requested Door guns - traverse limits

[Flagrum]

From an other thread:

Well I've only tried with the right door gun, but I just tried it with both TrackIR and mouse control and in both cases, the sight line was right down the weapon, not off to one side like in your screenshot...until the mount hit its traverse limits and the point of view continued to move.

 

My question is: are the currently implemented traverse limits accurate? I can imagine that the movement of the guns on a fixed mount is more restricted than when hanging them from the cabin roof with some bungee cord ...

 

But atm the horizontally covered area is about, what? 90 degrees? With that TrackIR-Paused-but-using-mouse aiming I can literally "climb out" of the helo, onto the mount, and actually look into the cargo hold from the outside, lol. That might be a bit too much. But I would like to aim at least more or less alongside the fuselage - to be able to engage targets more in front of the flight path (and not when they already had almost passed by). Like 140...150 degrees? Or is that totally utopic?

[hitman]

From an other thread:

 

 

My question is: are the currently implemented traverse limits accurate? I can imagine that the movement of the guns on a fixed mount is more restricted than when hanging them from the cabin roof with some bungee cord ...

 

But atm the horizontally covered area is about, what? 90 degrees? With that TrackIR-Paused-but-using-mouse aiming I can literally "climb out" of the helo, onto the mount, and actually look into the cargo hold from the outside, lol. That might be a bit too much. But I would like to aim at least more or less alongside the fuselage - to be able to engage targets more in front of the flight path (and not when they already had almost passed by). Like 140...150 degrees? Or is that totally utopic?

The actual mounts for the door guns would be limited by the gimbals. These gimbals would prevent you from firing in an undesirable direction, like inadvertently shooting the skids, the rocket pods, into the rotor blades...last thing anyone wants is a runaway gun with a dead gunner, and a pedestal that allows the gun to fire into the cabin.

[Flagrum]

The actual mounts for the door guns would be limited by the gimbals. These gimbals would prevent you from firing in an undesirable direction, like inadvertently shooting the skids, the rocket pods, into the rotor blades...last thing anyone wants is a runaway gun with a dead gunner, and a pedestal that allows the gun to fire into the cabin.

Yes, of course. But the current limits are quite, hrm, conservative in my eyes. If that is how it is, I have no problems with that.

 

But if we are for example just limited by the head position within the cabin (i.e. we are forced to look down the barrel all the time), that would be annoying. The gunners are strapped to the helo, right? So if the gimbals of the mount would allow it, the gunner could certainly lean out a bit to fire via "walking the rounds on the target"?

[OutOnTheOP]

I am almost certain the gun mounts do allow 150-160 degrees of traverse; in another thread around here is a link to home-camera footage from a Huey gunship pilot in Vietnam; in at least one of the clips, it shows gunfire hitting right around the area they're engaging with rockets, and he is quite clear that this is from the door gunners leaning out and shooting to the front. Given that it's a gunship model, it would have the proper armament subsystem mounts, rather than bungees.

[hitman]

There are different me how the guns are mounted to the ship. Different rifles, different mounts. Some guns are mounted inside the cabin, while the minigun is mounted outside of the cabin. They also vary ship to ship.

[OutOnTheOP]

This technical document (testing and acceptance standards for the M23 armament subsystem; IE, the door gun pintles) seems to indicate 180 degree traverse limits (or 90 left, 90 right, if you prefer):

 

http://mil-spec.tpub.com/MIL-A/MIL-A-45941/MIL-A-4594100017.htm

Edited December 31, 2013 by OutOnTheOP

[hitman]

Well it has to vary according to the hardware mounted. If its 90 degrees pointing forward and down, you stand a good chance at shooting the hard points for the flex mounted guns. You aim it around 20 degrees up, you clip the rotor blades. You aim it more than 60 degrees down, you clip the rocket pods. Then again, you will have mechanical limitations due to the hardware attached to the gun itself, like the bolt housing group or the barrels themselves. There is also a mechanical block that allows for stowage in one specific manner (in the case of the UH-1H and the M134, it looks 90 degrees aft, 45 degrees down pointing aft).

[Scrim]

Given that it's a gunship model, it would have the proper armament subsystem mounts, rather than bungees.

 

Maybe, maybe not. For most, replacing the standard fixed mount with a bungee cord was considered an improvement of the door guns, as it allowed the door gunners vastly more flexibility.

[Flagrum]

... for what it's worth (not sure if it is the same mount that we are using ... at least it is a nice vid anyways :o)

 

[Wrench]

I've been looking through the Lua files and I've finally made progress on getting the door gunners to move further.

I found this file,

\DCS World OpenBeta\Config\Weapons\drawinfo.lua

By editing arg_y_ch_range and arg_z_ch_range, I got it to turn 90° left and right,

just now it turns faster than the view does.

If I can figure out how to fix that, I'll let you guys know!

Edited October 12, 2015 by Wrench

[Wrench]

Well, It's been about an hour. Haven't made much further progress.

Basically, I doubled the values in the lines arg_z_ch_range and arg_y_ch_range, extending the range of the gun's axis.

The problem is that they now turn faster than the camera.

Mucking about with the rot_y and rot_z values, I found that if you increase that, it gets the camera closer to lining up with the guns.

However, if you double the values, as one would assume given the range values were doubled, then it lines up, but you end up with the same amount of travel you had in the first place.

So that's weird.

I guess I just have to hope someone smarter than I picks up the torch from here.

For reference, the code:

Control_Containers[174] = {
	  rot_x  = rot_nil,
  	  rot_y  = {-36,54},
	  rot_z  = {-40,10},
	  arg_x  = 0,
	  arg_y  = 423,
	  arg_z  = 424,
	  rate_x = 0,
	  rate_y = 45,
         rate_z = 45, -- grads
	  arg_x_ch_range = arg_ch_rng,
	  arg_y_ch_range = {0.40,-0.60}, --originally 0.2,-0.3
		  arg_z_ch_range = {-0.88,0.222}, --originally 0.44,0.111
         init_state = true,
	  arg_c_num  = 426,
	  init_c = -0.6,
}

changing the rate, as far as I can tell, does nothing whatsoever.

[Wrench]

Still haven't gotten the guns and camera re-synced, anybody else?

[Jolly_Chief]

@BIGNEWY@MatveyTsivinyukis there any info on the source material used to define the traverse (and elevation/depression) limits on the door guns in the UH-1H? 
 

In this thread as well as another (linked below) there is a common consensus that the traverse limits may be smaller than that of the real world Counter part (shown in videos in the thread above).

In the thread linked below @AlphaOneSix mentions his experience shooting out of an HH-60G having nearly 180 degrees of azimuth traverse. I can also confirm that in my experience working in the same airframe. The UH-1H could be totally different, just trying to relate the experience we DO have to the experience we DON’T have to explain why we think it could be a little off.

 

Thanks in advance for looking into this and providing the source info for us knit-picky “door gunners”!

 

[BIGNEWY]

On 1/9/2023 at 10:00 AM, Jolly_Chief said:

@BIGNEWY@MatveyTsivinyukis there any info on the source material used to define the traverse (and elevation/depression) limits on the door guns in the UH-1H? 
 

In this thread as well as another (linked below) there is a common consensus that the traverse limits may be smaller than that of the real world Counter part (shown in videos in the thread above).

In the thread linked below @AlphaOneSix mentions his experience shooting out of an HH-60G having nearly 180 degrees of azimuth traverse. I can also confirm that in my experience working in the same airframe. The UH-1H could be totally different, just trying to relate the experience we DO have to the experience we DON’T have to explain why we think it could be a little off.

 

Thanks in advance for looking into this and providing the source info for us knit-picky “door gunners”!

 

Hi,

I will highlight it to the team, but can make no promises at this stage 

thanks

[hannibal]

56 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Hi,

I will highlight it to the team, but can make no promises at this stage 

thanks

My DIY doorgun controller welcomes expanded up down left right traverse range on the UH1H!!

also welcomes .50 caliber weapons for the Huey...

and Joystick assignable axis controls for the Mi24 Hind..

and for the CH47 Chinook...

[BIGNEWY]

Its an impressive setup!

[hannibal]

if the huey doorgun slew range can be increase... it would help alot, seems like it only can go about 50-60 degrees

 

Edited March 2 by hannibal

[Flappie]

54° indeed. I'll ask for some more.

[Flappie]

AI gunners are allowed much more, but their hands get into the helicopter structure when aiming aft. But there's a lot of room when aiming forward.

Edited March 29 by Flappie

[Flappie]

@hannibal Is this realistic? (-27° / +47°)

[hannibal]

more traverse limits would be great!

especially when live videos seen that the doorgun is almost forward.

but because i dont have access to real helicopter doorguns, i wont ever know.

but key thing i want to point out in DCS is that if traverse limits are to be increase, please increase for BOTH mouse and joystick assigned traverse limits. 

MORE also on the HIND and HIP would be amazing!

also, your photos identify limited left and right traverse could be bigger.. i also hope the up and down can be addressed to!

 

not related to the ED products, but i hope polychop's gazelle joystick controller traverse limits will be improved (their mouse controlled doorgun has good range, but the joystick Does Not!!! (it has been reported to them)

thanks @Flappie for passing the word on!

1 hour ago, Flappie said:

AI gunners are allowed much more, but their hands get into the helicopter structure when aiming aft. But there's a lot of room when aiming forward.

 

yea, it would be so nice if player can have the range, i can tell a buddy to engage with more range.. opposed to being at mercy of what ever the Ai fires at...

Edited March 29 by hannibal

[Flappie]

To sum it up:

• Player can only fire -27° / +27°
• AI can fire -27° / +47° +52°, which seems correct when we look at the gunner character animation

I'll ask ED to give the same limits to the player (-27° / +52°) for both mouse and joystick axis.

I checked the vertical limits and they seem correct, if you look at the character animation, he cannot move the gun higher because of his seat and he cannot move the gun lower because otherwise his face wouldn't face the sight.

Then I'll check the same thing for other helicopters.

Edited March 30 by Flappie

[LuseKofte]

Restriction on this in real life was more on how the gun was attached to the chopper. 
we only have one way. While in Vietnam it was more a matter of imagination of the crew

[Flappie]

Absolutely. It seems our UH-1H has the most rectricted setup, because there are proper seats next to the gunners. Remove this big vertical bar and the gunner would have a -170° / +170° angle. The Hind gunner has no such problem.

[Flappie]

I've just checked the Hind: its gunner has a different problem. The horizontal axis is voluntarily very limited by this part.

Edited April 2 by Flappie