Spitfire Gunsight adjustment?

[SEE]

I adjust the top gunsight ring for my preferred guns convergence at 200yds but not sure of the function/purpose of the lower ring as it seems to do exactly the same as the top ring regards placement of the cross hairs with respect to the edge of the gunsight ring. The upper ring is calibrated in Yards and the lower ring in feet but covers a much smaller distance - I am curious as to its function/purpose and cannot find any info?

[JG53Frankyboy]

Put in the estimated wingspan of your target to get the correct distance...

[BlackbusheFlyer]

For example 32 ft for a Me109.

[SEE]

Excellent, many thanks!

[335th_GRAthos]

Wow!

Can someone post some more explanations (and pictures) guys?


This sounds like really interesting stuff!

~S~

[Flashman]

I have been playing about with this but I dont think it works properly. What I do is this:

1) Set the sight to the guns convergence (remember its in yards, there are 110 yards in 100 metres)

2) Set the lower ring in feet for the wingspan, eg 32 ft for 109, 66 feet for JU88 (cheers wiki!).

Now this adjusts the size of the cross. It is my understanding that when the enemy aircraft wingtips are toughing the cross hairs inner edge, it is the required distance (i.e. the top ring) from you, i.e. in convergence.

However in testing with the icons (showing distance in KM) I find that the sight picture looks incorrect. I must stress I might be doing this wrong!

Anyway I will take some screenshots and post them so you can see what im doing.

[fireship4]

If you set the dials correctly (ie in line with your convergence and enemy wing span), currently the enemy will be in range when his wings span from the centre dot to the inner edge of the cross-hair. If you prefer the enemy to be in range when the wingtips touch both edges of the cross-hair, then just double the range on the top ring (which tells the computer what range your guns are zeroed to). This is how it is at the moment as far as I know from testing it.

As to how it was in reality I have no idea. I always used to thing that wingtips touching the crosshair was standard for being in range.

[SEE]

British ac had 105mill gunsights, simply put a FW wing tip to wing tip in your sight ring is 100m away - half the size in your gunsights (dot to edge of circle) and he is 200m away, etc.

A BF109 is pretty well similar but a HE111 has approx twice the wing span, if he is wing tip to wing tip in your sights then he is 200m away. So, if your convergence is set to 200 yds (very slightly less than 200m but close enough in combat sits) you can gauge the distance of your ac to your gun convergence.

The sight crosshairs can be moved to correspond to set distances/wing spans but the Spit/Hurri gunsight circle remains unchanged and the rule still applies (if you are Ok with estimations based on flying Spits in IL1946).

Not used Icons so interested to see if there is a dicrepancy.

EDIT: Checked and spot on.....

[IvanK]

The wingspan adjustment bars are yet to be tuned. They are still a little way off but will in time be tweaked.

[SYN_Flashman]

If you set the dials correctly (ie in line with your convergence and enemy wing span), currently the enemy will be in range when his wings span from the centre dot to the inner edge of the cross-hair. If you prefer the enemy to be in range when the wingtips touch both edges of the cross-hair, then just double the range on the top ring (which tells the computer what range your guns are zeroed to). This is how it is at the moment as far as I know from testing it.

As to how it was in reality I have no idea. I always used to thing that wingtips touching the crosshair was standard for being in range.

Ahh, that makes sense now... sort of. I will see what it looks like when I put the aircraft from the dot to the edge of the crosshair (though it means making a final adjustment before firing to put the dot on the centre of the enemy A/C)

I will try later at home and see how it looks

[IvanK]

With the Base range and Wingspan set correctly then the correct range should be when the target Wingspan (i.e. its wingtips) just touches the range bars. At present I think its out by 50%.

http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/4219/gm2h.jpg

[SYN_Flashman]

With the Base range and Wingspan set correctly then the correct range should be when the target Wingspan (i.e. its wingtips) just touches the range bars. At present I think its out by 50%.

http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/4219/gm2h.jpg

In game it is definately not like that, more like twice the distance when correctly set.

[Pist-N-Broke]

Does the game use the 'Dowding spread'? Which effectively makes setting the gunsight for different ranges a waste of time (more like spray and pray). Under the 'Dowding spread' each pair of the eight .303's were harmonised for different ranges from somewhere from 200 out to 400 yards. This was done apparently because the RAF pilots demonstated such appalingly bad gunnery skills in range estimation when using early Barr and Stroud reflector gunsights, that the only way to do any damage at all was to spread the concentration of fire over as wider range as possible. It was thought it was better to get some hits, than get none at all.

I also believe that the 'Dowding spread' wasn't a pilot definable option. Some squadrons (#1 Sqn in France harmonised to 250 yards), but for the rest of Fighter Command squadrons in 1940 it wasn't an option.

[Pist-N-Broke]

Does the game use the 'Dowding spread'? Which effectively makes setting the gunsight for different ranges a waste of time (more like spray and pray). Under the 'Dowding spread' each pair of the eight .303's were harmonised for different ranges from somewhere from 200 out to 400 yards. This was done apparently because the RAF pilots demonstated such appalingly bad gunnery skills in range estimation when using early Barr and Stroud reflector gunsights, that the only way to do any damage at all was to spread the concentration of fire over as wider range as possible. It was thought it was better to get some hits, than get none at all.

I also believe that the 'Dowding spread' wasn't a pilot definable option. Some squadrons (#1 Sqn in France harmonised to 250 yards), but for the rest of Fighter Command squadrons in 1940 it wasn't an option.

CONVERGEANCE SETTINGS

A few days later an air marshall from the Air Ministery paid us a visit. He had come, he told us, to find out out why we had shot down every aircraft we had attacked while the Fighter Command squadrons in England were, in the main, only succeeding in "driving the German aircraft off in an easterly direction", as the communiques delicately phrased it.

Since we were no longer under the jurisdiction of Fighter Command we had no hesitation in telling the air marshall the reason.

All single-seat eight-gun squadrons in Fighter Command - both Hurricanes and Spitfires - had very poor practice shooting results before the outbreak of war. We all used the "Dowding Spread" at that time - a method of gun-harmonization laid down in accordance with the conviction of our Commander-in-Cheif, Air Marshall Sir Hugh Dowding, that his fighters would never see, let alone engage, enemy fighters.

In theory the Dowding Spread, which was worked out for shooting at enemy bombers from astern, seemed a good idea. Used against a big target, theoretically it produced a wide enough bullet pattern to compensate for aiming error and left sufficient lethal density to destroy such a target. Furthermore, the range laid down - 400 yards - was outside effective enemy defensive fire.

Now we were not armament experts, but we knew about flying and air firing, and we didn't like the Dowding Spread. We reckoned that, even if the experts were right and that at 400 yards' range the bullet velocity was still high enought to prevent tumble, maintain accuracy and penetrate armour (which seemed unlikely), the spread produced by aiming, shooting and random errors combined would be more than enough to drop lethal density below the minimum required for a kill, especially against a small target like a fighter - which WE were not at ALL convinced we would never meet. As for defensive fire from an enemy bomber, we felt his one or two guns hardly stood a chance against the Hurricane's eight. Curiously, the only thing we were wrong about turned out to be this last point.

Fighter Command had dismissed our theories, so during our month's shooting practice in the spring of 1939 we secretly harmonized all our guns on a spot at 250 yards range. Our shooting results on towed air targets showed we were right - we shot them clean away time and time again. Action in France had now proved this point: we had shot down every enemy aircraft we'd attacked.

To the air marshall, and later on to the Air Staff, the case was conclusive. All sigle-seat fighter squadrons were instucted to adopt our method. It was not a moment too soon...

Not long afterwards we made another contribution that was benefit all our fighter squadrond. While still with Fughter Command, in order to facilitate recognition by our observers on the ground the undersides of our wings were painted black on one side, white on the other. We considered thid to be idiotic, since the German aircraft were duck-egg blue underneath and very difficult to spot from below, whereas we stood out like flying chequerboards. So the Bull gave orders for the undersides of our aircraft to be painted duck-egg blue, and this too was later adopted for all RAF fighters.

.................................................. .................................................. .........................................

"By the time No.1 Squadron withdrew from France on 18th June 1940, they had gained a formidible combat reputation. Miraculously, they had destroyed a total of 155 enemy aircraft with only three of their own pilots having been killed, two wounded and one captured".

Fighter Pilot: a personal record of the campaign in France 1939-1940
by Paul Richey 1941.
1990 edition published by Leo Cooper.
ISBN 1-85089-550-3

[SEE]

Having the cross hairs fixed in IL1946 has been useful in that one learns to estimate distance for a wide variety of ac without reliance on using/adjusting the crosshairs. Fortunately, the gunsight Ring is accurate in CoD (which is the most important thing for me personally) as firing bursts at the precise convergance distance seems to be essential in CoD but when you are closing in at a high rate of knots only a percentage of that burst is focussed.

[sfmadmax]

very cool stuff thx!

[Ali Fish]

question: does this quote from the game manual affect Hud sights ?
Second Question: If the above does not affect sights (it must do) then why doesn't it ?

sorry to throw this spanner in the works but its really annoying me. It also could account for discrepancies between using sights at 30 deg or 70 deg, and being out by roughly 50% as someone has mentioned

what deg FoV are you using ???



NOTE: The Close-up or 30° Field of View matches the picture seen by
the naked eye the best. We highly recommend using the 30° lens for most
screenshots or videos.
However this view is not particularly useful in a cockpit as it greatly limits the
viewable area (which however is perfectly in line with what you would see with
a naked eye without having to shift your gaze). The Normal 70° view shows a
larger more useful area but slightly distorts the picture, and the 90° lens shows
an even larger and an even more distorted area of the world. Please be aware of
the distorted dimensions in the Normal and Wide field of views which will render
objects at different distances from the camera with seemingly wrong proportions.

[SEE]

I use my shoulder straps before pressing the trigger. I have noticed that weapons are more accurate/effective when 'strapped in' . It's a worthwhile observation you make as I read sometime ago (before CoD was released) that being 'unstrapped' would incurr penalty and now wondering if that also includes gunnery/accuracy of sights now that you have quoted the manual.

[Ali Fish]

when you loosen straps to get closer to the hud and reticule its still subject to what FoV you are using. i fear the problem is rendering the world differently at different fields of view. but i know that makes no sense. so what is going on.

[Ralith]

Does the game use the 'Dowding spread'?

Your guns use whatever spread (or lack thereof) you set them to.

[Wolf_Rider]

so, if I set the gun convergence in the Options/ Plane/ Loadout (or in the FMB) section (saving to a custom name for instance) should that convergence be "automatically" set to the sight for the player's plane ingame, or would we still need to set the sight manually according to our loadout assignment. ?

I can understand manually setting the sights for the different targets as required.

[Pist-N-Broke]

Your guns use whatever spread (or lack thereof) you set them to.

And just what IS the default setting set to? For RAF flyers is the default setting the Dowding Spread?

[jf1981]

1) Set the sight to the guns convergence (remember its in yards, there are 110 yards in 100 metres)


Hi

How do we set convergence ?

Thank you