PDA

View Full Version : I observe P-51D tracers not crossing.



WWMaxGunz
07-25-2004, 12:23 PM
P-51D in Quick Mission, targets He-111's with no ammo. Convergence set 350m.
Fired coming in from rear from 500m in to 200m just over the target right wing.
Made a track.
Actually, did a lot of passes and shot down 4 bombers but still made a track
still theis procedure is REPEATABLE.

On playback, ran 1/4 speed with camera set on the target and facing shooter.
Paused as tracers passed over the target. Icons on, noted the range of shooter.
Tracers then looked to be spreading out but as the fronts of the streaks are
closer to the camera, they would look that way anyway.
Rotated the camera around to view from overhead tracers and target plane.
Zoomed out to not have the tracers much closer in view than the target, reducing
error from perspective view.
Now the picture is clear, the tracers are not spreading out. But over 500m the
angle should not be much and they should already have crossed at 350m.

Looked again at tracers coming from 350m, the converge range and... they are just
as far apart, looking parallel.

Again at 200m, look the same.

Now unlike some people, I do not expect to see angles of 5m rise to 350m run as
obviously right or wrong. But when I check along that 350m range, I do expect
to see the tracers from right and left wings to get closer and meet. After 350m
I expect to see them spread back apart.

Dispersion is not about a bunch of guns shooting along different angles. It is
about shots from one gun not all going the same direction by some amount.

Convergence is about guns from different locations being aimed at or close to the
same point. Harmonization is how close or not to the same point they are aimed.

I am beginning to feel that dispersion was never modelled in the sim and that
harmonization was used to simulate that. Simulate.

So now from my one simple test I see NO CONVERGENCE. I see maybe some harmonization
but it is very small if any. And dispersion, the same which can't be told apart
from possible harmonization in the test I tried. One would look like the other
except that harmonization is not random and dispersion is.

It is not enough to make a test. Interpretation is critical. I may have gotten
either one wrong. So I ask only that others look and see and PLEASE DO NOT GO
OFF THE DEEP END, HAVE SOME DOUBTS ABOUT YOUR OWN METHODS AND CONCLUSIONS AS WELL.

Only Oleg will decide in the end. I truely believe that an honest communication
difference is at the base of all this. Perhaps it is all mine, perhaps not. So
again. I ASK ONLY. There are too many ways for not just words but words and
situations combined to mean very different things to different people and still
everyone be honest and earnest.

I ask because if what I see is right, then one change can complete making M2's on
wingmount planes realistic without screwing them up on the nosemount planes.

I also hope that if this is true, it will end the current panic in many threads.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
07-25-2004, 12:23 PM
P-51D in Quick Mission, targets He-111's with no ammo. Convergence set 350m.
Fired coming in from rear from 500m in to 200m just over the target right wing.
Made a track.
Actually, did a lot of passes and shot down 4 bombers but still made a track
still theis procedure is REPEATABLE.

On playback, ran 1/4 speed with camera set on the target and facing shooter.
Paused as tracers passed over the target. Icons on, noted the range of shooter.
Tracers then looked to be spreading out but as the fronts of the streaks are
closer to the camera, they would look that way anyway.
Rotated the camera around to view from overhead tracers and target plane.
Zoomed out to not have the tracers much closer in view than the target, reducing
error from perspective view.
Now the picture is clear, the tracers are not spreading out. But over 500m the
angle should not be much and they should already have crossed at 350m.

Looked again at tracers coming from 350m, the converge range and... they are just
as far apart, looking parallel.

Again at 200m, look the same.

Now unlike some people, I do not expect to see angles of 5m rise to 350m run as
obviously right or wrong. But when I check along that 350m range, I do expect
to see the tracers from right and left wings to get closer and meet. After 350m
I expect to see them spread back apart.

Dispersion is not about a bunch of guns shooting along different angles. It is
about shots from one gun not all going the same direction by some amount.

Convergence is about guns from different locations being aimed at or close to the
same point. Harmonization is how close or not to the same point they are aimed.

I am beginning to feel that dispersion was never modelled in the sim and that
harmonization was used to simulate that. Simulate.

So now from my one simple test I see NO CONVERGENCE. I see maybe some harmonization
but it is very small if any. And dispersion, the same which can't be told apart
from possible harmonization in the test I tried. One would look like the other
except that harmonization is not random and dispersion is.

It is not enough to make a test. Interpretation is critical. I may have gotten
either one wrong. So I ask only that others look and see and PLEASE DO NOT GO
OFF THE DEEP END, HAVE SOME DOUBTS ABOUT YOUR OWN METHODS AND CONCLUSIONS AS WELL.

Only Oleg will decide in the end. I truely believe that an honest communication
difference is at the base of all this. Perhaps it is all mine, perhaps not. So
again. I ASK ONLY. There are too many ways for not just words but words and
situations combined to mean very different things to different people and still
everyone be honest and earnest.

I ask because if what I see is right, then one change can complete making M2's on
wingmount planes realistic without screwing them up on the nosemount planes.

I also hope that if this is true, it will end the current panic in many threads.


Neal

Fennec_P
07-25-2004, 12:45 PM
It works fine.

When I fire the guns on the P-51D20NA, while watching from external camera, the tracers clearly cross each other at the convergence distance. When you change the setting, suprise suprise, the convergence changes too.

In these pictures, I have set my convergence to 100m. The wires are at 100m, and the camera is at 120m.

The tracers clearly cross at the wires. They do not come to a perfect point because of dispersion. The red lines make it look cooler.

http://members.shaw.ca/fennec/gun1.jpg http://members.shaw.ca/fennec/gun2.jpg http://members.shaw.ca/fennec/gun3.jpg http://members.shaw.ca/fennec/gun4.jpg

So stop hyperventilating and put down the gun, because it seems as though the bullets are converging after all, and all is well in the world. The panic of many threads has come to an end.

[This message was edited by Fennec_P on Sun July 25 2004 at 11:57 AM.]

WWMaxGunz
07-25-2004, 12:53 PM
Maybe my install is bad?

Or my choice of plane, the D-5. Or the convergence at 350m.

That is not what I saw, but then that is not the way I looked.
All I was looking for then was how my shooting was anyway.

My error!


Neal

Fennec_P
07-25-2004, 12:59 PM
At 350m the scatter is so bad its hard to tell where they are converging. But its clearly different from 100m.

p1ngu666
07-25-2004, 02:40 PM
dont the tracers blink out at 300metres?
or have i got distance wrong :|

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
<123_GWood_JG123> NO SPAM!

Fennec_P
07-26-2004, 12:46 AM
The tracers are visible for at least 1 or 2km.

WWMaxGunz
07-26-2004, 01:29 AM
Yeah I did a better check and I was *maybe* fooled by the dispersion.

Can't seem to set up ftp to my account on this ISP (switched in May) so I'll get a tech
to help and post a zip with a .mis and track. Set up a D-5 model on the concrete runway
at Sevastapol and cameras every 50m with rising alt for each to kill perspective
distortion. Fired away with convergence at 350m. The plane is not quite straight down
the runway but even to 500m the shots stay over the runway and the pavement lines serve
as some kind of scale but since the shots rise with distance from a parked plane I can't
definitely say the appearance of spread is not due to perspective effects and might only
look that way (closer objects appear larger/wider). The shots elevation is really high!
I didn't see the tracers cross but as they got halfway, they were already looking more
mixed than near the start. Thing is I'm not sure what I'm seeing once perspective is
added. At 500m the pattern is over twice as wide as a runway pavement where at 150m
it is about 1 pavement wide and there appears to be narrowing before 350m just as the
tracer lines mix. At 500m the tracers are far above the runway so I won't say the
pavement lines are any true measure but the camera at 500m is also far above the tracers
so the distortion is not so terrible, just there.

From all that and just on that basis I would agree that the shots are dispersed or the
tracks do cross or more likely both and at first look I was wrong.


Neal

Aaron_GT
07-26-2004, 01:51 PM
I;m definitely getting crossing with my convergence setting of 150m.

gates123
07-26-2004, 04:56 PM
150m eats FW's up for lunch and spits out 109's for dinner.

http://www.fightingcolors.com/custompagestuff/b17visibility72.jpg
Did anyone see that or was it just me?

BSS_Vidar
07-27-2004, 01:53 AM
Yup,
I set mine to 150. Naaaasty...finally. It now looks like the gun footage I've seen.

BSS_Vidar

WWMaxGunz
07-27-2004, 10:20 AM
Long range convergence doesn't work well for close range targets just from a short test.
The streams go around fuselages from dead six and you can't hit with more than one set
of guns even correcting aim. But I did like 350m for deflection shots, maybe 250m
would have been better? I want long because at high closure I need to start long to
have enough time on target to make good damage, maybe that kill.

Converge at 150 and I guess the pattern isn't too wide at 300, no more than a plane
wide! So what is all this talk of lasers? The bullets disperse and they have drop
the same as other HMG's. My guess is they only compare 2.02 50's to 2.04 and not
to any others. There seems to be an idea that 6 50 cals should take a long time to
cause real damage at a couple hundred meters even, which is nuts.


Neal

VMF513_Sandman
07-28-2004, 05:28 AM
tried 150 with no success...190-200 seems to werk better for me. these dam gaps u get with the p-38's is wide enough for a fat a$$ tb3 to squeeze thru much less a fighter doin 2x the speed of a tb3 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

WWMaxGunz
07-29-2004, 08:58 PM
The non-tracer bullets hit after the tracers, or so it appears. But I think that I
only saw bullet hits without tracers after tracers flew over and that might be due
to delay from calculations, and might not. I saw this watching playback at 1/4 speed.
The gaps between tracers are wide but hey, the bullets are damn fast, almost 900m/s
at muzzle (a BIGA$$ bullet starting at over 1/2 MILE per second) and those tracers
come out often at full speed.

Yeah for really high deflection you can't just lay down a solid wide line across the
path and get some hits. Think of the WHINING if you could do that! Even if it was
really done (it was). Besides, it really is not within the capabilities of the
hardware we have to make that happen for so many guns, so get over and live with it.


Neal