HV's ART and messabouts (teaching highschoolers to fly jets)

[HV-FSAPDS]

In response to first paragraph: It's not as much about how much less bright the reflection is meant to be (though adjusting the overall brightness would be possible, making overbright areas bright, bright areas medium and dark areas darker) but about how the light changes TOO MUCH. If you hold a 6-LED light to a wall, you see 6 small circles of light. If you move away, you see one (less bright) larger, diffuse circle on the wall, where the brightness in a large part of the circle is actually the same. (As another example, just because we on earth can blot out the sun with our hand doesn't mean there's a hand-shaped spot on the center of the earth where the sun is brightest.) May sound obvious now, but that's what I was saying about your picture

Okay, all I was trying to say with that paragraph talking about image manipulation was that I tried to dim the reflection on the ground but it failed to look convincing enough. So I left the reflections' brightness levels alone.

In response to first paragraph: It's not as much about how much less bright the reflection is meant to be (though adjusting the overall brightness would be possible, making overbright areas bright, bright areas medium and dark areas darker) but about how the light changes TOO MUCH. If you hold a 6-LED light to a wall, you see 6 small circles of light. If you move away, you see one (less bright) larger, diffuse circle on the wall, where the brightness in a large part of the circle is actually the same. (As another example, just because we on earth can blot out the sun with our hand doesn't mean there's a hand-shaped spot on the center of the earth where the sun is brightest.) May sound obvious now, but that's what I was saying about your picture

If you are talking about the effect constructive interference will have on multiple converging beams; it won't happen here as there is only one distinct source of light which is the muzzle flash. You cannot get an interference pattern with just one definitive source of light like you would if you had two or more light sources casting focused beams of light towards a flat surface.

If you are talking about beam propagation and dissipation, then there is something wrong with the drawing. To be optically accurate, the reflection on the ground should cover a much wider area (since the muzzle flash in the pic is a high intensity omnidirectional light source) but at a reduced intensity. But if I had done that, I would've had to add shadows to the floor, which is too daunting a task for me at this early stage of learning and self-experimenting with drawing stuff and manipulating lighting (Yep, I haven't read any online tutorials or any materials of that sort, yet. And the MYP Art class in my school doesn't really help me with drawing stuff like this either, all they teach is sculpture, photo collages and various other forms of obscure art). So I kept the reflections on the floor small so it won't look too cheesy.

If you are talking about the elliptical shape of the reflections, again, it's for the purpose of perspective, to give it a more 3D feel.

If you are talking about the intensity of the reflections; then there is something wrong with the picture as well. A grey floor like that should have a relatively low reflection coefficient to optical light (say x ⊆ ]0.35, 0.45[) where the amplitude of the reflected beam should be less than half of that of the incident beam. But taking into account the dark ambient environment and the high intensity of the muzzle flash, the reflection should be just as or almost as noticeable as the flash itself to the crappy naked Human eye.

What I do not really understand is:

how the light changes TOO MUCH

"Change" is a highly generic and ambiguous term and that sentence provides a vague and indeterminate notion. You've kindly provided some excellent examples of the effects of interference and of beam convergence, dissipation and propagation, but I just don't see how they connect to the reflections in the drawing. So... Relative to the original muzzle flash, what relevant changes have you observed as inappropriate? Give your answer in terms of shape, dimensions, patterns and intensity. Round off any numerical values to two decimal places .

[EvilNinjadude]

If you are talking about beam propagation and dissipation, then there is something wrong with the drawing. To be optically accurate, the reflection on the ground should cover a much wider area (since the muzzle flash in the pic is a high intensity omnidirectional light source) but at a reduced intensity. But if I had done that, I would've had to add shadows to the floor, which is too daunting a task for me at this early stage of learning and self-experimenting with drawing stuff and manipulating lighting (Yep, I haven't read any online tutorials or any materials of that sort, yet. And the MYP Art class in my school doesn't really help me with drawing stuff like this either, all they teach is sculpture, photo collages and various other forms of obscure art). So I kept the reflections on the floor small so it won't look too cheesy.

If you are talking about the intensity of the reflections; then there is something wrong with the picture as well. A grey floor like that should have a relatively low reflection coefficient to optical light (say x ⊆ ]0.35, 0.45[) where the amplitude of the reflected beam should be less than half of that of the incident beam. But taking into account the dark ambient environment and the high intensity of the muzzle flash, the reflection should be just as or almost as noticeable as the flash itself to the crappy naked Human eye.

*Nods vigorously*
Yes, those two. Especially the part about it being a single omnidirectional light source.
And your skill level is a more than adequate excuse; I don't expect more from people than what they are willing or able to deliver. Not a very demanding person am I.

What I do not really understand is:

how the light changes TOO MUCH

"Change" is a highly generic and ambiguous term and that sentence provides a vague and indeterminate notion. You've kindly provided some excellent examples of the effects of interference and of beam convergence, dissipation and propagation, but I just don't see how they connect to the reflections in the drawing. So... Relative to the original muzzle flash, what relevant changes have you observed as inappropriate? Give your answer in terms of shape, dimensions, patterns and intensity. Round off any numerical values to two decimal places .

Please forgive my inability to use accurate mathematic and scientific language in this context. I'll try to rephrase this, but it still won't look good:

The reflection looks like a single source.

To elaborate: Small radius, high intensity, and highest intensity at the very center.
The first two of those have been addressed. #3 was the one I was referring to last. It shouldn't be happening unless the reflecting surface is similar to e.g. Water. Because you know how moonlight looks on waves? The reflected light is focused mostly in a straight line. Or, in this case even more, A mirror, where the reflected light is focused around a point, making it look like a source.

Since the reflecting surface in this case is neither mirror nor water, the circle of light should look more like something you'd expect from a UFO's Tractor Beam.

[HV-FSAPDS]

The reflection looks like a single source.

To elaborate: Small radius, high intensity, and highest intensity at the very center.
The first two of those have been addressed. #3 was the one I was referring to last. It shouldn't be happening unless the reflecting surface is similar to e.g. Water. Because you know how moonlight looks on waves? The reflected light is focused mostly in a straight line. Or, in this case even more, A mirror, where the reflected light is focused around a point, making it look like a source.

Since the reflecting surface in this case is neither mirror nor water, the circle of light should look more like something you'd expect from a UFO's Tractor Beam.

So you are talking about the overly steep diffusion gradient of the intensity of the yellow color along an outward vector following the radius of the ellipse cutting through the continuous annular highlighting in the reflection. Again, it is a single source of high intensity light in a dark environment, and the muzzle is very close to the ground; and also, the muzzle flash itself also have the properties you described in the reflection as having a sharp diffusion gradient in the intensity of light following an outward vector from the origin/epicenter of the visible flash. Which means there is no chance of constructive interference mitigating the diffusion gradient of light intensity and for the intensity of the source, there isn't enough distance between the ground and the muzzle for the effects of beam propagation and diffusion to render the reflection to be observable as of only one consistent shade of yellow. If such a flash should occur in real life, its reflection will look somewhat similar to the one in the drawing, but like I've mentioned before, it will have with a much larger observable radius, and a reduced overall light intensity. There will still be an observable steep diffusion gradient in the intensity of light following an outward vector from the origin/epicenter of the visible reflection (can't seem to put that notion together in other ways other than this), but yes, like you said, the diffusion gradient should be shallower in real life.

Sure, the relatively rough microscopic surface of the floor and its low reflective coefficient will blunt out the rate at which the intensity of light in the reflection decreases along an outward vector originating from the origin/epicenter of the elliptical reflection smudge, but not to an extent where the reflection appears to be one solid, consistent color. I've observed that effect many times in my school where low hanging incandescent lightbulbs cast reflections with similar properties described above on the floor.

Also, imagine how cheesy the reflection might have looked if it was a near consistent solid blob of translucent dark yellow on the ground.

[EvilNinjadude]

Yes.


And no, I didn't want it to be one blob of identical intensity, just... more in that direction if you know what I mean.
Also, I've had my dose of Sophisto-speak for the day (and the week), I'll just come back here whenever I'm feeling to smart for my own good...

[HV-FSAPDS]

GIMP is such an awesome drawing tool. It is so error tolerant and versatile at the same time.
You can start out by drawing a rough figure, then zoom in to very high levels and warp and tweak the outlines with the precision of down to a pixel.
The following is a screenshot is made just minutes into the project:

And a good thing about GIMP is that all the things you draw in program can be made to be highly modular using layers; you can draw the head on one layer, the torso on the other, the clothing on another one, and the extremities and limbs on another separate one. In the case of this project, the head of the Tengu was much too large, but all it took to correct the error was a simple selection of the head layer and a quick, locked aspect ratio rescale of the head itself using the scale tool. Here is the upper torso after the head correction and coloring:

Another good thing about GIMP is that you can work with details at high zoom levels with ease. Take a look at the Izhevsk 6P9 Makarov PB silent pistol being held below:

The pistol and the hand gripping it was drawn on an entirely different zoom level from the rest of the Tengu, which is very helpful considering that the pistol is not only much smaller than the rest of the Tengu's body, it also requires a slightly higher level of detail to not look cheesy. This picture was used as a reference when drawing the pistol.
And finally, even after most of the major stages of the project have been completed, it is still very easy to make tweaks and slight corrections to the drawing. Here, I decided that the slight flared curve on the top of the bill of the Tengu looked a bit awkward, but no worries, all it took was another simple selection of layers and a quick eraser and pencil job. Here is what the corrected bill looks like:


In the end, I am still a terrible artist. I admit it; although i do like drawing and did do lots of doodling when I was younger, it has never really been my thing, not when I am small, not now. But despite how badly I suck at drawing, in the end, I can still crank out something like this: the finalized drawing.
And this is why I recommend GIMP to every digital artist out there.

[HV-FSAPDS]

Again, nothing to do + GIMP =

[EvilNinjadude]

Again, nothing to do + GIMP =

If you added as much detail to the pilot as you did to the cockpit, the image would be awesome. You working on that?

[RedDwarfIV]

"Crow Pilot", "Binja"... what wonderful puns will out community invent next?

Good cockpit. Rotoscoped or drawn by memory?

[HV-FSAPDS]

If you added as much detail to the pilot as you did to the cockpit, the image would be awesome. You working on that?

Thanks. Now that you've pointed it out to me, I will go back and try to add more detail to the pilot; perhaps a little highlighting and shading might make it look better too.

"Crow Pilot", "Binja"... what wonderful puns will out community invent next?

Good cockpit. Rotoscoped or drawn by memory?

Thanks! The cockpit is partially rotoscoped; the major outlines and large components were drawn using a Flight simulator X screenshot as a reference. But I did have to improvise with some small details; namely the MCP values and the stuff on the PFD, MFD and ECAM DUs to match the post-climbout transition phase of the flight, but with the pilot in command instead of the autopilot (Meaning the attitude, lateral situation and engine data being displayed on the screens must be consistent with what might be displayed while the plane has just left the climbing phase and is transitioning into the cruise phase with the autopilot off). Also, the FSX screenshot I used had the old 3 round dials as the backup instruments and I really did not like how they look, so I had to draw the two small backup DUs completely from scratch using a picture taken from a completely different perspective as a reference.

[EvilNinjadude]

(Meaning the attitude, lateral situation and engine data being displayed on the screens must be consistent with what might be displayed while the plane has just left the climbing phase and is transitioning into the cruise phase with the autopilot off)

Attitude? If you didn't mean "Altitude", I'm curious as to what that is.

[RedDwarfIV]

(Meaning the attitude, lateral situation and engine data being displayed on the screens must be consistent with what might be displayed while the plane has just left the climbing phase and is transitioning into the cruise phase with the autopilot off)

Attitude? If you didn't mean "Altitude", I'm curious as to what that is.

An aircraft's attitude is pretty much its pitch - the angle relative to the horizon.

[EvilNinjadude]

(Meaning the attitude, lateral situation and engine data being displayed on the screens must be consistent with what might be displayed while the plane has just left the climbing phase and is transitioning into the cruise phase with the autopilot off)

Attitude? If you didn't mean "Altitude", I'm curious as to what that is.

An aircraft's attitude is pretty much its pitch - the angle relative to the horizon.

So Forwards/backwards then. Lateral situation then being roll, the axis in the direction of movement? Kay! Thanks for clearing that up.

[RedDwarfIV]

(Meaning the attitude, lateral situation and engine data being displayed on the screens must be consistent with what might be displayed while the plane has just left the climbing phase and is transitioning into the cruise phase with the autopilot off)

Attitude? If you didn't mean "Altitude", I'm curious as to what that is.

An aircraft's attitude is pretty much its pitch - the angle relative to the horizon.

So Forwards/backwards then. Lateral situation then being roll, the axis in the direction of movement? Kay! Thanks for clearing that up.

No.

[HV-FSAPDS]

So Forwards/backwards then. Lateral situation then being roll, the axis in the direction of movement? Kay! Thanks for clearing that up.

Actually, attitude is both pitch and roll; where and how the aircraft is pointed in relation to the horizon. It is displayed on the Attitude Deviation Indicator (ADI), the blue and brown part in the Primary Flight Display, pictured below:


Lateral situation is actually the location of the aircraft in relation to other airports, navigational aids and beacons, GPS fixes and computer route waypoints defined in the active flight plan. Essentially, it's where you are on the map. It is usually displayed on two display units (DUs), the multi-function display (MFD) and the multipurpose control display unit (MCDU). Here on the MFD in the ARC MAP mode, you can clearly see the Standard Instrument Departure (SID) waypoints being highlighted on the screen and the magenta line is the active flight plan route, which is drawn out by the flight management computer to match the waypoints.

And the MCDU; it has all sorts of purposes from calculating performance and weight data to planning the flight to charting an emergency flight plan. But during takeoff, the MCDU on the MD-11 will automatically switch to the flight progress page, which has a scrollable table that will display all of the consecutive waypoints and GPS fixes which are in the active flight plan.

And engine data; I think you know it means and how important it is. It is displayed on the Engine Instruments and Crew Alerting System (EICAS), also called the Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor (ECAM) by Airbus:

FYI:
EPR = Engine Pressure Ratio, the ratio of the barometric pressure of the air coming out the back of the engine to that going in to the front.
N1 = Main Fan Speed, at how many percent of the maximum rated running speed the main fan on the front of the engine is spinning.
EGT = Exhaust Gasses Temperature
N2 = Turbine speed; at how many percent of the max rated rpm the turbines behind the combustion chamber are spinning.
FF = Fuel flow rate in kilograms per hour
1.38 CLB LIM = How the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) computer is preventing me from going balls to the walls with the engines to save the airline engine maintenance money.

And to conclude this discussion, here's a nice wide angled FSX Screenshot of MD-11 cockpit:


Flight Simming is really a very fun and rewarding thing to do! You guys should try it!

[EvilNinjadude]

That last image could have been linked to make the rest of the post easier to read, you know.
And Red, I don't see how what I said is any different from what you said, since I basically MEANT to say whatever you ended up showing me. I know how to google, after all. Anyway, HV-FSAPDS cleared it up more than sufficiently in that tech-babble-spouting, undersimplifying way he has.
Don't worry, I'm totally okay with it.