Drone vs A380

[TheMusicGuy]

Complete ********. It doesn't take a reborn Einstein to see that at least the aircraft is CGI. Whoever made this up even added a reflex of sunlight to the aircraft (and the weather is cloudy?). Furthermore, at such close distance, the air turbulence created by the airplane passing would have sent the drone miles away uncontrollably.

 

[sburke]

This a real video created with Microsoft Flight Simulator. No drone necessary. I can’t believe we’re debating this.

 

[Former Member]

Complete ********. It doesn't take a reborn Einstein to see that at least the aircraft is CGI. Whoever made this up even added a reflex of sunlight to the aircraft (and the weather is cloudy?). Furthermore, at such close distance, the air turbulence created by the airplane passing would have sent the drone miles away uncontrollably.

This a real video created with Microsoft Flight Simulator. No drone necessary. I can’t believe we’re debating this.

 

[MrRobville]

Then it's a no brainer that at the very least, the location is 100% genuine. And its use by A380s is 100% genuine. You can check the location easily on Google Maps

In that regard, why would one go through all the trouble of animating and rendering a very complex animation while he could just take the drone up in the air and make a recording of a real plane instead? I reckon the latter scenario is far more likely to happen.

 

[Cymruflyer]

You obviously don’t work in aviation, photography, or outside.

Sorry to burst your imaginary bubble but I have been flying longer than you have probably been alive. I flew with British Airways way back in the early 70s when it was B.O.A.C., before it was privatized and became BA, and have been a flight instructor for years after that. I'm retired and have been a photographer for almost as many years as I've been flying and do that now full time, and I love being outside. So basically everything you assumed about me is dead wrong. I know what I am talking about, as do many others here who have been telling you and others, that this is a fake video and not a real video shot from a drone, it is ALL computer generated images and is blatantly obvious to even those with a little knowledge of computer flight SIMS.

Therefore, if you still think this is a real video then YOU have no idea about real aviation and have probably never played around with Microsoft's animated flight simulators. I shall grant you that the latest and greatest Gaming flight simulators have become great in their depicted animation, but they still lack the reality of what one sees when flying real aircraft. If you were a real pilot you would understand that and if you try and tell us that you are in fact, a real pilot, and still believe this video is also real, then all us real pilots will know that you are not telling the rest of us the truth about being a real pilot.

As has been pointed out, the airport is a depiction of a real place on earth, however, it is just that an animated depiction and the dimensions have not been terribly accurate for it to look real to even a slightly trained eye of a real aviator. As for this being a drone filming, why are those who believe this, all assuming it is from a drone? If you go and play around with one of the flight simulators on your computer, you will see that you can place yourself all over the sky to get different perspectives of views from the air, so this is nothing new to anyone who has played around with such computer flight sims. This is simply a computer flight game and nothing else. It is NOT REAL!

 

[Cymruflyer]

In that regard, why would one go through all the trouble of animating and rendering a very complex animation while he could just take the drone up in the air and make a recording of a real plane instead? I reckon the latter scenario is far more likely to happen.

No one needs to go through the trouble of creating such an animation, it has already been done for you through one of the many computer flight SIMS out there. This has just been copied and pasted here for us, the person who did this just copied it from what is already out there available today, they did not need to go through any expense and time to create it.

 

[Lake_Flyer]

I can imagine that most of you desperately want it to be fake.
I have flown MS flight sim since the very first version including the last one.
Never saw anymated ground traffic in FS with dust trails like in this video. The car on the dirt road clearly has a trail of dust behind it.
Also, it is clearly an MP(P) shooting in 2K or 1080p hence the zooming out, which is done in steps, because there's no way to zoom out smoothly.

This is so not fake. Sorry to burst bubbles here. There's no conspiracy of faking flightsimmers and video artists with tons of equipment and software going on.
It's just a louzy Mavic Pro flown by an incredibly stupid 'I do it because I can' jerk like there are so many around noways.

 

[Cymruflyer]

Whether or not the video is fake is a good question, but the points I and others made were about quoting "evidence" that the airport was wrong (it isn't, it's totally real), or that it couldn't cope with an A380 (it can, and they fly in and out multiple times a day and have done for several years).

I haven't looked at the video on a large HD screen and I don't play games so I can't comment, but if I had any technical question it would be about why a tiny drone didn't get swatted into a frenzy by the turbulence that a large aircraft passing that close with engines at full throttle would cause. Nobodys gimbal control is that good is it? But I'm still on the fence until someone starts pixel diving. After all, look at all those - ahem - windowless aircraft photos taken on 9/11.

You are on the fence, but trust me, you can jump safely down on our side because this is a fake video, not a real fly-by. As for the turbulence you correctly mentioned, this is not so much from the actual engines but more from tip vortices, that cause disruption in the air. This turbulence comes from the vortices coming off the wings which act like little sideways tornados emanating from the wing tips and which grow bigger and drop downwards as they flow out behind the aircraft.

Viewed from behind the aircraft, the starboard tip generates an anti-clockwise mini tornado and the port wing tip generates a clockwise spin. Since the animated (Not Real) video here shows the aircraft going by, it would be a little while before those vortices would get to the supposed drone, if at all, since they are spiraling outwards and downwards at the same time. With that said, if they were to spread out to hit the drone, it most definitely would have tossed it all over the sky. Takeoff generates the most turbulence because the wing is at a greater angle of attack.

That is why there is a time lapse between takeoffs and an even longer delay between takeoffs when a larger aircraft takes off in front of a smaller aircraft, like a 747 taking off in front of a 737, for example.

 

[Former Member]

Sorry to burst your imaginary bubble but I have been flying longer than you have probably been alive. I flew with British Airways way back in the early 70s when it was B.O.A.C., before it was privatized and became BA, and have been a flight instructor for years after that. I'm retired and have been a photographer for almost as many years as I've been flying and do that now full time, and I love being outside. So basically everything your assume about me is dead wrong. I know what I am talking about, as do many others here who have been telling you and others, that this is a fake video and not a real video shot from a drone, it is ALL computer generated images and is blatantly obvious to even those with a little knowledge of computer flight SIMS.

Therefore, if you still think this is a real video then YOU have no idea about real aviation and have probably never played around with Microsoft's animated flight simulators. I shall grant you that the latest and greatest Gaming flight simulators have become great in their depicted animation, but they still lack the reality of what one sees when flying real aircraft. If you were a real pilot you would understand that and if you try and tell us that you are in fact, a real pilot, and still believe this video is also real, then all us real pilots will know that you are not telling the rest of us the truth about being a real pilot.

As has been pointed out, the airport is a depiction of a real place on earth, however, it is just that an animated depiction and the dimensions have not been terribly accurate for it to look real to even a slightly trained eye of a real aviator. As for this being a drone filming, why are those who believe this, all assuming it is from a drone? If you go and play around with one of the flight simulators on your computer, you will see that you can place yourself all over the sky to get different perspectives of views from the air, so this is nothing new to anyone who has played around with such computer flight sims. This is simply a computer flight game and nothing else. It is NOT REAL!

Try not to get too upset with these dummies. They are simply trying to bloat the view count, antagonize other members, and they probably believe that if they say it enough times, it will be true. Thats not how the truth works. Keep your cool, and I'm a big fan of commercial pilots who got to fly turbines.

 

[Cymruflyer]

I hate to break it here, but the footage looks genuine to me, having been doing CGI for many years.
The footage could be animated, if this was done by a very professional company which would cost a random drone channel way too much money to hire just for the buzz.

The movement of the airplane is simply too refined for an animation. Not to mention how extremely hard it would be to match the rendered animation to the movement of the camera without any sort of distortion or jittery movement. Matching video background is very hard to accomplish, even with the most professional software.

The glare on the hull matches perfectly with the sun behind it. Remember, videos are usually rendered in 255 color depth. As you can see, the whites in the back are blown out, suggesting that its actually brighter than how we perceive it. Even on an overcast day, the sunlight can still be quite harsh and penetrating.

Ever drove close to an airport? You'll find that planes appear to be moving a lot slower than you'd expect them to be. Possibly due to their size.

And as for the heat trail, I reckon this depends on the temperature around it. Roughly comparable to contrails which don't always appear either.

A FSX recording is just nuts. Open the game and within a second you'll see why.

As much as I'd love this to be fake, I'm afraid we indeed have another idiot on this planet.

Sorry to burst your bubble but there is nothing real about this video, it is all computer generated. The aircraft coming up to the camera position does not look real, nor does it look remotely real as it slowly passes by. As for refined animation, there is excellent refined animation in today's computer flight SIMS, but they all still lack that real feel you experience when actually flying a real aircraft. If you think it is sooo incredibly real, then please explain why the cars on the road below as soooo jittery as they travel along. Take your eyes off the fake aircraft the next time you view the video and just watch the fake cars driving along the fake road and you will see what I am talking about.

had this been a real video then those cars would have been smoothly driving on the roads as well. Or if it was poor video feed of a real event, then both the cars and the aircraft would appear jittery. But that is not the case her, the CGI of the aircraft is smooth, yet the cars below are jittery. Explain that one Mr. Expert who has "Been doing CGI for years".

As for the heat trail from the engines, that will always be evident if you are close enough to see it, it has nothing to do with the temperature (assuming you mean the ambient air temp) around it. On the other hand contrails do have to do with atmospherics and as you correctly state, they don't always appear. Their visibility does have to do with air temp and dew point and are only visible low to the ground on those rare times that the air temp and moisture content are such that they would be generated. That is why you hardly ever see any trailing out behind an aircraft just taking off, or coming in to land, when viewed from the ground. I shall be kind here and not say that we have an idiot believing this is real, when it screams fake to those who know about real aviation.

 

[Cymruflyer]

Try not to get too upset with these dummies. They are simply trying to bloat the view count, antagonize other members, and they probably believe that if they say it enough times, it will be true. Thats not how the truth works. Keep your cool, and I'm a big fan of commercial pilots who got to fly turbines.

Ohhh, I'm not upset at all and often just let these things go right by. However, with people trying to make others believe that such a video is real, when there are so many obvious clues that it is fake, I thought I had better add to the comments. The last thing we need is more fake videos filled with comments, making others think this is real and therefore pushing forward any movement for even more restrictions on flying drones.

I feel that most of the flyers out there are responsible and have the common sense to fly safely, even if we had no regulations in place. We also need to self police to catch those idiots out there who are not doing the same. Have a good day.

 

[Cymruflyer]

I can imagine that most of you desperately want it to be fake.
I have flown MS flight sim since the very first version including the last one.
Never saw anymated ground traffic in FS with dust trails like in this video. The car on the dirt road clearly has a trail of dust behind it.
Also, it is clearly an MP(P) shooting in 2K or 1080p hence the zooming out, which is done in steps, because there's no way to zoom out smoothly.

This is so not fake. Sorry to burst bubbles here. There's no conspiracy of faking flightsimmers and video artists with tons of equipment and software going on.
It's just a louzy Mavic Pro flown by an incredibly stupid 'I do it because I can' jerk like there are so many around noways.

How in the world have you been able to deduce that this is any type of drone, let alone pinpoint it to being a Mavic Pro ( and have you even refined that deduction with your added (P) to determine this to be the Platinum version of the Mavic Pro?) and then specify the actual video settings to be either 1080 or 2K (which should be 2.7K)...? Just mind blowing, mind blowing. I bet if pushed, you could probably tell us what the supposed drone pilot was wearing!

 

[lmel2005]

Then it's a no brainer that at the very least, the location is 100% genuine. And its use by A380s is 100% genuine. You can check the location easily on Google Maps.

The reason I mentioned the runway length in the context of the 747 is your comment about "a few airports certified for A380" which is blatant nonsense. Virtually any of the hundreds of airports that have been able to take 747s for decades can take an A380, a plane that has itself been in service for eleven years.

Airbus says that there are 140 airports certified till now.
Airport compatibility
Probably it's not the runway only to be compatible with the craft.

"Virtually" your ignorance makes you think that every one, except you, is commenting "blatant nonsense".

 

[Former Member]

The last thing we need is more fake videos filled with comments, making others think this is real and therefore pushing forward any movement for even more restrictions on flying drones.

 

[Kilrah]

The background is totally an actual drone shot but the planes have been generated in a simulator and composited in. Can see the difference of quality between the 2 as well as poor detouring and unrealistic light effects at times.

 

[beach_Dr]

I agree the background is definitely a drone shot. The sight drifting during hovering, the horizon tilting and straightening as it turns, the not-so-smooth gimbal tilting and yawing (obviously not in cinematic mode!!). And the clumsy yawing and tilting after plane gone by before the shot is cut, seems very real, someone who is not yet a professional videographer.

So, if you've gone to all that effort to hover near the flight line above a large airport, why composite planes into the shot? Having to work out the correct speed for moving down the runway, take off etc? Adding textures to make it look just right for Emirates. Surely much easier to just film a plane taking off? Bit of digital zoom gets you closer to the action without being subject to the turbulence, may also still be above the plane in altitude as it passes with gimbal slightly downward, so miss the turbulence.

I'm pretty sure its a genuine (idiots) video

 

[Kilrah]

Becasue viral marketing. Many previous "drone vs plane" videos have been made by CGI companies as promotion. Release it, wait a week or 2, then post a "see how good we are, everybody believed it" press statement.

 

[Cymruflyer]

I agree the background is definitely a drone shot. The sight drifting during hovering, the horizon tilting and straightening as it turns, the not-so-smooth gimbal tilting and yawing (obviously not in cinematic mode!!). And the clumsy yawing and tilting after plane gone by before the shot is cut, seems very real, someone who is not yet a professional videographer.

So, if you've gone to all that effort to hover near the flight line above a large airport, why composite planes into the shot? Having to work out the correct speed for moving down the runway, take off etc? Adding textures to make it look just right for Emirates. Surely much easier to just film a plane taking off? Bit of digital zoom gets you closer to the action without being subject to the turbulence, may also still be above the plane in altitude as it passes with gimbal slightly downward, so miss the turbulence.

I'm pretty sure its a genuine (idiots) video

All those assumed drone video shots are all possible with any good computer flight SIM programme by choosing camera view point then moving it around to get other angles. The whole thing is sooooo CGI that I can't believe anyone would assume otherwise. It would make no sense to get a drone shot background and them add in the CGI of the aircraft, that is why it is all from a flight SIM. The background quality is not good enough to be shot from a drone.

Again I ask you all to take a look at the jittery movement of the cars on the ground below, especially as they approach the corner. If that was actual video footage shot from a drone, there would not be any jittery car movements, especially towards the end of the video. It is all fake guys, wake up and smell the coffee! Or, better yet, go and play around with aerial view points in a good flight SIM and see how the movements, including the zoom, looks just like this video.

 

[Former Member]

Becasue viral marketing. Many previous "drone vs plane" videos have been made by CGI companies as promotion. Release it, wait a week or 2, then post a "see how good we are, everybody believed it" press statement.

Well said. Then they work on the next sensationalized video hoping to monetize it. Wish they would get a real job.

 

[lmel2005]

Anyway, Airbus makes drones useful for aviation.

Innovation takes aircraft visual inspections to new heights