Gun convergence, please...

I know some of the Empire ships have suffered from this as well, but how is it in the year 3304 we cannot have some sort of gun convergence? Heck, I'd even be happy with a pre determined convergence zone set by the Devs of 1k or 1.5... Something... This is some sort of an inside joke right??? lol...

http://throughheavenseyes.com/mystuff/gun_convergence.jpg
Being able to set the gun convergence by angling the guns a few degrees manually would be cool but unlikely to happen since this is how FD chose to balance the ships. Despite that this isn't an huge problem, you just need to get used to flying your ship in a way that compensates for the wide spacing of the guns on your hull. The burst lasers are perfectly centred so you'll have no problem there. If you want to hit with the AX multi's or the AX missiles you'll have to learn to point your ship's nose off-centre of the target either to the left or right. You won't be able to fire both at the same time unless your target is huge and close up in your face, which Thargoids kinda are and do.

That's the ship you're flying. Every ship has its own feel and requires its own flying style to master, that's part of the charm of ED. If you like the look of the T10 and have fun flying it, you'll do the extra work and eventually master flying it in combat. If it was just given to you on a plate via manual angling of the guns you'd skip the whole feeling of achievement and apreciating getting to know your ship.
 
Being able to set the gun convergence by angling the guns a few degrees manually would be cool but unlikely to happen since this is how FD chose to balance the ships. ...........

I don't see why we can't have the weapons engineers offer harmonisation / convergence pattern setting (whatever you want to call it), even if we are not given the opportunity to do it ourselves in outfitting. I mean they can do all sorts of magic stuff with the weapons why can't they adjust fixed-weapon mounts to manipulate harmonization when we have been doing it since WWI (if not before). (I only helped the armourers do this once in my time in the FAA and I have to say it was nearly as boring as compass-swinging the aircraft.)
 
Oh lord in heaven save me... lol.... After reading this thread this morning I cannot believe how many people have no idea what I'm even talking about when we say gun convergence, convergence zone, or gun harmonisation... This has nothing at all whatever to do with normal gimbled weapons, balance, or anything of the like... It simply has to do with having your fixed weapons path cross at a specific distance in front of you just as pilots in WWII set the guns up in their planes. For example, they would set their convergence at 450m. That simply means the bullets fired from all guns would cross each others path at 450m in front of the plane instead of firing straight...

There are NO gimbled weapons within the AX weapon line. Only fixed or turreted...

I also noticed the fixed weapons on the Type 10 with AX weapons do some sort of weird convergence/movement but I'm still trying to wrap my head around what they are doing and where the center line for it is. I would rather have them "fixed" and simply cross at a certain distance in front of me at say 1k out...
 
I also noticed the fixed weapons on the Type 10 with AX weapons do some sort of weird convergence/movement but I'm still trying to wrap my head around what they are doing and where the center line for it is. I would rather have them "fixed" and simply cross at a certain distance in front of me at say 1k out...
That's because fixed weapons aren't actually fixed. They have small auto-aimed gimballing.
 
Weapon convergence (or better the lack thereof) is a balancing factor.

That being said, I think if it was done properly, there could even be a nice tidbit of gameplay wrapped around it.
My idea that I suggested years ago was to have an adjustable weapon convergence. The same way we can adjust the radar zoom, we would be able to adjust the fixed weapons' convergence from 100m up to max range. That would mean that fixed weapons would have (imho) a fun additional skill element to them. You wouldn't hit a close target with guns set up for 3km range and vice versa.
 
Last edited:
OK I have not read all the posts here but let me give you my observations.

I've been meaning to buy a Viper III, so I did. I've also wanted to toy with fixed cannons. Yes, I know the cannon is a difficult weapon to hit with and must be use at relatively close range but I can usually hit with a center mounted fixed cannon from <= 1Km.

So loaded up 4 fixed cannons on my shiny new Viper III, 2 small 2 medium. The projectile speed is not that difference between the 2 so it should not make much difference.

What I observed is this.

Target a Cobra III whose profile to me is from the rear or side (thin profile), piper dead on the LCOS circle, fire all 4 cannons, one hit! the other 3 miss by varying degrees. Try several times the most I land is 2.
Maneuver so the cobra's profile is flat to me, seeing the top of the ship, piper on the circle, fire all 4, 2 hit, 2 miss. I got lucky once and got 3, never got all 4.

Tried this on several different targets of different sizes, On small ship targets getting all 4 cannons to hit was extremely difficult even at very close range unless the target was showing their entire flat side to me. (i.e. top of ship, I was able land all 4 on an ASP several times with this profile) Even then it was hit or miss, mostly miss. Large targets, depending on the ship was better but not consistent. On a Clipper you would see rounds miss even when targeting was spot on due to the slim profile. I even tried targeting subsystems and it did not help.

Conclusion, this makes this load out pretty much useless. I am finding fixed multi-cannons and fixed cannons pretty much useless IMO. It is more effective to wait out the chaff and then get a lock than it is to load up these fixed weapons. 4 gimbled Multi-cannons is an effective load-out. Have not tried 4 gimbled cannons yet.

Without some kind of convergence (horizontal in the case of the Viper, vertical is constrained by the ships hull) landing all 4 guns on target is very difficult and does not result in enough damage to make these weapons worth carrying.

In the case of the cannons, if these weapons were set to converge at about 800m then getting projectiles on target would be very effective from a range of 600m-1000m. Anything further out than this your target can maneuver out of the projectile path due to projectile speed.

Even if this were the hard default convergence set on these weapons it would improve effectiveness of these weapons greatly. As I said, the cannon is an up close and personal weapon, but when your rounds just fly past your target when your aim is dead on is just stupid. No combat pilot would put up with this and he'd have some ship mechanic rig these with the convergence he needs.

The only effective place for fixed Cannons/multi-cannon is a center mounted hard point.

I have never tried more than one PA but I have flown between PA rounds shot at me by larger ships,right through the middle even in my Python so convergence there is an issue.

Rail guns do not seem to have this issue IMO, so if we have convergence on Rails why not on other weapons.
 
For those saying it is a way of 'balancing' the ships, a much better way would be to simply block certain HP types from being used in certain points. This goes both ways, as something like the FdL huge would make sense to be fixed only thanks to its size and the size of the ship.

Since fixed weapons have some slight give and micro-gimbal anyway, is it not too hard for them to have a slight axes change based on the distance the targeting computer has?

I raised this recently here as well: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/400038-Why-do-we-not-get-autoconverge-for-fixed-weapons
 
Hardpoint placement is a balance factor, some ships will have a hard time using fixed weapons as a result. It's by design.


That's how I've set up my Courier (mid + right, and left). But I fully support the idea of adjustable convergence (and have asked for it before). As a compromise, how about not being able to do it on the fly, but only when docked? Or even only at an engineer's workshop? Then you'd have to choose = more varied gameplay.

r,
j,
 
That's how I've set up my Courier (mid + right, and left). But I fully support the idea of adjustable convergence (and have asked for it before). As a compromise, how about not being able to do it on the fly, but only when docked? Or even only at an engineer's workshop? Then you'd have to choose = more varied gameplay.

r,
j,

Being able to set convergence value would just remove hardpoint placement as a balancing factor entirely, as it would be trivial to just stay in whatever sweet spot you have picked which works well with your weapons' effective range. If your enemy gets closer, unless they're literally at a distance of 0m (an impossibility of course) you'd still get better convergence than currently. If they're beyond the convergence point you'll probably still get better grouping of shots than currently, and only at more extreme range where your weapons are probably doing virtually no damage anyway will divergence become a problem.

Set your distance to 1k, and you'll get better shot clustering on any target in the 500-1500m range than you currenly can get. Any target past that, assuming a PVP fight, is probably doing some reversky long-range meta snooze tactic and you're better off just bugging off from this fight.
 
Last edited:
Being able to set convergence value would just remove hardpoint placement as a balancing factor entirely, as it would be trivial to just stay in whatever sweet spot you have picked which works well with your weapons' effective range. If your enemy gets closer, unless they're literally at a distance of 0m (an impossibility of course) you'd still get better convergence than currently. If they're beyond the convergence point you'll probably still get better grouping of shots than currently, and only at more extreme range where your weapons are probably doing virtually no damage anyway will divergence become a problem.

Set your distance to 1k, and you'll get better shot clustering on any target in the 500-1500m range than you currenly can get. Any target past that, assuming a PVP fight, is probably doing some reversky long-range meta snooze tactic and you're better off just bugging off from this fight.

It would not remove hard point placement as a balancing factor. Using this as a balancing factor is IMO just dumb as some of the placements are terrible but that is a whole 'nother discussion.

Anyways, I'l just mount gimbaled weapons, wait ot the chaff and open fire as these covnerge quite nicely, pretty much removing the placement as a factor.

Some weapons on some hard points will just not converge due to placement, but others will. Not having the top mounted hardpoints on a Viper converge at a reasonable point really defeats the point of having fixed projectile weapons. I don't even care if it is users settable or just hard set by the software based on the weapon chosen. As I said, cannons are pretty much useless outside 1K as the mussle velosity is not fast enough to hit a maneuvering target outside that range. So if 2 cannons are placed in the top hard points then 800K would be a pretty good convergence point. I have not worked out the sweet spot for multi-cannons yet, or do it like it is done for rail guns, they will converge based on target range and they are fixed. Seems this could be done for Multi-cannons, cannons and PAs as well.
 
Fixed wep's already auto converge within certain limits when you are on target.

Clipper as an example, with fixed, converge (eventually) at a point that can be beyond the range of the weapon. Let alone well beyond the damage fall off point.

Then of course you have gimbaled weapons if you so choose.

Which is irrelevant for AX, as there are no gimbaled weapons. "Just use gimbal/ turret" to resolve convergence only makes sense if this was an issue on all ships. It's not. Hardpoint placement in elite is based on an assumption that convergence exists; at some point in the design phase I have to presume convergence was planned.

Because the hardpoint placement on cutter, clipper, type-10 and a few other ships are nonsensical otherwise. One might argue this is a balance point? Perhaps. But it's bloody lousy one, let alone horribly inconsistent.
 
Back
Top Bottom