Reel Physics: The Walking Dead - Consistent Headshots

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

I was hoping they would have spoken about how effective a maglite would be as a silencer.

Gilhelmi:
I love this episode. As a weapons aficionado, I really dislike the AK-47 on the grounds that is is less accurate at range. Many people assume that because it is widely used, it must be awesome. It is not. The best advantage of the AK though is that you can literally pull back the bolt, slather the insides with mud, and still fire (still do not recommend).

That's way overblown.

AKs are capable of 3 MOA, and in reality, a lot of standard military rifles of Western countries (including M16s) are going to be at that level of precision as well. Or even worse. The manufacturing standards are better than the old Eastern Bloc satellite states, but not stellar from an 'aficionado's' point of view.

And that's because the gun is almost always going to outshoot the shooter. An MOA value that sounds dismal is still good enough to get the job done on any normal battlefield. Soviet doctrine was to open fire at 300m with AK-74s. The rifles were capable of accuracy at that range, but the assumption is that the shooters are not. If the accuracy training isn't to blame, the conditions of combat are. You can hear all sorts of stories about U.S. soldiers (trained as marksmen the way most other soldiers aren't) taking multiple magazines of M249 to hit a long stationary target at 100m. That's the difference between a firefight and a shooting range. In such a situation, do small differences in mechanical accuracy really matter? Or is it ease of use, reliability, cost, etc. I'd worry more about the weight of ammunition and the difficulty the long magazine poses for prone shooting than a few fractions of a degree obtained by statistics and laboratory conditions. It's war, not medicine.

As guns get more accurate, they just outshoot the shooter even more. So the Army gets good results with the M16 at shooting competitions with ranges of 1000 yards. And you make marksman variants of the AR and AK alike (SVD has a large parts commonality IIRC, and the Yugoslavs have their Zastaya models).

"And that gives him a leg to stand on" nice subtle joke there!

Gilhelmi:
I love this episode. As a weapons aficionado, I really dislike the AK-47 on the grounds that is is less accurate at range. Many people assume that because it is widely used, it must be awesome. It is not. The best advantage of the AK though is that you can literally pull back the bolt, slather the insides with mud, and still fire (still do not recommend).

The other big advantage of the AK47 being that it was mass produced by the Soviets and after the fall of the USSR a large number of them became available on the black market. Nothing makes a weapon poplar among rebels and warlords like easy of access and low cost.

OT: Another great episode, I was a bit worried by the title, but I ended up enjoying it. The change away from analysis of stunts is nice.

Really enjoying the series so far. I preferred the previous episodes though. It's probably best to stick to stunts where you can outright state whether or not it's possible, here the major factor was always going to be shooter skill. While I appreciate that you were only testing to see if the weapons were capable of it, I'd rather see you examining jumps etc. where user skill has less impact on whether something's plausible.

On another note, there seems to be a bit of a divide between people just watching for the result (for whom the maths isn't doing anything) and the more numerically minded. You've mentioned previously that you leave out more minor details (e.g horizontal deceleration due to wind resistance in the motorcycle jump) for the sake of time and simplicity, any chance of an "extended cut" of an extra 2 or 3 minutes covering these for those interested?

Keep up the good work.

maturin:

Gilhelmi:
I love this episode. As a weapons aficionado, I really dislike the AK-47 on the grounds that is is less accurate at range. Many people assume that because it is widely used, it must be awesome. It is not. The best advantage of the AK though is that you can literally pull back the bolt, slather the insides with mud, and still fire (still do not recommend).

That's way overblown.

AKs are capable of 3 MOA, and in reality, a lot of standard military rifles of Western countries (including M16s) are going to be at that level of precision as well. Or even worse. The manufacturing standards are better than the old Eastern Bloc satellite states, but not stellar from an 'aficionado's' point of view.

And that's because the gun is almost always going to outshoot the shooter. An MOA value that sounds dismal is still good enough to get the job done on any normal battlefield. Soviet doctrine was to open fire at 300m with AK-74s. The rifles were capable of accuracy at that range, but the assumption is that the shooters are not. If the accuracy training isn't to blame, the conditions of combat are. You can hear all sorts of stories about U.S. soldiers (trained as marksmen the way most other soldiers aren't) taking multiple magazines of M249 to hit a long stationary target at 100m. That's the difference between a firefight and a shooting range. In such a situation, do small differences in mechanical accuracy really matter? Or is it ease of use, reliability, cost, etc. I'd worry more about the weight of ammunition and the difficulty the long magazine poses for prone shooting than a few fractions of a degree obtained by statistics and laboratory conditions. It's war, not medicine.

As guns get more accurate, they just outshoot the shooter even more. So the Army gets good results with the M16 at shooting competitions with ranges of 1000 yards. And you make marksman variants of the AR and AK alike (SVD has a large parts commonality IIRC, and the Yugoslavs have their Zastaya models).

Ya, but an "Off-the-shelf" AK (like she had), I would still have my suspicions about.

Of course at the 100-200m range they were at, it probably would not make much of a difference.

MrCollins:

Gilhelmi:
I love this episode. As a weapons aficionado, I really dislike the AK-47 on the grounds that is is less accurate at range. Many people assume that because it is widely used, it must be awesome. It is not. The best advantage of the AK though is that you can literally pull back the bolt, slather the insides with mud, and still fire (still do not recommend).

The other big advantage of the AK47 being that it was mass produced by the Soviets and after the fall of the USSR a large number of them became available on the black market. Nothing makes a weapon poplar among rebels and warlords like easy of access and low cost.

OT: Another great episode, I was a bit worried by the title, but I ended up enjoying it. The change away from analysis of stunts is nice.

And it is easy to produce. Heck, all you need is a machine shop with a lathe (for the barrel and round parts), and a mill for everything else. Tolerances might be a bit high for good accuracy, but still a decent cheap rifle.

PreviouslyPwned:
I was hoping they would have spoken about how effective a maglite would be as a silencer.

The Selkie:

On another note, there seems to be a bit of a divide between people just watching for the result (for whom the maths isn't doing anything) and the more numerically minded. You've mentioned previously that you leave out more minor details (e.g horizontal deceleration due to wind resistance in the motorcycle jump) for the sake of time and simplicity, any chance of an "extended cut" of an extra 2 or 3 minutes covering these for those interested?

Keep up the good work.

Thanks very much for supporting the show!
I am getting a lot of conflicting feedback about the show when it comes to the details, like you said. It's tough for us to get more detailed and lose the people who might be already lost... or dumb it down and then lose the people who want even more information. However, there is a great possibility to make sure everyone is happy and that might happen depending on the feedback of the show. If there is enough of a response and the show continues to grow and expand its audience, then the fantastic gang at the Escapist are considering the idea of a companion column (Think Extra Punctuation or Intermission) that would allow us to expand the details of the show by showing equations, more math, and allow us to show a lot of our behind the scenes work for those of you interested in seeing all of that. We hope it happens, and of course a lot of that depends on the awesome audience out there supporting the show. So be sure to spread the show around to other people you think would find it interesting and help us expand the show!

Thanks again for your support and for spending time hanging with us for the duration of the episode!

Jason Dean
REEL PHYSICS

Ken Sapp:

deth2munkies:

SoulChaserJ:
Great show today guys. Over on thewalkingdeadforums we talk about these things all the time. Can you guys show why Han couldn't have finished the Kessel run in under 12 parsecs next?

Because a parsec is a measure of distance rather than time?

Also, what I'd really like to see is whether or not it's possible to survive getting shot and falling off a seemingly enormous bridge into a river. It happens a lot in movies, but I'm mainly thinking about Skyfall here as a recent example.

Even though a parsec is a unit of distance it could still be used to describe finishing a route between two points. If Han used a route that cut through areas of space normally avoided by ship traffic he may have been able to complete the Kessel Run in a shorter distance than other pilots. The straight-line distance between two points is only one factor among several that goes into determining route distance. In space there are also going to be gravity fields around stellar objects as well as asteroids and other debris that needs to be taken into account, much like tides, currents, shorelines, reefs and such when charting trips on the ocean.

This would make sense if they weren't referring it to it as evidence for the speed of a ship.

Another interesting episode, I like how you're keeping it fresh each time and covering a broad range of areas.

Now time for advice, I think lots of people are a bit turned off by how much mathy stuff there is in the show. I think what might make it more accessible is to have more of this

image

and less of this

image

At least for me graphs and visuals are easier to follow and understand, especially when you're moving at a fast pace. And they tend to be a universal language for the people who don't get all the mathematical ideas. Of course there's always room for both of these.

Keep up the good work.

deth2munkies:
Also, what I'd really like to see is whether or not it's possible to survive getting shot and falling off a seemingly enormous bridge into a river. It happens a lot in movies, but I'm mainly thinking about Skyfall here as a recent example.

This was covered on Mythbusters in two episodes. Basically, it depends on your technique, but there is a high chance of severe injuries, including broken bones and lost appendages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2011_season)#Water_.3D_Pavement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2012_season)#Mattress_Mayhem

Here is some more information:

http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/water-sports/cliff-diving3.htm

Suggestion for future episode: Jesse Ventura with mini-gun from Predator.

Anakinnnn:

AvsJoe:
"Thanks for all of the positive feedback"

I wonder if there's a deleted or scripted scene decrying those who've spouted negative feedback.

If you can find me some negative feedback, then there might exist some off camera rants for us to yell about... but it's hard to find any!!! You guys have been extremely positive about the show and very responsive for the show being so new and for us sucking so bad on camera. :)
Thanks again everyone!

Jason Dean
REEL PHYSICS

Hey, y'all had an excellent idea for a show and you've been executing it well. It's little wonder that people are loving the product. I know I'm hooked.

Most marksmen keep both eyes open.

That's how you're supposed to shoot, to lessen the chance of fatigue.

At some point will we find out if Free Willy could have made it?

One thing that's been bothering me about these shows lately is that they've stopped using blank rounds, and have switched on over to putting the muzzle flare in post production with CGI. Except we're not at a point where CGI looks authentic enough.

I miss the 90s.

Edit: Also, "notoriously inaccurate AK-47"? I don't claim to be gun buff, but I don't think that statement really holds up.

hey stop making fun of carl! carl is awsome... in the comics... not so much in the siries...
just stop making fun of the kid!
(see issue 105 of TWD comic for proof)

Awesome episode, and loving the series to far.

Just for curiosity sake, what kind of propulsion system WOULD it take to lift an aircraft carrier into the sky?

Ala the Avengers.

Daygall65:
Awesome episode, and loving the series to far.

Just for curiosity sake, what kind of propulsion system WOULD it take to lift an aircraft carrier into the sky?

Ala the Avengers.

You mighttttttt just see this in an episode at some point... you never know. ;)

Jason Dean
REEL PHYSICS

It seems like these guys really love their job. This is fantastic.

Anakinnnn:

Daygall65:
Awesome episode, and loving the series to far.

Just for curiosity sake, what kind of propulsion system WOULD it take to lift an aircraft carrier into the sky?

Ala the Avengers.

You mighttttttt just see this in an episode at some point... you never know. ;)

Jason Dean
REEL PHYSICS

Anakinnnn:

PreviouslyPwned:
I was hoping they would have spoken about how effective a maglite would be as a silencer.

The Selkie:

On another note, there seems to be a bit of a divide between people just watching for the result (for whom the maths isn't doing anything) and the more numerically minded. You've mentioned previously that you leave out more minor details (e.g horizontal deceleration due to wind resistance in the motorcycle jump) for the sake of time and simplicity, any chance of an "extended cut" of an extra 2 or 3 minutes covering these for those interested?

Keep up the good work.

Thanks very much for supporting the show!
I am getting a lot of conflicting feedback about the show when it comes to the details, like you said. It's tough for us to get more detailed and lose the people who might be already lost... or dumb it down and then lose the people who want even more information. However, there is a great possibility to make sure everyone is happy and that might happen depending on the feedback of the show. If there is enough of a response and the show continues to grow and expand its audience, then the fantastic gang at the Escapist are considering the idea of a companion column (Think Extra Punctuation or Intermission) that would allow us to expand the details of the show by showing equations, more math, and allow us to show a lot of our behind the scenes work for those of you interested in seeing all of that. We hope it happens, and of course a lot of that depends on the awesome audience out there supporting the show. So be sure to spread the show around to other people you think would find it interesting and help us expand the show!

Thanks again for your support and for spending time hanging with us for the duration of the episode!

Jason Dean
REEL PHYSICS

I'm with Jason on this, at some point we are going to publish our complete worksheets along with references and extraneous info. In my head I imagine the entire Escapist community completely melting down and becoming a flame war wasteland of math and physics arguments.

Anyway, we finished the math for a new one today, and once again I was blown away by what the outcome was.

Thanks for watching!
Colby Dane
REEL PHYSICS

ReelPhysics:
The Walking Dead - Consistent Headshots

Watch as Carl the ambidextrous zombie slaying wizard child makes all of the shots.

Watch Video

This was an informative and entertaining video, nice one guys.

Alright, here's a nonsense-physics moment for you guys to unravel.
Travolta's death scene in "Broken Arrow."
(Terrible quality, but you can still tell what's going on.)

What I'd love to know is, how fast would that train car have to travel to launch the nuke casing at him that way? What sort of force would it take to plow him right through the box-car's wall and keep going?

Alternately, if you want something a little more in the realm of plausibility, highlight the scene where Slater outruns a Humvee.

Oh wow. This series started out really well and got both far better and genuinely funny fast, even with the annoying background music loop. Fucking outstanding job, you two. Really.

Loved the episode, but I have to agree - less technobabble, more layman's terms, less formulas, more simple illustrations.

Keep up the awesome work!

You can never have too much technobabble.

Pretty cool show guys!
A couple quick thoughts about this particular concept. As has been stated, most guns "outshoot" most shooters. But since here we have a situation where the shooters are mostly calm, protected and unmoving, I'd say that while 100% is unlikely, they wouldn't be wasting much ammo. The only odd gun out in this setup would be the short barreled revolver. beyond five meters or so, it would be pretty useless. All iron sighted guns have what is called the "sight radius" which is just the distance between the sights. The longer that distance is, the more precise the shooter is going to be. The semi-autos would be around 5 inches, that revolver looked closer to 3, that makes a big difference. Additionally the sights on most short barreled revolvers are not too precise, to begin with, even a rested shot at a 10 inch target at 10m is tough. (from a practical standpoint, I'm sure the gun can do it)
As for why most shows are going to CG, I suspect it has a lot to do with cost, blanks are expensive, plus the extra safety staff and armorers. Sound has to be synced, which would be way easier in post production, than doing it on the set. I suspect that most of these scenes get only a few takes, so they have to make them count.

As for the math, I'm a fan of more is better, even if I don't understand it, I like to know how you got to where you did.

OlasDAlmighty:
Another interesting episode, I like how you're keeping it fresh each time and covering a broad range of areas.

Now time for advice, I think lots of people are a bit turned off by how much mathy stuff there is in the show. I think what might make it more accessible is to have more of this

image

and less of this

image

At least for me graphs and visuals are easier to follow and understand, especially when you're moving at a fast pace. And they tend to be a universal language for the people who don't get all the mathematical ideas. Of course there's always room for both of these.

Keep up the good work.

Hey OlasDAlmighty,
I just wanted to give you some quick feedback on your post since you took the time to include screenshots and give some feedback of your own.
We are working on some new ideas on how to visualize the show a bit more with charts, graphs, animated diagrams, and so forth. It's tough to show certain things when all we are talking about is math at some points. I would like to get in to full diagrams showing the scene from various angles with info popping up onscreen, but it can be tough to properly produce all of that content when it may take an hour or more to create a simple moving diagram that will be on the screen for 10 seconds or less. Then compound that work for a 6-7 minute episode and I could spend 40+ hours in production time per episode. I end up weighing the time of production versus the value in what it brings to see how far to take each episode. Having said that, I do have some new ideas that you will see in future episodes that I believe will really help in making the show better visually.

I really value your feedback and thanks for supporting the show!

Jason Dean
REEL PHYSICS

Zydrate:
Okay my brain continues to be all

image

I didn't even finish this episode. There's no shame in taking some pointers in Mythbusters. Their math is minimal but when present, they convert it to layman's terms.

I repeat my previous suggestion of just giving a brief outline of the math and then putting some sources and whatnot at the end of the video or in the description.

I like seeing if the physics are viable or not (The fact that the flying tank was plausible fascinated me), but I have a deep-seeded confusion and hatred of math, a subject I've yet to employ in my 25 years of life.

I like the maths, it's the reason I watch this show! If I wanted Mythbusters I'd watch Mythbusters.

Zydrate:
Okay my brain continues to be all

image

I didn't even finish this episode. There's no shame in taking some pointers in Mythbusters. Their math is minimal but when present, they convert it to layman's terms.

I repeat my previous suggestion of just giving a brief outline of the math and then putting some sources and whatnot at the end of the video or in the description.

I like seeing if the physics are viable or not (The fact that the flying tank was plausible fascinated me), but I have a deep-seeded confusion and hatred of math, a subject I've yet to employ in my 25 years of life.

You might be "myth-taking" us for a different show. ;)

We love Mythbusters as much as the next guy, but I feel the shows are very different. However, if you check out some of my recent posts, we are trying to find ways to visualize some of our results a bit better than we have before so be sure to check out our future episodes to see if things become a bit easier to understand.

Jason Dean
REEL PHYSICS

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here