PDA

View Full Version : OT: New F-22 Raptor Pics - Langley AFB Raptors (Big Pics)



SkyChimp
12-22-2005, 07:19 PM
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/f22_1.JPG
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/f22_2.JPG
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/f22_3.JPG
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/f22_4.JPG
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/f22_5.JPG
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/f22_6.JPG
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/f22_7.JPG
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/f22_8.JPG
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/f22_9.JPG
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/f22_0.JPG

Gibbage1
12-22-2005, 07:25 PM
Sorry to say this, but ALL of them are CGI. Real photo's with the F-22 CGI on them.

SkyChimp
12-22-2005, 07:32 PM
I'm sorry you said it, too, because you are wrong. They are not CGI, Gibbage. They are the first F-22s delivered to Langley AFB, which I live very close to. F-22s are become a pretty common site in my neck of the woods.

hobnail
12-22-2005, 07:45 PM
Was my first thought too.

Tisn't the season to be fighting about such things though!

Merry Christmas all.

SkyChimp
12-22-2005, 07:48 PM
OK, never mind. Gib is right. That must have been him that I saw at the PR gathering telling reps from Allied Aerospace they were full of ****, that the pictures they took were just CGI images. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Anyways, I hope others enjoy them.

nakamura_kenji
12-22-2005, 07:48 PM
i no sure have feel be cgi also have see these picture much mounths ago and also maybe be me but appear much perfect be real compare f15 background
light appear much strong/sharp compare f22 v f15

Dash_C.
12-22-2005, 08:00 PM
Yeah, I'm pretty sure these are legit, but I haven't been able to find this set in a non "squashed" format.

SkyChimp
12-22-2005, 08:10 PM
There's no question they are legitimate. I attended the the reception as part of my duties on our Military Affairs committee. If you haven't seen an F-22 up close, you don't understand just how different its finish is compared to the F-15. It actually changes color depending on how you look at it. It has a real depth in it's finish lacking in the F-15.

Badsight.
12-22-2005, 08:11 PM
ty for posting SC

jarink
12-22-2005, 09:56 PM
No-BS pictures of the F-22 arriving at Langley.
http://www.langley.af.mil/raptor/raptorsite/raptor.html

Looking at these picture, I have to wonder about the origin of the ones Chimp posted. They show a serial number of 042, while the ones posted at this official AF site are all pics of 005. (Have 42 Raptors even been delivered to the AF yet?) The langley.af.mil site says their pics are of the 1st F-22 at Langley. The finish on the official pics seem to be much less shiny/metallic, also.

(Warning, very large pictures!)

http://www.langley.af.mil/raptor/raptorsite/F_22_Images/050107-F-8705R-164.JPG
http://www.langley.af.mil/raptor/raptorsite/F_22_Images/050107-F-8705R-051.JPG

darkhorizon11
12-22-2005, 11:12 PM
Ouch, SC 1 Gibbage 0.

Kuna15
12-22-2005, 11:19 PM
Thanks for posting @ SC. I know it isn't really comparable but F-15 looks almost like a toy compared to that monster.
That F-22 is really something else.

Gibbage1
12-23-2005, 12:33 AM
http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/a37.asp

Its simply amazing what they can do with CGI now. I should know. I work in a studio doing this sort of thing all day. Its easy to fool the human eye when you know how it works. It takes a trained eye to know what to look for.

Trust me guys. Those shots SC posted are CG. The shots jarink posted are real. The surfaces on SC's are just too good. Too clean.

Just trust me guys. Its CGI.

RedSpar
12-23-2005, 01:13 AM
Sorry Gibbage, as Oleg says - You is wrong.

These are offical Air Force release photographs.

As you can see here: http://www.af.mil/photos/index.asp?galleryID=40&page=2

(Langley flyover)

You can see by the serial number of the plane it is authentic.

03-4041 thru 4067 Lot 3 production (look it up)

4041 rolled out Oct 27, 2004. Due for delivery May 2005 to 1st FW/27th FS at Langley AFB, VA

F-22s do have amazingly smooth skin in real life (no doubt part of the stealth composites) and it can easily be mistaken for CGI in a photo.

Why do they dare doubt you SkyChimp?

Gibbage1
12-23-2005, 01:30 AM
http://www.gibbageart.com/files/stealth1.jpg

Just compair the two. Left is real, right is fake. I was trained to model by someone who works for the government who uses CGI models to demonstrate weapons to the top brass. I believe this is something similar. A CGI model made by Lockheed for the military. This happens all the time.

Honestly, I dont care. If they fooled you, they did a good job! But they truly need a specular map and a bump map. But I guess our tax dollers dont pay for that. I have seen better.

HotelBushranger
12-23-2005, 01:42 AM
Sopwith Camel ownz all.

RedSpar
12-23-2005, 02:09 AM
Come on Gib. In this pic that SkyChimp posted: http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/web/050512-F-2295B-280.jpg

The official Air Force decription the goes with this photos is as follows: Special delivery

OVER VIRGINIA -- Lt. Col. James Hecker flies over Fort Monroe before delivering the first operational F/A-22 Raptor to its permanent home at Langley Air Force Base, Va., on May 12. This is the first of 26 Raptors to be delivered to the 27th Fighter Squadron. The Raptor program is managed by the F/A-22 System Program Office at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. Colonel Hecker is the squadron's commander. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Ben Bloker)

Note: it says WHO the photographer is. Tech. Sgt. Ben Bloker. I don't think the the Air Force would lie that blantantly and say a photographers name if it was done in CGI.

I do CGI all the time myself and it looks real to me. I think you have been staring at the render window too much in 3ds Max lately there GIB.. Sometimes real life looks less real than CGI.

The point is there is NO reason to make CGI renders of the F-22 when there are the real things flying around. At least 50 of them are operational as of this moment.

Grue_
12-23-2005, 02:21 AM
There is only one possible explanation, the F-22 doesn't exist and all the pictures are CGI.

Skychimp doesn't exist either http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

RedSpar
12-23-2005, 02:44 AM
I also have the benefit of being a photographer as well as a 3d modeller. Professional digital SLR cameras can take amazingly clean photographs that are virtually free of optical aberration or image grain/noise. Most are in the 12-20 megapixel range and the images turn out "cleaner" than even how your naked eye perceives them.

The offical military photographs are always top quality and do have somewhat of a 'CGI look' to them compared to say a amateur photographer at an airshow which turn out like more traditional photography.

Xiolablu3
12-23-2005, 03:27 AM
No disrespect to SC or Gib, they were posted in good faith, this is just my opinion..

I must say that I thought they were CGI when I first looked, but now I am 50/50 either way. Look at the front wheel on the first pic, it just looks CGI. Also the con trails on the lower pic look CGI.

Maybe they have been cleaned up by a comp tho and airbrushed like many pics are these days.

The different number on the side is suspect tho, how can they both be the first F22?

Gibbage1
12-23-2005, 03:39 AM
ITs a good model, but the specular lighting gives it away for me. It is the military, and they could have there info wrong. Its CGI in my book. I will pass it by the guys at my studio and I am 100% sure they will say its CGI. I have seen this photo's for at least a year. Before serial delivery.

Maverick_MW
12-23-2005, 03:41 AM
I remain unconvinced by these "photos". Where is the ground shading in the first one? There are cross-hairs in front of the lens, the flag is waving etc etc.

Nothing wrong with artistic licence though.

As for Mr Bloker, here he is: http://www.dod.mil/photos/Jul2005/050701-F-6244S-033.html

Bearcat99
12-23-2005, 06:02 AM
CGI or not.... that is one sweet looking bird.....

Badsight.
12-23-2005, 06:06 AM
it wouldnt be the first time someone has touched up product shots for the press release

who really cares if they are or are not CGI - what should be obvious is how much the Raptor looks "Next-Gen" compared to the awesome F-15

Xiolablu3
12-23-2005, 06:45 AM
Agreed, the best looking plane in the world, in my opinion.

Plus the name 'Raptor' is a classic, like 'Spitfire' and 'Phantom' before it.

HotelBushranger
12-23-2005, 08:28 AM
'Eagle', 'Hurricane', 'Tempest', 'Lightning'

The list goes on...

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-23-2005, 08:35 AM
Whirlwind...

jarink
12-23-2005, 09:45 AM
Thanks for the info on the serial #s, RedSpar. I have become more convinced. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Something that bothers me are the contrails in two fo those pics. They look odd, but that may just be the way the F-22 generates them. I'm curius as to why it would be generating them in such apparently gentle and low-speed maneuvers! Those would be a big giveaway in a dogfight....

Gold_Monkey
12-23-2005, 09:53 PM
Gimmie a freakin break, Fake photos, Good Con SC,
I Salute you, got um thinking didn't ya.

SkyChimp
12-23-2005, 10:05 PM
I think Gibbage is CGI. His specular nonsense gives himn away.

SkyChimp
12-23-2005, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
http://www.gibbageart.com/files/stealth1.jpg

Just compair the two. Left is real, right is fake. I was trained to model by someone who works for the government who uses CGI models to demonstrate weapons to the top brass. I believe this is something similar. A CGI model made by Lockheed for the military. This happens all the time.

Honestly, I dont care. If they fooled you, they did a good job! But they truly need a specular map and a bump map. But I guess our tax dollers dont pay for that. I have seen better.

Gib, I generally give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to acuity. But you are really causing me to rethink that.

You remind me of the Pope that told Michaelangelo the nose on the statue of David was too big. Michaelangelo palmed some dust, faked hitting the chisel, dropped the dust, then asked the Pope what he thought. The Pope siad, "Better."

Again:

http://www.af.mil/photos/index.asp?galleryID=40&page=2

Not CGI models. I've seen these planes flying over Langley, and I've seen one up close. You are wrong. Just admit it.

Jaws2002
12-23-2005, 11:14 PM
Those are real. F-22 is not something unusual in US skies this days. Just go to Vegas for three days and I guaranty you'll see F-22's flying. Nellis has them for some time now.

VW-IceFire
12-23-2005, 11:29 PM
Incredible shots...I too, when I first looked at them said "CGI" but then on the second pass I wasn't so sure. They are odd shots...but if it was CGI its EXTREMELY well done. And the aspect is squashed.

Nonetheless...beautiful! I always liked the lines of the YF-22 concept prototype and now that the first major production variant is out I like it even more. If looks could kill. The F-22A looks very much like the successor to the F-15.

HotelBushranger
12-23-2005, 11:31 PM
Well I beleive SkyChimp!!!

Give me my wowwipop! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

IL2-chuter
12-23-2005, 11:55 PM
I saw an F-22 do a routine over Travis Air Force Base this summer and it definately was fake. If they did exist and wanted an airbrake that didn't compromise their stealth characteristics they might have the rudders spread in opposite directions and maintain neutral pitch by raising both ailerons, both actions could cause vortexes in certain conditions. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

But hey, what do I know.

Hydra444
12-24-2005, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
http://www.gibbageart.com/files/stealth1.jpg

Just compair the two. Left is real, right is fake. I was trained to model by someone who works for the government who uses CGI models to demonstrate weapons to the top brass. I believe this is something similar. A CGI model made by Lockheed for the military. This happens all the time.

Honestly, I dont care. If they fooled you, they did a good job! But they truly need a specular map and a bump map. But I guess our tax dollers dont pay for that. I have seen better.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif One photo is abit blurry,and the other is crystal clear.How can a subjective observation be made from that grainy photo?I think one can't http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

BfHeFwMe
12-24-2005, 01:32 AM
Jet looks OK, but what's that IL-2 turf doing in there? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Deedsundone
12-24-2005, 02:55 AM
CGI or not,whatever http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif,but on picture six,is the both ailerons pointing upwards?(I asume they are ailerons).

Gibbage1
12-24-2005, 03:45 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:

Not CGI models. I've seen these planes flying over Langley, and I've seen one up close. You are wrong. Just admit it.

Does it truly matter? Its just one mans openion. Im adding "possible retouched" to my statement. I do think they ARE photographs, with a CGI F-22 on them. So there still can be a photographer. People ask why? Visualization. Lockheed, Boing, and all the military contractors have a large CG department. It helps convince top brass that there billions of $$ is for something.

Its my professional openion that these are CGI aircraft on a photographic plate, or greatly touched up photo's. If you notice on my example, just below the canopy there are two panels with raised ridges on the left photo, but perfectly smooth on the right.

I also think the F-23 looked a LOT better. From what I heard, it performed better on a lot of points, but did not have vectored thrust. Thats what gave Lockheed the nod over Northtup.

MrBlueSky1960
12-24-2005, 04:17 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/TouchupFake01.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/TouchupFake00.jpg

As can be seen, the photos do have some irregularities.

The bottom photo does show some 'smudging' around the area in question, which looks very akin to some touching up being done... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Hmmm... I'm with Gibb on this one.

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-24-2005, 05:06 AM
My two bob's worth?
Definately retouched, if not a cut & paste.


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/Raptor_escort_800.jpg

Merry Christmas, one and all.

Gibbage1
12-24-2005, 05:17 AM
Doh. Insert nice photograph here. To bad the host blocked linking.

Hoenire
12-24-2005, 06:07 AM
Either CGI or substantially retouched for press release. Compare the inside at the very top of the trailing edge of the left tail fin thing - it is dirty in one photo and clean in the others.

I imagine that the first few aircraft delivered were polished very highly etc but they sure wouldn't want to show the public a dirty aircraft would they?

It seems to me that most press release or publicity photos are "altered" or fake and I don't see why this would be different.

ploughman
12-24-2005, 08:24 AM
You know, the first picture made me instantly think it was an Il-2 joke and someone had modded a Raptor into the game, but then this is an aircraft made to unprecedented tolerances (although there seems to be some bowing on the fuselage around the cockpit). The only time I've ever seen a B-2 Spirit I thought:

A. That's a big plane.

B. It doesn't look real.

Merry Christmas all.

Frequent_Flyer
12-24-2005, 08:33 AM
All this fuss is very trivial considering "Da Chicago Bears" are going to pound Brett Favre into early retirement and win the North division on X-mas day. Not alot of Chritmas cheer in Packerland. They may cancel Christmas in cheese land next year and you guys are debating a touched up photo or not.

RS.Wedge
12-24-2005, 09:14 AM
I thought this pic was cool:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y58/Wedge2566/IL2/050427-F-2295B-055.jpg

p-11.cAce
12-24-2005, 11:15 AM
When I was working at PDK in Atlanta we used to see Raptors and -15's going in and out of Dobbins all the time (The approach over flies PDK) and the Raptors throw off all kinds of con-trails when in landing config. The -15's would occassionaly toss streamers from the wingtips (especially on hot/humid summer afternoons) but the Raptors left multiple continuous trails all the way in.

IL2-chuter
12-24-2005, 12:13 PM
I've been following F-22 development as a fan. I'm kinda surprised at all the CGI talk as I believe the posted photos are all real. I've seen shots posted online for awhile now as the aircraft have been coming off the line and the group has been working up. I watched an F-22 flight display at Travis this summer and was rather impressed. Anyway . . . the aircraft doesn't have a seperate airbrake board for stealth reasons. It uses the rudder and ailerons (rudder splayed, ailerons up) and these produce nice vortices under the appropriate circumstances.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif