How do i set the convergence?

[m0rl0ck]

From playing other sims i know my best convergence is about 370 meters in the 109 and about a hundred meters less than that with wing mounted guns. The way they are set now im wasting ammo.

How do i set convergence in the 109 and spit?

Thanks

 

[MAD-MM]

No way to set convergence in DCS, the standard that was used historical correct on the Fighters at the time period and model.

[m0rl0ck]

Well that sucks. I cant believe they can even call it a simulation without convergence. Especially given the differences between center mounted armament and wing mounted guns.

Thats just ridiculous. I dont think that, had i known i would have bought any of the dcs ww2 stuff. I guess i wont be buying anymore till that feature is added.

An omission of this magnitude makes me doubt ED and DCS in general. If they think its ok to neglect core features like convergence, it (imo) doesnt say much about their commitment to the fidelity and accuracy of the simulation.

How would you even adjust for ground attack?

 

Edited March 30, 2023 by m0rl0ck

[Ala13_ManOWar]

6 minutes ago, m0rl0ck said:

I cant believe they can even call it a simulation without convergence.

  It's the other way around mate, it's a simulation because they depict what happened IRL, you got a harmonization (not a convergence) at factory already tested and thought to be the most lethal possible spread pattern for your weaponry, hence they mostly didn't touch it in the field besides obvious fixes and whatever. The other fake "convergence" in previous sims is BS .

German harmonization is set to 600m, which for mostly nose mounted weapons in the 109 is more than fine, even in Dora it's more than fine, only in A-8 and particularly for outer wing cannons it can be a bit tricky but since those were mostly bomber interceptors again it's more than fine .

 

Problem is not real life and simulating it, the real problem is how people get used to games so later on they think that's the real deal. Like people thinking movies are real life…

[razo+r]

17 minutes ago, m0rl0ck said:

Well that sucks. I cant believe they can even call it a simulation without convergence. Especially given the differences between center mounted armament and wing mounted guns.

Setting convergence is for accessability, not realism. As far as I understood, majority of pilots had to use what was given/set for them. 

In that case you can say DCS is simulating your average pilot that did not have access to special treatments. 

17 minutes ago, m0rl0ck said:

Thats just ridiculous. I dont think that, had i known i would have bought any of the dcs ww2 stuff. I guess i wont be buying anymore till that feature is added.

Maybe you can still tinker around with gun alignement in the files. So technically, you could adjust convergence, its just not officially supported. 

17 minutes ago, m0rl0ck said:

An omission of this magnitude makes me doubt ED and DCS in general. If they think its ok to neglect core features like convergence, it (imo) doesnt say much about their commitment to the fidelity and accuracy of the simulation.

I disagree. It shows how much they focus on being as realistic as possible, even when it "hurts" accessability/gameplay. 

17 minutes ago, m0rl0ck said:

How would you even adjust for ground attack?

 

 

The same way you do for air attack. By trying to shoot at around the covergence distance. 

[peachmonkey]

On 3/30/2023 at 6:08 AM, Ala13_ManOWar said:

it's a simulation because they depict what happened IRL

I agree with you in general, but this is DCS, not DCR, i.e. "replicator" and definitely not a historical replicator indeed. Apart from the static configs everything else in DCS is allowed so it actually follows the 'simulation' aspect, meaning that if you could try an unconventional approach to see the results you can freely do so. So why not introduce more plasticity to otherwise rigid configuration regardless if it's historical/was real/or not?

edit:  on the other hand, if the cannons/guns are developed to be in a certain position/degrees in respect to the fuselage, and changing those angles require a re-development of the wings/nose to introduce the said plasticity, then the cost/benefit analysis may indicate that it's just not worth it... 

Edited March 31, 2023 by peachmonkey

[Extranajero]

On 3/30/2023 at 11:08 AM, Ala13_ManOWar said:

  It's the other way around mate, it's a simulation because they depict what happened IRL, you got a harmonization (not a convergence) at factory already tested and thought to be the most lethal possible spread pattern for your weaponry, hence they mostly didn't touch it in the field besides obvious fixes and whatever. The other fake "convergence" in previous sims is BS .

Wrong, as usual, and condescending, also as usual.

I've read many accounts of pilots having their guns harmonised at ranges that weren't 'official' - the chances of them being able to do that would depend on how their squadron was run and what the culture inside it was.
On the allied side for example, even before the Battle of Britain, significant numbers of RAF pilots changed to 250 yds when the top brass strongly suggested that they were to use the " Dowding Spread " which brought the guns into convergence at about 400 yards.
Harmonisation wasn't just set at the factory and then left alone, that's why there are charts of ballistic drop and convergence versus range in the aircraft maintenance manuals of all WW-2 aircraft.
Being able to change harmonisation is much less of a game-ism than individual pilots being able to change their bomb fusing or even their loadout. In the case of ordnance they just got what they were given.

But does harmonisation matter ? not for the Luftwaffe aircraft in DCS, not very much anyway. It's more of an issue for the Allied aircraft.
What would be nice would be for ED to say what the ranges are for the various aircraft in the sim....I'd be happy with that

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Yeah mate, we all know single examples of that. The problem is most people refuses to understand singular examples (squad leaders being able to do so, for instance, and the like) aren't the norm. Most people flying sims relate themselves to the "aces" because they've read stories and the like, and those probably could ask for those changes on "their planes" (another lie, the planes usually weren't personal and many people flew them, usually they had no single "owner" let's say). But reality is most people flying sims are average pilots at best, and those couldn't ask for nothing, had no plane for them alone even if some ace could get that, and so on.

On 4/19/2023 at 12:04 PM, Extranajero said:

What would be nice would be for ED to say what the ranges are for the various aircraft in the sim....I'd be happy with that

That's well known, they use factory charts. 1000ft/300 yards for P-51 and P-47 as per original harmonization charts we've all seen, 250yards for Spitfire (wouldn't recall Mosquito but I guess similar, maybe longer distance though), 600m for German planes which is what LW used for mostly nose mounted weapons but apparently also used that in wing mounted weaponry (A8, for instance, but also 109E used that IIRC).

Edited April 20, 2023 by Ala13_ManOWar

[Silver_Dragon]

old post...

 

[Skewgear]

In the RAF at least aircraft were issued to squadrons, not individuals, and pilots were assigned to airframes on the basis of what was serviceable at a given moment. Wing Commanders (Flying) could personalise their mounts but these were still unit aircraft that could be pressed into service by any pilot if need be.

The idea that individual RAF pilots could personalise their gun harmonisation on demand is a fiction created by combat sim games where every player can do that. (I've no idea what other air forces did but I think the US was broadly similar)

At squadron level guns were harmonised in accordance with command instructions to armourers, although it seems individual sqn ldrs were quite up for experimenting with those settings. I suppose nobody would know about unofficial deviations except the pilots and sqn armourers.

[Extranajero]

 

On 4/21/2023 at 12:38 PM, Skewgear said:

 

The idea that individual RAF pilots could personalise their gun harmonisation on demand is a fiction created by combat sim games where every player can do that. (I've no idea what other air forces did but I think the US was broadly similar)

 

It's also a fiction that wartime RAF pilots mention in the books they wrote. Maybe it's all a conspiracy theory. But anyway...

Luftwaffe fighter pilots weren't typically trained in instrument flight - that's why the initial cadre of Wilde Sau were mainly bomber pilots - so I suggest ED cages or removes the artificial horizons in the German aircraft.
Also, ordnance loadouts. We need to get rid of those choices as well. You will fly with whatever the mission designer wants you to.

This will be a great step forward in realism and show those players of lesser games that allow choices how superior and what serious flight simmers we all are.
After all gentlemen, we aren't here to enjoy ourselves, are we ?

[Ala13_ManOWar]

5 hours ago, Extranajero said:

It's also a fiction that wartime RAF pilots mention in the books they wrote. Maybe it's all a conspiracy theory. But anyway...

Never checked RAF pilots' memoirs in particular, but no need for conspiracies, most biographical books are novels BTW. It's a well known veterans' effect when they go wild on their memories, sometimes true memories even if distorted at times, sometimes they aren't even memories but things they think they lived but no, it's memories they think they have but it's other fellow pilot's memory they have listened to so many times they confused them with their own. I've seen it and veterans recalls need to be taken with a grain of salt too many times mate. It's not their memories, everyone's memories happens to be like that, and specially when they're very old ones.