agep Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Hi all! Happy new year! I've the last couple of weeks been playing with the beechcraft and a video footage from where I grew up as a child (I did the footage this Christmas with my cellphone). There is several things I would like to do different. Due to the footage I cant have the speed I want on the plane, and the landing is a little to short. Anyway, let me know what you think. Also, I don't like the smoke on the end, but I'm not sure how to make it better. Oh, and there is probably some scale issues too? I struggled to make the ground a lot more dirty, but this was the best I managed to do. Syntheyes is used for tracking. I might do some more work on it, but not right now The animation: beechcrash.mov A screengrab: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luuk Steitner Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 First, happy new year to you too. I think the video looks great. The beechcraft is a bit too small, but that's not very obvious. The smoke is what makes it look unrealistic, because of two things: 1. The trail has very straight edges. Maybe that can be solved by using less of bigger sprites. 2. The smoke rises too fast. The vertical force may be decreased to 50% or less of what it's now. Keep up the good work! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nf1nk Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Compress the hell out of that and it would show up on those youtube crash compilation videos. It looks good. very real. One thing I found makes for better smoke is to use at least three emitters with significantly different size particles that add up to the same number of particles that you are using now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Forwood Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Another wonderful piece, Stian! I agree that if you were to fix the few problems that you mentioned that this would be pretty believable. Maybe you could also show the landing gear collapsing and some earth and grass being thrown into the air. The biggest spoilers for me are the "blocky" smoke and the short landing. Very promising though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenH Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Compress the hell out of that and it would show up on those youtube crash compilation videos. Youtube seems to do a good job of compressing the hell out of footage already. D Happy New Year Stian and nice test! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Rodney Posted January 6, 2008 Admin Share Posted January 6, 2008 Stian, By all means keep refining the smoke but with sound added that would be entirely convincing. If there was a little wind... with someone saying something like 'Oh no!' or an off screen clue to let us know a 'real audience' is behind the camera that would add considerably to the effect. If you could add frames to the beginning or preroll the smoke perhaps you could have the smoke trail already going by the time the 'camera' starts to video the scene. As it is there seems to be a 'crop duster' feel to it. (That may be okay though as the audience finds out soon enough what is happening!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted January 6, 2008 Hash Fellow Share Posted January 6, 2008 Good looking shot! I think more, smaller particles, and more than one kind would help the smoke. Real smoke would have a billowing effect that would be hard to do with particles. You've matched the lighting real well. Even though the camera is panning slow, you could still have it crash faster. It would just go out of frame a bit more before the camera caught up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frosteternal Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 I agree with Robcat here; the crash is too slow-motion. Besides the aforementioned smoke issues, perhaps some pieces could crack off? I love your work; you constantly challenge the doubters who say polygons are better for mechanical work. Bah! Nice test. Isn't reality becoming fluid nowadays? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Bigboote Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing. Great stuff Stian---my 1st impression is that the smoke rises too fast... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tralfaz Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Hey Stian, the crash looks pretty good. My wife and I are watching are watching season 1 of Lost. It was a Christmas gift and neither of had seen Lost before. In episode 19 (which we just finished watching), Locke has a dream in which Beechcraft aircraft crashes on the island. Below are a few screen grabs from the episode. Your crash is just as good if not better than the one in Lost. If I had any crits, it would be that the nose seems to dip just before impact where a pilot might try to raise the nose to help prevent digging into the ground. Also, some more ground damage would help sell the crash. The lighting and blending of the two elements looks fantastic. Excellent work and look forward to seeing more. Al Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
higginsdj Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 My 2 cents worth..... There is no feeling of weight in the crash, ie it may as well have been a balsa wood model. With the nose down flight the speed through the air would have been much higher. If you wanted it as slow as you have it then the aircraft need to come in, maybe skip the ground, nose up a little, stall then land. If it had in landed that lightly at proper speed (one engine was still going) it would have skidded over the grass for 100's of meters. If it was to end as abruptly as you have it then it will have hit hard, heavy AND the nose would have dug in. ie where is the wing tip flex, If it does stop abruptly then the tail will spin around or the craft will crumple or break open. Re the limitations of the real footage - just drop the aircraft into the left hand field first then have it bounce through past the tractor. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruscular Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 My 2 cents worth..... There is no feeling of weight in the crash, ie it may as well have been a balsa wood model. With the nose down flight the speed through the air would have been much higher. If you wanted it as slow as you have it then the aircraft need to come in, maybe skip the ground, nose up a little, stall then land. If it had in landed that lightly at proper speed (one engine was still going) it would have skidded over the grass for 100's of meters. If it was to end as abruptly as you have it then it will have hit hard, heavy AND the nose would have dug in. ie where is the wing tip flex, If it does stop abruptly then the tail will spin around or the craft will crumple or break open. Re the limitations of the real footage - just drop the aircraft into the left hand field first then have it bounce through past the tractor. Cheers I agree with the landing, I would add that once you landed the inertia of the wind would blow the smoke onward as the smoke didn't hit the ground. I would have a little bit of smoke still going forward and then kick back to nature direction of wind. I would have less airplane smoke and kick up dirt smoke from the ground. Those wings just push air into the ground and then furled it back up behind the tail. But other than that this footage would have been good enough for Hollywood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agep Posted January 7, 2008 Author Share Posted January 7, 2008 Thank you all for the great comments and crits. I agree to them all. Anyone have any good ideas how to make believable particles/dirt that is thrown in the air when the plane hits the ground? What I want to do and probably will, is to make a new footage with a better camera and redo most of it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Forwood Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 It might be worth playing around with Newton Physics. If you have an assortment of low patch objects on, or below, the ground plane you could have some hidden object collide with them at the right time or use the aircraft itself to set them in motion. The objects could just be given the same decal that you use for the ground plane or you could get more adventurous and add more detail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Bigboote Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Ask JohnL3D for some of his experiments! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williamgaylord Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Well, I experienced a crash of sorts trying to watch the clip within MS IE, so I just downloaded it and it played fine locally. Looks great, though I agree the end is a bit too abrupt to give a feeling of weight. Just making it rock forward when it stops (tail rising up and rocking back down--like someone's legs going up as they grind to a hault face first in the dirt) could be enough. Make it just slow enough to give it a good sense of weight. Looks like you have enough at the end to work with. Maybe, prop digs in, and the plane rocks up on nose and one wing and then drops back down. Altogether, though, pretty darn good! I have to say I envy your sense of lighting. OOOh! How about some squash and stretch! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbenefi33 Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 All I can say is wow and just awsome your a inspiration to us all just aswome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatso Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 I find it pretty convincing until the plane hits the ground. It should bounce, slide and rock. Maybe parts of the landing gear should fly up from behind the plane (still moving forward, but not as fast as the plane, and they should spin). A fireball coming from the left wing would be impressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_black_mage Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 Also, i think the smoke should "consume" the plane. its just to small of smoke to make the plane fall. if a plane is on fire, and its falling the fire is gonna fall to the back making its spread. in other words more than likely that plane should be SMOK'IN! also were si the fire coming from, the thrusters? the gas tank( )? a missile hit some where? i truly can't tell.... also some debree would make a nice effect, just some bits that fall some were... oh and shake that camera! the massive thing just hit the ground and the camera is like what? 50ft away? your gonna feel it atleast a bit. oh and the plane should at least stand on its nose a bit when it stops by some kind of objact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason1025 Posted January 3, 2010 Share Posted January 3, 2010 Hi all! Happy new year! I've the last couple of weeks been playing with the beechcraft and a video footage from where I grew up as a child (I did the footage this Christmas with my cellphone). There is several things I would like to do different. Due to the footage I cant have the speed I want on the plane, and the landing is a little to short. Anyway, let me know what you think. Also, I don't like the smoke on the end, but I'm not sure how to make it better. Oh, and there is probably some scale issues too? I struggled to make the ground a lot more dirty, but this was the best I managed to do. Syntheyes is used for tracking. I might do some more work on it, but not right now The animation: beechcrash.mov A screengrab: Wow this looks great Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Bigboote Posted January 3, 2010 Share Posted January 3, 2010 HEY... where has Stian been...? His last post was Nov 11. STIAN! Check in! I hope he has not gone 'Vern' on us... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agep Posted January 3, 2010 Author Share Posted January 3, 2010 HEY... where has Stian been...? His last post was Nov 11. STIAN! Check in! I hope he has not gone 'Vern' on us...Actually, my last post was Dec 25, my last thread was Nov 11 I'm still here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve392 Posted January 3, 2010 Share Posted January 3, 2010 Glad the ghost of Christmas passed didn't get you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Bigboote Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 Glad to see...had me worried for a sec... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animas3D Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 Why, what happened to Vern? Don't tell me he went to the Dark Side. That Plane crash is great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.