New Tracers

[choctaw111]

This is NOT a thread to argue about new tracers vs the old ones.
Since I am not able to run CoD very well on my rig I am asking for someone to show photos and/or video of the new ones. Even better if you can show new and old to view the differences in the two.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by choctaw111

This is NOT a thread to argue about new tracers vs the old ones.
Since I am not able to run CoD very well on my rig I am asking for someone to show photos and/or video of the new ones. Even better if you can show new and old to view the differences in the two.

Well, I do not have a video here, but what are your system specs?

[senseispcc]

.
Sorry I tried to take pictures of the mew tracers but the printscreen does not work in the records with the new patch, first time I try it, strange.
This is a picture of the old tracers if someone as a picture of the new one;
http://s13.postimage.org/xjwvjc5rr/target.png
This are the new tracers;
http://postimage.org/image/r3fn4igc3/full/

I don't know about either representation, really. It seems to me that the whole "streaking" tracer thing is a function of film characteristics, that not only streaks the hotspot on the film but the burn-in enlarges it a small amount due to film local over-exposure. Whenever I've fired tracers all I ever see is a dot flying along. I think it would be a whole lot more "realistic" to just show those small dots.

I'm on vacation ... WOOHOO.

[choctaw111]

Originally Posted by zipper

I don't know about either representation, really. It seems to me that the whole "streaking" tracer thing is a function of film characteristics, that not only streaks the hotspot on the film but the burn-in enlarges it a small amount due to film local over-exposure. Whenever I've fired tracers all I ever see is a dot flying along. I think it would be a whole lot more "realistic" to just show those small dots.

I'm on vacation ... WOOHOO.

I have fired quite a few tracers also and after hearing what different people have to say about describing their appearance, I have to believe that people actually see the same thing differently. My eyes have a lower "fps" than others.
Joe DiMaggio could actually see where his bat made contact with a spinning baseball that he hit. He would most certainly have seen tracers as dots.
Also consider that as the firer, we would see tracers from directly behind so they would appear as glowing dots but the further you move you viewpoint to the side they would start appear more as streaks.
I do not want to start a flame war here, I am just curious in the differences between the new tracers and the old.

Oh, my systems specs are:
WinXP32
QX6700@2.66
8800GTX
Stryker Xtreme Mobo
4 Gigs Ram (3.25 useable)
and some other odds and ends

[Strike]

Originally Posted by choctaw111

I have fired quite a few tracers...

Hi choc!

Yes I believe you have fired the most of the available tracers.

I have fired 7,62x51 with the HK AG-3 at night and my experience was that from my point of view they appear as dots, rising a little at first then dropping past the convergence setting. (The AG-3 fires slightly upward to meet center of my sights at 200m range then drops off after that. Lethal range estimated at 4500m iirc ).

However, back to the point, when staring at my squadmates tracers on my flanks they appear as streaks until about 100-150 m down range then the offset angle is so small that they too appear as dots.

Then as they touch the ground and start bouncing the lenght depends on the velocity and direction of the ricochet.

This is exactly how they are in CloD now and shooting at stuff in the air seems very close to what guncams often display. (except the guncam shows wobble which is inaccurate compared to the human eye because the camera shakes - point is: spot on.).

I've also been shot at (10 m above me) during an exercise crawling/running across an open field under MG-3 fire. I seem to recall them looking more like starwars "lasers" then (appear as about 5-10 M long streaks). This was because I was even further offset from the firing direction and the distance between me and the tracers made them "zip" by.

In reality tracers are just like a laser-pointer. If you point it steady on the wall, it looks like a dot. If you move it in circles, the light is still a dot, but it APPEARS like a circle. If you draw a line really fast, then you have the "tracer" effect.

It's all down to your eyes "shutter speed" and relative movement of the object.

Either way, in my honest opinion the tracers are now realistic and look the part. Shooting at an angle at ground targets or ships looks extremely realistic and believable and is easily comparable to my personal experiences with tracer munitions.

Yup

[mazex]

Originally Posted by Strike

I have fired 7,62x51 with the HK AG-3 at night and my experience was that from my point of view they appear as dots, rising a little at first then dropping past the convergence setting. (The AG-3 fires slightly upward to meet center of my sights at 200m range then drops off after that. Lethal range estimated at 4500m iirc ).

Just for the sake of it I used the HK G3 in the Swedish army a lot too - with tracers at night etc that looked just as you decribe them -tiny glowing dots popping away in the dark, no camera shutter "error lines".

But regarding the bullet path - the G3 fires the bullet in a path that passes the sight line at 30 meters when you use the 200 meter sight and then passes the top between 30 and 200 after it "falls" back to the sight line again at 200 meters. I think it is 17 cm above the sight line at 120 meters or so. May not sound that important but as the minimum sight distance of the G3 is 200 meters it may be good to know that if firing at targets at around 100 meters which is a "common range" you have to aim some 15 cm below the intended target or it will go high... If shooting at 500 meters with a G3 which is the maximum range of the iron sights the bullet is 90 cm over the sight line at 250 meters!

I remember that as we used the 200 meter setting and fired at targets 30 meters away to calibrate the sights... If it hits dead on at 30 meters it will do that at 200 meters too, and it's less walking up to patch the targets

[Strike]

Originally Posted by mazex

Just for the sake of it The G3 fires the bullet in a path that passes the sight line at 30 meters when you use the 200 meter sight and then passes the top between 30 and 200 after it "falls" back to the sight line again at 200 meters.

Ah hence the IIRC in my post :p. You are indeed right, I remember it now. We have too little time on the range in the airforce Since last time we've aquired the 416 and Mp7 and I havn't seen any of them yet :p (btw don't think about invading Norway, we may not be able to defend ourselves, but you will get killed on our horrible roads and drown in the fjords.)

[choctaw111]

Thanks for the replies fellas.
Strike, it is good to hear from you.
It has been too long.
You should hit me up on facebook.
I haven't checked out your photos in a while and I have been putting up some good ones lately.
I am still interested in seeing a video of the new tracers. I would love to see them for myself as I cannot get CloD to run well on my system. Time for a new rig...eventually.
I am finally getting a snowblower for my tractor (almost 5 grand). In Northern Maine it is necessary and worth the price. In SE Pennsylvania it wasn't so much of a priority.
Anyway, that is where the money is going right now.

[FS~Phat]

I just made this quick video in Adobe Premier Pro to show side by side the difference in the tracers.

IL2 COD Tracers 18301 beta vs 15950 official
Beta Left Panel Official Right Panel
Notice contrast is better in the newer beta (left) and tracer viewing distance is increased.
That and the dimmer gun flash effects is about the only difference I see.
(and the obvious missing clouds)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMTgxp1ylJo