Improve your aiming/marksman skills

[hegykc]

EDIT: The info in this first post is outdated. Disregard the convergences you see here. After more testing I'll post my new recommendations later in the thread.

Before I scare away people with some more complicated stuff, here's a picture:

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/6306/spitfireconvergences150.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/138/spitfireconvergences150.jpg/)

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/745/spitfireconvergences.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/254/spitfireconvergences.jpg/)

Now, something more complicated:

This are the harmonization and gun convergences for the P-51 mustang.


No.1 guns converge at 1,000 feet / at sight line (inboard)
No.2 guns converge at 1,100 feet / 11 inches below sight line (middle)
No.3 guns converge at 1,200 feet / 18 inches above sight line (outboard)


From that you can see that the guns not only don't meet at the same convergence horizontally, but not even vertically.

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/5801/fightergunharmonization.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/62/fightergunharmonization.jpg/)

I managed to model .303 caliber bullet trajectories in one of my CAD programs, and I tried to copy the same pattern seen in the P-51 charts. This harmonization pattern is there for a reason, it's not as simple as setting a one point convergence.

Spitfire/Hurricane convergences in the picture should greatly improve kill/damage probabilities for pilots that are not excellent marksmen.

I do not have a joystick at the moment so I need volunteers to test this out.
Preferably pilots who are flying online for a while now, and know their kill ratio and skill level. To see if there will be any improvement.

I put this in the main forum so that as many people as possible see it, because it should really make things easier for the average pilot reading through the front page mainly.

150 yards harmonization, and more advanced patterns coming up..

[ATAG_Doc]

This is very interesting!

[*Buzzsaw*]

Before I scare away people with some more complicated stuff, here's a picture:

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/745/spitfireconvergences.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/254/spitfireconvergences.jpg/)

Now, something more complicated:

This are the harmonization and gun convergences for the P-51 mustang.


No.1 guns converge at 1,000 feet / at sight line (inboard)
No.2 guns converge at 1,100 feet / 11 inches below sight line (middle)
No.3 guns converge at 1,200 feet / 18 inches above sight line (outboard)


From that you can see that the guns not only don't meet at the same convergence horizontally, but not even vertically.

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/5801/fightergunharmonization.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/62/fightergunharmonization.jpg/)

I managed to model .303 caliber bullet trajectories in one of my CAD programs, and I tried to copy the same pattern seen in the P-51 charts. This harmonization pattern is there for a reason, it's not as simple as setting a one point convergence.

Spitfire/Hurricane convergences in the picture should greatly improve kill/damage probabilities for pilots that are not excellent marksmen.
Gun sight distance should be set at 330 yards although the harmonization is set up for a target at 300 yards distance.


I do not have a joystick at the moment so I need volunteers to test this out.
Preferably pilots who are flying online for a while now, and know their kill ratio and skill level. To see if there will be any improvement.

I put this in the main forum so that as many people as possible see it, because it should really make things easier for the average pilot reading through the front page mainly.

150 yards harmonization, and more advanced patterns coming up..

Salute

Those are the official P-51 convergence patterns, drawn up for average pilots who were not very good shots.

Most experienced Aces preferred to go for a tighter pattern, for more concentrated hitting power. Also remember that the P-51 was equipped with .50 calibre weapons, much more effective than a .303, it only took a couple .50's to do the damage of 10 .303's, so you could afford to spread out your pattern and still be effective against the primary target for the P-51, which was single engined fighters, relatively fragile targets.

The British had as their primary focus, medium bombers, with fighters a distant second. Of course most guys in this game prefer to shoot down fighter opponents, but they will meet bombers.

It's the old dilemma, shotgun pattern for better chance of a hit, or concentrated for more effect when you do hit.

[GF_Mastiff]

this is confusing me, isn't the settings for guns in meters?

So whats those setting in yards? or meters?

and in the game the guns are out board to inboard another confusing thing?

so 1/8 is outer most, with 2/7, 3/6, 4/5.

I'm confused?

[hegykc]

Units of measurement int the pictures are yards. If the game uses meters, convert.
No. 1 guns are inboard, as per the mustang charts.

I can correct these to be as in the game, but later..

[GADGET]

Check out the the Spitfire convergence pattern.... really exotic:

[AirHog71]

Units of measurement int the pictures are yards. If the game uses meters, convert.
No. 1 guns are inboard, as per the mustang charts.

I can correct these to be as in the game, but later..

Thanks for providing this.

Mastiff has made a point though about confusion, the top chart is in yards, the below P-51 chart is in feet, it would be better to convert everything to feet I think.

150 yards = 450 ft

[hegykc]

So what does the game use for distance? meters?

[klem]

So what does the game use for distance? meters?

Metres.

I set my RAF sights to 200 yards (183m in the guns setting page). I set that as both horizontal and vertical convergence for point harmonisation of all guns at 200yds (183m).

If I miss, I miss. But you get a close scatter within a few feet up to about 50yds either side of harmonisation and it seems quite effective against bombers if not those pesky tungsten armoured 109s ;)

I have a ballistics spreadsheet for all the guns in IL-2 '46 somewhere based on RL values but in the end it came down to KISS.

[hegykc]

Here's the "cone of death" for one point convergence vs. the harmonized one:

http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/3332/spitfirebulletstream150.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/840/spitfirebulletstream150.jpg/)

[hegykc]

Metres.
I have a ballistics spreadsheet for all the guns in IL-2 '46 somewhere based on RL values but in the end it came down to KISS.

If you could share those that would be great.

The thing is,

with a "one point" convergence you have 3 possibilities : hit, miss, or hit armor. So you have like 33% chance of doing some damage.
With a harmonized 3-4 times larger pattern in all the 3 possibilities you'll hit something: you either hit and then some, miss but still hit something, or hit armor but also hit something else. So you have "100%" chance of doing some damage.
Even if you don't instantly blow them to pieces they still have a long way home. And even if they get back to base, they're still damaged and out of the war machine.

As you can see on the "death cone", with one point convergence you can waste a whole burst on the back plate armor. While with the harmonization you'll always hit something. And you only need one tank, one oil or gas line, one control cable etc...

How it will transfer into COD, we'll have to test and see.

[klem]

Hi hegykc,

I've found it. Its old but I think its still relevant.

I would call your "cone of death" the "cone of impact", there's no "death" in hitting an empty wingroot and it would be a very lucky hit on a control cable in a fuselage with scattered shots (assuming the DM is that sophisticated).

With point harmonisation you have 2 possibilities, not 3. Hit or Miss. Hitting armour may not be too helpful but it is a Hit. Also, most hits are not from the 6 o'clock position, they are at some angle of deflection varying both horizontally and vertically. I usually try for a deflection shot on the canopy especially as the CoD 109s seem to fly on whether burning or hammered hard. Best way is to kill the pilot and I'll probably rake through the engine as I try. True you only need one or two pilot hits so a scatter can do it but point harmonisation will make sure of it at harmonisation range and against bombers you need concentated fire on engines, wing tanks etc.

By the way, with pure 200yd point harmonisation you get a scatter of about 5 feet (about 1.5m) from 150yds through point harmonisation out to 5 feet at 250 yds so you have the benefits of 'harmonised' setup through that range as you close and get closer.

Its a matter of personal choice but I prefer point harmonisation.

Did you know that the best shots in the RAF (like Sailor Malan) preferred point harmonisation at anything from 150 to 250 yards? A 4 feet square pattern harmonisation at 400yards was the official setting at the beginning of the war until it was changed to point harmonisation at 250 yds during the BoB. The thinking at first was that 4 feet square at 400 yds would give the average pilot a chance of hitting 'something' but it was found to be ineffective at bringing enemy aircraft down. They found that concentrated fire was necessary or too many escaped with only minor damage.

EDIT: In CoD damaged a/c aren't out of the war machine. The pilot just gets a new one.

[hegykc]

Thanks for the file.

Cone of death is an expression I've read. It's not mine, nor describing this pattern as being more deadly.
And I don't won't to re-invent the wheel here. I would gladly calculate the convergences according to official harmonization charts, but I haven't found any for WWII RAF.
Also, US standard is 1000 feet convergence. But when you look at the charts, you see that it's not just one setting.

So I thought it might be a similar setup with the RAF. The .50 caliber being more destructive is a solid point and I agree, you can afford to spread them out.
Wish I had official harmonization charts for RAF.

If you can point me to a quote saying the best shots proffered single point harmonization I would be very interested. And, of course they would, I mean the best shots could do with a single bullet.

This is for the guys that are having trouble hitting their targets.

Also your numbers are a little off. Browning .303 has a 4.2 mill dispersion cone, so at 150 yards you get a 1.9 feet scatter, and at 250 yards a 3.2 feet scatter.

Anyway, it's out. If it fails, there's always tweaking, if that fails, back to default.

[GF_Mastiff]

Thank you just trying to unconfuse the new comers that are coming on line the last few weeks.

Just remember in the GUI ammo load outs the convergence is in meters,

I just rounded to the nearest denominator and made me a spreed shoot,

Heres mine

guns 1/8 is at 299meters which converted in the cockpit is 250yards,

then I just set wingspans for everything else.

1/8 299, 250 yards.. ammo is tracer incendiary(1), armor(2), incendiary(3), armor(2), ....up to five each staggered, tracer is once every 10 rounds. so it's like this 1,2,3,2,3,2,3,2,3,2,3...

2/7 183, 200 yards, these guns are like this 1,222,333,222,333,222,333...

3/6 174, 190 yards, 1,2,3,2,3,2,3,2,3,2,3

4/5 163, 180 yards.. 1,2,3,2,3,2,3,2,3,2,3...

this is very effective against all target I find.

[pstyle]

Right, I have set up my guns to match your 300m convergence suggestion, that is:

Outboard (guns 1 and 8): 120m vert 300m hor
Guns 2 and 7: 268m and 300m
Guns 3 and 6: 265m and 370m
Inboard (Guns 4 and 5):275m and 342m

I have NOT yet corrected for yards, but I will test at m first, just to see if the difference is noticeable

[pstyle]

Right, I have set up my guns to match your 300m convergence suggestion, that is:

Outboard (guns 1 and 8): 120m vert 300m hor
Guns 2 and 7: 268m and 300m
Guns 3 and 6: 265m and 370m
Inboard (Guns 4 and 5):275m and 342m

I have NOT yet corrected for yards, but I will test at m first, just to see if the difference is noticeable

I can confirm that the above settings are a nonsense.

BUT, in game, aren't the horizontal and vertical convergences the wrong way around?

[pstyle]

you need to Reverse the horizontal and vertical convergences in game. The game has them around the wrong way.

This is already reversed, so enter it exactly as specified: It works quite well:
Outboard (guns 1 and 8): 300 vert and 120 hor
Guns 2 and 7: 300 and 268
Guns 3 and 6: 370 and 370
Inboard (Guns 4 and 5): 342 and 275

I just tested the above with tracers in all 8 guns. Gives a good cone of fire out to fairly long range.

[Ataros]

you need to Reverse the horizontal and vertical convergences in game. The game has them around the wrong way.

AFAIK it was fixed in one of betas. Worth testing.

Historical settings for the 109 btw:
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/8881/bf109e1e3starreschusswa.jpg

[hegykc]

I do apologize for the confusion, but as I am unable to test at the moment, I wanted to get it out there for people to try it. Maybe someone even has some charts for the RAF or a better idea.

Anyway these are 2 days work to calculate and setup, I'm no mathematician so I have to do everything "by hand" until I notice some patterns.
There's quite some tweaking to do yet, which I'll do in the next couple of days.

So again, the distances are in yards and must be converted into meters and rounded off.
Inboard guns are No. 1 in the pictures so convert that too.
Don't know if the game has the reversal bug still.

[ATAG_Colander]

Ataros,

Great pic! It never occurred to me that there could be 2 points of vertical convergence.

Interesting concept to be able to shoot at two distances and have vertical convergence on both

[*Buzzsaw*]

Salute

Here's another point.

Where ever you have your convergence at, and whether it is a larger area or a point, it will only match the pattern you create at exactly the distance set.

At shorter and longer ranges, the dispersal is going to be different.

If you have created a pattern which is less concentrated, then at distances less than convergence, you will have a more widely scattered pattern. And the same will hold true for distances greater than convergence.

You can end up with a pattern which is quite widely dispersed at ranges which are not exactly at convergence.

Again, you may see some benefit from the shotgun effect of a dispersed convergence, if you get a lucky hit on a critical part, but you will not get the type of concentrated effect required for serious damage of non critical points in an aircraft.

In my experience, you need to put a lot of bullets into an aircraft section in order for it to break away, a single bullet won't do it.

Also, I believe there is some modelling of penetration of pilot armour by the .303 AP rounds, since I do get kills from dead astern at closer ranges. (under 100 meters) And the more rounds you can put into the cockpit area, the better the chance of a penetration. In my experience, the only times I get pilot kills are when I pour a concentrated stream into the cockpit.

Of course, this is in relation to the .303 rounds, in the case of the German ammunition, a single M-Geschoss round hitting will have a significant effect on a non critical point.

As I said in my first response, the decision as whether to adopt a 'shotgun' pattern, or a 'point' pattern, probably should be a function of your confidence and ability to hit. Less experienced, less effective shooters will probably do better with a more dispersed pattern, that's why the USAF drew up the pattern you have shown as a standard for newer pilots.

[pstyle]

AFAIK it was fixed in one of betas. Worth testing.


It is still broken for me.
As is currently is, Vertical convergence sets the distance away from the aircraft that the bullets converge from right to left, that is, in the horizontal plane....
I presume this is incorrect compared to what it should be?

[hegykc]

Thanks for all the comments Buzzsaw, that's why I've put it on here, it is up for discussion so don't be shy. It' not like I drew up Mona Lisa and I could be offended if people don't like it. It could work rather well, or it could fail completely.

Also, these are not photoshop images. It is a 1:1 scale CAD 3D model of the bullet trajectories, gun positions, target position and size. And I've put quite some research into it.

By the point you just made I can see that you haven't looked through the pattern carefully, and maybe can't visualize this pattern in 3d space correctly.

See, with one single point conversion you get what you say, a pattern that doesn't match if you're not in the "sweet point". So even if you're +/- 10 meters distance you're out of sync and no longer have concentrated point of fire.

While with the harmonization, as you can observe in my images, you have a concentrated point of fire at 300 yards, then at 340 yards and again at 370 yards.
(these need to be further tweaked)

So the point you made actually goes against the single spot convegence, where you need a "lucky" shot while you're in a "lucky" position.
Like playing roulette, sure you need to bet on a single number to get a major win. But what's more lucky, hitting with chips on one single number, or on a bunch of them.

Of course there is the question of how the game models all this, bullet trajectories, dispersion patterns and impact damage. So this might be too realistic, but I doubt the devs would have gone through the trouble of having modeled 8 separate guns and an amazing DM and allow us the option of having 8 different horizontal and vertical convergences if it all doesn't make any difference.
So I find it hard to believe that it's as simple as pick a single point in space and shoot. And I have some (undirect) historical evidence to the contrary.

There are great many things left to the community to sort out, this might be one them.
Anyway off to do some corrections..

EDIT:

It is still broken for me.
As is currently is, Vertical convergence sets the distance away from the aircraft that the bullets converge from right to left, that is, in the horizontal plane....
I presume this is incorrect compared to what it should be?

Yes I think so. Vertical convergence should be the distance at which the bullet trajectories cross the gun sight line. Horizontal convergence is where the left and right bullet trajectories meet in a single point.

[Sokol1]

Originally Posted by MK.Mr.X
The convergences are reverted in game. Horizontal is vertical, vertical is horizontal.
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=387134&postcount=24

Sokol1

[ATAG_Colander]

Sokol,

I'm not sure if they are still inverted. See bellow.


Salutes,

Can someone please confirm that this assertion still applies after BETA PATCH v1.06.17582?

Thank you in advance.

Regards.
Now everything is correct.;)

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=423648&postcount=48

[hegykc]

Mine is patched up to the latest steam patch and the convergences are reversed. I will include that in the corrections..

[ATAG_Colander]

Just thinking out loud...

Could it be that the labels where corrected in Russian but are still wrong in English?

[pstyle]

Just thinking out loud...

Could it be that the labels where corrected in Russian but are still wrong in English?

possibly. definitely still wrong in English.

[vranac]

Horizontal and vertical is still reversed.

You can easy check that by changing vertical and look where your tracers converge if you are on RAF plane, or look where cannons converge on 109.

[klem]

Thanks for the file.

Cone of death is an expression I've read. It's not mine, nor describing this pattern as being more deadly.
And I don't won't to re-invent the wheel here. I would gladly calculate the convergences according to official harmonization charts, but I haven't found any for WWII RAF.
Also, US standard is 1000 feet convergence. But when you look at the charts, you see that it's not just one setting.

So I thought it might be a similar setup with the RAF. The .50 caliber being more destructive is a solid point and I agree, you can afford to spread them out.
Wish I had official harmonization charts for RAF.

If you can point me to a quote saying the best shots proffered single point harmonization I would be very interested. And, of course they would, I mean the best shots could do with a single bullet.

This is for the guys that are having trouble hitting their targets.

Also your numbers are a little off. Browning .303 has a 4.2 mill dispersion cone, so at 150 yards you get a 1.9 feet scatter, and at 250 yards a 3.2 feet scatter.

Anyway, it's out. If it fails, there's always tweaking, if that fails, back to default.

Well we shouldn't fall out over this but here are a couple of quotes. I've abbreviated some of the following to save space but the message is faithful to the original.

Johnnie Johnson. Top scoring Allied Fighter pilot in western theatre (34 individual victories over enemy aircraft, as well as seven shared victories, three shared probables, 10 damaged, three shared damaged and one destroyed on the ground. All confirmed.)
"The story of air fighting" Chapter 12.
"The average standard of shooting in fighter command was not high, for too little attention had been devoted to gunnery instruction and the kills in many squadrons always fell to the same three or four pilots while the remainder....hosepiped their machine guns from skidding aroplanes..." and so "it was usual for the machine guns to be harmonised to give a fairly large 'shot gun' pattern at the best firing range and this 'area of lethal density'....gave the poor marksman the best chance of destroying his adversary. But although [this] catered for the rank and file it handicapped the better shots .... who sometimes closed to excellent killing range to find the area of lethal density was not particularly lethal because [it] did not give sufficiently heavy concentration of fire... Accordingly the expert shots harmonised their guns to give 'spot' concentration of fire...."

In his own biography WIng Leader" he says "....I veered away when at excellent killing range of 200yds...."

The fact is there was little chance of "destroying his adversary" with the original area of fire at 450 yards and bear in mind that at closer ranges the dispersion was even weaker which is the point JJ makes.

Al Deere (22 destroyed, 10 probables, 18 damaged).
"Nine Lives". Chapter 6.
He quotes Colin Gray (27 aerial kills, two shared destroyed, six probable kills, with a further four shared probables) who was flying in Al Deere's Squadron at the time and after a sortie over Dunkirk where they felt they had not done as much damage to the enemy as they could have done:-
"It all goes to prove my point. Its absolutely useless having our guns harmonised to produce a rectangular cone of fire at 450 yards as at present. All this guarantees is a few hits by the indifferent shot, the good shot on the other hand is penalised.... We must get point harmonisation at 250 yards or less..." And they did. During the lull between Dunkirk and the opening of the Battle of Britain:- "Sailor Malan... the best shot in fighter command... was adamant [on point harmonisation at 250 yds] and ...Command issued instructions that point harmonisation was to be the standard for all day fighter aircraft..." By the way this change co-incided with the introduction of the De Wilde ammunition.

There are other examples but I have too many books to trawl through :)

Again, its a matter of personal choice and I suspect you would harmonise at less than 450 yds although your area would appear to be larger than 4 x 4 feet (1.2m x 1.2m).

My spread at roughly +/- 50 yads was considering only the pure boresight angles. As you say, on top of that is the natural dispersion of the rounds caused by ammunition load/quality differences (very minor), mostly vibration of the Brownings and some wing flexing especially in the Spitfire.

It could all be a bit moot though. I don't think the aircraft and damage modelling is sophisticated enough to place each round at a specific component, I imagine there are hit boxes or bubbles, however small, for damage modelling.

[pstyle]

I've anecdotally (about 2 hours flying time, 7 or 8 missions, about 10 engagements) found that having the "cone" of fire set as my load-out convergence has drastically reduced my damage inflicted.

I've decided to revert back to 200/200 on all guns.

[Ma233e]

Preferably pilots who are flying online for a while now, and know their kill ratio and skill level.
http://www.rdox.info/01.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/02.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/8.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/04.jpg

[hegykc]

Well we shouldn't fall out over this but here are a couple of quotes.

It could all be a bit moot though. I don't think the aircraft and damage modelling is sophisticated enough to place each round at a specific component, I imagine there are hit boxes or bubbles, however small, for damage modelling.

No fall out here:grin:
Thanks for the effort, that's what I was looking for. The 450 yards is just crazy :rolleyes:

I'm trying to get a hit area the size of the canopy, or the engine, at a desired convergence and deflection angle. That's why I modeled everything in scale.

Cause shooting from a deflection angle, you don't need 8x bullets on the pilots body in one single spot, right? so if a pilot's profile is 2x2 feet why not set the scatter to be 2x2 feet at say 200 yards, or even more because the pilot is the weakest point. So you might actually double or triple your chances of a pilot kill even if your not spot on his head :)

I just hope the devs took the effort to code the "damage bubbles" to represent rel life .303 scatter.
I read that the game is too easy to be modified, maybe someone can take a look to see how big the damage area of the bullet is? Does it change with distance?

So for a good marksman the concentration area will be maybe 10-20-30% larger, just enough to fill the part of the aircraft (and the aircraft type) he's aiming to hit, depending on the distance and deflection he's comfortable shooting at.
He's still getting a huge concentration of fire.

And keep in mind that the vast majority of people flying are really poor marksmen, and that's no surprise. Shooting from a moving target into a moving target in 3 dimensions. That's exceptionally hard to do.
So as per your quotes, the shotgun pattern actually does increase hit chances for most of the pilots. It's only expert marksman that are penalized with that. Even though at 450 yards the scatter of just one gun is 5.6 feet which is just ridiculous, and I do agree, tighten the pattern as much as possible while still having a nice hit area.

So what I propose is to have a pattern for good marksmen which would fill an engine profile, a fuel tank profile or the pilot profile at his desired range. Or separate the convergences vertically so that when shooting from deflection 4 of the guns hit the engine while other 4 hit the pilot. Or 6 guns hitting the engine while other 2 hit the pilot.
Or if someone likes to cut a wing off, set the scatter so that it's more of a "line" than a "dot". Again, it might suck big time, but why not try and test it, it might just work, there is some logic behind it.

And for people that just want to fly, it's really disappointing to not be able to get at least some bullets on the target. So for them, have the shotgun pattern, more so, separate the convergences horizontally and vertically because they're probably not setting their sights correctly or watching they're range.
It might make the game more easy and awarding for the arcade crowd.

Anyway, off to do some modifications...

[JG27_brook]

So what are the opinions for the best ammo loads in the E-3 ? Online now , whats cutting wings off ?

[louisv]

I tried all kinds and the best is 150/400...got that a while back from a post by Mr.X...please correct me if I'm wrong Mr.X.

Today it still gives the best results I've seen from 400 meters and it seems, all the way up to the target. If I bulls-eye exactly at 400 meters say a steady un-armed bomber, it will hit. Spit or 109.

The tough part of course is getting in place and holding steady on the moving target. I believe the best marksmen are simply the best pilots. In the game anyway.

If you try historical settings -with CloD- ahem...

The worst I've tried is 200/200, you have to be close for this one to work !

Lou

[klem]

Hi hegyck,

We're not doing prone rifle shooting so you'll get scatter anyway from relative movement of the aircraft. Speaking of which I am old enough to have shot 0.303 rifles in competitions as a lad and we would put shots inside an 8 inch (?? I seem remember it was almost the size of a human head) bullseye at 200 yards time after time so I suppose your dispersion does come from the Browning machine gun action and vibration (0.303 Bren guns were harder to group).

I doubt if 1C have modelled the Browning dispersion anyway, they have enough trouble with a Merlin engine. :shock:

[Pegasus_Eagle]

this is the loadout i use seems to do real well

conv _Gun03 Gun.Browning303MkII 145.3281 145.3281
conv _Gun06 Gun.Browning303MkII 150.3281 146.3281
conv _Gun00 Gun.Browning303MkII 160.3281 144.3281
conv _Gun01 Gun.Browning303MkII 150.3281 146.3281
conv _Gun07 Gun.Browning303MkII 160.3281 144.3281
conv _Gun02 Gun.Browning303MkII 145.3281 145.3281
conv _Gun05 Gun.Browning303MkII 145.3281 145.3281
conv _Gun04 Gun.Browning303MkII 145.3281 145.3281
belt _Gun03 Gun.Browning303MkII MainBelt 11 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 11 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8
belt _Gun06 Gun.Browning303MkII MainBelt 11 9 9
belt _Gun00 Gun.Browning303MkII MainBelt 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 11 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 11
belt _Gun01 Gun.Browning303MkII MainBelt 11 9 9
belt _Gun07 Gun.Browning303MkII MainBelt 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 11 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 11
belt _Gun02 Gun.Browning303MkII MainBelt 9 9 11
belt _Gun05 Gun.Browning303MkII MainBelt 9 9 11
belt _Gun04 Gun.Browning303MkII MainBelt 11 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 11 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8
beltPreset Custom _Gun03 Gun.Browning303MkII MainBelt 11 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 11 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8
beltPreset Custom _Gun06 Gun.Browning303MkII MainBelt 11 9 9
beltPreset Custom _Gun00 Gun.Browning303MkII MainBelt 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 11 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 11
beltPreset Custom _Gun01 Gun.Browning303MkII MainBelt 11 9 9
beltPreset Custom _Gun07 Gun.Browning303MkII MainBelt 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 11 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 11
beltPreset Custom _Gun02 Gun.Browning303MkII MainBelt 9 9 11
beltPreset Custom _Gun05 Gun.Browning303MkII MainBelt 9 9 11
beltPreset Custom _Gun04 Gun.Browning303MkII MainBelt 11 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 11 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8

[hegykc]

Bullet scatter is easily modeled with bullet "damage bubbles". If I could just know what size they are in game. At 200 yards they should be 30 inches.

Here's how the Bf-109 looks in sight at 200 yards
- differences between a single point convergence (yellow) and a more spread out (still concentrated) pattern (red):
http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/1548/sight1c.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/543/sight1c.jpg/)

And same for He-111
http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/2429/sight2s.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/850/sight2s.jpg/)

You can see, if bullet "damage bubbles" are smaller than 30 inches, getting a good shot would be like finding a needle in a haystack, literally.
At more than 200 yards you might as well throw the bullets out the window.

[lonewulf]

So... just so I'm getting this; you're flying along at about 450kph and the enemy is doing about 300-400 kph and your aircraft is moving around and his aircraft is moving around and maybe he's in a slow turn or climbing or descending and your MGs are many things but certainly not target rifles but these facts notwithstanding, you want to harmonise your guns to try and hit the pilot? Are you aiming for any particular part of the pilot?

Those two diagrams appear to show about 20 degees of angle off, so that's a miss if you pull the trigger.

[hegykc]

So... just so I'm getting this; you're flying along at about 450kph and the enemy is doing about 300-400 kph and your aircraft is moving around and his aircraft is moving around and maybe he's in a slow turn or climbing or descending and your MGs are many things but certainly not target rifles but these facts notwithstanding, you want to harmonise your guns to try and hit the pilot? Are you aiming for any particular part of the pilot?

Those two diagrams appear to show about 20 degees of angle off, so that's a miss if you pull the trigger.

You misunderstood completely:confused: I'm trying to do the exact opposite.
When the convergence is set to single point, that's when you're trying to kill the pilot with a sniper rifle which a plane is certainly not.

However if you set your spread to cover the whole profile of the canopy and then some, then you just have to be near enough. And it's not about a pilot kill, any vital part will do.

And the two diagrams above are an illustration to show how tiny the spread is with single point convergence. There's no target lead there.

[lonewulf]

If you want a wider grouping of your projectiles, just set your convergence for 250m, and start shooting at 200. That will significantly increase the size of the beaten zone on the target aircraft.
So-called 'point' convergence, like any other form of harmonization, is intended to concentrate your projectiles on your point of aim. This is to some extent theoretical because speed, recoil and gravity all conspire to widen the grouping of your shots. Concentrating the impact point of projectiles in air combat greatly increases the potential for a catastrophic failure of the target air frame. If the pilot is part of that catastrophic failure so much the better, however, as far as I know, pilot targeting has never have been considered a realistic proposition when formulating convergence. That would be like shooting ducks on the wing with the intention of head-shooting them. While, that would be ideal, it's just not realistic. That said, many ducks do end up shot through the head.

[hegykc]

Well, after a whole night testing session all I cans say is, single point convergence sucks all the way.

Quick mission against 2 He-111 bombers. Steady targets to practice my deflection shooting.
1. Wide spread convergence:
Flown probably 50 times and 45/50 I down the bomber with a pilot kill. Coming from the left side at a 45 degree deflection and a little above, I get him in 2-3 passes with half second bursts or even less. And every pass one or two gunners get killed.
2. Single point convergence:
Same thing but the difference is drastic. Out of 10 pases maybe 1 or 2 gunner kills and the pilot might as well not be there because I haven't been able to kill him.

Oh and by the way, I did all this with one hand on the keyboard and other on the mouse cause my joystick's broken.
So it's not like it's a close call. Single point sucks. You're wondering how those russian guys get all those pilot kills. Widen your spread, let every gun have it's own trajectory and see how you start shooting pilots like little baby ducks.

Range was 150 meters or even closer. Deflection mandatory, shooting from behind is a complete waste.
For the He-111 either a 30-45 deflection from the left side, or 45 from above and inverted, pilot kill guaranteed within a couple of good passes.

EDIT: Oh and when I missed the cockpit and landed hits on the wing, a minimum of two or three leakage streams appeared

[hegykc]

There you go, 3 bombers down by pilot kills, and that's just the last attempt. I've done probably more than 30 pilot kills on the first day experimenting with wider convergence. Only once have I sent the bomber down by damaging the aircraft itself, after 2 well placed half second bursts.

And that's with a keyboard and mouse, pfff.

Best part is at the end, where I get frustrated because I've missed the pilot twice and then I turn into him.. bye bye ducky.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjaILK7u-mw&feature=plcp

[hegykc]

And here, what two well place shots at the right convergence can do to a bomber, in the drink in less than a second! Havent filmed the first one but it's just a half second burst to the right wing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IKkekw8xuc&feature=plcp

[Fredfetish]

you need to Reverse the horizontal and vertical convergences in game. The game has them around the wrong way.

This is already reversed, so enter it exactly as specified: It works quite well:
Outboard (guns 1 and 8): 300 vert and 120 hor
Guns 2 and 7: 300 and 268
Guns 3 and 6: 370 and 370
Inboard (Guns 4 and 5): 342 and 275

I just tested the above with tracers in all 8 guns. Gives a good cone of fire out to fairly long range.

Thx for this!

[swift]

Before I scare away people with some more complicated stuff, here's a picture:

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/6306/spitfireconvergences150.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/138/spitfireconvergences150.jpg/)

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/745/spitfireconvergences.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/254/spitfireconvergences.jpg/)

Now, something more complicated:

This are the harmonization and gun convergences for the P-51 mustang.


No.1 guns converge at 1,000 feet / at sight line (inboard)
No.2 guns converge at 1,100 feet / 11 inches below sight line (middle)
No.3 guns converge at 1,200 feet / 18 inches above sight line (outboard)


From that you can see that the guns not only don't meet at the same convergence horizontally, but not even vertically.

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/5801/fightergunharmonization.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/62/fightergunharmonization.jpg/)

I managed to model .303 caliber bullet trajectories in one of my CAD programs, and I tried to copy the same pattern seen in the P-51 charts. This harmonization pattern is there for a reason, it's not as simple as setting a one point convergence.

Spitfire/Hurricane convergences in the picture should greatly improve kill/damage probabilities for pilots that are not excellent marksmen.

I do not have a joystick at the moment so I need volunteers to test this out.
Preferably pilots who are flying online for a while now, and know their kill ratio and skill level. To see if there will be any improvement.

I put this in the main forum so that as many people as possible see it, because it should really make things easier for the average pilot reading through the front page mainly.

150 yards harmonization, and more advanced patterns coming up..

This is interesting, but I do not quite understand your pics. The values on the left side are the convergence settings in yards or meters in the Clod user interface for gun convergence? That is what is written there as horizontally should be put as horizontally in the game (vertical value likewise)?

The sight convergence is what I have to set my gun convergence distance (again in yards and meters?) and then I have to approach the plane to the indicated distance in order to achieve the hit area pattern as indicated in the pic? Please help a confused pilot.

[hegykc]

Well after a week of testing I found out that I had the "only 2 guns firing" bug on my single point conversion tests.

And than when I fixed it, I cannot see a significant difference between a single point and my setup, from ranges of 100 meters or less.

What I can take away from this is that pilot kills (from 100 meters or less) are so easy they're actually hard to avoid. After murdering more than 100 pilots I started testing the setup on engines but gave up.
It takes only a half second burst into the upper cockpit, shooting from the left side and the pilot is toasted. Any type of ammo any type of target, any convergence setup from 100 to 1000 meters.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Well after a week of testing I found out that I had the "only 2 guns firing" bug on my single point conversion tests.

And than when I fixed it, I cannot see a significant difference between a single point and my setup, from ranges of 100 meters or less.

What I can take away from this is that pilot kills (from 100 meters or less) are so easy they're actually hard to avoid. After murdering more than 100 pilots I started testing the setup on engines but gave up.
It takes only a half second burst into the upper cockpit, shooting from the left side and the pilot is toasted. Any type of ammo any type of target, any convergence setup from 100 to 1000 meters.

Great thread, Hegykc. Time for me to practice some offline deflection shooting.

Does anyone know if ballistic energy depletion over distance is modelled in Cliffs of Dover? ie. An AP round is far more effective in penetration power at 100 yards vs 1000 yards (accuracy notwithstanding).

[hegykc]

Great thread, Hegykc. Time for me to practice some offline deflection shooting.

Does anyone know if ballistic energy depletion over distance is modelled in Cliffs of Dover? ie. An AP round is far more effective in penetration power at 100 yards vs 1000 yards (accuracy notwithstanding).

I think I can confirm that.

If you set your convergence at say 300 meters and shoot at 100 meters or even less, you still inflict massive damage even though the bullet patterns are spread out. More damage than if you had shot at 300 meters even though you'd get perfect bullet concentration.

This might also be in large due to the fact that at 300 meters the big He-111 is just a dot in the sights and your firing more or less blindly at the whole aircraft and hope you hit something vital.
While at 100 meters you can actually aim at an engine, wing fuel tank or the pilot.

Seems to me the .303 caliber (at least in game) is pretty much useless at more than 200 meters, and takes a lot of hits to do significant damage at more than 130 meters.

This is all tested on bombers.

[ATAG_Snapper]

That answers my question....thank you!!

[*Buzzsaw*]

Seems to me the .303 caliber (at least in game) is pretty much useless at more than 200 meters, and takes a lot of hits to do significant damage at more than 130 meters.

Salute

That may be true for .303's, it is not true for the German light 7.92mm MG's because of the SmK (H) tungsten round, you can pilot kill at as far as 300 meters, even from dead six where the pilot armour should protect.

This contradicts tests both the Germans and British did, which showed that 7.92mm rounds needed to be fired at ranges under 100 meters to have a good chance of penetrating pilot armour.

As I have pointed out before, this is an ahistorical advantage which the German side has been given, the round was not part of the historical 109 loadout, it was a rare round, not generally available, and in short supply.

[klem]

Well after a week of testing I found out that I had the "only 2 guns firing" bug on my single point conversion tests.

And than when I fixed it, I cannot see a significant difference between a single point and my setup, from ranges of 100 meters or less.

What I can take away from this is that pilot kills (from 100 meters or less) are so easy they're actually hard to avoid. After murdering more than 100 pilots I started testing the setup on engines but gave up.
It takes only a half second burst into the upper cockpit, shooting from the left side and the pilot is toasted. Any type of ammo any type of target, any convergence setup from 100 to 1000 meters.

hegykc, have you tried your convergence settings on-line?

[hegykc]

No I haven't yet.

That's why I tested on bombers, figured they would behave similar to what real bomber pilots do online?

[AbortedMan]

Before I scare away people with some more complicated stuff, here's a picture:

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/6306/spitfireconvergences150.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/138/spitfireconvergences150.jpg/)

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/745/spitfireconvergences.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/254/spitfireconvergences.jpg/)



I'm not understanding why the gunsight is set at 317 and 330 in these pictures...if the graphic is showing the target at 150 yards and 300 yards respectively, shouldn't the gunsight be set at 150 yards and 300 yards as well to achieve the desired convergence pattern when the target is at the proper distances according to your gunsight?

Also...the picture showing the convergence zones of each paired guns and the vertical/horizontal values don't match up....shouldn't all of the convergences have the same vertical convergence except for the inboard-most guns?...with these current numbers, your No.4 guns fall short at less than halfway to the target if you're firing at 300 yards.

I are confuse.

[hegykc]

Disregard these charts completely.

Sorry but after some tests I've found some things I did wrong. I'll post updated charts, and few different setups for both bombers and fighters, both expert pilots and those not so much, later in this thread.

In the mean time, you can try these (setup so that they cover an engine profile of a He-111 or a 109 at 70-150 meters)

Convergences (in meters, reversed so type them in as they are - russian conv. labels seem to be fixed, english are not?)

Guns Vertical Horizontal
1/8----121----109
2/7----100----107
3/6----153----200
4/5----241----205

Gunsight distance set to 150-170 yards. Should be effective from 70 to 200 yards/meters.
Set wingspan according to your target.

[AbortedMan]

Disregard these charts completely.

Sorry but after some tests I've found some things I did wrong. I'll post updated charts, and few different setups for both bombers and fighters, both expert pilots and those not so much, later in this thread.

In the mean time, you can try these (setup so that they cover an engine profile of a He-111 or a 109 at 70-150 meters)

Convergences (in meters, reversed so type them in as they are - russian conv. labels seem to be fixed, english are not?)

Guns Vertical Horizontal
1/8----121----109
2/7----100----107
3/6----153----200
4/5----241----205

Gunsight distance set to 150-170 yards. Should be effective from 70 to 200 yards/meters.
Set wingspan according to your target.

Ehh...if you use this convergence set at anywhere over 100 yards and your pip is on the center of the target, two of your guns will be out of the fight as the rounds they're firing will fall short of the target...am I missing something?

If you're trying to emulate the convergence pattern on the diagram, as in, if in a head-on encounter, and you're firing, your rounds will be hitting enemy spinner, both wing roots and front windscreen, wouldn't you want all* guns at an equal vertical value (*except for guns 4 and 5) which you'd up their vertical convergence up by 50 meters or so?

Your vertical convergence values are what I'm not understanding...but I'm totally onboard with your idea.

[klem]

Its a "spray and pray" pattern. Apparently off line you can kill the pilot every time and down a He111 with just a couple of .303 rounds so if you spread the pattern wide enough to get just a couple of hits you will kill pilots and aircraft at the first pass.

It doesn't seem to work like that on-line.

[hegykc]

Its a "spray and pray" pattern. Apparently off line you can kill the pilot every time and down a He111 with just a couple of .303 rounds so if you spread the pattern wide enough to get just a couple of hits you will kill pilots and aircraft at the first pass.

It doesn't seem to work like that on-line.

Yes, exactly.

So it's that different online? I mean, that's good, means there's much more sense to different convergences. But I was testing this to prepare myself for online, guess I'll just have to bite the bullet and jump right in.

Because the more I test this offline in FMB, the more it seems to me a lot of things are just random and don't make much sense.
For instance, the left engine failure when you hit only the right one.

But how can that be? Isn't damage model, damage model. The same online and off?

[Roblex]

Am I misunderstanding something about convergence? I see people saying that they, for example, set the horizontal convergence to 250yds then the vertical convergence to 400yds. My understanding is that this would cause the bullet streams to converge at 250yds while still climbing above the plane of your aircraft so that by the time they drop down to to the same level as the target they are scattered all over the sky and almost certainly either side of the target.

What am I missing? I can see that if you open fire on an enemy from 250yds while in a turn then you wont need to apply as much lead but if you are not in a turn you will need to calculate a vertical offset when it should not be needed so you don't really win overall.

[klem]

Am I misunderstanding something about convergence? I see people saying that they, for example, set the horizontal convergence to 250yds then the vertical convergence to 400yds. My understanding is that this would cause the bullet streams to converge at 250yds while still climbing above the plane of your aircraft so that by the time they drop down to to the same level as the target they are scattered all over the sky and almost certainly either side of the target.

What am I missing? I can see that if you open fire on an enemy from 250yds while in a turn then you wont need to apply as much lead but if you are not in a turn you will need to calculate a vertical offset when it should not be needed so you don't really win overall.

Lets assume your intended target was a Me109 250 yards in front of you, your gunsight is set for both 250 yards range convergence and the Me109 wingspan so that the 109 fits snugly between the range bars. The pipper, your aim point, is sqarely on the tail/fuselage centre of the 109 and you squeeze the trigger. In your example the .303s would converge in the horizontal plane at 250yds on a vertical line through the 109 centre but would be above the intended 250 yard aim point because you have set them to drop back onto the sight line at 400 yards. And by then they would be nearly as far apart horizontally as their mounting positions in your wings because they are 150 yards further on than the target point.

[No.310_LangMaster]

Any new setting would not be? Thanks

[No.310_LangMaster]

Disregard these charts completely.

Sorry but after some tests I've found some things I did wrong. I'll post updated charts, and few different setups for both bombers and fighters, both expert pilots and those not so much, later in this thread.

In the mean time, you can try these (setup so that they cover an engine profile of a He-111 or a 109 at 70-150 meters)

Convergences (in meters, reversed so type them in as they are - russian conv. labels seem to be fixed, english are not?)

Guns Vertical Horizontal
1/8----121----109
2/7----100----107
3/6----153----200
4/5----241----205

Gunsight distance set to 150-170 yards. Should be effective from 70 to 200 yards/meters.
Set wingspan according to your target.
Any new setting would not be? Thanks