C-17 Crash! - Page 2 - Simply Maya User Community

# 16 20-07-2006 , 09:13 PM

Subscriber
Join Date: Mar 2005

Location: London

Posts: 1,135

its goodbut like said the smoke needs fixing

wen i saw the grass i though it was going to look terrible but iwas shocked as it actually looked pretty good

well done

Now at SMU doing BSc 3D Computer Animation so its hard to get on here
My wire render tut https://forum.simplymaya.com/showthre...threadid=20973

Quote

# 17 20-07-2006 , 11:50 PM

Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005

Location: Earth IX

Posts: 30

Originally posted by mhcannon
cornholio,
Any smoke generated form a meteor would be the result of the meteor burning up from friction. Meteors are mostly ice and rock (iron I think); not much fuel for a fire in it.

A jet engine fire would consume a lot of fuel as it is feed JP-5 (or whichever jet fuel is used); there is also a significant amount hydraulic fluid to take in to account. Both these would generate a considerable amount of smoke. Any fuel fire is extremly smoky.

I'm not sure its an issue of volume so much as it is dissipation? I think the turblance in the aircrafts wake would disperse the smoke more.

The animation is well done... expect I was expect some parts to break off on impact :-0

Originally Posted by

um...actually, no smoke is created during an entry of a meteor, it is a trail of ionized molecules, created by the passing of said meteor. No smoke, no flame, but rather an electromagnetic streak.

Sorry, I do that sometimes.

<a href="https://insanityprojects.tripod.com">Insanity Projects</a>

ICQ#- 277234669
AIM- jsprpettit4

Quote

# 18 21-07-2006 , 01:29 AM

Subscriber
Join Date: May 2004

Location: Bowling Green. Kentucky U.S.A.

Posts: 810

The smoke issue, that was mentioned is a problem, but to me it isnt the main problem..
A c-130 wouldnt go down with just one engine out, They can stay aloft wiht only one engine, for a limited time.. and fly a full mission wiht only 2.. But, thats just me getting on some details

and By the way, meterors do put of fire and smoke, the form their entry into the atmosphere, if the object is larger then the average peice of gravel, causes enough heat bhild up to actually ignite the air around it.. Same princible as the Space shuttle reentering, only on a much faster scale..

Do some research on say the Chicxulub Impact event 65 million years ago off teh coast of mexico, Estimates there are that the air was so hot and firey that the meteor flash fried the air for approximatly 300 miles in all directions, Before the leading edge made contact wiht the planet...

user added image

Follow My Business
On The Web!
Or
On Facebook!

Quote

# 19 21-07-2006 , 02:23 AM

Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005

Location: Earth IX

Posts: 30

da!
I stand corrected.
Given that the air doesn't ignite, and the meteor is still intact, a ionization of particles will occur. This is MOST likely with smaller fragments and/or wholes.

Could the C-130 may have sustained structural damage from the fire, which has somehow spread, due to extinguishing system malfunction???

<a href="https://insanityprojects.tripod.com">Insanity Projects</a>

ICQ#- 277234669
AIM- jsprpettit4

Quote

# 20 21-07-2006 , 02:31 AM

Subscriber
Join Date: May 2004

Location: Bowling Green. Kentucky U.S.A.

Posts: 810

Were that the cast, Typically speaking....
there have been rare occurances that didnt end this way,
The fire woudl have had to spread form teh engine, notice its the one on the outer edge of the wing.. to the fusalodge of the aircraft..
Its only route to that point...is by way of the Wings, which are most likely holding a lot of jetfuel.. Since, wings are typically the gas tanks of an aircraft...

ITs still a nice looking movie though.. As far as looks the model, and presentation... I've seen a lot of videos and GC effects come out of hollywood, that Leave a lot to be desired form a technical " could this happen" point of view..LoL

G

Follow My Business
On The Web!
Or
On Facebook!

Quote