What a tracer should look like (before spazzing just look).
 

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.ph...3338237/1.html

This is what a tracer should look like imo (I have seen them once before in RL too, as well as with a high speed camera). This is what alot of people were talking about, the current tracers are too thick as they are using geometry to simulate the "glow" instead of actual lighting. The way around this is to keep the core tracer (the bullet/tracer round) and just make it very bright which I think looks better (and more realistic). Like the poster says its not perfect, but I think they should move in that general direction once more important things are fixed.

Note: Only other thing is that while looking at a tracer from a 90 degree angle while it is moving (from the side) if you are close it is blurred but at any distance (a few hundred meters) it is a dot btw (we already talked about this but never about the visual from a normal viewing distance of an incoming plane).
I never really argued in these threads much because there were so many people saying so much stuff everything got lost in translation. But also wanted to say for the record that 1. fat tracers on camera are that way because of resolution in many cases. 2. A camera viewing a tracer at a distance sees more or less what the eye sees. If you want to see what your eye sees at a close distance then you need a highspeed camera which frame/capture rate is similar to a human eye (of course mechanically it is not, just talking about the rate of information the brain receives from your eye). The faster the camera, the more the tracers look like dots instead of bars aswell.

This is my initial comments about those new tracers...

Its a start...We will have to see those in action...I was watching one of the (hundreds!) of COD's video in slow motion, and I noticed that the last fired tracer " appears" almost at the same place as it predecessor....And all tracers being identical in length and brigtness, it gives this strange and unnatural flickering effect we see. So instead of being able to follow one tracer until it fades away, it looks like it has been "replaced"....Also, the effect of " slowing speed with distance" is not well implemented yet....
I beleive IMHO, that when those issues are fixed, it will be very good RL representation...Until then, this is a step in the right direction....

Salute !

I don't care what experts say. The tracers should have a squiggle like on Tv. Why? Because you are pressing a button that vibrates the crap out of your body , the aircraft is vibrating , the perspex would be vibrating.

It just makes sense.

*Epic facepalm*

learn-resistant is the right expression, i believe.

Except that it doesnt happen that way, eyes are not cameras they have better anti shake sofware ;)

For the poll, as long as there is no official version its a strict no go for me.
No inofficial mods on my rig!

I do love how the experts opinion (those who have seen tracers in combat) are disregarded for the internet experts opinion who's combat experience is fighting with their mother because their toasted cheese is burnt on one side.

there are some good points here. Human eyes can indeed deal with a good amount of shaking, the tracers (i assume) would not squiggle like we see on gun camera film. However the current model is so perfect it looks like lasers from an FPS or something. The vibrations, although they wouldn't affect your vision of the tracer, would affect its trajectory. There should be some randomisation there. Also, they should lose speed and be affected by gravity which would be clearly visible. Anyone remember the trace effect from CFS3? that was pretty much spot on I think. shorter tracers - faint smoke trail - more trajectory randomisation and gravity effect.

I think they should be more similar to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtU-Q_ClkwY

anyway, too much faultless lasergun-looking 4 me. i don't know how they appears in RL, all I know is what I see in vids and films and the well discussed technical implication of filming (what u see is what a camera 'electronically' sees)
Cheers