Frankly, these lasers...

[ATAG_Doc]

I wonder what it would be like to spend much of my time working on a product only to have nothing but complaining about it even though it isn't even available yet. Has to be very frustrating. My first reaction is to think well...go build your own.

[gonk]

Lets get Myth Busters on to it...LOL

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by Necrobaron

I've always thought it was humorous when people complain that these tracers look like Star Wars "lasers". What most don't consider is that the truth is the exact opposite. SW lasers look like tracers. It's no secret that the SW movies borrowed heavily from WWII aviation. Heck the cockpit of the Millenium Falcon is very similar to that of a B-29 and the famous TIE fighters are basically B-17/B-24 ballturrets with the MGs removed and vertical solar panels added. Most of the "space combat" sequences were inspired by or copied from old WWII aerial combat footage.

This is the whole point they don't get, if they are saying the tracers look like SW and CoD has them looking like SW which based them on WW2 tracer rounds then they are correct, the fact no one knows what a laser round looks like as they don't actually exist, the whole discussion is pointless.

I think they are more plasma looking



.

[Space Communist]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

This is the whole point they don't get, if they are saying the tracers look like SW and CoD has them looking like SW which based them on WW2 tracer rounds then they are correct, the fact no one knows what a laser round looks like as they don't actually exist, the whole discussion is pointless.

I think they are more plasma looking



.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUXXGbNS8oY

Here is an example of what a laser weapon would look like. While this is much lower power than anything that could really be used as a weapon, the visual would be similar. Lasers, particularly high-powered ones, are not normally visible as a beam. This is because the whole point of a laser is that the light does not scatter, therefore the only way to see the beam would be for it to be shot into your eye.

When laser beams are visualized it's because there is particulate matter in the air that scatters the beam. The flash of light you see when this one fires comes entirely from incandescence of the target, and possibly a bit of ionization of the air.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtxwT6PQIw8

here is an actual laser weapon test, again even with this powerful beam you do not see the beam itself, but only a bright spot on the UAV as the laser burns it.

Also of course there is no (perceptible) travel time for a laser beam, even if you could see the beam itself it would just be a perfectly straight line from the weapon to the target for the duration of discharge.

So long story short: I agree Star Wars looks a lot more like WWII than sci-fi :p

[Skoshi Tiger]

One of the big problems with representing tracers on a computer monitor is that they just can't display the light intensities required to do it accurately. Its the same as being dazzled by the sun and bright light sources. Our monitors just can't do it.

The funny thing is to do it correctly we'll probably have to wait till they make a laser projector that draws the images directly onto our retinas!

Cheers!

[Heliocon]

Well I am not military, but have seen plenty of gunfire etc. Like I said in an earlier thread, its a perspective problem. When firing or getting shot at from straight on they look more like dots, when parallel they are bars. But as someone else mentioned, it may just be these problems:
1. Tracer is too thick for daytime, at night when there is a dark background the tracer would "glow" brighter (although they look very distinct when you see them) versus in day you would see it radiating light as much (so in the pics it looks too thick, whether thats is actual geometry or just bad lighting effects I do not know.
2. It just looks alittle weird to see a tracer frozen in mid air like in the photos, they move so fast, at close range you can even track them with your eye.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by 266_sqn_lloyd

Ok here it is! I know exactly what he is referring to when he mentions these lasers.

Firstly, to those i know it all army gun ho gentlemen who say that this is all correct - then frankly your completely wrong - most of the time from the perspective of early Spitfires which did not use tracer rounds then you would not see anything apart from the actual hits i.e. smoke and maybe some combustion - only later models was there tracer and so on to point 2.

Secondly, tracer fire could be seen but because of the barrel twist all tracer round would be seen as a slight spiralling effect and not (straight elongated laser type effect.)

So point being yes he is correct that it looks wrong as they look like lasers, and two there would actually be vapour trails which they do not show.

And that’s final - no come back just do your research!!!!

Since you're getting a bit aggressive here with not much more than a "take it or leave it" attitude to back up your assessment, let me just say that my "research" involved firing dual 20mm Rheinmentall cannons very similar to the ones found on many German fighters of WWII. They shake, they kick up dust, they have quite a few moving parts and quite a lot of wiggle room for the barrels to vibrate (it's very perceptible, you can just grab the end of the barrel, give it a shake and you can see and feel it moving inside its mount) and still the tracers appear straight as an arrow.

The first time we fired them in training there was about 200 soldiers all going "wow, so that's what they really look like? nothing like the movies!" all at once.

I wish i had their phone numbers available so you could call them and have them confirm it for you one by one. Care to share what YOUR research is?

As for your comment on the Spitfires not using tracer ammo:
a) if it's not using tracers the point is already moot and
b) it's a load-out option in the game so you can do the same if you want to

You can like or not like the tracers, that's your opinion and i don't care enough to convince you otherwise. However, the same goes for my opinion and unless you're a qualified eye doctor who can prove me blind, i'll stand by what i saw with my own eyes in real life and not on some computer screen or TV.

It's perfectly fine to have your opinion and personal sense of taste in the matter, however that doesn't make your opinion somehow better, more realistic or factual unless you have some similar experience as a reference to compare to. No offence meant or taken either way, just trying to explain that if you want to convince those of us who've seen these things fly in real life you'll have to try much harder and provide some background of personal experience, a theory even loosely based on principles of physics/science or a credible reference.

[Magusfunk]

Hello,

As many others here i have also seen real tracers when i was under service at Finnish army. And one time when we got to shooting range at night really stuck to my mind. Lazers, red lazers everywhere. So to mee Olegs tracers arent far from the truth. Only thing is that in daylight they should not be as bright as they are in pictures imo. And they are little bit too thick for a machine gun rounds. Maybe for MK 108 or MG 151/20 those would be fine. But otherwise, fricking good job. And other thing what is bothering me is people fighting about them when the GAME has not even come out yet. So....

Magus

[The Kraken]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

Well I am not military, but have seen plenty of gunfire etc.

Real-life or videos...?

2. It just looks alittle weird to see a tracer frozen in mid air like in the photos, they move so fast, at close range you can even track them with your eye.

Indeed, even people who do have military experience have most likely not seen WW2 tracer ammo fired perpendicularly to them at close range - and if they have, they probably had better things to do than an appearance analysis

[winny]

Originally Posted by 266_sqn_lloyd

Ok here it is! I know exactly what he is referring to when he mentions these lasers.

Firstly, to those i know it all army gun ho gentlemen who say that this is all correct - then frankly your completely wrong - most of the time from the perspective of early Spitfires which did not use tracer rounds then you would not see anything apart from the actual hits i.e. smoke and maybe some combustion - only later models was there tracer and so on to point 2.

Secondly, tracer fire could be seen but because of the barrel twist all tracer round would be seen as a slight spiralling effect and not (straight elongated laser type effect.)

So point being yes he is correct that it looks wrong as they look like lasers, and two there would actually be vapour trails which they do not show.

And that’s final - no come back just do your research!!!!

Bold statement, partly correct (as in the use of 'flame tracers' was limited in the BoB RAF wise)...

3 types of tracer were available (I keep repeating this sorry..)
2 were flame tracer one was smoke tracer. (is this what you're refering too when you say vapour trails?) I've never seen any footage of vapour trails being left by bullets.

Depending on your viewpoint the flame tracers would either look like bars of light (to the side) or dots of light (from directly behind).

If anyone would care to actually think about what they see every day they would soon realise that light from very bright objects streaks when moving. I can move an led torch in circles rapidly to make one continuous circle. In daylight. To say that bright objects moving fast don't streak is the exact opposite of what actually happens.