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

Originally Posted by Upthair

Just found a picture roughly to illustrate that the vibration varies at different parts of the fighter:



The wing is in a sense like the long ruler, and the table the fuselage, since the mass of the fuselage is much, much larger than that of the wing. (There is a bit of physics omitted here.) Please pay attention to the magnitude of vibrations at different parts of the ruler. In fact the woman's right hand and the table also vibrate - negligibly to the human eye.

And the human body is soft to a certain extent; in particular, the soft tissues between consecutive bones of the spine are just for absorbing vibrations coming from the bottom or legs to the head or brain. That's why the head shakes even less than the seat if the seat (fastened into the fuselage) ever shakes slightly.

~~

Have you guys made a quick search " tracers" on this forum ?
Actually, I should say: guys, obviously, you didnt make a search....

This subject has been debated for months and the conclusions are those:
Actual tracers in COD are not good enough yet and real pilots didnt see any wiggling when firing their guns...
You have 3 choices now : Trust a senior member that has been debating this subject more then too much, or, make a damn search for yourselves, or ,continue debating forever because you wont be able to prove any of what you say....Whatever you say.

I only watch this thread in the hope that someone educated will come up with something tangible...Until now, the Banana tracer is the best we have....

Salute !

[Mr Logic]

I have it on good authority that bananas grow on trees and bear no relation whatsoever to bullets from a gun.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Upthair

Just found a picture roughly to illustrate that the vibration varies at different parts of the fighter:



The wing is in a sense like the long ruler, and the table the fuselage, since the mass of the fuselage is much, much larger than that of the wing. (There is a bit of physics omitted here.) Please pay attention to the magnitude of vibrations at different parts of the ruler. In fact the woman's right hand and the table also vibrate - negligibly to the human eye.

And the human body is soft to a certain extent; in particular, the soft tissues between consecutive bones of the spine are just for absorbing vibrations coming from the bottom or legs to the head or brain. That's why the head shakes even less than the seat if the seat (fastened into the fuselage) ever shakes slightly.

~~

The vibration you're talking about is absolutely out of scale and wrong.

When you shoot with a machine gun it doesn't rumble or vibrate, it just had one major force vector (which we can call "recoil") that pushes in the opposite direction of the bullet direction. So, Imagining the CoG of the plane as your pivot, the plane would rotate backward on its yaw axis because of recoil, only to be compensated by the other machineguns on the opposite wing and the plane movement vector. As a consequence you can get a flicker on the yaw axis, which varies in its amplitude and frequency according to the guns you're shooting with. The recoils though won't be enough in terms of vector strength or frequency to cause vision blur or flickering like you see in guncameras, but I can tell you that there are other vibrations that can.

I was in a Cessna Caravan which had a prop governor failure, with one of the props going straight into feathering: the vibration and frequency were so intense that the whole world went blurry and your could hear your skull bones rattle! Not a nice experience! It was a second, just the time to switch the engine off, but man the engine could have easily come off its mount!!

Originally Posted by Mr Logic

I have it on good authority that bananas grow on trees and bear no relation whatsoever to bullets from a gun.

Yeah man...Can you prove it ?

Salute !

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

The vibration you're talking about is absolutely out of scale and wrong.

When you shoot with a machine gun it doesn't rumble or vibrate, it just had one major force vector (which we can call "recoil") that pushes in the opposite direction of the bullet direction. So, Imagining the CoG of the plane as your pivot, the plane would rotate backward on its yaw axis because of recoil, only to be compensated by the other machineguns on the opposite wing and the plane movement vector. As a consequence you can get a flicker on the yaw axis, which varies in its amplitude and frequency according to the guns you're shooting with. The recoils though won't be enough in terms of vector strength or frequency to cause vision blur or flickering like you see in guncameras, but I can tell you that there are other vibrations that can.

I was in a Cessna Caravan which had a prop governor failure, with one of the props going straight into feathering: the vibration and frequency were so intense that the whole world went blurry and your could hear your skull bones rattle! Not a nice experience! It was a second, just the time to switch the engine off, but man the engine could have easily come off its mount!!

Interesting...Really...Can you prove with referenced scientific documentation what you are describing in your thread ?



Salute ?

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by kalimba

Interesting...Really...Can you prove with referenced scientific documentation what you are describing in your thread ?



Salute ?

I believe there is no scientific documentation at hand (or maybe there is, but I don't know of it), truth is that if you studied some physics at school you might understand why what I am saying makes sense and what you are saying doesn't. I swear that if I had some time though I would write it down neatly with all the vectors and formulas (which you might not understand anyway.. have u ever studied any dynamics at school?), this just for the sake of science of course. We're here to share knowledge and experience, not to waste anybody's time.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I believe there is no scientific documentation at hand (or maybe there is, but I don't know of it), truth is that if you studied some physics at school you might understand why what I am saying makes sense and what you are saying doesn't. I swear that if I had some time though I would write it down neatly with all the vectors and formulas (which you might not understand anyway.. have u ever studied any dynamics at school?), this just for the sake of science of course. We're here to share knowledge and experience, not to waste anybody's time.

Well, everybody knows that tracers do not wiggle.
By your own words, those who think so are non-educated people.
If you consider that proving with facts your " knowledge and experience" is wasting people's time, you should call your thread " my personnal opinions".

Oh, by the way, my first reply was , of course, a joke, since most of our dicussions are sterile and useless since we CANT prove anything we say by any simple means...And I still cant find what is that I wrote that doent make sense...

Salute !

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by kalimba

Well, everybody knows that tracers do not wiggle.
By your own words, those who think so are non-educated people.
If you consider that proving with facts your " knowledge and experience" is wasting people's time, you should call your thread " my personnal opinions".

I believe you misinterpreted my post. I KNOW for a fact that my point is right, I don't need to demonstrate it to myself, and so the guys at Maddox games know, cos they're skilled people. If it was the opposite, then I would do my best to prove my point. If people don't believe me or them it's not my problem, I wish I had more time to explain them things in detail, unfortunately I don't, so it's either "you better believe me man, cos I know what I am talking about" or "oh well, tough luck..".

Oh, by the way, my first reply was , of course, a joke, since most of our dicussions are sterile and useless since we CANT prove anything we say by any simple means...And I still cant find what is that I wrote that doent make sense...

Salute !

It's ever so hard to tell jokes from the truth in these forums, maybe we should use tags. I don't know whether your discussions might be sterile and useless, but I know that I like to think of my technical contribution as knowledgeable, fact-based and generally correct.

Your example doesn't make sense because the elastic oscillation of a ruler, which goes UP and DOWN, as nothing to do with the yaw oscillation, which a) is not structural b) is not that intense.

Hope this helps understanding things better.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I believe you misinterpreted my post. I KNOW for a fact that my point is right, I don't need to demonstrate it to myself, and so the guys at Maddox games know, cos they're skilled people. If it was the opposite, then I would do my best to prove my point. If people don't believe me or them it's not my problem, I wish I had more time to explain them things in detail, unfortunately I don't, so it's either "you better believe me man, cos I know what I am talking about" or "oh well, tough luck..".



It's ever so hard to tell jokes from the truth in these forums, maybe we should use tags. I don't know whether your discussions might be sterile and useless, but

Your example doesn't make sense because the elastic oscillation of a ruler, which goes UP and DOWN, as nothing to do with the yaw oscillation, which a) is not structural b) is not that intense.

Hope this helps understanding things better.

Haha...Good one...So if YOU and Maddox KNOW you are right , and you still dont care what other people think, why bother writing these posts ?

ANd why start any discussion when you go : I know that I like to think of my technical contribution as knowledgeable, fact-based and generally correct. Is there any room for discussion or you are only generously sharing your
omnipotent knowledge ?

And by the way, since our discussion began with my smarta$$ joking reply,
I just want to tell you that you were soooooooo preoccupied by your flawless humble reputation that you missed something here...I am not the one you were trying to educate about laws of physics and "elastic oscillation"...Wrong guy, wrong response mate...

Salute !

[Horizon02]

I've yet to see anyone take into account two things, though I could have missed a post in all the drama:

1. The wing and aircraft vibrates. That doesn't cause the tracer to wiggle or vibrate, but it DOES cause the CAMERA to do so. Any effect such as this seen in video of any era is probably due to the camera vibrating. Not the tracers.

2. Cameras in the early 40s and through the late 50s did not shoot the same frame-rate or with the same consistency that cameras now do. Very many an effect of number of tracers scene, their fade ins or outs, and speed have a great much to do with the framerate, consistency/reliability of the primitive cameras used aboard the aircraft in trying and high-mechanical stress situations.

I see a lot of folks whining about tracers not looking like they do in movies or guncam clips.

Well...it's not a photo-realistic game yet. It's close, but it's not there.

However, it isn't going to look exactly like a movie, because even a movie camera can be made to have that jiggling effect to look familiar to folks, and if you really wanted lighting that looked realistic, don't go by cameras. They have filters and lenses that cause lighting that your eye perceives differently. Glows and fade outs in movies could be more noticeable without being larger or brighter, to the naked eye as opposed to film.

So the question stands is, What do you expect from a video game based on a computer-graphics engine as opposed to real-life? Do you think perhaps the fact that the video game doesn't make your entire field of vision vibrate like a jostling camera at low framerate is a bad thing? Perhaps the fact that no matter the game is 3-d rendered, it's still coming at you from a 2-d screen, and thus glow effects and other real-life eye effects simply cannot ever be rendered in a truly compelling fashion unless shot by a real camera and somehow spliced in?

Things to think about while you pretend to have been an actual combate pilot in WWII and thus know exactly what tracers looked like with your naked eye in the pit during a real fight. You guys have a pretty stellar game. Don't get too caught up in itty-bitty details of reality you'll never achieve with computer graphics for another few years...

...Look at games like Crysis, for example. Even their fire effects and sparks and the like are not truly realistic looking.

With all the high technology around here, you kids have forgotten how to have 'Suspension of Disbelief" and use your imagination while playing the game. You'd have never lasted playing "Aces over Europe." Haha!