Drone vs A380

[sar104]

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.

Assuming that the video has not been slowed down it's relatively simple, from the frame rate of the video (24 fps) and the length of the A380 (~ 75 m), to calculate its speed as it passes the observation point. It is traveling its own length in 1 ± 0.1 s, which puts it at around 140 kn. That does seem a bit slow for that aircraft - a quick search indicates that V₂(min) for an A380 at sea level is at least 150 kn. I'm not sure how conclusive that is.

More generally, to me the video background and filming looks real, with the somewhat jerky gimbal movements and significant ground details (such as the dust trail behind the vehicle mentioned previously), but the aircraft is lacking some features (such has light refraction through the hot exhaust) that at least suggest it may have been digitally added.

 

[sar104]

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.

I'm not seeing any jitter in the vehicle motion, which is not proof, of course, that it is not synthetic. If the aircraft and the background are both digital creations then I'm more impressed by the effort put into the background than the aircraft. Dust trails on vehicles on dirt roads, but no hot engine exhaust gases from the aircraft seems like a case of incorrect CGI priorities.

 

[sburke]

100% Microsoft Flight Simulater. All the visuals and animations you see have been part of that platform for close to 10 years.

 

[4wd]

I

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.

Considering the jerky panning motions intended to make it look like drone footage, the video is otherwise just too good with perfectly exposed airplane and background despite 'backlight' sun glinting on the fuselage.
So a rather amateurish drone pilot is getting near perfect video? Hard to believe sorry.

 

[Cymruflyer]

Assuming that the video has not been slowed down it's relatively simple, from the frame rate of the video (24 fps) and the length of the A380 (~ 75 m), to calculate its speed as it passes the observation point. It is traveling its own length in 1 ± 0.1 s, which puts it at around 140 kn. That does seem a bit slow for that aircraft - a quick search indicates that V₂(min) for an A380 at sea level is at least 150 kn. I'm not sure how conclusive that is.

More generally, to me the video background and filming looks real, with the somewhat jerky gimbal movements and significant ground details (such as the dust trail behind the vehicle mentioned previously), but the aircraft is lacking some features (such has light refraction through the hot exhaust) that at least suggest it may have been digitally added.

Assuming the video was not slowed down would be correct. If it were slowed down, the speed of the cars on the ground would equate to a speed great than 100mph. Therefore with supposed real time, the aircraft is in fact far too slow as it passes the supposed drone position. Just to clarify and keep things simple for non aviation types, you have a V1 and V2 speed, plus others of course. Your V1 is called out by your first officer as you accelerate down the runway on takeoff. At this speed, should anything untoward happen, you can still abort and come to a stop on the chosen runway.

Moments after V1 is called out, your first officer will call out V2, immediately followed by rotate and it is at this point in the takeoff phase that no matter what happens, you are committed to taking off and try and sort out what ever happened, in the air. Once V2 is passed and you have rotated, your speed continues to increase as you climb out. Therefore, your V2 speed would have long since been surpassed, as you break through the supposed drone position altitude. When you look again at that CGI of the aircraft and calculate the altitude, you can see that your speed would be considerably more than your stated 140 knots. which means that the aircraft would be passing at an even greater speed, thereby proving once again that this video is totally fake. Thanks for doing some mathematics on this.

 

[beach_Dr]

The drone is yawing while the aircraft is flying past. It’s impossoble to measure the speed of the aircraft from the video without knowing the exact rate of yaw.

As said above, why go to such effort to fake the drones imperfections in hover, over eager gimble controls, lack of smoothness with joystick movement, down to traffic on dust road etc, and then mess up on the aircraft itself.

Why add a glint of sun from a break in the clouds but CGI an overcast sky. More likely there was a unexpected gap in the clouds letting a few rays of sunlight through.

Can someone with flight simulator, who claims how easy it is to create realistic drone footage of this particular realistic airport, please post a short clip, so that those of us who don’t have flight simulator can see what they mean.

Occams Razor...

 

[Former Member]

The drone is yawing while the aircraft is flying past. It’s impossoble to measure the speed of the aircraft from the video without knowing the exact rate of yaw.

As said above, why go to such effort to fake the drones imperfections in hover, over eager gimble controls, lack of smoothness with joystick movement, down to traffic on dust road etc, and then mess up on the aircraft itself.

Why add a glint of sun from a break in the clouds but CGI an overcast sky. More likely there was a unexpected gap in the clouds letting a few rays of sunlight through.

Can someone with flight simulator, who claims how easy it is to create realistic drone footage of this particular realistic airport, please post a short clip, so that those of us who don’t have flight simulator can see what they mean.

Occams Razor...

I think FS X is available online at Steam. You can make it look the same as what was posted.

 

[sar104]

Assuming the video was not slowed down would be correct. If it were slowed down, the speed of the cars on the ground would equate to a speed great than 100mph. Therefore with supposed real time, the aircraft is in fact far too slow as it passes the supposed drone position. Just to clarify and keep things simple for non aviation types, you have a V1 and V2 speed, plus others of course. Your V1 is called out by your first officer as you accelerate down the runway on takeoff. At this speed, should anything untoward happen, you can still abort and come to a stop on the chosen runway.

Moments after V1 is called out, your first officer will call out V2, immediately followed by rotate and it is at this point in the takeoff phase that no matter what happens, you are committed to taking off and try and sort out what ever happened, in the air. Once V2 is passed and you have rotated, your speed continues to increase as you climb out. Therefore, your V2 speed would have long since been surpassed, as you break through the supposed drone position altitude. When you look again at that CGI of the aircraft and calculate the altitude, you can see that your speed would be considerably more than your stated 140 knots. which means that the aircraft would be passing at an even greater speed, thereby proving once again that this video is totally fake. Thanks for doing some mathematics on this.

Agreed for the most part, although in noise abatement situations V₂ may be maintained for the first 1000 ft or so of climb. That doesn't seem like a consideration in that location, however.

 

[sar104]

The drone is yawing while the aircraft is flying past. It’s impossoble to measure the speed of the aircraft from the video without knowing the exact rate of yaw.

As said above, why go to such effort to fake the drones imperfections in hover, over eager gimble controls, lack of smoothness with joystick movement, down to traffic on dust road etc, and then mess up on the aircraft itself.

Why add a glint of sun from a break in the clouds but CGI an overcast sky. More likely there was a unexpected gap in the clouds letting a few rays of sunlight through.

Can someone with flight simulator, who claims how easy it is to create realistic drone footage of this particular realistic airport, please post a short clip, so that those of us who don’t have flight simulator can see what they mean.

Occams Razor...

The yaw doesn't matter provided that the observer location doesn't change, in which case the position of the aircraft can be defined with respect to a stationary background. By that method the yaw and the lens optical characteristics are both eliminated.

 

[beach_Dr]

The maths aside, which is approximate based on the video above comments on the video, the margins of error could allow for the speed of the plane...

Is it more likely that someone went to great effort to produce a fake video of a plane taking off, realistically animating unnecessary objects in the background, such as dust trails behind cars, with realistic slight movements of the background and horizon to fully simulate a drone drifting slightly in the wind, over a realistic depiction of a real airport, for reasons unknown? A grudge? To discredit the drone community at large and get policy makers to pass stricter laws because someone filmed his mother in her backyard??

Or is it more likely an idiot with $1000 went and flew a drone near an airport and posted it on Facebook to brag to his friends?

I think the latter.

 

[sburke]

YouTube

 

[Former Member]

This thread has had 1,163 views since it was first posted here 24 hours ago. Im sure that count would be multiplied exponentially if/when these people post it on social media, and then when it goes viral, thats when they will really start to make their money on monetization.

Do I think it's real? Absolutely not. Do I think it's click bait, 100% sure. Someone spent a little bit of time on a high performance computer to make this easily debunked waste of viewers time. But that same person has the potential to make thousands or more dollars on it if/when it goes viral, whether or not it's true.

 

[Lake_Flyer]

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!

This reminds of the dicussions with flat earthers. pathetic.

I ran a simulation on Mauritius in FS X just now in the highest resolution and max everything. Sorry but FS-X isn't even remotely CGI. It is a nice sim but far from realistic when it comes down to scenery.
Who has done a run in FS-X here besides me?
Not you I presume. You are just howling with the pack.

 

[Kilrah]

Is it more likely that someone went to great effort to produce a fake video of a plane taking off, realistically animating unnecessary objects in the background, such as dust trails behind cars, with realistic slight movements of the background and horizon to fully simulate a drone drifting slightly in the wind, over a realistic depiction of a real airport, for reasons unknown?

Reason is simple, to make money yet without being prosecuted.

And again they didn't spend any effort animating background objects, they filmed that for real.
They just did it safely when there was no aircraft, and composited that in later.

 

[Former Member]

Any gazelles hungry for popcorn out there???

 

[sar104]

The maths aside, which is approximate based on the video above comments on the video, the margins of error could allow for the speed of the plane...

Is it more likely that someone went to great effort to produce a fake video of a plane taking off, realistically animating unnecessary objects in the background, such as dust trails behind cars, with realistic slight movements of the background and horizon to fully simulate a drone drifting slightly in the wind, over a realistic depiction of a real airport, for reasons unknown? A grudge? To discredit the drone community at large and get policy makers to pass stricter laws because someone filmed his mother in her backyard??

Or is it more likely an idiot with $1000 went and flew a drone near an airport and posted it on Facebook to brag to his friends?

I think the latter.

I did some more careful measurements from the video and I'm pretty confident about the speed calculation to ± 5%, with the caveat that the 24 fps frame rate is the original. The aircraft seems > 10% slower than it should be unless I'm missing something. And the lack of background distortion by the engine exhaust gases seems unphysical.

I can't disagree with the rest of your argument but, those points notwithstanding, there are several observations that seem to indicate strongly that the aircraft is CGI. I still have a difficult time with the argument that the background is also CGI, simply because of the high level of subtle details that appears to substantially exceed the detail associated with the aircraft itself. So while it does seem an unlikely explanation, to me it appears to be a CGI aircraft overlaid on real drone footage. But perhaps someone can post some flight simulator terrain examples that really do show that kind of detail.

 

[Lake_Flyer]

Someone spent a little bit of time on a high performance computer

that someone would create a revolution in the CGI business. If a 'someone' with just a fast computer can do this for fun then why are the latest multi million digital science fiction cgi productions still so crappy?

suppose the plane was a layer over a previously shot clip, why would they be so stupid to zoom in and out in the background clip, which clearly would make the job super complex. why would he pan, same thing, stupid if you need to super impose something over it later.

again, no conspiracies, just a stupid guy with a digital zooming camera on his drone, most likely a mp since 75% out there is mavic.

 

[MrRobville]

Explain that one Mr. Expert who has "Been doing CGI for years".

Seriously? We can't have a mature discussion about this? I'm just sharing my insight, that's all. If we really have to go this childish way, then I wish you good fortune.

 

[Lake_Flyer]

I did some more careful measurements from the video and I'm pretty confident about the speed calculation to ± 5%, with the caveat that the 24 fps frame rate is the original. The aircraft seems > 10% slower than it should be unless I'm missing something. And the lack of background distortion by the engine exhaust gases seems unphysical.

I can't disagree with the rest of your argument but, those points notwithstanding, there are several observations that seem to indicate strongly that the aircraft is CGI. I still have a difficult time with the argument that the background is also CGI, simply because of the high level of subtle details that appears to substantially exceed the detail associated with the aircraft itself. So while it does seem an unlikely explanation, to me it appears to be a CGI aircraft overlaid on real drone footage. But perhaps someone can post some flight simulator terrain examples that really do show that kind of detail.

sar, the terrain in FSX is terrible even in the highest settings and added scenery files. FSX is old 32 bits and not updated for more than a decade.

 

[Former Member]

why are the latest multi million digital science fiction cgi productions still so crappy?

Have you seen Avatar? Who Framed Roger Rabbit? The Mask? We are living in the best of times.