Do you care if spacefighters bank?

[Auditor]

So in my quest for realism I have read many topics on the subject and have discovered I don't care.

Do you?

We all know the realities of space. It's a vacuum? No friction. Traveling the speed of light is inpossible. No explosions. Can't see lasers. Blah blah blah.

Do you care? Do you want banking whooshing spacefighters. Fiery explosions...yes with sound.

Thoughts?

[gmd3d]

Originally Posted by Auditor

So in my quest for realism I have read many topics on the subject and have discovered I don't care.

Do you?

We all know the realities of space. It's a vacuum? No friction. Traveling the speed of light is inpossible. No explosions. Can't see lasers. Blah blah blah.

Do you care? Do you want banking whooshing spacefighters. Fiery explosions...yes with sound.

Thoughts?

Yes I want " banking whooshing spacefighters. Fiery explosions...yes with sound. "

I think this modern desire to be realistic (laughable really) in some science fiction shows takes all the fun out of the viewing.

I like lasers beam too.

Its why I still love the original Star Wars, Buck Rogers, BSG (No discussion of BSG please, that for our sister site colonial fleets).

Of course if your film or TV show is 2001 A Space Odyssey.

I suppose it depends on what story your telling.

looking at the last two videos tnpir4001 posted showing battling star ships one without sound and the other with sound. same scene...... soundless was visually interesting but for experience not as good as the one with sound.

anyway I also want the fantasy in some show.... the often hailed realistic approach can get a little dull after a time.

again it depends on what story your telling.

good idea for a conversion

[evil_genius_180]

First of all, great discussion topic.

It's interesting, I've been having a similar discussion lately. I'm involved in a small fan film project and we (the CG team) were discussing the realism of ship lighting VIA e-mail. Before you even get into animation and effects, that's something that needs looking at. Truth be told, not many CG ships have realistic lighting rigs. They'll get more light hitting their hulls from small lights that, in the real world, wouldn't be lighting that much (things like nav lights.) But, people expect fancy lighting rigs on CG models, no matter how realistic it is, because it looks cool. In reality, space is cold, dark and boring. A ship flying through space won't be lit by much of anything, unless it's in a solar system. But, people don't want that reality in relation to space shots, they want the one that looks cool.

The same can be said for animations and effects. Using retro thrusters, (or whatever BS tech you come up with) a ship can turn at the same rate in space whether or not it banks. However, a ship rotating on its Z axis to turn just doesn't look as cool as one doing a banked turn, no matter if it's necessary or not. Same with sound. Everyone knows sound doesn't travel with nothing to carry it and there's nothing in space to carry it. However, people don't care. They want to see and hear those cool laser blasts and torpedo hits. They want to see a ship that doesn't really explode the way a pressurized ship in space would (very fast and not very fiery, because the oxygen aboard would be consumed in a second and then the fire would just die.)

So, basically, yes. It does matter if the ships bank. It matters that you can see and hear that laser blast. Reality sucks. We deal with reality every day of our lives. People watch movies and shows to escape from reality and part of escaping is watching really cool CG animations and effects shots (even on non-Sci-Fi stuff. )

[Auditor]

If you want to get annoyed read the information at this website.

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/misconceptions.php

Thing is we don't care. We know all the stuff he said and don't care. I have been striving for realism. Then well I finally decided I don't care. His article had the opposite effect on me that he intended.

Now yes as hard scifi and soft scifi are different. So yeah some stuff would look entirely wrong then.

Some series have done a great job with some aspects of adding reality. B5's Starfuries. The silence of space in Firefly, yeah 2001 and others did it first just like how it was done in Firefly.

So FTL...do you dimiss it outright like some? Or except it in the movie or tv show cuz we are supposed to be getting entertained not taking a science class.

Guess that could be said about the whole topic.

[gmd3d]

Originally Posted by Auditor

If you want to get annoyed read the information at this website.

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/misconceptions.php

Thing is we don't care. We know all the stuff he said and don't care. I have been striving for realism. Then well I finally decided I don't care. His article had the opposite effect on me that he intended.

Now yes as hard scifi and soft scifi are different. So yeah some stuff would look entirely wrong then.

Some series have done a great job with some aspects of adding reality. B5's Starfuries. The silence of space in Firefly, yeah 2001 and others did it first just like how it was done in Firefly.

So FTL...do you dimiss it outright like some? Or except it in the movie or tv show cuz we are supposed to be getting entertained not taking a science class.

Guess that could be said about the whole topic.

I have seen this site before, and I still don´t care.

When Star Trek the other shows where filmed, viewers want to be entertained, if they are educated through it that is all well and good.

Having said that, even if they did depict what space travel would be like, viewers would not relate to it.

When you view 2001 Space Odyssey, its is visually interesting, the story also interesting, but for many people it dull. DULL, DULL.

That from most of my friends, where they would happy watch Star Trek or Star Wars but give 2001 a mega miss.

But I watch show to be entertained and not be hit with some other guy/girls views on realism, bad camera work and whatever else.

There is a number of thing that can add to realism which has been practiced for years.

The puppet shows like Thunderbirds, Stingray, showed great machines and devise in each show. with small hardly noticed
effects as you watch..... dust from tires. VTOL blasts as the aircraft. palm trees falling to the side of T2 runway to widen the runway so T2 can move out etc.

or

Space1999, with the eagle landing slow and easy, (apart from the moon visiting a new system each week..... that´s is to far beyond realistic or even fantastic).

that for me is still some of the best TV effects work and a good compromise to whats real and what entertainment.

My biggest gripe with modern TV shows is the camera getting into the act with shape and fast editing..... its a trick that is over used now I believe. (sorry not really in topic)

[evil_genius_180]

That website you linked to is stupid. Firstly, most of those things he said are "duh" things. Secondly, he was definitely wrong on one point: Rockets most certainly do have windows. Space shuttles (a plane strapped to two rockets and a fuel tank) have even more windows. He claims they have no need for them, which clearly means he knows nothing. Anybody who knows the Apollo 13 story (there's even a really nice film out starring Tom Hanks, Gary Sinise, Ed Harris and a lot of other great actors) knows they looked out the window and used the Earth as a guide for their reentry burn. Anybody who knows that knows that windows saved their bacon (pun intended, as Kevin Bacon was also in the film. )

All I know is, I used to attempt to "realistically" light my models for pictures. People bitched and moaned, "it's too dark, wah wah wah." So, I caved and started going for a "Sci-Fi" approach to my lighting and now everybody is a lot happier. So, as I said, people don't want reality.

[Auditor]

Lighting for space is a whole other issuse and yes it belongs in here too. One of my other "realistic" challenges. 'Cuz yeah basically you would have one light source the sun or whatever your nearest star is.

But for lighting for space that works we need to play around with reality. Bounce light from the planet below or from the nearby nebula. Giving us more colors to play with. The nebula in Babylon 5 had the additional purpose of adding a little colored light and to show the silhouette of the ships.

While I'm on B5 there is an episode called "Revelations" where a heavy Narn Cruiser is ambushed after coming out of hyperspace. The ship is blasted by an energy beam that punches through the ship. After the huge explosion the front end of the craft pitchesd down and the ship "sinks." Yeah ships don't sink. It's all wrong. Mojo who did the shot knew that. But did it because it looked cool.

In other words...don't care.

I love Apollo 13 btw I can watch it over and over. I did think about mentioning it the other day. Not on on the reasons evil_genius_180 brought up but because it something out side the laws of physics took place it would ruin the film. Not that nitpickers wouldn't find stuff wrong.

Told you that site would piss you off.

[evil_genius_180]

Yeah, I need to watch Apollo 13 again. It's a great flick. It's also one of those stories where you don't have to embellish anything because the story itself is so great.

Originally Posted by Auditor

Told you that site would piss you off.

It didn't really piss me off, it's just stupid. I didn't even read much of it except the part about how rockets don't have windows. That was the only part that really even bugged me that much, due to its incorrectness.

[Auditor]

I do have to say I like the part of his website on Realistic Designs.

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/realdesigns.php

Good for Hard Sci Fi.

My biggest gripe with modern TV shows is the camera getting into the act with shape and fast editing..... its a trick that is over used now I believe. (sorry not really in topic)

Oh and Taranis I totally agree on that. I like good cinematography. And the psuedo documentary style is not it. Yes it has its place. But it gets old really quick. The camere zooming in and out and moving around Searching for its subject. Gets realy old and hard to watch.

[gmd3d]

Originally Posted by evil_genius_180

That website you linked to is stupid. Firstly, most of those things he said are "duh" things. Secondly, he was definitely wrong on one point: Rockets most certainly do have windows.

All I know is, I used to attempt to "realistically" light my models for pictures. People bitched and moaned, "it's too dark, wah wah wah." So, I caved and started going for a "Sci-Fi" approach to my lighting and now everybody is a lot happier. So, as I said, people don't want reality.

Yeah I had problems with the window/porthole comments too.

Also he does not have his facts!! ,,,,, He called the Star Ship Reliant the Star ship Intrepid?.

or the Gravity.. I agree that

the direction of "down" will be in the same direction that the rocket exhaust is shooting.

, This is true,

but who is to say that some form of artificial gravity system will be developed some time in the near future.

the site has many merits and interesting data.

But as was said....... Space is dull so film and tv shows need some fantasy to keep the viewer.

Star Trek 2 addressed the 3 dimensional approach somewhat in the Battle between the Enterprise and the Intrepid oh sorry the Reliant in the Mutara Nebula.

and he is forgetting its entertainment and that all not really life..... I can watch the news or NASA launches if I want reality thank you very much.

[Auditor]

Yeah he seems to be anti scifi. IDK he annoys me. But didn't want this thread to be all about him. I think we can all agree he is offbase on lots of his opinion assumptions and facts.

Wraith of Khan is all about space being 3d dimension and Khan's 2D thinking is his downfall. i think if he really watched Star Trek, Star Wars, B5, or Battlestar he would really see the space battles aren't 2D.

Blah.

Anyway enough of that.

Think we are in agreement on how we like our sci fi space vs. real space.

[gmd3d]

Originally Posted by Auditor

Anyway enough of that.

Think we are in agreement on how we like our sci fi space vs. real space.

Quite right..... he has a right to his views and opinions as do we all.

Getting back to the idea of your original post.

I believe that is a show is set with in the realm of reality Science Fact (all well and good) it should keep to this as much as possible.

OR

If it is set in the universe of Science Fiction/Fantasy and a writer/director/producer has a good idea, that is also good

[Reiko]

Science fiction is not meant to be realistic and I for one like the stylized explosions and banking of ships and fighters. It gives me a grounded reference I can identify with and it makes the action fun.

[evil_genius_180]

Well said.

There was a bug in STO (I think they fixed it) where ships weren't banking during combat and it was freaky. So, I definitely like banking ships.