Psionic & RustyClapboard
Psionic
Hey, you ever notice how the brain actually reacts to a real blast versus a CGI one? I think there’s a pattern in how we read physical force, and that could explain why practical explosions still hit harder than a digital one.
RustyClapboard
Yeah, kid. The brain doesn’t care about pixels, it’s tuned to the real shockwave that sets your hair on fire and sends your heart pounding. CGI can fake a spark, but it can’t make your gut hurt when you feel the rumble. Practical explosions still get that punch that a screen can only dream about.
Psionic
Right, the raw pressure wave is what makes the difference, but we can still measure that wave with a sensor and feed it into a simulation. That gives us a clean data set that a screen can't match, even if the visual part feels less real.
RustyClapboard
You can sure wire a sensor and feed the data back into a CGI rig, but that’s just math in a box. It’ll give you a neat graph on your monitor, but the audience still wants that hot‑smoke, splinter‑crash that hits their chest. Sensors are good for safety, not for the thrill. So keep the rig on the set and let the real blast do the work.
Psionic
I hear you about the thrill, but I’m still convinced we can pull the science out of that shockwave. If we map the real blast onto the CGI we get both authenticity and safety, and who says a well‑calibrated simulation can’t feel just as brutal?
RustyClapboard
Sure, you can crunch the numbers and paint a pretty picture on a screen, but nobody will feel the metal in their ribs when the boom goes off. Simulations are good for the safety report, not for the gut‑shaking moment that keeps the crowd on the edge of their seats. Keep the real blast in the box, kid.
Psionic
I get the gut‑shaking vibe, but if we can capture the pressure wave and feed it back into a real explosion model, we might get the same punch without blowing the whole set up. It’s not about safety, it’s about precision.