I have noticed that in the 3d cockpit my tracers don't seem to converge in the center of the gunsight reticule. Instead, they seem to converge somewhere just below the visible line of sight. When I use the no cockpit view, there is no problem, I see the tracers in proper relation to the sight. Is this a bug, or this supposed to accurately reflect convergence, bullet drop and dispersal? If so, perhaps it is somewhat overdone? Even when I am pratically colliding with the target, it seems that I have to raise the nose until the target is not visible to score hits. Is this a scale problem? I have checked this with the guncamera and even with the target dead in the sights, at close range, the external view shows the tracers passing below. I have target size set to "low" I think. Does this have anything to do with it?

I agree with you completely:Same observations.This is not same in CFS2;gunsight work properly .But I don't know which one is realistic!!!

Hmmm that is something i never noticed before. Distance and lead are what matters i think.

Provided the target is within firing range, if i'm not leading the target much, I pretty much point the gunsight at the target not a bit above it, and always seem to be able to score hits that way?

However if im leading the target much, i sometimes have to predict when to shoot, because the target will be out of sight and below the nose.

Don't know if this helps, but i always use the padlock view. I am not used to using the no cockpit view coz, i believe it will disorient me and beside that it being too much fuss for me with view switching.

.

[This message has been edited by Bader (edited 08-06-2001).]

Are you flying with wind effects ON?

this models the drift of the aircraft relative to the bullets (which tend not to be affected by wind so much).

It's a nice feature IMO. If you are really good you would correct with the rudder etc., but I tend to do a sighting burst first. Smoking tracers help here.

Or you could turn wind off.

Pretty sure that is what you are seeing.

As a matter of fact, I think I do keep wind effects on. I'll try it without to see what happens. Also, are the smoke tracers part of the Visual Pack download found in the BOB download section here? I would rather use the smoke than the stock tracers--more like the real gun camera footage of the time.

Take a look at the user mods thread (bumped)

Smoking tracers are at Vipers site.

Bader, I was all set to accept this when a wisp of doubt crept in. The more I think about this the more certain I am that your theory can't (perhaps I should say shouldn't) work (modelers are merry pranksters who can make their own physics if they like). All airplanes and bullets at the same altitude are riding in the same current of air. The wind should affect how the the airplanes and bullets track relative to the ground, but you can ignore it from the frame of reference of those same bullets and airplanes. If it does otherwise, than the wind model is seriously flawed.

Gusts are a different matter, a gust should affect a low density airplane more than a high density bullet...but this should be a random walk type of thing, and not a bias to one side (I always have to offset my aim left to hit what I want).

Methinks the sights are off (now where's my trusty hammer).

"In the old days, if we wanted wind, we had to make our own." - Actor discussing purchase of expensive, new fangled, wind effect machines in Terry Prattchet's Wyrd Sisters...am I right Windlepoons?

Like the Pratchett quote..

Well, the reason for this effect is that bullets travel straight ahead from the direction the aircraft is facing (pretty much) and the aircaft doesn't. In fact the aircraft travels like a crab when there is a strong cross-wind. (Look at a smoking fighter in a strong wind in BoB)

In a 100 mph 90 degree lateral wind a 200 mph aircraft is 30 degrees off course. Bullets are subject to the very same effect but it is much smaller as they take a fraction of the time the aircraft takes to cover the, say, 300 yards that you are aware of them.

I havent calculated it but if the aircraft is 30 degrees off course, the bullets may be just 3 degrees off course (assuming they travel 10 times as fast, which is a pretty crude guess to the average relative velocity over 300 yards, I'd need to look it up)

So, the bullets don't converge on the centre of the target and this is to be expected.

It may look funny but I think it's actually right..

In fact this puts me in mind of the old chestnut ('O' Level exam question) :

Is it better to be a long distance runner, running circuits, on a calm or windy day?

Remember, the runner pushes off relative to the ground!

Airplanes in coordiated flight fly with relative wind flowing nose to tail. They crab relative to the ground. This is very apparent when you land in crosswind. The airplane is traveling in line with runway, but the nose and undercarriage are pointed several degrees in another direction. If you want to keep the wheels on you have to yaw the plane (relative to the airflow over the wings) just before you touch down... wheels hate to roll sideways. Now the nose is pointing straight down the runway, but the aircraft is slipping or skidding (I ferget which, it's been a few years).

I know what you mean about the smoking fighters. It's bothered me. The AC may really be skidding or slipping, or maybe it's a parallex affect from being not quite 6'oclock behind the smoking engine. Might also be flawed physics (horrors).

Is there a physicist in the house? If the first agrees with Bader, is there another physicist? Benny is a pilot. Benny, are you listening? I might have to put this before Tommy and Ray of Cartalk, the source of all science expertise here in the USA.

Get that same skidding affect when you just taxi on the ground readying for take off and you decide to make a turn.

By education (ain't that a dangerous thing ) I am an engineer. Guess that just means I can fill an entire envelope (back of) with countless meaningless scribbles and then finally, and gravely, pronounce
"But it's obvious my dear fellow that bees simply cannot fly! It's all here you know.. somewhere"

Reminds me of the physicist who categorically refused to use aeroplanes as a means of transport. He maintained that he could mathematically prove that is was impossible to fly!
Regards,
Poyungan

Or the statistician and the mathematician trapped in a deep hole. "How will we get out", asked the statistician? "Easy" replied the math, "assume a ladder."

Well, I guess engineer does trump ecologist.
So Bader, you win for now (Fuelcock exits through window)...but I'll be back.

Just wondering, do you use numpad8 to stop the head bob, as this can lock your sights off centre, I have experienced this myself.

Speaking of convergence, can one change the convergence on the Spit or Hurri? If so, how?

Not currently. We'll see in the future.

Fuelcock !
Sorry i "fell" asleep (age), what was the question ??
Happy Landings
Benny ;O)