Bullets are too slow

[richardg]

General observation.

 

7.92mm (Mauser) MG on Ju88 has muzzel velocity of 2700 feet per second. (thats a half mile)

 

Sitting on a runway shooting across tarmac, bullets are going about half to 3/4 that distance in one second. 

 

Haven't looks at any other guns in game yet. 

[Heckpupper]

Muzzle velocity is velocity AT THE MUZZLE.

After the projectile has left the muzzle it slows down as it goes forward.

If you actually want to spark a reasonable debate, then measure exactly how much distance bullets cover in game, and then compare it to reliable sources on ballistic for that particular projectile.

[cardboard_killer]

Don't make me break out my slide rule and calc 1 book.

[SharpeXB]

They’re bullets, not laser beams. 

[MasserME262]

27 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

They’re bullets, not laser beams. 

oww I thought those flashing things the planes shot from time to time were actually laser beams

[Rei-sen]

42 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

They’re bullets, not laser beams. 

They look like laser beams, lol. I hope devs will change tracers to look more realistic.

[Krisu]

1 hour ago, Arthur-A said:

They look like laser beams, lol. I hope devs will change tracers to look more realistic.

 

More like little comet balls

[JtD]

6 hours ago, richardg said:

General observation.

 

7.92mm (Mauser) MG on Ju88 has muzzel velocity of 2700 feet per second. (thats a half mile)

 

Sitting on a runway shooting across tarmac, bullets are going about half to 3/4 that distance in one second.

 

The 7.92mm round in real life was tested to fly about 550m (1/3rd mile) in the first second after it left the barrel. After one second, it had slowed down to about 370m/s (1200 feet per second). See the below table for the original data.

 

[SharpeXB]

3 hours ago, Arthur-A said:

They look like laser beams, lol. I hope devs will change tracers to look more realistic.

Please not that topic again... it’s rather impossible to recreate on a game screen what real tracers look like. IMO the ones we have here look really nice. 

Most of us have never seen real tracers anyways or shot them from a WWII bird. So what do we know?

Edited October 26, 2019 by SharpeXB

[=BES=Senor_Jefe]

22 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Please not that topic again... it’s rather impossible to recreate on a game screen what real tracers look like. IMO the ones we have here look really nice. 

Most of us have never seen real tracers anyways or shot them from a WWII bird. So what do we know?

I've shot tracers A LOT in the infantry in plenty of night and day fire situations.  My experience has been from 5.56 all the way through 25mm Bradley turrets.

 

These tracers arent hateful, and certainly are not high in priority for change.  However there are two easy changes one COULD make:

 

1.  In daytime, they're too bright.  Reduce effect by 60-75%.  Its pretty similar to the navlight issue in day.

 

2.  At night, reduce the width by 30-40% and reduce the length by 30%.  Then reduce brightness by 20%.

 

These are fully subjective numbers, but tracers at night are highly visible IRL at a very large angle envelope.  My issue is they are just BIG.

Edited October 26, 2019 by =BES=Savage-6

[Field-Ops]

I wonder if in this game the wind resistance as altitude rises is taken into account for bullet speed. Just thought about it, but i think that if the same trajectories are universal on all altitudes I think its wrong. 

[cardboard_killer]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Most of us have never seen real tracers anyways

 

I've not seen live fire tracers, but I've seen plenty of video. Is all that video/film misleading?

[JonRedcorn]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Please not that topic again... it’s rather impossible to recreate on a game screen what real tracers look like. IMO the ones we have here look really nice. 

Most of us have never seen real tracers anyways or shot them from a WWII bird. So what do we know?

And you've never tried VR yet you go around dogging it every chance you get, go figure.

[blitze]

5 hours ago, ME-BFMasserME262 said:

oww I thought those flashing things the planes shot from time to time were actually laser beams

Only Sharks get Laser Beams - Frick'n Laser Beams - Scott.

[Quinte]

26 minutes ago, cardboard_killer said:

 

I've not seen live fire tracers, but I've seen plenty of video. Is all that video/film misleading?

Yes. Video is, at it's core, photography. Photos don't represent what your eye see, they represent what the camera sees, depending on the parameters used: Focal length, aperture, shutter speed, glass quality and ISO/ASA.

 

You could take ten photos of the exact same tracer, at the same time, from the same position and obtain very different results.

[Ribbon]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

 

Most of us have never seen real tracers anyways or shot them from a WWII bird. So what do we know?

I was machine gunner for six months in order to join airforce.

We went on firing range and i've got full clip with tracers, result; forrest fire and airtankers water bombing it.

Irony in all that is i ended up in fire fighting squadron as AME (still there).

When i told the guys in sqdn who was responsible for fire...?

[Venturi]

1 hour ago, Field-Ops said:

I wonder if in this game the wind resistance as altitude rises is taken into account for bullet speed. Just thought about it, but i think that if the same trajectories are universal on all altitudes I think its wrong. 

Very true. As altitudes increase, drag on bullets decrease. Just like it decreases on airplanes.

 

At least some lead calculating aircraft gunsights take this into effect.

[Yogiflight]

@JtD I guess your numbers are from static shooting, would be interesting to have numbers of the same weapons shooting from a plane flying with high speed. Flying with 360km/h would add another 100m/s to the muzzle velocity, flying with 540km/h another 150m/s. 

@Field-Ops I am not sure if there will be much difference, because on the one side the wind speed increases, on the other side you have thinner air with less resistance.

@EAF_Ribbon I know this issue, too. In summer we also had fires from time to time, when shooting with tracers. Funnily, the only tracer ammunition, that did never cause fires was the 20mm HEI (Sprengbrand Munition/explosive incendiary), that takes away the oxigen for a fire by the explosion.

EDIT: On a second thought, the higher windspeed in larger altitudes would only have an effect, when blowing from  the front, so bullets should surely be flying with higher velocity in larger altitudes.

Edited October 27, 2019 by Yogiflight

[SharpeXB]

8 hours ago, cardboard_killer said:

 

I've not seen live fire tracers, but I've seen plenty of video. Is all that video/film misleading?

Film grain, camera shake, frame rate etc. depends on what kind of film/video. Since a game is basically showing you “video” and not real life then having them look like a video capture would be just fine. 

[EAF19_Marsh]

14 hours ago, =BES=Savage-6 said:

I've shot tracers A LOT in the infantry in plenty of night and day fire situations.  My experience has been from 5.56 all the way through 25mm Bradley turrets.

 

These tracers arent hateful, and certainly are not high in priority for change.  However there are two easy changes one COULD make:

 

1.  In daytime, they're too bright.  Reduce effect by 60-75%.  Its pretty similar to the navlight issue in day.

 

2.  At night, reduce the width by 30-40% and reduce the length by 30%.  Then reduce brightness by 20%.

 

These are fully subjective numbers, but tracers at night are highly visible IRL at a very large angle envelope.  My issue is they are just BIG.

 

You have far more experience than me, but I recall being at a few live fire exercises and was astonished how slowly the medium-cal guns from IFVs looked. Looked more like an ATGM - though as this was a Warrior that might be an issue of an old gun.

 

Generally, I agree that the tracers are too big and look at little Star Wars-y at range.

[354thFG_Leifr]

Tracers are one of the worst aspects of this game, and could definitely use some revision in the future. They're too large and bright, especially during the daylight, and visible at long-range.

[cardboard_killer]

Does anyone load only with AP rounds to better simulate difficulty with seeing tracers? In the planes that offer that of course.

[unreasonable]

15 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

@JtD I guess your numbers are from static shooting, would be interesting to have numbers of the same weapons shooting from a plane flying with high speed. Flying with 360km/h would add another 100m/s to the muzzle velocity, flying with 540km/h another 150m/s. 

@Field-Ops I am not sure if there will be much difference, because on the one side the wind speed increases, on the other side you have thinner air with less resistance.

@EAF_Ribbon I know this issue, too. In summer we also had fires from time to time, when shooting with tracers. Funnily, the only tracer ammunition, that did never cause fires was the 20mm HEI (Sprengbrand Munition/explosive incendiary), that takes away the oxigen for a fire by the explosion.

EDIT: On a second thought, the higher windspeed in larger altitudes would only have an effect, when blowing from  the front, so bullets should surely be flying with higher velocity in larger altitudes.

 

The game takes into account the speed of your aircraft: the visual trajectory of tracers is affected by your airspeed. The shells start at the same MV relative to your plane, but the faster your plane goes, the more the trajectory appears to drop, since the air resistance is higher. Just like firing a MG into a very strong wind.  

 

Wind: that is air relative to the ground, is also modeled. This is easy to see in a trial mission with very high winds and AA firing at an aircraft flying straight relative to the ground. The shells are obviously drifting with the wind: something for which the AI do adjust, BTW, either ground based AA or AI turret gunners in planes. (Note to mission makers: if you want AA to be inaccurate, put in a strong wind). 

 

Not sure about the altitude effect, (never explicitly tested) but I would be surprised if it was not there given that air resistance is certainly modeled. 

[Yogiflight]

3 hours ago, unreasonable said:

The game takes into account the speed of your aircraft: the visual trajectory of tracers is affected by your airspeed. The shells start at the same MV relative to your plane, but the faster your plane goes, the more the trajectory appears to drop, since the air resistance is higher. Just like firing a MG into a very strong wind.  

 

Sorry mate, but here you are wrong. For the drop of the bullets it isn't the velocity compared to the aircraft, that is important, but the velocity compared to the surrounding air. As the bullets fired from a fast flying aircraft start with a higher velocity compared to the surrounding air, the trajectory has to be more flat, than when fired from a standing gun.

You are right, that the bullets lose their speed faster, because of the higher air resistance, but they will still be all the time faster than at the same time shot by a not moving gun.

The opposite btw. should happen with bullets shot by a rear gunner. Here the MV is smaller compared to the surrounding air, as they are fired to the opposite direction of the aircraft. So the trajectory of rear gunners bullets should be more curved with a higher drop of the bullets. This would make it harder for the rear gunners to hit their target, as it is more important to guess the correct distance to the attacking aircraft. But I doubt that this is modelled in the game.

[danielprates]

20 hours ago, blitze said:

Only Sharks get Laser Beams - Frick'n Laser Beams - Scott.

 

"Lasers"

[EAF19_Marsh]

Shirley they all drop 32ft/second per second? It’s the perspective and horizontal   velocity that differs?

[Yogiflight]

3 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

horizontal   velocity that differs?

Exactly this is what makes the difference. With higher velocity the bullets make more distance in the same time. With the same drop per second, this makes a more flat trajectory.

[sevenless]

14 hours ago, Leifr said:

Tracers are one of the worst aspects of this game, and could definitely use some revision in the future. They're too large and bright, especially during the daylight, and visible at long-range.

 

Compared to real life this is certainly the case. However I was under the impression that this is a deliberate game design decision.

[danielprates]

7 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Shirley they all drop 32ft/second per second? 

 

He is serious. And don't call him Shirley.

 

..... movie references! 

[RedKestrel]

Just now, danielprates said:

 

He is serious. And don't call him Shirley.

 

..... movie references! 

We can’t make the references ourselves so we’re all counting on you. Good luck.

[unreasonable]

9 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

Sorry mate, but here you are wrong. For the drop of the bullets it isn't the velocity compared to the aircraft, that is important, but the velocity compared to the surrounding air. As the bullets fired from a fast flying aircraft start with a higher velocity compared to the surrounding air, the trajectory has to be more flat, than when fired from a standing gun.

You are right, that the bullets lose their speed faster, because of the higher air resistance, but they will still be all the time faster than at the same time shot by a not moving gun.

The opposite btw. should happen with bullets shot by a rear gunner. Here the MV is smaller compared to the surrounding air, as they are fired to the opposite direction of the aircraft. So the trajectory of rear gunners bullets should be more curved with a higher drop of the bullets. This would make it harder for the rear gunners to hit their target, as it is more important to guess the correct distance to the attacking aircraft. But I doubt that this is modelled in the game.

 

No I am not wrong, you are.  The trajectory that you see from the cockpit is relative to the plane, since it is constantly moving. The initial bullet velocity relative to the plane is the same whether firing forwards or back,  but changes due to the effects of air resistance. This difference in air resistance has no effect whatsoever on the actual rate of fall of the bullets. 

 

Firing forwards from a moving plane is equivalent to firing into a wind at the same speed when stationary.  To calculate the air resistance you need the speed relative to the air: that is the vectors added. Given that your bullets are slowing with air resistance, but you are not, since your plane has a constant speed, if you fly fast enough or have a slow enough MV you could eventually catch up with your bullets if you pitched them up from a forward turret. This means that the shape of the trajectory that you see is more curved than firing from a stationary aircraft.

 

Firing a rear gun the resistance is much less: relative to the air you subtract your speed from the MV. This is equivalent to firing a stationary MG with  a strong wind behind you. 

From your POV in the cockpit/turret this means that  the trajectory will look much flatter: the distance between you and each bullet is being extended by your plane's motion, not compressed as in the first case. Just as it would firing a MG on the ground with a strong wind behind you.

 

Both the effects of air resistance and initial plane velocity and direction are modeled in BoX, although how precisely I could not tell you. To check this for yourself, get in an He111 on autolevel flight and fire the side gun out at 90 degrees. Look at the tracers. They start going straight out at 90 dgerees: which means that the plane's vector is being added to the MV vector. Then they appear gradually to fall behind in a curve, due to air resistance acting on their sideways vector (that is the vector of the plane). Meanwhile dropping due to gravity and slowing due to the air resistance on their own vector.  

 

If you still cannot see this, just forget about bullets and imagine that you are throwing meat pies on a very windy day.     

Edited October 28, 2019 by unreasonable

[danielprates]

11 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

We can’t make the references ourselves so we’re all counting on you. Good luck.

 

Now if you could just let this thread be forgotten, necro it like 1 year from now, and say that same sentence again, it would be just perfect.

[EAF19_Marsh]

4 hours ago, danielprates said:

 

Now if you could just let this thread be forgotten, necro it like 1 year from now, and say that same sentence again, it would be just perfect.

 

Good luck, we’re all counting on you.

[Yogiflight]

@unreasonable, now I get your point. I didn't read your post good enough. You were talking about the trajectory relative to the aircraft, as it is seen by the pilot/gunner. And you are absolutely right. I was talking about the absolute trajectory seen from outside from a point at the side of the flying aircraft, like you have it in the drawings for the aircrafts convergence settings. And here the speed of the aircraft is added to the velocity of forward fired rounds and so the bullets have a higher muzzle velocity than bullets fired from a static gun. And the other way round for rear gunners.

[unreasonable]

I did wonder if that was where the mutual misunderstanding was - glad we are on the same page.

[Yogiflight]

You don't know how glad I am about this, I absolutely prefer eating meat pies over throwing them through the wind.

[Dirt_Merchant]

14 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

Compared to real life this is certainly the case. However I was under the impression that this is a deliberate game design decision.

 

I think you're right, and I agree with the decision - we don't have infinite resolution to play with so of course some things will be scaled up to compensate. @Leifr To say tracers are the worst aspect of the game though is strange lol, not saying i think there are too many major problems left at this point but it just struck me as a funny thing to read.