|
|
|
#1
10-29-2015, 05:29 AM
|
||||
|
||||
SHIELD is real
__________________
************************************* Each day I encounter stupid people I keep wondering... is today when I get my first assault charge?? 
|
|
#2
10-29-2015, 05:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Phil
|
|
#3
10-29-2015, 06:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The first page from the posted link doesn't specifically say it, but kind of hints that it's a "what-if" project. The original source (almost) makes it a bit clearer and states that "a researcher tried to re-invent a Soviet idea..."
The original source can be found here http://englishrussia.com/2015/10/23/...rrier-project/ The photos here are much clearer and the craft looks to my eye to be a little too clean for it be real, I'm convinced it's a CG photo mock-up. Personally, I would argue that whoever created it has no clear idea about the ekranoplans and that those four nacelles mounted on the forward fuselage actually contain engines... image all that hot exhaust blowing over the flightdeck!
|
|
#4
10-29-2015, 10:45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Considering those are shoulder spars, wing gloves and wings of an F14 (D model, I believe) photoshopped onto an Ekranoplan I kinda don't think that got built
__________________
THIS IS MY SIG, HERE IT IS.
|
|
#5
10-30-2015, 07:13 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Yeah, I have to call the bullsh*t award on this one!
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
|
|
#6
10-30-2015, 04:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Read the little band under the first photo and it credits an artist.
The main things that I see as obvious tip-offs to the CGI are that our ground and sea have significant motion blur, but our plane has none. In reality, it's hard to do that with a camera. The rear left of the runway looks like it's got an error from a distort operation. The rear "bumper" for lack of a better term appears to be artificially grafted on, with aliasing no less. It is posterized in a way that the rest of the image is not. Paint doesn't match, which seems like a major oversight if nothing else. The CCCP decal goes over flight control surfaces. Not technically impossible, but I'd think that you'd prefer to have it somewhere where it won't get visually distorted if the pilot does maneuvers. But then, nobody listens to me. Left rear strut for jet pods or whatever (I'm not into aviation terms and it shows) has improbable angle, unless the craft is asymmetrical. Windows coming out of structures that appear to be holding up other structures as large as themselves. I'm no engineer, but I'm pretty sure that's how you tear struts out. Left body of airframe roof (which has what appear to be torpedo tubes, but again, I'm no expert on aviation equipment things) is composed almost exclusively of the exact same color pixel (or close enough to the naked eye) in a failed attempt to create the appearance of a flat surface. What appear to be mounts for the wings that enable them to be retracted or extended have obscene amounts of noise, especially when compared to other parts of the image. Wings appear to intersect plane body, where you would expect to at least see a seam. On the high vertical view, you can see a noticeable bend in the runway. There is no accompanying seam, and while this is probably possible, it seems unlikely to be of much benefit, especially since it appears that the runway would be angling down if anything; take-off and landing would be difficult. Jets on the nose: Two from horizontal view, three from vertical. Also, obviously copy-pasted and (again, not an aerospace engineer) don't seem like they'd be of any use for the purposes of actually providing meaningful thrust. Look at how the runway starts on the front of the plane. That bend. I'm going to have nightmares about that. Either it's got some sort of burns or scoring, since there's no appropriate shadow source (except perhaps the cameraman), and the shadow stops abruptly where the material does. Flight deck lines intersect with door onto flight deck. Basically, my hunch is that it's either a three-dimensional object with photorealistic textures and a decent renderer, or someone's obsessive Photoshop project. Given the inconsistencies with, say, the nose jet pods and a handful of other features, I'd lean for Photoshop, but the helipad sequence screams CGI to me. Final verdict: Model with photorealistic textures, not all renders were made with the same version. Photoshop used afterward for the sake of enhancing realism, placing into scenes.
|
|
#7
10-30-2015, 06:55 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Probably dreamt up by the same idiot that thinks M113 variants should be used for everything, even gliders....
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem
|
|
#8
10-30-2015, 07:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hi SquireNed, well you say you're not into aviation but you raise some good points and you obviously are clued up on CGI
 I didn't even think to check the title band  And when raketenjagdpanzer pointed out that the wings were copied from the F-14, I couldn't help but see it then - it became almost glaringly obvious it was a "what-if"  So it sounds as though you may not have been introduced to the glory and the terror of the Caspian Sea Monster... that is to say, the ekranoplan? When the West first became aware of the Soviet tests of these particular craft on the Caspian Sea, they got a few pictures of the early testing vehicle and were not sure what they were seeing. Was it a ship, was it an aircraft, was it a hovercraft or even a hydrofoil? Nobody was sure and as they had no label for it someone at the CIA used the letters "KM" that were the most obvious markings on the craft to coin the name Kaspian Monster. Then it later became called the Caspian Sea Monster. (KM was in fact a Russian abbreviation for the Russian words meaning prototype ship) When more details became available the West eventually adopted the Russian term for the craft, ekranoplan. Basically, it's a "ground effect vehicle", combining aspects of both ship and aeroplane but never meant to fly more than several metres above the surface of the sea where they can exploit the lifting effect of their wings without needing the fuel burn to lift the craft into the air of a similar sized aircraft. The strangely canted pods you picked out are actually capsules for anti-ship missiles on one particular ekranoplan and the engine pods on the nose where placed there on the real thing to keep them free from debris and water ingestion when the craft was at speed but also on some versions, the thrust blew under the wing to help create the high pressure needed for lift - however on this image-manipulated picture those engine pods might look "cool" but are in a dangerous location given that directly behind them is the flight deck. It's worth having a look around the net for ekranoplan, wing-in-ground-effect and wing-in-surface-effect for some better info and a whole slew of pictures including some small recreational craft that have been made. If the Soviets had decided to go ahead with the ekranplan as a military craft, it would have given them the same lifting capacity as heavy transport aircraft but with superior range/fuel use and given them a similar amphibious assault ability as their large hovercraft but with superior speed. The Lun-class could carry six anti-ship missiles and could load up to 100 tonnes (220,000 lbs) while travelling up to 1900km (1180 miles) at speeds up to 550kph (342mph). Lun-class ekranoplan 
|
|
#9
10-30-2015, 07:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewto...468&start=3700 (scroll down)  Phil Last edited by aspqrz; 10-31-2015 at 04:03 AM.
|
|
#10
10-30-2015, 07:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 It seems to have totally escaped him that his beloved M113 doesn't have the armour to survive hits from .50cal machineguns let alone the Soviet 76mm gun so I cannot fathom how he believes the M113 would be useful as a "light tank" against vehicles armed with 100mm or 115mm guns!  To call that man obsessed is an understatement - in fact I think obsessed is too mild a term. I reckon if he could legally marry an M113, he would!
|
|
#11
10-31-2015, 04:59 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem
|
|
#12
10-31-2015, 08:57 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 Yeah I didn't think of that. I think it's the Russian who have a saying about that sort of thing... name the named, summon the named. 
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Linear Mode
