Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2485 Excellent

1 Follower

About unreasonable

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

2162 profile views
  1. +1 for posting a relevant source, -1 for not reading it carefully. The sample of vaccinated people was larger than the sample of non-vaccinated. This shown not just in table 4 but also in the table you posted, where the % is shown in brackets. So it is actually 7.8% vs 5.8%, ie vaccinated people about 35% more likely to catch corona in the trials. Note also that the %s are both fairly low, either reflecting the fact that people had relatively low exposure to corona in the trials or had pre-existing natural immunity. In contrast, we just do not know if anyone has any significant immunity to the new virus, plus it is likely that almost everyone will sooner or later get exposed to it. Extrapolating from this trial to the new case is invalid. The problem with the idea of isolating the vulnerable - conceivably every person over 70, and every male over 60, plus everyone else with HIV, Thalassemia or any number of other conditions, is that it would have to be permanent unless you can eradicate the virus completely on a global level. This may now be impossible: the virus from Wuhan is probably not going to die out, but become seasonal and continue to zing around the globe, just like influenza. If you isolate all the vulnerable and then let them out, at some future date you will still get a massive peak of fatal illness. It is just not on to place up to a quarter of your population into permanent solitary imprisonment. So the lockdowns and social distancing for everyone are intended to spread the rate of infection so that hospitals can cope. I actually have some sympathy for the argument that shutting down the economy could do more harm than good, but only in countries with little or no safety net and low private savings where if you cannot work you cannot eat. The trick will be to keep as much of the truly necessary going as possible. If European countries could do it during total war for several years, they can do it for a year or so now with no-one bombing them and sinking their convoys. The way many Western Millennials are going on anyone would think that they want to kill off all us Boomers...
  2. Jason, thanks for the video - an interesting and fun way to present us with the changes coming up. A welcome distraction! With the roll out of structure, engine and systems DM changes we all need to be patient and see where this goes. Looking very plausible to me.
  3. They probably just think that the virus will not kill them: if they are young they are probably right. Something to pass a few minutes with an exponential function in an amusing way. https://thefed.app/apply
  4. In the game F4 the position of the gunsight is unchanged when convergence is altered, the flight of the shells is changed, ie at 100m convergence the 20mm trajectory goes up and through the reticule spot at 100m going well above it before dropping back down. At 1000m it stays low and just reaches the spot at 1000m Easiest way to see this is to fire the cannon from a plane on the runway in QMB or the ME using a fixed camera position and overlay screenshots. Actually if the OP wants to compare ballistics, this is also the best way: far too many variables in his original example to determine.
  5. Wine, women, and song video games, the timeless triad. #Me too. Although, better to do the "women" part before the "wine", in my experience.
  6. That is true, but the circumstances being "right" is not the same for every round. Basically, on a given surface and angle, ricochets are more common for rounds that are a) slow and b) have low sectional density. This would make a significant difference to the effectiveness of large, light shells in real conditions compared to ground tests carried out at short range at favourable angles.
  7. Thanks for the highly interesting, detailed write up on the next DM iteration. Your new method sounds like an excellent way of getting some of the subjectivity out of the issue with a more consistent treatment. Looking at the damage to engines, fuel tanks etc with the same rigor would complete the package, so I hope you are able to do this too as you suggest.
  8. Good find, but it does not prove that any of these gauges were actually fitted to planes, especially Spitfires, Typhoons or Tempests - this one probably was not, given that it comes in what looks like the original box . I think this is just marketing puffery by the vendor. The Tempest and Spitfire manuals I have seen give very thorough documentation for instrumentation, and none of them include gun counters. What could have happened was that someone thought this would be a good idea and placed a small order, but it was then found that they either did not work when trialed, there was insufficient space to mount them, or it was decided that they were simply not useful. Alternately, they might have been made for larger planes like the Beaufighter or Mozzie, given the maximum number or rounds indicated (1,100) is far more than could be carried by any RAF single engined fighter but about right for a four cannon Beaufighter. I cannot see them, however, in any of the cockpit pictures online. If someone finds a reference or photo for them actually being used in Spits or Tempests I will certainly revise my opinion, but for now I do not think these things were ever used in action in these planes and should not be a mod.
  9. Obviously there are an infinite number of possible curves that could be fitted through any number of given points: but that is not really a problem unless you start from a position of complete ignorance about the underlying phenomenon (or formula). We usually know something (ie believe with a high degree of confidence) about the phenomenon being examined. In this case, for instance, that the line is unlikely to be a waveform but smooth, with higher AP values at the low range values than at the high range values, that the line eventually goes to zero AP on the range value axis, etc. The more you know about the phenomenon the more of the possible fits you can rule out. It is because economists think they know everything already (because they have assumed it) that the joke about making a line with one point works. Four really is plenty in this case, given that they include points across almost the full range of range values (in the CM case) and we know what the line is about.
  10. I wonder if your own results are similar to those from my own comparative testing vs flak, documented in this thread. Given your comments on the P-47 it seems likely. I suppose it is now academic, given a review of the whole DM that is on the way, but interesting. No one should complain about being shot down by a full broadside, but they are reasonable in complaining that, for instance, a single 20mm LAA hit to the engine has a very high probability of stopping the engine in seconds. A 20mm hit to the tail has a very high probability of causing a fuel/oil leak from the fuselage leading to engine failure in a few minutes at best. It is currently much less robust than the Fw 190 series, as well as getting hit much more often by virtue of it's size, making it useless in ground attack, if you want to RTB, that is.
  11. To be specific, the Germans used both a contact fuze and a mechanism where the tracer burned through to ignite the charge after about 2,000m/ 5 seconds, so they did produce air bursts from 20mm shells, although these would not have been for destructive purposes but for safety, as @Yogiflight says. I think the 3.7cm shells were the same. Nice to have in game but not important: the way the guns work, the bursts will almost always be well past the target.. The British and US 20mm LAA did not have such a mechanism, which was one of the reasons why they phased out 20mm as soon as they could in situations such as airfield defence where the shells would land in friendly territory. That and the 40mm Bofors, which did have a self destruct fuze, being all round a much better investment.
  • Create New...