Edit: Aviation CGI still relatively poor

Sat Apr 23, 2011 1:41 pm

I'm new around here, well newly back, but over the years I have noticed the great leaps that computer generated imagery CGI has taken to create more realism for Hollywood films and the such. But I still cannot understand why these computer geeks cannot take a bit of time to study the actual aerodynamics of how airplanes really fly, especially in formation. The best I've seen over the years obviously comes from some very talented folks in Japan. I've noticed on several clips the attention to detail in some of the aircraft presented but even with this outstanding detail they still can't seem to get the flow of travel in the air correctly or simply do not care as much about that aspect. If you've seen the movie 'Avatar' you may see some close to the actual movement of objects through the air IMHO.

I always cringe when I see a film of an aircraft destroyed in the air or a B-17 with it's wings bent downward. If you have seen and remember the CGI footage in the series 'The Pacific' when the B-29's seem to be flying out of Okinawa (huh? ... oh well history re-written there a bit) with their wings not looking quite right and all the bombers so close together so low. There are so many movies to bring up as examples and don't even think about discussing (discusting) 'Pearl harbor'.

How many movies have you seen with CGI B-17's looking so hokey in formation. (A thread here on WIX shows what I mean http://viewtopic.php?f=3&t=40624) B-17's just scattered about with no real attention to anything real as far as what we are used to seeing as formations of bombers. Seems to me if these CGI folks would pay as much attention to aerodynamics and actual history as well as the attention some put into their detail of the aircraft they portray that the final product would be far more convincing. A large problem in realism I see is that most people who attend a movie with formations of CGI aircraft portrayed usually have no idea of what they are watching anyway. Just us folks who know what we are seeing and expect would know the difference.

Oh well, maybe years down the road we will see amazing realism in aviation films such as a CGI 22 year old Tom Cruise flying very realistic early CGI P-40's in a very realistic 'CGI Flying Tigers' film. So what are your examples of good CGI and bad CGI in aviation films?

Last edited by Franklin on Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sat Apr 23, 2011 2:17 pm

Youtube examples ....

Edit: most of the links below are not great examples but just something to observe for opinion. And the very last was my bad attempt at humor ... :roll:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vMBpOnp ... re=related

Last edited by Franklin on Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sat Apr 23, 2011 2:38 pm

The good are very good.

The bad, to be fair, one is a maquette/storyboard that is better than it really needs to be for the purpose. It's not finished footage, just a proposal clip.

The rest of the bad and the ugly are screen caps from video games - mostly IL2, which, while a great game, is based on a ten year old effects engine rendering in real time.

Sat Apr 23, 2011 2:45 pm

shrike wrote:The good are very good.

The bad, to be fair, one is a maquette/storyboard that is better than it really needs to be for the purpose. It's not finished footage, just a proposal clip.

The rest of the bad and the ugly are screen caps from video games - mostly IL2, which, while a great game, is based on a ten year old effects engine rendering in real time.

Yes you are correct and I can understand the proposal clips, my point more being my original post about not so much CGI graphics as realism in aerodynamics and formations of aircraft completely unrealistic and so on. Better my basis being towards completed CGI aviation films already in circulation.

Last edited by Franklin on Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sat Apr 23, 2011 2:46 pm

Well, using your own criteria, the "Good" videos are pretty bad.

For example, in the first one, the roll rate is too high and when the aircraft pivots around at the end, it does so at a rate which would pop most sidewalls. Looks great, isn't realistic.

Then, you look at the User Films - they're not supposed to be "good" for physics or anything like that. It's a friggin' GAME. The physics are decent the game is fun, and for $30, what do you expect? A Level-D certified simulator running hundreds of thousands of calculations a second for the physics alone?

Sat Apr 23, 2011 2:58 pm

CAPFlyer wrote:Okay, before anyone clicks on any of the links, the "Bad" and the "Ugly" are laughable examples because of all of them, only the first is a professional production and its' a "PreVis" (i.e. rough draft) of what the final thing will be. The rest are IL-2 User Videos using the video game IL-2 with the exception of the last which is a guy holding an RC Zero while filming it.

Dude, if you're going to make wild generalizations like you did and then back it up, try to do it in a way that might actually get you points instead of having people laugh their rear ends off because you make it look like you actually believe that what you're posting as "evidence" is being done by professionals.

OK OK "the good" I was serious about. "The bad and the ugly" WERE KIND OF JOKES, SORRY YOU DIDN'T GET THE JOKE .... that was my fault ... come on dude, I'm not that stupid. I know their friggin GAMES .. Sorry for the friggin confusion on the links. There WAS a point I WAS trying to make but I guess it went over a few heads, most notably yours. I'll do better next time. And now WFT? you change your whole post? dude I can't keep up with you.

And I totally agree with you on the "good" links, their good but not great as far as realism in aerodynamics, hence the thread in the first place. I'm REALLY NOT trying to take a jab at anyone's work or motives here, just trying to convey an honest discussion on CGI aviation films. If it's a bother or insult to some I'll omit the youtube videos. :roll:

And the last video? Come on! give me a break, it was a joke ... you see that little CGI icon? you know this one? :wink:

usually means not serious

Last edited by Franklin on Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:30 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:04 pm

Letting the bit about yelling from plane to plane slide, the thing that always bugs me about CGI airplanes is the way full control deflection is used for EVERYTHING. Ever notice the rudder on a CG airplane always has to be doing something?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnpft4jLvpI

-Tim

Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:14 pm

I'll use "Flyboys" as my example.
The film was touted as having sensors placed on all the control surfaces of a Pitts Special
so they could record control deflection and rates of maneuvers. they were then applied to the CGI aircraft so all the control surfaces move as they should and the aircraft roll though maneuvers as a real aircraft would.
Unfortunately, a Neiuport 17 does not have a roll rate nor speed of deflection that a 250hp Pitts Special has. 75 years of aviation technology separates the two and it shows. Noble effort, but they should've at least used a biplane from the 1920's rather that the producer's Pitts.
Very unrealistic CGI aircraft movement in "Flyboys".
Jerry

Sat Apr 23, 2011 5:26 pm

Tiger Tim wrote:Letting the bit about yelling from plane to plane slide, the thing that always bugs me about CGI airplanes is the way full control deflection is used for EVERYTHING. Ever notice the rudder on a CG airplane always has to be doing something?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnpft4jLvpI

-Tim

Well, with a WWI plane, you have to give them some leeway because many of those airplanes you used the rudder to turn the plane much more than the ailerons. I seem to remember that with one airplane, the ailerons were just used to maintain the turn, not initiate it. Also, in the dogfight, use of rudder was quite abundant to try and "rake" your target. So, while some movements may be exaggerated, use of the rudder isn't necessarily.

Sat Apr 23, 2011 6:58 pm

A lot of it depends on the software and the editing skills of the people doing it..This is still my favorite.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnIVCxuc-fg
Only just found this one too which is getting close.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5EXH-xB ... re=related
A lot of the newer sims go for pretty terrain and skins.Only one I know of that spends a lot of time on physics is EAW but the skins and terrrain are very old.

Sat Apr 23, 2011 7:50 pm

Jerry O'Neill wrote:I'll use "Flyboys" as my example.
The film was touted as having sensors placed on all the control surfaces of a Pitts Special
so they could record control deflection and rates of maneuvers. they were then applied to the CGI aircraft so all the control surfaces move as they should and the aircraft roll though maneuvers as a real aircraft would.
Unfortunately, a Neiuport 17 does not have a roll rate nor speed of deflection that a 250hp Pitts Special has. 75 years of aviation technology separates the two and it shows. Noble effort, but they should've at least used a biplane from the 1920's rather that the producer's Pitts.
Very unrealistic CGI aircraft movement in "Flyboys".
Jerry

They used a Jungmann for the motion capture in "Flyboys", but I'm not sure how much of that actually was used and how much was just regular CGI.

-

Sat Apr 23, 2011 8:16 pm

I thought the modified (one prop engine, one jet engine, etc) Mitchell that took on a dragon in "Sucker Punch" was way cool.

Always thought the mass C-47 scene at the end of Ep.1 of Band of Brothers looked ... off ... a bit.

Sun Apr 24, 2011 12:00 am

One of my pet peeves with CGI is that the artists often forget to give the wings any dihedral..it definitely wrecks the realism for me. One particularly glaring example is an otherwise decent scene of Ju-88s bombing Stalingrad in "Enemy At The Gates." The wings are perfectly flat.

I'll probably have my WIX card revoked for this, but I rather liked the Empire State Building battle in Peter Jackson's "King Kong" remake. The CGI was good, and they even got the sound effects pretty realistic (he had the sound crew go out and record several hours of Harvards.) I hope his "Dam Busters" remake is just as good or better (assuming it ever gets made.)

SN

Sun Apr 24, 2011 12:16 am

I thought the CGI in "Letter's from Iwo Jima" where the B-24's dropped bombs on the island was a good representation. The Corsairs were not so good.

Sun Apr 24, 2011 12:24 am

Watch the movie "Eagle Squadron" with Robert Stack. Watch the formation of German Leopard fighters making
mass 90' flat turns :shock:

Compared to that cr*p it's come a long way :idea:

Edit: Aviation CGI still relatively poor

Edit: Aviation CGI still relatively poor

Re: Aviation CGI still sucks!!! ... lol

Re: Aviation CGI still sucks!!! ... lol

Re: Aviation CGI still sucks!!! ... lol

Re: Aviation CGI still sucks!!! ... lol

Re: Aviation CGI still sucks!!! ... lol

Re: Aviation CGI still sucks!!! ... lol

Re: Aviation CGI still sucks!!! ... lol

Re: Aviation CGI still sucks!!! ... lol

Re: Edit: Aviation CGI still relatively poor

Re: Aviation CGI still sucks!!! ... lol

Re: Edit: Aviation CGI still relatively poor

Re: Edit: Aviation CGI still relatively poor

Re: Edit: Aviation CGI still relatively poor

Re: Edit: Aviation CGI still relatively poor