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

[ElAurens]

And now we get to the crux of this issue.

Gamers, like winney, want SFX, and will totally discount a professional's real world experience.

There is no room for Hollywood SFX in a simulation.

I can't wait for the new sound engine and complaints that the weapons don't sound right. Well, here is a clue to start chomping on, firearms in movies sound nothing like real weapons being fired.

Thank you SYN_Bliss for your post and putting sanity into this issue.

[/thread].

[winny]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

And now we get to the crux of this issue.

Gamers, like winney, want SFX, and will totally discount a professional's real world experience.

There is no room for Hollywood SFX in a simulation.

I can't wait for the new sound engine and complaints that the weapons don't sound right. Well, here is a clue to start chomping on, firearms in movies sound nothing like real weapons being fired.

Thank you SYN_Bliss for your post and putting sanity into this issue.

[/thread].

No SFX? Ok, so just model dots of light. Tracer by it's very nature is an effect. If you're happy with the current tracers then fine. They do however, defy the laws of physics, but it's only a game.

I'n not arguing for hollywood, i'm arguing for realism. No amount of 'i've fired 1000's of tracers' type posts can change some very basic laws of the natural world.

[skouras]

if SFX can represent the RL
Then fine with me
i'm looking for a close as its gets not an arcade style good looking picture


Salute..

[ElAurens]

Winny, enough with the pseudo science OK?

You are lobbying for a special effect designed in the manner that pleases your eyes and perception. It doesn't seem to matter to you that many folks who have seen the real thing are arguing that what we have is basically correct. You want it your way.

Have you ever fired a weapon winny?

[Mysticpuma]

Hi El, can I just ask your opinion of my point above and also if you think from r/l that the tracers are too thick for their calibre and also if they should decay, losing brightness as they dirperse in the distance? Currently they all look too thick and perfect (imho) and show no visible decay while the tracer is burning, they all seem to burn out equally and vanish, surely it should have a more evident decay. MP

[bongodriver]

Why do people think that calibre is relevant, the point of light is a glow produced by a phosphor based substance, it burns bright and bigger than the calibre, that phosphor also burns at constant rate like a match so its all or nothing, it just burns and dies suddenly, and tracer rounds 'will' appear as a streak of light even if viewed from directly behind...at least initially when the round has just left the muzzle, when the round gets further down range the streak becomes a point and then it just dies.

[winny]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Winny, enough with the pseudo science OK?

You are lobbying for a special effect designed in the manner that pleases your eyes and perception. It doesn't seem to matter to you that many folks who have seen the real thing are arguing that what we have is basically correct. You want it your way.

Have you ever fired a weapon winny?

I have fired a weapon. Not that it matters, i was pretty stationary at the time thought.
It's not pseudo science. It's simple geometry.
It's not my way, it's physics.
I don't want it the way i described, i just suggested it.

If you can tell me which part of my pseudo science is wrong i'll happily admit i'm wrong.

[ElAurens]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Why do people think that calibre is relevant, the point of light is a glow produced by a phosphor based substance, it burns bright and bigger than the calibre, that phosphor also burns at constant rate like a match so its all or nothing, it just burns and dies suddenly, and tracer rounds 'will' appear as a streak of light even if viewed from directly behind...at least initially when the round has just left the muzzle, when the round gets further down range the streak becomes a point and then it just dies.

Thanks, saved me the trouble.

[fireflyerz]

What a nana.

[yellonet]

Originally Posted by winny

You are thinking outside the eye.

It only takes a very small movement for this effect to happen. The speed of the bullet is irrelevant. It's all about relative speed across the retina. regardless of actual speed (which is the reason that tracer coming in from the side appear to have a longer tail), they move across the retina quicker than ones moving away from you.

Again, this effect does not hapen anywhere except in the eye. Any movement of the head/eye/aircraft will effect it.

To understand this you need to stop thinking in 3d, tracer light trails are a 2d effect on the back of the eye, like a pen on paper. They are not affected by perspective.

To say that the effect is miniscule is missing the point, if the tail appears to be 2 feet long or 22 feet long it should still be aligned to the relative movement over the 2d image in the back of the eye, not the actual movement in 3D space.

As for wasting cycles.. That's what they are doing now, by drawing in 3d bars of light.

I'm no games designer and this may actually be horrendously difficult but..

Surley it would be lighter on resources to simply not render the tracer in 3D but to draw them in as a 2D overlay, with the tail at 180 degrees to the movement across the eye/screen? ie. treat it exactly as it is, instead of rendering a 3d bar of light that doesn't actually exist anywhere except inside your eye.

I understand what you're saying, but I actually do think it's more difficult to implement this optical illusion than to do what we have now.
I would guess that what we have now is a visible "light bar" simply riding on the already calculated trajectory of the bullet.
To get a dynamic representation of tracer fire someone would likely need to create such a function from scratch. Perhaps the Devs aren't aware of the effect or they just didn't think it was worth the effort to implement.