Tracers too fast looking?

[DK-nme]

Originally Posted by 609_Huetz

(...) any be assured, neither a .303 nor a 3,5 cm tracer will ever look like this.

It is a small dot of light flying away from you, nothing more. No lasers, depending on the round no smoke and definately not any shake, vibration or spin to it. A tracer round also does not have a ray of light sticking out it's back.

That's my issue with them: they are not only to thick but also way too long.

Well spoken, especially the point with no ray of a real tracers.
Like the rest of the colorpalette in the surrounding gfx, the tracers in CloD seems flat - like only using 256 colors?

And what astonishes me is, that most people don't like special-effects, some utterly despice them, and this is certainly true in the matter of light reflexions in the prop disc. But when it comes to tracers, most gladely accept movieeffects that resembles lasers from the Deathstar (anno 1977).

A camera only shoots 24-25 frames/sec. and therefor a fast travelling bullet (tracer, that is) may seem to have a long ray in video replays.
So, from earlier reasoning and well accepted arguments: Special FX are to be left out of the game, cause they don't reflect reality.
If the former argument is valid, so should tracers (or atleast they should be changed in appearance)...

Originally Posted by DK-nme

Well spoken, especially the point with no ray of a real tracers.
Like the rest of the colorpalette in the surrounding gfx, the tracers in CloD seems flat - like only using 256 colors?

And what astonishes me is, that most people don't like special-effects, some utterly despice them, and this is certainly true in the matter of light reflexions in the prop disc. But when it comes to tracers, most gladely accept movieeffects that resembles lasers from the Deathstar (anno 1977).

A camera only shoots 24-25 frames/sec. and therefor a fast travelling bullet (tracer, that is) may seem to have a long ray in video replays.
So, from earlier reasoning and well accepted arguments: Special FX are to be left out of the game, cause they don't reflect reality.
If the former argument is valid, so should tracers (or atleast they should be changed in appearance)...

It s a complex situation...Since the brain is considering 24 fps enough not to perceive stuttering, it dosen't mean that human eye "image persistence" is the same as film behavior. A fast moving object is percieved as fluid movement by the brain on film at 24 fps because each frame as a "blurring" image of the object...The object is actualy deformed on each still frame and is looking elongated...thus creating an impression of continuity. Very bright light will "imprint" exagerated image compared to other objects. ...That is why it doesn't apply to video games, unless a " blurr" FX is applied.
As an exemple, a tracer filmed with high speed camera would look like a light bulb flying away...So we can't rely on film to compare with RL...
So the real tracers FX should be done in respect of eye "image persistence" , witch is like when you watch a bright moving spot at night creating a "light stream" for few seconds. If the tracers are very bright , they could make such an impression... or at night. 1C has to recreate an estimation of what would be seen by a pilot firing tracers without solely relying on guncams...
And my humble guess is that would be very different from what we have seen so far...except for the smoketrail part that "feels" ok...

SAlute !

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by 609_Huetz

Well, it's a bit harsh to say they are almost perfect and then say you served in the Air Defense. I did so too for years, any be assured, neither a .303 nor a 3,5 cm tracer will ever look like this.

It is a small dot of light flying away from you, nothing more. No lasers, depending on the round no smoke and definately not any shake,vibration or spin to it. A tracer round also does not have a ray of light sticking out it's back.

That's my issue with them: they are not only to thick but also way too long. I doubt the tracers 65 years ago looked that much different from what they do nowadays. Well, at least they got the colors right

*EDIT* This is by the way not meant as insult or a whinng post on what's wrong with CloD, however it's a sim, it should try to model reality as close as possible.

Well, maybe some of it has to do with the kind of round fired, i don't know. All i'm saying is what i saw was almost identical to what i see in the sim (apart from the thickness issue) with the kind of guns i fired.

The length issue is just image retention in our eyes combined with the positioning of the guns being fired: if i'm looking down the sights i see a little dot of light, if i'm looking at someone else firing from a few meters away i see a bit of a streak (up till now it's exactly what you derscribe), but if i'm sitting next to the gun at point blank range and looking where the gun is pointed i get a bigger streak effect.

If i have a bank of guns mounted parallel with my head (in the wings) i will get a bigger streak effect than if i have two guns on the cowling aligned with my line of sight and to be honest, that's pretty much how firing in the 109 looks to me. There's also the very noticeable transition from streak to dot which is also visible in reality as the rounds get further away from the observer.

I would do a bit of an MS paint depiction to better explain it but it's 2AM and i have some stuff to do that could be helpful to people struggling with the Blenheim and CEM: i finally managed to find a PDF copy of a Blenheim V pilot's notes online and i'm reading it as we speak to see how much of it is applicable to the Mk.IV we have in the sim.

Up to the point i read there are only minor differences in terms of control and gauge placement in the cockpit, the Mk.V has constant speed props while our Mk.IV has two-stage props, but the engines are the same so i guess we can use the same operating limits. More on that in another post, probably in the gameplay questions subforum

[winny]

I think the issue might be that the tracers are drawn using perspective..

I think they should shorten quicker. They look a little like solid objects in cod, when in fact they don't exist anywhere except in the eye.

It has nothing to do with the actual speed of the bullet, just how fast the image of it travels over the surface of whatever is capturing the image, camera or eye.

To me it looks like maybe cod's tracers are treated using perspective when they shouldn't be. They look like the white line down the road sometimes, which is wrong. They should shorten relative to percieved speed, not distance. It could be this that always gives me the impression that there's something un-natural about cod tracres.

The streak would also curve if the viewers head moved from side to side. They would not be dead straight at all times because they trace a path across your retina.. it would never be perfectly straight line because it's happening on the surface of the eye.

Originally Posted by winny

I think the issue might be that the tracers are drawn using perspective..

I think they should shorten quicker. They look a little like solid objects in cod, when in fact they don't exist anywhere except in the eye.

It has nothing to do with the actual speed of the bullet, just how fast the image of it travels over the surface of whatever is capturing the image, camera or eye.

To me it looks like maybe cod's tracers are treated using perspective when they shouldn't be. They look like the white line down the road sometimes, which is wrong. They should shorten relative to percieved speed, not distance. It could be this that always gives me the impression that there's something un-natural about cod tracres.

The streak would also curve if the viewers head moved from side to side. They would not be dead straight at all times because they trace a path across your retina.. it would never be perfectly straight line because it's happening on the surface of the eye.

Like this red 109 firing in the dark...

SAlute !

[winny]

Originally Posted by kalimba

Like this red 109 firing in the dark...

SAlute !

Yep, just like that.. Tracers have a more 'elastic' (?) look to them. Also I've noticed that they don't last long enough.

Also, I've yet to see a video in which the tracers cross over at convergence, they seem to just vanish before they get there. That's less than 1/4 of a second at 250 yards. That is in no way realistic.

[Dialn911]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

For the umpteenth time:

If people want movie-like tracers with camera artifacts like wobble included there's nothing wrong with it and i'm sure there will be mods for that in a little while.

The stock tracers however should stick to how the human eye sees them and in that regard CoD's tracers are not perfect, but they are almost perfect. The only problem is that they are a bit too thick when they are close to you, nothing else.

I don't want to force everyone to play a game the way i like it and i don't want others to do the same to me. Stock tracers should be looking the real deal, modded tracers can be completely custom, everyone is happy in the long run.

I just don't want to have to suffer hollywood tracers in a sim that's made so much effort to display things they way the eye seems them, because it would mess with the consistency of the whole visual package. Hollywood tracers are perfect for WoP because it goes for the vignette, "band of brothers" style image: the whole package is consistent in what it tries to do.

CoD tries to do something else and completely do away with camera artifacts, so a single element displaying those would mess up the rest of the package through inconsistency.

I've been a flak gunner in the local airforce, fired 20mm cannons, G3 assault rifles and even .303 rounds (there's a few thousand of WWII Bren machine guns in brand spanking new condition in inventory) and CoD's tracers are much closer to what i saw on the range under all kinds of light conditions than anything else in any other prop sim thus far.

That doesn't mean you should like them, it just means it's realistic. If people want the hollywood effect they have the choice to mod their game and that's fine by me. I just don't want it to be forced on me, because after my time as a conscript it just looks completely fake and out of place with how the rest of the effects are done (shadows, lighting and so on) and this would detract from immersion.

I'm not saying WoP is not pretty to look at because it is, RoF is also very nice looking. They are just going for a different aesthetic approach than the one CoD is trying for, so i think their effects are out of place for CoD: it's like messing up your colour palette with colours from another one.
It would be the same as taking WoP or RoF and implementing a visual element from CoD, it would stick out like a sore thumb because it would be done with a totally different aesthetic approach than everything else.

I have to agree with the lack of tracer quality on the game. I have seen tracers fired in real world settings, I have shot them myself watching them go out. My first impression with these in the game was WTF? They look cheap, lazy, and ridiculous. They leave too fast, and appear to move in a perfectly straight line outward. No convergence what soever of ballistic drop. I tried aiming high at a bomber to ark and compensate for bullet drop....no need, they flew straight like lasers. I simply has to point and fire. Firing weapons my whole life including machine guns, I was puzzled and confused by the lack of balletic physics that appear in COD. Also, the tracers leave and at about 100 yards out and magically vanish into nothing. I hate to say it, but this is a sad excuse for tracers and seriously makes the game look as if they put something in for a temporary marker while testing and forgot to fix it.


I know a lot of you on here think they supposedly look "authentic", but having fired automatic weapons with tracers.....um, no...they look like crap and sound like crap.

Before I hear a bunch of fan boys trying to chastise me, I have been playing sims for over 20 years and am an avid support of maddox. I own the complete Il-2 series and have loved them, this is why I showed my support and bough a 50 dollar game with a POOR 2.0 average rating from all the user and professional critic reviews and websites. I figured they will work all this out, but some stuff is really bad. You have to call a spade a spade.

When I buy a new Il-2 game, and I find myself booting up 1946 to play when I have COD staring me on the shelf....yeah they really screwed the pooch. Hyper lobby if full of Il-2 hardcore gamers loading up 1946 despite the fact COD is out. That says a lot right there.