Thoughts on this render?

[Anonymous No.655683]

I have been trying to achieve realism as best I can for a rocket launch, the orbital part is the hardest because of strange lighting thats necessary. Mostly what I have done is take the lazy route and just crapify it to make it look like its a stream of a launch, lots of lossiness added, color reduction, lag spikes and missing frames etc. I think I may have overdone the crapifying but I'm satisfied with the results.

I guess the only thing I am somewhat unsure about is the actual separation, the canister being ejected still looks somewhat artificial, and the smoke looks bland. I have been staring at it for so long I have lost objectivity. What do you guys think? Is it believable at all? If so, can anything be improved? If not, which parts dont look good?

Thanks.

[Anonymous No.655687]

too much flame

[Anonymous No.655690]

>>655687
argh, yea i originally thought that but just left it. thanks for input, glad you mentioned it.

[Anonymous No.655692]

The only good part is the earth texture which you just took from satellite images

[Anonymous No.655700]

Your "crapification" is pretty damn good. You could take the first few seconds before separation, pass it off as real footage, and I'd probably believe it without a doubt.
The separation seriously ruins the illusion though. Reminds me a lot of KSP engine effects, which isn't a good sign if you're trying to go for realism.

So there's a few issues with the separation.

>"smoke" in space
There's just too much plumage going on. Contrary to popular belief, smoke really isn't part of rocket exhaust. It's a sign of improper combustion, so you can expect a little smoke barely a second into an engine firing, but after that it should be just pure flame.
As to all the smoke we see when a rocket is launching out of the atmosphere, first ignitions are typically very messy, which leads to a lot of smoke being produced.
(some rockets use a hydrogen-LOX fuel combo, that leads to steam being part of the exhaust too, which appears as smoke)

>exhaust trailing from the canister
Excessive and unrealistic. While retroboosters are a thing, they're not that intense as depicted in your clip. Additionally, ullage boosters (separators mounted on the active stage, rather than the one you're discarding) and explosive/pneumatic separators are more common.

>canister rotation
Not logical. There is nothing that should be causing that spin, unless you have a booster mounted on the side. But, based on where the exhaust is coming out from (the back), if you had a booster mounted there, then your canister's being pushed the wrong way (should be forward rotation rather than backward).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJIY4n5oXjc
Here's a clip of a Saturn V stage separation. It's using ullage motors here to push itself away from the discarded stage. Should be very good reference.

[Anonymous No.655701]

>>655683
Post wireframes

[Anonymous No.655702]

Meh, honestly guys I just wanted people to see if they thought the same thing about this legit soyuz launch footage. I thought it looked fake as shit, and wanted opinions on it without people knowing it was official footage.

Seems it indeed does not look real.

Thanks for replies.

[Anonymous No.655704]

>>655702
hahahahahaha

[Anonymous No.655705]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00uftjSjcnk

source of entire launch. couldnt believe my eyes on that separation. sorry for deceiving btw.

[Anonymous No.655749]

>>655683
kys baitfaggot

[Anonymous No.655761]

>>655687
>>655692
>>655700
>>655749

[Anonymous No.655777]

is the earth rendered or stock footage?

[Anonymous No.655786]

>>655749

I hope you understand that I wasn't trying to bait. I think if someone presented me footage of an official launch, and told me to look at it objectively for realism - I would automatically chalk up all iffy parts to "the weirdness of space".

That is why I lied in the OP, so I could get a few people to look at it objectively. Then I made to sure let my true intention be known early on, so that I didn't waste peoples time trying to help me with my fake rendering project.

but yes, i didnt know of any better way to get opinions about realism that were objective.

[Anonymous No.655795]

>>655702
>Seems it indeed does not look real.
But was VFX back then developed enough to make such footage?

[Anonymous No.655796]

>>655795
>back then
Shit, I just saw it's from this very year.

[Anonymous No.655893]

>>655700
I'd be really embarrassed right now if I were you.

[Anonymous No.655899]

>>655893
OP here, honestly he shouldn't be, and im not even just being nice. I would have done the same, I think there is far too much trust in official footage, and not enough accountability. I am not a flat earther, but I do believe that there are many reasons as to why orbital video would be artificial. Lots of people do not take this into account, because why would they fake such a thing? Also, most people think that if anything fake is released from space.. it must be because of something ridiculous like a pancake globe. They have programmed us to behave this way. Instead of remaining objective about it. But yes, I think the footage looks fake, and ultimately I think that poster who put all that effort into his reply might be onto something.. it would have been far more embarrassing for him if he said it looked great right? lol

[Anonymous No.655901]

>>655786
was gonna say It was a pretty epic fluid sim for smoke. looked pretty damn convincing no matter how I looked at it.


oh well

[Anonymous No.655907]

>>655683
When people talk about Space videos being realistic there are two meanings of 'realistic', the first is what actually happens IRL but the one most people mean is "feels right". The problem with Space is that things behave differently to those on Earth and what "feels right/real" is actually things behaving in ways we expect and so space videos feel wrong and fake.
This is why you will rarely see a big movie that doesnt put firey explosions, sound and strong fill lighting in Space.

[Anonymous No.655927]

>>655907
Your argument makes sense when it comes to physics, and observing objects in micro gravity (although I'd like to think that only the biggest mouth breathers have issues computing zero-g environment physics).

What I am talking about is lighting/texture realism, which really isn't that much different that earth. You could make the argument for the absolute void of light contrasted by the extreme opposite brightness of earth causing issues with perception.. but I would say that especially for people who work with graphics for a living, there is no environment so alien that we have not worked with it in simulations.

So no, I don't think that space is like so totally far out there man, that we cant possibly provide any insightful analysis on realism and/or fabrication of sample footage.

[Anonymous No.658463]

>>655683
better than Nasa

[Anonymous No.658630]

>>655683
So that's actually real footage, I wonder where that fire comes from, or is it just some gas or dust illuminated by sun light.

[Anonymous No.658671]

>>658630
Believe it or not, but hot gasses emit light, like everything that has temperature.