The link to the bug for voting:

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/309

In the old IL-2 game owners manual there are some advice given, to get to 70m before opening fire...IMO down to 50m should be available in game.:cool:

Storm, I think you are mixing convergence indication on the gunsight and guns convergence.

There is no way you can set your guns to converge as so short distance as 50 m. Try to remind that flying a fighter plane during BoB was not a sport that you will practice in a selfish manner. You had orders, directives and technical operatives procedures that order could be achieved following the directives (otherwise there is no planned tactics hence no strategies).

By the way, those indication are in the maintenance manuals, not in the pilot manual. I think I alrdy saw one passing by on this forum

You also made an error IMHO:
Distance of convergence = L*cosinus
Distance of gun from main axis = L*sinus

tan= sin/cos and Tan^-1=angle of EACH GUN

Offset of gun at the gun's breech : d_gun*sinus (d is the length of the buried part of the gun)
In the case of 50m conv for 2m it give us 8cm offset (1m long gun - machine-gun).

For a plane with four gun in each wing, it means that you'll have to keep 32cm of available free space without taking into account any structural spacer.

Also : Size of prop = 3.6 for 109 if I do remind well
etc...

hartman used 20 m i think, i miss that option

yes yes yes... but in the G.U.N.S.I.G.H.T !!!

Actually that is exactly how I calculated the angle:

angle = arctan (convergence / distance of gun) (tangens = Gegenkathete durch Ankathete)

So assuming that the gun in question was about 2m from the symmetrical plane the difference of gun orientation in the horizontal plane would be merely 2° when passing from 100m to 50m convergence. 2° is nothing.

And Hartmann definitely shot at close range and he gave a dam about what the handbook or the rules said.

EDIT: For 2° the offset on the tip or the end of the buried part pf the gun would be 7 cm assuming a 2m gun length buried in the wing and assuming that the other end did not move. Assuming that the centre of the buried part did not move the spacing needed on both ends would be merely 3.5cm.

He flew with 109 G. The convergence much more important, if you have wing mounted guns.

In a 109 the convergence is rather less important, even with the convergence set to infinity the trajectory would still be in a triangle roughly 50cmx50cmx50cm, plus of course the ballistic diversions.
For wing mounted guns i believe that the lowest distance setting of the gunsight (150yds) would also the reasonable shortest possibility for the guns.
For the german wing mounted guns the fixed distance of 100m would fit.
If you are closer you shoot with a slight offset, using effectively half of your guns and the other half by chance.

I agree pretty much. I can't consider this a bug without some more research on the matter, so i can't vote on it. I mean, if it gets implemented that way and then we find out it's wrong, we'll have to report it again and change it back to realistic values.

I think that's a waste of the developer team's limited resources at this point. Better get the bomber systems sorted (bombsight and autopilot bugs) so that people have an incentive to fly at proper altitudes, then take note of the FM inaccuracies and correct those.

This will have a much more pronounced positive effect on gameplay than making rushed changes to wing mounted guns.

Again, if it was doable in the real aircraft i have no objection to it. It's not like it favors one side at this point anyway so even bias is not an issue (the main fighters for both red and blue have wing mounted guns). I'm just not convinced/lack the evidence to support the idea and vote for it.