How Large are the Fireballs of Detonating Shells? : Lies from Movie Cameras

[bckstk]

 
 
Many of us sim pilots are naturally interested, to varying degrees, in gun camera footage of WWII air combat. One of the things in it that attract our attention is the real-world visual effects of cannon shells (the explosive-filled projectiles) hitting enemy aircraft – that is, cannon shell "hit effects".

An example:
 

But can we really trust those hit effects? To be more exact:

Are real-world fireballs of detonating shells from aircraft cannons actually as large as in gun camera footage? (No fireball upon a detonation = fireball of zero size.)

A yes will probably be the answer given by most of us. If, in addition, one has paid any attention to those historical hit effects, but never thought about the above question, then that amounts to a "yes, of course" answer to it – as used to be the case with myself years ago. Indeed, not many people have any doubt about the honesty of cameras. It would be absurd to imagine a camera turning a lobster into a shrimp on its film.

Yet truth is stranger than fiction. When recording the detonations of 20 mm high explosive shells (and also somewhat larger calibres), normal, non-high-speed movie or video cameras, such as gun cameras in particular, usually drastically diminish the fireballs, just as if turning lobsters into shrimps.




~~ The Facts ~~

Before explanation of how it happens, Let us make sure that it really happens. The following video has the evidence.

Black-and-white sections are recordings made by a high-speed camera, and colour sectoins by the normal, non-high-speed cameras. And the part where tests are carried out against two doors will be the focus of this discussion.

Casual watching of the colour sections of the video (recorded with normal-speed cameras) gives us the impression that the fireballs of those 20 mm high explosive shells are often quite small, and sometimes even invisible. Actually we have been fooled by the normal speed camera. (In fact, with certain shots in this video, we have been tricked by some other factors as well, such as the fuse type of the shell in question and the physical environment of the shell's detonation; yet these do not belong to the present topic.)

First, some introductory screenshots.


 


 
Some detailed analysis of some of the cannon tests.

*Shot fired at 02m:01s* (m = minute(s); s = second(s)).


 
The video caption says HEI (high explosive incendiary). The 3 screenshots are consecutive frames, taken when the video is played frame by frame. The flying cartridge case of the round fired can be seen to the left of tester's left shoulder. In the first frame the shell has not landed on the door yet, whereas in the second frame, it has.

The colour recording of this 20mm HEI's explosion easily convinces us that upon impact on the door, this high explosive shell does not generate a fireball at all, not even any flash, leaving merely some smoke and dust. This knowledge seems to be based on fact, but that fact is actually a lie from the normal-speed colour camera. Immediately after this colour section, the video shows us, from 02m:06s to 02m:12s, the same HEI shell impact as recorded (in black and white) from a different point of view by a high-speed camera; there one sees both a large fireball, behind the door (hence blocked from the colour camera's view), and a smaller fireball, in front of the door.
 
 


So there has been a rather big fireball that the colour recording has completely failed to capture. The normal speed camera tells a terrible lie.
 

 

But how can one say that the above-mentioned colour section and black-and-white section are recordings of the very same shell's behaviour?

To appreicate that those two sections (02m:01s and 02m:07s) are recordings of the same shot, there are the following points to pay attention to: the postion of the little piece of yellow adhesive tape, deliberately stuck on the door for the gunner's aiming reference; the position of the shell's impact on the door, and its position relative to the piece of yellow tape; and the fact that the whole door still looks undamaged before the shell's impact but by contrast there appears one large hole after it, of the same size and at the same position in the two recordings.
     
Even more convincing is this: To the frame where the detonation starts in the normal speed recording (i.e. the second frame in the following series of concecutive frames), we can find almost the exact corresponding moment in the high speed recording.

It is really interesting that, looking closely at that frame, we can in fact find a small irregular tip of the larger fireball, protruding from behind the door. This little tip is also present in the high speed, black-and-white section.

Also of particular significance is the shadow of a small piece of debris, seen in both recordings, where it is of the same size and at the same position on the door. See the image above.

The image below is made up of unedited screenshots, which are much clearer and better after one knows where to look.


It ought to be added that neither the shape of the fireball nor the position of the piece of debris is reproducible, which means ... Perhaps an ananlogy expresses it more easily. Those traits are like fingerprints: if two fingerprints are the same, then they were left by one and the same finger.

Now it is crystal clear that the normal speed camera can simply erase the fireball of a detonation, letting us believe that the exploding shell in question produces only a puff of smoke. So the non-high-speed movie/video camera tells big lies.


*Shot fired at 02m:40s*


 


It can be seen that the small kidney-shaped fireball present in the normal speed colour recording is in fact what the fireball is like when it has already shrinked substantially, and is basically in the last phase of its existence.


 

 

 

Again, to appreciate that these two recordings are of the same shot fired, the following should be paid attention to: the postions of the piece of adhesive tape in the two sections are the same; the tape is completely detroyed and does not exist at all after this shot; prior to the shot the hole left by the first shot at the steel door is clearly visible in the colour recording and that hole, at the same position on the door, is also visible in the black-and-white recording; and, of course, as has just been mentioned, in the high-speed recording of this shot, the moment can be identified that corresponds to the recorded fireball in the colour section.

   

 
 
Not finished yet. To be continued at the following post. Please don't reply within a hour.
 
The following thumbnails have already been inserted above, and do not need to be clicked on from here.

Edited October 17, 2013 by DeepSky

[bckstk]

*Shot fired at 03m:07s*



The interesting thing about this shot is that it has another normal-speed camera colour recording, recorded from a different angles, but that these two recordings tell stories which are diametrically opposed to each other, with the second one presenting us a reasonably large fireball but the first showing absolutely no fireball, no flash, at all.



And this fireball can also been seen of course in the high-speed recording of the shot, running from 03m:19s to 03m:23s.



So the first colour recording of this HEI shell gives us a completely distorted representation of its impact effects, while the second is lucky enough to capture the fireball at its initial phase.


 

 

Once again, to appreciate that these three sections are of the same shot, there are certain things to pay attention to: the target in them is a car's right front door; the position of the impact is on its window. And with the two colour recordings, the car door drops in the same way upon being hit, which the high speed recording is not long enough to show. With the second colour recording and the high-speed black-and-white recording, the long tail of fine glass debris can show that they are of the same explosion.

 

 

 

~~ The Mechanism ~~

Now that the normal movie camera's lies have been shown, let us look at how they come into being. The reasons behind it are certainly quite obivious to anyone who is familiar with the basic mechanism of the movie camera, but considering people who are not, the following explanation is called for.


 

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_disc_shutter)

When the shutter opens, the film, momentarily motionless, is exposed. When it closes, the next frame of film is pulled into position by the claw. Each frame of the film comes to a complete stop for its exposure, and hence each exposure is a single still photograph. Hence, in principle, the movie camera peeps at the outside world for a very brief length of time, recording what it sees, and then shuts its eye and remain blind, to load the next frame of film; again and again, the above process is repeated. (The modern digital video camera, though without a physical shutter, works in the same manner.) The alternate dark and white vertical bands in the following diagram illustrates this simple process.



The shutter angle indicated by this diagram is not 180 degrees, but around 60 degrees, mainly for clarity of illustration; yet since larger shutter angles cause more severe motion blur, 60 degrees looks like the best example.

It is difficult to find on the internet very detailed information on British and German gun cameras used in WWII, such as what shutter angles were used; probably one need to personally go to certain places like the national archives of the two countries. Still, from sources found online it can be known or estimated that the gun camaras on WWII German and British fighters, which were equipped with cannons, did not operate at a high frame rate, not even at the level of the rather standard 24 fps (frames per second).

The Type G45 gun camera, used throughout WWII by British fighter units, runs, according to UK's Imperial War Museums, at a frame speed of 16, 18 or 20 per second.

 
The BSK-16 gun camera, the type of movie camera used by the Luftwaffe during WWII, is described in the historical Fw 190 A-8 aircraft handbook. A little calculation (with the film length of each frame taken to be 7.49 mm) shows that it runs at a frame rate from 8.8 to 11.6 fps. The highest frame rate, 11.6 fps, is still rather low, explaining why it is not difficult to find in Luftwaffe gun camera films uninterrupted recordings of dogfights.

 
I will be most grateful if anyone can find out and post here what frame rates and shutter angles the British and German air forces were using with the Type G45 and the BSK 16 gun cameras, respectively, during WWII.

In summary, the movie camera "blinks its eye", so to speak, and with the explosion procsesses the normal-speed movie camera misses a lot of things that are going on when its "eyelid" (the shutter) is shut. So, regarding aircraft cannon explosive shells (or explosive shells of similar calibres), by no means can we fully trust their explosion fireballs – or the absence of them – depicted by normal-speed movie cameras, especially gun cameras. All we can be sure is that the real fireball is at least as large as, but generally larger than, what is shown by the normal-speed camera.


~~ The Combat Footage Again ~~

To conclude the current discussion, let us look again at the gun camera footage at the beginning of this post. I believe it will look rather different now. Two MG151/20 mm cannon shell impacts are evident in it, the first being accompanied by a large fireball, but not the second. The size (in terms of max length) of the fireball caputred by the camera is comparable to the width of the Spitfire's tail, which is about 3.2 metres. 3 metres... So one roughly get an idea how large the fireball is at least (but we don't know whether it is a common HE shell or an M-Geschoss shell). With regard to the second hit, there is in fact a little spot of light if we observe carefully. So the camera's shutter opens only when this detonation's fireball has amost disappeared, registering on its film practically only the cloud of smoke that has just started expanding. By the way, the similar heavy clouds of smoke left by the two hits can show that the explosions of the two hits are similar (not well shown in the screenshots), so the two shells involved ought to be of the same type.


 

Sorry if my English sounds a bit formal. 

 

Please don't reply within half an hour. Still some more.

 

 

 

The following thumbnails have already been inserted above, and do not need to be clicked on.

Edited October 17, 2013 by DeepSky

[Capt_Stubing]

Wow...  Clearly you've put a lot of time and research into your question/concern.  The reality is... This is nothing more than a visual effect in a game.  There are only a finite number of developer resources that are dedicated to building these effects so they will have some limitations.  After all Modeling actual effects based upon real world data and information is IMO a waste of resources.  There is so much more to a simulation that needs just as much attention.  For 10 years we had OKAY effects with IL2 and they served the purpose well.  Since then the mods have made things look so much better but does it actually change anything in the game?  Not so much.  It's just a visual... while important for the suspension of disbelief doesn't really effect the outcome of the damage model or game play for that matter. 

[AndyJWest]

One thing you need to take into account is that cannon shells were intended to detonate inside the airframe, to maximise damage. This may hide much of the flash.

Edited October 17, 2013 by AndyJWest

[Sternjaeger]

...erm this is all very interesting but there are a lot of things that you need to take into account:

 

1) calibre/ammunition load: these rounds are considerably smaller than a Hispano Suiza, but bigger than a ShVak. So the video you're posting is just a generic evidence.

2) impact surface: cannon rounds behaved differently according not only to the kind of ammunition, but also to the surface/angle they impacted.

3) altitude: explosion fire will be more vivid at lower altitudes, whereas at higher ones the flash would be slightly minor because of stronger lighting and less dense atmosphere.

Wow...  Clearly you've put a lot of time and research into your question/concern.  The reality is... This is nothing more than a visual effect in a game.  There are only a finite number of developer resources that are dedicated to building these effects so they will have some limitations.  After all Modeling actual effects based upon real world data and information is IMO a waste of resources.  There is so much more to a simulation that needs just as much attention.  For 10 years we had OKAY effects with IL2 and they served the purpose well.  Since then the mods have made things look so much better but does it actually change anything in the game?  Not so much.  It's just a visual... while important for the suspension of disbelief doesn't really effect the outcome of the damage model or game play for that matter. 

 

mmmh I'm sorry but I slightly disagree: visual effects add a lot to the immersion, and a lot of people have re-installed IL-2 after the mods were introduced. I am confident you guys will knock this out of the park and deliver a great product, but please do not undervalue the importance of visual effects. 

[bckstk]

I don't know how the font of the text below changed from what I had chosen.  I was using the "Lucida Sans Unicode" font, as I am now.

(It is just below the first youtube video in the first post.)

 

I wonder if an admin could help me correct that part's font, since I can no longer edit my post now? Thanks a lot in advance if that is possible!

Edited October 17, 2013 by DeepSky

[=FB=Weeper]

Nice topic, but whe shuld have 999fps on our screen for those examples

[bckstk]

One thing you need to take into account is that cannon shells were intended to detonate inside the airframe, to maximise damage. This may hide much of the flash.

You are talking about shells with a fuse with slight delay, which I mentioned in #3.

Edited October 17, 2013 by DeepSky

[Sternjaeger]

One thing you need to take into account is that cannon shells were intended to detonate inside the airframe, to maximise damage. This may hide much of the flash.

 

that's what SAPI rounds did, but majority of pilots preferred the combination of HE+API because the penetration power of SAPI rounds was not always optimal.

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

Ok, ive not got all day to read all that Deepsky, so can you just give me one sentence conclusion?

[JtD]

If you know the type and amount of explosive, this can fairly easily be calculated, at least if all you want to have is a reasonably accurate visual effect.

[Jaws2002]

Great post DeepSky.

You did your homework well.

 

There's a good reason everyone that did their homework, switched to cannons shooting high explosive shells early on in ww2. Pound per pound, they were so much more effective in bringing down aircraft.

As you, so effectively pointed out, a ww2 gun camera rarely catches the full blast, due to slow camera and fast burn of the explosive.

 

Great post.

Wow...  Clearly you've put a lot of time and research into your question/concern.  The reality is... This is nothing more than a visual effect in a game.  There are only a finite number of developer resources that are dedicated to building these effects so they will have some limitations.  After all Modeling actual effects based upon real world data and information is IMO a waste of resources.  There is so much more to a simulation that needs just as much attention.  For 10 years we had OKAY effects with IL2 and they served the purpose well.  Since then the mods have made things look so much better but does it actually change anything in the game?  Not so much.  It's just a visual... while important for the suspension of disbelief doesn't really effect the outcome of the damage model or game play for that matter. 

 

Then why do we even bother drawing anything on the screen. We could just look at the numbers and fly that way. Just I agine how much faster the GAME would run if it just showed numbers...........

[SCG_Neun]

I want to say a big thanks as well for all your effort here.  After watching scores of guncam footage, I've never seen any sim be able to reproduce the truly explosive concussion of an real explosion.  I've seen them come close to what they represent on "hit effects" to the aircraft based on what has been captured on film......If I get your overall conclusion here.....you just want to see some more flame on hits, right? Or am I over simplifying this? 

[FuriousMeow]

This is possibly where PhysX could come into play and be of some use for an air combat title. Now, of course there will be performance penalties incorporating it, but it could get closer results to the above than the standard hit effects that use any number of rendering techniques but are all generally just an animation rather than have physical properties.

Edited October 17, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[Original_Uwe]

OP have you ever watched something like a cannon round out hands grenade explode in person?

I'm sure there are others here that have...

[Sternjaeger]

Maybe the developers had never considered the limitations of the footage we're all used to examining, and perhaps they'll now decide to implement a more realistic interpretation of the impact explosions...

 

BUT who remembers the Muzzle-Flash argument in IL-2?

 

Hmmmmmmm... interesting!

 

interesting indeed, although the muzzle flash issue with the old IL-2 was probably more because of limitations in terms of game engine and "priorities".

In a way this is what I hope the current developers take into account: it took up to the 4.12 patch to see some variations of effects. 

A sim is not just about the accuracy of FM, DM etc... it's mainly about the "feel". I am not a fan of War Thunder, but the graphics in that game... oh man...

[bckstk]

Ok, ive not got all day to read all that Deepsky, so can you just give me one sentence conclusion?

Sorry about the length. I had to be exact when giving the analysis, but that meant more content. I did however make the mistake of including my post #3 (the 'Miscellaneous' part),  which was a distraction from the main topic; it has now been deleted. 

 

OK, the one sentence you asked for:

   

On its film, the gun camera resizes detonation fireballs of cannon shells, making the majority of them much smaller than they actually are in real life.  

   

  

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

Sorry about the length. I had to be exact when giving the analysis, but that meant more content. I did however make the mistake of including my post #3 (the 'Miscellaneous' part),  which was a distraction from the main topic; it has now been deleted. 

 

OK, the one sentence you asked for:

   

On its film, the gun camera resizes detonation fireballs of cannon shells, making the majority of them much smaller than they actually are in real life.  

   

 

  

 

Cheers!

I was only joking, i did read it all.

 

Well done, it was a very good post mate.

Edited October 18, 2013 by =BKHZ=Furbs

[bckstk]

OP have you ever watched something like a cannon round out hands grenade explode in person?

I'm sure there are others here that have...

Certainly there are. 

 

Well, regarding personal experience of explosion scenes, it is a subtle subject.

 

The sun (also a fireball, ha ha) which they see more often than any explosions -- let them tell us how large the sun is, no reference to information from science books allowed. If the sun's size is a bit too difficult, let's change it to the (solid) angle extended by the sun to us. Just sit in front of the computer and say it. I doubt anybody is able to tell that either. 

 

I suppose few would disagree that the sun looks fairly small; yet the sun is actually so big as to be beyond our imagination. 

 

A B-17 looks very small when flying high in the air, smaller than a finger nail. Even if when it is landed beside you, are you able to tell, from your watching it, the size of it?

 

We are mostly interested in dependable sources of information. And they are measurements. 

 

An additional thought. If the shell hits some earth, which is not hard, often the shell (I mean a normal HE shell with no delay in detonation) goes into the earth and then detonates. In this case the light emitted will be largely blocked by thick dust. If it hits a tree trunk, no earth is to block the light. So the environment also influences one's impression of the explosion flash; and he may have seen only explosions in certain detonation environments.   

 

So in my opinion seeing the shell explosions in real life is not always enough.   . 

Edited October 18, 2013 by DeepSky

[bckstk]

Ah, I thought you was, but I was not sure  . . 

 

Cheers!

I was only joking, i did read it all.

 

Well done, it was a very good post mate.

[Sokol1]

Sokol1

 

 

 

[Jaws2002]

Good point Extreme_One. The idea is not to model what a camera can see, but what the human eye can see.

in this respect, both the old slow guncamera and the modern high speed camera show the wrong picture.

With a burn speed of five plus kilometers per second for explosives used in cannon shells, I don't think the human eye can catch everything.

 

Just like tracers. The best approach is to model what the average human eye can see.

[dkoor]

 

Here's my gun cam from IL-2...

 

I think those blasts were from P-38 Hispanos... (can't remember 100% now cos this was 'filmed' years ago).

Edited October 18, 2013 by dkoor

[Sternjaeger]

Good point Extreme_One. The idea is not to model what a camera can see, but what the human eye can see.

in this respect, both the old slow guncamera and the modern high speed camera show the wrong picture.

With a burn speed of five plus kilometers per second for explosives used in cannon shells, I don't think the human eye can catch everything.

 

Just like tracers. The best approach is to model what the average human eye can see.

 

oh dear, they'll have to rethink their propeller effect then..

[SCG_Neun]

 

Here's my gun cam from IL-2...

 

I think those blasts were from P-38 Hispanos... (can't remember 100% now cos this was 'filmed' years ago).

Dang...that looks pretty darn good.....

[Sokol1]

Sokol1

 

See at 0:16 - Supposedly Bf.109 canon shells hit a Hurricane.

 

 

Sokol1

Edited October 18, 2013 by Sokol1

[clayman]

 

Just like tracers. The best approach is to model what the average human eye can see.

Exactly .... I think many times its been over modeled. Too large, too sharp too visible.

[bckstk]

Good point Extreme_One. The idea is not to model what a camera can see, but what the human eye can see.

in this respect, both the old slow guncamera and the modern high speed camera show the wrong picture.

With a burn speed of five plus kilometers per second for explosives used in cannon shells, I don't think the human eye can catch everything.

 

Just like tracers. The best approach is to model what the average human eye can see.

 

 

The 20 mm shell fireball's changing its size during its lifespan, the human eye can hardly see clearly, but the max size of the fireball the human eye can see. The human eye can, with utterly no difficulty, see a camera flash, which is far shorter than the time span of the max size fireball.  

 

 

 

Imagine yourself in a very dark room. You have been there for hours and it's totally black. Now light flashes right in front of you. Would you see it, when it's only 1/25th of a second? You surely would. 1/100th of a second? Yes. 1/200th of a second? Yes. Tests with Air force pilots have shown, that they could identify the plane on a flashed picture that was flashed only for 1/220th of a second.

 

 

(link)

 

With a 37 mm shell, the fireball lifespan is much longer than that of the 20 mm case, so the situation can be slightly different. 

[bckstk]

Great post DeepSky.

You did your homework well.

 

There's a good reason everyone that did their homework, switched to cannons shooting high explosive shells early on in ww2. Pound per pound, they were so much more effective in bringing down aircraft.

As you, so effectively pointed out, a ww2 gun camera rarely catches the full blast, due to slow camera and fast burn of the explosive.

 

Great post.

 

 

14./JG5CaptStubing, on 18 Oct 2013 - 00:12, said:

 

Wow... Clearly you've put a lot of time and research into your question/concern. The reality is... This is nothing more than a visual effect in a game. There are only a finite number of developer resources that are dedicated to building these effects so they will have some limitations. After all Modeling actual effects based upon real world data and information is IMO a waste of resources. There is so much more to a simulation that needs just as much attention. For 10 years we had OKAY effects with IL2 and they served the purpose well. Since then the mods have made things look so much better but does it actually change anything in the game? Not so much. It's just a visual... while important for the suspension of disbelief doesn't really effect the outcome of the damage model or game play for that matter.

 

Then why do we even bother drawing anything on the screen. We could just look at the numbers and fly that way. Just I agine how much faster the GAME would run if it just showed numbers...........

 

I'm glad that you like it  .  And I very much like your witty answer in the last line, haha

[Original_Uwe]

Certainly there are.

 

Well, regarding personal experience of explosion scenes, it is a subtle subject.

 

The sun (also a fireball, ha ha) which they see more often than any explosions -- let them tell us how large the sun is, no reference to information from science books allowed. If the sun's size is a bit too difficult, let's change it to the (solid) angle extended by the sun to us. Just sit in front of the computer and say it. I doubt anybody is able to tell that either.

 

I suppose few would disagree that the sun looks fairly small; yet the sun is actually so big as to be beyond our imagination.

 

A B-17 looks very small when flying high in the air, smaller than a finger nail. Even if when it is landed beside you, are you able to tell, from your watching it, the size of it?

 

We are mostly interested in dependable sources of information. And they are measurements.

 

An additional thought. If the shell hits some earth, which is not hard, often the shell (I mean a normal HE shell with no delay in detonation) goes into the earth and then detonates. In this case the light emitted will be largely blocked by thick dust. If it hits a tree trunk, no earth is to block the light. So the environment also influences one's impression of the explosion flash; and he may have seen only explosions in certain detonation environments.

 

So in my opinion seeing the shell explosions in real life is not always enough. .

Lol wut?

Ok I know what your saying and you are correct, there are explosions and they can be large...but your eye doesn't see it that way.

An M67 contains between 6 and 7 ounces of comp b, but when it detonates you actually see very little to no flash.

This is even true of some truly large explosives. Bushmater 25mm cannon and the 120 main gun of an Abrams don't have huge impact flashes that are visible to the naked eye, but they do cause impressive secondary explosions.

Whatever flash you do see is very faint and quickly dissipates, to the point that two separate people who see the same explosion can debate about if there was even a flash at all.

Edited October 19, 2013 by CWMV

[SKG51_robtek]

Bushmaster and Abrams main gun did fire HE, or AP, big difference! Also the modern explosives generate less flash and smoke and burn a lot faster, afaik.

[Sternjaeger]

posted this in another section, but hopefully it gives you a better idea: M3 loaded with incendiary rounds (that's what the big flashes are)

 

http://youtu.be/0k0Oc1W81Nw?t=1m6s

[LG1.Farber]

oh dear, they'll have to rethink their propeller effect then..

 

some people's sense of self-entitlement is ridiculous. Oh, and IBTL..

 

Edited October 19, 2013 by 5./JG27Farber

[Sternjaeger]

..erm, what I meant is that if they have to make things look as perceived by the human eye, you wouldn't see the propeller as you do now when the engine has low revs. But then again this is all a bit useless since we're in alpha stage..

Edited October 20, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[FlatSpinMan]

As has been mentioned above, why make effects visible as perceived by a high speed camera? I don't think saying what a high speed camera sees makes what I can see 'a lie'. Its just a matter of perception. Why not model the sim in the infrared spectrum? That would yield different results, too.

 

Honestly, for me, big explosions = cool, and I admire your thoroughness, but I just disagree with your main idea that the high speed camera's view is the 'real' one.

 

Anyway, carry on...

[ACG_Kraut]

As has been mentioned above, why make effects visible as perceived by a high speed camera?

 

Well, I can see one useful reason.

When we go back and record gameplay from tracks we can slow down the game to slow motion, but still have it running at 60fps for recording, then we can record the full effect for videos. 

It would certainly look fantastic, but I agree that it's a waste of resources to develop this into the game, for just this one reason and the few of us who would actually use it.

Edited October 20, 2013 by [AKA]Kraut

[Karost]

went beta release  we all can test it.

 

I hope it will not turn to  MG151/20 like in UBI forum  again. 

 

man.... I miss my MK108/30

[FuriousMeow]

but I just disagree with your main idea that the high speed camera's view is the 'real' one.

 

I agree with that one.

 

One of the biggest misconceptions is the squiggly tracers from guncams. That's from the camera's point of view, so should be 'real' right? But it's not. So cameras catch certain things depending on light, exposure time, delay time, mounting equipment, etc, but it's still just cinema.

[SKG51_robtek]

I agree with that one.

 

One of the biggest misconceptions is the squiggly tracers from guncams. That's from the camera's point of view, so should be 'real' right? But it's not. So cameras catch certain things depending on light, exposure time, delay time, mounting equipment, etc, but it's still just cinema.

I believe that you actually disagree, as the OP clearly declares the faults of the slow speed gun cams as you do also.

The human eye might not be able to catch the details as a high speed camera, but shurely the light effects.

[Rjel]

I thought this short film about the use of gun cameras was interesting.

 

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

Edited October 20, 2013 by Rjel