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

[ATAG_Bliss]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

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.

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.

[Sammi79]

Originally Posted by SYN_Bliss

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.

Ahh, Ok thankyou for enlightening me on that. could still argue it should be present in game.

Originally Posted by SYN_Bliss

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

Yes I agree, but the warbird itself is certainly not firmly fixed and would vibrate quite a lot (even the airframe itself can and will flex) especially when firing heavier calibre cannons and such. Like I say is very apparent in not just a few but every single piece of gun camera footage you can find. The rounds should spread more. ATM they don't seem to spread at all, or just barely. I guess this could be a flight model issue though as opposed to a bullet model. Maybe the plane just needs to shake more...

Originally Posted by SYN_Bliss

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.

No, really? I'm not getting that, could you explain it again? no need to be patronising SYN_Bliss. Even you must admit that they are too long though.

Originally Posted by SYN_Bliss

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.

All rounds arc in reality its due to gravity and friction. As the friction with air slows the round down, gravity changes its trajectory more and more. No fired round ever followed a straight line. ever. period. Across a distance of more than a few hundred yards, this would be apparent, particularly looking down the direction of travel, unless you have a very high muzzle velocity then it would take a greater distance, but still.

[winny]

Originally Posted by SYN_Bliss

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.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Originally Posted by winny

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.

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.

[winny]

Originally Posted by SYN_Bliss

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.

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?

[klem]

taka taka taka taka taka ...

you're dead.

Serves you right for studying those streaks instead of your tail.
This has to be the umpteenth thread on this over-taxed subject. It isn't likely to change. Check the other threads.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Originally Posted by winny

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?

I'm getting personal because no matter what I show or tell you, you still don't listen.

Take a light source, say a laser pen light with a room full of smoke and point it towards something 5 ft away in a fixed position, so you can see the beam of light. Now have this light pattern repeat very rapidly. As this light source is switched on and off it will not matter one IOTA where you are standing or viewing the light. It will always be in a straight line UNLESS, you got hit by a freight train or decided to pull a few G's out of your butt while standing still. Your eye's WILL ALWAYS SEE THIS LINE AS STRAIGHT.

That is simple physics. You may see the line shorter or at a different angle depending on your viewing angle but viewing the trajectory of said moving object that produces the light trajectory will always be viewed in the in the same direction and trajectory that said object is traveling. (UNLESS as stated above)

If you can't understand that, then you need to take a remedial science class. Or you could quite simply fire and observe 1000's of rounds of tracer ammunition from fixed and high speed moving positions.

[Heliocon]

Ok I am not reading all this crap but first off no matter who says it - anyone claiming to have RL experience take with a grain of salt, it is the internet. That being said what winny is saying is up to page 9 (stopped there) is correct to an extent. As for the 2d the problem there is that you have 2 eyes that the brain uses to create a 3d image, even though each eye can only see in "2d" individually.
The effect of the trail being left in your eye WOULD occur if you stared at it/focued on it, it would "burn" an image into your retina (desensitizes or overloads certain receptors, cant remember the actual biology of it) just like staring at a lightbulb and then closing your eyes. But you would have to be focusing on the round for it to remain in your vision in that way.

Also wouldnt higher calibre rounds have a larger base and more area emitting light? I dont know (thats why I am asking lol).