|
|
#21
10-29-2012, 06:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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. Last edited by *Buzzsaw*; 10-29-2012 at 07:04 PM. 
|
|
#22
10-29-2012, 07:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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?
|
|
#23
10-29-2012, 07:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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: Quote:
Last edited by hegykc; 10-29-2012 at 07:30 PM.
|
|
#24
10-29-2012, 07:59 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Sokol1
|
|
#25
10-29-2012, 08:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sokol,
I'm not sure if they are still inverted. See bellow. Quote:
|
|
#27
10-29-2012, 08:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just thinking out loud...
Could it be that the labels where corrected in Russian but are still wrong in English?
|
|
#29
10-30-2012, 12:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#30
10-30-2012, 11:06 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
klem 56 Squadron RAF "Firebirds" http://firebirds.2ndtaf.org.uk/  ASUS Sabertooth X58 /i7 950 @ 4GHz / 6Gb DDR3 1600 CAS8 / EVGA GTX570 GPU 1.28Gb superclocked / Crucial 128Gb SSD SATA III 6Gb/s, 355Mb-215Mb Read-Write / 850W PSU Windows 7 64 bit Home Premium / Samsung 22" 226BW @ 1680 x 1050 / TrackIR4 with TrackIR5 software / Saitek X52 Pro & Rudders
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
