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

[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 !

[Mr Logic]

I have it on good authority that bananas grow on trees and bear no relation whatsoever to bullets from a gun.

Originally Posted by Mr Logic

I have it on good authority that bananas grow on trees and bear no relation whatsoever to bullets from a gun.

Yeah man...Can you prove it ?

Salute !

[Upthair]

Originally Posted by kalimba

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 !

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

The fashinating thing about physics is that it has no mercy: either you know it well or it will bite you in the aXX..

You don't need scientific rigour,but examples that need to pertinent to the topic discussed,a lot of stuff looks similar in phisics,but it's not quite the same.

and here's my point proven. The strictly backwards recoil generates force vectors,not "vibrations" that are conditioned by pivot points,and yr example is the perfect evidence:when shooting a pistol your wrist becomes the pivot point,hence the rotation upwards,which is amplified on semiautomatic pistols because of the slider movement. Interestingly enough,if you held the pistol "gangsta style",with the grip and barrel horizontally positioned,the recoil will push the pistol inwards towards yr aiming axis.. The crazy stuff u can do at a shooting range

Rigid thinking styles...

~

[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!!

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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!!

Interesting...Really...Can you prove with referenced scientific documentation what you are describing in your thread ?



Salute ?

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by kalimba

Interesting...Really...Can you prove with referenced scientific documentation what you are describing in your thread ?



Salute ?

I believe there is no scientific documentation at hand (or maybe there is, but I don't know of it), truth is that if you studied some physics at school you might understand why what I am saying makes sense and what you are saying doesn't. I swear that if I had some time though I would write it down neatly with all the vectors and formulas (which you might not understand anyway.. have u ever studied any dynamics at school?), this just for the sake of science of course. We're here to share knowledge and experience, not to waste anybody's time.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I believe there is no scientific documentation at hand (or maybe there is, but I don't know of it), truth is that if you studied some physics at school you might understand why what I am saying makes sense and what you are saying doesn't. I swear that if I had some time though I would write it down neatly with all the vectors and formulas (which you might not understand anyway.. have u ever studied any dynamics at school?), this just for the sake of science of course. We're here to share knowledge and experience, not to waste anybody's time.

Well, everybody knows that tracers do not wiggle.
By your own words, those who think so are non-educated people.
If you consider that proving with facts your " knowledge and experience" is wasting people's time, you should call your thread " my personnal opinions".

Oh, by the way, my first reply was , of course, a joke, since most of our dicussions are sterile and useless since we CANT prove anything we say by any simple means...And I still cant find what is that I wrote that doent make sense...

Salute !

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by kalimba

Well, everybody knows that tracers do not wiggle.
By your own words, those who think so are non-educated people.
If you consider that proving with facts your " knowledge and experience" is wasting people's time, you should call your thread " my personnal opinions".

I believe you misinterpreted my post. I KNOW for a fact that my point is right, I don't need to demonstrate it to myself, and so the guys at Maddox games know, cos they're skilled people. If it was the opposite, then I would do my best to prove my point. If people don't believe me or them it's not my problem, I wish I had more time to explain them things in detail, unfortunately I don't, so it's either "you better believe me man, cos I know what I am talking about" or "oh well, tough luck..".

Oh, by the way, my first reply was , of course, a joke, since most of our dicussions are sterile and useless since we CANT prove anything we say by any simple means...And I still cant find what is that I wrote that doent make sense...

Salute !

It's ever so hard to tell jokes from the truth in these forums, maybe we should use tags. I don't know whether your discussions might be sterile and useless, but I know that I like to think of my technical contribution as knowledgeable, fact-based and generally correct.

Your example doesn't make sense because the elastic oscillation of a ruler, which goes UP and DOWN, as nothing to do with the yaw oscillation, which a) is not structural b) is not that intense.

Hope this helps understanding things better.