Mikey wrote:I get congruent triangles, I really do. But if a pilot has his convergent guns set at 250m, it means that he has a maximum effective aiming range of 250m. Even though his rounds could easily still hit a target at 300m, he has screwed his aim at targets past 250m.
Tyyr wrote:Mikey, there's a chip on your shoulder and a stick up your ass, have them looked at. They make it a real aggrivating experience to talk to you.
In order to converge at 250 meters and X-Wings laser cannons would have to be pointed off axis by a staggering... 0.6875 degrees.
stitch626 wrote:And if the cannons on the X-Wing were fixed, they would have great difficulty getting more than two hits on anything smaller than the falcon, even at point blank range.
Mikey wrote:What should be equally obvious to you is that past the point of convergence, the rounds have a vector component pointed laterally away from the target. Until someone here with experience as a combat pilot tells me differently, I have to assume that that fact makes it harder to hit a target than having rounds moving straight towards a target or converging upon it.
In any event, my comparison of convergent wing guns only v. convergent wing guns PLUS co-axial gun doesn't fit that example, as a co-axial gun is... well, co-axial.
stitch626 wrote:Sorry, meant fixed ahead, as in at 0 degrees.
Captain Seafort wrote:It's not a matter of a differing viewpoint being dismissed because it differs. It's a matter of a stupid idea being dismissed because it's stupid.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest