Jump to content

Adjustable gun convergence, Ammo type


Moafuleum
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi

 

I was wondering if we get the possibility to adjust the guns convergence in the future (maybe in the mission editor)? So far, the manual does not say anything about calibrating it within DCS but only drops a view words about the position of the guns in the wings and that they are adjustable in principle (in the real aircraft).

 

Also, i asked myself whether it will be possible to choose a different ammo mix as the manual widely explains different historic types of ammo and what each type was good for. As a consequence, this would make a rework of the damage model of all aircraft necessary since different parts of different aircraft react differently on the impact of each ammo type (hitting fuel tanks, armor plates, cloth-coated fuselage, etc. with A.P., Incendiary, etc. respectively). So i guess this would be a more complex task to tackle?

 

If this was discussed earlier, then I'm sorry, i haven't found anything.

 

kind regards:pilotfly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is almost an essential aspect of the ac. I hope this is added soon!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Asus ROG Rampage Extreme VI; i9 7900X (all 10 cores at 4.5GHz); 32 Gb Corsair Dominator DDR4; EVGA 1080Ti Hybrid; 1Tb Samsung 960 Evo M2; 2Tb Samsung 850 Pro secondary.

 

Oculus Rift; TM Warthog; Saitek Combat Pros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gun convergence changes won't be happening. Do a search as there are plently on threads on it.

 

The tl;dr is the reality in WWII was that it was chosen at an airforce level by all major airforces, with not much variation at squadron, wing or even theatre level. There were very rare exceptions for top aces/senior commanders, but they were exceptions.

 

Ammo changes also too fall under the banner of above. That said, the functionality is already in a number of modules, so it's probably more likely we'd see that.

There's been threads on them, but no-one has been able to prove choosing ammo load outs was a pilot level choice and that deviating from the normal was routine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't want this feature and personally I would say it is far from essential, lets keep it historical!

 

I you can prove a certain convergence was used or that a certain belt arrangement was used officially then I think a list of these should be added to the game however I really don't want to see personal convergences and belts it would only be abused.

Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 32GB RAM | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | HP Reverb G2 | MFG crosswind Pedals | Custom Spitfire Cockpit

Project IX Cockpit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gun convergence changes won't be happening. Do a search as there are plently on threads on it.

 

The tl;dr is the reality in WWII was that it was chosen at an airforce level by all major airforces, with not much variation at squadron, wing or even theatre level. There were very rare exceptions for top aces/senior commanders, but they were exceptions.

 

Ammo changes also too fall under the banner of above. That said, the functionality is already in a number of modules, so it's probably more likely we'd see that.

There's been threads on them, but no-one has been able to prove choosing ammo load outs was a pilot level choice and that deviating from the normal was routine.

 

+1

Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 32GB RAM | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | HP Reverb G2 | MFG crosswind Pedals | Custom Spitfire Cockpit

Project IX Cockpit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I was wondering if we get the possibility to adjust the guns convergence in the future (maybe in the mission editor)? So far, the manual does not say anything about calibrating it within DCS but only drops a view words about the position of the guns in the wings and that they are adjustable in principle (in the real aircraft).

 

Also, i asked myself whether it will be possible to choose a different ammo mix as the manual widely explains different historic types of ammo and what each type was good for. As a consequence, this would make a rework of the damage model of all aircraft necessary since different parts of different aircraft react differently on the impact of each ammo type (hitting fuel tanks, armor plates, cloth-coated fuselage, etc. with A.P., Incendiary, etc. respectively). So i guess this would be a more complex task to tackle?

 

If this was discussed earlier, then I'm sorry, i haven't found anything.

 

kind regards:pilotfly:

 

Another current WWII SIM does this now by applying values to bullets for impact/penetration/explosion/incendiary and when they hit an object (engine/mounts/frame/fuel tank/hydraulic line - a damage/destruction value for the material impacted - (steel/aluminum/canvas) is applied in combination with the type of bullet and then linked to the graphic damage model to show oil/smoke-white-black/flame/engines departing etc. Additionally, angle of attack for the bullet determines the amount of skin penetration.

 

So it is quite within the realm of simming right now.

 

I hope that ED make a huge jump in this direction over what is happening now and I'm confident that they will in time.


Edited by Catseye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't want this feature and personally I would say it is far from essential, lets keep it historical!

 

I you can prove a certain convergence was used or that a certain belt arrangement was used officially then I think a list of these should bflighd to the game however I really don't want to see personal convergences and belts it would only be abused.

 

How one can abuse barrel alignment? Its like saying that adding adjustable sights to a rifle would abuse it.

 

There are many accounts of both British, American pilots changing the convergence. It is not amatter of whole airforce doctrine, you just go to your ground crew chief engineer and get it done. He takes your airplane, they do that from time to time because guns desynchronized during flight. He puts your airplane in a hangar with big target and crew adjusts the guns. It is not a matter of Gen. Doolittle's approval.

 

There are some accounts saying that pilots had their gins adjusted at different distances to cover different to have similar effectiveness at a range of distances, sacrificing the punching power that comes from all guns pouting at the same direction, if I am not mistaken it qss on the pacyfic where hitting a target was harder than destroying it.

 

It was not abusable in IL2, Clod, AH, BOS and WT. Why would it be abused here?


Edited by Solty

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]In 21st century there is only war and ponies.

 

My experience: Jane's attack squadron, IL2 for couple of years, War Thunder and DCS.

My channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyAXX9rAX_Sqdc0IKJuv6dA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hardly a fair comparison is it now?

 

Like I said if one can prove a certain convergence was used I am all for it being added, I just don't want to see custom ones with zero historical evidence to back it up.

Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 32GB RAM | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | HP Reverb G2 | MFG crosswind Pedals | Custom Spitfire Cockpit

Project IX Cockpit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As was mentioned in other threads before: Adjusting the convergence by the pilot was an exception. Reason was that planes might get shifted around between pilots, so a standard convergence setting was to be expected.

 

Maybe a compromise would be to provide some different presets within reasonable ranges (example given, though not applicable here, the british conv settings during the Battle of Britain with the Dowding 400 yard spread and the quickly adopted 200 yard point convergence). Same goes for belting.

 

Just not the quite crazy IL2 Clod style where you could readjust every single gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just not the quite crazy IL2 Clod style where you could readjust every single gun.

 

Adjusting every single gun is historically correct and therefore as this is a simulator it should be incorporated, as should belt bullet order.

Also German aircraft sometimes used divergence with their nose guns.

 

Original Lock On planes never needed gun adjustment, but since the introduction of the Mustang it is now a necessity.

 

..

I7 2600K @ 3.8, CoolerMaster 212X, EVGA GTX 1070 8gb. RAM 16gb Corsair, 1kw PSU. 2 x WD SSD. 1 x Samsung M2 NVMe. 3 x HDD. Saitek X-52. Saitek Pro Flight pedals. CH Flight Sim yoke. TrackIR 5. Win 10 Pro. IIyama 1080p. MSAA x 2, SSAA x 1.5. Settings High. Harrier/Spitfire/Beaufighter/The Channel, fanboy..





..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
How one can abuse barrel alignment? Its like saying that adding adjustable sights to a rifle would abuse it.

 

There are many accounts of both British, American pilots changing the convergence. It is not amatter of whole airforce doctrine, you just go to your ground crew chief engineer and get it done. He takes your airplane, they do that from time to time because guns desynchronized during flight. He puts your airplane in a hangar with big target and crew adjusts the guns. It is not a matter of Gen. Doolittle's approval.

 

There are some accounts saying that pilots had their gins adjusted at different distances to cover different to have similar effectiveness at a range of distances, sacrificing the punching power that comes from all guns pouting at the same direction, if I am not mistaken it qss on the pacyfic where hitting a target was harder than destroying it.

 

It was not abusable in IL2, Clod, AH, BOS and WT. Why would it be abused here?

 

Ok, imagine that you have this opportunity in the game, that, as you think, is closer to the reality. Are you ready to wait for about several hours till your new settings will be available in the game each time you want to experiment?

 

I mean that in reality this process was not like to move a slider in options menu... :-)

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adjusting every single gun is historically correct and therefore as this is a simulator it should be incorporated, as should belt bullet order.

Also German aircraft sometimes used divergence with their nose guns.

 

Original Lock On planes never needed gun adjustment, but since the introduction of the Mustang it is now a necessity.

 

..

 

Historically correct to what?

 

A predetermined convergence not what any pilot decided it should be willy-nilly

Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 32GB RAM | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | HP Reverb G2 | MFG crosswind Pedals | Custom Spitfire Cockpit

Project IX Cockpit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, imagine that you have this opportunity in the game, that, as you think, is closer to the reality. Are you ready to wait for about several hours till your new settings will be available in the game each time you want to experiment?

 

I mean that in reality this process was not like to move a slider in options menu... :-)

 

So should I wait many minutes for unpacking of rockets and fuel truck to come each time I change my loadout? Or wait 10h before my mustang gets repaired and its parts replaced after hitting "request repair" button? No. And DCS already has simplifications like that.

 

It seems my ground crew knows me and switching those convergence settings should be possible just as much as possible it is for them to repair my wingless airplane within 120 seconds after a crashlanding.:pilotfly:


Edited by Solty

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]In 21st century there is only war and ponies.

 

My experience: Jane's attack squadron, IL2 for couple of years, War Thunder and DCS.

My channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyAXX9rAX_Sqdc0IKJuv6dA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Historically correct to what?

 

A predetermined convergence not what any pilot decided it should be willy-nilly

 

Guns were adjusted individually to shoot at whatever the predetermined convergence was, whether it be a standard range or as decided by an individual (as is well documented, for ranges down to 100 yards for more experienced pilots).

 

I don't understand Yo Yo comment and I don't understand why anybody would NOT want adjustable convergences.

 

..

I7 2600K @ 3.8, CoolerMaster 212X, EVGA GTX 1070 8gb. RAM 16gb Corsair, 1kw PSU. 2 x WD SSD. 1 x Samsung M2 NVMe. 3 x HDD. Saitek X-52. Saitek Pro Flight pedals. CH Flight Sim yoke. TrackIR 5. Win 10 Pro. IIyama 1080p. MSAA x 2, SSAA x 1.5. Settings High. Harrier/Spitfire/Beaufighter/The Channel, fanboy..





..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns were adjusted individually to shoot at whatever the predetermined convergence was, whether it be a standard range or as decided by an individual (as is well documented, for ranges down to 100 yards for more experienced pilots).

 

I don't understand Yo Yo comment and I don't understand why anybody would NOT want adjustable convergences.

 

..

 

Because it is not realistic obviously

Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 32GB RAM | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | HP Reverb G2 | MFG crosswind Pedals | Custom Spitfire Cockpit

Project IX Cockpit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not say that having adjustable convergence is a bad thing or completely non-historical or unrealistic.

 

On the other hand I have serious doubts that it was common practice. Well, commanders or aces could have something like "personal" plane. But regular pilots in the squad would hardly fly the same plane all the time. And if you rotate planes and pilots, having one day the plane with convergence 100yards and the other day 400yards would be a real pain. That is a reason why all army equipment is usually standardized and not personalized.

 

As for me, nice to have at some point but I do not need this in DCS. There are much more important things to improve first.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that most pilots had a personal plane and they could ask their crew chief to adjust the gun convergence if they wanted.

 

I'm pretty sure there wasn't an order that told crew chiefs to not change the convergence.

 

If the option was there I'd say it absolutely is realistic and we should have the option in DCS on all WWII planes.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]



DCS:WWII 1944 BACKER --- Fw. 190D-9 --- Bf. 109K-4 --- P-51D --- Spitfire!

Specs: Intel i7-3770 @3.9 Ghz - NVidia GTX 960 - 8GB RAM - OCz Vertex 240GB SSD - Toshiba 1TB HDD - Corsair CX 600M Power Supply - MSI B75MA-P45 MoBo - Defender Cobra M5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoy a good chuckle, and clearly there is a strange set of notions held by some of us.

 

I'm sure every crew chief had a set of trestles, and of course a gun range parked by every dispersal bay for just such a request. Ammunition was always set aside for these harmonization sessions too - no doubt!

 

I'm also sure that every pilot was issued his very own Spitfire/Hurricane/109 etc so he could get it just right.

 

I also believe in fairies, just like most guys - naturally!

 

On the other hand...

 

The odd one or two pilots may have had personal machines, and I dare say a few of the few actually took the time and trouble to change the convergence of their guns - but I suspect that was very exceptional, and as such it isn't exactly relevant. Unless your name is Ginger Lacey, Douglas Bader, George Beurling or Johnny Johnson, I can't see it mattering much.

 

There is also the point that it would make absolutely no difference one way or the other and I would wager that if ED just put a slider into the options that did absolutely nothing, most of you wouldn't even be able to tell. Maybe that's the solution here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^^^this :thumbup:

 

It is possible that in some air forces every pilot had a personal plane, but I doubt is was a common practice during war. Normally there were more pilots than planes in a squadron and at least some planes would be flown by more than one pilot. Not mentioning that people need rest, planes need maintenance. So planes and pilots would normally rotate. One could have "personal plane", but that does not mean that he would be flying it all the time. Having big differences in settings would be just impractical.

 

We all read/hear stories about exceptional guys, aces. Nobody will write a book or shoot a movie about average Joe. There were only about 5% aces (= more than 5 kills) among all fighter pilots. Who knows the facts about those remaining 95%?

 

Again, I am not against having the option for convergence in game. Just saying that it was not as common as we all think based on famous stories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoy a good chuckle, and clearly there is a strange set of notions held by some of us.

 

I'm sure every crew chief had a set of trestles, and of course a gun range parked by every dispersal bay for just such a request. Ammunition was always set aside for these harmonization sessions too - no doubt!

 

I'm also sure that every pilot was issued his very own Spitfire/Hurricane/109 etc so he could get it just right.

 

I also believe in fairies, just like most guys - naturally!

 

On the other hand...

 

The odd one or two pilots may have had personal machines, and I dare say a few of the few actually took the time and trouble to change the convergence of their guns - but I suspect that was very exceptional, and as such it isn't exactly relevant. Unless your name is Ginger Lacey, Douglas Bader, George Beurling or Johnny Johnson, I can't see it mattering much.

 

There is also the point that it would make absolutely no difference one way or the other and I would wager that if ED just put a slider into the options that did absolutely nothing, most of you wouldn't even be able to tell. Maybe that's the solution here?

 

I understand what you are getting at, but for the PC sim pilots that have thousands of hours on aircraft type and are crack shots due to huge amounts of experience and practise, then they are effectively the Johnnie Johnson and George Beurling of the PC pilot scene. If PC pilots were drafted under conscription, whether they like it or not, and were to fight a virtual air war after only a few hours of training, then perhaps more of a hide bound approach might be understandable. But since that is not the case, being able to have custom convergence is all part of the WWII experience, the same as the flight model, etc, IMHO.

I sincerely hope that DCS will be able to facilitate as near a complete experience as possible, including being able to change gun convergence, as is shown to have been done historically. Johnny Johnson studied gun camera footage and convergence settings of the most successful shot on his Mk IX Spitfire squadron and copied it. The pilot he copied was not high ranking, famous or well known at all. If a Wing Commander of a squadron, like Johnnie Johnson, studied gun cam footage of his subordinates in order to decide which convergence to best use himself, then I think that speaks volumes. It shows that lower ranks were able to use custom convergence and that different convergence was used by different pilots.

 

P.S. See page 155 of Wing Leader by 'Johnnie' Johnson, Penguin Books (price 3 shillings and sixpence).

 

 

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman


Edited by 56RAF_Talisman
Add P.S.
  • Like 1

56RAF_Talisman

 

Spitfire! 'That's no aircraft, that's a bleedin' angel'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S. See page 155 of Wing Leader by 'Johnnie' Johnson, Penguin Books (price 3 shillings and sixpence).

 

Do you know what chapter of the book it's in? I have a different publication and P. 155 is him talking about getting promoted to wing commander.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]



DCS:WWII 1944 BACKER --- Fw. 190D-9 --- Bf. 109K-4 --- P-51D --- Spitfire!

Specs: Intel i7-3770 @3.9 Ghz - NVidia GTX 960 - 8GB RAM - OCz Vertex 240GB SSD - Toshiba 1TB HDD - Corsair CX 600M Power Supply - MSI B75MA-P45 MoBo - Defender Cobra M5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dont mince words, yall are just greedy weenies looking for stuff to abuse. realism? thats just the weasel word you use to try to shoehorn in a feature. after its in, realism goes right into the gutter.

 

dcs ww2 is already unrealistic enough as it is with the aircraft roster we have, further allowing everyone to shift the meta off into a fantasy neo-ww2 meta with custom belts and convergences is your idea of trying to salvage what semblance of historical relevance we still have left?

 

on second thought, it's not wrong to allow a certain level of experimentation, i'd accept it if its just relegated to a missioneditor-level control.


Edited by probad

МИР

Link to comment
Share on other sites

300 yards, which was the official convergence used by the RAF. There is some dispute whether it was 250 yards, but the more recognised sources say 300 yards (I believe there was a document written by AVM Park that says so).

 

I also fundamentally disagree with Talisman regarding so called PC aces. If you can shoot the spots off a leopard whilst flying in some PC based simulations, and you have a few hundred kills to your name doesn't make you an air ace. If you then add in to the PC gaming skills the ability to basically cheat, and fine tune your fall of shot, and increase it's deadly effect by skewing the mix of ammunition types, you are not emulating real world aces, you're just cheating.

 

Let me ask you something quite straightforward... If you are such good shots, then why the hell do you need to start tweaking things to make you even more deadly? The only reason I can see for doing so is to make it easier to destroy targets. Why exactly is that so necessary if you already have the skills to do so?

 

I am afraid I cannot see how the vast majority of people flying in a 2 dimensional image of a dogfight could judge distances accurately anyway, so why should being able to set convergence distances be relevant unless it imparts some unrealistic advantage? I am sure the whole issue is more psychological than real anyway, which is why a dummy slider would probably satisfy the "purists" among us.


Edited by NeilWillis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...