www.ditl.org

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.

Ok, using 250m as a range (for arguments sake), that means that at 250m the pilot can effectively hit a pinhead. He could effectively hit something the size of a TIE (which is about the size of the X-wing) at 500m (a little less but close to it). That is double his ideal combat range.

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.

No, he hasn't. The trajectory of the rounds doesn't go wild past the point of convergence. For real life purposes, it's pretty much identical but opposite to their trajectory heading to the point of convergence. It doesn't take a genius targeting device to figure it out.

And even if you were right on that point, that's why the pilot has his guns set based on the mission he's flying, so they're shooting at the ranges his targets are most likely to be engaged at.

This should be pretty obvious. 250m is your best aim point, maximum firepower into the smallest area. However, it's not until 500m that your fire will have spread back to the same dispersion as if you'd had the wing guns fixed forward. So at ranges 500m or less you're increasing your firepower per unit area by having the guns converge. If the effective range of your weapons is 500m then you have essentially lost nothing and gained a great deal.

Yeah, like I said I understand what congruent triangles are. Interestingly, "disagrees with you" =/= "incapable of simple cognitive functions." 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.

As far as comparing convergent wing guns with fixed wing guns... yes, the lateral distance between the rounds at the extent of your example will be equal - but again, with fixed guns the rounds will not be moving laterally away from the target as will those of convergent guns. 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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, indeed I'm sure having anyone disagree with you makes debating more difficult. You are absolutely correct in your analysis of the angle of diversion from axial; I'm not sure exactly how that changes anything, but I never once suggested your math skills are anything less than formidable.

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.

Once the fighter is away, they are fixed; I don't think anyone debated that point.

Sorry, meant fixed ahead, as in at 0 degrees.

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.

Hitting the target at any range but the convergence point would be more difficult than that range, as that's where the sights would be zeroed to. The difference would be so minor as to be irrelevant, for the reason Tyyr's explained.

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.

So fucking what? The X-wing hasn't got coax weapons, so the existence of such weapons is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion. In any event, convergent wing guns were standard regardless of whether or not the aircraft in question has coax weapons, so their existence is obviously irrelevant to the question of whether or not convergent wing guns grant an advantage. I'm somewhat baffled as to why you're persisting with this red herring.

stitch626 wrote:Sorry, meant fixed ahead, as in at 0 degrees.

Don't worry about it - only a drooling moron would interpret that sentence any other way, given the context of the discussion.

Very well. I will abandon any further debate on this subject, and will likewise repost this in another thread that has fallen into the same mire. It appears I have been mistaken about a number of things, to wit:

I hadn't thought that proper debate included the assertion that person A "has a stick up their ass," should "give it up," or was worthy of inferences of the status of non compos mentis for what appears to be the heinous evil of disagreeing with person B. Further, it never occurred to me that disagreeing with a point doesn't necessarily imply misunderstanding of that point; and I will continue (wrongly, according to some) to believe that to assume so is to assume the complete infallibility of that point - an assumption which is at the heart of sheer bloody-mindedness and a glacial, obtuse mindset. Likewise, misunderstanding of a point never seemed to me to be cause for labeling it a "red herring" or otherwise dismissing it because one party in a debate just doesn't like its existence.

I had also never conceived of the idea that disagreeing with someone's one opinion was a disparagement of that person in general. I will use Tyyr as an example, since he and I appear to be the antipodal parties of these two debates, but the example could apply to anyone equally. Tyyr and I have disagreed about a great many things, from the above discussions to politics to the football teams we follow. At no time, whatever the disagreement may have entailed, have I thought any less of Tyyr's abilities or worth as a person - and, inasmuch as it may have ever crossed my mind, in the absence of evidence to the contrary I've never had occasion to have anything less than utmost respect for his capabilities as an engineer, citizen, or father. With this credo in mind, one can see how utterly outre it would seem to regard his disagreement with me as anything more or less than a disagreement rather than a display of stupidity or personality flaws. I was under the assumption that this idea was universally reciprocated... an assumption, it would seem, which I have to re-examine if my status as a "drooling moron" will allow.

Oh FFS... When did you suddenly become so thin-skinned? I've seen you go toe-to-toe with Deep at his worst without throwing your toys out of the pram like that. DITL has always been pretty free with the flames when debates get heated, be that due to outright racism, aggravating debating styles, factual inaccuracies or just differences of interpretation, and there's nothing in the above debate that is in any way unusual - we've all been involved in far worse and shrugged it off. If you're going through a rough patch personally, you have my condolences. If not, grow the fuck up (and yes, I am aware of the irony of me telling you that).

It's really very little to do with being "thin-skinned," as it were - as you've said, you've seen me take and dish far worse in the way of abuse and invective. Rather, it's the assertion - no matter how high-brow or banal it is couched - that a differing viewpoint can be dismissed because it differs. No matter how nicely that assertion is phrased, it is still the end of discussion as well as being ridiculous.

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.

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.

Succinct, if a bit blunt. Of course, even as you wrote that you understood that one is merely alternate language for the other. "Stupid idea" can almost infallibly be understood to mean "Stupid, in my opinion, idea," because your opinion is the only one you have to give - no matter how much you know that you're right. If you can see the lack of distinction between the two statements you just compared, then you understand at what I'm getting; if you can't, then just enjoy the fact that I've decided to exit a discussion which would otherwise likely turn ugly for no good purpose.