Rune wrote:

> I've been looking at a little reference videos (real life, not holywood) and
> they didn't have neither flashes nor shock waves, so I haven't added that to
> the animation.

The lack of a flash/shock wave is probably a good thing for realism then.

>
> Apart from experts like people in these groups, who are trained in noticing
> flaws in CG effects, do you think this animation could fool anyone to think
> it's real?

I would say not. This is probably due to a number of small things. Debris is
something others have brought up, but there are other sutble things, like black
staining from the initial explosion on the building. Some sort of orange glow
from the fireball and fire (even if it is not a brilliant flash) might help too.
Also, I think  your "viewers" are crying out for some DAMAGE! After that dust
settles, I expected some sort of gaping hole.

Your efforts are superb but an explosion anim that is convincing to non-CG aware
people is a difficult challenge.

MJL

--
prism{0,.1,30#local I=1;#while(I<30)#local B=asc(substr(// Mark James Lewin
"#K?U_u`V[RG>3<9DGPL.0EObkcPF'",I,1))-33;<div(B,10)-4mod(B,10)+5*div(I,21)-
6>#local I=I+1;#end,-4pigment{rgb 9}rotate-x*90translate 15*z}//POV-Ray 3.5

Post a reply to this message