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.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

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...

You'd be surprised at how little shake a .303 round would have on an being fired from a heavy warbird let alone just hip firing that same machine gun.

SYN_Bliss. Even you must admit that they are too long though.

Actually, in same cases, they may be too short, but I think what they have now is good middle ground.

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.

Now this is patronizing, but has nothing to do with the discussion. The only point of the arc we care about is the miniscule amount that you'll actually see while a tracer is moving (which funny enough, you can't even see!). If you only see a 5ft section of movement till it disappears from leaving the weapon to out of visual range,.,... that 5ft section (streak of light) following the round will always appear perfectly straight because in the short time frame of the tracer you see (5ft) the trajectory drop is so insignificant it's not even worth mentioning.

[Das Attorney]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

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.

This is true. If viewed long enough, it would be apparent that the trajectory of the bullet is curved (due to gravity).

However, the tracers in this game burn out mostly between 300 - 500 yards. During this initial distance, the tracers should appear roughly in a straight line. Even a .303 round (small fry in this sim) has sufficient energy to maintain a relatively flat flight path over the comparatively small distances they were used in by the RAF.

I think there is a tracer round that burns up to 800 yards, but I haven't tried it in game.

Anyway, it's a trifling point. The tracers in game do their job. I'm not too bothered if there are any inaccuracies. I'd much prefer them to fix the sound issues etc!