Flak Explosion Sound Needs to be Louder and Buffet the plane

[arjisme]

You keep shooting down anything he has to suggest but at no time come up with anything yourself to support your own opinions.  [...]  Rather than rubbishing anything he has to say why not add to the forums knowledge base by looking for quotes or references by those who did actually experience having to fly through flak..

 

Since we are moving into meta commentary, I think it fair to point out that your own contributions (and, for that matter, mine) suffer from the same deficiencies.  You haven't provided anything convincing as evidence for what you propose.

 

As for Hollywood, sure they are trying to dramatize the scene, maybe even over egg it, but they are also trying to convey the drama and danger for people who aren't themselves in danger, in many ways a game developers job is not dissimilar.  

 

One significant difference between a movie and a flight sim is that the former is enjoyed as a passive activity whereas a flight sim is something your are directly interacting with and participating in.  As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, one way to make flak more intimidating for the flight simmer is to encourage the flight simmer to play in a style where he values his virtual life.  I know this works as it has personally worked for me when I have chosen to fly that way (i.e. Dead is Dead).

 

As you correctly pointed out, movies are often dramas and exaggerate things for impact.  This being a simulation its "marching orders", so to speak, are to attempt to simulate reality to the extent that is possible within the confines of hardware capabilities.  If this were instead a hard core space simulation, I would be arguing against any sound being heard in space or traveling through space (such as an explosion on a vehicle that is separate from my own).  It might be more dramatic if we could hear a sound and they almost always depict such sounds in movies, but it has no place in something attempting to model reality.

 

So, for me, the argument for making flak sounds louder and more sinister simply to enhance dramatic effect is not convincing.  

[Bladderburst]

Modern artillery barrage is NOT THE SAME THING AT ALL. It doesn't remotely sound the same. It's like comparing an A10 on a straffing run with vintage air to air 30 mm.

[Anw.StG2_Tyke]

Well,

here is a training video from the USAAF Bomber Crews about the Flak.

There is some original footage used in it, maybe it gives people a hang.

 

Furthermore, the Sound you hear in Videoes about guns fired is pretty much damped down. The microphones can only take an amount of loudness. In reality it was more common that people lost their ability to hear when the artillery striked near them. Even blasted eardrums were common.

 

So In my opinion the effect of Flak visual and the sound was loud enough to hear in a plane.

[gx007]

Maybe it's not exactly representative of Flak explosions, but fireworks certainly is loud. 

 

Go to 0:40 second

 

[Sokol1]

Some bomber crew "anecdote":

 

Hollywood depictions of bomber combat during WW II are valuable that they help kindle the public's interest, but ignorance and the limitations of the film medium sometimes combine to render a less-than-perfect picture of what the experience was actually like.

"When there was a lot of flak," remembered W.Baker of the 487Th Bomb Group (H), "it wasn't like in the movies. You didn't hear it explode. it was more of a shooshing sound: SH-VUUMMP! Then, when the shrapnel hit the fuselage, it was like someone threw marbles against a bunch of tin. It was a rattling sound."

When an aircraft was pockmarked by shrapnel farther out on the wings, there was no sound. "I can remember looking out over the left wing," said Baker, "And a set of holes appeared in the wingtip just as fast I could blink. One instant the weren't there and the next they were. There was no noise and the aircraft didn't lurch or anything. There was nothing but those holes."

From:

Sokol1

Edited March 25, 2014 by Sokol1