PDA

View Full Version : Airplane loses a wing... Is it a fake?



RollerJesus
11-06-2008, 08:50 AM
What do you guys think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9b8anjS6Xs

`Patrick (RJ)

Auger
11-06-2008, 09:25 AM
Definitely.

iconoclasty
11-06-2008, 10:55 AM
Super fake. But funny.

calilifestyle
11-06-2008, 11:21 AM
lol some ppl here at work fell for it.

Bog
11-06-2008, 11:25 AM
Hugely fake. If nothing else (apart from where the comp boundary doesn't work) the landing gear would have ripped one hell of a divot out of the ground.

If you want to see a plane land with one wing, there's an Israeli F-15 that had it's starboard wing ripped off. Certain parts of my anatomy crawled inside other bits watching that.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/326057/israeli_pilot_land_saftly_with_one_wing/

3DGFXStudios
11-06-2008, 01:08 PM
Funny

Stooch
11-06-2008, 01:13 PM
i love how some "detectives" in there went into whole dissertations on plane dynamics to prove that its fake when it already looks so obviously fake. hahaha. the landing was really badly done. the rest was pretty good but didnt fool me for a seocond. lighting gave it away immediatelly.

akademus
11-06-2008, 02:30 PM
Yup, CG. It's obvious from the first shot on...

Oedo 808
11-06-2008, 02:45 PM
I was thinking that it might be fake, but when it makes it's touchdown you know it's real.

rakker16mm
11-06-2008, 02:49 PM
:agree: The part that makes me laugh the hardest is the plane lands so close to them and supposedly they just stood there and kept filming. LOL

Like anyone would want to be any where near a plane while it is crash landing. :D

virtualcomposer
11-06-2008, 03:01 PM
:agree: The part that makes me laugh the hardest is the plane lands so close to them and supposedly they just stood there and kept filming. LOL

Like anyone would want to be any where near a plane while it is crash landing. :D

Do you think they motion tracked it in AE? How do you take DVcam handcam footage and create an animation like a plane or floating object or whatever? Can it be done in LW?

rakker16mm
11-06-2008, 11:42 PM
Do you think they motion tracked it in AE? How do you take DVcam handcam footage and create an animation like a plane or floating object or whatever? Can it be done in LW?

Actually to me it looks almost like live action footage of an RC model airplane. There's something about the way it moves that makes it look to lightweight. I don't get the feeling of mass, especially when it lands. Most of the time the plane is not in frame and when it is it is shaky and blurry. That leaves a lot of room for sloppiness. Also the smoke looks fake. Boot up your compositing software re-scale, add some camera shake, add some smoke, and the guy getting out of the cockpit at the end. Also there's something funky about the grass, like it's the wrong scale.

rakker16mm
11-07-2008, 01:00 AM
Ah Fake-ness confirmed! I knew something wasn't right about the plane. So I ran through the frames slowly and noticed the plane had no tail numbers. Every aircraft has a tail number but this one just says "Killa Thirll". So I googled it. Here is their website http://www.killathrill.de/start.action
It's just a slick add campaign kind Mountain Dew or Jack Links messin with sausquach variety.

JeffrySG
11-07-2008, 08:15 AM
If you want to see a plane land with one wing, there's an Israeli F-15 that had it's starboard wing ripped off. Certain parts of my anatomy crawled inside other bits watching that.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/326057/israeli_pilot_land_saftly_with_one_wing/
That was incredible!

Riff_Masteroff
11-07-2008, 08:39 AM
I believe it to be real. I have seen these planes demonstrate hanging in mid-air with NO movement/velocity. When that is done, the propeller provides enough airflow over the wing to give lift and suspend the plane in mid-air without forward-backward-upward-downward-sideways movement. A pilot of one of these critters probably would have done such many times for the fun of it.

In this case without a right wing, the pilot maneuvered and found a sweet spot to position the airplane. In this case the pilot, prolly from considerable experience, did four things to land the plane:

First, immediately after losing the wing, he stabilized the plane: no death dive roll. Second, he found the best hovering sweet spot he could muster in this circumstance. Third he descended for a landing and brought the plane to have as little forward motion as possible. Fourth, and most importantly, immediately BEFORE landing/impact, he got out of the sweet spot position and positioned the plane more normally. Note that in a "normal" flying position the plane could not fly and fell the final few feet to earth/landing.

Note that these stunt planes are extremely light weight and even with their small engines are definitely OVERPOWERED.

Riff

Riff_Masteroff
11-07-2008, 08:52 AM
oh,

In addition the F15 flying with one wing was also way overpowered. Because of that fact, the pilot could still fly it (for a little bit).

And also I do not believe our resident lightWave modelers, animators and compositors, despite having powerful software, understand the physics of flight well enough to fake such a video clip.

Riff

iconoclasty
11-07-2008, 08:56 AM
Sorry Riff. Not a chance. Just watch until the end of the clip, the motion and the rendering are obviously fake. Even if it was physically possible, which I don't believe it is.

JeffrySG
11-07-2008, 09:00 AM
The exhaust looks really fake too in the beginning... looks like they 'screened' it on top of the background footage, and that's not the way it would look in real life.

Andyjaggy
11-07-2008, 09:08 AM
I think it's fake, but it wouldn't completely surprise me if I found it was an RC plane. Still though with the animation looks at the end I have to say fake.

RollerJesus
11-07-2008, 09:54 AM
I think it's fake but that doesn't mean it is necessarily physically impossible.

Stooch
11-08-2008, 01:29 AM
oh,

In addition the F15 flying with one wing was also way overpowered. Because of that fact, the pilot could still fly it (for a little bit).

And also I do not believe our resident lightWave modelers, animators and compositors, despite having powerful software, understand the physics of flight well enough to fake such a video clip.

Riff

you have got to be kidding me. lol.

rakker16mm
11-08-2008, 01:47 AM
This is an advertisement. So if it is real you have to believe they staged it or you are seeing their boo boo. That alone should tell you it isn't real, but let's suppose for a moment that it is still an actual plane. Where is the tail number? Every plane has one but this one just says Killa Thrill.com. That isn't a tail number. I used to be a lineman at Palo Alto Airport of Santa Clara County. I fueled a lot of aircraft and they all had N-numbers, even the experimental ones.

Besides the smoke is totally fake. The whole thing is ridiculous.

IMI
11-08-2008, 02:40 AM
When that plane comes down near the ground, the frames get all jumpy for a second, and it definitely looks to me like something was edited out or put in.

Not only that, but at the last second it magically rights itself from about almost a 90 degree angle to the ground to being almost parallel, maybe about 5 degrees. If that were even possible to begin with, which I doubt, I imagine that landing gear on the right side would collapse due to the angle it hits at and the speed. I just can't see it surviving intact.
Not only that, but after the first bounce it suddenly loses alot of speed before hitting the ground again! Look how fast the trees in the background are "moving" when it hits, compared to a split-second later after it touches the ground the second time. That's just not possible.

Finally, there's that conveniently suspicious blurring that happens right during the "amazing" part - the landing and the transition to the real footage.
That's just my take on the ending, trying to offer a reason for it being fake.

Not that it even needs to be considered seriously, IMO, because it looks fake all the way through. :D

I don't know if I'd say CG as in 3D model animation - the most fake parts look to me like old time compositing with scale models, and right before the landing the motion almost looks like the thing was on strings.

And what's up with all the sudden intense camera shaking, and that rumbling noise - like it was a film of an earthquake or something. He managed to keep the camera steady for the whole rest of the time.

Overall, pretty piss-poor editing, I'd say, certainly not convincing at all.

hunter
11-08-2008, 12:45 PM
Fake. Obviously from the way the plane lands if nothing else, but the rendering the lighting etc all give it away.
Here's another take on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J72y_qFV2oc&NR=1

RudySchneider
11-08-2008, 01:01 PM
It's amazing that there've been nine posts since Oliver posted a link that totally puts to bed this ruse: http://www.reggiepaulk.com/2008/10/killathrill-generates-huge-buzz-with.html. And as IMI pointed out, the plane seems to defy the laws of physics with its quick, last-minute 90-degree --- with little if any overshoot, I might add --- rotation before touching down.

It's fake. End of discussion.

accom
11-08-2008, 01:13 PM
Hello guys!! Are you kidding me? First of all - it's not possible. Second of all: are you folks dealing with animation, video etc... ?! Of course it's a fake... most of it was allready said why it's obviously a fake, but one thing nobody mentioned is that when "the plane" lands, the camera moves with it, like a camera on a stadium, shooting the sprinters... Yeah, an amateur was visiting an air show and has brought and set-up a whole rail track for his 50+ bucks second-hand handycam. Makes sense. :D

As far as the "crippled F15" is concerned - I don't buy it eather... Neither does a friend's father, who is an aircrash investigetor... He says that he'd love to get his hands on this "incident's" documentation.

hrgiger
11-08-2008, 02:39 PM
I think anyone claiming this to be real is probably fake.

Stooch
11-08-2008, 04:06 PM
???

accom
11-09-2008, 10:21 AM
I refered to this post:


I believe it to be real. I have seen these planes demonstrate hanging in mid-air with NO movement/velocity. When that is done, the propeller provides enough airflow over the wing to give lift and suspend the plane in mid-air without forward-backward-upward-downward-sideways movement. A pilot of one of these critters probably would have done such many times for the fun of it.

In this case without a right wing, the pilot maneuvered and found a sweet spot to position the airplane. In this case the pilot, prolly from considerable experience, did four things to land the plane:

First, immediately after losing the wing, he stabilized the plane: no death dive roll. Second, he found the best hovering sweet spot he could muster in this circumstance. Third he descended for a landing and brought the plane to have as little forward motion as possible. Fourth, and most importantly, immediately BEFORE landing/impact, he got out of the sweet spot position and positioned the plane more normally. Note that in a "normal" flying position the plane could not fly and fell the final few feet to earth/landing.

Note that these stunt planes are extremely light weight and even with their small engines are definitely OVERPOWERED.

Riff

Stooch
11-09-2008, 12:40 PM
what i see is a poorly lit plane with obviously glossy shaders and bad landing animation.

I also know that since wings provide lift, missing one will imediatelly put any plane into an unrecoverable corkscrew resulting in a crash and a fiery death.

accom
11-10-2008, 01:15 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QcrhF5ZlpQ

virtualcomposer
11-10-2008, 01:41 PM
I think if people understood the laws of gravity a bit better, stuff like this video and the Haiti UFO footage would have been nearly impossible to prove a fake. They made the same mistake when they had the UFO's bank right for no apparent reason. Physics 101, for every action there's a reaction. I agree with IMI, the weight of slamming down would have crushed the right landing gear. Not only that, the torque of the propeller at that much power would have spent the plane round and round. If it was a two prop plane and the landing gear and some damage to the other plane's wing, I may have bought into a little more. The person probably didn't feel like animating damage as that could be pretty lengthy.

RollerJesus
11-10-2008, 02:10 PM
I also know that since wings provide lift, missing one will imediatelly put any plane into an unrecoverable corkscrew resulting in a crash and a fiery death.

For the most part, this is true. But think about the common airshow maneuver, the hammerhead where an airplane is perfectly vertical and zero airspeed. How is it still in the air?

At that point the relative wind passing over the wings is very small, thus the wings are creating very little lift, and even if they were they would be acting parallel to the ground since a wing's lift acts perpendicular to the chord line of the wing, which wouldn't help keep the airplane aloft.

If an airplane can generate more thrust (note: not lift) than the weight of the plane, the aircraft can maintain flight without wings at all (think about a rocket). The problem here becomes controlling the plane. Essentially counteracting the torque of the engine...

The plane will pitch/bank a bit until the relative wind over the existing wing is enough for the aileron to compensate for the torque of the engine. The "corkscrew effect" of the prop wash also helps maintain that attitude. At this point the wings are pretty much useless for creating lift, but the force required to rotate the aircraft around it's center of mass is much less so the ailerons, while less effective, still have an effect, enough to keep it controllable.

In my semi-educated aviation opinion, it's physically possible, but in my not-so-educated cg opinion, it's a fake.


Not only that, the torque of the propeller at that much power would have spent the plane round and round.

Not true. Any private pilot can tell you that you can stall a single engine plane, essentially the wings are creating no lift, thus have no means of counteracting the torque of the engine, yet you do not always go into a spin if you maintain a coordinated attitude using the rudder.

jin choung
11-10-2008, 02:51 PM
WOW!!!

FANTASTIC WORK! the compositing, lighting, modeling, animation... EVERYTHING is just SPOT ON!

it's almost (but not quite) as good as this stunning comp:

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

i defy you to identify EXACTLY WHERE it becomes cg.

jin

Stooch
11-10-2008, 06:31 PM
WRONG - this is 100% true, not "for the most part".

show me a plane flying with one wing and then you might have the right to say "mostly", but i know you wont because its physically not possible to do what the plane did in the video.


For the most part, this is true. But think about the common airshow maneuver, the hammerhead where an airplane is perfectly vertical and zero airspeed. How is it still in the air?er.

you just answered your own question. if the plane was moving, wings would be lifting. if it has one wing, plane will be out of control.

Stooch
11-10-2008, 06:37 PM
Not true. Any private pilot can tell you that you can stall a single engine plane, essentially the wings are creating no lift, thus have no means of counteracting the torque of the engine, yet you do not always go into a spin if you maintain a coordinated attitude using the rudder.

have you spoken to many private pilots that managed to land with one wing? lol its amazing that we are having this discussion.

Stooch
11-10-2008, 06:43 PM
oh i just want to add that when the plane started rolling, it was rolling in the opposite direction of lift! lol.

not only that but all elevators and rudder were at relaxed, centered position as if the pilot is not even trying to correct.

every time i look at it i see more and more proof of fake. (aside from it obviously being rendered just by the lighting)

RollerJesus
11-10-2008, 06:53 PM
w/e

http://www.rockwellcollins.com/news/video/damage-tolerance.html

Stooch
11-10-2008, 07:01 PM
umm. he still has a large portion of the wing left AND the computer flying the JETadapted, not the pilot. also its a jet moving at high speed, not a prop driven plane that relies on prop wash to generate lift. Also, lets see footage of it coming to a stop in mid air and drop on the ground... I bet the computer driven plane had to make a very high speed landing. shall i go on?

apples and oranges.

jin choung
11-10-2008, 07:22 PM
But think about the common airshow maneuver, the hammerhead where an airplane is perfectly vertical and zero airspeed. How is it still in the air?er.

same thing as a rock hanging in the air at the apex when someone throws it in the air.

it's not "hanging" for long.

jin

*Pete*
11-11-2008, 07:28 AM
if a helicopter, which is made for "hanging" in the air looses its tail rotor..what happens?

and why?

and yes, that movie is fake as it gets.

but it must be well made since it fools even a number of cg artists ;)

IMI
11-11-2008, 08:30 AM
if a helicopter, which is made for "hanging" in the air looses its tail rotor..what happens?

and why?


It would go into a serious out of control spin, and there would be no way to stop it. Because the tail rotor counters the centrifugal force of the main rotor and keeps it from spinning - the helicopter would spin in the opposite direction of the main rotor were it not for the tail rotor pushing air against that flow.
Not being an aircraft engineer, that's my best guess. ;)

hunter
11-11-2008, 10:26 AM
Ok. Why can an f-16 fly straight up? The wings really aren't providing lift at that point. If they were it would tend "lift" sideways wouldn't it? It can go straight up because the engine provides more pounds of thrust than the plane weighs. Simple really. Sure the wings provide stability but not lift in this case.
Not arguing that this video is in anyway real but those types of planes do have a pretty high thrust to weight ratio. Ever been to the redbull air races? ;)

It's a simple matter of weight ratios. :)

RollerJesus
11-11-2008, 10:27 AM
yep

virtualcomposer
11-11-2008, 10:47 AM
It would go into a serious out of control spin, and there would be no way to stop it. Because the tail rotor counters the centrifugal force of the main rotor and keeps it from spinning - the helicopter would spin in the opposite direction of the main rotor were it not for the tail rotor pushing air against that flow.
Not being an aircraft engineer, that's my best guess. ;)

You're right, the tail rotor acts as a counter rotation. That's why you always hear people say a helicopter technically shouldn't fly. If the engine fails, normally auto rotation would help land it to safety for the most part but if the tail rotor goes out, even at auto rotation, the chopper would go in the opposite direction. I did see in a training video that it was possible to still land a chopper if the tail rotor goes out but I don't remember what technique that was.

IMI
11-11-2008, 10:50 AM
Oliver, I love your demo reel - especially where the little sphere guy kicks over the staircase - I could almost feel his attitude there. :thumbsup:

*Pete*
11-11-2008, 01:40 PM
Ok. Why can an f-16 fly straight up? The wings really aren't providing lift at that point. If they were it would tend "lift" sideways wouldn't it? It can go straight up because the engine provides more pounds of thrust than the plane weighs. Simple really. Sure the wings provide stability but not lift in this case.

heheh..no, no..the wings work just as usual and drags the aircraft "upwards" even if it is flying vertically..it does get that sideways lift as you mention, but it is compensated by rudders, just as when the aircraft is flying normally.

that the engine is powerfull doesnt change the function of the wings, but it can give the power to go straight up without stalling.


IMI, you win the first prize, a submarine trip to the rocky mountains, for your answer. congratulations

Oliver, as a second prize, you will receive a colour radio, able to produce sound in 256 colours.

why i asked that question?...becouse the plane in that video would get similiar problems, spinning insanely out of controll, specially since it is flying at a low speed..at a higher speed there could be a theoretical chance of the controll mechanism of the remaining wing to compensate it..wings need a high speed airflow to have any kind of a function in an aircraft.
low speed and one wing...no chance.
high speed and one wing, realistically, no chance either...but atleast while airborne there is a chance, small chance, to keep it from crashing with the ground, but landing...i dont think so, not with a complete wing off as in the clip.

Stooch
11-11-2008, 02:11 PM
if a helicopter, which is made for "hanging" in the air looses its tail rotor..what happens?

and why?

and yes, that movie is fake as it gets.

but it must be well made since it fools even a number of cg artists ;)

if you are a cg artist and this video fooled you, honestly, i suggest a new career. LOL

hunter
11-11-2008, 03:05 PM
heheh..no, no..the wings work just as usual and drags the aircraft "upwards" even if it is flying vertically..it does get that sideways lift as you mention, but it is compensated by rudders, just as when the aircraft is flying normally.

that the engine is powerfull doesnt change the function of the wings, but it can give the power to go straight up without stalling.


IMI, you win the first prize, a submarine trip to the rocky mountains, for your answer. congratulations

Oliver, as a second prize, you will receive a colour radio, able to produce sound in 256 colours.

why i asked that question?...becouse the plane in that video would get similiar problems, spinning insanely out of controll, specially since it is flying at a low speed..at a higher speed there could be a theoretical chance of the controll mechanism of the remaining wing to compensate it..wings need a high speed airflow to have any kind of a function in an aircraft.
low speed and one wing...no chance.
high speed and one wing, realistically, no chance either...but atleast while airborne there is a chance, small chance, to keep it from crashing with the ground, but landing...i dont think so, not with a complete wing off as in the clip.

And you know this because?

hunter
11-11-2008, 03:14 PM
Not asking to be condescending or anything just curious. Are you sure it's rudders that compensate or elevators? How about the Saturn V rocket? Those stabilizers providing a lot of lift? IMO they're not especially after the first stage drops away. Just stabilization. Thrust to weight.

norlight
11-11-2008, 03:53 PM
The one thing that immediately tells me that this is a fake is at the start of the "mishap" were the a/c actually is rolling the opposite way than the remaining wing is lifting.

IF (!!!!) you had a very high speed when one wing (partial or whole) falls off, you could in THEORY, land as shown. With very high speed, fly it knife-edge (the body now acts as wings providing lift straight up in relation to the earth) until just before the ground, then roll it over to get the wheels hit the ground first.

In real life, I donīt think anybody would stand a chance pulling it off.

- As to F-16īs not providing lift when flying straight up: The wings always, always, always provide lift, as long as thereīs positive airflow over them. When flying straight up in the F-16, you actually have to "bunt" slightly nose-down in order to keep a straight path up. Thereīs also the flight computer thatīs gonna pull you over in the direction of the wings lift-vector, but thatīs a little off-topic and specific to all a/c with fly-by-wire flight-controls.

norlight
11-11-2008, 03:59 PM
As for the F-15 being able to both control the flight path and land: If everything providing lift on itīs right side had been ripped off, this would NOT have been possible. But itīs not. There are still portions of the wing left and everything on the fuselage on that side is intact. On the F-15 that constitutes a lot of possible lift given high speed.

The clip looks real to me and I think this is possible, with some luck. But I wonīt put money on it... ;)

Stooch
11-12-2008, 04:29 AM
As for the F-15 being able to both control the flight path and land: If everything providing lift on itīs right side had been ripped off, this would NOT have been possible. But itīs not. There are still portions of the wing left and everything on the fuselage on that side is intact. On the F-15 that constitutes a lot of possible lift given high speed.

The clip looks real to me and I think this is possible, with some luck. But I wonīt put money on it... ;)

umm... you know you just repeated what i said a few posts up. but nice catch

*Pete*
11-12-2008, 05:35 AM
Not asking to be condescending or anything just curious. Are you sure it's rudders that compensate or elevators? How about the Saturn V rocket? Those stabilizers providing a lot of lift? IMO they're not especially after the first stage drops away. Just stabilization. Thrust to weight.

lift is created by the shape of the wing, it causes air pass at different speeds over and under the wing, the resulting pressure difference causes lift.

it doesnt matter what direction the aircraft is heading towards, it will always pull towards one of the surfaces of the wing and away for the other.

as for an aircraft flying directly upwards, the wings still perform the same function, but the lift force from the wings is not lifting the plane upwards, but since the air is still passing the wings, the wings will pull the airplane towards the same direction as usual...

a rocket or an aircraft going straight up goes up becouse of the power of the engine, not becouse of the lift of the wings...but since you still can use the wings to steer the rocket or airplane, it is safe to assume that the wings lifting principles work just as well there too..even though it doesnt lift anything "upwards".

norlight
11-13-2008, 03:05 PM
umm... you know you just repeated what i said a few posts up. but nice catch

Stooch; Sorry! Missed that one...

chris6414
11-18-2008, 11:34 AM
http://www.billhempel.com/video/whknife.wmv

It can be done. A scale plane has a much larger prop in relation to its fuselage which could enable the "roll to level" before landing. I'm not saying this clip is real, but it is physically possible with the right pilot, plane and ammount of power/prop. Just google some 3d type model flying. Same concept only these planes can hover land and even hover and pull away with power in reserve. These planes have 1:1 or better power to weight ratio and losing a wing is good for about 20-25% less weight to haul around.

My .02

Chris

Stooch
11-18-2008, 03:20 PM
umm... i saw a plane crash landing - not lightly dropping on its wheels. you honestly think a plane that weighs 10x as much will just drag along the ground harmlessly? i also saw a foam model wing break off instead of a aluminum/composite one filled with fuel. Until you show us a real pilot inside a real plane, your evidence is irrelevant.

what will happen in real life, is the pilot will jump out and use his chute, while the plane will tumble to the ground and become a crater. not quite the same experience as being on the ground with a joystick.

chris6414
11-19-2008, 07:54 AM
umm... i saw a plane crash landing - not lightly dropping on its wheels. you honestly think a plane that weighs 10x as much will just drag along the ground harmlessly? i also saw a foam model wing break off instead of a aluminum/composite one filled with fuel. Until you show us a real pilot inside a real plane, your evidence is irrelevant.

what will happen in real life, is the pilot will jump out and use his chute, while the plane will tumble to the ground and become a crater. not quite the same experience as being on the ground with a joystick.


Ok, first off I never said the clip was real. I merely said an unlimited aerobatic aircraft could fly under these extreme conditions. Second, not all aircraft of this design have wing tanks. Altitude is your friend and a skilled pilot with enough altitude, luck and enough power could get the plane into a flight envelope as this plane did. Whether he could actually land it in the fashion he did, is unlikely. He most likely would have landed like the model did, almost on its side. At that slow a speed there just wouldn't be enough prop wash to allow the airlerons to roll the plane that quickly. Even if he mashed the left rudder pedal at the same time to help with the transistion, the aircraft would have yawed 90-180 degrees when it did it before touching down. One thing that lets me believe it is fake is the clean break of the wing. I have been in Aviation for 22 years and build and fly models for at least 16 of that. Aircraft of that type have monstrous spares in the wing. They are designed much tougher than any pilot can endure unless the plane is a kit build and not FAA approved. There are plenty of people out there flying them at their own risk. Once again, my take is, it is not real or we would have heard about it on CNN, Fox or some other main stream news or reputable aircraft forum.

Stooch
11-19-2008, 08:09 AM
lol so with all your flight experience you didnt catch that all the control surfaces of the plane in this video are at their neutral position? or the fact that it rolls opposite of wing lift? or the fact that its obviously badly lit and animated cg?

Nangleator
11-19-2008, 08:26 AM
(helicopter)... If the engine fails, normally auto rotation would help land it to safety for the most part but if the tail rotor goes out, even at auto rotation, the chopper would go in the opposite direction. I did see in a training video that it was possible to still land a chopper if the tail rotor goes out but I don't remember what technique that was.
The technique is called 'auto rotation.' What happens when a helicopter's engine fails is, the pilot disengages the clutch, so the rotor rotates freely, from momentum. He pitches the helicopter forward and dives. This increased airflow helps keep the rotor spinning.

When the helicopter is near the ground, the pilot uses the momentum built up in the rotating rotor by changing the pitch of the blades to produce lift. (Because the tail rotor is no longer driven by an engine, the helicopter will immediately begin counter spinning at this point. The pilot does his best to ignore this: the vertical motion is all he cares about at this point.)

If the pilot times it right, the momentum from the blades, turned into lift, slows the helicopter the maximum amount just as the aircraft reaches the ground.

You have one shot with this rotor momentum. Use it too soon and you kill your downward movement too high, then fall the rest of the way. Use it too late and you hit the ground at a higher speed than you could have.

ericsmith
11-19-2008, 08:54 AM
lol so with all your flight experience you didnt catch that all the control surfaces of the plane in this video are at their neutral position? or the fact that it rolls opposite of wing lift? or the fact that its obviously badly lit and animated cg?

1. No, the control surfaces weren't neutral. At least not during the landing part. The rudder was turning left (toward the remaining wing) and the elevators were rotating up. Both of these were acting to pull the tail down and away from the remaining wing, effectively rotating the plane into the "hover" that it was coming down in. Just as it came down, the aileron was rotated up, pulling the wing down and the plain towards level.

2. When the plane "rolls opposite of wing lift", it was in a stall, where the wings would have little lifting effect. Besides that, if you had pushed the aileron up on that wing in an attempt to stabilize, it would have more influence to roll the wing in the opposite direction than lift would provide. That's what they're designed to do.

3. Or is it just cheap handicam video that is horribly compressed? I personally don't see anything that is a dead giveaway for 3d.

There's a lot of evidence that would indicate that what's really happening here is that the plane in the air is RC, and after it comes down, just as the nose drops down to the ground and the video goes blurry (and at the exact point where the motion looks very unrealistic) is where they crossed over to video of a real version of the plane on the ground, rolling to a halt. It was probably done in AE or the likes rather than any 3d app.

Eric

Stooch
11-29-2008, 02:15 PM
...I personally don't see anything that is a dead giveaway for 3d.


and thats what separates the rock stars from the groupies as they say. one only has to look at the specularity and the fake looking fuel mist coming out of the wing (some people on here tried to claim it has no fuel in the wings???)

its ok, as you gain more experience the give away will become obvious.

p.s. i dont agree with the rest of your suppositions at all. the control surfaces were neutral to me. and judging by your inability to see the fakeness of the lighting, i wouldnt put it past you that you cant see the elevators/rudder either.

i find it ironic and sad that this argument even exists on these forums.

by the way the model airplane that did lose a wing is actual irrefutable proof that its fake because the model airplane behaved very differently than this video. i say its fake from start to finish.

animotion
11-29-2008, 02:30 PM
Bill Hempel is a national aerobatic champion. Also, The model is wood fiberglass and carbon fiber, not foam.

But the real plane landing on one wing is obviously fake. Anyone that can't tell that needs to study up on their dynamics.

ericsmith
11-30-2008, 11:10 AM
and thats what separates the rock stars from the groupies as they say. one only has to look at the specularity and the fake looking fuel mist coming out of the wing (some people on here tried to claim it has no fuel in the wings???)

Okay, I've attached a few images. Since you're such a rock star, give us some insights as to what gives away the specularity as fake.

As for the vapor trail at the beginning, the video is so badly compressed it's hard to make any definitive judgements (oh, and RC planes don't have fuel in the wings)


p.s. i dont agree with the rest of your suppositions at all. the control surfaces were neutral to me. and judging by your inability to see the fakeness of the lighting, i wouldnt put it past you that you cant see the elevators/rudder either.

again, look at the attached images. In the top image, you can see the elevators are rotated up, and in the second image, the rudder is clearly rotated clockwise (from the top view). The third image shows the aileron rotated up.

The thing is, as someone who makes part of my income designing airplanes (the real thing, by the way, not just RC), my experience helps me to see the subtle details that an amature such as yourself would miss.


its ok, as you gain more experience the give away will become obvious.

Whew. That's a relief. I guess 20 years of experience as a photographer, video producer, illustrator, and 3d artist aren't enough yet, but one day, I may be good enough to notice that the motion blur on the prop didn't look like the kind of motion blur 3d renderers produce (especially the way it strobed when the camera shook), or the fact that there were subtle design differences between the plane in the air, and the plane on the ground.

Oh, wait. I get it now. Whoever created this entirely fake piece of video purposfully modeled two slightly different airplanes to fool us amatures into thinking he had filmed an RC plane losing a wing, and then comped it together with footage of a full sized aircraft on the ground.

But you saw right through that clever bit of trickery. Good for you.

Eric

Stooch
11-30-2008, 09:20 PM
Okay, I've attached a few images. Since you're such a rock star, give us some insights as to what gives away the specularity as fake.

As for the vapor trail at the beginning, the video is so badly compressed it's hard to make any definitive judgements (oh, and RC planes don't have fuel in the wings)
Eric

ok then genius. i hope you are smart enough to apply your own words to your own argument, care to explain how it could be an RC plane durign the beginning of the footage and have a trail of vapor at the same time as you initially suggested? doesnt that lead you to believe that the vapor trail must be fake if the plane is RC? also if you are such an expert at aeronautics, can you explain the different behavior of a real RC plane and the one shown this video?

yes it is possible to have different models of the plane int he same footage. it happens when an artist refines his model during the project and doesnt re-render the refined frames. he may have gottena commment that his control surfaces are neutral and tweaked the shape of the plane in order to enable articulated control surfaces during landing but didnt bother re-rendering the entire sequence.

also the specularity distribution is wrong, there were weird hot spots momentarily visible through the footage that had no reason forbeing there. also the black point on the plane doesnt match the black level in the background. The specularity in general is very even, too even for a typical aluminum, riveted hull. Infact it looks exactly as it would if i were to try to render the plane and use specularity instead of actual reflection to generate the highlights.

look man, you may have knowledge in airplanes but you clearly dont have enough experience with rendering. sorry to break it to you, i hope you can cope.

Stooch
11-30-2008, 09:30 PM
I also want to add taht the badly compressed footage is a common trick to further hide CG elements.

ericsmith
11-30-2008, 09:55 PM
ok then genius. i hope you are smart enough to apply your own words to your own argument, care to explain how it could be an RC plane durign the beginning of the footage and have a trail of vapor at the same time as you initially suggested? doesnt that lead you to believe that the vapor trail must be fake if the plane is RC?

Uh, no.

http://www.diynetwork.com/diy/rc_planes_aircraft/article/0,2033,DIY_14224_2276087,00.html

That's just one of the first hits on google for "rc plane smoke system". I'm sure there's a lot more info about it if I cared enough to search further.


also if you are such an expert at aeronautics, can you explain the different behavior of a real RC plane and the one shown this video?

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but do a google search of killathrill fake, and you'll find dozens of blogs and forums where aeronautic experts and seasoned RC flyers agree that the plane in this video exhibits exactly what they would expect from an RC plane.


also the specularity distribution is wrong, there were weird hot spots momentarily visible through the footage that had no reason forbeing there.

Can you post a still image that exhibits this?


also the black point on the plane doesnt match the black level in the background.

Do you mean when the plane is in the foreground, the black areas on the plane are darker than then darkest area of the trees fifty to a hundred or so yards away? If so, that's what happens when you have atmosphere. amature 3d artists tend to not be aware of this, and the background black point is the same as the foreground black point.


The specularity in general is very even, too even for a typical aluminum, riveted hull.

RC planes don't typically have aluminum riveted hulls. The fact is, this video is too blurry, small and full of compression artifacts to come to such sure-fire conclusions.


Infact it looks exactly as it would if i were to try to render the plane and use specularity instead of actual reflection to generate the highlights.

No, that would cause very smooth, circular highlights. What I'm seeing in this video doesn't exhibit the typical 3d blown out small circle, and then outer glow where the dynamic range isn't clamped. Take a look at image 02 on your website. That's what I'm talking about.


look man, you may have knowledge in airplanes but you clearly dont have enough experience with rendering. sorry to break it to you, i hope you can cope.

Well, it's kind of a depressing revelation, but I'll just have to find a way to go on living in spite of it all.

Eric

P.S. after seeing the images I posted previously, do you still think the control surfaces were in a neutral position?

ericsmith
11-30-2008, 09:56 PM
I also want to add taht the badly compressed footage is a common trick to further hide CG elements.

It's also a common trick used by youtube to host millions of silly home movies.

eric

Stooch
11-30-2008, 10:00 PM
lol i like how you bring my website into the picture. its nice that your website does so much to back up all this expertise though :) oh wait... it doesnt. maybe you should spend some time doing more renders instead of arguing over "silly home movies" while simultaneously engaging in a penis size argument. ;)

i guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

I think that this is a nice tracking excersize if anything. then again its too nice and further gives it away. guy must have some really stead hands on his handycam while on full zoom. im kinda jealous.

ericsmith
11-30-2008, 10:13 PM
Okay, let's have a little reality check here.

My first comment simply pointed out a few facts that you missed. Then you turned around with the whole "rockstar vs. grouppie" comment, and then the condescending "its ok, as you gain more experience the give away will become obvious."

Overall, you were insulting and rude. From what you've said in past posts, you enjoy acting this way as a form of entertainment. So I went along and played your game a bit. If you can't handle getting back what you give, then don't play.

And by the way, I posted my demo reel several months ago in the gallery section. Just because the stillwater site is pretty much inactive (for reasons I won't go into here) doesn't mean I don't spend my time doing 3d.

Eric

Stooch
11-30-2008, 10:13 PM
Uh, no.
No, that would cause very smooth, circular highlights. What I'm seeing in this video doesn't exhibit the typical 3d blown out small circle, and then outer glow where the dynamic range isn't clamped. Take a look at image 02 on your website. That's what I'm talking about.


LOL. hahahahahaah, dude i just looked at the picture you mentioned and I have to say this is irony at its best!

That image is rendered with mental ray and all of the reflections are caused by luminous shapes and reflection blurring! infact nothing in that image even attempts at realism its a motion graphics piece! However you using that as an example of the common faked specularity as we know in LW, further proves that you need to brush up on the rendering skills :)

so afterall, I wasnt rude or conedscending, i stated the truth and you got upset because you are insecure.

my website is full of examples that I do alot of rendering so im calling it out based on rendering. and yes i do enjoy picking apart the babblings of insecure people. the only reason why you feel "condescended" is because the glove fits.

Stooch
11-30-2008, 10:41 PM
at the end of the day, my guess is that this movie is directly inspired by the flight experience of an RC plane champion. (maybe even created by our own, eric smith)

Someone liked it so much that they basically recreated the entire thing using the original as reference and then put in their plane animation, adding some flourishes because you have to admit - the real RC footage was kinda boring - then he ended the sequence with a very poorly animated crash. also one more interesting observation, there seems to be more hand shake during the footage of the perfectly still plane than any point of it being high in altitude. and the hand shake in the end of the movie seemed to me like a poor representation of a running person. and thats the only explanation I can give for the sudden increase in hand shake at this distance and the still plane.

Stooch
11-30-2008, 10:55 PM
Do you mean when the plane is in the foreground, the black areas on the plane are darker than then darkest area of the trees fifty to a hundred or so yards away? If so, that's what happens when you have atmosphere. amature 3d artists tend to not be aware of this, and the background black point is the same as the foreground black point.

Since i dont want to seem like im skirting any of your points, i want to point out that I was taught this concept about 12 years ago in painting glass (not CG!). Its called atmospheric perspective. you should know, if you arent an amateur, that it refers to suspended particles and varies by altitude and cloud formations.

However thats not all that contributes to the "black point" i mention on the plane. At this altitude there is also the matter of light reflected from both the atmosphere and the ground itself. I feel - in my humble opinion - is that its too dark on the plane for the overall levels in the footage.

also I want to point out that i very specifically said "levels" and "black point". you really should have picked up on that :) I wasnt saying that i expect a perfect match between the plane color termination with the trees.

ericsmith
12-01-2008, 12:52 AM
That image is rendered with mental ray and all of the reflections are caused by luminous shapes and reflection blurring! infact nothing in that image even attempts at realism its a motion graphics piece! However you using that as an example of the common faked specularity as we know in LW, further proves that you need to brush up on the rendering skills

I'd say that if the luminous shape was a circle (or sphere, or perhaps in this case a capsule), then that in conjunction with reflection bluring would create pretty much the same effect as standard specularity shading. The key issue is the pixel shading, really.


so afterall, I wasnt rude or conedscending, i stated the truth and you got upset because you are insecure.

my website is full of examples that I do alot of rendering so im calling it out based on rendering. and yes i do enjoy picking apart the babblings of insecure people. the only reason why you feel "condescended" is because the glove fits.

Give me a break. You clearly responded to my first post (which wasn't offensive in any way) with a condescending comment deriding my experience level. Even your latest comment here, calling the points I made "babblings" when they were clear, rational observations shows that you probably don't even know what the word condescending means.

I'm not insecure, but I do get annoyed when people with work at the quality level found on your website egotistically consider themselves "rock stars" and feel perfectly justified in beratting the skill or experience of others that they really have no knowlege of. Now to be clear, the demo reel showing work from Terra looks pretty decent, but considering the renderings on your home page, I have to assume that the Terra work was more collaborative rather than coming from your own ability. And honestly, I'm not trying to put down your personal work. I'm just suggesting that it may not be at a level that would justify your looking down your nose at everyone else here on this forum. There are only a few artists with that level of ability, and they rarely tend to be so arrogant.

At any rate, I really don't want to waste any more time with this, so you can rant all you want... by yourself.

Eric

Stooch
12-01-2008, 02:24 AM
lol. believe what you want.

just shows your insecurity more :)

i posted about an airplane losing a wing. not about your work, your argument pattern fits with other insecure people i have encountered before...

I am not going to defend or explain my reel, it speaks for itself and was never really a topic of this conversation until you chose to make it so. You feeling offended by my "arrogance" is a sign of a premadonna. a truly balanced individual that you are trying to portray would simply learn from this exchange instead of going on a personal attack. but you arent fooling anyone so i think its wise to drop it :)

Stooch
12-01-2008, 02:35 AM
Ill say this too. So far, unequivocally, EVERY person that ever had a problem with my directness, either sucked at what he did and/or had something to prove to themselves because of insecurity. :)

the people who took the crits for what they are can always make the best of any comment, never needing to be handled with kid gloves..

these also happen to be the "rockstars".