How to set guns convergence in DCS P-51?

[Foul Ole Ron]

Interesting. The pictures on pages 5 & 6 would seem to suggest that in online dogfights we tend to get in closer than the optimal gun convergence distance which leads us to pepper their wings rather than get the more critical hits around the cockpit and engine area. Would explain a lot of the damage results I've seen. Or maybe we're just mostly lousy shots :)

[Robo.]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=95689&highlight=harmonization+chart

 

Thank you very much! Sorry I didn't realize there was another thread. It's good to know how exactly the guns are set on the sim, I agree 1000ft is very far for aerial combat but of that was the RL standard we'd have to deal with it, fair enough.

[hegykc]

Interesting. The pictures on pages 5 & 6 would seem to suggest that in online dogfights we tend to get in closer than the optimal gun convergence distance which leads us to pepper their wings rather than get the more critical hits around the cockpit and engine area.

 

Yes I would say that would account for most of the problems, in the simulation.

 

It was hard in real life to keep your finger off the trigger and get closer, when the enemy is clearly in your sights. And if you missed or he spotted you before you got close enough, Germans had far more experience and it was likely you would get killed.

 

That's why most of the pilots shot as early as possible and they were trained to do so. It is also why the harmonization patterns are not a single dot. And it was like that for a reason.

 

In a simulation there is no fear or real risk so you can play arround to get as close as you want, far too close for the given convergence. But that's not a problem of DCS. It's a combat simulator and if real combat was done at 1000 feet then that's the way it should be.

 

BUT, as I've heard from many people reading the historical accounts of dogfights and pilot aces, every one of them had their convergence set up at much closer ranges. 100-150 yards. Because once they got experienced they could do much more crucial and concentrated damage with closer convergences.

 

The thing is, in a simulation you can get ALL the practice you want, and basically everyone of us will become an 'ace' eventually. No matter how many times you get shot down. So we'll all outgrow the safe 1000 feet convergence eventually.

So a much closer convergence would make sense in a sim world.

 

Now I'm no mathematician, but I can get the numbers needed to copy the same logical pattern seen at 300 yards, to let's say 200,150 and 100 yards. But I'm not gonna put out something that might turn out to be crap. So when I do this (really busy now, but I'll definitely have it before the FW190 comes into play) I'll send the data and the pics/graphs to Yo-Yo and he can decide if its 'DCS worthy' :book:

 

Until then, don't play aces:pilotfly:

[Yo-Yo]

Now I'm no mathematician, but I can get the numbers needed to copy the same logical pattern seen at 300 yards, to let's say 200,150 and 100 yards. But I'm not gonna put out something that might turn out to be crap. So when I do this (really busy now, but I'll definitely have it before the FW190 comes into play) I'll send the data and the pics/graphs to Yo-Yo and he can decide if its 'DCS worthy' :book:

 

Until then, don't play aces:pilotfly:

 

 

Ok, but does anyone realize what price he will pay for 300 ft convergence?

If you take look at the diagram you can see that after 1000 ft after the convergence point there is a large gap between hit areas. Let us remember that if we adjust the convergence point to 300 ft we increase the convergence angle to 3 times. So we will see the same gap at 300 + 1000/3 = 630 ft or 200 m. And the gap will be even more because the dispersion cone is only 1/3 from the cone at 2000 ft. Take a look at the diagram hit area at 2000 ft. Then imagine all circles 1/3 from the original. Is it the parttern you dream about? Moreover, to harmonise guns it's necessary to increase elevation to cross gunsight line and the bullets at 100 m point. The trajectory becomes steeper and the difference between gunsight line and it grows with distance.

 

It means that you can not really shoot at the target at 200 m, I do not speak about longer range!

 

As K-14 went into service the default pattern was reworked abd the new pattern had the point of maximal density even farther than the previous one. K-14 makes possible to get results shooting from the longer distances and the harmonisation followes this tendence.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Yo-Yo

[hegykc]

This is absolutely correct. Once you get to these very close convergences you loose the buffer zone. You can no longer engage the enemy +/- 150 yards from the setup. The spread patterns make it a waste of ammo.

 

You engage at 100 yards -/+ 20%, or not at all. I don't know how many sim pilots have the discipline to do that. It is definitely a setup for a pilot who knows what he's doing. No room for error.

[Der_Fred]

This is turning into the same story that happened then.

 

The so called 'boffins', who were/are still clueless about combat conditions, dictating to the pilots what they should be doing.

 

You're following the same route using the technical references as 'bible', when there is countless documentation of combat experience to the contrary.

 

Follow the combat experience doctrine (IL2 did this) and make the game a success.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Der_Fred

[Foul Ole Ron]

It was geared towards what the average pilot would do in normal combat situations. As Hegykc pointed out we typically don't fly like average pilots would have done back then. More skilled pilots may have lowered their convergence if they were confident they could maneuver into that 150-200 yard kill zone that their guns converged at. It meant they would have had to pass up other shooting opportunities. Your average pilot was probably better off doing the high speed passes at distance and then going around again for another pass.

[Der_Fred]

You said explicitly why there should be an adjustable convergence in this sim.

[hegykc]

It all depends on what kind of a pilot you are, and how you like to fly.

 

If you want action and dogfights for fun, you are probably better off with the current setup. Because you can engage anyone, anytime and anywhere.

 

Me personally, I have no problem flying for an hour with a wingman to get to an altitude advantage, and with the sun on my back pick a target below, unaware of my presence and try a sneak attack. If he spots me, brake off, head home and fight another day. Also I don't mind practicing for days and weeks with my 150 yard setup before going online.

 

But I don't know how fun that would be for others that don't have the time or interest and just want to shoot things down.

 

I also wouldn't call this close range convergence theory rock solid. It just might turn out too damn hard to get into those kind of close ranges and keep at it. And not have the ability to shot at 200, 300 yards+.

[Der_Fred]

One does understand that at 300m the dispersion is much greater, and aiming accuracy and the effects thereof are 'less' guaranteed.

 

At 150-200m convergence, you have a killer punch wrt convergence and even when firing at 300m you have a wider dispersion and hit probability, which I guarantee, gives you better psychological effect on the target pilot, and this is what you want more than anything else.

[hegykc]

I wouldn't be so sure about it. Convergence at 300, and shooting at 150 is not as big of a problem as having convergence at 150, and shooting at 300.

 

If your convergence is at 150 yards and you shoot at 300 yards, your left/right bullet groupings are 5 yards/meters apart. You're not shooting anything down with that. If you put the sight on the center of the target, you're missing by 2 yards/meters on both sides. And if you count in dispersion, your hits might just be harmless.

 

On the other hand, having the convergence at 300 and shooting at 150, your hits have tighter groups, just that the left/right bullet groupings grow apart.

 

It's really not that simple as saying I want 150 yard convergence. You can forget about Il2 here. I mean I have the bullet paths, groupings and harmonization all modeled in colour 3D and I still wouldn't go that far as guaranteeing something being better.

[sobek]

'boffins'

 

Leave your jaundice at the door, please.

[Merlin-27]

I wouldn't be so sure about it. Convergence at 300, and shooting at 150 is not as big of a problem as having convergence at 150, and shooting at 300.

 

If your convergence is at 150 yards and you shoot at 300 yards, your left/right bullet groupings are 5 yards/meters apart. You're not shooting anything down with that. If you put the sight on the center of the target, you're missing by 2 yards/meters on both sides. And if you count in dispersion, your hits might just be harmless.

 

On the other hand, having the convergence at 300 and shooting at 150, your hits have tighter groups, just that the left/right bullet groupings grow apart.

 

It's really not that simple as saying I want 150 yard convergence. You can forget about Il2 here. I mean I have the bullet paths, groupings and harmonization all modeled in colour 3D and I still wouldn't go that far as guaranteeing something being better.

 

A lot of good input on this topic. By the way, those diagrams you created in the other thread are great food for thought, thanks. If anything, they allow us to better visualize the bullet groupings and the varying effects of range. Personally I'm ok with the Army standard of harmonization after the K-14 was introduced, and I'm working to maximize it's effect. Mostly it involves not getting so close, as we have all been taught to do. From my reading on the topic there were mixed opinions from the RL pilots but they dealt with it because it was mandated. I'm sure there were exceptions but this was the typical setup for all-around efficiency of the fighting force.

[Merlin-27]

Found this in my reading. Just interesting and figured you guys would appreciate it.

Captain Arval Roberson (P-51D) Sept 19, 1945

" I spotted an Me-109 under me going from left to right. I made a diving steep bank and led the gunsight ahead of his nose and fired. I don't think the aircraft I was flying had its guns boresighted in the normal box configuration, for they all seemed to come together on the cockpit. A fire developed where the canopy had been, and I observed black smoke trailing the aircraft as it headed straight toward the ground. I did not see the pilot bail out.”

[Der_Fred]

Curious about the date Sept 19, 1945

Where was this ?

[Der_Fred]

another little titbit..

[Der_Fred]

I cannot see my attached pics - Are they there ?

[Der_Fred]

I have a problem that I cannot edit my previous posts... but anyway.. here's an interesting interview..

 

http://www.cebudanderson.com/interviewparmer.htm

[Yo-Yo]

another little titbit..

 

"Usually at 150 yards" - it means that a lot of boresighting patterns must be issued for the ground crews all over the USAFF. Where they are?

 

The impression of the pilots that were using K-14 was HOW PRECISE THEY BEGAN TO SHOT AT LONG DISTANCIES WITH K-14.

 

Does somebody still think that they all had 150 yards or less converged gun?

[Der_Fred]

No need to jump up and down.. These are just documented examples available that state that gun convergences were adjusted to pilot preference - the reason why some of us are asking for this option in DCS. :)

[Robo.]

No need to jump up and down.. These are just documented examples available that state that gun convergences were adjusted to pilot preference - the reason why some of us are asking for this option in DCS. :)

 

+1

[Yo-Yo]

No need to jump up and down.. These are just documented examples available that state that gun convergences were adjusted to pilot preference - the reason why some of us are asking for this option in DCS. :)

 

Ok, just calculate this pattern for 1000 inch distance and draw it in the way the patterns are presented in the manuals - I will send you the magic numbers.

 

But I foresee that you will be very disappointed. By the way, take an excellent AI and try to shoot him down without using WEP. Then take a look at the track and notice a distance you shoot at the opponent at.

[Foul Ole Ron]

My guess is that the USAF being an institution issued one set of boresighting patterns for the standard 1000 feet range and wouldn't issue other patterns as this would result in people deviating from this standard. However soldiers have being doing field mods on their weapons since the dawn of time and to think that aircrew and some of the more experienced pilots didn't experiment with the patterns is being overly stubborn. Soldiers constantly tinker with their weapons no matter what the "rules" say.

 

There's clear anecdotal evidence that a number of more experienced pilots shortened the harmonisation pattern on their aircraft. Although this might not have been the official standard I would think that some of the more experienced pilots were probably given leeway to make these modifications unofficially. I'm also sure that all new pilots were given the standard pattern as for average pilots this would work the best for them.

 

All in all the proof will be in the pudding if people are allowed to make these modifications themselves and experiment as their real-life counterparts did. They may well end up being disappointed but they can have no complaints if they are.

[TimmyD]

I recall reading something about the box pattern being a bit of a nightmare when fighters went after 109's and 190's between the Bombers that they were escorting, too many 50 cal rounds all over the place is a recipe for disaster and so a lot of them had the weapons made to fire on a convergence point instead.

 

But I know nothing......lol

[Merlin-27]

Curious about the date Sept 19, 1945

Where was this ?

 

My apologies... This was during Operation Market Garden, so Sept 19, 1944. Good catch. Those damn fat fingers of mine.