That whole Dragonfly landing appears to be fake

rodarin

I watched the video and during the dragonfly landing sequence saw (or more correctly didnt see) something interesting. Maybe its my eyes but...

They do an outside shot of the two 'players' the guy on the left is piloting the dragonfly the guy on the right is on the freelancer. At around 1:19:15 or so they pull  out and show both screens. The one on the left clearly shows the freelancer and him lining it up, the screen on the right shows just a bunch of debris. I dont see the dragonfly anywhere. Now it could be maybe possibly camouflaged by the cluster of whatever that is in the center of the guys screen, but its Yellow and moving and the only movement I see is some small object move from right to left and not become clear. The movement is detectable at 1:19:18. The odd thing about the movement of that object on the right (if we assume its the dragonfly) is that its an extreme move left to right, but it doesnt correspond in the slightest with what is happening on the left screen.

Also according to the interface the dragonfly is closing in on the freelancer (on the left screen) at about 2.5 m/sec, and when they do the double screen would be ~92 meters away from the free lancer (it was 95 or so when they pulled back). Another odd 'coincidence is that that UI that shows the distance completely disappears when they show that double screen view. That might be explained away becuase it goes fromfirst person to third person (for some unknown reason, and more on that later) If you can pause the video at around 1:09:09 you will catch an image of the left screen and right screen as well as the residual of the original single screen, the UI is there but on the split screens its not. Another thing is that after they do that pull back the dragonfly appears to be a lot further away from the freelancer than it was. But without a UI we cant know we have to 'eyeball' it but the view is most definitely different.


Another thing that is really odd is that the guy on the left at 1:19:27 is watching the left screen and his hands appear to be on his lap. Then the in game camera seems to move you see an avatars arm and THEN the guy goes to the joystick. I am sure this will be explained as they were playing with a mouse and a joystick and he moved the mouse. But if you watch his he doesnt move at all. Not conclusive but definitely suspicious.

Then they eventually get to the landing which is only shown from inside the freelancer which after all the other inconsistencies is not all that impressive. But its also about the time stamps. When they go to first person on the dragonfly theyre exactly 160 meters from the freelancer. The time stamp is 1:18:44. They split the screen and pull back to show both guys (when the UI of distances goes away) and its 95 meters (@ timestamp 1:19:09), so they did show it covering 65 meters in around 23 second. Thats around 2.8 m/sec. so it would if it was 'seamless' take it ~34 seconds to reach the ship, That would mean they would reach the ship at 1:19:43. The dragonfly makes contact with the ship at 1:19;39. 4 seconds sooner than it 'should' now some people can claim it was accelerating or whatever, but its unlikely not given the inability to see it on both screens at the same time and less than 45 meters away you can actually see a UI again at 1:19:31 when they go back to a single screen of the dragonfly. But when they go to the inside view from the freelancer the dragonfly is CLEARLY visible. So why cant you see the dragonfly on the right screen if its only 45 meters away (according to the games UI) and while it doesnt match out napkin math 'perfectly' it does show they (apparently) moved 50 meters in 21 seconds ~2.4 m/sec. So at that rate they would cover the last 45 meters in 18.75 seconds. It took them 'only' 13, thats 3.46 m/sec. So they slowed down then sped up? Showing speeds of 2.8, then 2.4 and finally 3.46 meters per second on an approach?

Another interesting this that there is an avatar named Danny there which is apparently 17 meters OUTSIDE the ship because the UI on him says 28 meters. (pause at 1:19:31). First off who is Danny? I thought it was Chris on the freelancer? And at no time was the screen on the right (that players view regardless of name) not inside a ship. The view looked to be 1 to 2 meters inside during the whole sequence until the actual docking part where the guy moved back out of the way.

Like I originally said I saw some things in the original stream I didnt like and that was one of them and now that I have had a chance to look at it I would without much hesitation say that that whole thing was a compelte fake job.

You dont even have to break it down like the Kennedy film. Just do 2 or 4 pauses at the time stamps I mentioned and you can see it yourself. Disappearing UI can be explained away as being a 'first' person issue. But we have one before and after the whole split screen. So to me the split screen is the fabricated part to make it appear that theyre both occupying the same ;space' even though you cannot see the dragonfly at any point on the right screen even though it is (according to the UI numbers we can see {when available} on the left screen) between 45 and 95 meters away. And when they do the (should be instantaneous) switch to the inside the freelancer view the dragonfly is CLEARLY visible in HD and its still (should be) ~40 meters away.

People will believe what  they want to believe but video and time stamps dont lie. While they thought this presentation would prove something it actually shows what lengths they will go to fool people into believing they are doing something they obviously arent, because if they were it would have ALL been on a split screen or better yet on 3 screens with a double first person view AND a third party outside view to show it truly was seamless and organic.

But I invite the skeptics and supporters to watch the video starting at the times I mentioned and judge it for themselves. I would love to hear the supporters explain away the inconsistencies I saw in just a single viewing. I am sure the truly hardcore people will find a lot more.



EDIT Added link to video

Sovrath

rodarin said:

Another thing that is really odd is that the guy on the left at 1:19:27 is watching the left screen and his hands appear to be on his lap. Then the in game camera seems to move you see an avatars arm and THEN the guy goes to the joystick. I am sure this will be explained as they were playing with a mouse and a joystick and he moved the mouse. But if you watch his he doesnt move at all. Not conclusive but definitely suspicious.

He taps twice with his right arm and you don't see his left arm. More than likely he touched the WASD with this left hand and then reached with his right.

As far as seeing the freelancer on the left screen and nothing on the right, that probably has more to do with how the game spawns assets.

Considering how the left screen freelancer hits the bottom of the bay when it comes in and does a small bounce and the right then does the same bounce (not simultaneously but remember there is some latency) I wouldn't be concerned.

rodarin

Sovrath said:

rodarin said:

Another thing that is really odd is that the guy on the left at 1:19:27 is watching the left screen and his hands appear to be on his lap. Then the in game camera seems to move you see an avatars arm and THEN the guy goes to the joystick. I am sure this will be explained as they were playing with a mouse and a joystick and he moved the mouse. But if you watch his he doesnt move at all. Not conclusive but definitely suspicious.

He taps twice with his right arm and you don't see his left arm. More than likely he touched the WASD with this left hand and then reached with his right.

As far as seeing the freelancer on the left screen and nothing on the right, that probably has more to do with how the game spawns assets.

Considering how the left screen freelancer hits the bottom of the bay when it comes in and does a small bounce and the right then does the same bounce (not simultaneously but remember there is some latency) I wouldn't be concerned.

But that was after they had gone back to the 'inside' view.

One thing I didnt mention is that the dragonfly does in fact have a 'speedometer' on it and every time it is shown it shows a constant 3 m/s. Now whether it is operational or not can be debated. But its clear by doing simple math that the rate does change.

Also the degree of difficulty for moving through 3D space and putting something that 'barely' fits into that little hole on a one shot from that far away is unlikely. Especially when you look at the view from the beginning ofr the sequence and he is 'above' the free lancer and even when they do the cut back he is still 'above' it but when they show him coming in he is almost perfectly level with the entrance and in that last 3-4 ships lengths he drops low enough to cause the bounce. So to think he stayed on a perfect trajectory (while changing speeds if you believe the math) for 160 meters and didnt go off line in all that time but did go offline enough in the last 10 or so meters to almost miss then youre pretty forgiving.

I do believe that part is actually possible but it also shows the problems with all the other stuff, or at least helps highlight some of the inconsistencies.

As far as rendering. I know a dragonfly is bigger than a person and you can CLEARLY see that avatar of 'Danny' outside the bay of the freelancer, so if you can se him but not a dragonfly it sort of debunks the whole rendering issue IMO.

And latency, if theyre on a closed system which they are there should be zero latency.

EDIT, the 'speedometer' is seemingly operational it goes from 0 and clicks up to what is apparent 3 m/sec speed limit. Now whether it is actually true can be debated there as well, but from the math it is clear it wasnt going that fast. and was going faster in the last portion.

Thats why I have an issue with the actual landing of the dragonfly because while it probably is real it shows that the speeds there are not the same as the 'open space' views. By a lot. At best theyre trying to mesh two things into one that they havent actually been able to do yet, at worst its a complete farce.

Sovrath

I think you are being paranoid. 

Also, on the right screen, in the center of that Star bit you do see the Freelancer make two "slides" toward the center. It's very small and jerky.

Also, we don't know if they are on a "closed system" (do we?).

Kefo

You don't even have to go into that much detail to debunk everything. Just ask everyone where Nyx landing zone is that was shown and yet is mysteriously absent from the game. 

Shodanas

@ rodarin: for the sake of the discussion i will not right out dismiss your claim. In this day and age no one can be 100% about anything so i won't put my hand on fire about said landing being legit.

However, once i saw a wall of text like yours where someone presented similar "facts" in an attempt to "prove" that the U.S never made it to the moon.

somersaultsam

@Shodanas Oh, the US made it, they just found an alien staging post on the dark side, full of David Ike's lizard men... joke. 

However, I trust nothing from these show piece events, any idiot can make one small portion of a game function for a limited period of time for the purposes of selling non-existent ships. I treat it like the laughter track on Big Bang Theory... frankly it is so fucking annoying it makes the show unwatchable. 

Erillion

There is a major glitch at 1:19:40 when the Dragonfly disappears for Player 1 (in the Freelancer) and is perfectly visible for Player 2 (the one who flies the Dragonfly). That glitch is mentioned by the presenters.

The Dragonfly is perfectly visible for me as it crosses the debris field before it enters the Freelancer. Maybe you do not see it.

All your speed and distance calculations are just speculation as you do not know if the player is changing speed during the filming.

As the demo has been shown to press people for three days before it was shown in live stream I doubt that any OBVIOUS glitches (besides the disappearing act)  would have been overlooked by professional gaming journalists. And mind you - they were NOT shown a trailer. They were shown the live played demo. 


W.r.t. to the planetary landing that some people claim to have been faked: journalists could tell the pilot where to set down on the planet in the demo ... ANYWHERE on the planet ... therefore the landing part before entering the planetary station and meeting the contact varied a lot depending on the choice made by the journalist.


Have fun
 

rodarin

OK I went back to where he first go on the dragonfly. That whole open space portion is seamless. He was 299 meters away and took off at exactly 2:18:00. They do a little K (if you play ARK) view of the dragonfly, then at 1:18:45 they go back to the first person and you get the UI again and that where I too the original 160 meter distance from. So thats 139 meters in 45 second. That does work out to 3.08 per sec. So no problem there. which like I said there shouldnt be because we only have that one view to compare. They show the first person view for 24 seconds and Chris says "can you look down look around or something". At that point the DF is 95 meters away so it traveled 65 meters in 24 seconds( I originally said 23 but I let it go a little bit longer to be a little more accurate and to get the full comment in). Thats 2.71 m/sec (as opposed to the 2.85 I originally said but 2.85 would actually be more consistent with the rate he was going and what the 'speedometer says'. That whole while we could see the 'speedometer', andits a constant 3m/sec. So it obviously isnt perfectly accurate.

So then they show the over the shoulder view for 20 second, the left screen is still actualy in first person but I cant see the distance UI at all. But when they go back to that screen in single screen view its back and it clearly shows 45 meters for the ship and 28 for "Danny". Now here is where I will make a concession on Danny and his position.  The hitbox for the Freelancer is obviously not the nearest point its 17 meters 'past' where Danny is. Which like I said seems or be 1 or 2 meters from the bay entrance. So call the bay entrance (where the dragonfly bumps it on the landing) 26 meters away. So doing that math (which goes from the space view to the split screen landing view it covers that 26 meters in 8 seconds. Thats 3.25. So while it isnt 3.4 it is still definitely faster than they were going and supposedly faster than the DF can fly. But it is a more 'honest' timing and takes into account the hit box for the freelancer being further away than where it had to land.

It still doesnt exlain away the other things we see or dont see. And the numbers are sort of close enough for them to maybe explain it away as something else.

But like I said at best theyre showing two different concepts in the same video and trying to claim they are working in unison in that video, and I just dont see it.

The timing of the cuts between split screen and single screen and WHICH screen view they are showing at what times just dont mesh nearly enough to be 'seamless' to me. I think theyre two prerecorded videos spliced together with differing points of view and split screens and changing of screens and PiP screens to make it look like it al goes together.

While the math is 'slightly' better it still isnt close enough to convince me and they obviously knew people would time things and they would have to make sure they times were 'close enough' to explain away thats why I redid the numbers, and yes they did improve. Because I knew they wouldnt be that sloppy if it was a fake. Because 1m/sec is a huge discrepancy (the original 2.4 to 3.46). But 2.7 to 3.25 is still .55 seconds difference.

But all the math that can be swayed due to split seconds aside, the fact you cant see the dragonfly at all in the 'open space' view out from the docking bay during the split screen sequences, but it is right there in perfect clarity when they go to the single screen s the most obvious part. Because what theyre asking people to believe is that the thing is COMPLETELY invisible 4 seconds early (during the 'controversial' camera moves inside the freelancer), then when they go to the inside view (after a quick first person view of "danny"  inside the bay FROM the DF point of view) the DF is right there. So its really less than 4 seconds (like I said we can argue split seconds on some rate of movement issues but NOT on viewing a ship. Not with all the other visual inconsistencies.

Like I said people will see what they want to see. What I see are clearly at least two videos prerecorded and spliced together and having timely camera view changes and perspective changes to try and hide the fact they were spliced and prerecorded.

Now I will say that I think the open space stuff is actual game play ready. As in getting on the dragonfly and flying towards another ship. I do not in any way shape or form think that they are able to go from that space into the space of the Freelancer and land that dragonfly, which this video is most definitely trying to intimate.

Octagon7711

Sovrath said:

I think you are being paranoid. 

Also, on the right screen, in the center of that Star bit you do see the Freelancer make two "slides" toward the center. It's very small and jerky.

Also, we don't know if they are on a "closed system" (do we?).

I read somewhere it was a private land with four players.  When this gets to alpha there will be players all over the place looking to blowup or steal your ship and ambush you.  The mission also suggests they will have to constantly respawn the dragonfly as many players will be doing that mission.  What happens if you go off-mission and try to keep the dragonfly? 

Erillion

>>> Like I said people will see what they want to see. What I see are clearly at least two videos prerecorded and spliced together and having timely camera view changes and perspective changes to try and hide the fact they were spliced and prerecorded. >>>


You DO know that they showed live played demos to gaming journalists in the press booth for 5 days, do you not ? It was not only that one livestream you saw. You say that they tricked experienced gaming journalists with spliced, pre-recorded videos for days ?


The GameStar journalist in his article specifically mentions that several small errors he saw in his press showing on day 1 were corrected and patched out on day 3 during the public livestream (like the mission giver not holding his glass properly or the elevator having the wrong/missing writing on the user panel).


Have fun

Erillion

Octagon7711 said:

I read somewhere it was a private land with four players. 

One journalist mentions that for one of the press showings the MOON landing at the end of the demo was done with FOUR attacking players, not two. And the journalist was able to see all four screens.

At the BEGINNING of the demo
Player 1 was in his bunk
Player 2 was in the cockpit of the Freelancer
Player 3 and 4 were on the moon in FPS battle with pirates

Player 1 joined Player 2, they flew to the mission giver. They then moved to the wreck, fought pirates. They then moved to the moon and joined Player 3 and 4 in fighting the pirates on foot.


Have fun 

Vrika

Often simple explanation is the best:

-Their game is just buggy as hell. The dragonfly does not get displayed all the time, and even when it's displayed it's not necessarily displayed at correct location
-The UI shows distance to a point located at or near to Freelancer's nose

It's very real possibility that what was shown works only in their carefully controlled demo environment, but I don't think it was fake.

Sovrath

Vrika said:

Often simple explanation is the best:

-Their game is just buggy as hell. The dragonfly does not get displayed all the time, and even when it's displayed it's not necessarily displayed at correct location
-The UI shows distance to a point located at or near to Freelancer's nose

It's very real possibility that what was shown works only in their carefully controlled demo environment, but I don't think it was fake.

This seems closer to the truth. Early development there are going to be bugs.

rodarin

Shodanas said:

@ rodarin: for the sake of the discussion i will not right out dismiss your claim. In this day and age no one can be 100% about anything so i won't put my hand on fire about said landing being legit.

However, once i saw a wall of text like yours where someone presented similar "facts" in an attempt to "prove" that the U.S never made it to the moon.

well we didnt land on the moon, at least not in 1969.

But I present numbers and what I see and dont see. I even redid the numbers to make them more 'supporter friendly'. But yes I conceded the'math' can be swayed. But they obviously wanted the numbers ot be as close to matching as possible. And if it were prerecorded they could do that, but they also might be 'paranoid' enough to not have them match perfectly because we all know that numbers in a simulation like that shouldnt be perfect anyway. He really shouldnt have even stuck the landing on one attempt, as I mentioned before.

Wall of text or not or Erillion claiming to be able to see the DF all the way aside its not there, at least not in the same detail at it is as 1:19:34. and numbers and words dont change that.

But if Erillion can post a screen shot of the DF outside the doors of the freelancer before 1:19:34 taken from inside the freelancer it would be nice.

Also that 'glitch' is so timely and perfect because while it is easy to explain away as a bug (which is normal) and also explains the 'missing' ship, even though it only happens when it comes in full contact withthe free lancer, and there is another one of those pesky split screens and cut aways and everything is magically there again. And when he turns away and walks through the door it is an OBVIOUS cut away when they take down the PiP and then show the DF viewpoint again.

But his explanation of that bug explains perfectly why this had to be faked. Yet people use it as a reason to exlain it away (like they hoped it would).

rodarin

Erillion said:

>>> Like I said people will see what they want to see. What I see are clearly at least two videos prerecorded and spliced together and having timely camera view changes and perspective changes to try and hide the fact they were spliced and prerecorded. >>>


You DO know that they showed live played demos to gaming journalists in the press booth for 5 days, do you not ? It was not only that one livestream you saw. You say that they tricked experienced gaming journalists with spliced, pre-recorded videos for days ?


The GameStar journalist in his article specifically mentions that several small errors he saw in his press showing on day 1 were corrected and patched out on day 3 during the public livestream (like the mission giver not holding his glass properly or the elevator having the wrong/missing writing on the user panel).


Have fun

OK where are the other videos of them landing a ship from open space into the inner space of another ship? They can show all the 'normal' gameplay footage they want, this video and that landing is showing some EXTREMELY difficult to do, Roberts even commented on it, and that was the reason for the 'glitch'.

somersaultsam

Vrika said:

Often simple explanation is the best:

-Their game is just buggy as hell. The dragonfly does not get displayed all the time, and even when it's displayed it's not necessarily displayed at correct location
-The UI shows distance to a point located at or near to Freelancer's nose

It's very real possibility that what was shown works only in their carefully controlled demo environment, but I don't think it was fake.

Exactly this Occam's Razor... they cherry-picked a small portion of the game to show and it is buggy as hell. That is not much of an improvement on them having faked it. 

cheyane

Vrika said:

Often simple explanation is the best:

-Their game is just buggy as hell. The dragonfly does not get displayed all the time, and even when it's displayed it's not necessarily displayed at correct location
-The UI shows distance to a point located at or near to Freelancer's nose

It's very real possibility that what was shown works only in their carefully controlled demo environment, but I don't think it was fake.

I think this is probably the reasonable explanation, not that it is an improvement over the OP since it raises other questions but I can see where OP is coming from after the detailed analysis. I must say OP really looked at it huh ?

somersaultsam

Let's be honest, making comparisons to absurd conspiracies such as fake moon landings (Russia monitored the entire mission and would have announced in a second if it did not happen, and as such the conspiracy is patently only for people who are seriously obtuse), but comparing that to someone faking some footage for a limited audience of journalists for the purposes of selling a (as yet) non-existent game is equally obtuse.

Silly comparison, silly comment.  

Marelius

I agree bring the moon landing in is just wrong. Clearly if we can see far into the galaxy with these big telescopes we have, yet can't see anything we put on moon is clearly understandable. 

I don't blame them for making a video of it for Gamescom, very believable considering what happened to Roberts when he did the sit down to play his game. 

spankybus

I could see the dragonfly on the screen of the guy in the freelancer.



I circles the area to watch in red. When the dragonfly strafes to better align with the freelancer, you will see it move. Just stare at the region and you will see the dragonfly slide sideways.

Shodanas

If that Dragonfly landing was indeed a fake don't you believe that a certain well known individual would be at CIG and CR's throats parading the info and the proof over the media along with his followers ?

Think about it.

Gdemami

rodarin said:
well we didnt land on the moon, at least not in 1969.

Ah, I see you have some experience with conspiracy theories. That would explain the thread...

somersaultsam

MisterZebub said:

somersaultsam said:

Let's be honest, making comparisons to absurd conspiracies such as fake moon landings (Russia monitored the entire mission and would have announced in a second if it did not happen, and as such the conspiracy is patently only for people who are seriously obtuse), but comparing that to someone faking some footage for a limited audience of journalists for the purposes of selling a (as yet) non-existent game is equally obtuse.

Silly comparison, silly comment.  

Actually I feel it was brilliant satire and you've actually kinda helped make my point. Regardless of the mountain of proof to the contrary the "moon landings were faked" conspiracists still make their ridiculous claims ... just like the "SC is all a scam" contingent. "Oh my! Something that doesn't fit our preconceived notions? Something that shows they may actually be making progress on their game? It must be FAKE!!!"

But I would argue that this comment shows that you are missing the point, that your burden of proof varies wildly dependant upon your preconceptions. 

Erillion

Marelius said:

....yet  can't see anything we put on moon is clearly understandable. 

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

Have fun

Sovrath

Gdemami said:

rodarin said:
well we didnt land on the moon, at least not in 1969.

Ah, I see you have some experience with conspiracy theories. That would explain the thread...

His comment kind of tells the whole story right there ...