Tracers on COD

[RPS69]

It's the only thing that's funny about those demos.

My two cents for the people that base this representation on guncams of WWII.

A frame rate of about 50fps, will probably be absolutely exagerated for a WWII guncam, but I will use that speed just for the sake of the worst case scenario.

20mm ammo, at least the types used on the sim, have an initial speed of 800m/s
(round numbers makes maths easyer)

So, at 50fps, we have 1/50s of exposure per frame, that meaning 0.02s

Then the length imprinted on the film by the tracer will be 800m/s x 0.02s=16m

So we could never see what the eyes of the pilot see, using a guncam as reference. The eyes also have some retention, but they recover faster than that.
The brighter the object, the worst the recovery. IL2 original tracers were far better than this ones, being a strong point, followed by a fainted line.

Sorry for bothering with this again, but I really don't like it. It feels too much of Star Wars to me.

[t4trouble]

I dont think the tracers we see in the update videos, are the finished tracers
we will see in the release.There are update pictures of german a/c with smoke
tracers from the rounds but haven't see them in any update video's.
Fingers crossed

[winny]

I had this little clip on DVD, so I ripped it and thought I'd put it up here.
It's BoB era. A couple of seconds worth, then slowed down and repeated (badly edited too)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC6lQyxzZBA

I've been laughed at in the past for suggesting that the on 8 x .303 mg variants the RAF tended to like to use Tracer rounds in only one gun (Tracer as in visible rounds) and then used incendiaries and ball in the others. The incendiaries being the early Buckingham type that left a smoke trail which was ejected from weep holes in the bullet (causing spiral tracer smoke).

I can only see 'visible' tracer coming from one gun (port side). That would be my only issue with the tracers in CoD, but the loadout's got every type of ammo used in the BoB RAF wise, so it's not really a problem.

I think I remember Oleg saying that the human eye sees tracer length at about the same length as a video camera running at 92 fps would. I could have dreamt it though.

[kalimba]

It's the only thing that's funny about those demos.

My two cents for the people that base this representation on guncams of WWII.

A frame rate of about 50fps, will probably be absolutely exagerated for a WWII guncam, but I will use that speed just for the sake of the worst case scenario.

20mm ammo, at least the types used on the sim, have an initial speed of 800m/s
(round numbers makes maths easyer)

So, at 50fps, we have 1/50s of exposure per frame, that meaning 0.02s

Then the length imprinted on the film by the tracer will be 800m/s x 0.02s=16m

So we could never see what the eyes of the pilot see, using a guncam as reference. The eyes also have some retention, but they recover faster than that.
The brighter the object, the worst the recovery. IL2 original tracers were far better than this ones, being a strong point, followed by a fainted line.

Sorry for bothering with this again, but I really don't like it. It feels too much of Star Wars to me.

I hear you...But this subject has been debated a lot...And strangely enough,
people who have been firing real guns of similar caliber have come forward to describe what they have seen with their own eyes...Ans it is damn close to COD...Star Wars laser shots concept was inspired by WW2 guncams !!!My personnal comment about tracers in COD is that they look to "fat", not enough string-like...But that is me...
Remember Oleg is a pro photographer...He knows all about shutter speed and eye's retention...Make a search on this forum, and you will find Oleg's comment and explanation about tracers,,,;)

Salute !

[engarde]

It's the only thing that's funny about those demos.

My two cents for the people that base this representation on guncams of WWII.

A frame rate of about 50fps, will probably be absolutely exagerated for a WWII guncam, but I will use that speed just for the sake of the worst case scenario.

20mm ammo, at least the types used on the sim, have an initial speed of 800m/s
(round numbers makes maths easyer)

So, at 50fps, we have 1/50s of exposure per frame, that meaning 0.02s

Then the length imprinted on the film by the tracer will be 800m/s x 0.02s=16m

So we could never see what the eyes of the pilot see, using a guncam as reference. The eyes also have some retention, but they recover faster than that.
The brighter the object, the worst the recovery. IL2 original tracers were far better than this ones, being a strong point, followed by a fainted line.

Sorry for bothering with this again, but I really don't like it. It feels too much of Star Wars to me.

it would appear that everyone, except the devs, have the right idea about pretty much everything to do with this sim.

the tracer situation has been explained.

enough.

move on.

nothing to see here.

[zauii]

it would appear that everyone, except the devs, have the right idea about pretty much everything to do with this sim.

the tracer situation has been explained.

enough.

move on.

nothing to see here.

Quote for truth.

[choctaw111]

IL2 original tracers were far better than this ones, being a strong point, followed by a fainted line.

Sorry for bothering with this again, but I really don't like it. It feels too much of Star Wars to me.


Have you seen any tracers for real?
Tracers do look like Star Wars as anyone who has seen them will tell you.
Il2 tracers were terrible. Oleg and Ilya both knew it and fixed them this time around.

[RPS69]

I hear you...But this subject has been debated a lot...And strangely enough,
people who have been firing real guns of similar caliber have come forward to describe what they have seen with their own eyes...Ans it is damn close to COD...Star Wars laser shots concept was inspired by WW2 guncams !!!

That inspiration is actually what I don't like.


My personnal comment about tracers in COD is that they look to "fat", not enough string-like...But that is me...

Me too.


Remember Oleg is a pro photographer...He knows all about shutter speed and eye's retention...Make a search on this forum, and you will find Oleg's comment and explanation about tracers,,,;)


I happen to know a lot about that myself. Probably a lot more than Oleg himself. But, this kind of statement implies the "trust me!" thing, so stating it is worthless anyway. :P

In the last ten years, Oleg and co, have given different answers about many issues on the game. Some on spot, and some very off target.
From what I have seen, and from OTHER people that use tracers of many kinds, this implementation of tracers is wrong.

Anyway, I will get it with the tracers as they are anyway, and won't make a fuss about it. But for the future I really hope for them to look more like the little comet they used to be. :)

Mods, lock it if needed.

[speculum jockey]

I have shot actual WWII era tracers from my Mauser. They look just like the videos we are seeing posted by Oleg.

Other posters here who have also fired tracers in the military have also confirmed that the tracers are accurate.

Oleg is a photographer, he knows about the difference between what the eye sees and what a camera sees.

Luthier has said they are perfect. I'm sure he have done research that is a little more intensive than typing, "tracers" into youtube.

LET IT GO!

[RPS69]

Other posters here who have also fired tracers in the military have also confirmed that the tracers are accurate.

And other POSTERS, also allegedly from the military said they weren't...


Oleg is a photographer, he knows about the difference between what the eye sees and what a camera sees.

People who work with optical instruments, and study how the human brain register visual events also do.


Luthier has said they are perfect. I'm sure he have done research that is a little more intensive than typing, "tracers" into youtube.

This is cheap. You happen to be the guy that support your sayings with youtube, not me. I am the guy that said that guncams, or filming in general are a waste of time as an argument on this.

But I DO remember people asking the tracers for being brighter and brighter since this game was first in the shelves, and people happened to discover that some Russians guys fought a hell of a war out there, and now happened to get the best combat sim ever till today.

The same people that complained on the red tracers disappearing from sight, when if they just cared to look at it they were there, but their CRT's won't show them brightly enough.

By the way, the other thread was based on a leaked demo, but now this one is from the publisher itself.

I don't share your impressions. Maybe I learn to see different, since everybody have somewhat different "shutter" speeds on their eyes, and brains "learn" to correct images. If it doesn't, we will all be almost blind, or with permanent tunnel vision.


LET IT GO!

I already have, if you just cared to read this: "Mods, lock it if needed."
Stop the bashing, and let the mods do their jobs.

[Kikuchiyo]

And other POSTERS, also allegedly from the military said they weren't...



People who work with optical instruments, and study how the human brain register visual events also do.



This is cheap. You happen to be the guy that support your sayings with youtube, not me. I am the guy that said that guncams, or filming in general are a waste of time as an argument on this.

But I DO remember people asking the tracers for being brighter and brighter since this game was first in the shelves, and people happened to discover that some Russians guys fought a hell of a war out there, and now happened to get the best combat sim ever till today.

The same people that complained on the red tracers disappearing from sight, when if they just cared to look at it they were there, but their CRT's won't show them brightly enough.

By the way, the other thread was based on a leaked demo, but now this one is from the publisher itself.

I don't share your impressions. Maybe I learn to see different, since everybody have somewhat different "shutter" speeds on their eyes, and brains "learn" to correct images. If it doesn't, we will all be almost blind, or with permanent tunnel vision.



I already have, if you just cared to read this: "Mods, lock it if needed."
Stop the bashing, and let the mods do their jobs.

In a relaxed state the human brain sees the world at about 60 frames per second (This is highly dependent on a number of factors, but my next point is where it stands ground).

A video at about 50 fps is NOT that far off of what the human eye interprets. A military individual that has seen tracer rounds has likely seen them at both the relaxed (firing practice) state and in a adrenaline high state where there is ample evidence to show that the human brain interprets information at a much higher rate that results in the "slowing down" of time. Er go you end up with differing accounts from military personal that have viewed tracers in combat situations vs those that have viewed them in non combat situations. Bot are likely correct, but for all intents and purposes the "Star Wars effects" would likely be more accurate to the average user.

To say it looks like Star Wars is a very accurate statement ESPECIALLY since Star Wars effects are based on tracer rounds.

I happen to know a lot about that myself. Probably a lot more than Oleg himself. But, this kind of statement implies the "trust me!" thing, so stating it is worthless anyway

Oleg is a professional photographer that is also used as a consultant for photography. I highly doubt ANY individual on these forums is more qualified to weigh in on whether or not a photographic or film example is accurate as compared to reality.

[Voyager]

Lasers look like this:
Lasers! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g77CxWquJEU)

And no, I don't get tired of posting that :)

[Ltbear]

OK. Didnt want to post this, but welcome to starwars. This is fottage taken by me on a LMG shooting course.

Its even at night. Anyone who can speak Danish can verify language and orders...

This is 50 round ammo belt with 100% tracer rounds on multible LMG`s

weapon used M-62 (MG3)

Exept the exact caliber it have data that is werry close to the MG 17

http://www.kriger.dk/images/billedermateriel/lmg/lmg1.jpg
http://www.motov.dk/images/lmg_2.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOW6tlzcvaU

Geeez......

LT

[Novotny]

I get very bored with these debates, and usually skip over them.

However, here's a few links for those of you making bold claims:

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
http://amo.net/nt/05-24-01FPS.html

Whisper paraphrases well here: http://whisper.ausgamers.com/wiki/index.php/How_many_FPS_human_eye_can_see

Might help with your understanding of the whole fps issue. 220fps+ is detectable by the human eye. Personally, I used to be able to tell 85 from 100 easily enough. Maybe not so much now, as I'm older and no longer have the kit to do it with.

Cheers.

[proton45]

I've seen real tracers...and they do look kind'a Star Wars like. They look cool as hell...like nothing in nature.


Honestly....most of this thread is pseudoscience....

[JG4_Helofly]

there is one simple solution if you don't like the tracers: don't use them ;)

[Feuerfalke]

These threads are really ludicrous: Dozens of blind men arguing days and weeks over what the sun has to look like... :rolleyes:

[choctaw111]

I would like to see the statements made by military personnel who have seen tracers who don't agree they look like the ones in Cliffs of Dover.
From what I have read, it seems that the general consensus from soldiers is that the tracers look very real.
The tracers here look just like what I have always seen and cannot wait to "play around" with them once I have CLoD on my PC.

[T}{OR]

I would like to see the statements made by military personnel who have seen tracers who don't agree they look like the ones in Cliffs of Dover.

Same here. :)

[RPS69]

I suppose that people see what they like to see.

I don't see a rectangle when looking at tracers, but it appears that a lot of people do, and are incredibly happy with that.


Oleg is a professional photographer that is also used as a consultant for photography. I highly doubt ANY individual on these forums is more qualified to weigh in on whether or not a photographic or film example is accurate as compared to reality.

You know, this is just a bit more than photography alone. But him being a professional of photography, he will be the first to admit that guncam films are really far off from what you really see with your own eyes. You will need a much more faster camera than the ones placed on planes, and more sensitive film, to reproduce something similar to what you could see with your eyes.
You could not reproduce the fade out effect on film. It actually shows you exactly the oposite. It fades to the lead, instead to the path.

By the way, Star Wars lasers, only exist on those films. And I still really prefer for them to be kept there.

[RPS69]

I would like to see the statements made by military personnel who have seen tracers who don't agree they look like the ones in Cliffs of Dover.
From what I have read, it seems that the general consensus from soldiers is that the tracers look very real.
The tracers here look just like what I have always seen and cannot wait to "play around" with them once I have CLoD on my PC.

The German allready got a grip on you?

Go find the older thread about tracers that other people here told me to find. You have been posting over there, and denying anyone who don't share your perceptions to be a valid source. That's why I used the term "alleged" on the first place.

[TheGrunch]

Not gonna lie RPS, I'm gonna take Choctaw's testimony here, since I don't know whether you've seen tracer-fire first hand. Have you?

[kalimba]

The German allready got a grip on you?

Go find the older thread about tracers that other people here told me to find. You have been posting over there, and denying anyone who don't share your perceptions to be a valid source. That's why I used the term "alleged" on the first place.

I have to admit that after watching tons of WW2 guncams and modern tracer
movies, my comments about COD's tracers are:

When they are at their initial position close to the pilot's position, they are kind of too fat and a bit square. In most WW2 guncams, the tracers seem to "light" up further away from the plane , so few milliseconds after firiing...They look also more like a string of light, rather than a LightSaber...;)
When they reach a certain distance, they look good though...And the smoke trails, from the bits we saw, seem to look very good...

Salute !

[Jaws2002]

I have to admit that after watching tons of WW2 guncams and modern tracer
movies, my comments about COD's tracers are:

When they are at their initial position close to the pilot's position, they are kind of too fat and a bit square. In most WW2 guncams, the tracers seem to "light" up further away from the plane , so few milliseconds after firiing...Salute !

There are many types of tracers and some are designed to light up at a certain distance from the shooter, not to expose his position.;)

[kalimba]

There are many types of tracers and some are designed to light up at a certain distance from the shooter, not to expose his position.;)

Good point...;) Of course, my conclusions are based on what I could find on the internet ...And you are right, on few occasions I saw "closer to the plane" tracers ....But the common aspect of all tracers from all WW2 guncams out there is their "string-like" aspect. The are generally shorter also. In fact, this whole thread is bizarre because anyone can make their own research and will probably come to the same conclusion since we all have access to the same sources...

We'll wait for final release to draw conclusions...And if a lot of people have the same request about tracers, it will probably be possible to have a mod...

Salute !

[Blackdog_kt]

I hear you...But this subject has been debated a lot...And strangely enough,
people who have been firing real guns of similar caliber have come forward to describe what they have seen with their own eyes...Ans it is damn close to COD...Star Wars laser shots concept was inspired by WW2 guncams !!!My personnal comment about tracers in COD is that they look to "fat", not enough string-like...But that is me...
Remember Oleg is a pro photographer...He knows all about shutter speed and eye's retention...Make a search on this forum, and you will find Oleg's comment and explanation about tracers,,,;)

Salute !

I've fired flak cannons when i was a conscript in the air force (dual 20mm rheinmetal guns, which you you could say are the "grandkids" of the Mg151s we have in IL2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_20_mm_Twin_Anti-Aircraft_Cannon) and the effect was very similar to the CoD tracers. So similar it's actually almost spot on.

There's only one thing that might benefit from some tweaking and that's how wide the visible "rod" of light is. It seems a bit "fat" when compared to what i've seen in real life, but only when it's close to the player's viewpoint (ie, when the round is near our aircraft, as it moves away it shrinks into a more realistic size).

However, the CoD tracers are perfect in displaying another property of tracers as viewed in real life: the transition from an elongated line to a dot.

When the tracer is close it appears as a thin, straight line (despite the gun vibration it is in fact straight and doesn't squiggle like in the guncam films, probably because the human body has better shock absorption than a wing mounted camera from the '40s), but as it moves away it rapidly transitions into a bright dot.

This has the effect of creating an illusion that the tracers slow considerably more than they really are. The degree of accuracy is hard to prove with numbers, because both the slow-down illusion and the point that the tracer becomes a dot happen a good distance away from the gun.
Also, the slow-tracer illusion is probably more pronounced when firing a static mounted gun like the ones i fired (it goes from a super-fast streak to a small, wallowing dot 2km away in the span of a second or two). I guess that when firing from a fast moving platform like a fighter aircraft and also with WWII guns of lower muzzle velocity, the optical illusion of slowing down would be less pronounced because there is less of a gap between the velocity of the round and the platform from which it's fired.

I can't accurately estimate the distance of the optical transition from streak to dot, but knowing my flak guns had a ~2km effective range and the shells self-destructed at that point to avoid falling on friendlies if they missed, i would eyeball it to be anywhere between 1/3 and 3/4 of the way from the gun to the self-destruct point 2km away.

If you do the math, this means that anywhere between 670 and 1500 meters the tracer has transitioned from being seen as a streak to being seen as a dot. However, even the lower limit of 670 meters is way farther than the distances we shoot at in a flight sim, so the tracers are probably very accurate in being displayed as streaks during their first few split-seconds.

Watch one of Oleg's latest videos to see this, see here around the 0:35 mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YkToYH5LPs


Let's go one step further now. If we gauge the distances in the videos with the help of the Defiant's wingspan, it seems like the engagement is filmed very close up (i'd say around 300m, definitely less than 500m in any case), with the attacking fighter opening fire even closer. At that point, the first few rounds overfly the Defiant with tracers still visible as streaks, which is consistent with what i've seen in real life for these ranges.


Then, a couple of seconds later we pause at 0:37 and we get this:


http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=4836&d=1299351565

It clearly shows the effect of the tracer transitioning from a streak to a dot as it moves away from our viewpoint.
Furthermore, the defiant is about 300 meters away and the distant, "dot" shaped rounds that missed and flew over it are 1-2 seconds into their trajectory. This means than in a broad sense, even the relative timings of the transition effect and the approximate ranges (allowing for different muzzle velocities, etc) are almost 100% consistent with my real life experience.

I didn't actually know it was that accurate until now, in fact i just realized it because i went into the trouble of snapping screen captures and comparing.

Bottom line, in the eyes of this reservist flak gunner these tracers in the video are so close to real-life it's scary.

Yesterday my buddies and me were at a friends house, so i also showed the video to them. The guy who was having us over was a sergeant in a heli-borne/air assault infantry brigade during his time as a conscript. This guy has fired countless more rounds than i have and has seen even more being fired on the range as he was a trainer at some point, just not on flak cannons but smaller guns (light MGs, infantry rifles, .50s and so on).

I asked him "what do you think of the tracers?" and he goes "isn't it supposed to be one round in four?". That's right, the only thing he complained about was how many of them are flying simultaneously, until i explained to him that the hurricane has 4 guns per wing and the game has customized belting, so they could be synchronised to have at least one tracer in the air at all times. After that i asked him if that was his only criticism and he said "yes, the actual tracer looks just like the real thing".

So, my personal take on the matter as someone who's fired AA cannons somewhat similar to the ones the 109 in the video is firing...i'd say that apart from the initial width of the tracer streak when close to the player's viewpoint (it should be just a bit thinner), this is the most accurate tracer implementation in a flight simulator i've ever seen in my life.

Living in a country where 95% of the male population has been in the army and fired guns at some point in their life, it's also not hard to find people with similar military experience and ask their opinion which usually confirms the CoD tracers as being very accurate. In fact the only guys among my friends who thought the tracers were weird, were the guys who haven't been to the army and haven't fired a gun yet.

I hope this helps to seal the deal and provide a satisfactory explanation for everyone ;)

[speculum jockey]

Tons of correct, well explained words!

Issue is done! The only people complaining are "basement soldiers" who have never fired tracers in their lives and who don't have the first clue what "outside" even is!

We have Oleg and Luthier who have researched this and said it's perfect (the former being a well renowned photo-expert).

We have myself and other casual shooters who have had the opportunity to fire the occasional tracer saying it's correct.

We have Blackdog_kt and other former servicemen who have fired actual MGs/Cannons with tracers who agree this is correct.

Anyone who wants to continue arguing that the tracers are wrong needs to wake up and see that they are only making themselves look even more ignorant and petty.

LET IT GO!

[kalimba]

Issue is done! The only people complaining are "basement soldiers" who have never fired tracers in their lives and who don't have the first clue what "outside" even is!

We have Oleg and Luthier who have researched this and said it's perfect (the former being a well renowned photo-expert).

We have myself and other casual shooters who have had the opportunity to fire the occasional tracer saying it's correct.

We have Blackdog_kt and other former servicemen who have fired actual MGs/Cannons with tracers who agree this is correct.

Anyone who wants to continue arguing that the tracers are wrong needs to wake up and see that they are only making themselves look even more ignorant and petty.

LET IT GO!


Well Speculum, I am a basement soldier and Blackdog, who is a real soldier who himself fired weapons comparable to those in COD just comfirmed exactly, word for word what I was reffering to. Read his post again...Exactly what I was talking about regarding size and shape of COD's tracers vs WW2's guncams...
COD's tracers are mostly correct, but not accurate ...And that is what we debate here...But Blackdog's comments make my observation justified and relevant...You want to stop the debate?..., So show us any video or footage that show tracers similar in shape and length to COD, and I will personnaly quit this thread...:cool:

Salute !

[furbs]

Yep...i dont 100% like the tracers but i dont think they should wiggle for the reasons given...like ive said maybe its because so far were seeing the tracers from a rock solid platform each time, even when inside the stuka and 109 cockpits, its rock steady and thats what makes the tracers starwars like.

If our head was bobing about, the aircraft twisting and turning, the cockpit shaking and we was affected by G forces, the tracers would lose that perfect laser bolt look.

If everything else is perfectly still and steady...then the tracers are perfect.
They just dont feel right when seen from inside a 109 from the pilots view that is fighting for his life.

Understand what im saying or am i talking bollox??

[choctaw111]

The German allready got a grip on you?

Go find the older thread about tracers that other people here told me to find. You have been posting over there, and denying anyone who don't share your perceptions to be a valid source. That's why I used the term "alleged" on the first place.

I am not denying anything, only pointing out that during my time as a Paratrooper in the Infantry I have seen tracers in person and those complaining about them have not.

[choctaw111]

I have to admit that after watching tons of WW2 guncams and modern tracer
movies, my comments about COD's tracers are:

When they are at their initial position close to the pilot's position, they are kind of too fat and a bit square. In most WW2 guncams, the tracers seem to "light" up further away from the plane , so few milliseconds after firiing...They look also more like a string of light, rather than a LightSaber...;)
When they reach a certain distance, they look good though...And the smoke trails, from the bits we saw, seem to look very good...

Salute !

This all depends on the tracer type. Some tracers lit in the barrel. Others lit a few feet away after being fired and others lit even further away, out to a couple hundred meters before they lit.
The typical WW2 tracer lit in the barrel causing the streak like appearance upon exiting the gun.
As far as the tracers to appear too fat, Some of them may appear to be a little on the fat side, but again, this all depends on the size of the hole the tracer is burning through, plus its apparent brightness. The brighter it is, the fatter it looks.
Perhaps "brightness and fatness" are an option but I doubt it.

[Xilon_x]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC6lQyxzZBA&feature=player_embedded

this video GUN CAM is very detailed ye BRAVO.

COMPARE this video whit CoD TRACES ok ok i loock the tracer is white short good good BUT i not loock the smoke tracers?
4837contrails of the projectile


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YkToYH5LPs&feature=player_embedded

[kalimba]

This all depends on the tracer type. Some tracers lit in the barrel. Others lit a few feet away after being fired and others lit even further away, out to a couple hundred meters before they lit.
The typical WW2 tracer lit in the barrel causing the streak like appearance upon exiting the gun.
As far as the tracers to appear too fat, Some of them may appear to be a little on the fat side, but again, this all depends on the size of the hole the tracer is burning through, plus its apparent brightness. The brighter it is, the fatter it looks.
Perhaps "brightness and fatness" are an option but I doubt it.

I agree...But even Blackdog feels the tracers should be more like a "string" of light, rather than a "stick"...Wobbling was ideed caused by the shaking of the camera so it is ok not to have this effect. In every single exemple we have been given or shown, or in every WW2 guncams you may find, the tracers are always thinner than what we have in COD...Always..And it is , IMHO, the only flaw in COD's tracers...But the smoke trails, the exploding ammo, everything else is perfect...;)

Salute!

[Strike]

Have you seen any tracers for real?
Tracers do look like Star Wars as anyone who has seen them will tell you.
Il2 tracers were terrible. Oleg and Ilya both knew it and fixed them this time around.

I agree, seen it with my own eye in daylight and nighttime, at night, it's way more intense and can nearly blind you, but the muzzle flash usually takes care of that first.

if there's anything I might say it's the tracer girth at the moment. For daytime tracers I would say they are much thinner, but no dimmer at all. Same brightness, but thinner. At night, this "HDR BLOOM" effect occurs.. making them look wider :)

Just my 2 cents and IRL experience

Actually, this is from army footage probably, but exactly the same program I went through with the airforce. EXACTLY what it looks like with the naked eye (cept better quality-non-pixelated) and exactly how they look in CoD at the moment (yay!) :) But I think they're still too fat for daytime, when seeing them close to the aircraft.

Sometimes the tracers keep burning in the ground..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZiqNk_AL_8

and here you go..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx5aR1Knpb8

It's not a huge difference, but still.. It looks like a 20cm diameter tracer now, I believe it should look morel like 2-5cm max for < 8mm rounds





EDIT:

Heres a real plane firing real ammo with time-delayed fuzes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVIJDU5pFCQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=23s

[kalimba]

I agree, seen it with my own eye in daylight and nighttime, at night, it's way more intense and can nearly blind you, but the muzzle flash usually takes care of that first.

if there's anything I might say it's the tracer girth at the moment. For daytime tracers I would say they are much thinner, but no dimmer at all. Same brightness, but thinner. At night, this "HDR BLOOM" effect occurs.. making them look wider :)

Just my 2 cents and IRL experience

Actually, this is from army footage probably, but exactly the same program I went through with the airforce. EXACTLY what it looks like with the naked eye (cept better quality-non-pixelated) and exactly how they look in CoD at the moment (yay!) :) But I think they're still too fat for daytime, when seeing them close to the aircraft.

Sometimes the tracers keep burning in the ground..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZiqNk_AL_8

and here you go..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx5aR1Knpb8

It's not a huge difference, but still.. It looks like a 20cm diameter tracer now, I believe it should look morel like 2-5cm max for < 8mm rounds





EDIT:

Heres a real plane firing real ammo with time-delayed fuzes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVIJDU5pFCQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=23s

Ok...Thanks again Strike....Now...Could we all agree on that:

Tracers in COD are very good and , by experts opinions, very close to reality.
BUT: Also by experts opinions and members observations, one thing should be modified to make them prefect, and that would be to make them " string-like" or thinner, or "less fat", as you wish, for day time , and keep them as they are now, for night time ?
If everyone agrees with that conclusion, that would put a final rest to this debate !!! ;)

Good night!

[SQB]

...one thing should be modified to make them prefect, and that would be to make them " string-like" or thinner, or "less fat", as you wish, for day time , and keep them as they are now, for night time ?
If everyone agrees with that conclusion, that would put a final rest to this debate !!! ;)

Good night!

+1
/debate

[Blackdog_kt]

Yep...i dont 100% like the tracers but i dont think they should wiggle for the reasons given...like ive said maybe its because so far were seeing the tracers from a rock solid platform each time, even when inside the stuka and 109 cockpits, its rock steady and thats what makes the tracers starwars like.

If our head was bobing about, the aircraft twisting and turning, the cockpit shaking and we was affected by G forces, the tracers would lose that perfect laser bolt look.

If everything else is perfectly still and steady...then the tracers are perfect.
They just dont feel right when seen from inside a 109 from the pilots view that is fighting for his life.

Understand what im saying or am i talking bollox??

You won't believe the amount of recoil and vibration that goes on when you're watching a 20mm flak gun firing, yet your vision doesn't get compromised at all and tracers still look straight.
On our test fire exercise in training while waiting for my turn, i kept watching how each time the gun was fired it actually kicked up dust. The firing range was on a sandy beach, every time the gun was fired it kicked up dust that then settled on the gun. Then, when the next soldier got on the gun and he fired, it would kick up the dust it had on itself, along with more from the ground.

However when i actually sat on the gunner's chair, strapped myself in (you have to do that because the gun can rotate terribly fast and stop even faster, it could hurl you a good few meters across if you're not wearing the safety belt) and pressed the trigger pedal to fire, there was no amount of vibration whatsoever in what i was seeing. My gunsight picture was steady and the tracers were straight. There's so much soft tissue in our bodies to absorb the oscillations plus our eyes auto-adjust instinctively, that i only felt the movement of the gun through the tactile feeling...as far as vision is concerned everything was steady.


Also, on the matter of how "fat" the tracer is

This all depends on the tracer type. Some tracers lit in the barrel. Others lit a few feet away after being fired and others lit even further away, out to a couple hundred meters before they lit.
The typical WW2 tracer lit in the barrel causing the streak like appearance upon exiting the gun.
As far as the tracers to appear too fat, Some of them may appear to be a little on the fat side, but again, this all depends on the size of the hole the tracer is burning through, plus its apparent brightness. The brighter it is, the fatter it looks.
Perhaps "brightness and fatness" are an option but I doubt it.

I guess in reality it also depends on ambient light conditions. My experience was mostly in clear and often sunny days, so maybe that's why the tracers i saw were thinner, they were "washed out" by the ambient lighting. I'm sure that if i fired them at night they would appear not only a lot brighter but thicker as well. I think i'm going agree with the following quote.



if there's anything I might say it's the tracer girth at the moment. For daytime tracers I would say they are much thinner, but no dimmer at all. Same brightness, but thinner. At night, this "HDR BLOOM" effect occurs.. making them look wider :)


The important parts are in bold. Strike obviously understands that image retention in our eyes is affected by ambient light, so that's why he makes the important distinction to define that daytime tracers should be a bit thinner. Brightness, transition from streak to dot and overall movement is just perfect. At night, maybe they should be thicker and they would definitely seem brighter


Ok...Thanks again Strike....Now...Could we all agree on that:

Tracers in COD are very good and , by experts opinions, very close to reality.
BUT: Also by experts opinions and members observations, one thing should be modified to make them prefect, and that would be to make them " string-like" or thinner, or "less fat", as you wish, for day time , and keep them as they are now, for night time ?
If everyone agrees with that conclusion, that would put a final rest to this debate !!! ;)

Good night!

That would more or less be the perfect in-game tracer for today's technology ;)

[BadAim]

Unfortunately, while I have a lot of shooting experience, I have virtually none with tracers. I will however chime in and say that I agree CoD's are fine as they are with the possible exception that they might be a little "fat" for daytime. All in all though, I'm going to reserve any further judgement till I have game in hand and get to see them "firsthand".

[Strike]

Unfortunately, while I have a lot of shooting experience, I have virtually none with tracers. I will however chime in and say that I agree CoD's are fine as they are with the possible exception that they might be a little "fat" for daytime. All in all though, I'm going to reserve any further judgement till I have game in hand and get to see them "firsthand".

Amen!!

[Royraiden]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC6lQyxzZBA&feature=player_embedded

this video GUN CAM is very detailed ye BRAVO.

COMPARE this video whit CoD TRACES ok ok i loock the tracer is white short good good BUT i not loock the smoke tracers?
4837contrails of the projectile


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YkToYH5LPs&feature=player_embedded

You are saying that there arent smoke trails?If that is what you are saying then,you havent seen recent pictures posted by Oleg, theres even a video showing some amazing spiral smoke trails.http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/il2cod-screenshots-24-02-2011/Look for the pictures with the Defiant.

[Erkki]

I'm with Oleg, Luthier, Choctaw & CO, the tracers are perfect. Maybe just a little thick, but we will probably see lighting and other effects be different in different amounts of light.

This in 480p:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7uWhp_aMZg&feature=related

Lasers! See his other videos, one has yellow tracers. Gun is Rheinmetall-Borsig 35mm.

[Royraiden]

They should be a bit thinner and a bit darker during day light in my opinion.But Im very happy with them so far.

[Xilon_x]

yes yes Royraiden i loock the photo contrail of bullets exist affermative.
http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/23_IF.jpg
but in the video i not loock this are invisible?

[kalimba]

I'm with Oleg, Luthier, Choctaw & CO, the tracers are perfect. Maybe just a little thick, but we will probably see lighting and other effects be different in different amounts of light.

This in 480p:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7uWhp_aMZg&feature=related

Lasers! See his other videos, one has yellow tracers. Gun is Rheinmetall-Borsig 35mm.

Very good exemple ...If you look at those that are fired during daytime, you will agree that they are very thin and kind of "pointy" at the extremeties...
And this would seem to be the only issue with COD's tracers...They look a bit square and are to large for daytime visuals...
And this seems to be a concensus among members of this forum....I'm not saying that Luthier and Oleg are wrong,I am saying that the tracers could be
top notch with a little change...

Salute !

[Royraiden]

yes yes Royraiden i loock the photo contrail of bullets exist affermative.
http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/23_IF.jpg
but in the video i not loock this are invisible?

There are different types of ammo,not all leave the smoke trails.There was one video from one game event at Kiev showing those lovely spiral trails.

[Sternjaeger]

ok, that's a 35mm modern rapid fire cannon, so that's a bit overkill, but I reckon the tracers effect they achieved so far are quite convincing. A bit more of alpha wouldnt do any harm for the daylight version I suppose, but it would be such a subtle change that it's probably not worth it ;)

[Sternjaeger]

I'm more interested to see whether the ring smoke has a better rendition in 3d (I'm not still quite totally sold on the ring smoke to be honest.. does anybody have a picture that shows it?)

[winny]

I'm more interested to see whether the ring smoke has a better rendition in 3d (I'm not still quite totally sold on the ring smoke to be honest.. does anybody have a picture that shows it?)

It's in the video I posted in this thread, clearly.

There is only one type of RAF .303 bullet that leaves a smoke trail, the Buckingham Incendiary. It leaves a spiral trail because it has a weep hole on the side of the casing which the smoke comes out of.

[BGs_Ricky]

The tracers look fine compared to my personal experience of firing tracers with a M2 .50cal in the army. While being at the shooter's position and with only one gun firing right in your axis of vision, I'd say that you mostly see bright dots, but as a shooter you're not looking at the end of your barrel but at the target, and there the tracers look like dots just like in the COD video.

When looking at someone else firing from an offset position relative to the axis of the gun you start to see the "laser" look.

[JG27_PapaFly]

From libya:
http://www.spiegel.de/images/image-194282-galleryV9-alov.jpg

CoD tracers look fine to me.