Tracers on COD

[Kikuchiyo]

Originally Posted by RPS69

And other POSTERS, also allegedly from the military said they weren't...



People who work with optical instruments, and study how the human brain register visual events also do.



This is cheap. You happen to be the guy that support your sayings with youtube, not me. I am the guy that said that guncams, or filming in general are a waste of time as an argument on this.

But I DO remember people asking the tracers for being brighter and brighter since this game was first in the shelves, and people happened to discover that some Russians guys fought a hell of a war out there, and now happened to get the best combat sim ever till today.

The same people that complained on the red tracers disappearing from sight, when if they just cared to look at it they were there, but their CRT's won't show them brightly enough.

By the way, the other thread was based on a leaked demo, but now this one is from the publisher itself.

I don't share your impressions. Maybe I learn to see different, since everybody have somewhat different "shutter" speeds on their eyes, and brains "learn" to correct images. If it doesn't, we will all be almost blind, or with permanent tunnel vision.



I already have, if you just cared to read this: "Mods, lock it if needed."
Stop the bashing, and let the mods do their jobs.

In a relaxed state the human brain sees the world at about 60 frames per second (This is highly dependent on a number of factors, but my next point is where it stands ground).

A video at about 50 fps is NOT that far off of what the human eye interprets. A military individual that has seen tracer rounds has likely seen them at both the relaxed (firing practice) state and in a adrenaline high state where there is ample evidence to show that the human brain interprets information at a much higher rate that results in the "slowing down" of time. Er go you end up with differing accounts from military personal that have viewed tracers in combat situations vs those that have viewed them in non combat situations. Bot are likely correct, but for all intents and purposes the "Star Wars effects" would likely be more accurate to the average user.

To say it looks like Star Wars is a very accurate statement ESPECIALLY since Star Wars effects are based on tracer rounds.

Originally Posted by RPS69

I happen to know a lot about that myself. Probably a lot more than Oleg himself. But, this kind of statement implies the "trust me!" thing, so stating it is worthless anyway

Oleg is a professional photographer that is also used as a consultant for photography. I highly doubt ANY individual on these forums is more qualified to weigh in on whether or not a photographic or film example is accurate as compared to reality.

[Voyager]

Lasers look like this:

Lasers!

And no, I don't get tired of posting that

[Ltbear]

OK. Didnt want to post this, but welcome to starwars. This is fottage taken by me on a LMG shooting course.

Its even at night. Anyone who can speak Danish can verify language and orders...

This is 50 round ammo belt with 100% tracer rounds on multible LMG`s

weapon used M-62 (MG3)

Exept the exact caliber it have data that is werry close to the MG 17

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOW6tlzcvaU

Geeez......

LT

[Novotny]

I get very bored with these debates, and usually skip over them.

However, here's a few links for those of you making bold claims:

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
http://amo.net/nt/05-24-01FPS.html

Whisper paraphrases well here: http://whisper.ausgamers.com/wiki/in...an_eye_can_see

Might help with your understanding of the whole fps issue. 220fps+ is detectable by the human eye. Personally, I used to be able to tell 85 from 100 easily enough. Maybe not so much now, as I'm older and no longer have the kit to do it with.

Cheers.