Flyboys Movie: the aircraft

Ebby wrote:


CGI planes are better than the models on strings from older pictures but I
wish they could program some fuzzy logic into the algorithms so the planes
moved more realistically.

I haven't seen this movie yet, will probably go this weekend, but what
I have noticed with CGI planes in movies is that the shots are always
'perfect', I mean, no camera shaking, always good lighting, always
correctly framed; which might be one reason why the thing does not
look 'real' especially in action scenes, because intuitively we do
expect imperfections; I mean even if the flight model is in fact
perfect as well. The only tv serie / movie where I have seen a
deliberate effort to introduce imperfections in CGI scenes were the
sci-fi serie firefly / serenity, and it is pretty effective...

--Sylvain

"Richard Riley" wrote in message ...

: Sadly, I don't get to see much on the big screen these days. I do,
: however, know all the dialog to every Disney film ever released on
: DVD.
:
: I'll try to break away and see this one before it closes.
:

That is good! My daughter also plays them over and over, and she recites the dialog as we drive to the store. Life is
good, and so is FlyBoys...

That CGI was excellent on your posted link. The paint jobs looked a little
too pristine though. The motion was great when the twin landed on one wheel
and then made a couple rudder corrections on the landing rollout. Very well
done. I know the old rotary engines had enourmous torque issues yet it
looked to me, in Flyboys, they had performance characteristics outside the
real envelope. IOW too agile.

Ebby
"Richard Riley" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:18:48 -0700, Sylvain wrote:

Ebby wrote:


CGI planes are better than the models on strings from older pictures but
I
wish they could program some fuzzy logic into the algorithms so the
planes
moved more realistically.

I haven't seen this movie yet, will probably go this weekend, but what
I have noticed with CGI planes in movies is that the shots are always
'perfect', I mean, no camera shaking, always good lighting, always
correctly framed; which might be one reason why the thing does not
look 'real' especially in action scenes, because intuitively we do
expect imperfections; I mean even if the flight model is in fact
perfect as well. The only tv serie / movie where I have seen a
deliberate effort to introduce imperfections in CGI scenes were the
sci-fi serie firefly / serenity, and it is pretty effective...


http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photoga...6-merlins.mpeg

But it's not Hollywood. It's a guy in Japan making stuff for his own
amusement.

"Ebby" wrote in message
...
That CGI was excellent on your posted link. The paint jobs looked a
little too pristine though. The motion was great when the twin landed on
one wheel and then made a couple rudder corrections on the landing
rollout. Very well done. I know the old rotary engines had enourmous
torque issues yet it looked to me, in Flyboys, they had performance
characteristics outside the real envelope. IOW too agile.


There's no question they had a few "Top Gun" moments. The climbs were a
little out of whack also. showing the pilots grimacing as they hauled back
on the stick and climbed up to meet the foe. If you look at the real climb
to height of WW1 fighters, it isn't spectacular. Didn't hurt much for me, it
wasn't billed as a documentary.

Being the smart moviegoers we are I think we anticipate CGI and try to pick
it out. Someday it will be seemless. On a related point (techie) I
recently heard about a new female robot that speaks four languages.


"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Ebby" wrote in message
...
That CGI was excellent on your posted link. The paint jobs looked a
little too pristine though. The motion was great when the twin landed on
one wheel and then made a couple rudder corrections on the landing
rollout. Very well done. I know the old rotary engines had enourmous
torque issues yet it looked to me, in Flyboys, they had performance
characteristics outside the real envelope. IOW too agile.


There's no question they had a few "Top Gun" moments. The climbs were a
little out of whack also. showing the pilots grimacing as they hauled back
on the stick and climbed up to meet the foe. If you look at the real climb
to height of WW1 fighters, it isn't spectacular. Didn't hurt much for me,
it wasn't billed as a documentary.

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 22:24:51 GMT, "Ebby" wrote:

On a related point (techie) I
recently heard about a new female robot that speaks four languages.

Yeah, but the only word she can say is, "no"... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

("Ron Wanttaja" wrote)
On a related point (techie) I recently heard about a new female robot
that speaks four languages.

Yeah, but the only word she can say is, "no"... :-)


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/be/STMuddsWomen.jpg
What we think we'll get, you know, ...out of the box.

vs. what we end up with...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harcourt_Fenton_Mudd
"Harcourt Fenton Mudd...."


Montblack

In article ,
"Dave" wrote:

There's no question they had a few "Top Gun" moments. The climbs were a
little out of whack also. showing the pilots grimacing as they hauled back
on the stick and climbed up to meet the foe. If you look at the real climb
to height of WW1 fighters, it isn't spectacular. Didn't hurt much for me, it

Frank Tallman wrote in "Flying the Old Planes" that the _rate_ of climb
was impressive for most WW-1 types, due to their low wing and span
loading and high torque of the slow turning propellers. "Everything else
occured in slow motion" (quoting from memory).