Friday 2010-10-29 Dev. update and Discussion

[Sutts]

In terms of tracer smoke, there is no doubt in my mind that certain .303 tracer rounds did emit smoke trails. The following is quite a well known picture of the RAF attacking an He111 formation. I've seen it as a film before but could only find this still image today.

Look closely and you'll see multiple parallel smoke trails produced by a bank of 303s belonging to a Spitfire or Hurricane. You can see more trails on the He111 itself where the rounds of another plane are finding the target.

While I agree that things like spirals and zig-zags are most likely artifacts created by camera wobble etc., the camera cannot create a smoke trail if it wasn't there.

If Oleg chooses to model a type that didn't emit smoke then that's fine by me. This is just intended to counter the old argument that .303 tracers never smoked.

[Sutts]

Originally Posted by Sutts

In terms of tracer smoke, there is no doubt in my mind that certain .303 tracer rounds did emit smoke trails. The following is quite a well known picture of the RAF attacking an He111 formation. I've seen it as a film before but could only find this still image today.

Look closely and you'll see multiple parallel smoke trails produced by a bank of 303s belonging to a Spitfire or Hurricane. You can see more trails on the He111 itself where the rounds of another plane are finding the target.

While I agree that things like spirals and zig-zags are most likely artifacts created by camera wobble etc., the camera cannot create a smoke trail if it wasn't there.

If Oleg chooses to model a type that didn't emit smoke then that's fine by me. This is just intended to counter the old argument that .303 tracers never smoked.

I've been searching but I still can't find the film behind this still shot. I've definitely seen it on a number of occasions. Can anyone help please?

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Sutts

If Oleg chooses to model a type that didn't emit smoke then that's fine by me. This is just intended to counter the old argument that .303 tracers never smoked.

Firstly, I think that Oleg was saying that they have many types of round modelled but not yet applied, so what we are seeing is not the real thing.

Secondly, I would be disappointed if smoke wasn't shown because it's pretty clear that smoke does occur whether it be from the round itself or the atmosphere. One of the biggest difficulties I have found in IL2 is to know where you are firing with .50cal and lower, the addition of the Holy Grail and Potenz effect pack was possibly the best mod ever produced imho and if you have ever looked at the comparison videos on you tube (I posted one in a previous thread before) you will see the similarities.
Other effects I would like to see are tracer rounds bouncing off the sea, land and targets at various angles - this is very clear in a lot of the USAAF ground attack footage from P-47s

[=XIII=Shea]

Looks fantastic,thanks oleg

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Firstly, I think that Oleg was saying that they have many types of round modelled but not yet applied, so what we are seeing is not the real thing.

Secondly, I would be disappointed if smoke wasn't shown because it's pretty clear that smoke does occur whether it be from the round itself or the atmosphere. One of the biggest difficulties I have found in IL2 is to know where you are firing with .50cal and lower, the addition of the Holy Grail and Potenz effect pack was possibly the best mod ever produced imho and if you have ever looked at the comparison videos on you tube (I posted one in a previous thread before) you will see the similarities.
Other effects I would like to see are tracer rounds bouncing off the sea, land and targets at various angles - this is very clear in a lot of the USAAF ground attack footage from P-47s

Luthier posted a request several months back for ballistics information about how rounds ricocheted off water!! They apparently already had the land ricochets sorted, but were looking for accurate info to programme water ricochets.

Oleg has said this regarding the tracers:

Originally Posted by philip.ed
Very nice video Oleg!

But with the RAF tracer, in gun-cam films I've seen, the tracer has had smoke-trails which are missing from SoW. Will these be added? I think it really adds to the immersion.

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox

We have many different various... Just to be sure the traces modeling is according war time document's descrition of the bullets(with its construction, type of traces, color lighting etc). Orignal UK doc. Same for Germans

Originally Posted by IceFire
Oleg I have one question: I've noticed that the British .303 tracers we've seen so far in video and elsewhere are white. Was this really the case? Just development? I thought most of the British/American guns fired red tracers... This was the case in IL-2 but also what I had previous read.

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox

They are different depending of the type of the bullets with tracers and the year of use.

Think we can take from this that there will be various types modelled, including presumably, those with smoke trails.

Also, some of the film people have provided showing various tracers are not very useful - one had so much editing that it was completely useless as a reference - Spits turned into Hurricanes, presence of FW190s indicated film shot later than 1940, clips of what I think were Hurri 2C's (?), etc.

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by kendo65

Luthier posted a request several months back for ballistics information about how rounds ricocheted off water!! They apparently already had the land ricochets sorted, but were looking for accurate info to programme water ricochets.

Rise of Flight showed the new 1.016 engine with ricochets of tracers and rockets ... very nice!

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

Cheers,
Insuber

[philip.ed]

Just a bit of sarcasm.

really, the subliminal point is the difference it makes from an eye-witness perspective to either recorded 'fact' or photos/videos.
As much as eye-witness accounts are great, on the surface they aren't wholly credible. I mean, a pilot could exaggerate to great lengths about events, and certainly a pilot never sat in the cockpit and said 'right, I need to remember what these tracers look like just for future reference'.
Having said that, I'm sure they would remember, and if you read any account on the battle, the pilots may explain the tracers with detail. I wish I could remember the pilot, but I have a distinct memory of ann account/book I read where the pilot went into detail about the de-wilde ammunition and how the tracers look. I think I can recall him mention the smoke-trails from the tracer, but I can't give a quote as I can't remember who the chap was.

As for photos and videos, well the old argument that they don't record what the eye sees holds a lot of water. Take anything like that with a pinch of salt really.

And fact? Well, who are we to judge? Until someone does a full test on the different types of ammunition and tracer, we won't know for certain. But certainly Air-Ministry AP's are helpful and so are pilot accounts, and lastly photos and videos.

But no, I did not fight in the war but then I would never attempt to justifiy that I did. and me saying 'I was' is not me trying to lead you on.

However, Tim Elkington, a famous BoB Hurricane pilot, posts (infrequently) at the a2a forums in the BoB2 section, and some of his posts really are illuminating. I'm sure if any one here who has an account there, or wishes to make one, posed the question regarding tracers (or anything similar) Tim may be able to offer a nice explanation. He does some RAF events as well, and i have always wanted to try to go to one to have a chat with him.

[Freycinet]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

Just a bit of sarcasm.

really, the subliminal point is the difference it makes from an eye-witness perspective to either recorded 'fact' or photos/videos.
As much as eye-witness accounts are great, on the surface they aren't wholly credible. I mean, a pilot could exaggerate to great lengths about events, and certainly a pilot never sat in the cockpit and said 'right, I need to remember what these tracers look like just for future reference'.
Having said that, I'm sure they would remember, and if you read any account on the battle, the pilots may explain the tracers with detail. I wish I could remember the pilot, but I have a distinct memory of ann account/book I read where the pilot went into detail about the de-wilde ammunition and how the tracers look. I think I can recall him mention the smoke-trails from the tracer, but I can't give a quote as I can't remember who the chap was.

As for photos and videos, well the old argument that they don't record what the eye sees holds a lot of water. Take anything like that with a pinch of salt really.

And fact? Well, who are we to judge? Until someone does a full test on the different types of ammunition and tracer, we won't know for certain. But certainly Air-Ministry AP's are helpful and so are pilot accounts, and lastly photos and videos.

But no, I did not fight in the war but then I would never attempt to justifiy that I did. and me saying 'I was' is not me trying to lead you on.

However, Tim Elkington, a famous BoB Hurricane pilot, posts (infrequently) at the a2a forums in the BoB2 section, and some of his posts really are illuminating. I'm sure if any one here who has an account there, or wishes to make one, posed the question regarding tracers (or anything similar) Tim may be able to offer a nice explanation. He does some RAF events as well, and i have always wanted to try to go to one to have a chat with him.

All your talking cannot hide the fact that you tried to pretend you fought in uniform. Where I come from that is deeply offensive. Some things cannot be relativized, no matter how much you try.

Yes, I know Tim Elkington from the forums. But just because I read his postings I don't confuse myself with him. I wonder what he'd think about a chat with someone who tries to pass himself off as a veteran.

[Splitter]

I understand your point if someone was really trying to pass themselves off as having served but I honestly saw the original posting as a joke. A sarcastic "nahnah nah nahnah" if you will .

Splitter

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by Freycinet

All your talking cannot hide the fact that you tried to pretend you fought in uniform. Where I come from that is deeply offensive. Some things cannot be relativized, no matter how much you try.

Yes, I know Tim Elkington from the forums. But just because I read his postings I don't confuse myself with him. I wonder what he'd think about a chat with someone who tries to pass himself off as a veteran.

Sorry, but I really think you are over-reacting. Philip's comment was obviously sarcastic, tongue in cheek - maybe ill-advised, but to build it into some calculated insult to real wartime veterans is ridiculous.