• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

what a pilot!

Looking at how much interest this video gathered here, I just want to throw my opinion into the pot, too. In my opinion this is a fake, in which CGI has been put over a real clip at the airport without any airplane, neither a real one with both wings, nor a R/C plane. Why would you use an R/C plane and add such lighting in there, makes no sense to me, or why would you add that lighting to a real clip? And for sure this is no real world lighting, there´s no argument for me about that.
Than look at the smoke line behind the aircraft while it flies straight at the beginning of the movie, totally innatural for me, too. Or look at the prop while it quits rotating, looks 100% rendered to me.
Than there´s the physics, overall after seeing what these planes can do, I wouldn´t say it´s impossible at all, but some points just look wrong for me, even as I am no real world pilot except for some little time behind GA controls while flying straight out. Why would the plane level out and than fall into the direction of the remaining wing, could be possible that the pilot got it wrong and moved rudder and aileron into the wrong direction, there´s no other reason for the plane to go that way for me. And even if there would be no fuel in the wing tanks at all, the wings still have some weight, which would cause the airplane to impact lopsided at that rate of descent.

This reminded me about R/C sims, too, they really look a bit like this these days...

It is interesting to see you defend this one Bigstick, and I don´t want to offend you by any means, there´s allways multiple opinions and I just wanted to express mine.
 
jbDC9 said:
Big Stick, no offense intended, but it's kinda funny how you keep defending this video... it's just fake in so many ways as others have listed above. And the landing? It's just silly, looks like a cartoon. It just looks all wrong... even my wife, a non-pilot, watched it and said "oh yeah, that's fake."

Just an opinion from a 17,000+ hour B-737 captain with a Van's RV-8 in a hangar at the local 'drome.
Click to expand...

It's the non-pilots who seem to be most inclined to believe it's a fake. I'm sure you read the entire thread and saw the post by the 20,000 hour pilot and the flight test engineer who both thought, as I do, that it was genuine. I'm not falling into lock-step with the majority opinion, but I'm pleased you gleaned some humor from my stance.

The ad hominem attacks have started, thinly-veiled in some cases, as they ever do. Only reason I keep an eye on this thread is because someone may actually post something substantive here that will help sort this out, rather than barbs or guesses.
 
Mr.Mugel said:
Looking at how much interest this video gathered here, I just want to throw my opinion into the pot, too. In my opinion this is a fake, in which CGI has been put over a real clip at the airport without any airplane, neither a real one with both wings, nor a R/C plane. Why would you use an R/C plane and add such lighting in there, makes no sense to me, or why would you add that lighting to a real clip? And for sure this is no real world lighting, there´s no argument for me about that.
Than look at the smoke line behind the aircraft while it flies straight at the beginning of the movie, totally innatural for me, too. Or look at the prop while it quits rotating, looks 100% rendered to me.
Than there´s the physics, overall after seeing what these planes can do, I wouldn´t say it´s impossible at all, but some points just look wrong for me, even as I am no real world pilot except for some little time behind GA controls while flying straight out. Why would the plane level out and than fall into the direction of the remaining wing, could be possible that the pilot got it wrong and moved rudder and aileron into the wrong direction, there´s no other reason for the plane to go that way for me. And even if there would be no fuel in the wing tanks at all, the wings still have some weight, which would cause the airplane to impact lopsided at that rate of descent.

This reminded me about R/C sims, too, they really look a bit like this these days...

It is interesting to see you defend this one Bigstick, and I don´t want to offend you by any means, there´s allways multiple opinions and I just wanted to express mine.
Click to expand...

Now that is gentlemanly and well-put. I would remind my growing list of detractors that I have already stated that the clip may indeed be faked, but if fake, it is masterful and I would like to know, in forensic terms, precisely how it was accomplished.

Some of your concerns, such as the fuel supply and control issues, have been addressed in my previous posts, but as I mentioned, a fuselage tank would be unaffected by the wing loss, and skillful application of power along with the huge amount of control authority available with this plane (the Akrotech G300 has enormous, full-span ailerons and a dramatically oversized rudder and elevator) would account for the pilot's ability to regain control. As far as the direction of rotation, bear in mind that this type of plane is designed to fly inverted equally well as it does upright. Thus there is no appreciable "dihedral" effect. With neutral ailerons and little or no power applied, the plane would be apt to roll in either direction, depending upon the angle of attack of the remaining, left wing (not the attitude above the horizon). There is nothing about the behaviour of the plane in the video that is not consistent with the normal envelope of flight dynamics for this sort of plane.
 
AckAck said:
What I don't understand is why everyone feels that any of the shots have to be ALL real or ALL fake. I doubt the authenticity of the video- if we are going percentages, I'll say 99%. I also believe that it is possible to do everything shown (while not paying attention to which way the aircraft rotated when the wing came off), I just doubt that is was done here.

I also think that it is a heck of a lot easier to take existing footage and edit a wing out of it, rather than creating an entire video in CGI, which is what most people seem to be advocating. If you watch the History Channel's segment on the IAF F-15 that lost the wing, that is what they have done - taken stock footage of F-15s (most of the time, although there are F-4s in there too, along with an F-100 playing the part of the A-4!?) and edited out the wing that is supposed to be missing - either be covering it in "fuel spray" or "smoke" for the interior shots, and just replacing it with a section of blue sky for the exterior shots. I think that is what has been done here, except for also replacing a portion of the wing root with a piece of the "fuselage", as necessary.

The only part I am willing to say is complete BS and CGI is the landing. I think the righting and leveling is actual (except for editing the wing, of course), while from the bounce to the weird pitch down and second bounce (while everything is out of focus and moving way faster than it actually would) is either CGI or edited, and the ground roll and loop is actual again, but with the wing edited out and the shadow replaced or edited to remove the wing shadow. The shadow looks bogus (way too smooth and not reflective of the varied heights of grass blades) until it goes out of frame as the plane spins around (conveniently eliminating any editing needs for the last 10 seconds of the video.)

Plus, I think I'd have had my engine off a long time before he did. Like as soon as I hit the ground, instead of taxiing onto the grass first.

Interestingly, you can hear the wing break as soon as it breaks, so the engine sounds being out of sync because of the distance would also cause the wing break to be out of sync as well...but it isn't.

Brian
Click to expand...

Cutting the engine would be the last thing you'd want to do. The knife-edge maneuver requires power, and as a glider, the one-winged plane would have been as controllable and aerodynamic as a brick. The engine is what saved the plane, RC or real. Indeed, it may be a real video where the wing was edited, but the plane is so close to the ground just before it lands that the right wingtip (if actually in place and only edited out) would have struck the ground.

Some have said that the ground roll was extremely short, but it's not. The plane rolls out for a couple of hundred feet after the bounce. The blurring may suggest edits, but but again, those blurs are pretty typical of the handheld video cams I've used when set to autofocus. As soon as the plane moves out of the cone of focus, the lens goes back to infinity.
 
Here's someone who's said it better than I, and this reflects my current opinion of the clip:

"Why would the wing fall off on a routine snap roll?"
Perhaps you could ask the same question about the F-117A that lost a wing during an air show in Baltimore in 1997?
Or you could ask it about the Zlin aerobatic aircraft that Neil Williams successfully landed after the spar broke and one wing began to fold upwards. He flew it inverted to hold the wing in place, then did an ultra-low-level roll and landed. See his own report of it here: http://www.aerobatics.org.uk/repeats/zlin_wing_failure.htm
Having seen Sean Tucker fly by sideways hanging from his prop in a pass that looked very much like the final pass in the video, I certainly think what the video shows is possible, but is the video a fake? I honestly don't know. If it's real, I'm very impressed by the pilot. If it's fake, I'm very impressed by the CGI artist. Either way, someone is *very* good.

(from the AvWeb site).
 
Big_Stick said:
Now that is gentlemanly and well-put. I would remind my growing list of detractors that I have already stated that the clip may indeed be faked, but if fake, it is masterful and I would like to know, in forensic terms, precisely how it was accomplished.
Click to expand...
I can explain this. Have a model built to specifications of your desire. Perhaps based on an RC model, perhaps not. Either way, consistancy is key here. Make your screenshots of the model in flight and do some photoshopping. Easy enough.

Regarding the video, it could be done two ways. Record an RC and adjust the video using LightWave and After Effects to add things like smoke, etc. Alternatively, which is how I believe the second half (the landing) was surely done, animate the model in 3ds MAX, using keying effects for the pilot exiting the cockpit possibly utilizing green screen or blue screen technology for the personel using a variety of software tools freely available on the market, place it on a backdrop of your choosing. Once the film has been created, utilize post editing effects to create blurring, color hues and other masks to edit out any abnormalities that were not found prior.

This is not rocket science.

As to the aerodynamics, what is to say they didn't study up a bit, watching videos like the ones we provided to simulate the situation? Simply animate the model to give a similar experience and viola! Developers do this all the time when they animate their models for FS addons, what is to say that someone else couldn't do it with 3DS Max for a video like this? All you need is a bit of background in planes and a bit of proofing to faux this.

It is already known that creators have produced similar content in the past:

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

Anyways. I think I have said my point to death. Convincing you is like pulling teeth, and what do I gain from doing it?
 
Furthermore, you ask me to waste my time making substanant proof that this is false. I say you provide us with substanant proof that the plane, guy and incident REALLY did happen and is not a viral ad campaign.

Isn't that fair? Why should I waste all my time making something to prove to you otherwise, when you are not returning the favor except repeating what others have said, who you cannot verify their background on some website.

Where is YOUR proof and biography?
 
CodyValkyrie said:
I can explain this. Have a model built to specifications of your desire. Perhaps based on an RC model, perhaps not. Either way, consistancy is key here. Make your screenshots of the model in flight and do some photoshopping. Easy enough.

Regarding the video, it could be done two ways. Record an RC and adjust the video using LightWave and After Effects to add things like smoke, etc. Alternatively, which is how I believe the second half (the landing) was surely done, animate the model in 3ds MAX, using keying effects for the pilot exiting the cockpit possibly utilizing green screen or blue screen technology for the personel using a variety of software tools freely available on the market, place it on a backdrop of your choosing. Once the film has been created, utilize post editing effects to create blurring, color hues and other masks to edit out any abnormalities that were not found prior.

This is not rocket science.

As to the aerodynamics, what is to say they didn't study up a bit, watching videos like the ones we provided to simulate the situation? Simply animate the model to give a similar experience and viola! Developers do this all the time when they animate their models for FS addons, what is to say that someone else couldn't do it with 3DS Max for a video like this? All you need is a bit of background in planes and a bit of proofing to faux this.

It is already known that creators have produced similar content in the past:

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

Anyways. I think I have said my point to death. Convincing you is like pulling teeth, and what do I gain from doing it?
Click to expand...

Well put. There's absolutely no arguement in saying there's no inconsistencies in the model. If, for example, I filmed a few clips in RealFlight (which, I have to admit, did go through my mind aswell), using the same model, why would it keep changing between frames? Just because it's using a simulator, or a CGI image, that doesn't mean the plane is just going to keep changing in appearance. Do your aircraft in FSX suddenly omit registration numbers, propellors, aerials, or whatever, when you're flying along? Of course not. Why would this be any different?

The basis of your (Big_Stick) arguement seems to be 'it can be done in real life'. But so what? Someone could make a CGI video of a dog barking. Would you argue the point that it must be real because 'dogs really do bark'?

I understand you're trying to provide an alternative viewpoint, but you really are fighting an uphill battle. If we had a way of proving it, I really would put that $800 on the line, to say it's a fake, but I don't know of anyone who'd even think about completing the deal on the other end.
 
This is rediculous...

Someone explain how at 1:07 into the clip, the a/c is inverted and the LEFT wing is missing instead of the RIGHT???
 
When I saw that Feng had responded to this in the FS2004 section and after watching it a couple times, I knew this was mostly fake and mixed with reality and CGI and when someone who has worked on movies such as Transformers, I'll trust Feng's judgment and my own.

This is also just a peak into the future and the problems with convictions using video as proof, if people are so sure this is all real, that is truly a scary view of what will happen in the future when CGI will be much better than this and harder to spot.
 
Yes, what you say is true, but you might have understood me wrong, even if there is no fuel, fuel just ment as weight, in the wings, shouldn´t the gravity pull the remaining wing down at that rate of descent during the touchdown, causing the gear on the side with the remaining wing to deflect further and with that pull the plane out of the straight and level situation in the movie? I had another weak point, but I keep forgetting it.

It´s really interesting to see how this goes on and on. I guess that there is no "proof" that can convince any of us, of the opposite that he is allready thinking, this seems to really be a matter of opinion. For me it is a sure fact that it is CGI, I wouldn´t even call it a fake any longer, it´s just a different kind of movie... And even if I think that the lighting is strange, and unnatural, it is still great editing work, I can´t do it myself, but I know what can be done, there was a rather bloody "Ice Age" style CGI movie for example, which was of quite the same visual quality as the movie itself, but I guess the real movie was made by far more people.
 
Just to backtrack a bit, you can't fly an aircraft in the UK without a registration and we do not have an equivalent of the FAA's Experimental category. The UK CAA have exactly 0% sense of humour about this, hell they don't even like issuing out of sequence registrations that much and the Red Bull sponsored Sea Vixen had to carry it's registration despite being the only flying example and painted in a rather striking blue and silver paint scheme, with massive Red Bulls on it.
Now, in an apparently standard aerobatic display the wing falls off an airplane, surely there should be some rather important signals from the design authority grounding the aircraft until a thorough investigation has been made, and subsequently a list of inspections to be carried out on all similar aircraft prior to them being declared airworthy again. If you can produce these, which should be fairly trivial if it actually happened, I'll admit it was real and really badly filmed. If not based on everything I know about flying and CGI I'm calling it a fake.
 
Big_Stick said:
It's the non-pilots who seem to be most inclined to believe it's a fake. I'm sure you read the entire thread and saw the post by the 20,000 hour pilot and the flight test engineer who both thought, as I do, that it was genuine. I'm not falling into lock-step with the majority opinion, but I'm pleased you gleaned some humor from my stance.

The ad hominem attacks have started, thinly-veiled in some cases, as they ever do. Only reason I keep an eye on this thread is because someone may actually post something substantive here that will help sort this out, rather than barbs or guesses.
Click to expand...

You must have missed my two posts.
 
It's fake? Why? Because it's obvious that it's a fake, at least I thought it was? I must admit I'm rather amused by the controversy and debate this video has prompted, but then this means that the viral advertising has indeed worked and the video has been plastered all over the internet with people debating it's authenticity.

Every little detail from the reflections through to the acting, sounds, animation, it all adds up to make a fake. A good fake, but an obvious one in my opinion. Oh, and that last little bounce before it comes to rest on it's wheels, it just looks a tad unbelievable. I'll stick good money on it being a fake to be honest.

Oh, and if you want proof it's fake and part of a viral marketing campaign:

http://www.killathrill.de/start.action

I know this link has already been posted but... seriously. The answers are all on there, it's quite wittily put together and full of humour. This viral marketing thing is nothing new and it amazes me that people are still debating its authenticity. But then as I've previously stated I suppose this means it's done its job ;)

I think it's time for an internet meme:

2365167051_bb2e044365.jpg
 
CodyValkyrie said:
Furthermore, you ask me to waste my time making substanant proof that this is false. I say you provide us with substanant proof that the plane, guy and incident REALLY did happen and is not a viral ad campaign.

Isn't that fair? Why should I waste all my time making something to prove to you otherwise, when you are not returning the favor except repeating what others have said, who you cannot verify their background on some website.

Where is YOUR proof and biography?
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the pack has formed and is circling the prey, snarling and slavering at the smell of blood.

The only argument presented for the falsity of the clip is a circumstantial one. The analogy to barking dogs could as well be used to support the obverse conclusion.
 
Chris H said:
It's fake? Why? Because it's obvious that it's a fake, at least I thought it was? I must admit I'm rather amused by the controversy and debate this video has prompted, but then this means that the viral advertising has indeed worked and the video has been plastered all over the internet with people debating it's authenticity.

Every little detail from the reflections through to the acting, sounds, animation, it all adds up to make a fake. A good fake, but an obvious one in my opinion. Oh, and that last little bounce before it comes to rest on it's wheels, it just looks a tad unbelievable. I'll stick good money on it being a fake to be honest.

Oh, and if you want proof it's fake and part of a viral marketing campaign:

http://www.killathrill.de/start.action

I know this link has already been posted but... seriously. The answers are all on there. This viral marketing thing is nothing new and it amazes me that people are still debating its authenticity. But then as I've previously stated I suppose this means it's done its job ;)
Click to expand...

How is that link "proof" of anything other than the fact that killathrill has a website? Unless something has changed in the last 12 hours, there's nothing there that suggests the video is a hoax.

If it's such an obvious fake, than why do you later state it is a "good" fake? Wouldn't a good fake be one that would be convincing? Which is it, obvious or good?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top