglesworth]

Hi all.

 

Firstly this is not a critisism of dcs P51, ED Devs or any forum user, just a few observations of my own and questions about the topic of gunnery concerning the P51 and my own thoughts on this subject.

 

The actual Horizontal convergance setting in game for the P51 are:-

 

Inner guns 1007.814ft or 335.93 yards

Middle guns 1466.339ft or 488.77 yards

Outer guns 1337.86ft or 445.95 yards

 

The above was worked out using the info in the .lua files for gun muzzle positions and azimuths. I worked out the above, if i have made an error i apologise lol.

 

So the above will give a pattern to cover targets over a wide range of engagement distances and also give more chances of hits with a less than perfect aim, this will benefit average and good shooters a like, but at the cost of bullet density on target and less lethality of your bursts.

 

If the sim moddels bullet/gun despersion correctly, which are based on a 4 MIL Disperion cone in the original P51-D Harmonization charts, this will give a 4ft diameter cone of fire at 1000ft, so this gives some allowance in your aim, So to have 6 guns for example with a point convergance at 1000ft and fire a 1 second burst will place 80 projectiles within or very close to a 4ft diameter circle at this range and a good shot density. At shorter ranges the cones from individual guns will still be converging and dispersion will be smaller, so each cone will have a more density but the cones will be spread out. At longer ranges the cones from individual guns will be diverging but dispersion increasing so still giving good coverage but a lower shot density overall. So the point convergance delivers a very dense and destructive pattern from 6 guns only at or near to the point range. The "Optimised pattern will only really place 2 guns overlapping within this circle at this range with the other 4 guns overlapping slightly to the left and right.

The current pattern if i have understood other threads correctly is the "Optimised pattern for the K14" and is good overall setting for the guns but must fail to give really dense shot patterns at any range, but it is less sensitive to range. I find it works ok online and offline, but combat styles and shooting range varies from pilot to pilot, so i played with my files and tried different Horizontal convergance settings (offline) wont work online unless you have a mods on server. I set the vertical (elevation)convergance too so projectiles will cross the sight line at the convergance range. But lets just concentrate on the horizontal for now.

 

600ft Too short for me but did give excellent results at or near to convergange range and a good solid burst kills much more effectively than the current "Optimised pattern". Works well with K14.

 

1000ft This works best for me. A good short burst kills or cripples EA no problem, works well with K14. Good for ground attack as well. Less range sensitive than the 600ft convergance, works well + or - 150ft of the convergance point and its not that bad past these points either. More effective than the current "Optimised pattern"

 

1500ft Too long for me. Might be ok for bashing bombers or ground attack,

But not good as you get closer in. At this range gun dispersion is starting to work against you. Still worked ok with K14. Not quite as effective or flexible as current "Optimised pattern"

 

2000ft Way too long. Tried for comparison only. Not as effective as current "Optimised pattern"

 

I also copied a P51-D Harminization chart that uses a smaller pattern than the one currently in game and this was more effective too (than current), worked well with K14 and gave good results on target. I've added as an attachment at the bottom.

 

I also tried the 600ft and 1000ft point convergance using only 4 guns (inner and outer by altering lua file and removing the ammunition for the middle guns) and with only 4 guns it was more effective than the current "Optimised pattern" using 6 guns.

 

It would be good to have some presets for convergance in game (i know not totally historic but neither is turn fighting on deck with 10% fuel but people do it) say 5 presets for example 750ft, 1000ft, 1500ft, small pattern and current "Optimised pattern". I understand the devs time is in short supply, but it would be a good feature to some.

 

Whilst looking in the lua files i noticed some figures in there that seemed strange to me, and if anyone can explain them i would be greatful.

 

Gun weights. barrel 6 (i presume KG), body 32 (again i presume KG)

this gives a total individual gun weight of 38 (KG?) This is the weight of an M2HB an AN/M2 aircraft gun weighs around 27KG so each gun is 11KG Heavier in game? +66KG Overall for 6 guns?

 

Ammunition quantity. On pg 50-51 of the manual it says 400 rds for the 2 inner guns and 270 for the 4 outer guns. But in the lua file for the guns the inner guns carry 500 rds per gun, 100rds too many per gun, 200rds overall too much ammunition thats approx +27KG of ammunition and links? too much?

 

Shot heat. 7.823Kj. I have no idea how accurate this is, but the guns even when used very carefully seem to heat up but not cool down, and as i've seen in other threads others have noticed this too.

I tried changing it to 5.825Kj just for comparison and the gun over heat is managable, but i have no idea what the real figure should be.

 

There are probably reasons for the above points, if anyone can help please get in touch.

 

And lastly i would love it if i could choose whether i carry tracers in my guns or not, and not too un historical as i've seen pilot quotes that talk about not using them, theres a very good quote from a US p51? ( i cant remember the Gentlemans name) pilot talking about removing the tracers from their belts, its in Shaws book. I'll look for it and add it. I can remove tracers by altering the lua files but again only for offline practice, would be nice to loose them online too.

 

The above are just my thoughts on the subject and i understand Dev time is short. Thanks for reading.

 

S! Hub.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Hubert Bigglesworth

[OutOnTheOP]

Hi all.

 

Firstly this is not a critisism of dcs P51, ED Devs or any forum user, just a few observations of my own and questions about the topic of gunnery concerning the P51 and my own thoughts on this subject.

 

The actual Horizontal convergance setting in game for the P51 are:-

 

Inner guns 1007.814ft or 335.93 yards

Middle guns 1466.339ft or 488.77 yards

Outer guns 1337.86ft or 445.95 yards

 

Interesting. Assuming that it's correct, that's a bit too far (not to doubt your work, I'm more suspicious that measurements used by the game might not quite line up with "normal" units of degrees or milliradians... for example, they might use Russian mils instead of NATO mils... which is, if I recall, 6000 mils in a circle instead of 6400). The K14 harmonization pattern should have the shortest pair converging at around 950 feet, and the longest at around 1150, from my understanding. So that *is* a bit much.

Edited May 25, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[HeadHunter52]

Hubert, specifically, in what LUAs were you making adjustments?

aircraft_guns.lua?

Edited May 26, 2015 by HeadHunter52

[Hubert Bigglesworth]

Hi.

 

Yes aircraft_guns.lua. This contains the info for the shot heat, barrel/body weight, ammunition quantity, muzzle positions, and the directions where the muzzles are pointing, (azimuth_initial=left and right ie in the horizontal and elevation_initial= up and down ie in the vertical)

 

This is the file i altered to test different point convergances after backing up my original. Its quite simple to work out for a point convergance in the horizontal, as the sight line, gun bore line and distance between the gun muzzle and the sight (in the horizontal) form a 90deg triangle. Although i did notice theres a slight difference between the gun muzzle positions in the lua file and the gun positions given in the original harmonization charts, but the distance is very small.

 

aircraft_gun_mounts.lua This contains the info for gun recoil, belt/ammunition mixes and rates of fire for the guns.

 

shell_table.lua contains the info and attributes for the 2 types of ammunition in your belts which are :- m2_50_aero_ap and m20_50_aero_apit. (scroll down till you find them)

Here is were you can turn off your tracer if you wish, or change the burn time or ignition point, smoke tails etc.

 

Just make sure you backup these 3 files before making any changes as you will need them to revert the game to original so you can go online. Its easy enough just to swap the files in and out for online or off line play.

 

If you need any help get in touch.

 

i've added my 1000ft 6 gun point convergance, if you would like to try or look at for comparison. But backup your original first.

 

Hub.

aircraft_guns.zip

Edited May 26, 2015 by Hubert Bigglesworth