Muzzleflashes unrealistic?
 

During daylight muzzleflashes are non-existent actually,i've seen many footage of dogfights prop or jet and i noticed the only thing you actually see is the trailing smoke from the guns?
So should it be modelled?

The best solution : opacity of the muzzleflash as a setting in the conf ini, case closed.

20mm cannon on German AFV. No muzzle flash.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-B96xZ8Tyk

MG-42 firing multiple bursts (7.92mm). No muzzle flash.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwW31u6wYvE

Vickers .303 firing multiple bursts. No muzzle flash.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeycW...tailpage#t=82s

Unless I'm mistaken, that's all of the main rounds used by both sides. 20mm and 7.92mm for the Luftwaffe and .303 for the RAF. So they should not be visible during the daylight, but should at night.

:lol:Unless you are stareing straight down the barrel......But then you would not see it for long.... :lol:

Not being sarcatic at all, but that, in it's elegant straight to the point simplicity, is, imo, @#$%ing ingenious.

If that's actually possible, then that, maybe combined with adjustability for the actual size of the flashes, would indeed be the best solution.

Don't like 'em, change 'em. Works for me.

The presence or absence of the flash depends on several factors. Quality and type of powder, barrel lengh, presence of a flash hider on the muzzle, etc.

If there's a flash hider installed, you most likely won't see any flash. Some powders contain flash retarding chemicals added for that exact purpose. Barrel lengh is also very important. A long barrel gives the powder more time to burn, while the bullet is still inside the barrel.

Here's a quick video of a cool flame throwing Krink:
:twisted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B83Ah...eature=related

So is not that simple. Things have to be checked for individual type of gun and ammo.

Be shure, the powders in wwii are not really comparable to modern ammo regarding smoke and muzzle flash!

The WWII 8mm and .303 ammo that I've shot seems to have no difference in flash or smoke compared to modern surplus ammo and commercially avaliable hunting ammo, and a K-98 or Enfield barrel is shorter than the MG's they used in Spits, Hurricanes, and 109s.

Flash that the human eye can see in daylight conditions (even when looking at the muzzle of the weapon from the front) from a ~.30 cal MG are few and far between.

My Marlin 1894P with 16.25 inch ported barrel, chambered in .44 Magnum, will give you a "Kodak Moment", even in broad daylight.

:eek:

Never seen any muzzle flash from any of my SMLEs or Martinis though.

Yes, muzzleflashes unrealistic.

Must be powder related...here's an MG42 with very clear muzzle flash.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWN7G...eature=related

It says right there that it's firing blanks. Blanks make huge muzzle flashes.

Eh, how about some actual wartime footage?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vE3FWOe0ls

..some food for thought...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xxj5ON5F-nk

How long after it is fired does it take for a tracer round to ignite?

as soon as it leaves the muzzle.

Tracers were either ignited by the combustion of the powder or by the contact with air.

that view at 3.50 from the wing while shooting is SO cool! Never seen it before!

Contact with air?
How do you wanna do that - create an anaerobe climate inside the cartridge? If so, where do take the oxygen needed for the combustion from?

There is a reason gunpowder has the shape of lil' balls(or cylinders): More space for O2 in between.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I know nothing about bullets, but I don't see why you can't have an o2 rich propellant chamber whilst still having an airtight tracer round that becomes non-airtight upon ignition of the bullet's propellant.

That's an IL-2 firing Soviet guns. Having fired a Mosin Nagant I can tell you that the Russians have no problems with adding too much powder to their ammo. Then again it might also be more lax quality control than their western counterparts.

All propellants (from Black powder to nitrocellulose) contain their fuel and oxider as chemical compounds within the powder. They require no external oxygen.

I am not a Chemist but a heres a discussion of the reaction for black powder,

"Black powder consists of the granular ingredients sulfur (S), charcoal (provides carbon to the reaction) and saltpetre (saltpetre, potassium nitrate, KNO3; provides oxygen to the reaction).

A simple, commonly cited, chemical equation for the combustion of black powder is:

2 KNO3 + S + 3C → K2S + N2 + 3CO2
A more accurate, but still simplified[1], equation is

10 KNO3 + 3S + 8C → 2K2CO3 + 3K2SO4 + 6 CO2 + 5N2
"
[online http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...0134837AAZTiVM ]

The shape of various propellants is designed to ensure consistent ignition and transference of the flame front as the powder ignites.

Cheers
[edit] I've been trying to find the equation for the combustion of nitrocellulose but I can't find one. Only how to make it! (go figure)

For those who care Cordite is nitrocellulose that has been disolved in nitroglycerine with a bit of petrolium jelly for lubrication.

Fortunately for when the excreta hits the A.M.D. my 1957 copy of 'Fortunes in Formulas' (25s/9d) has industrial procedure for the manufacture of Both. Oh! They were better days!

Yes , lets delay the release further so they can optimise the muzzle flashes ........

:grin: But I'm learning so much....

Muzzleflashes depend very much of each peculiar arm.

For instance, the nose cannons of the F-5 E/F have about no visible muzzleflash, but the Aden cannons of the Hunter or the Hawk had a very big muzzleflash (not important, as the Aden was always fitted under the belly of the aircrafts).

That means it would be totally illogical to conceive a nose cannon or machine gun which would provide a heavy muzzleflash, which would end in the pilot not seeing where he aims.

"Eh, how about some actual wartime footage?"

Concerning muzzleflash and tracers, cinema footage or video are not so reliable, as what you see on the tapes is not always what you see in real life, with direct human eyes.

It's still there, even if for an instant.

Ah, I was waiting for the "this is a Russian aircraft, so it's different" argument. :rolleyes:

If the Russians added too much power to their ammo, then I'd expect that one of my several Mosins or other Soviet firearms in my collection would have exploded by now. :-P

..or u can put a cover in front of the tracer phosphorous component, which will burn when the powder goes off ;)

Check out Galway's excellent image :)

I've seen videos and the real thing "with human eyes" and the flashes are there. They can be intermittent, irregular or sometimes not show at all, only one thing is constant,smoke.

If they manage to create a muzzle flash that is random and has a fair amount of alpha channel in it they're gonna nail it.

"If they manage to create a muzzle flash that is random and has a fair amount of alpha channel in it they're gonna nail it."

Yes, that's right, this will be a good solution, but again, it depends on so many factors, that a single rule will be hard to find.

But remember one thing, weapons engineers are not retards, they would not conceive for instance a nose gun with a heavy muzzleflash which would empeach the pilot to see anything when firing, it's simply not logical.

Kinda hard to avoid that in nightfighters isn't it? I for one can see how this config would blind a pilot if he was looking straight at it, and i imagine you'd get blinded by the muzzleflashes from wingmounted weapons as well in the dark

Bf109, Fw190, P-39, P-63, Me262, and many more had big guns mounted in the nose of the aircraft :P

During my time serving in the army i fired a 25mm Oerlikon,a 7,62 machinegun and stood next to it on the firing range while it was firing exploding shells as well as armoured piercing and saw .50 caliber machineguns firing all this at several weather conditions,but as far as i can remember i never saw muzzle flashes.........:?

Even the puny MP5 and not to mention my G3A3 had muzzleflash so long as there was no direct sunlight near me:???:... I distinctly remember one training exercise where my platoon were doing some basic fire-drills in the woods, and when we were in the shade, we saw both our own and eachothers muzzleflashes eventhough we were firing single shots and had flash-hiders on our G3's

As stated in this thread somewhere you were most likely firing blanks.........?


I guess much depends on the weather conditions and time of day..........

http://www.dutchdefencepress.com/wp-...040417-105.jpg

weather and time of day is probably a big factor, i just remember that episode because it surprised me how visible the flashes were despite it only being 4-5 in the afternoon :)

no, this was a live-fire exercise...i think it was our first squad based live-fire drill actually

this picture looks to be quite abit darker than what i remember from the exercise, but it shows what i mean :)

Also much depends on the actual phase of the moon.

"Kinda hard to avoid that in nightfighters isn't it?"

We were not talking here about muzzleflash by night firing.

LOL :mrgreen:

the choice of powder is very important. Nowadays modern armies tend to use smokeless powder and in general using loadings that would avoid flames, which can still occur in cases like long bursts, when partially combusted powder gets pushed out of the barrel and ignites as the next round comes out. Sometimes light conditions, moisture in the air, the moon phase as wisely quoted by our esteemed colleague GnigruH (LOL!) and other amenities can affect the visibility of the flame.. rest assured that there's a flame coming out of there anyway, if you dont believe me put your hand close to a muzzle of a rifle when is firing and get ready to smell burnt chicken ;)

A lot of good footage here;

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...7155929356717#

hey, i was just kinda saying that in reply to your "But remember one thing, weapons engineers are not retards, they would not conceive for instance a nose gun with a heavy muzzleflash which would empeach the pilot to see anything when firing, it's simply not logical." because it made me think of the 109's 15, 20 and later 30mm nose gun...

i believe the 30mm would produce some flash when i see stuff like this picture of an AR-15 5.56mm...

Cover is great idea, if that get's untight for whatever reason it will ignite the powder, yippee.
Trust me, ammo gets damaged a lot in service...;)
(Worst thing I've seen was a 120mm KE shell which got torn apart inside a tank. The thing wasn't locked in position in the lower hull mag, and when the turret turned... )


edit
To skoshi: Thx.

this is a scene from the movie "idi i smotri" which was made in the early 80s. This specific scene was shot in a time and atmosphere when health and safety and animal rights weren't a major concern.
What you see starting from 3.22 is actual machine gun fire and real tracers, note that it's dusk and that the machine gun muzzle flashes are well visible

WARNING: the cow in the scene actually gets it, it's no trick, so if you are for the rights of cows or don't wanna see a cow being hit by a machine gun, don't watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exlKI...eature=related

tracer ammunition is crafted with extra care for this specific reason. It happened to some friends in Italy while digging out the wreck of a Bf109: when they reached the Mk108 ammo box, they took it off the mud and it started fizzling, smoking and hissing.. needless to say there was a unison jump out of the hole and a lot of running involved :mrgreen:

If you can see a muzzle flash during the day you've got too much power and a lot of it is being burned outside of the barrel. It's very similar to stack fires in rich running aircraft (another can of worms). Hence the Mosin's muzzle flash being visible during the day is a result of powder being burned outside of the barrel (too much).

As far as your point on "exploding Mosins" not likely. You can add a lot of extra powder to most bolt action rifles (Mauser's and pre/early war Arisaka's especially) without much chance of a catastrophic failure. Heck, a lot of companies usually end up loading something in the order of 3 times too much powder before they get a catastrophic failure involving the action, typically it's the barrel that goes first.

Anyways, we're talking about British .303, and German 7.92 and 20mm guns. Posting a soviet plane has little to do with Spit/Hurri/BF-109/110 visible muzzle flashes during the day.

Muzzle flashes under most conditions with regards to the planes involved in the Battle of Britain are not visible during the day.

Poor cow, pretty sure that director is a total wank considering he broke rule number 3 of movie making. "MAKE BELIEVE" ... shooting a real cow crosses that line of movie magic and human "cruelty". Animals for food I get, riddling a dairy cow with machine gun fire for entertainment to trigger an emo response is just lame.

Sorry, I had to say something on it...apart from that, it illustrates your point well :)

I can't see anything which would make me believe the really shot the cow.

i believe that if you could freeze the video at exactly the right time yes you would see a momentary lighting as the burning gas pushing the bullet leaves the barrel.

though it would be momentary and small.

i agree though, no giant plumes of fiery awesomeness searing the sky thanks.

smoke trails.

yay.

i believe the FA18 has that exact problem.

due to the position of the cannon directly in front of the pilot, muzzle flash is an issue.

..it's in the interview to the director and the actor on the DVD. Plus, if you tell me how to let a beam of light go through a cow and let the poor thing jump 3 ft in the air without using any CG I'll try the trick myself..

In this case, barrel length. Short barreled rifles and handguns, how much powder and what type...etc, etc. There are many factors involved for visible muzzle flash.

Hate to break this to you, but the IL-2 had 20mm and 7.62mm guns, so the comparison stands. Besides, it's not as if WWII powder loads among the various nations were greatly disparate.