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

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

Camera v eyball

Here's a small test for the human eyes capability.

If you are not old enough to drive or don't own a car, ask your parents or friend to let you try this.

Find a not so smooth road.

Look forwards when moving then use the screen mounted rear view mirror to look behind you.

The mirror vibrates the image slightly but when you look forwards there's no vibrated image, this is how a WW2 camera behaves when filming guncam it cannot replicate the human eyeballs capability to stabilize the image.

You can keep one eye on the mirror and one eye forwards for the effect.

Now add tracer rounds to this and you will realize the eye ball sees smooth lines and the mirror camera would show wiggles due to vibration.



.

That's a perfect example, well said man! I suppose it won't change some people's mind, but what we have with the sim now is a phisically accurate representation of what it looks like to the human eye, if you want a guncamera effect I have nothing against it, help yourself to learn the modding possibilities and good luck!

[Upthair]

Originally Posted by Upthair

No, it does not.

Why do you assume that the pilot's head has to shake exactly the same way as the gun camera?

The vibration starts with the firing guns, which are attached to the wings, which are attached to the fuselage. The wing roots shake less than the middle of the wings, where the guns and camera are; and the fuselage shakes much less than the wings; and the pilot's head has to shake less than the seat he sits on.

...

Just found a picture roughly to illustrate that the vibration varies at different parts of the fighter:



The wing is in a sense like the long ruler, and the table the fuselage, since the mass of the fuselage is much, much larger than that of the wing. (There is a bit of physics omitted here.) Please pay attention to the magnitude of vibrations at different parts of the ruler. In fact the woman's right hand and the table also vibrate - negligibly to the human eye.

And the human body is soft to a certain extent; in particular, the soft tissues between consecutive bones of the spine are just for absorbing vibrations coming from the bottom or legs to the head or brain. That's why the head shakes even less than the seat if the seat (fastened into the fuselage) ever shakes slightly.

~~

Originally Posted by Upthair

Just found a picture roughly to illustrate that the vibration varies at different parts of the fighter:



The wing is in a sense like the long ruler, and the table the fuselage, since the mass of the fuselage is much, much larger than that of the wing. (There is a bit of physics omitted here.) Please pay attention to the magnitude of vibrations at different parts of the ruler. In fact the woman's right hand and the table also vibrate - negligibly to the human eye.

And the human body is soft to a certain extent; in particular, the soft tissues between consecutive bones of the spine are just for absorbing vibrations coming from the bottom or legs to the head or brain. That's why the head shakes even less than the seat if the seat (fastened into the fuselage) ever shakes slightly.

~~

Have you guys made a quick search " tracers" on this forum ?
Actually, I should say: guys, obviously, you didnt make a search....

This subject has been debated for months and the conclusions are those:
Actual tracers in COD are not good enough yet and real pilots didnt see any wiggling when firing their guns...
You have 3 choices now : Trust a senior member that has been debating this subject more then too much, or, make a damn search for yourselves, or ,continue debating forever because you wont be able to prove any of what you say....Whatever you say.

I only watch this thread in the hope that someone educated will come up with something tangible...Until now, the Banana tracer is the best we have....

Salute !

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Upthair

Just found a picture roughly to illustrate that the vibration varies at different parts of the fighter:



The wing is in a sense like the long ruler, and the table the fuselage, since the mass of the fuselage is much, much larger than that of the wing. (There is a bit of physics omitted here.) Please pay attention to the magnitude of vibrations at different parts of the ruler. In fact the woman's right hand and the table also vibrate - negligibly to the human eye.

And the human body is soft to a certain extent; in particular, the soft tissues between consecutive bones of the spine are just for absorbing vibrations coming from the bottom or legs to the head or brain. That's why the head shakes even less than the seat if the seat (fastened into the fuselage) ever shakes slightly.

~~

The vibration you're talking about is absolutely out of scale and wrong.

When you shoot with a machine gun it doesn't rumble or vibrate, it just had one major force vector (which we can call "recoil") that pushes in the opposite direction of the bullet direction. So, Imagining the CoG of the plane as your pivot, the plane would rotate backward on its yaw axis because of recoil, only to be compensated by the other machineguns on the opposite wing and the plane movement vector. As a consequence you can get a flicker on the yaw axis, which varies in its amplitude and frequency according to the guns you're shooting with. The recoils though won't be enough in terms of vector strength or frequency to cause vision blur or flickering like you see in guncameras, but I can tell you that there are other vibrations that can.

I was in a Cessna Caravan which had a prop governor failure, with one of the props going straight into feathering: the vibration and frequency were so intense that the whole world went blurry and your could hear your skull bones rattle! Not a nice experience! It was a second, just the time to switch the engine off, but man the engine could have easily come off its mount!!

[Sammi79]

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.

[pupaxx]

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

[Mysticpuma]

Well looking at those tracer in the video above it would be good to know what shutter speed was being used as 1/2 second shutter speed would give a tracer about 40-yards long per round, but a shutter speed of 10000th of a second would give a tracer length of about 10-inches. Sadly unless you see tracer first-hand there is no-way that a video can represent the length

HOWEVER... it can represent the thickness and looking at the above they all seem pretty thin and like the new version and not that great big thick slab of light-sabre that currently appears!

So I would certainly load this mod and ask for it to be made official.

MP

[DK-nme]

Hmmm, so funny. If one mentions the propeller disk everyone jumps you and tells, that in real life the propellers are invisible and what we see on telly is caused by framerates - okay, I get it.
But when talking 'bout tracers, suddenly movie effects are ok???
Tracers doesnt look like they do in game - it is again framerate that causes long laser effects...
Again, and now I will seek cover, the tracers in Il-2 wings of prey, they seems to have got it almost right - so why can't it be in this game???

[pupaxx]

I'm well aware about the lenght of tracer is determinated by frame rate and shutter-speed and other factors. I accept all is said about in the past, is technically correct and convincing. i'm aware the video I posted has a relative valor for this discussion cause the gatling is not comparable with spitfire armament etc. If u assure me the ingame (modded or non modded) tracer effect are 100% lifelike, however I'dont like them, it give me the impression of a banal visual phenomenon even if full real. I'd like some cinema fx even if not full realistic. I find nothing wrong in 'warming up' the game ambience with some (well calibrated) effects.
Just my thought
Cheers

[choctaw111]

Originally Posted by Mysticpuma

Well looking at those tracer in the video above it would be good to know what shutter speed was being used as 1/2 second shutter speed would give a tracer about 40-yards long per round, but a shutter speed of 10000th of a second would give a tracer length of about 10-inches. Sadly unless you see tracer first-hand there is no-way that a video can represent the length

HOWEVER... it can represent the thickness and looking at the above they all seem pretty thin and like the new version and not that great big thick slab of light-sabre that currently appears!

So I would certainly load this mod and ask for it to be made official.

MP

Good point MP.
I did see somewhere on these forums (from Oleg) about the shutter speed of the average human eye. I cannot remember exactly the duration. 1/60th of a second or something like that. If this is true, how many of us have rigs that can display ClOD at this speed? If our rigs cannot keep up with the shutter speed of the human eye then how can we expect to get "realistic" tracer effects?
On to the thickness. The thickness of a tracer also depends on the amount of ambient light. Of course at night, tracers are much more defined and have a greater apparent thickness.
On the other hand I have been in places that were so bright, from the sun reflecting off the sand, that tracers (5.56x45) were not even noticeable even with dark sunglasses. The 7.62x39 and 50 cals were more distinguishable. The difference is that the "tracer hole" diameter varies from one type of bullet to another. The bigger the hole that the tracer burns through means a brighter, thicker and more visible tracer.
I am probably not the foremost "expert" on this forum, but the literal millions of tracers I have seen throughout my career of all types and calibers should certainly have my opinion respected.
I still have not had the pleasure of flying around with ClOD so until then I cannot say, aside from Youtube vids, how I feel about the tracers in ClOD.