RAF Fighter Horizontal convergence

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

To add to Farber's excellent work, something from an RAF flyer's perspective;

[No.54 Ghost (KL-G)]

been using this setting for a while and it works great.
really good for PKs.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Excellent work, Phil!

[Dutch]

Superb mate.

Unfortunately you now have me wondering whether I should re-do my convergences. Anyone know a quicker way than using the GUI, like copy and pasting in a conf file or some such?

[LG1.Farber]

Nice, what program did you use to do that and would you send me the file?

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

Superb mate.

Unfortunately you now have me wondering whether I should re-do my convergences. Anyone know a quicker way than using the GUI, like copy and pasting in a conf file or some such?

copy and paste in the user.ini file - use the file in your "mod" folder.

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

Nice, what program did you use to do that and would you send me the file?

just Microsoft excel. it's a spreadsheet.
I'll email a copy to you.

pm me your email addy either here, or from your ACG forums.

[Roblex]

I am not saying you are wrong but...I am always a bit dubious about these 'spread' convergences.

My brain says there are several points where the logic fails:-

1. It is all very well saying 'This set up means the guns converge over a longer range' but you are also saying 'At any distance I am hitting with less guns' or, to put it another way 'I will never be able to hit the target with 8 guns' It's a trade-off; if you are lucky your two guns might hit something vital but they might also just make some harmless holes in the elevators where 8 guns would have totally destroyed the elevators.

2. Everyone uses perfect dead six attacks to explain why the spread method is better but if you are making a perfect dead 6 attack on a target that is not evading then you should not be worrying about what happens when your aim is off as even a crap shot like me can get the shots within 6 inches either way and in such perfect conditions you can open up just before convergence and move a devastating 8-gun sweet spot the length of the target.

3. Most often if you are attacking a fighter then you are making some sort of deflection shot so the diagram is invalid. Rotate that 109 by even 10 degrees to simulate a close tail chase and everything changes and the spread either side of the sweet spot of a tight convergence strategy starts to help. Rotate it by 45 degrees and you have a totally different scenario and, with pulling Gs and guessing lead, your aim is less likely to be accurate anyway.

As I said at the beginning, I am not saying your method won't get you more kills, just that I have doubts about the logic used to justify it.

I should also admit that I don't use a pure 'sweet spot' method myself anyway as I set my convergence to 250 but put the inner guns at 400 based on the (perhaps faulty) logic that there is little difference in convergence angle between 250 & 400 for the inner guns so when I am chasing someone who is 400yds ahead running away in a straight line but I am unable to get closer (which happens a lot) then I can take very careful aim from perfect dead 6 (as my victim thinks he is out of range and does not want to jink in case I get closer) and do enough damage to slow him down or make him jink which also slows him down. At 250 yds the inner guns are still very close together and hitting the fuselage while the other six are converging inside the fuselage. Perhaps my logic as as faulty as the people who like to have four convergence points

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

My brain says there are several points where the logic fails:-

Every set-up is a trade-off Roblex. Each approach has its own strong points and compromises. The multi-range option helps you play the averages. The spot concentration favours a different approach.

If you're still thinking there is a single optimal then this video isn't for you.

All I'm doing here is showing how different convergence set-ups pan out over range.

[Roblex]

If you're still thinking there is a single optimal then this video isn't for you.
.

Not at all How much of dogfighting is at a perfect convergence distance anyway? Perhaps the first bounce. You cannot really control what range you will find yourself at in a twisting dogfight. If you are too close you won't back off to get a better convergence; you will take the shot anyway and perhaps aim to one side to avoid your bullets going either side. Some would say that uncertainty favours your spread method and others would say they prefer knowing most of their bullets are following a known vector they can adjust for away from convergence.

If you spend more time hunting bombers than fighters then I suppose you might spend more time shooting close to a single convergence and that convergence is more likely to be 400yds than 200yds

As I tried to stress in my post, I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying I prefer a different method with different strength and drawbacks. If you were a fan of 18th & 19th century naval warfare you would know that the British Navy liked to use heavy ball shot and aim to make holes in the French hulls, which took accurate shooting, while the French Navy preferred to use chain shot and bring down the masts then board, which took less accurate shooting. Neither was 'right' or 'wrong', just different approaches.

[Wulf]

I tend to agree that there isn't really a right way to do convergence. There are clearly going to be pros and cons no matter what system you use. That said, I nevertheless think it's a mistake to underestimate the importance of the vertical plane and to, for theoretical reasons, attempt to stretch your convergence out based solely on a set of horizontal projections. Although there is no reason, of course, to believe you couldn't configure your weapons to deliver a devastating blow on a target at an extended range, if you look at the trajectory tables for the rounds in question, you will notice that in doing so, it becomes very difficult to hit targets on either side of your convergence.

In my opinion there's a tendency to become overly focused on convergence these days. Until relatively recently, for example, I was quite obsessed with it, and would more often than not attribute my poor performance in air combat to an inability to find the magical convergence 'sweet spot'. If only I could find the the perfect convergence I'd be fine I thought. Well, unfortunately for me, no matter what I tried that magical sweet spot remained elusive. These days I'm not fussed about convergence at all. I simply set convergence to the default. And what that default is I couldn't tell you. I have no idea at all - none! To my current way of thinking it's far more important to get right up close to your target and to shoot only when you are almost on top of him than to fixate on finding the convergence equivalent of the holy grail. As a born again energy fighter, I almost never attack from a dead six position these days. Certainly, I would never attack a bomber in that fashion. Whether I'm targeting bombers or fighters, I like to launch my attacks from above, at an angle of between between about 30 and 75 degrees and shoot a split second before the merge. Sometimes, when attacking an aircraft that is attempting to break hard under my nose, it will be necessary to shoot unsighted, but in all instances the shooting will be done just as close as possible to the target. I've found this method infinitely more successful than co-alt deflection shooting involving range estimation.

[Roblex]

I simply set convergence to the default. And what that default is I couldn't tell you. I have no idea at all - none! To my current way of thinking it's far more important to get right up close to your target and to shoot only when you are almost on top of him than to fixate on finding the convergence equivalent of the holy grail.

Umm... aren't you missing the point of convergence? By all means use the tactic of 'get up close' and don't fixate on getting the perfect distance from your target but leaving you guns aimed at a point 300yds ahead (I believe that is default) while shooting from 50yds means that your bullets will never hit what is in the center of your gunsight, they will always go 5ft either side. If you are getting hits with those settings (other than just hitting mid wing) then either you are not shooting from 50yds or you are doing a lot of high deflection shots and calculating the lead wrong but accidentally getting one wings worth of bullets onto the target because of your error

If you only shoot from close range and don't want to bother with 'sweet spots' then I would recommend setting a close convergence but bear in mind that setting a close convergence then shooting at 300yds won't work at all.

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

. That said, I nevertheless think it's a mistake to underestimate the importance of the vertical plane and to, for theoretical reasons, attempt to stretch your convergence out based solely on a set of horizontal projections.

You're right. Adding in the vertical dimension does matter.
I have a preference for that too, which is based on

• slightly further out vertical convergence for the weapons which horizontally converge close in, and
• slightly closer in convergence for the weapons which horizontally convergence further out.

The fact is, I chose to engage aircraft at a multitude of ranges, depending on the situation I find myself in.

As Roblex points out, there's also the added complication of the enemy aircraft's attitude, esp. in the turn... At the dead-6 position a tighter spot convergence is probably more deadly, however, a wide convergence can help against the high-deflection shots becasue the target presented is larger, and you can "rake" his entire air-frame with one burst, scoring hits on engine, cockpit, fuselage and tail-plane all at the same time.

[Wulf]

Umm... aren't you missing the point of convergence? By all means use the tactic of 'get up close' and don't fixate on getting the perfect distance from your target but leaving you guns aimed at a point 300yds ahead (I believe that is default) while shooting from 50yds means that your bullets will never hit what is in the center of your gunsight, they will always go 5ft either side. If you are getting hits with those settings (other than just hitting mid wing) then either you are not shooting from 50yds or you are doing a lot of high deflection shots and calculating the lead wrong but accidentally getting one wings worth of bullets onto the target because of your error

If you only shoot from close range and don't want to bother with 'sweet spots' then I would recommend setting a close convergence but bear in mind that setting a close convergence then shooting at 300yds won't work at all.

Hahahahaha .... that's quite amusing. I wish you hadn't told me. Are you sure it's 300m? I was just having a look at that German diagram of a Bf 109 incorporated into Farber's video but as I don't speak the German I don't know exactly what it says. Actually, I've never really understood it at all. The convergence appears to be set at 200m BUT above the line of sight. The cannon and MG rounds don't appear to pass through the line of sight until the 400m mark, by which time the cannon rounds are beginning to diverge quite significantly. That seems very strange to me because if you underestimated the range by not very much, you'd miss by a country mile. As for my own shooting, who knows. At present I'm going with the theory that 'the force' is sufficiently strong in me to overcome what, by any standard, would appear to be an unsuitable arrangement for close in shooting. Hmmm ... I'll try and bend a spoon or two and let you know what happens.

[Wulf]

You're right. Adding in the vertical dimension does matter.
I have a preference for that too, which is based on

• slightly further out vertical convergence for the weapons which horizontally converge close in, and
• slightly closer in convergence for the weapons which horizontally convergence further out.

The fact is, I chose to engage aircraft at a multitude of ranges, depending on the situation I find myself in.

As Roblex points out, there's also the added complication of the enemy aircraft's attitude, esp. in the turn... At the dead-6 position a tighter spot convergence is probably more deadly, however, a wide convergence can help against the high-deflection shots becasue the target presented is larger, and you can "rake" his entire air-frame with one burst, scoring hits on engine, cockpit, fuselage and tail-plane all at the same time.

Well, I'm a bit the same. Ideally i want to be able to see 'the whites of their eyes' but in reality I guess I'll take any shot that's going, if it appears to have even the remotest chance of success. Connecting on those 90 degree crossing shots is always immensely satisfying - when it happens.

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

Hahahahaha .... that's quite amusing. I wish you hadn't told me. Are you sure it's 300m? :

Roblex is referring to the RAF fighters, not the 109s.
RAF fighters default to 333m I think.

Using my spreadsheet, if you have "default" convergence set in your spitfire, there is little point in shooting at anything (fighters) that is less than 200m away. Even at 150m, the rounds from the inboard weapons (which being about 3.6m from each other) are still approximately 3m apart.

The problem with bringing the convergence right back in for the close-range shots, is that the weapons diverge very, very quickly after that point.

If you set guns 2,3 6&7 to converge at 100m (the minimum allowable in the game) they will be 6m apart at 200m. This force the pilot to make close in shots each, and every time. If you set your out boards to converge at 100m, buy the time they get to 200m they'll be nearly 7m apart.

This is why the inboard weapons should be used for close-in shots, and the outboard weapons for long range shots. It's because of the subsequent DIVERGENCE, not the preceding convergence.

In my opinion, divergence is actually more important than convergence. What are the rounds doing after they converge?

[Roblex]

however, a wide convergence can help against the high-deflection shots becasue the target presented is larger, and you can "rake" his entire air-frame with one burst, scoring hits on engine, cockpit, fuselage and tail-plane all at the same time.

I wont argue with that. In any case once we start talking of high deflection shots all notion of 'concentrated fire' at a specific range goes out the window anyway unless you are very lucky and both methods are probably hitting over a wide area.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Re Phil's convergence chart -- so far seems to work for me. I used the "Long Range" values in your spreadsheet (substituting 100 m for your recommended 80 m only because the ingame GUI sets 100 as the minimum and I was too keen on flying to muck about ). Most of my engagements were with 109's, with a few AI bombers thrown in.

Because of the deadly accuracy of the AI bombers' gunners, I avoid coming up from behind, preferring medium-deflection shots in angular diving attacks. I extend in a shallow, curving dive before climbing again to rinse & repeat. (This also affords a good look around for any 109's that show up to ruin my fun.). As my fire traversed my target I found that sustained concentrated hits from two-to-four guns more effective than fleeting concentrated hits from all eight guns. Up until now I've had all my guns set to converge at 180 meters (200 yards on my gunsight).

The greatest effect was on the smaller, more agile 109 fighter. As long as I did my part in bringing my guns to bear, the results were more decisive for the rapid variance in range that is endemic to dogfighting. Two or four guns in the engine/cockpit ended the fight quicker than eight guns to both radiators. These are just my initial impressions. As always, YMMV.

[ATAG_Knuckles]

Snapper: I have all guns the same convergence: I would like to try setting some different: Do you have a suggested setting for each of the 8 guns ???

I have all at 250 yards right now:

another thing I really have a hard time "in game" knowing roughly where 250 yards actually is when approaching an aircraft !!!!

[Dutch]

another thing I really have a hard time "in game" knowing roughly where 250 yards actually is when approaching an aircraft !!!!

Hmmm, I can see my explanation in the other thread wasn't very well put......

Here's a couple of screenshots of what your gunsight should look like at 250yds, attacking first a Dornier of 60ft wingspan, then a 109 of 32ft wingspan. See how the horizontal bars on the sight are the same distance apart as the wingspan?

The top ring is set at your convergence, 250yds, the bottom ring is set for the relevant wingspan of first a Dornier, then a 109.

Launcher 2013-06-21 19-37-48-74.jpgLauncher 2013-06-21 19-41-19-96.jpg

[ATAG_Knuckles]

O.K. O.K. wait: errr so when the wing span no wait: err

O.K. so your photo the errr

O.K. now I get it: when your dialed in wing span (bottom ring) fills the sight (horizontal bar) you are at the dialed in (top ring) convergence

Eureka !!! I get it ( after two years of flying this sim)

I wonder what else I havent figured out ????

[ATAG_Snapper]

By gawd....I think he's got it!

Knucks, I'm away from my PC, but later I will post PhilStyle's recommended convergences for each of the eight guns. My first impression is that, for me, they're helpful. I studied his Excel charts carefully to better gain an understanding of what is going on in setting up the convergences in a certain way. If I could guarantee myself that I could maintain an EXACT distance from my quarry before opening fire, then I'd stay with all guns set to the same distance. A good example of this is stalking an unsuspecting victim from behind -- you have all the time in the world to affix his wing tips between the bars of your gunsight reticle before opening fire. (With my luck, his wingmate has all the time in the world affixing MY wing tips in his gunsight reticle!).

Most of my shots are taken on a rapidly closing target OR quick bursts at a rigorously maneuvering fighter at wildly varying distances. For me it works better to have two or four guns on target than eight guns not-quite-on target. I'll post Phil's suggested convergences here later this evening.

[Dutch]

( after two years of flying this sim)

Yeah, but for all of that time, you've been flying a Blenheim. 'Nuff said. The gunsight on the Blen borders on the 'totally useless'. Well, not so much bordering actually! Haha!

[Wulf]

Have you Spit/Hurri types had a look at the old WW2 RAF publication, 'Bag the Hun'? I noticed someone posted a picture of it on another thread. If you haven't downloaded and read it yet you probably should. It contains some very valuable info on range estimation and deflection shooting.

[Dutch]

Have you Spit/Hurri types had a look at the old WW2 RAF publication, 'Bag the Hun'? I noticed someone posted a picture of it on another thread. If you haven't downloaded and read it yet you probably should. It contains some very valuable info on range estimation and deflection shooting.

Thanks for that mate, I'm sure we'll all bear it in mind.

[Osprey]

[Knuckles;48367]O.K. O.K. wait: errr so when the wing span no wait: err

O.K. so your photo the errr

O.K. now I get it: when your dialed in wing span (bottom ring) fills the sight (horizontal bar) you are at the dialed in (top ring) convergence

Eureka !!! I get it ( after two years of flying this sim)

I wonder what else I havent figured out ????[/QUOTE]

Don't forget that your gunsight is in yards and the game setting is in metres.

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

[Knuckles;48367]O.K. O.K. wait: errr so when the wing span no wait: err

O.K. so your photo the errr
.

Alternatively, save yourself a whole lot of nonsense, and ignore the stupid gun-sight and dailing in the range/ wingspans.
If the wingtips of a 109 touch the circle he's close enough to kill.
For bombers, use his engines, instead of wingtips.

That way you never have to fuss about asking "what's the wingspan of a double decker bus".

[Meaks]

I found your chart and video very helpful Phil,so thanks for that,and I would agree re being close enough on a 109,so not to be too concerned about dialing in the wingspan.

However,talking of being very close to your target,here's something that's always confused me,during the BoB Sailor Malan,made up a list of the 10 rules of air combat,and one of these,the first one infact read:

1. Wait until you see the whites of his eyes.Fire short bursts of one to two seconds only when your sights are definitely 'ON'.

Now,I don't know about you guys but I'll be buggered if I'm going to be positioned where I can see the whites of his eyes before opening fire,especially as he has cannons and mg's in a 109 ........lol,I want to be behind the bugger....not facing him

Meaks

[alphapapa]

Interesting thread. Googled "Bag the Hun" and came up with this Vid


Principles and practise, I'd say! No, that's not a spelling error but an instruction!

[ATAG_EvangelusE]

Interesting video regards using different horizontal convergence settings.

I notice all the guns in the video use identical vertical convergence values (which differ to the various horizontal values suggested) but not sure 'why'?