Tracers

[Butcher]

This tour I turned my tracers off for a few reasons, number one my aim is good enough I don't need the tracers to adjust. Secondly, when bullets wizz past someone they tend to stick stur like no tomarrow, I fly the Ki-84 so I tend to use the 12.7's till I get hits then tap the 20s.

More often then none, I get more kills on a pretty tough deflection shot then If I were flying any other plane, I would highly recommend someone turning them off for a tour then see how much they get better.

[grizz441]

There is a single data point for every player on that second graph. It's an X-Y graph, with the players sorted by hit% on the X axis.

First one shows cumulative distribution as hit percentage increases.  Easy to understand but it gets cluttered at the max boundary condition making it hard to read as it approaches 100%.  So for example, 50% of the population has less than 3.6% hit percentage.  90% of population has less than ~8.5% and so on.  Just really easy to read.

Second one is the same graph with inverse normal on Y axis which is basically "normal standard deviations away from the mean". Easier to read for boundary conditions.  You can see exactly how many players have high hit percentages and how much dispersion they actually have from the population.

I also removed anyone with less than 2 hours of flight time for that tour to attempt to remove outliers which would drag the mean down. Total data points ~3600.

[Lusche]

First one shows cumulative distribution as hit percentage increases

And is basically the same graph as mine, just with swapped axis

The second is too complex for me, would have to understand math first I'm afraid 

[grizz441]

And is basically the same graph as mine, just with swapped axis

Yeah it's close, I just did one extra step of sorting into probability of exceedances.

[Soulyss]

Graph war!

[Lusche]

Yeah it's close, I just did one extra step of sorting into probability of exceedances.

I first did scale the X axis 0-100% (which would be the same as 0-1 on you Y axis), but I chose not to do this and get back to player ranks numbers to keep this chart as telling and accessible for the ordinary guy (=one like me) as possible I even prefer my first one, as it's even simpler to understand.

Tracers rock! (<- to avoid this post being completely off-topic) 

[bustr]

Too bad the relative coordinates of impacting rounds travel&(initiating distance)  From--->To - (x,y,z) the target is not tracked along with the hit% stats. Then map that either for each player entity for possible gunnery skill estimates or aggregate to all players for position of most taken shots. Closest thing we might get to a post combat accumilitive debreifing regiment with guncam reviews to each individual.

Player A askes Trainer B to help him with his gunnery and ACM. Trainer B pulls up Player A's (x,y,z) hit report to get an idea of his targeting choice per each con killed and/or assisted.

This would still end up with the Trainer telling the Player to practice offline and develop his sight picture. But, in the meantime the Trainer would augment that with positive ACM training.

[muzik]

If it's being used, it qualifies as a tool, not a distraction.  The fact that you haven't learned to use it doesn't change the fact that it's a tool.  And it's a tool that you haven't replaced with a different tool in the case of tracers/no tracers.

Who told you I didnt know how to use it? I have never said it wasnt a valid tool. There's that comprehension problem again. It works very well to figure out where shots are going for very complex multi angle, high angle, and high G shots. And I have used them to plot and improve my own aiming.

Stimulus- you're picking the "juicy" parts of the study apart, and distorting the truth by leaving leaving out other parts of the study that don't support your theory.  It's a misleading representation of the facts.  In your sentence above, it could be summarized that more stimulus is always bad, which is far from the truth... 

Look whos talking about misleading and representation. I never even told you where I got the information and you are accusing me of leaving out parts of a study that you havent read. Brilliant. So which parts of the study did I "pick," "distort," and "leave out?"

In your sentence above, it could be summarized that more stimulus is always bad, which is far from the truth... 

Excess stimulus IS ALWAYS bad. But there is a certain point at which you cannot reduce the amount of stimulus before the results start to suffer. I can get rid of tracers and still be a proficient shooter. Competition trap shooters and bird hunters do it all the time without tracers. I could probably even get rid of the gunsight altogether and still shoot fairly well, but the hit% would probably drop.

I watch the target, and ignore the pipper and tracers until/unless I find them useful/necessary. 

They definitely don't qualify as a "distraction" in my world, though. 

So you say in the same post that you ignore the pipper and the tracers but they are not a distraction. Then why do you ignore them? I'll tell you why, because your brain does not want to deal with unneeded stimulus. They are distracting. You are shooting from other visual references. It might be the outline of the gunsight-glass, some part of the nose of your aircraft, or the framing of your windscreen. In actuality, it is all of them. They are part of the total amount of stimulus we all have to process. You have become an experienced shooter and you have learned to tune out information you dont need.

Just in case I didnt make myself clear enough in the begining, I never said tracers didnt help to learn. But at some point they become a hindrance. Especially in certain planes and shots.

[mtnman]

You really only have half of the Dot 'O Death sight.

Go here and check it out ... http://www.dogfightersclub.org/gunsights/dot_o_death.htm

Thanks Slap!  I think that's probably where I got the sight from, actually.  I have several different versions, and I'm not even sure all 4 of the planes I fly have the same version loaded.  I have the two-dot version too.

[mtnman]

First one shows cumulative distribution as hit percentage increases.  Easy to understand but it gets cluttered at the max boundary condition making it hard to read as it approaches 100%.  So for example, 50% of the population has less than 3.6% hit percentage.  90% of population has less than ~8.5% and so on.  Just really easy to read.

Second one is the same graph with inverse normal on Y axis which is basically "normal standard deviations away from the mean". Easier to read for boundary conditions.  You can see exactly how many players have high hit percentages and how much dispersion they actually have from the population.

I also removed anyone with less than 2 hours of flight time for that tour to attempt to remove outliers which would drag the mean down. Total data points ~3600.

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

The only thing I don't liek about these graphs is that I came home today thinking I wouldn't need to look at anything like that tonight, lol.

[grizz441]

The only thing I don't liek about these graphs is that I came home today thinking I wouldn't need to look at anything like that tonight, lol.

 

[mtnman]

Muzik-
I'm getting kind of burnt out with going around in circles with you, truthfully.  If you have any idea what you're talking about, you'll be able to look back at your statements and see exactly what I'm talking about.  If not, oh well.  Maybe I'll feel like delving into it again tomorrow.

The "responsibility" for clear communication lies with whom?  My reading comprehension has actually been tested several times recently, and found to be well above the norm.  That's probably a large part of the reason I can understand what your meaning is even if the facts you present aren't complete and your statements are misleading due to their (unintentional, I'm sure) incompleteness.

I apologize though.  I commented on your "opinions" before, when they would have been more accurately described as "theory's".  

Anyway, this is what intrigues me at this point...

Just in case I didnt make myself clear enough in the begining, I never said tracers didnt help to learn. But at some point they become a hindrance. Especially in certain planes and shots.

Honestly, I think you could possibly have a valid point, but I'm curious...  At what point do they become a hindrance?  At a certain skill-level?  Hit%, time, distance, g-force, caliber?  What?  Which planes?  Which pilots?  How do you know when you've reached that point?  How would I know my students had reached that point?  What's the sample size, and how was it measured?  If it's not your data, is it available for us to view anyway?

And once they've reached the point of "hindrance" (if they ever do) what are the measurable consequences?  Without consequences, "hindrance" doesn't really apply, does it?

Keep in mind, back to the beginning, I challenged the idea that turning them off directly leads to improved accuracy.  If that's true, turning them on should do what?  Or for me, turning them off should do what?  

If turning them off/on relies on other changes to influence accuracy (like time, practice, level of attention/concentration, etc) then it suggests that turning them off probably doesn't result in an increase in accuracy.  On the other hand, if a pilot turned them off and saw a decline in accuracy (even with more time/practice added to his/her experience), followed by an increase when they were turned back on, what would be suggested?

Personally, I don't care whether folks turn them on/off, or see them as a distraction.  What irks me is the recommendation that turning them off will improve your accuracy when it's much more probable that time, practice, and concentration are the real influences.

I wonder if a study could be performed in the game environment that could prove it one way or the other?

[Bear76]

I aspire to the "Spray and Pray" theory. No math, formulas, tracers, or graphs needed   

[muzik]

Honestly, I am getting bored with it too.

Obviously your comprehension tests didnt include a question on the difference between "getting hits 80% of the time at 600 yds" and "having an 80% hit percentage on shots at 600 yds"

Pop quiz...

Keep in mind, back to the beginning, I challenged the idea that turning them off directly leads to improved accuracy.  


If turning them off/on relies on other changes to influence accuracy (like time, practice, level of attention/concentration, etc) then it suggests that turning them off probably doesn't result in an increase in accuracy.  

What irks me is the recommendation that turning them off will improve your accuracy when it's much more probable that time, practice, and concentration are the real influences.

Did you or did you not comprehend this entire thread as a suggestion that the mere act of turning off your tracers would magically make anyone a better shot? Or are you just typing all the babble that pops into your head to confuse the situation?

I even specifically said that after missing your shots initially that you could start to hone in on the sweet spot that resulted in kills. That is comprehended as, and a perfect translation to, "time, practice, and concentration.
 
Anyhow, it's obvious since you didnt see fit to clarify what information I was leaving out or misrepresenting that you are the one who is trying to make your point by throwing baseless accusations and insults around.

DONE!

[GNucks]

<snip>
15mil/30pixel is about the average...
</snip>

Are you saying 1 mil equals 2 pixels in game? I'm asking because I'd like to make some modifications to the gunsight I use in accordance with what real pilots used as described in one of your previous posts here.