how difficult is it to create a cg airplane?

C

c.g._eads

Veteran
was looking to put a plane crash into a movie of mine. It would be a 5-10 second shot of a 747 coming right over us (fairly close - initially bigger than the frame) and then the camera follows it as it crashes into the water.

Is this difficult? I've seen work on short movies that would indicate this is doable. Yet I've seen more professional work that looks questionable. So how difficult is it?

Assuming I'd have to hire someone, what's the ballpark price of this shot?
 
There is a ton of free Airpalne models on the web.
Making it fly as you wish sould be easy for every reasonable skilled CG guy. Splashing into water is a differnt thing.

Propper fluid dynamics is a PITA.
But you can work around that by shooting a backplate in slow mo where you throw someting in the water and fix the rest in post.

Frank
 
To be honest, unless you have at least two people or someone who really knows how to light (based on your location), texture (especially a reflection pass based on photos from your location), animate, and render with photorealism, and then composite that into your footage matching color with your footage, and add effects like smoke from the engines, light heat ripples from the engines, realistic smoke, explosions, water being kicked up and splashes, again all in photo realism; and lastly someone to do the sound work and blend it all together properly, I would seriously consider either losing the shot entirely, or keeping each cut with the plane in it to no more than a second or two at the most.

(man alive that was a long sentence)

A 5 - 10 second shot is usually almost painfully long even for a shot that requires no special effects, and one of the best ways of pulling off a special effect is to keep it as short as you can. Unless you can get your photorealism perfect, and I do mean perfect, that length of time is going to scream "special effect inserted here".

I just remembered an animation very close to what you are wanting, that was made years ago. Took me a while to find it, but I did.

http://www.405themovie.com/download405.asp

http://www.spike.com/video/405/204155


Originally this was touted as being a movie that a couple of guys did on their by themselves on home computers. That was kind of true, except the "guys" were both very experienced 3D and compositing, AND they were able to borrow some time and use a massive network render farm at one of the effects houses one of them worked at.

At any rate, take a look at it ans see for yourself not only the length of each clip with the plane in it, but what portions of the plane are in the shot. Rarely is it the entire plane, except when it is far enough away to give some lattitude.

Granted, this short is eight or nine years old, but it should give you an idea of the time, effort, and difficulty of it. Especially when you look at the FAQ page.

And there was no real crashing, no debris, no explosions, and no water.

If I were you I would seriously consider rethinking the shot.



And as far as the price, to pull off what you are wanting, unless you know someone who is willing to help you out, or someone who is good, but relatively new to the scene and is looking to pad their demo reel, I can guarantee the shot will be prohibitiably expensive.
 
Last edited:
In AE, it is impossible.

You would need several packages, Maya, Real Flow, and a compositor, as well as motion tracking software.

I can take a look at a general test for you (if I have time). Basically the hardest thing is going to be the fluids and dynamics. The modeling would be pretty simple.
 
Mattykins said:
In AE, it is impossible.

You would need several packages, Maya, Real Flow, and a compositor, as well as motion tracking software.

I can take a look at a general test for you (if I have time). Basically the hardest thing is going to be the fluids and dynamics. The modeling would be pretty simple.
Click to expand...

Please tell me you are joking. Did you not go to the FAQ page in the 405 link I posted? They used Lightwave, Fusion, Photoshop, Premiere, and Illusion. That's it. That's all they used.

They didn't even generate their particle effects for the engine smoke, heat ripples and sparks with a true 3D program. They used Illusion for crying out loud, and that wasn't even Illusion 3, it was Illusion 2.

Yes, for the compositing, the used Fusion, but they could have used After Effects. They went with Fusion for two reasons: One, they didn't have After Effects, and Two, Fusion is easier for that kind of compositing. Please note I said easier and not only.

You can do that kind of compositing it in AE, and I know because I have. Gah. I guess I will never understand why people need to overly complicate matters, and continue to hold a bias against After Effects as a serious and capable app.

The modeling may be simple (it wouldn't be actually), but getting a photo-realistic render to composite in sure hell would NOT be.

Read the FAQ, there is no mention of Maya or motion tracking software (which could be done in AE by the way, unless you meant match moving or camera tracking). I still don't get why people have this notion that you can't pull off advanced things without using the highest end programs available.
 
I would shoot this practical...find a 747 model then set up a minituare shoot. Add in debris, explosions, etc in post. That way you have the plane and the water taken care of, which are the two hardest elements in the shot. I agree with Matt, since you want it that close to the camera it would be hard for an inexperienced person to make it photo-real.

And, as a note, regarding "motion tracking software", I don't know what you'd track with the camera looking straight up at the sky since there will be no movement and/or parrallax until you get the water in the frame. Or maybe the fact that water doesn't provide good tracking features since it's moving.
 
okay, so it's possible! that's good. I definitely wasn't expecting it to be easy. As far as me doing this, not going to happen. I will need to bring someone on to organize the shot during production, then put it together in post. So as far as looking at CG models online, that's like telling me to go study to be an astronaut. I wouldn't understand what I was looking at. Now, does it change anything if the plane is at a very severely awkward angle? (not traditional straight forward?)

oh, and this is for a short movie. it's not like it's for a feature or anything. sure I'd like it to look great, but if it fails as a shot, it's not like it's ruining a feature film. To me, this is the perfect place to experiment and learn to do big effects shots like this.
 
c.g._eads said:
To me, this is the perfect place to experiment and learn to do big effects shots like this.
Click to expand...

That's a great attitude to have. I wish I could help out, but my texturing skills are only marginally better than my modeling skills, which are only marginally better than oneinfiniteloop's mastery of Clog Dancing. :evil:
 
Umm, Matt, you can't work with Photoreal fluids in many other Apps, not even Maya can handle it that great.

After Effects offers no methods to reproduce fluids, unless of course I am missing something?

MotionTracking software if there was a pan involved. Apparently there was not, so disregard that.

But if you can pull photorealistic fluids and dynamics in AE, well then...you will have amazed nearly everyone who works in this industry.

RealFlow offers great fluids control for hard and soft body dynamics, best package for this stuff. Maya is a great modeling tool, and also great at particle generation. Yes, can lightwave be used...sure. Any 3D package can model.

Can you pull the composition off in AE, yes. Note I didn't specify which one. I only meant that the entire thing could not be done in AE.

Modeling the 747 wouldn't be that bad with modeling skills, unless this plane lands gently in the water, I am thinking there would be smoke, fire, and debris following the plane - in which case the texturing doesn't need to be perfect, but it is possible.

To sell the actual effect, the plane is the least of the worries.

I was not bashing AE. In no way what-so-ever. Like I said, if you can pull modeling, fluids, dynamics, particles, everything in AE - then good for you. As far as I know, that isn't possible. Other packages would have to be used. You even stated that yourself.
 
Mattykins said:
Umm, Matt, you can't work with Photoreal fluids in many other Apps, not even Maya can handle it that great.

After Effects offers no methods to reproduce fluids, unless of course I am missing something?

MotionTracking software if there was a pan involved. Apparently there was not, so disregard that.

But if you can pull photorealistic fluids and dynamics in AE, well then...you will have amazed nearly everyone who works in this industry.

RealFlow offers great fluids control for hard and soft body dynamics, best package for this stuff. Maya is a great modeling tool, and also great at particle generation. Yes, can lightwave be used...sure. Any 3D package can model.

Can you pull the composition off in AE, yes. Note I didn't specify which one. I only meant that the entire thing could not be done in AE.

Modeling the 747 wouldn't be that bad with modeling skills, unless this plane lands gently in the water, I am thinking there would be smoke, fire, and debris following the plane - in which case the texturing doesn't need to be perfect, but it is possible.

To sell the actual effect, the plane is the least of the worries.

I was not bashing AE. In no way what-so-ever. Like I said, if you can pull modeling, fluids, dynamics, particles, everything in AE - then good for you. As far as I know, that isn't possible. Other packages would have to be used. You even stated that yourself.
Click to expand...

I know you can't use AE for fluid dynamics! I thought you meant that AE could not be used in any part of the pipeline. The way you post read, that's the impression I got.

And you can do particles in AE, but they aren't very good. They are ok for creating things to be used for displacement maps and compound blurs, and you might be able to fake some decent rain with them, but that's about it.

Modeling a 747 would be fairly hard if you were going for photorealism, and planned on having close ups of the plane. But the lighting and texturing would be the hardest. As for the water and debris, apart from RealFlow, I have never seen cg water that actually looks real in daylight.

I'm simply trying to stress that if you really want to make it look real, it is going to be a huge task, if you choose to go the cg route. I'de put in as many real splashes, fires, and debris flying about as I could. I would worry quite so much about the smoke, that's about the only thing that can look good with relatively inexpensive software.

I misread your post is all, and did not mean to come off sounding condecending.
 
hey man I dont mean to get in your business or anything like that, just a friendly question, everytime I read one of your posts, you are defensive a lot of the times, why is that man? you have a lot of knowledge but is it that people piss you off or whats the deal, I am an after effects trainer here in south texas by the way

Matt Grunau said:
To be honest, unless you have at least two people or someone who really knows how to light (based on your location), texture (especially a reflection pass based on photos from your location), animate, and render with photorealism, and then composite that into your footage matching color with your footage, and add effects like smoke from the engines, light heat ripples from the engines, realistic smoke, explosions, water being kicked up and splashes, again all in photo realism; and lastly someone to do the sound work and blend it all together properly, I would seriously consider either losing the shot entirely, or keeping each cut with the plane in it to no more than a second or two at the most.

(man alive that was a long sentence)

A 5 - 10 second shot is usually almost painfully long even for a shot that requires no special effects, and one of the best ways of pulling off a special effect is to keep it as short as you can. Unless you can get your photorealism perfect, and I do mean perfect, that length of time is going to scream "special effect inserted here".

I just remembered an animation very close to what you are wanting, that was made years ago. Took me a while to find it, but I did.

http://www.405themovie.com/download405.asp

http://www.spike.com/video/405/204155


Originally this was touted as being a movie that a couple of guys did on their by themselves on home computers. That was kind of true, except the "guys" were both very experienced 3D and compositing, AND they were able to borrow some time and use a massive network render farm at one of the effects houses one of them worked at.

At any rate, take a look at it ans see for yourself not only the length of each clip with the plane in it, but what portions of the plane are in the shot. Rarely is it the entire plane, except when it is far enough away to give some lattitude.

Granted, this short is eight or nine years old, but it should give you an idea of the time, effort, and difficulty of it. Especially when you look at the FAQ page.

And there was no real crashing, no debris, no explosions, and no water.

If I were you I would seriously consider rethinking the shot.



And as far as the price, to pull off what you are wanting, unless you know someone who is willing to help you out, or someone who is good, but relatively new to the scene and is looking to pad their demo reel, I can guarantee the shot will be prohibitiably expensive.
Click to expand...
 
aalleexx said:
hey man I dont mean to get in your business or anything like that, just a friendly question, everytime I read one of your posts, you are defensive a lot of the times, why is that man? you have a lot of knowledge but is it that people piss you off or whats the deal, I am an after effects trainer here in south texas by the way
Click to expand...

Hmm. I certainly don't mean to be defensive. I'll admit I can be rather blunt sometimes, but I don't mean to be defensive, and certainly only want to be as true as I can.

I also was a teacher for almost four years, and when people ask questions or want to know how to do something, I do tend so snap back into "teacher" mode, which is a little parental.

I don't think I am as defensive, as say, realistic. People have questions, and I believe in giving straight answers. But I definately don't wish to come off as attacking or debasing.

And it can't be every one of my posts, there are far too many when I tell people I like their work, or answer a question to help them achieve what they are looking for.


Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and be assured I will be monitoring, re-readiing, and moderating my posts so I do not come across as either attacking or defensive.
 
hey man you are alright in my book guy, I was just askin' maybe you were having a bad day or something, hey it happens to everyone, are you ex military? I am a veteran, good luck

alex
 
ohh one last thing regarding the discussion at hand, I am not going to vauch for after effects or shake even though I teach after effects and maya, and I just want to say that I personally have the shake cd somewhere around here that I bought but never installed and also I have never ever lost a job because I did not know shake

just talking here.....
 
Last edited:
aalleexx said:
hey man you are alright in my book guy, I was just askin' maybe you were having a bad day or something, hey it happens to everyone, are you ex military? I am a veteran, good luck

alex
Click to expand...

No. I don't have the balls for it. I thought about it, even took a test at an Air Force recruiting office once, because I would have loved to have flown. Never went through with it.

I would love to learn Maya. I use Lightwave, but get frustrated with it. Great Modeler, great render engine, but that's about it. Rigging? Nightmare. Dynamics? Pretty darn good, if a little counter intuative. But I always wanted the ability to be able to have a layer of skin over muscle and have the muscle warp the skin like in soft body, but you just can't do things like that. I may check out XSI, z-brush or silo one of these days, and would love to learn C4D.


Back to the topic at hand, c.g._eads, even if you decide to shoot a miniature that would be cool to see, but if you do want to go the CG route, and/or have friends who can do any 3D, it would help to look into Multipass rendering, the importance of occlusion passes, reflection passes, and breaking up your specularity and reflection passes with and grunge maps. There is a TON of info out there, and 3D really can be fun.

But be warned, once you start down the path of 3D, you enter a dimension where you lose days at a time, and begin seriously thinking about things like nurnies, greebles, nurbs, splines, and begin using terms like polygon flow, sprites, and debating on whether or not you need global illuimiation and radiosity, or can you get through with just conventional lights and shadow maps?

And if you REALLY want to burn time, start playing with 3D particle systems.

Ha! :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top