"dogfight" for history channel

[Evan]

http://www.newtek.com/lightwave/profiles/Dogfight/index.php

Might be worth looking out for. Graphics looks pretty cool.

[pete.cook]

The graphics certainly do look good. The MiG 15 looks too shiny though.

If you go to Radical's own website also, you can see a trailer for the show, which would look impressive to a layman, to the rest of us it shows a considerable lack of attention to detail (I won't spoil it for every one, have look and see if you can see what I mean:)). This may have been due to the time considerations necessary to get the gfx ready in such a short time frame, but I reckon Weik or Ronnie or a number of others here could do just as good if not better.

That said, I hope to get the chance to watch the show when it eventually airs in the UK.

[kevjon]

I think some parts of the demo look very cg and other parts are really good. I'm looking forward to seeing the final result later in the year and definitely a DVD I'll have to buy when it is available.

[Bravo]

This will definitely be a programme to look out for, a really good idea now that 3D artwork is getting closer and closer to photo realism

[kiwi123]

They actually used my Mig15 for this (the silver one, the black one is a 17). I sold that to them ages and ages ago....

[Evan]

That's great Kiwi...I'll have to watch out for it when I see the show.

[Skyraider3D]

A typical case of the good, bad and ugly. Some cinematics are quite nice (like the slow-mo 109 overshoot) but most is so-so. The same goes for the models. Look at that 109 in the still... mirrored markings, propeller in the wrong place and it doesn't really look an awful lot like a 109.
Not terribly impressed overall, but it's good at least they've started using textured and lit models for these kind of presentations... ;)

[oxicus]

If you go to Radical's own website also, you can see a trailer for the show, which would look impressive to a layman, to the rest of us it shows a considerable lack of attention to detail

i disagree. ive worked on the show for the past 6 months as an animator, modeler, surfacer, and effects artist. we really put alot into it, and most of the time its an executive decision that makes us move one due to time contstraints. we have to do 2 shots a day and deliver about 120 - 160 shots in 2 weeks. that includes animation, effects, shot breakdowns, and sometimes compositing depending on how fast we get our frames back. im sure lots of people can make better looking images than we have in the show, just not in the time constraints that we have (which you did mention).

as for the "poor meshes" claim, we have been working with some of the best historians in the country, with constant dialogue back and forth to make sure all aspects are correct. i cant speak for the 2 hour pilot, but all the new meshes, which you havent seen yet, are as accurate as can be.

as for the ME-109, i dont understand how it doesnt look like one. im looking at the model and textures right now in lightwave, and the only mirrored texture is on the fuselage, which is like that for time issues. plus both sides would be similar anyway, so noting that the paint splotches are the same on both sides is a bit more anal than seems healthy. i also did a quick google search for ME-109s so that i could compare the images to the model. everything looks to be in order with the images.... and i see that both the props were in the front, so how were they in the wrong place?

anyways, im just asking you guys to wait for the show to start on november 3rd. the first 2 hour pilot was done by primarily one guy, who did between 2 to 9 shots a day. so before everyone starts bashing it, i think everyone should know the limitations that we have to work with and then make judgments.

[kiwi123]

Hi Oxicus, good to hear from your side of the fence. I completely appreciate what you're saying, I had to deal with similar comments in the past as well. It is very easy to pick stuff apart if you do not appreciate the time / budget restraints. The show looks a lot better than the usual tv pulp.
Try not to let it get to you. The casual hobbyist / viewer wont be able to pick up on these things, it is only the diehards that are "offended".

I had to go through a rant of someone complaining about The Blue Max yesterday, the sounds were wrong etc. etc..... just get on with it and enjoy what's there.

[Spinner]

The dangers of doing this kind of flying in old tired birds was brought home to me earlier this month when a friend who specialised in flying ground attack profiles spread his Strikemaster across the landscape.
So I vote for CGI aerial combat, raw edges and all.
Oxicus,
This site would have to be expected to judge stringantly in this area. Thats no surprise. However the knowledge of clients' restrictions tempers our judgement. Most here have been caughtbetween the two and understand the parameters that constrained Radical.

[Skyraider3D]

My comments regarding the Me 109 still stand firm, I'm afraid.
Sure there are time constraints and sure there are shortcuts to be taken, but a simple thing like putting a propeller (both??) in the centre of the nose, or fixing a render can't be too hard?
I'm also curious to hear your explanation about the lack of wheel wells and what precisely those two things are under the wings. If they are gunpods... they look quite a bit different in reality.
Speaking of curiosity, which historians worked on the project? The markings on the 109 aren't historically accurate (lack of yellow wingtips, upper surface style crosses on the bottom of the wing).
If you like I can write a list of things that are wrong with it, but I am sure it won't be of any use anyway.

Be sure, I'm not saying the artists have done a bad job. The time constraints you mention are very harsh. It's just a pity that a production like this gets rushed to the point where it shows... but that's the way things work unfortunately. Also hiring more knowledgable staff (an artist with no knowledge of or interest in aircraft can't model an aircraft very accurately) would prevent simple mistakes historians might miss. The managers of the project should allocate more time to polishing the promotional material though. And trust me, I am fighting similar battles at my work, so I know where you're coming from...

[Spinner]

Whatever goes up on the screen becomes reality to the next generation. We have a responsability to get it as accurate as possable.

[Skyraider3D]

Agreed.
Sixty-five years after Pearl Harbor we still have to watch white Zeros... they never existed. I hope you don't have any of those! :lol:

[Hitori Kyo]

i totally agree with skyraider3D's coments, the 109 looks wack and needs alot of work.

with ref to the white zeros its better than seeing shermans with german crosses =S

- Hitori kyo

[kiwi123]

This was sent to my by the executive producer of the show:

"he show (especially the pilot) is indeed flawed. Most of the animation was
done nearly 2 years ago. In fact, I can barely stand to look at it at this
point. And just to end the suspense - the series will not be perfect
either. There WILL be mistakes. Some we will know about, others we won't. And others that will be in dispute.
This a fact of a brutal production period and low budget. Over 140 fx shots per episode - 3.5 weeks to do each episode. The idea of the show is to bring to the layman the experience of these heroic men's exploits and to do the best job we can with the aforementioned limitations. In fact, one of the caveats I tell to the pilots is that we will do as good a job as budget and time will allow. Men like Robin Olds, Tex Hill, John Alison, Swede Vejtasa, Alexander Vraciu, James Swett, Jefferson DeBlanc, Robbie Risner, Ralph Parr, and Hamilton McWhorter have met with me and agreed to these limitations. The Response we got from the pilots of the 1st show was extremely positive despite it's flaws. Anderson, Blesse, and Willie Driscoll all said that it was one of the best documentary's on air combat they had ever seen. Anderson did say that he felt that I had him at too low an altitude which I had warned him about during production but what he had seen pretty much looked like what he remembered from 60 years ago. Had Rickenbacker been alive I think he might have not been very happy as his segment had major problems (gear on backward on his
spad in a couple of shots - German recon planes going inverted - gack)
"

[kiwi123]

"The 109!!!!
The 109 was the 1st model we built and that was for a proof of concept pilot that never aired. When the pilot was ordered in full there was not time to check for errors. Fyi we used the Squadron/signal publications 109 Volume 2 for the 109 reference. Bud Anderson told us the plane was a 109 G. The paint scheme and model was pulled right out of that book (I think..it has been over 2.5 years.) I can't find the book right now so I can't see if we made errors there or later or what. Anyway the point is we do try to get it right.
And we would like a list of mistakes. I cannot promise that we can do
anything about them once we have committed and started rendering but we will do our best. One of our rules here is check your ego at the door and that includes me as well.
The pilot was a very difficult task. I essentially animated the entire show
by myself (except for 4 shots) over a period of 4 months. Over 270 fx
shots. 48 minutes of computer animation. On a schedule like that, unless the mistake is so bad that even a 5 year old is going to see it, then we don't change it. There just isn't time to go back and redo a render (Even when a crashing 109 has 2 full props – one spinning and one fixed!! I didn't see it until after the online and no one else caught during the first air date – at least no one mentioned it) I had 4 machines to do this on so render time was a huge factor. In fact, Wieks Mig-15, a brilliant model, was not used in the final show. It was just too heavy for my weak ass computers and the render times were too long, so we resurfaced it (a guy named Tim West who hangs at Aerodrome web site - great modeler and painter) and made another model based on Wieks Mig. Essentially a light copy of his brilliant model. (for which he got credit in the show) As an Executive producer I have to make that decision whether to proceed or not and sometimes I have to go forward even when I am not happy with the models (or animation, or lighting etc.). This season we had the worst time with the P-40B and E models for the Flying Tigers Episode.
(this is much more complicated than it is written here but it is a rough
summary) We contracted one of the most famous modelers in the Lightwave community to do it for us. I was so exited that I could hardly stand it. When the model came in it was a nightmare!! Some Frankenstein version of a P-40 that never existed despite the fact that we had sent a ton of reference material(approved by Barret Tilman) And this was the week we were scheduled to start animation on that episode. Totally screwed so we had to do a rush job with another modeler – who did a good job as did the texture guy, but I was never happy with the way it looked but had to go forward anyway.

"

[kiwi123]

"My real reason for this is that we are getting ready to start animation on
an episode Called "Long Odd". One of the segments is with Swede Vejtasa as he shoots down 3 Zeros while flying a Dauntless Dive bomber during the Battle of the Coral Sea. A great moment in U.S. Naval aviation and Swede is, according to Tex Hill, the greatest naval aviator in History. Anyway, Swede swears that the Zero's he was fighting were unpainted aluminum with black cowling and the red meatballs on the wings. I can find no reference for this so if any of you guys have any input on this that would be a tremendous help.
Regardless I will probably have to go with what he says but reference would be nice. Links, images, or book references would be great. We are also starting on the Swordfish that torpedoed the Bismarck and would love some squadron references there as well to make sure we get it right. Soon after that we will be doing a show on the Israel Air force and will be looking for reference there as well. Any and all help is appreciated. I hope you guys will be interested.
Thanks in advance, and criticism is welcome as long as it is constructive
and not just about bashing the idiots in Hollywood. We are artists just like
you guys and want to do the best we can.
All the Best to you guys and great work on your sites.
Jason McKinley
Creator, Exec Producer - Dogfight
"

[kiwi123]

And now back to myself: the mig detailed ? Hahah, you should see the spitfire :lol:

Anyway, like I said before, I know what it is like to work with very tight budget and deadline constraints, there are always tradeoffs. We are very often in the situation at work where we redo stuff anyway, unpaid, because of professional pride. But that can only take you so far before you are wrecking yourself in the process. Furthermore, people will get what they pay for, if you deliver the absolute best quality for a low budget, you are screwing yourselves and others.
CG animation is NOT cheap to do right.

[kevjon]

Interesting read Kiwi, thanks for posting. I'm looking forward to seeing it. Small inaccurcies in aircraft don't really bother me that much only obvious ones.

Anyway, Swede swears that the Zero's he was fighting were unpainted aluminum with black cowling and the red meatballs on the wings. I can find no reference for this so if any of you guys have any input on this that would be a tremendous help.

I've done a bit of research on Zero's for my own model and have found no photographic evidence of aluminium zero's at the Coral Sea battles time period. Perhaps under certain angles and lighting conditions it appeared that way to Swede but then again who knows....he was there !

[Spinner]

ATIU guys during WW2 were reporting a non-coloured surface treatment. This is repeated post war in the first in depth english language books by Francillon (thought to be based on japanese book series) and Thorpe in his JAAF Camouflage and Markings of WW2 and JNAF Camouflage and Markings.
Thorpe's work was very well researched for the time.
Japanese researchers today hold a diferent opinion.
Still you've only to look at blue on blue rates to see the human eye as unreliable during aerial combat.

[Skyraider3D]

Here are some snippets from the e-mail I sent back to the exec. producer that may be of interest to forum members:

(...)

Regarding the 109... let me first say it does look like a 109. The average person will recognise it as such, and for animation the model serves its purpose. For a marketing still, it is a bad choice though. Here is a list of problems I found on the 109. I didn't include the low-poly look of the wingtips as this is obviously a model optimised for animation. O and let me warn you... In Action book drawings are about the worst you can get. Their profile illustrations are often full of mistakes too. Only use the text, detail sketches and photos as a reference when using these books. Assuming you were modelling a Bf 109 G-6 (most common 1943/44 model):

Me 109 G-6 comments:
- spinner in wrong location
- spinner too small
- spinner cannon port too big
- propeller blades have wrong shape
- nose too pointy and overall a quite different shape from the real thing
- chin air intake looks odd, but this may be caused by the nose which is sloping up too much
- shape of cannon breech bulges looks a bit off (but at least not too big, which is the usual mistake)
- shouldn't have wrap around camo on wing leading edges
- style of underwing crosses is wrong
- mapping error(?) under wingt tips
- lack of wheel wells
- very strange looking gunpods(?)
- underwing radiators look odd
- canopy lacks thick framing of the G-model
(- aerial arrangement is not a very common one but does exist)
- rear fuselage too curvy at the bottom
- fuselage crosses were dark grey, not black
- yellow fuselage band was used on east front (and accompanied by yellow wingtips) and not appropriate for battles against USAAF
- tail wheel shouldn't have a cut-out area (this was on the E-model, not the G)
- swastika mirrored
- shape of vertical tail looks strange, but can't really tell for sure from this angle

Of course many of these are nitpicking. The major problems have been highlighted bold.

(...)

Back to the bare metal Zero. I doubt it existed, but if you want a better informed opinion, please post your question on the navy forum on J-aircraft (http://www.j-aircraft.com). (...) One note that may be of interest... many early Zeros were painted in two shades of grey. The rear fuselage being a much brighter colour. Perhaps in the heat of batte, this colour demarcation may have appeared as two different metals being used, creating a patched effect as often seen on bare-metal aircraft. But ask on the J-Aircraft forum to be sure. Many experts can be found there. They can also give you a breakdown of the exact unit markings being used on the tail and fuselage and possibly much more. Perhaps they even know the exact identities of the Zeros that were shot down! Many of such details is in fact "out there" as all air forces kept detailed claims and losses reports, many of which survived the war.

Lastly Israeli AF references... here is a good generic reference work (two parts) dealing with types and camo/markings:
CAMOUFLAGE & MARKINGS No.3: The Israeli Air Force Part 1 - 1948 to 1967 - Ray Ball (http://www.ianallanpublishing.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=254_255_256_257&products_id=15861)
CAMOUFLAGE & MARKINGS No.4: Israeli Air Force Part 2 - 1967 to 2001 - Ray Ball (http://www.ianallanpublishing.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=254_255_256_257&products_id=15862)
Perhaps seek assistance from the author himself? Most of these guys do it for the passion of the subject and would be all too keen to help.

(...)

[Skyraider3D]

Still you've only to look at blue on blue rates to see the human eye as unreliable during aerial combat.In my e-mail I have indeed given a number of examples of such friendly fire cases. A typical one being clashes between USAAF and Soviet fighters. Yaks being mistaken for 109s and Lavochkins for 190s.
The Swiss air force was also suffering from the USAAF and had to adopt super high visibility markings (broad red and white stripes) to prevent further losses.
More recently a Blackhawk was shot down over Iraq, being mistaken for a Hind, causing many casualties.

Veterans are a great source of first hand information, but with all due respect their recollections must always be taken with a great deal of reservation. The human eye and memory are far from perfect and in many cases it was proven that a veteran's memory was wrong, despite him being 100% sure.

A last good example of this is the consistent overclaiming of pilots, which happened in every air force and in every air war. The more chaotic the air battle, the worst the overclaiming was. The Battle of Britain and claims by USAAF bomber gunners being prime examples. Another nice example is the claims made during the Nomonhan conflict of 1939, between the USSR and Japan. The Soviets overclaimed by 4 to 1, the Japanese by 6 to 1. Most claims were made in good faith, with the pilot seeing a plane going down in smoke, etc...

Combining two of these cases (overclaiming + mistaken identity)... one USAAF pilot claimed one unknown aircraft destroyed and one probably over Germany, even describing how the one destroyed collided with a tree and ripped off a wing. In reality he was flying over Switserland (60 miles south of where he thought he was) and damaged two Swiss fighter-bombers, both of which landed safely! I have no doubt he didn't mean to shoot down neutrals and he was absolutely convinced of what he saw. A plane escaping between the trees may look an awful lot like a crash afterall :)

[Hitori Kyo]

"tail wheel shouldn't have a cut-out area (this was on the E-model, not the G)" F model too

- Hitori kyo

[Skyraider3D]

"tail wheel shouldn't have a cut-out area (this was on the E-model, not the G)" F model tooNot quite the same though, as the F model had retractable gear. But yes, there was a cutout for it of course.

[mcliett]

Thanks to everyone for your interest in the show...we really do appreciate it. Jason said it quite well when he stressed that we truly are doing everything we can in the time and budget allocated to get it right. Again...our job here is to stress the heroism, and tell the stories of these incredible pilots who put their lives on the line every time they set foot in the cockpit. If we get that point accross, then we have succeeded in my opinion.

Also, the website for the show just went up today...it is here:

http://www.history.com/minisites/dogfights/

and..we now can post a few stills from the series...

http://pic14.picturetrail.com/VOL531/2763856/5539917/198620217.jpg


http://pic14.picturetrail.com/VOL531/2763856/5539917/198661443.jpg


http://pic14.picturetrail.com/VOL531/2763856/5539917/198660171.jpg

[Skyraider3D]

Congrats on having the show go on-air! :)

The stills you posted contain a number of errors, ranging from faulty shapes (P-40) and marking inaccuracies (Wildcats/P-38) to dubious scenery (P-38), but nothing the average viewer would easily spot or bother.

Since you've worked closely with aces, I am sure you'll get that message across. They're a magnificent bunch to work with and everybody on your team should be proud to have been part of this, which may well be the first and sadly last show of its kind.


PS. Very impressive showreel, Michael!

[Biff81]

The P-40 scene is stunning!

[kevjon]

Congrats on getting it all done.....I'm really looking forward to seeing it !

I need some new aircraft animations to watch as I've just about worn out Tochy's ones.