Gun Convergance?

[swiss]

Originally Posted by klem

Why is that swiss? in IL-2 you can set different convergences for m/gs and cannons and you need to know that set to 200m, or even 700m, the 'elevation' convergence will co-incide with the 'lateral' convergence or you will have your rounds converging laterally at the set range but too high or too low if 'elevation' wasn't set to the same figure.

See Kodiak's post.

For the 190 f-.i., I would set the fuselage MG parallel, elevation 150.
Different settings for the wing cannons, if possible each pair their own.

[klem]

Originally Posted by swiss

See Kodiak's post.

For the 190 f-.i., I would set the fuselage MG parallel, elevation 150.
Different settings for the wing cannons, if possible each pair their own.

Swiss, I don't know if I have misunderstood you but Kodiak's post shows the m/g guns harmonised at 400m and the cannons harmonised at 550m. You can do that in IL-2. In each case on Kodiaks charts the elevation/trajectory is also harmonised to 400m and 550m respectively.

At the m/g convergence point (400m) the cannon rounds are about 77cm higher and about 30cm to each side but they converge further on at 550m.

You can harmonise the m/gs at 150m but in that case it would be so close that they would converge on the rise and not on the fall. The would probably fall again down through the sight line at between 300-400m but of course they would be separated laterally by, I would estimate, around 1m.

[swiss]

[QUOTE=klem;198385]Swiss, I don't know if I have misunderstood you but Kodiak's post shows the m/g guns harmonised at 400m and the cannons harmonised at 550m. You can do that in IL-2. In each case on Kodiaks charts the elevation/trajectory is also harmonised to 400m and 550m respectively.[quote]

Kodiak: reason n°1
Swiss: another reason, call it n°2

I have the manuals myself, still - that is my bird, and if I'm able to, my fuselage MGs won't intersect at all, laterally.
Sure I could set a high distance, but then I'm stuck with bullet drop...

Thefore:

You can do that in IL-2

isn't true.

At the m/g convergence point (400m) the cannon rounds are about 77cm higher and about 30cm to each side but they converge further on at 550m.

You can harmonise the m/gs at 150m but in that case it would be so close that they would converge on the rise and not on the fall. The would probably fall again down through the sight line at between 300-400m but of course they would be separated laterally by, I would estimate, around 1m.

Where did you get the numbers from? Kodiaks table or an educated guess?
Are there ballistic tables for Il2?

[klem]

Originally Posted by swiss

............. if I'm able to, my fuselage MGs won't intersect at all, laterally.............
Where did you get the numbers from? Kodiaks table or an educated guess?
Are there ballistic tables for Il2?

Aaahh! you want some separation, laterally, at 'convergence' range. Ok, well that's up to you. Most of us are trying to get maximum, or 'point', concentration at convergence for maximum damage. However on fuselage guns we sometimes set long range like 600m-800m for longer range hitting (which is more achievable with fuselage guns and useful for ground attack) and still good for shorter range air to air with a lower aim. You can't separate elevation from separation in IL-2 convergence setting.

I got the numbers from Kodiak's chart as he put that up as an example and a reference. If they are accurate for that aircraft, and they look like it, the numbers would only apply in that instance but the example is generally relevant to all.

I don't think there are ballsitics tables for IL-2 but there are masses of ballistics data out there on the web. I made a spreadsheet of them from a few good sources.