Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Media Games News Entertainment Science Technology

Animated Simulation Lets You Watch the Titanic Sink In Real Time (huffingtonpost.com) 129

Posted by BeauHD from the eerie-simulation dept.
An anonymous reader writes: You can watch the Titanic sink in real time thanks to an animated simulation created with Unreal Engine 4 to promote the upcoming game "Titanic: Honor and Glory." The HuffingtonPost writes, "This simulation includes the iceberg strike, the ship coasting to a halt in the North Atlantic about 20 minutes later, lifeboats lowered into the water and even scenes of flooding in the interior corridors." The animation will even give you a play-by-play of what was happening aboard the ship at specific times. What some may find especially eerie about the simulation is the lack of people. Some 1,500 people died when the Titanic sunk, but the simulation shows no people. You can watch the video here.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Animated Simulation Lets You Watch the Titanic Sink In Real Time More

Animated Simulation Lets You Watch the Titanic Sink In Real Time

Comments Filter:

  • Well (Score:5, Funny)

    by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M ( 4212163 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2016 @07:35PM (#51944287)

    What some may find especially eerie about the simulation is the lack of people. Some 1,500 people died when the Titanic sunk, but the simulation shows no people.

    This seems a little Unreal to me.

  • I prefer it with people... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19, 2016 @07:38PM (#51944305)

    At least I can watch Leonardo DiCaprio's character die. That has to count for something.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Mogster ( 459037 )

      Have to admit the Jack/Rose plot kinda ruined the movie in my opinion. But I think James Cameron & his crew did a pretty good job with the SFX on that one. Appeared pretty realistic especially on the big screen. Certainly better visuals than A Night to Remember, although that was a better movie

      • It's had to please everyone but they did a decent job trying. At the time, the owner of the local movie theatre commented that "Titanic" had brought back families to the cinema, grandparents taking their grandchildren to see a movie; something that had somehow died out in the 10 years prior.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        Have to admit the Jack/Rose plot kinda ruined the movie in my opinion. But I think James Cameron & his crew did a pretty good job with the SFX on that one. Appeared pretty realistic especially on the big screen. Certainly better visuals than A Night to Remember, although that was a better movie

        Actually, Cameron has admitted now that he knows more about the Titanic (as part of the 100th anniversary a few years ago) he seriously screwed up the sinking effects. Of course, given the movie was filmed nearly

    • Well, the simulation is 2h 41min, but I prefer the 3h 14min James Cameron longer version, way more entertaining.

    • True; I can't believe I'm "defending" him, but his acting has gotten way better over the years.

      * Aviator [imdb.com]
      * Blood Diamond [imdb.com]
      * Django Unchained [imdb.com]
      * The Great Gatsby [imdb.com]
      * Inception [imdb.com]
      * What's Eating Gilbert Grape [imdb.com]

    • Jaaack...

  • Honor and glory? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kuzb ( 724081 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2016 @08:02PM (#51944377)

    I'm sorry, but there was little of either in that disaster. It sounds like they're trying to make it out like some kind of heroic war story instead of the unmitigated disaster that it was. The only upside is that many of the people who were killed were among the wealthiest elite of the time, and that it lead to improved safety regulations as a result of who died. I don't understand why they keep trying to put some kind of heroic spin on something that was a combination of gross incompetence and insufficient safety precautions.

    It's well known that corners were cut when building the titanic - particularly with the rivets which metallurgical analysis confirmed were cheaply made and weak due to large amounts of iron slag in the composition of the metal. The crew was operating at night in a stretch of water that was well known to contain icebergs and had claimed a recorded 20 ships already. Essentially they were operating blind. Lookouts failed to spot it, either due to environmental conditions, pure laziness, or overconfidence in the ship design - we may never really know.

    • Re:Honor and glory? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rmdingler ( 1955220 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2016 @08:37PM (#51944493) Journal

      It sounds like they're trying to make it out like some kind of heroic war story instead of the unmitigated disaster that it was.

      We romanticize the past, of course, because the present is so often unremarkable, but we have such high hopes for the future.

      • The future used to be better. Technological advances, new ships, planes, rockets, having breakfast on the moon, visiting other worlds, and meeting friendly aliens. These days our outlook on the future is dismal: rogue technology, superviruses, epic natural disasters and global warming, armageddon, fascist corporation-run states and zombies. What happened?

        • The future used to be better.

          Then we got here, and found out that human nature hasn't changed over this period, not in the slightest.

    • Plus, the ship was not compartmentalized. I served on an aircraft carrier, and a hole in one part of the ship would not allow water to breach the entire ship.

      Nowadays, we have double hulls and stuff.

      The story of the Titanic is a tale of reactive safety measures implemented only after much learning, much like the tales that gave us mandatory fire exits, extinguishers, sprinklers, smoke detectors, and capacity limits in buildings.

      • Titanic most certainly was compartmentalized but the walls only went somewhat above the water line. great for holes under or near waterline that weren't wider than four compartments, that 300 foot hole kind of pooped their party though. they should have hit that iceberg head on instead of turning to port.

        • They should have been compartmentalized. Per your own post, 50% compartmentalization is equal to zero compartmentalization.

          • Not in most cases of ships getting a hole. Just because they were silly and sideswiped an iceberg you have to get all bitchy about it...

          • The Titantic was compartmentalized. It could survive any four of them being breached (out of sixteen). Five were breached when she struck the iceberg, so the ship filled with water and sank. Designs are better now, but in any design if you breach enough of the compartments the ship is going to sink.

      • the ship was not compartmentalized. I served on an aircraft carrier, and a hole in one part of the ship would not allow water to breach the entire ship.

        It was compartmentalised, and it was punctured in more than one place.

        I hope you weren't operating anything more complicated than a mop.

    • It sounds like they're trying to make it out like some kind of heroic war story instead of the unmitigated disaster that it was.

      You know, a war game.

    • I understand the title not as a reflection on how heroic the story is but rather on the hubris of the builders. Honor and glory was what they were after, not what anyone got.

      Of course I could be wrong and it could still be a completely inappropriate game. Time will tell.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by kuzb ( 724081 )

        I hope you're right. This would work a whole lot better as a cautionary tale.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Catmeat ( 20653 )

      >It's well known that corners were cut when building the titanic - particularly with the rivets which metallurgical analysis confirmed were cheaply made and weak due to large amounts of iron slag in the composition of the metal. The crew was operating at night in a stretch of water that was well known to contain icebergs and had claimed a recorded 20 ships already. Essentially they were operating blind. Lookouts failed to spot it, either due to environmental conditions, pure laziness, or overconfidence in the ship design - we may never really know.

      The Titanic's sister ship, the Olympic differed in detail, but was essentially a clone. The Olympic served on the North Atlantic run for two decades and was only retired in 1935. She gained the nickname "Old Reliable". - Picture of the two together [wikipedia.org]

      This suggests that whatever people now say about the design, construction, or the metallurgy of the iron, by the standards of the time, the fundamental design of Titanic was sound and the construction was perfectly fine. She was sunk by a crap-load of bad luck

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Jupix ( 916634 )

        Indeed. I'm not a naval historian but I believe Titanic sunk because of multiple factors, not just one or two.

        • Titanic was cruising too fast for the conditions.
        • There were more bergs than usual.
        • The sea was too calm to spot the berg before it was too late.
        • Titanic's rudder was too small to turn the ship in time.
        • Titanic's middle prop (driven by a steam turbine, not reciprocating engines) could not be reversed, which combined with the reversed outer props caused bad turbulence for the rudder, causing the ship to
    • They would have been fine if they didn't brag it was unsinkable.

    • "The only upside is that many of the people who were killed were among the wealthiest elite of the time, and that it lead to improved safety regulations as a result of who died."

      So you're one of those worthies who believes that all gains are ill-gotten. Some of those wealthy elite might have gone on to invent and discover things that would have increased the societal wealth available for your welfare payments.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by marciot ( 598356 )

      If you RTFF (Read the F'ing FAQ), you'll learn the Honour and Glory was the name of the clock from the Grand Staircase.

      Question - Why not use “Honour”, the British spelling, instead of “Honor”?
      Answer - While we are aware that Titanic was a British Ship and the “Honour and Glory” name for the clock from the Grand Staircase was spelled as such, we had our reasons for using a different spelling. There’s already something Titanic-related called “Titanic - Honour a

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The heroes (in the modern sense) of the story are the crew of the Carpathia, https://www.waterlinkconnect.com/Account/AccountConfirmation?userName=lgerberlamotte%2bdealertest2%40gmail.com&token=1dGmnCQA7dLS30JNGyfKQw2 [waterlinkconnect.com]

      Who received the Titanic's distress call via radio and steamed at er than ratted full speed through those same dangerous waters in a not supposedly unsinkable ship to rescue the passengers of the sinking Titanic. Thanks to them the lack of lifeboats was the primary cause of death, rather t

  • The movie suggested that the "Titanic" wasn't strong enough to support half its weight, levered and elevated, unsupported in the air. In the movie, the ship snapped in two (without the pieces fully separating).

    This would have happened somewhere around 2:40 in the simulation video.

    I guess this is just another illustration that Titanic buffs disagree with each other.

    This professor's simulation [nydailynews.com] indicates it did break--but not the way Cameron's movie showed!

    • I believe Cameron admitted recently in a televised special that current research suggests the Titanic actually broke in half when it was already submerged and headed to the bottom. However when the film was made the prevailing theory was the break in 2 on the surface. You can't really fault the movie for that.
      • I believe the current idea is that the upper decks tore apart, but the bow and stern remained connected by the keel. It was only during the descent that the twisting between the two halves finally tore the much stronger keel apart fully.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Alioth ( 221270 )

      It does actually happen in the simulation video, at about 2:40. (2.39:27 to be exact).

  • Of what happens when you leave safety up to the private sector.

    • Their "real-time iceberg detection via satellite imagery" didn't work well?

      • It lost the data feed and the app displayed the icebergs at the default coordinates - a farm in Kansas.

        The devs wanted to put an error message about the data being unreliable but marketing said it would confuse the users and UX said it would spoil the flat look.

    • Of what happens when you leave safety up to the private sector.

      Funny thing - this ship was fully compliant with government regulations at the time, including the specific rule governing the number of lifeboats it was required to carry.

      • Of what happens when you leave safety up to the private sector.

        Funny thing - this ship was fully compliant with government regulations at the time, including the specific rule governing the number of lifeboats it was required to carry.

        Ayup. And the number was so small not because of any perfidy on the part of the government or influence from the private sector either.

        Prior to the loss of Titanic it was presumed (not unreasonably based on experience) that if a ship was lost near the coast, it only n

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by plopez ( 54068 )

        So what? They violated common sense. Because safety was too expensive.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by KGIII ( 973947 )

      I suppose then Stalin's incarcerations, that resulted in millions of deaths in the labor camps, are what happens when you leave safety up to government? Or is that only convenient when you want to use it to try to demonstrate a point that you feel is important?

  • Nobody was aboard.

  • Building a better future for VR (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dashiva Dan ( 1786136 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2016 @09:36PM (#51944693)
    I imagine in a year or so content creators will start producing VR "Experiences" like this, where a couple of thousand people from all over can spend a few hours/days in VR being "one of the passengers/staff on the Titanic" and have it run as an event, where you're actually in the middle of it.
    And from there the possibilities are endless - The moon landing? JFK's assassination (or whoever's version of it) - Sure there'll be tons of fictional worlds and experiences, but a big part of it will be recreating historical experiences for both entertainment and education.
    The old "simulation" games like Rome: Total war or even Assassins creed (and Civ, of course) will have a whole new level of immersion to work with. Gonna be exciting.
  • The whole thing about real time would be that I can download the boundary conditions of the simulation, and generate the rendering from that on the spot.
    This is a prerendered film. Might have taken a month to render it, for all we know.

  • Allow one to place politicians where one chooses and this could be a big seller.

  • You can watch the Titanic sink...

    Goddammit! Why the hell wasn't there a warning that a spoiler was in the first sentence!?!?

  • With all the talk of brittle steel, rivets et. al., RMS Olympic was a virtual twin to the Titanic and remained in service for 24 years.

    On 9 October 1912 White Star withdrew Olympic from service and returned her to her builders at Belfast to be refitted to incorporate lessons learned from the Titanic disaster 6 months prior, and improve safety. The number of lifeboats carried by Olympic was increased from twenty to sixty four and extra davits were installed along the boat deck to accommodate them. Also, an inner watertight skin was constructed in the boiler and engine rooms, to create a double hull. Five of the watertight bulkheads were extended up to B-Deck, extending to the entire height of the hull. This corrected a flaw in the original design, in which the bulkheads only rose up as far as E or D-Deck, a short distance above the waterline. This flaw had been exposed during Titanic's sinking, where water spilled over the top of the bulkheads as the ship sank and flooded subsequent compartments. In addition, an extra bulkhead was added to subdivide the electrical dynamo room, bringing the total number of watertight compartments to seventeen. Improvements were also made to the ship's pumping apparatus. These modifications meant that Olympic could survive a collision similar to that of Titanic, in that her first six compartments could be breached and the ship could remain afloat.

    At the same time, Olympic's B-Deck underwent a refit, which included extra cabins (the parlour suites which proved popular on the Titanic were added to the Olympic), more cabins were fitted with private bathing facilities, and a Cafe Parisian (another addition that had proved popular on the Titanic) was added, offering another dining option to first class passengers. With these changes, Olympic's gross tonnage rose to 46,359 tons, 31 tons more than Titanic's.

    RMS Olympic [wikipedia.org]

    Problems with radio communication --- obsolete technologies, monopoly power, the need for regulation --- all became clear after the loss of Titanic. Ir is a fascinating story and one the geek should know better.

    Radio and the Titanic [environmentalhistory.org]

    • To be fair, the Olympic never scraped an iceberg.

      It did however drop a propellor blade and accidentally ram head-on into a British warship (HMS Hawke, I think?), though neither incident really tested the theory much.

  • They might be onto something.

    Granted, it would be rather limited, but imagine virtually witnessing Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, or crossing the Delaware River with George Washington.

  • Hmmmm (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BigBadBus ( 653823 ) on Wednesday April 20, 2016 @02:22AM (#51945281) Homepage
    Some Titanic enthusiasts are already pointing out errors, such as the rate of list and the time scale of the flooding; I can't speak for this having not seen the video but my analysis of how the ship sank is here [paullee.com]. Personally I have doubts as one person who worked on the project is a known plagiarist [paullee.com] and one of the authors is a cherry picker of data (he insists that the ship had a massive list to port when she went under but only one of the three survivors who was on the Titanic till the last mentioned it, and his evidence is suspect, like claiming he was in freezing cold water for hours without any ill effect whatsoever). BTW, my own Titanic stuff is on this page [paullee.com].
  • The Titanic sank, it has sunk.

  • TL;SA (Score:2)

    by mccrew ( 62494 )
    Too long; skipped ahead

  • Many of the details are fascinating .. but I'm not sure they got it all quite right. Nice details about the lifeboats, etc.

    But watch how the stern levels out after it breaks away from the bow. I read many reports that the stern went vertical, not horizontal.

  • But the "camera" direction was horrible. The close ups of the life boats were agonizing.

  • Although impressive it still isn't quite accurate in some parts. For example this and many simulations still forget that Titanic stopped, but then resumed moving only to discover they were taking on even more water, then stopped again. It was this action that sped up the sinking.

Slashdot Top Deals

Brain off-line, please wait.

Close