Jump to content

ZachariasX

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    2989
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1267 Excellent

About ZachariasX

  • Rank
    Founder

Recent Profile Visitors

1249 profile views
  1. LOL I‘m sure RT is great at reporting about Boeing, regardless of the underlying issues. Link does‘t work though, but no need to.
  2. Didn‘t they say in an other thread that the AI can‘t shoot if it is not allowed to fire exactly straight ahead? It would explain why the SE5 simply doesn‘t fire where its gun point to and why it is is never corrected.
  3. Grüss dich. Ich hatte auch erst den X-52 pro, dann jetzt den X-56. Er hat viele Schalter und knöpfe, das macht ihn ziemlich brauchbar auch mit komplexen Sims. Leider hat er keinen zweistufigen Abzug. Die beiden Ministicks sind von miserabler Qualität und zentrieren entsprechend schlecht. Bis auf die Druckknopffunktion sind sie unbrauchbar. Aber sonst, ok Funktionen fürs Geld und das wichtigste er ist verfügbar. Ich hätte aber schon lange einen qualitativ hochwertigeren Stick gekauft wenn ich etwas anderes als "out of stock" von den einschlägigen Webseiten entnehmen könnte.
  4. So does a mechanic walking over the wing just once. The idea that you have laminar flow over these wings... Well even back then boffins knew there wasn't much of that. To further illustrate that fact, Eric Brown had to fly his Kin Cobra through the chlorine gas sprayed by the leading aircraft to make airflow visible. The oxigen mask better be sealing well when you're flying through poison gas...
  5. I will once HBO will make that possible for me. Looking forward watching it. You are right. Too many moons... Still, message is, if you leave it on the ground where you found it, you‘re fine. All that one learns as a student... even in the dorms, not just the courses. „If it walks out of the fridge, then let it go.“
  6. It is always of help if you know what it is that you‘re actually seeing. Gamma detectors a used for safety checks if you are contaminated see any kind of decay, as any decay produces gamma rays. Your body is very transparent to gamma rays. This is why you can take x-ray images. Only a small fraction gets absorbed by your body and only that part is cooking you. Aluminum is a rather good shield for charged particles, hence what goes through are hull is in general thing that also pass through you. Coming to the scary part: On the other hand, if you increase the caliber (same as with guns) your body absorbs more of the energy, making beta particles much more dangerous, even though they travel only about 10 cm through air. Alpha particles are even worse. (Helium atoms are to electrons what 88 cm caliber is to 0.303). This is why your one and only rule about the home use of radioactivity is: “Thou shalt not eat it!“ This is easier said than done. When you eat radioactivity, the really bad stuff can hurt you now in full. Out there, you’re shielded by the air. In case of the lab safety Geiger counters, that just showed them that something was around, and that something was burnt reactor core in the form of dust that everybody outside was inhaling. For practical purposes this equals eating. And remember the one rule? When you eat decaying isotopes, you enjoy the full variation of decay processes along with the often very poisonous intermediate isotopes. That‘s the moment when you call your folks and tell them to close their windows ASAP.
  7. Depends. Context? My professor at the University remembered well when the gamma counter in the labs suddenly went off scale around noon on April 30th. This was at the U of Zurich, Switzerland. As soon as you opened the windows, off they went. An event scary enough to never forget.
  8. It also happens to me, especially on DED EU official when switching between views.
  9. Here you can see the efficiency of guns in an enviroment much unlike ours in the game, namely on USN warships, diagnosing the efficiency of their guns vs. the Japanese: RBP = "rounds per bird" It is apparent how efficient radio controlled heavy guns are that also feature proximity fuzes. This statistics mainly reflects the easiest of all shots, namely directly toward you and away from you. 5'000 rounds of 20 mm would take eight and a half minutes of hosing down ONE plane for the easiest of all shots assuming a 5'000 round clip etc.. 40 mm Bofors take 15 minutes of hosing at the target (constant fire, assuming the barrel would not overheat and you has a 2'000 round clip) to take down that bird. fact is you need a lot of guns and you need a good setting to take down aircraft. What we have in game is not only too precise for most cases, it follows wrong mechanics. I just though that for a combat sim named after a ground attacker, AAA behavior would attract some interest.
  10. They are not really that much better than *todays* microphones. They are however more convenient when you have to wear a mask.
  11. An Armenian and a Georgian argue who was the first man on earth. The Armenian says: "The first man was Adam." Says the Georgian "Maybe so, but his father was Chimpanze."
  12. By just letting loose at maximum range it would indeed betray its high value assets.
  13. In that case they can feed clips of 4 rounds. Fast reloading system. Faster than others. Still it is three guys aiming the gin when skeed shooting. Good luck. My main concern was that manually operated AAA in the sim is lethal where is much less so in the real world. To be clear, you can have 60 people shooting for two weeks at a drouges that passe them somewhat abreast and maybe one of the guy scores once. On the other hand, once you cover a designated target area, it will be effective there. It's not that AAA shouldn't be dangerous to planes. By all means it can be. But I'm saying what we are having is not really what you had in the real world. Anyone in a combat sim expects the AAA always tracking and shooting efficiently you, so it may all happy and dandy for the the gamers. But it's not how AAA in the real world is effective, nor how it was applied for the most part. You may not care about the oprational limitations of those cannons as long as they somehow shoot at you in the game. In practise however it makes all the difference in the world in how you deal with it. It also makes the AAA gunner not having a strategy in how they are dealing with you, them knowing their limits. The gamey Flak always opens up fire exposing them right away. If 10 AC attack, it takes one minute and there is no AAA anyore on that target. You would NEVER do that and just open up firing if you sat down there. It is as stupid of an AI as the "constantly circling AI" that everybody rants about. The Flak being most stupid while having Robin Hood capabilities, seems to be all fine then, "'cos as long as it's shooting at you it's fine". But I don't think so. It will be especially imprtant once (if ever) we have heavy bombers. Flak on average will be the the main adversary. Fighter attacks happened sometimes. Flak they tasted everytime. If the game decides to use Flak according to the current doctrine (basically a Shilka, giving it capabilities it didn't have) you will not get a picture of the air combat as it was. There's more to operating a Flak regiment than "aim and shoot". Many are lamenting about the sniper Flak, when in fact in a lot of cases there is no understanding how AAA was applied and put to use. Of course, when possible and under fire, gunners would train their guns on arcraft and let go. Especially when the newsreels were neraby. But this does not excuse ignorance over basic capabilities and doctrine. Also it makes you simply draw false analogies about when you could be hit.
×
×
  • Create New...