For the Guys who call the visual damage in BoS "Hollywood-Effects"..

[II./JG77_Manu*]

I have (more or less always the same) people seen in multiple threads, screaming about the "unrealistic hollywood fires" and other accusations in this direction. Well.. maybe this gunfootage will correct your opinion about this very issue a little.

Note 1: You see only american gunfootage, shooting with .50 cal. So no cannons, who deal a lot more damage then these

Note 2: You see only late-war planes shot at (late 109, late 190, a few others). They had significantly more armor then the mid-war stuff, not even to mention the wooden russian planes.

Just watch the video till the end   (and fade out this mad propaganda-commentator   )

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLxI6kW7bFU

 

Ps: There are a whole lot really bad shooters, especially the one at 6:06

Edited November 8, 2014 by Celestiale

[Lensman]

Very interesting.

 

1. You're right.

2. The pilot attacking the train (presumably in a P51) who comes in almost THROUGH the trees was either mad or spectacular!

3. Tracer was MUCH easier to see than in BOS ... and I don't think it's a trick of the camera.

4. 99% of the audio was added in post (as you all know).

5. An Me163 is not powered by a jet engine (they half corrected it).

6. Don't get TOO close. You'll miss.

7. Don't forget you're watching men die some of the time, it's not all entertainment.

Edited November 8, 2014 by Lensman

[Y-29.Silky]

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxgkXxa9c3s
 
Agreed, for air and ground. Except for trains, because those should explode like hell on earth but only, if it's carrying armaments like it was in Clod, and in real life, if you hit it in the right spot. Haven't seen it in BoS yet.
.. But my goodness, thos 1940 voices are badass

[Georgio]

Just shows how .50 cals are all you need tbh, they're fast, they hit like a truck and you can pack a lot more than cannon rounds.

[FlatSpinMan]

Jeeeez they got close on some of those shots, didn't they The jet scenes were really nteresting to see. I actually muted the audio as it was so distracting. Did they say where the footage of the 262 came from? It didn't look like guncam.

 

Did anyone else find themselves trying to tighten the turn and nail the bandits while watching?

[Russkly]

Ah, isn't that a Mosquito at 1:10?!!!

 

Also interesting to see how clear to see the bullet strikes are.  Did the USAAF use explosive rounds for the .50 cals or were these just normal rounds?

 

And, yeah, the pilot at 6:06 almost makes me feel good about myself!  Don't think his guns were synchronised to 50m.

 

R

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Very interesting.

 

1. You're right.

2. The pilot attacking the train (presumably in a P51) who comes in almost THROUGH the trees was either mad or spectacular!

3. Tracer was MUCH easier to see than in BOS ... and I don't think it's a trick of the camera.

4. 99% of the audio was added in post (as you all know).

5. An Me163 is not powered by a jet engine (they half corrected it).

6. Don't get TOO close. You'll miss.

7. Don't forget you're watching men die some of the time, it's not all entertainment.

 

everything right. you forgot 8. -->poor mosquito, got shot down by fellow allied plane (but this plane really can take some damage)

 

Just shows how .50 cals are all you need tbh, they're fast, they hit like a truck and you can pack a lot more than cannon rounds.

 

i would absolutely love to get them modeled with the BoS engine. Would be uber-awesome. Desperately hope for a p40 soon..

 

 

Jeeeez they got close on some of those shots, didn't they The jet scenes were really nteresting to see. I actually muted the audio as it was so distracting. Did they say where the footage of the 262 came from? It didn't look like guncam.

 

Did anyone else find themselves trying to tighten the turn and nail the bandits while watching? 

they have several footage at buyoutfootage.com,gun cam, and also filmmaker videos, but very very expensive that stuff 

 

Ah, isn't that a Mosquito at 1:10?!!!

 

Also interesting to see how clear to see the bullet strikes are.  Did the USAAF use explosive rounds for the .50 cals or were these just normal rounds?

 

And, yeah, the pilot at 6:06 almost makes me feel good about myself!  Don't think his guns were synchronised to 50m.

 

R

yep, poor mosquito. It wasn't the only one shot down by americans..

[Leaf]

I think the term "hollywood effect" is very vague; it's basically synonymous with "lots of fire and explosions", which in war is a fairly common occurrence.

 

I do think the effects need some tweaking though:

 

Fuel seems a bit too opaque and doesn't seem to run out, it just keeps leaking. Given the size of the fuel vapour trail in BoS, it should run out fairly quickly. In an ideal world, there would also be trails of various shapes and sizes.

 

Engine oil should not produce such a thick, dispersed trail. It should be thinner, due to the higher viscosity. (see CloD's effect)

 

The fire effects are excellent, but the smoke disperses too quickly. If you've ever set fire to, say, rubber, you'll know that the smoke just hangs in the air, taking a while to disperse. The same applies to burning aircraft.

 

 

Generally, smoke in BoS doesn't seem "wispy" enough (for lack of a better term), it just looks like a thick trail unaffected by turbulence. Also, a bit of variety in the effects wouldn't go amiss. 

[Rjel]

It kind of irks me to see someone trying to sell that stuff. The truly wasn't much HD about it.  All of it is available from other sources also. Youtube has a ton of it as does the Internet Archives.

[FlatSpinMan]

Good point.

[LeLv76_Erkki]

--

 

 

3. Tracer was MUCH easier to see than in BOS ... and I don't think it's a trick of the camera.

 

 

The old films are/were much more sensitive to IR light near the visible wavelengths than naked eye. So that is most probably only partially true, at best. Tracer visibility things have been "discussed" to death about two hundred times since year 2000.

[-NW-ChiefRedCloud]

The 163 being rocket powered is fast and small, i.e. hard to hit. But it is extremely limited on fuel and in the footage it's clearly gliding back to earth and being staffed/vulched (couldn't help myself there guys) on the ground.

 

Any unrealistic visuals, under or over, have to be balanced out. Both for realism and to please certain venues of the public.

 

Chief

[SKG51_robtek]

I think the term "Hollywood effects" are linked to the rather too often happening fires and separating wings and fuselages in BoS, which the video quite nicely proofed.

[Jaws2002]

Cherry picked footage is just that. Cherry picked footage.

They made that video with footage they thought would sell.

The thick black smoke and frequency it happens in BOS, is Hollywood stuff.

[HeavyCavalrySgt]

 

2. The pilot attacking the train (presumably in a P51) who comes in almost THROUGH the trees was either mad or spectacular!

 

 

That was pretty amazing.  I wonder if he came back with some foliage on his airplane.

 

 

Also interesting to see how clear to see the bullet strikes are.  Did the USAAF use explosive rounds for the .50 cals or were these just normal rounds?

 

 

Even .50 ball ammo makes a pretty big splash when it hits something hard - you can see it in full daylight, and at night it is bright enough to be distracting.  I would imagine these guys were using at least some API or API-T in their belts.

 

 

The 163 being rocket powered is fast and small, i.e. hard to hit. But it is extremely limited on fuel and in the footage it's clearly gliding back to earth and being staffed/vulched (couldn't help myself there guys) on the ground.

 

Any unrealistic visuals, under or over, have to be balanced out. Both for realism and to please certain venues of the public.

 

Chief

 

Yeah, I thought that was interesting, and also that some of the aircraft didn't appear to maneuver much even after they had been hit.  For the -163s I am guessing that rearward viability was not a strong point, so he may not have known he was being followed until he got hit, not that he would have had much energy to maneuver with compared to something that had an engine...

 

Still, I can see shooting at the -163s after rocket burnout.  They might be a glider then, but the next day they would probably be refueled and operational and ready to attack another bomber formation. 

[-NW-ChiefRedCloud]

Sgt your correct in that he has little to no rear ward view but the thing about the 163 is that after all it's fuel is gone it is nothing more than a stubby winged unpowered glider. Or a BIG clay pigeon .... nothing more. Now if by some weird chance it has some ammo left and you ran directly in front of it, you might get a surprise. But other wise it was a flying death trap.

 

Chief

[Rjel]

In regards to the planes not maneuvering after the first hits, I've always wondered if getting hit so stunned some pilots they went into a state of shock and were unable to react. Too we only see the planes getting hit. How many times did the pilot get hit in that first burst of fire?

 

Look at this guys Youtube for a more balanced view of guncam. Its free too. He has posted a ton of "everyday" guncam that isn't just spectacular explosions or wings tearing off.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=pj36Tuhy3UE

Edited November 8, 2014 by Rjel

[SKG51_robtek]

In regards to the planes not maneuvering after the first hits, I've always wondered if getting hit so stunned some pilots they went into a state of shock and were unable to react. Too we only see the planes getting hit. How many times did the pilot get hit in that first burst of fire?

 

Look at this guys Youtube for a more balanced view of guncam. Its free too. He has posted a ton of "everyday" guncam that isn't just spectacular explosions or wings tearing off.

If the pilot wasn't already hit he was probably busy preparing the bailout, releasing harness, oxygen, radio before jettisoning the canopy.

And even the cherry picked guncams did more to proof the hollywood effects in BoS then to disproof them.

[HagarTheHorrible]

Trying to get an idea about what is realistic from guncam footage is a bit silly.

 

It's silly because you only watch the selected footage and not ALL the footage. That footage will only show the most interesting stuff, not the mundane, visually uninteresting, probably normal run of the mill stuff. It would be like making a value judgment about football by watching the goal highlights shown on TV later that evening.

[SKG51_robtek]

Here are more highlights, looking rather non hollywood style.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jtxg3kO7LQ

[II./JG77_Manu*]

I think the term "hollywood effect" is very vague; it's basically synonymous with "lots of fire and explosions", which in war is a fairly common occurrence.

 

I do think the effects need some tweaking though:

 

Fuel seems a bit too opaque and doesn't seem to run out, it just keeps leaking. Given the size of the fuel vapour trail in BoS, it should run out fairly quickly. In an ideal world, there would also be trails of various shapes and sizes.

 

Engine oil should not produce such a thick, dispersed trail. It should be thinner, due to the higher viscosity. (see CloD's effect)

 

The fire effects are excellent, but the smoke disperses too quickly. If you've ever set fire to, say, rubber, you'll know that the smoke just hangs in the air, taking a while to disperse. The same applies to burning aircraft.

 

 

Generally, smoke in BoS doesn't seem "wispy" enough (for lack of a better term), it just looks like a thick trail unaffected by turbulence. Also, a bit of variety in the effects wouldn't go amiss. 

 

fully agree with you. I like the fire effects itself, too. But i think what is still missing, are some proper explosions like on 0:30 or 8:48. Unfortunately, you can't see those in the game right now.

[Sokol1]

External fuel tanks exploding... You want more "Hollywood". 

Edited November 8, 2014 by Sokol1

[Emgy]

 

i would absolutely love to get them modeled with the BoS engine. Would be uber-awesome. Desperately hope for a p40 soon..

 

Not so different from the UB 12.7 we have in game, apart from a lower rate of fire.

Edited November 8, 2014 by Calvamos

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Not so different from the UB 12.7 we have in game. Lower rate of fire.

 

yeah "little" difference between 1 and 6

[Elbows]

I think we see a lot more damage in BoS also because we likely expend far more ammunition, and likely get more hits on target than a comparable real-life pilot.  I do think the DM could be more interesting though as it tends to become one of a few canned results.  When a plane catches fire or begins smoking I'd like to see the big initial burst/swirl of smoke when it starts etc.  I'd also like to see wings break off in different areas as opposed to very static simple "here is where the wing breaks" model we have.

 

I agree with whispier(?) smoke as well.  Also, I almost never get injured when shot down as a pilot...I mean none of the rounds ever strike me (sometimes I do burn to death).  I hope the DM continues to evolve but it doesn't bug me much the way it is now.

[7.GShAP/Silas]

7. Don't forget you're watching men die some of the time, it's not all entertainment.

[Danziger]

When I went to Iraq we were still using up .50 caliber ammunition marked from 1944. I can say that the tracers are not very bright in the day time. They are much more spectacular looking at night and through night vision goggles. Also the M-2HB machine guns we were using (I was a 92F Petroleum Supply Specialist so we didn't get any priority when it came to new weapons) were from the 1930s and 40s. I think the newest one we had was stamped with a date in the 70s.

[Bearcat]

In regards to the planes not maneuvering after the first hits, I've always wondered if getting hit so stunned some pilots they went into a state of shock and were unable to react. Too we only see the planes getting hit. How many times did the pilot get hit in that first burst of fire?

 

Look at this guys Youtube for a more balanced view of guncam. Its free too. He has posted a ton of "everyday" guncam that isn't just spectacular explosions or wings tearing off.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=pj36Tuhy3UE

 

It is also possible the pilot was trying to see where the hits were coming from.. or was wounded in that first pass. The latter we take for granted in these sims.

 

Trying to get an idea about what is realistic from guncam footage is a bit silly.

 

It's silly because you only watch the selected footage and not ALL the footage. That footage will only show the most interesting stuff, not the mundane, visually uninteresting, probably normal run of the mill stuff. It would be like making a value judgment about football by watching the goal highlights shown on TV later that evening.

 

+1

[Rjel]

Trying to get an idea about what is realistic from guncam footage is a bit silly.

 

It's silly because you only watch the selected footage and not ALL the footage. That footage will only show the most interesting stuff, not the mundane, visually uninteresting, probably normal run of the mill stuff. It would be like making a value judgment about football by watching the goal highlights shown on TV later that evening.

I can agree with that. But considering the millions and millions of feet of guncam shot in WWII, it would take a life time to cull it for truly representative shots. I do think the link I posted and there are others on that page that are both day specific and period specific, that I think to show a much broader view of guncam compared to what you might see in a typical documentary. I love the story boards too showing the pilot's name, unit and the date. Lots of famous names to anyone interested in the USAAF in WWII in the ETO.

[GP*]

 

yep, poor mosquito. It wasn't the only one shot down by americans.. Fratricide is a particularly sad and unfortunate part of warfare; one that is not limited to any particular nation or historical period.

 

I fixed that for you. 

[[KWN]T-oddball]

It is also possible the pilot was trying to see where the hits were coming from.. or was wounded in that first pass. The latter we take for granted in these sims.

 

 

+1

 

Are you saying that you are an advocate of people getting USB jacks implanted in their necks attached to the central nervous system so we can feel bullet impacts? i like the added realism but i am afraid that will be a hard sell....   or the cheaper DIY version is have the wife stand behind you with a bat....

Edited November 9, 2014 by T-oddball

[HeavyCavalrySgt]

If the pilot wasn't already hit he was probably busy preparing the bailout, releasing harness, oxygen, radio before jettisoning the canopy.

And even the cherry picked guncams did more to proof the hollywood effects in BoS then to disproof them.

 

 

I was amazed to see the pilot get out of that 109 after multiple large caliber hits on the canopy from above and behind.  I hope he made it.

[StickMan]

I have (more or less always the same) people seen in multiple threads, screaming about the "unrealistic hollywood fires" and other accusations in this direction. Well.. maybe this gunfootage will correct your opinion about this very issue a little.

Note 1: You see only american gunfootage, shooting with .50 cal. So no cannons, who deal a lot more damage then these

Note 2: You see only late-war planes shot at (late 109, late 190, a few others). They had significantly more armor then the mid-war stuff, not even to mention the wooden russian planes.

Just watch the video till the end   (and fade out this mad propaganda-commentator   )

 

 

Ps: There are a whole lot really bad shooters, especially the one at 6:06

Why even bother. You could show them a thousand hours of planes exploding and smoking. I've already tried. It will be shrugged at and dismissed with a "Those are just the highlights." They are convinced that planes don't do this when HE rounds hit machinery that has fuel and oil in it because they have hundreds of hours playing CLod(you know, that colossal failure that suddenly became the flight sim that all other sims should measure up to for these guys) where planes eat ammo like candy. I wish during my time in the U.S. Marine Corps I could have told my buddies "Don't worry, those are just the Hollywood effects."

[StickMan]

I could show a video of some amazing holes-in-one and 45 yard putts.

Would that be truly representative of the game of golf?

I've seen a video of a guy scoring a perfect 300, bowling whilst facing backwards!

Does that demonstrate anything meaningful about the game of ten-pin bowling?

I hope you take my point.

Well since I'm pretty sure me and you could try to reproduce those videos all day of golf and not succeed, you have a point there. How sure are you that if we shot a couple of MG's and a 20mm autocannon with HE rounds loaded into let's say a running automobile or truck since we can't get an aircraft that we couldn't get that thing to at least start fire. I'm pretty sure we could and often. See my point.

 

I'm know we could do it to the plane as well if we could get our hands on one.

[=CFC=Conky]

Here are more highlights, looking rather non hollywood style.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jtxg3kO7LQ

 

That Ju-88 at the 5 min mark was fighting' hard! 

[SKG51_robtek]

Why even bother. You could show them a thousand hours of planes exploding and smoking. I've already tried. It will be shrugged at and dismissed with a "Those are just the highlights." They are convinced that planes don't do this when HE rounds hit machinery that has fuel and oil in it because they have hundreds of hours playing CLod(you know, that colossal failure that suddenly became the flight sim that all other sims should measure up to for these guys) where planes eat ammo like candy. I wish during my time in the U.S. Marine Corps I could have told my buddies "Don't worry, those are just the Hollywood effects."

If you have watched that video you have seen that the only spectacular explosions came from external tanks and the only separating wing was caused by exploding ammo in a 190 wing.

That video already had the opposite effect as the OP intended if watched objectively, imo.

Edited November 10, 2014 by I./ZG15_robtek

[malcheus]

I noticed that the effects in the game are always very linear; they always point straight back from the plane as a smoke trail. 

However, in the guncam footage I quite frequently saw explosions and flames being spewed quite far up or down, or to one of the sides of the linear motion of the plane, if you get what I mean.  

Also, the real life thing looks a lot less regular in shape than what we see in-game; in game we see a fire starting and continuing at a certain level;

in the real footage you see puffs of smoke being spewed out, flames starting and dissapearing, parts falling off etc. 

 

So I guess what I would like to suggest is the damage in game should be a lot more chaotic than it is now

[II./JG77_Manu*]

If you have watched that video you have seen that the only spectacular explosions came from external tanks and the only separating wing was caused by exploding ammo in a 190 wing.

That video already had the opposite effect as the OP intended if watched objectively, imo.

what a lie...there were 1 external fuel tank. By the way, why should the effect be any different between a hit in an external fuel tank, and a wing filled with fuel?

 

apparently a lot of guys in here didn't read books about the aerial warfare in WW2..otherwise they would know, that it was very common, that planes caught fire, or even exploded in the air. Most of the time you won't be able to see the fire in gun cams, just because the fires didn't start imminently after the hit, but a few more seconds later, when the guncam has long stopped, because the guy stopped shooting. Second, i think it's really funny, that so many people show B17 as representative planes. The most rugged and possibly (alongside B29) most cannon-resistant aircraft ever build, which was also known to catch fire very rarely. Some people just want everything to be like in their "favourite sim", blind towards the real life.

My advise to you. Just read some books/biographies about the aerial war in the eastern front (Russia against Axis). A few books are even translated into english, so it should be no problem for most people to read. There are a lot of good books, where the pilot's precisely explain, how it looked "up there" during fights...i think BoS is even underestimated 

[Y-29.Silky]

Last plane I shot down was a 109, I got his horizontal stabilizer. I didn't really know what it was until I saw that he couldn't recover, but I did see a large piece fall off. That was a great experience, great immersion!

 

 

Look at the actual, real, 109 cams on YouTube. Even the P-51's weren't Michael Bay style... I think they did a damn good job with the damage models, and we should give credit where credit is due..
.. Except for the fact that the He-111 sets fire in two bursts. I know that can't be realistic, or is it? If it is, whoever wanted to keep the He-111 in service in the Luftwaffe, should/would have been shot on the spot.

Which drives me to fly the Peshka. I feel like a B-17. I'll eat 20mm's like it's candy, I've never had an engine fire in a Peshka...

Edited November 10, 2014 by Silky

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

Look at the actual, real, 109 cams on YouTube. Even the P-51's weren't Michael Bay style... I think they did a damn good job with the damage models, and we should give credit where credit is due..

.. Except for the fact that the He-111 sets fire in two bursts. I know that can't be realistic, or is it? If it is, whoever wanted to keep the He-111 in service in the Luftwaffe, should/would have been shot on the spot.

 

Fact is, the 111 was very very vulnerable from small calibers. The 7,7mm Spitfires and Hurricanes caused Havoc under them during the Battle of Britain. There was one day, where the Luftwaffe had a huge planning error, and about 100 111s flew unguarded from norway towards nothern england. A group of 20 Spitfires found them, and attacked them. Less then 10 111s came back home. That is almost 5 111 kills per spitfire on average, and if you ever played CloD you really know, the Spit does only have ammo for 16 seconds. So less then 2,5 sec Mg burst to kill a 111.   As awesome as it looks, it wasn't a really well-fortified bomber compared to other ones (B17, Lanny, Do217, He177, B29, Tu2.....)

Edited November 10, 2014 by Celestiale