This CGI is not good

It's not mindblowing, but it gets the job done and looks reasonably well. We don't talk about marvel cgi lmao But yes I do agree

You be Trippin bro

Pacific is the best IMO. Got tired of BOB from watching it so much lol. Wasn't to impressed with MOA especially with the last few episodes that went to shit after they built it up so much. It was all just such a let down and CGI didnt help any.

Happy with the show overall, but the CGI isn’t great. It’s comically bad in the first shot of the P-51s. They look like the same cardboard cutouts flying across the screen

worse

Gtx 1050 ti settings 😂

Omg while i been watching episodes i been thinking on war scenes exactly seems war thunder

real

I agree. Lamest visuals on the series

🤣

Should we also include the ones fighting the Japs?

the CGI makes it look, like some unpaid intern did it. this is laughable bad.

Wtf where does it look like that? Wtf

@@Xingmey Far from bad, buddy.

@@CasualClinkz Your usual vocal CGI hater usually parrots the same bullshit over and over again and more often than not has little idea what they're talking about and haven't seen a bad CGI in their life. Furthermore most probably don't even know what that abbreviation means or what it stands for.

not good. You can watch movie Memphis Belle which did everything better in 90's

Everything in this show feels like a cutscene. From the dialogue to the acting.

More like a 2010's video game

@@VonToppel lol Memphis Belle's effects look cheap in their own way, as much respect I can try to give that movie. Much of the choreography (or whatever word you use to describe this for a machine) of the aircraft is poor, smoke effects were clearly coming from tubes, half the action is off camera, and "fancier" effects came from what was more than obvious a toy.

Best escort fighter definitely. Best plane of the war is open to debate and I say that as a Mustang fan with 45 minutes stick time in the real thing. The term "Best Fighter" has to be qualified. Best escort fighter in terms of range definitely, but other than it didn't out shine every other fighter in all respects at all. Was it a very good fighter, yes, but "the best" is a broad claim. Dogfighter? That title would have to go to the Spitfire which was better armed, (cannons beat MG's, even .50BMG) more agile and had a better rate of climb. Ground attack? The Typhoon wins that one with its 4 x 20mm cannons, 8 or even 16 x 60lb rockets and/or bombs. All rounder? That would probably be the Fw190. Most successful in terms of kills goes to the Bf109. Like I said, the term is open to debate.

dear God. you have no idea what an "extra tank" can do for mileage. do your homework you idiot. You Brits would be speaking German.....

I'd argue that "Best plane of the war" would be the Mosquito. It excelled in so many roles.

@jacobclement8150 I would love to get more stick time but it’s a bit expensive. However my reasoning is based on facts not blind patriotism. You can break it down by nationality and amongst US fighters in the ETO, the P-47 would give the P-51 a good run for the title. Other than range and top speed the P-47 was better armed with 8 x .50s, and had a higher dive speed than any other fighter. It could take a lot more punishment than the P-51. In the ETO the second highest scoring outfit in the 8th USAAF was the 56th Fighter Group which stuck with the P-47 through out the war. (Technically it’s the top scoring group in the 8th as the top scoring group was the 354th which was a 9th USAAF group on attachment to the 8th)The top two USAAF aces in the ETO, Gabreski and Johnson, both flew with the 56th in P-47’s. As I said the term “best” is open to debate.

@@alanjm1234 Plus it used an abundance resource like wood and you just needed carpenters to build the airframe which the UK has an abundance of

About 40 German fighters engage and on that mission about 175 mustangs escorted. While 450 bomber we're heading for Berlin. Honestly how fucking ballsy can you be to go head on with that shit. Insanity. Also almost 600 planes right there

@@CasualClinkz fucking ballsy is right. I think all of those men had balls the size of cantelopes to go up every day on those runs. All of them... fighters, bombers, navigators. Im certain I wouldve been vomiting before every mission from the nerves. Just mere boys most of them. Im eternally grateful.

It's a cube mile

For the sake of the scene, in reality a bomber crewman might only see one or two fighters engaging around the formation and keep in mind the speeds at which these aircraft are flying, if they were more realistic the only thing you would see is a flash as a fighter went by a bomber which isn't very good for entertainment

Open a 5th grade level history book and you will find the answer.

Thought the same thing, like wtf wtf?

Just like all Apple products, then.

They were worse than 2010. CGI was at it's hight in early and mid 2000s as far as realism blended into movies. There is an entire KZfaq video talking about the decline in CGI

@@Ccarnage8 Pretty sure the CGI we have now has much more realism than 20 years ago. Just not this piece

​@helloitsmehb nope you are wrong, cgi has downgraded alot since the 2010 days. Down to cost, like everything these days, cheap cheap and lots of profit.

Good work Jeff! Maybe not do it after an all nighter next time

@@Ghostfacewutango 2 spankings

@@Ghostfacewutango Go back down into your mom's basement kid. You're just a POS keyboard commando.

@@Ghostfacewutango You need the spanking. He's right. It's common sense. And if you need to be told why, well that just indicates your lack of intelligence. Not someone else.

@@Ghostfacewutango3 spankings

you're right.

EXACTLY! I think they failed to understand why _Band of Brothers_ was successful. Because they stayed with one relatively small group of soldiers the audience got to know them and how they functioned as a unit. And because of that the combat scenes were all the more intense because the audience was invested in those characters. _The Pacific_ was a lot harder to follow as they jumped from unit to unit and many characters were in and out before viewers even knew anything about them. And _Masters of the Air_ went even further in the wrong direction.

I'm not a fan of BOB but i like this one.

Correct.. which you'd expect to see from a series that is built around bombing

And planes they lost count of how many planes were in groups and formations.

The funny thing is that a b17 would drop 40 100 pounds bombs on a light industrial center like this one, so there's actually about 12 other bombs missing, the big inaccurate is how fast they are dropping them and that they are not following the lead navigators signal drop all together on the target, the big problem of the show is the plane never changes when by this point in the war the lead navigators plane would have a radar instead of a ball turret and all of the b17 would have had a chin turret installed, not to mention there are almost zero tactics in this fight for example the lead bomber would have one initial smoke bomb so the rest of the group could see the signal to drop bombs at this time all the other bombardiers in the group just toggled the release switch and didn't use the bomb sights

@@themojaveranger4574True. Another video showed in detail the loadouts for the planes for this specific mission, and they were indeed carrying 40 bombs each - 30 incendiaries and 10 general demolition.

What did you expect? For then to re-create these events with the thousands of B-17 that no longer exist? I’m happy we finally even got this series after over a decade of anticipation.

@@Obospeedo And no answer. Figures. Idiots keep parroting about how "terrible" CG is in this series (it's fine, it's not perfect but it's certainly bad) with no further though whatsoever. Making a series about WW2 bomb group without CGI was never possible. The best you can do with real planes is what Dunkirk did (and it was great).

@@jackiemortes It’s about using good CGI, this CGI is terrible.

Awesome?

Nah, RoTS looks way better than this haha

Got half way through,then didnt bother with the rest. Pretty much a glorified soap opera.Not a patch on Band of Brothers or Pacific

You made the right call. It was bad. The actors were downright unlikeable and there was no unifying theme or narrative like BOB or the Pacific. It was just "hey fellas whaddya say we 23-skidoo into these forts", more or less all of them getting shot down, then some time in a POW camp. The Tuskegee airmen storyline was an afterthought and would have been a better basis for a series. Hanks/Spielberg have lost their fastball it seems.

Didn't the RAF stop using the finger four, or was it the US?

@@chrislapp9468 the raf changed from the vic formation to the german schwarm formation,after realising it was far more flexible after the battle of britain...this was renamed the finger four for the RAF.Seems they used it all through the war,but that formation would immediately be broken ,when going into combat.

not even Battlestar Galactica more like a swarm of gnats on speed xD

Band of Brothers really didn't have to deal with battles of this scale since they focused in on small battles. These bomber missions are different with hundreds if not thousand plus aircraft.

Over critical ,12 year olds, yourre 13 i take it

@@phillipr61Well, on reflection you have a point. It was a knee-jerk reaction to some of the disappointing moments and was indeed overly critical. I will edit my original reponse and tone it down.

Señor no lo conozco pero estoy seguro que hubieron cientos o quizá miles de aviones volando en los cielos de Europa y Alemania cuando lanzaban bombas sobre objetivos, en el 2:09 estoy seguro que si sucedió, tal vez no tane exactamente como es pero estoy seguro que si hubo choques de aviones; me refiero a dogfither. Entonces el cgi lo hizo bien.

Exactly !

lol, u r right

those mustangs look more like the Ki-61 Hien lol.

The show is so CGI heavy that cutting corners wherever you can is very much mandatory.

This happened it's called close protection. It was ineffective but it was used. But mostly this was filmmakers choice to get the point across. And the 51 s had to keep pace with the bombers to not be in Berlin and back when they didn't even get there yet

@@CasualClinkz What a load of utter bollox. Escorts only flew top cover for their own protection from nervous and edgy bomber gunners. RAF Spitfires could only escort them to the coast at one point and they would flash their wings when approaching to indicate that they were friendlies.

@@haitolawrence5986 not only but ok. Every nation experimented with close protection and found out it was ineffective as I said. That's why I said filmmakers choice to fit the frame. I suggest actually reading comments. Also the British like you said couldn't even escort

I knew an older gentleman whose dad was in the air war and he had a picture of him standing on the side of his B17 raising his arms and legs spread out like a star where a piece of flak blew it to shit that he had to ride back in. Crazy

They kinda did

The Operation Guardian Angel game mode was removed in 2019 unfortunatly

This lmao

Not low light it's daytime. But you're right with the escorts. Tho the fighters would have to keep pace with the bombers so for some of the time.they were in fact close by. Also some of this is filmmakers choice to get the point across since most people don't know shit about this

Hazy light to mask the CGI limitations (instead of low light). @@CasualClinkz

@@johnmurphy7953 all of your points are artistic choices like depth and visual differences. cgi is only limited by the amount of work put into it.

To be fair to the "Masters", they had to create an entire air force and keep it in motion during the battle scenes. With "Battle of Britain", some surviving aircraft and remote control models were the options used. Surviving aircraft are now almost non-existent. I'm sure CGI will get even better as it progresses. @@CasualClinkz

Well, of course. The greatest generation is all but gone. All that's left are the stories and the ones who read them.

They were there, man... You just don't get it

I was there, 3,000 years ago!

Welp, you can see plenty of gun camera and war camera man footage of exactly what this show was trying to recreate. They did a really, really bad job.

People know what is realistic and what is not. You don't need a PhD to understand this, neither did the people 70+ years ago who flew these planes. We look for realism in these shows, here there is hardly any realism.

@@Taczy2023 Oh yeah, I forgot, these experts in the comments were there.

@@dylanmelotti4301 I've watched hours upon hours of archive dogfight footage, bombing footage. Once you watch a lot of the old real stuff, its hard to watch these over exaggerated shows. You should understand .

@@Taczy2023 You should also understand you're watching a mini series, not war footage.

This show was positioned as created for lovers of this topic, but it was created by those people and for those people who will not change anything about it. If we were shown a space battle from Star Wars + with bad CGI, it can't be excused because we weren't there. And which "event participants" are you talking about? If they were, they may have described it as "chaos", which the director took as his own. Do you want to learn about WWII aviation? Read books by people who at that time still knew how to walk independently...

@@TunderTunder. Quit paying too much attention to CGI, it’s not great but it gets its point of the story across. Allocation of budgeting is different in every project, of course this isn’t going to be pacific rim level cgi or real planes considering there’s a handful of B-17’s left. It’s comical to even disregard the entire show as everyone is doing over special effects. Practice on that short attention span of yours and sit still and watch the show.

Nope accurate look at stats and numbers

Open and read a 6th grade history book. . .

Some of those raids had 700 P-51s escorting the bombers. It was a wild west show for sure.

If this was early war maybe, but it's late-war so it definitely isn't

Thank you for that. It explained a lot.

This should be top comment,

I hear ya but understandable, MOA graphics look like 20yr old video game, considering hype/wait/producers I expected more. Still, as a B-17 and 8th AAF fan I like it... 😊👍

As did the movie "Midway" that starred Woody Harrelson as Admiral Nimitz for God's sake.

Every plane has strenghts and weaknesses, that said, the us pilots were better and also better quality fuel

@@phillipr61 In the list of Top 100 ww2 pilots, all of them are German...

@@generalposlijebitke6688Those list don’t matter, both sides had different policies in regard to veteran pilots. The Western Allies retired veteran pilots to use them to train, the germans kept them on the frontline. By 1944 when the Mustang was introduced german pilot quality had significantly degraded and were far below allied pilot quality

@@toxicfireball2690 Sure, they were outnumbered from the start of the war...

​@@generalposlijebitke6688hellcat pilots:

They actually carried more than is shown in these clips. For this mission they were armed with 30 100 pound incendiary bombs and 10 100 pound general purpose bombs, the scenes shows somewhere around 25-30 from each bomber.

Those are NOT 100-pounders nor are the monster explosions below how incendiaries behave. Very, VERY Hollywood bordering on disrespect for the subject matter.

Yes because Albert Speer definitely did not have a bias of his own and definitely did not just make stuff up to make the allies in the bad light. Whether you like it or not strategic airstrikes heavily impacted the war. Factories, oil rigs and bridges being destroyed will severely hurt the military capability of the enemy. Bombs can easily be manufactured, while destroyed roads and other infrastructures takes a significant time and resources for the enemy slowing them down even further. Aerial supremacy is still an integral part of every military in the world. Boots in the ground is why the eastern front was bloody and aerial supremacy is why the western allies have significantly lower casualties than the soviets

Interesting perspective. But I believe that line was spoken by a character? If so, consider that to US bomber crews the Mustang was akin to sliced bread, mainly because it could stick with them all the way to the target and back. Bomber crews, weren't particularly interested in, or privy of, kill numbers, or what was happening in the Pacific, but rather in the escort fighter they could SEE protecting them over Berlin, for example. Speak to a person from England, and the Spitfire is the end-all be all, because that's what defended their loved ones during the Battle of Britain. Us here in 2024 might have slightly more objective view, and perhaps more access to historical records.

@@LuisSoto-ho5fw He said it as a "matter fact" rather than opinion. And the P-38 had a longer range (2500 miles with external fuel tanks) than a P-51 (1650 miles with external fuel tanks).

@@EvilLordBane He said "Hands down, the best figther plane of the war." What we perceive as "facts" is often colored by the experience of the moment - and the narrator presenting that as a fact is well within character. My point is that to HIM, and to most B-17 crew at the time - that statement (however inaccurate, perhaps) would've been a statement of fact - Navigator Harry Crosby in 1944 may not have known - nor cared, I'd bet - about the actual range figures. For someone who've been through mission after mission of being nearly decimated by the Luftwaffe, and now has friendly escort all the way to Berlin...the P-51 must have seem forged by angels.

Они так-то с фашистами воевали с 39 года еще на разных фронтах, когда сталин с ними были ближайшими союзничками и чуть ли не в десны целовался.

Лечись, если бы не помощь от США в виде ленд-лиза то ссср прекратил бы своё существование ещё бы в 1943 году, чего только стоят операции союзников в Африке, западной Европе и освобождение Италии, битвы в тихом океане. Пока ссср еле еле воевал отправляя мясо на убой с заградительными отрядами.