Add bullet trajectory sound for more intense cannon fire

[Jack Freedom]

I feel that the game would feel more epic if bullet sounds were added in game.

+Cannon ball trajectory sound

+Reverv

Also, add more echo and boom so that distant fire sounds more epic imo. Right now they sound kind of muffled.

Thoughts?

Edited March 27, 2015 by JackFreedom

[Furfy]

The sounds are quite good now I think, but there may be room for improvement - perhaps in the future? Did you search around at all in the forums, think i saw something about it earlier.

 

btw - love the avatar

[maturin]

There are already quite prominent wooshing sounds from balls flying past.

[maturin]

If you're referring to the supersonic crack, that would be effectively simultaneous to the flyby, at least to human ears.

[Jack Freedom]

There are already quite prominent wooshing sounds from balls flying past.

 

Please show me a video because I haven't found any.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

At longer ranges (or with double shot or carronades) the gun should be heard first, followed by a wooshing sound and then the actual ball.

 

At what range does a "normally" charged ball not only pass below 600mph (ish) but also slow down to the point that the report of the gun gets there before it?  Physics was not my strongpoint, but can this happen within the maximum range of the shot?  How does the "whooshing" sound pass the ball?

[maturin]

At what range does a "normally" charged ball not only pass below 600mph (ish) but also slow down to the point that the report of the gun gets there before it?  Physics was not my strongpoint, but can this happen within the maximum range of the shot?  How does the "whooshing" sound pass the ball?

Rifle bullets slow are overtaken by the sound of their own muzzle blast starting at some point past 1000 meters. Cannon balls are much slower, so the boom will arrive before the ball starting at a shorter distance.

 

The "woosh" sound passing the ball is just the sound of the ball itself as it pushes air aside. I'm not sure what this would sound like in real life or if it is always audible. Once a bullet has slowed down to subsonic speeds you can get quite pronounced noises because the conical projectile will wobble in flight, or even start tumbling end over end. A cannon ball is of course always tumbling, but it's a sphere, so this won't make the same amount of racket.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

Thanks for clearing that up Maturin.  

[Ned Loe]

I agree, sound needs more work. 

[SueMyChin]

Benjamin Robbins calculated that a cannon firing a ball at 1700 ft/sec, double-shotted, the muzzle velocity will be approximately 1200 ft/sec, or around the speed of sound. So at short ranges even double shorted, the muzzle flash, report and ball would arrive around the same.

 

Longer ranges it gets a little complicated, depending on muzzle velocity and range, but a shot with a muzzle velocity of 1700 will have to travel roughly 450 foot before the report overtakes the ball.

 

I've also read a few accounts of captains claiming to know the range to an enemy by counting the time between muzzle flash and report, kinda like judging your distance from a thunderstorm. I imagine them stood there on the quarterdeck counting calmly while a cannonball hurtles towards them... Really cool   

[SueMyChin]

An 18lb @1700fps is still supersonic at 500+yds.

Then the sound wave has to "catch up" the distance the ball is ahead (quarter second or so).

The range at which the time of flight matches the time of travel for the sound wave is over 1000yds.

At 1400fps supersonic to 295yds. Equal time of flight at 585+yds.

Interesting that the calculation gives 1200fps ~ how did he come up with that? Contemporary reports gave a ratio of 5/9th and 4/9th of the normal velocity for the double shotted balls, which makes them firmly subsonic.

 

He tested it - http://www.arc.id.au/RobinsOnBallistics.html

[SueMyChin]

A handful of tests and then calculations (not all of which are accurate, as they rely on incomplete understanding of the physics involved).

Definitely the basis for modern ballistics, but not totally reliable.

I'll take the form of his relation for interpolations of velocity/charge relationships. Insufficient information to derive the parameter including windage et al, which is the major unknown.

 

 

A handful of tests? haha The guy wrote thoroughly on the subject spending many years testing his theories too.

 

I also fail to understand how windage is relevant to the subject of velocity loss when he's measuring at the muzzle and then in subsequent intervals and getting consistent results.

[SueMyChin]

A handful of tests and then calculations (not all of which are accurate, as they rely on incomplete understanding of the physics involved).

Definitely the basis for modern ballistics, but not totally reliable.

I'll take the form of his relation for interpolations of velocity/charge relationships. Insufficient information to derive the parameter including windage et al, which is the major unknown.

 

 

Also, windage wasn't exactly something he overlooked so I very much doubt would undermine subsequent tests by disregarding it  - http://books.google.com.au/books?id=3j8FAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=windage&f=false