DCS World's WWII Accessibility

[MiloMorai]

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.

 

"most of the pilots would try to get the armorer to tell them where in front of the airplane they wanted the bullets to converge"

 

Or 'hey Joe I want my convergence to be at 300 yards'.

 

Definitely 'custom' convergence tho I think with a little more research that it will be found that the convergence could be set anywhere over a 100 yards distance (that is, from say 250yds to 350yds).

[Talisman_VR]

Many WWII flight sim aviation enthusiast are waiting eagerly to see if a good joined-up WWII experience can eventually be delivered via DCS at some point in the near future.

A hole host of serous and well organised squads currently flying CloD or BoS, with some members dipping there toe into DCS, are hoping to fly immersive, historically based WWII scenarios with DCS at some point before they are in their box, LOL.

Adjustable convergence, away from more historically common settings, would not be a show stopper for me personally and would not be something I would lobby for at the moment. Mainly because I feel that there are so many other priorities to come first.

 

P.S. When I say historically common convergence settings, I don't mean factory settings, I mean the most historically common. That may be factory settings or it may not. In short, I don't want to find I am having to use convergence settings that are way off the most historically common used.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

Edited September 21, 2015 by 56RAF_Talisman

[Crumpp]

"most of the pilots would try to get the armorer to tell them where in front of the airplane they wanted the bullets to converge[/b).

 

 

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.

[shadepiece]

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.

 

Just because we cannot find instructions for "custom" convergence does not mean that they do not exist, or that it was not done. It clear that the mounts for the guns could be adjusted, and I find it hard to believe no one altered their gun settings. Things you do as an operator in a situation where you depend on your equipment to keep you alive may not be "by the book". The " weapon specialists " are not the ones in the plane seeing the results each individual pilot is producing. We know pilots changed out certain ammo types in their belts. Some pilots didn't like to use tracers ect. I promise you won't find any paperwork telling pilots to make decisions like that.

[NineLine]

Exactly - it should be that way but it's not - I think DCS damage model is way behind, i.e. Cliffs of Dover - and really hope it improves and is of higher priority

 

Many aspects of the damage model have been reported internally, I hope we see some fixes in the not so distant future, but they do have their hands full right now. No time line right now.

[Crumpp]

Just because we cannot find instructions for "custom" convergence does not mean that they do not exist, or that it was not done.

 

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.

[NineLine]

This is similar to the types of ammo, it would be cool to have, in some cases I bet the pilot requested his own preference, but really, what value does it add, I dont think a ton, least IMHO.

[sobek]

Just because we cannot find instructions for "custom" convergence does not mean that they do not exist, or that it was not done.

 

It still begs the question what other settings you would want to choose from. ED can't just pull some out of their hat.

[Buzzles]

Sometimes I do wonder if people have been spoilt by other sims taking a bit of creative freedom when it comes giving players options on the gun convergence.

 

After scanning through a maintenance manual for one of the WWII planes (might have been the P51 one) and seeing just how much work is involved with working out harmonisation and conversion patterns by the ground crew, it became pretty obvious that you'd need a very good and specific reason to go through the hassle for such little gains, especially in a wartime environment.

[MiloMorai]

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.

 

Once again your reading comprehension lets you down Crumpp.

 

The P-47 could have the convergence set anywhere from 250yds to 350yds.

http://s888.photobucket.com/user/Corsican_Corsair/media/P47-2.jpg.html

 

Note this is from the P-47 manual. So the pilot would tell the armorer he wanted his convergence at say 300yds and the armorer would adjust the guns for 300yds convergence.

 

Also during the BoB, RAF fighter pilots changed the convergence from what was the RAF standard at the time.

[Crumpp]

Once again your reading comprehension lets you down Crumpp.

 

The P-47 could have the convergence set anywhere from 250yds to 350yds.

http://s888.photobucket.com/user/Corsican_Corsair/media/P47-2.jpg.html

 

Note this is from the P-47 manual. So the pilot would tell the armorer he wanted his convergence at say 300yds and the armorer would adjust the guns for 300yds convergence.

 

Also during the BoB, RAF fighter pilots changed the convergence from what was the RAF standard at the time.

 

 

The manual clearly states the weapon convergence is set to either 250 yards OR 350 yards. It is clearly not subject to the whims of the pilot.

 

The manual instructs the pilot to consult the armorer to find out which of the two single points the convergence is set.

 

Most likely this is due to a technical design change that necessitates the convergence. Again....nothing that shows convergence was set at the whim of the pilot.

[Crumpp]

Sometimes I do wonder if people have been spoilt by other sims taking a bit of creative freedom when it comes giving players options on the gun convergence.

 

After scanning through a maintenance manual for one of the WWII planes (might have been the P51 one) and seeing just how much work is involved with working out harmonisation and conversion patterns by the ground crew, it became pretty obvious that you'd need a very good and specific reason to go through the hassle for such little gains, especially in a wartime environment.

 

Exactly

 

:thumbup:

[Merlin-27]

I have no doubt that this debate will exist long after we are all gone...

 

There really is no easy answer as a lot of it is up to interpretation. Yes, I'm sure there were exceptions to the typical SOP but most things I've read state that by the time the K-14 was introduced individualized "convergence" settings were pretty much obsolete. (at least for the P-51) 1000ft was determined as an optimal middle ground in terms of hitting power and standoff and even then some pilots liked it and some did not. I think a fair trade-off would be to introduce damage incurred by flying through debris. Then those extra close convergence settings would have to occasionally deal with real-world consequences. Most of the legendary 109 pilots learned this lesson the hard way.

[MiloMorai]

The manual clearly states the weapon convergence is set to either 250 yards OR 350 yards. It is clearly not subject to the whims of the pilot.

 

It say 'Ordinarily ......' which means there is there is possible ranges settings between 250yds and 350yds.

 

Knowing how how much to turn the adjustment screw for changing from 250yds to 350yds would allow convergence ranges between the two.

[luckyhendrix]

It say 'Ordinarily ......' which means there is there is possible ranges settings between 250yds and 350yds.

 

Knowing how how much to turn the adjustment screw for changing from 250yds to 350yds would allow convergence ranges between the two.

Which again supports the point that adjusting convergence to a whim was not done 'ordinarly'.

Also, you seem to think that adjusting convergence requires to just turn a set of screws, it is much more complicated than that.

If you Chang the horizontal convergence point , the vertical convergence point will no longer coincide with the centre of the sight. So you need to set up the plane in front of a target to zero all the guns.

[Crumpp]

https://ia601005.us.archive.org/13/items/TM1-495/TM1-495.pdf

 

Interestingly enough.....nowhere does it say "adjust the sight and harmonization to whatever you want".

 

It does say to use the boresight data provided by the manufacturer found in the manuals and Technical Orders.

[dooom]

Thnx crumpp.... That was a way cool thing to read.,l:thumbup:

[vicx]

TM1-495.pdf is not something I would normally click on. Agree with dooom ... thanks for posting.

 

So who has downloaded the entire "War Department Technical Manual" archive?

[shadepiece]

https://ia601005.us.archive.org/13/items/TM1-495/TM1-495.pdf

 

Interestingly enough.....nowhere does it say "adjust the sight and harmonization to whatever you want".

 

It does say to use the boresight data provided by the manufacturer found in the manuals and Technical Orders.

 

Page 12 under number nine it states that a target should be placed in front of the plane at the desired range for convergence (usually 750-1000ft). Argument aside, it is a very interesting read, and regardless of whether adjustable convergence is added I still plan on getting all the props. I would say there are bigger fish to fry in DCS, but I still think that convergence presets are something that should be added in the future.

[Crumpp]

Thnx crumpp.... That was a way cool thing to read.,l:thumbup:

 

vicx says:

TM1-495.pdf is not something I would normally click on. Agree with dooom ... thanks for posting.

 

So who has downloaded the entire "War Department Technical Manual" archive?

 

You are most welcome!

 

I thought it was an interesting read myself.

[Crumpp]

Page 12 under number nine it states that a target should be placed in front of the plane at the desired range for convergence (usually 750-1000ft). Argument aside, it is a very interesting read, and regardless of whether adjustable convergence is added I still plan on getting all the props. I would say there are bigger fish to fry in DCS, but I still think that convergence presets are something that should be added in the future.

 

Mmmmmm....

 

In context from page 12, paragraph 10a:

 

"The harmonization process will be simplified if the aircraft can be boresighted and test fixed on a target placed at the desired range of convergence of trajectory and sight line".

 

Without the bore sight alignment data for the longitudinal axis of the aircraft and the sight line, it is impossible to correctly zero the sight. Read the manual.

 

Page 9, Paragraph 5 clearly states:

 

"Correct angle between flight line and longitudinal axis of the airplane may be obtained from the gun sighting chart or gun bore chart found prepared by the manufacturer and included in the airplane handbook.

 

It goes on to explain that not following this data will result in the gunsight being aligned with aircraft for a single airspeed only. In other words, using your own data results in a zero that is accurate for a specific airspeed at a single range. It is a single point zero.

 

 

The highlighted portion you selectively quoted is simply telling you to use the actual distance if at all possible. For example, the P-51 shows a 500 yard bore sight and firing target. The desired range is 500 yards not whatever the pilot wants.

 

It goes on to explain that shorter range targets are available with bore sighting data if you cannot place the target at the desired range. These are the 1000inch bore sight targets I posted earlier. The are placed 1000inches from a calibrated point in front of the aircraft. The sight is then adjusted and the guns bore adjusted to the manufacturers datum on the target.

 

It finishes up with:

 

"Nevertheless if at all possible to use the actual converging range for harmonization, this should be done."

 

In other words....shoot the 500 yard target at 500 yards if you have the range space. If not....use the shorter range target to get the bore sight, aircraft longitudinal axis of flight, and sight line to align.

[MiloMorai]

A much more detailed manual than the one already posted.

 

http://www.avia-it.com/act/profili_daerei/libretti_velivolo/PA_libretti_PDF/Fighter_Gun_Harmonization.pdf

[Crumpp]

A much more detailed manual than the one already posted.

 

http://www.avia-it.com/act/profili_daerei/libretti_velivolo/PA_libretti_PDF/Fighter_Gun_Harmonization.pdf

 

Nice find. Details just how complicated the harmonization problem really is in a World War II fighter. Makes games that have a convergence slider look pretty silly.

 

Introduction, page 1, paragraph 6.

 

"Section C Sample of Harmonization calculations not intended for use in the field...."

[Merlin-27]

Nice find. Details just how complicated the harmonization problem really is in a World War II fighter. Makes games that have a convergence slider look pretty silly.

 

Introduction, page 1, paragraph 6.

 

"Section C Sample of Harmonization calculations not intended for use in the field...."

 

Yes. Both good reads and I think page 2 sums up the approach the US Army Air Forces took...

 

It is found that the type known as "Point Harmonization" does not make the most efficient use of the available firepower. In its place, it is recommended that "Pattern Harmonization" be used; that is, that the fixed guns be boresighted so that their trajectories produce a desirable pattern as near uniform as possible in shape and projectile density over the entire range of fire.

[Crumpp]

Yes. Both good reads and I think page 2 sums up the approach the US Army Air Forces took...

 

 

I think section A, paragraph 8 states the USAAF position.

 

Use the standard bore sight charts and data provided.

 

Look at the charts provided in the FM and this thread btw. They maximize the pattern harmonization....

 

Craziness huh?!? :smilewink: