Verrazano-Narrows Bridge Simulation 2

I made this one with the chopper a little closer to the WTC than in "Verrazano-Narrows Bridge Simulation". My suspicion is that the chopper (or virtual chopper) was over the Hudson river roughly equidistant from the WTC and the Empire State building.

I've also allowed the viewer to keep the WTC more or less in the centre of the screen to try and replicate the "authentic" footage that was shown live on Sept 11th 2001.

With this newer position and a better attempt to simulate the motion of a helicopter I'm still finding that the WTC in the "authentic" footage looks too small and that the Verrazano-Narrows bridge looks too long and seems to be rendered from the wrong angle given that the chopper was in Manhattan at the time.

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• Verrazano-Narrows
• Simulation
• Flight
• Simulator

[purplehatcult]

I dont understand why the media would have to fake 911 footage... Granted a lot of people think the planes were fake, I personally dont but i respect other's rights to think that. But this is after the planes when the buildings were already on fire. If the buildings really were on fire why fake footage of the burning?

[neomp5]

you're claiming the guy who made this simulation actually made one part of the city model move differently than the rest? it's just a camera movement.

/watch?v=NO5qvzMX-bc

[PollenB]

A model, which rotates on a small plain compared to the horizon. And for your information, you started with the insults in your first post. You are one of those annoying arseholes aren't you? Just argue forever. Go outside and look you fucking dipshit! Dont annoy me with any more of your stupidity. I wont be replying!

[neomp5]

more insults.

look at this very video. all it contains is a model of the city and a camera movement. do you really think it's going to look completely different from any other such movement?

you are passing the point where you can honestly be mistaken about this. you're entering the realm of lying. that's what it's called when someone says something they know to be untrue.

[PollenB]

No I cant be arsed talking to someone who has never been outside in the real world!

[neomp5]

and when facts fail you, you can only resort to insults.

looking at a stationary object while you are moving is the same as looking at a moving object while you are stationary. in both cases, the background appears to move very quickly.

the very video you are commenting on demonstrates this effect. what part are you not understanding?

[PollenB]

Hahahaha. Please come back when you grow up!

[neomp5]

i guess you've never been on a train, because when you look outside at a power pole by the tracks and focus on it as you go past it, the horizon seemingly whizzes past the pole even faster than the train.

it's all about what you're focusing on.

[PollenB]

Wrong. It will move half as much -if at all depending on distance. The bridge was 7 miles away! Ever been on a train? Things beside you whizz past, objects in the distance harldy move!

[neomp5]

if the objct in the background is twice the distance from the tree as i am, it certainly will move twice as much.