PDA

View Full Version : What's your favourite convergence distance?



Sillius_Sodus
04-14-2006, 12:12 AM
Just curious, what do you like to set your gun convergence at? I used to set it at 100 metres but lately I've backed it off to 300 for better strafing. For the P-38, later model 109's and other fighters with only nose mounted guns I'm not sure if it really matters since the guns are so close together.

BTW, what was the average convergence distance used during WWII?

Good Hunting,
Sillius_Sodus

Sillius_Sodus
04-14-2006, 12:12 AM
Just curious, what do you like to set your gun convergence at? I used to set it at 100 metres but lately I've backed it off to 300 for better strafing. For the P-38, later model 109's and other fighters with only nose mounted guns I'm not sure if it really matters since the guns are so close together.

BTW, what was the average convergence distance used during WWII?

Good Hunting,
Sillius_Sodus

Sillius_Sodus
04-14-2006, 12:26 AM
Ok, I did a little research and found out that the covergence distance was usually 200-300 yards for WWII fighters with wing mounted guns, less if the pilot was new or a poor shot (like me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif) . Shorter convergence was considered better for fighter vs fighter combat. Makes sense, it would take a brave pilot indeed to close to 100 yards/metres or less before opening fire to take down a bomber in real life.

Not that it's much better in the game with those sniper-like gunners.

Good Hunting,
Sillius_Sodus

Maple_Tiger
04-14-2006, 12:29 AM
Right now, I'm using 180m convergence. Seems to work ok for me.

Yog_Shoggoth
04-14-2006, 12:36 AM
I use 250, but if I've got cannon available I set them to 300 to get some free space in case of explosion.

Adam906
04-14-2006, 12:53 AM
I have mine set to 140 which is far enough away to evade most debris and explosions and close enough to make every round count. As for taking out bombers it is frontal attacks only simply cause the AI gunners are God when it comes to deflection/finding the sensitive bits. For the IL2 I just get close up under them till I can see the radiator cooler well enough and just use that as a bulls-eye, either that or port wing root when diving on them

As for Japanese enemies - I stay away from them completely till someone at Maddox pulls their finger out and gets the Pacific fighters and the AI up to scratch.

ATLAS_DEATH
04-14-2006, 12:58 AM
I bounce from 200-250 on machine guns and 300-350 on cannons.

Convergence does have an effect on the nose mounted cannons. The distance you have it set to will dictate how far away it will be when it enters the center of your crosshairs.

RCAF_Irish_403
04-14-2006, 06:12 AM
Nose cannons/MG's=500/300

wing cannon/Mg's=300/250

Banger2004
04-14-2006, 06:28 AM
Fly Spit mainly, 150m

StG2_Schlachter
04-14-2006, 06:37 AM
Here are my settings. They are shown seperately for air to air combat and ground strafing. I still have to figure out my favourite convergence for the Italian planes. They are not listed below.

Allied Fighters with wing mounted guns:

Hurricane & Spitfire 150 yards/300 yards
American types 300 yards/500 yards

Allied Fighters with nose mounted guns:

P-38 500 yards/500 yards
Mossie 500 yards/500 yards
Beaufighter 500 "/500 "

Sovjet planes:
Fighters: 400-500m /500-600m
IL2: 400 meters
Pe2: don't know yet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Axis Aircraft with wing mounted guns:
Bf-109E 150m/300m (MG 17 always 300m)
Fw-190A 300m/600m
Ju-87B&D -/300m
Ju-87G -/600m

Axis Aircraft with nose mounted guns:
Bf-109F 450m/600m (MG 17 always 300m)
Bf-109G 450m/600m (MK 108: 450m)
Bf-110G see 109G
Fw-190D 450m/600m
Ta-152 450m/600m
Me-262 450m/450m

FlatSpinMan
04-14-2006, 06:50 AM
Generally 400m so I can snipe at longish range to wing them then close to 100m or so and finish them. I mostly fly planes with nose armament, mainly armed with cannons.

Pig_Mac
04-14-2006, 06:58 AM
150 in MC202
300 in FW190D
600 in the IL2 A20 and B25
250 in the 110 with 108's
200-250 in most other Ac's

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

leitmotiv
04-14-2006, 08:05 AM
One hundred meters and lament I can't set at fifty. I have always agreed with Hartmann and others who urged only firing at point-blank range. When I do otherwise, I waste much ammunition for small returns. If I have an elephant gun, like the Sov 37mm or 45mm or the German MK103 30mm in my nose, I like to try long shots.

TgD Thunderbolt56
04-14-2006, 08:19 AM
MG'S = 400M
CANNON = 300M

I've used these convergences almost exclusively after I tinkered with putting them all accross the board after FB first came out. The only bird I have issues with as a gun platform is the Spitfires. They really seem to benefit from a short convergence setting.


TB

Bearcat99
04-14-2006, 08:56 AM
I started to set mine depending on the role.. for ground attack I set it to 300-325... for A2A I set it to @180-220.... depending on what I am flying. I have started to consider that as onme of the preflight things I do like setting armament.. rahter than jst leaving it iat a standard setting. I set it closer if I am in a 4 gun plane as opposed to a 6 or 8 gun plane.

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
04-14-2006, 09:03 AM
Between 150 and 200 meters seemed to work best for me.

Nose cannon, I thought, didn't matter what you set it too as a single weapon cannot converge with itself?

You know what BC says does make me wonder if Oleg is going to incorporate the ability to save custom configurations for aircraft types. Then you can allocate a default, weapon, fuel, and ammo load out according to mission type and not have to spend so much time online deciding what your going to take to the prom.

antifreeze
04-14-2006, 08:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nose cannon, I thought, didn't matter what you set it too as a single weapon cannot converge with itself? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it does matter. Convergence distance also has a vertical element to it. A nose cannon set to 400m will fire in a higher parabolic trajectory than a cannon set to 100m.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One hundred meters and lament I can't set at fifty. I have always agreed with Hartmann and others who urged only firing at point-blank range. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to some scale drawings I did, if convergence for wing-mounted guns is set to 300m, at between 50m and 100m the bullets will hit the enemy fighter's wings about halfway along each wing. And at 200m to 250m, the bullets will hit the root of each wing. So you can do good damage throughout the range of distance. But if set to 100m, the bullets won't hit an enemy fighter at all beyond 200m; they cross over and pass beyond the wing tips. So you are confined to close shots. Personally, I'd opt for an increased convergence to give maximum choice, but as you said, try to fire only when close enough to ensure a powerful hit.

Not that it matters, because I can't hit a damn thing anyway - even at point blank.

Doug_Thompson
04-14-2006, 08:49 PM
Like most folks here, that depends on the plane.

For P-38s, LaGGs and other planes with cowl or nose mounted guns only, it's 500 meters. The reason for this is not for sniper shots as much as for head-ons. A little accuracy just a little farther out goes a long way. Also, the best way to take out some bombers is with a quick head-on pass.

For wing-mounted .50s, I go ahead and set them at 100 meters, shorter than most folks. I need good concentration at pretty short range to take out something with .50s. If I'm 150m away, the spray isn't too bad anyway. Also, if I'm ground strafing, they shots "cross" and spread out enough to give nice cover.

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
04-14-2006, 09:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think it does matter. Convergence distance also has a vertical element to it. A nose cannon set to 400m will fire in a higher parabolic trajectory than a cannon set to 100m. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm interesting I shall have to investigate this further. Thanks for the pointer http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

WTE_Wombat
04-14-2006, 11:27 PM
I use 175m for general air-air work, and 300m for mudmoving or when I know I'm going against bombers.

AFAIK from looking at photos of the armourers at work - convergence settings did NOT allow for bullet drop.

i.e. The statement that a 400m convergence will have the guns aimed "up" more than at 150m convergence was not true.

The armourers aimed wing-mounted guns by bore-sighting the guns at markers on a fixed target range and all the markers were on the same horizontal plane. So there was no allowance being made for bullet-drop at longer ranges.

The-Pizza-Man
04-15-2006, 12:34 AM
I originally had mine set to 250-300 meters. But then I actually started to look at the distances I was opening fire at and it was usually &lt;200m. So I usually go for about 180m. I did try setting different convergences for mgs and cannon but that tended to mess up my aiming.

Wing guns definately had an upward angle. I don't know whether or not this was changed with different convergences or not. I can't remember exactly where I read this but if you really want I could try and find some quotes or something.

trekkie951
04-15-2006, 02:22 AM
******* all of u have urs close, i have mine at 1000m

Monson74
04-15-2006, 04:21 AM
250 meters for everything always - works fine for me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

antifreeze
04-15-2006, 06:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
AFAIK from looking at photos of the armourers at work - convergence settings did NOT allow for bullet drop. i.e. The statement that a 400m convergence will have the guns aimed "up" more than at 150m convergence was not true.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My source was previous discussions about convergence on this forum. Since you put my mind at doubt, I quickly tested it this morning, as follows:

Lagg (nose cannon) on the airstrip.
Taxied forward until the gunsight reticule was aimed about 5m below the top of a smokestack. I then measured the ground distance in FMB; the aircraft was 200m away from the smokestack.
With convergence set to 100m, the bullets hit exactly where the reticule cross was. I also checked where they were hitting the smokestack in external view.

From the same place with convergence then set to 1000m, I expected the bullets to clear the top of the smokestack due to being adjusted vertically for the longer distance.
The difference in height was not as dramatic as I thought it would be. The bullets still hit the top of the stack rather than going over it. But the trajectory was noticably 2-3m higher. Taking into account that I was only 200m away from the smokestack, the bullets had not yet reached the apex of their parabola; at 500m (the apex) we could perhaps expect another 2-3m in extra height, making a total of about 5m.

So, I'm still convinced that vertical convergence does exist in the game. However, I now think that it's not really going to make any difference in a typical combat situation.

polak5
04-15-2006, 07:44 AM
300m all around... but to tell u the truth i forgot why i changed it in the first place http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif guess im stuck now.

Pig_Mac
04-15-2006, 04:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So, I'm still convinced that vertical convergence does exist in the game. However, I now think that it's not really going to make any difference in a typical combat situation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It was surprising that it wasn't more noticable. I always thought I felt a great difference between 200 and 500 in height. I have to try it out with a few nosemounted when I get back to my Computer. Maybe heavy ones like the 30mm+ are more 'lobbed away' to hit when set at higher convergance, from the weight they have?