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

[Das Attorney]

There is no way that the human retina could absorb enough light from a passing incandescent object (like a tracer) to perceive any kind of impression that it is bending relative to the vector of the eye (and said owner of the eye).

Maybe if you fired a tracer round past a fly (for example), it could pull in enough light to detect a change in direction relative of the tracer round to the fly's own position if it were to move away quickly. But then, because it takes in more visual information per unit of time, it would see a vastly improved impression of the tracer, with a correspondingly short trail (less flare effect). Therefore; even a creature (and it would have to be a creature - not a human pilot) with vastly improved eyesight could not see tracers as bending.

Light (and interpretation of light) just doesn't work that way.

As for sources: I can't give you any right now. But if it will settle this physics lunacy, I will be/will not be (un)happy to cobble together a (certainly) boring and (utterly) (un)necessary post. I will do it in my own time, because it is so mind numbingly dull. I will look forward to people disputing it as soon as I (don't) post it.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh, this never ending argument about something that just cant be solved by any means, other than having better ingame coded tracers..
Everyone agrees that what we see in real pictures, on real video or even on WW2 guncam is not reliable for all the technical blabla explanations that have been discussed in this thread....So how are we supposed to get a realistic graphic representation of what a real pilot would see in a real plane firing real tracers ?
It cant be done !
So we have two choices : ask a real WW2 fighter pilot to describe in detail what he saw 70 years ago when he fired his guns, or wait for some mods or Luthier to come up with a proposition that would satisfy most of us in terms of "what we feel is close to what we think that maybe would be realisticly accurate in RL"
Until then, keep on arguing if you wish, but you are all wasting your energy unless you put your brains at finding a way to show us how a damn tracer SHOULD look !

Salute !

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by Das Attorney

There is no way that the human retina could absorb enough light from a passing incandescent object (like a tracer) to perceive any kind of impression that it is bending relative to the vector of the eye (and said owner of the eye).

Maybe if you fired a tracer round past a fly (for example), it could pull in enough light to detect a change in direction relative of the tracer round to the fly's own position if it were to move away quickly. But then, because it takes in more visual information per unit of time, it would see a vastly improved impression of the tracer, with a correspondingly short trail (less flare effect). Therefore; even a creature (and it would have to be a creature - not a human pilot) with vastly improved eyesight could not see tracers as bending.

Light (and interpretation of light) just doesn't work that way.

As for sources: I can't give you any right now. But if it will settle this physics lunacy, I will be/will not be (un)happy to cobble together a (certainly) boring and (utterly) (un)necessary post. I will do it in my own time, because it is so mind numbingly dull. I will look forward to people disputing it as soon as I (don't) post it.

Thats not what he is saying (or I am, or even that I fully agree with him). Also it has nothing to do with the "amount" of light (which would be taken as diffuse lighting/light), but its intensity (density/focus/dispersion etc).