Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - What a tracer should look like (before spazzing just look).

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=189)

- - What a tracer should look like (before spazzing just look). (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=24496)

The tracers in game do not look realistic, Syn_Bliss. For a start there are far too many, there is no (faint) smoke trail, and the recoil does not effect the trajectory as it should. the result is that each tracer round follows almost an identical path to the previos one and among other obvious things from gun camera footage (I already agreed that the wobble is down to camera shake) there is a much greater spread when these guns are fired.

Now you may berate me and say I have no real life experience on this matter, however, your real life experience comes from firing modern weapons with modern ammunition, on modern weapon mountings, please correct me if I'm wrong on this (I am assuming) - Therefore your view on how the tracers should look is flawed also. There are other things that can affect the rounds - tumbling and so forth - that can cause the odd round to fly off in an unexpected trajectory, even spiralling through the air (yes I know very rarely but..) Remember that the guns you fire most likely have a much higher muzzle velocity & rate of fire than these antiquated WWII weapons, causing straighter trajectories, longer looking tracers, etc. Chemicals and methods used for tracer have surely been changed and refined in the time since 1945. - Less smoke, brighter, less deviation compared to normal rounds etc...

You have already stated that rounds fired from your point of view look like a dot, no? so when in game they look like a streak something is wrong. Watch Yellnets linked video to see the spread effect I am on about, aswell as the fewer number of actual tracer rounds, and the smoke trails. The camera is not creating these effects now is it.

Especially for you chaps.

I think the tracers are fine as they are. This is max 480p, my upload speed is hopeless.
Notice the showers of sparks as the Heinkels are hit also. Very cool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyM8umTulio

Quote:

Originally Posted by SYN_Bliss (Post 309801)

yellonet,

Yes I have. Seen it before some time ago. But that slowed down video in no way, shape, or form represents anything close to what your naked eye sees with regards to tracer rounds. That's why there's this huge retarded argument in the 1st place. Everyone thinks tracers look like either what they see with a video or old gun cam footage and they simply don't. The camera is creating that effect. About the only time you can trust video footage is if both the camera and the weapon are stationary and/or it's a modern digital video recorder. Even then, streaks of light are much longer than what your eye will see them as. This is why modern electronic weapons use image stabilization to try and create a "float" effect with regards to how the weapons IR/VIS cameras are non-isolated, compared to a solid fixed mount that you would stare out of the optics with. Before imagestab was created, just watching a gunner screen (monitor) would make you have a headache with all the shaking around of the image. Imagestab is a huge improvement, but absolutely nothing like the ability of the water/flesh suspension system are bodies have for stabilizing an image.

The human eye have the equivalent shutter speed of 1/60 s.
If you set a video camera to record with that shutter speed it should result in video that shows approximately what one would see in person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SYN_Bliss (Post 309788)

That's because you've gone from saying tracers should look like the same effect as someone waving a candle or flashlight to back peddling and saying the viewing angle is incorrect.

And for someone that says they are not stupid, then why don't you heed to the advice of someone who knows exactly what tracer ammunition looks like by being part of their job? You're trying to say that my daily experience with something is wrong because of what you read in a physics book.

All I can say is what we have in game, with regards to bending light and what your eye ball will see it as, is spot on. And unlike you, I know this from 1st hand experience virtually on a daily basis. I'm sick and tired of hearing the same BS from people like you that don't have the 1st clue about the subject in the 1st place. If you actually knew anything about physics then you'd also realize that at the speed of the bullet, your body would have to be jolted in such a way that's almost, if not entirely, life threatening to have any effect whatsoever with regards to how the round will look.

That's why it's laughable when your whole argument that you were talking about at SimHq with regards to a waving flashlight or candle is ridiculous. Once you realize that a tracer round from start to finish (in your viewing angle) disappears in a split second (depending on your offset / ammunition) you'll also realize that for the light to do anything in that short amount of time (through your naked eye) that your body has to be jolted in a HUGE way to even think about having any sort of effect of straightness of a tracer round to your naked eye.

You are not getting it, and by you arguing with someone that works with the subject matter on a daily basis, it's quite clear that you never will.

Rubbish.
The light's / candle reference is relevant, it's a moving light source, same as a tracer round.

I have always said that they don't follow the correct path, and they dont.

I don't heed your experience because you are 100% wrong in what you say.

Are you a WW2 fighter pilot? No. So by your own rule you can't comment on this.

An inescapeable truth is that CoD draws light in where it has never been.
No matter what you say, this is the case. I can prove it.

You prove that I'm wrong if you are so confident.

I know more about physics than you do otherwise you would not be arguing.

How many times do I have to say that I don't need any experience of firing tracers, I just need to understand cause and effect and be able to plot a bullets path relative to the viewer. That is all.
CoD draws 3D tracer streaks when in fact they are 2D. It's this that causes the difference between RL and CoD.

End Of.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch_851 (Post 309805)

Just for the record can I say that they do look pretty good.

I'm not bashing CoD, I'm not arguing for 'my' way.

I'm just pointing out a subtle difference between RL and video game tracer.

Thanks for posting it. Any chance you could make it available to download?

i agree with the eyes having fps ive experienced an stroboscopic effect in real life

in fact some pilots would use the stroboscopic effect to adjust prop rpm

but you should know mainstream science disagrees with that

its called persistence of vision ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_of_vision

Quote:

Originally Posted by winny (Post 309813)

You are beyond help. And you are grasping at straws.

No kidding about the 2d and 3d thing. That's the 1st thing I said about the hardware limitations.

But by all means, please show me your way to PROVE how it's soo wrong.

Can't wait for your science. And I highly doubt you know more about physics than me considering I have a BSME from Rose Hulman.

Again, it's as if the ENTIRE conversation has gone over your head and I'm done discussing it with an imbecile.

Quote:

Originally Posted by winny (Post 309820)

Any chance you could make it available to download?

Sorry Winny, I wouldn't know how! I suppose you could use fraps to capture it whilst in full screen mode, but the quality isn't too good for that.:(

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sammi79 (Post 309802)

Most of the ammunition that the British used did not leave a smoke trail. The "vapor" trail that you see in some gun cam footage happens because of an atmospheric condition and not the round itself. Again, this only happened when the atmospheric conditions were correct for it. That's why you can see RAF gun cams with and without smoke/vapor trails.

2ndly the guns were more firmly fixed in warbirds than any modern day turret.

I've fired about every single variant of machine gun ever made. The .50 has been around since early 1900's. That's a moot point. If someone was aiming the machine guns on a stationary plane and test firing them through a target and you had bullets flying all over the place on that target board, you have some serious weapon problems. They will maintain a certain radius for each weapon fired, and if you think you can physically see the changes in this small radius while firing, you wouldn't be human.

I'm not disagreeing that there are too many tracers, but again, that is not the point of this topic.

As far as the dot thing goes, when you have an offset (guns are on either side of you converging) that's when you'll see streaks of light, and guess what?.., with wing mounted machine guns, they are heavily offset from your POV.

All the physics in the world does not change how they appear simply because you are not calculating in the fact that you are flying and maintaining the same speed and distance as the weapons themselves on the plane. You might as well be standing still. That's why the rounds start arcing to the eye under extreme forces. And this is evident in game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SYN_Bliss (Post 309834)

Why are you getting personal? Can't you debate a point without resorting to calling me an imbecile?

Soo wrong? It's either wrong or it's right. Now you're also getting sarcastic.

If the path of the dot of light (relative to the viewer) is curved then the streak must also be curved. Put your BSME into practice and demonstrate to me how what is essentially a continuous curved line that fades away can leave repeated straight lines that don't point to where they came from behind it?