Jump To Lightspeed Archive
Thread: Tell me again why we don't have laser convergence in this game?
The glory of being imperial, your guns are always right below your cockpit and tight in with each other. The biggest span we have is the interceptor/crimson. But it is so small of a ship, it isnt bad at all.
Just wanted point out the Empire rules.
But yeah, convergence is needed.
That said, I'm not against convergence. But it isn't solving your problem. If convergence is set at 100m or more, you will still fire around the ship when you're on its tail. If it is set below 200m, you would be unable to hit anything at greater distances because your bolts will have crossed each other and leave a wider gap then they do now. I also think getting on an enemy's tail is a waste of time. 90% of my kills are made from the side at 250m to 400m, remaining 10% head-on in the initial merge.
D8alus wrote:
So what happens when you have the target dead center and all your guns fire AROUND the enemy?
Only happens up close, I never fight that close. I hate washingexhaust fumes off my ship.
That's extremely lame. There's a reason REAL fighter craft have their cannons on their nose or alongside the fuselage.
Yes, not just one reason but several.1st, balance. It's much easier to balance the plane when the gun is near/on the centerline then on a wing. Guns are last ditch defense on modern fighters so only 1 is installed. Preferredattack is to launchtwo AMRAAMs at an enemy 30 miles awaymarked by an AWACS 200 miles away. Pilots and planes are expensive, AMRAAMs are cheap. 2nd reason is structural integrity. Recoil is much better absorbed in the center fuselage. Wing mounted guns just introduce unneccesary metal fatigue. The recoil on the A-10's vulcan actually counters the thrust of its twin engines, if it fired a prolonged burst it would fall out of the sky. The B-25's in the WW2 got sent to the scrapheap after an average of 60 bursts from their cannons, the recoil just twisted the metal and loosened the rivets. 3rd, size of the guns. Many are simply to large to fit in the wing. Especially since most planes carry much needed fuel in there. How would you mount this in a wing?
I can't dogfight in my ARC because when I get behind the enemy, right on their tail, my weapons consistantly fire around them on both sides, EVEN AGAINST XWINGS!
The ARC, Krayt, Kimoand B-wing are indeed suffering the most from lack of convergence. Keep your targets at 250m or more and you'll have less problems.
And as far as "multiple space sims"...hmm...let's see, Xwing, Wing Commander (and privateer), some off the wall Jacob's Star or somesuch, Starlancer, Freelancer....need I go on?
That comment was to Xstar, who insinuated that the "ace" fanboys in JTL hadn't played XvsT while I've been long enough on this forum to know the like minded people and their sim background. And I certainly know my own background.
The point is, having my weapons on my WINGTIPS where I can't hit my targets when they're RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME is just retarded...either give me a gun mount in the center firing angle or give me convergance....
Weapon spread is part of my criteria for choosing the ships I fly. That's why I prefer a rihk over a Krayt. If I do fly the Krayt/Kimo, I tend to mount 2 heavy guns on the centerline and leave the wingtips empty.
You guys have to be kidding me. You are blaming a software developer over this!
It is true that convergance is a good thing at time. WW2 fighter had the ability to change the convergance of their guns in flight. But you still have to learn to fly the plane. Starships are no different. If your just looking at the center point on your cross hairs your in trouble. Your craft is not a pixiel wide. it's a few meters. The wing mounted blasters are spaced out so you have to fly there Center and not your ships. You will not get a 4 blaster hit on a target that is to far out or really small, it just wont happen, but you might get 2 if you fly those plane based one your weapon spacing.
If you want to request somethin how about the ability to cycle each cannon or blaster instead of firing the whole salvo. This will give you a faster rate of fire, and less drain on the capacitor.
I think the point of all this is that if a WW2 plane was capable of weapon convergence, there is no reason why a spacecraft in the Star Wars universe would completely neglect this option. Afterall, WW2 planes wouldn't have been set up this way if there weren't some advantage to it.
I already proposed near the top of this thread a way to deal with varying enemy distances, and of course auto-convergence is an other option that a Star Wars spacecraft could surely implement without requiring the pilot to fiddle around with dials and whatnot.
I really don't see any reason to oppose convergence at all, unless people feel like they are somehow better pilots because they know of strange ways line up their targeting reticle. Maybe we should remove the ability to roll as well, since this can also be acheived through a complicated combination of pitch and yaw maneuvers 
.
GlargTheKelfn wrote:
ww2 planes also had a far superior targeting system to the green box o stupidity we have now. give me a reflector sight, or even a simple iron ring like an aa sight and it would be better than the craptasic aimer we have now
Agreed. The targetting in JtL is woeful
I'd rather it be simple reflectorcoupled with a graphicaltargetting system we see in ANH, only visible from the interiort pilot view, which is another beef I have - some interior views are too low as to be unuseable.
It's a rela shame. Has there even been any Devannouncements on revamping/addressing some the JtL Issues?