Minimum convergence?

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

I am a natural close shooter - I cannot do differently. I would therefore like to reduce my convergence below 100m but it is not possible ingame. Is there proof that going below 100m was impossible? Otherwise I would like to add this to the bugtracker (I think Hartmann always shot from very close range and I guess he has set his convergence accordingly).

[TomcatViP]

the 109 had nose mounted armament beginning from the F series. A huge advantage when you are firing at close range.

We hve alrdy discussed this point. The two points limiting your min conv range are the wing's guns max permissible travel range (we are in the +-5° range) and the prop diameter in the most extreme case.

In more accurate sim than old IL2 regarding History, I took the habits to aim with only one wing flying my Spit IX really close to my enmy's rear. It worked great with 20 + 12.7mm.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

So what would be the minimum convergence from historical pov?

[Plt Off JRB Meaker]

There's no proof at all...Pete Brothers of 32 Squadroom fame,was using 50 yards convergence on his Hurricane,although much poo pooed by the British authorities he proved that the closer you could get,the better the chance you'd have of destroying the enemy.

Erich Hartman the German ace also proved this point,when he said,that when his enemy filled his windscreen he would shoot,and by using ths tactic they would go down every time.

This said we should be able to lessen the convergence to less than the game allows which I believe is 100 meters,come on devs get it sorted.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

I'll add it then to the bug tracker ...

[Blackdog_kt]

In a plane with wing mounted guns there are limits to how close you can set your convergence.

We would have to know the dimensions of gun bays in each fighter and the dimensions of the guns to know if the gun is even able to be turned that far inwards to close the convergence. And that's assuming the rounds don't go through the prop disc.

I'm not saying it couldn't be done because i frankly don't know, i'm just making an educated guess that settings to the effect of 50 meters or below were impossible, due to the above reasons.
Whatever the case, it's a far cry from simply asking the devs for settings below 100 meters. It needs some research first and it's individual for every aircraft.

The reason Hartman could shoot from so close is that he flew a fighter with nose mounted guns. In that case, even if the gun convergence settings are limited by the size of gun vs size of gun bay, there are two significant advantages:

1) There is synchronizing gear, so shooting through the prop is not an issue.

2) You can set your guns for 400meters and still shoot at point blank range. Just aim lower than the target (use the upper part of your revi to line up the target, instead of the crosshairs).

[bongodriver]

Maybe it can be edited in an .ini file?

[5./JG27.Farber]

1) There is synchronizing gear, so shooting through the prop is not an issue.


On a 109 is shoots through the prop spinner not the prop... ;)

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

I concur with your general point blackdog but it is sufficient to do some basic calculations to understand that passing from 100m to 50m is by no means a drastic change in terms of gun mount.

The following table shows the angle of the gun to point to a convergence to 100m or 50m for three positions on the wing:


ANGLE WRT LATERAL AXIS (90° pointing straight forward):

Distance of gun from sym. plane
Conv. | 2m | 5m | 10m
======================
100m | 89° | 87° | 84°
________________________
50 m | 87° | 83° | 78°

So if one would mount the gun on the wingtip of the 109 (about 5m distance from symmetrical plane) the difference would be a merely 4° while the gun is rather at 2m or even less where the difference is only 2° and below.

[Al Schlageter]

On a 109 is shoots through the prop spinner not the prop... ;)

Not for the 7.92mm.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

The link to the bug for voting:

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/309

[SlipBall]

In the old IL-2 game owners manual there are some advice given, to get to 70m before opening fire...IMO down to 50m should be available in game.:cool:

[TomcatViP]

Storm, I think you are mixing convergence indication on the gunsight and guns convergence.

There is no way you can set your guns to converge as so short distance as 50 m. Try to remind that flying a fighter plane during BoB was not a sport that you will practice in a selfish manner. You had orders, directives and technical operatives procedures that order could be achieved following the directives (otherwise there is no planned tactics hence no strategies).

By the way, those indication are in the maintenance manuals, not in the pilot manual. I think I alrdy saw one passing by on this forum

You also made an error IMHO:
Distance of convergence = L*cosinus
Distance of gun from main axis = L*sinus

tan= sin/cos and Tan^-1=angle of EACH GUN

Offset of gun at the gun's breech : d_gun*sinus (d is the length of the buried part of the gun)
In the case of 50m conv for 2m it give us 8cm offset (1m long gun - machine-gun).

For a plane with four gun in each wing, it means that you'll have to keep 32cm of available free space without taking into account any structural spacer.

Also : Size of prop = 3.6 for 109 if I do remind well
etc...

[raaaid]

hartman used 20 m i think, i miss that option

[TomcatViP]

yes yes yes... but in the G.U.N.S.I.G.H.T !!!

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Storm, I think you are mixing convergence indication on the gunsight and guns convergence.

There is no way you can set your guns to converge as so short distance as 50 m. Try to remind that flying a fighter plane during BoB was not a sport that you will practice in a selfish manner. You had orders, directives and technical operatives procedures that order could be achieved following the directives (otherwise there is no planned tactics hence no strategies).

By the way, those indication are in the maintenance manuals, not in the pilot manual. I think I alrdy saw one passing by on this forum

You also made an error IMHO:
Distance of convergence = L*cosinus
Distance of gun from main axis = L*sinus

tan= sin/cos and Tan^-1=angle of EACH GUN

Offset of gun at the gun's breech : d_gun*sinus (d is the length of the buried part of the gun)
In the case of 50m conv for 2m it give us 8cm offset (1m long gun - machine-gun).

For a plane with four gun in each wing, it means that you'll have to keep 32cm of available free space without taking into account any structural spacer.

Also : Size of prop = 3.6 for 109 if I do remind well
etc...

Actually that is exactly how I calculated the angle:

angle = arctan (convergence / distance of gun) (tangens = Gegenkathete durch Ankathete)

So assuming that the gun in question was about 2m from the symmetrical plane the difference of gun orientation in the horizontal plane would be merely 2° when passing from 100m to 50m convergence. 2° is nothing.

And Hartmann definitely shot at close range and he gave a dam about what the handbook or the rules said.

EDIT: For 2° the offset on the tip or the end of the buried part pf the gun would be 7 cm assuming a 2m gun length buried in the wing and assuming that the other end did not move. Assuming that the centre of the buried part did not move the spacing needed on both ends would be merely 3.5cm.

[VO101_Tom]

...And Hartmann definitely shot at close range and he gave a dam about what the handbook or the rules said.

He flew with 109 G. The convergence much more important, if you have wing mounted guns.

[robtek]

In a 109 the convergence is rather less important, even with the convergence set to infinity the trajectory would still be in a triangle roughly 50cmx50cmx50cm, plus of course the ballistic diversions.
For wing mounted guns i believe that the lowest distance setting of the gunsight (150yds) would also the reasonable shortest possibility for the guns.
For the german wing mounted guns the fixed distance of 100m would fit.
If you are closer you shoot with a slight offset, using effectively half of your guns and the other half by chance.

[Blackdog_kt]

I agree pretty much. I can't consider this a bug without some more research on the matter, so i can't vote on it. I mean, if it gets implemented that way and then we find out it's wrong, we'll have to report it again and change it back to realistic values.

I think that's a waste of the developer team's limited resources at this point. Better get the bomber systems sorted (bombsight and autopilot bugs) so that people have an incentive to fly at proper altitudes, then take note of the FM inaccuracies and correct those.

This will have a much more pronounced positive effect on gameplay than making rushed changes to wing mounted guns.

Again, if it was doable in the real aircraft i have no objection to it. It's not like it favors one side at this point anyway so even bias is not an issue (the main fighters for both red and blue have wing mounted guns). I'm just not convinced/lack the evidence to support the idea and vote for it.