Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ZachariasX

  1. 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...
  2. 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.“
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. It also happens to me, especially on DED EU official when switching between views.
  6. 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.
  7. They are not really that much better than *todays* microphones. They are however more convenient when you have to wear a mask.
  8. 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."
  9. By just letting loose at maximum range it would indeed betray its high value assets.
  10. 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.
  11. @MiloMorai Interrsting, thank you! Sou you can see the 40 mm Bofors can train the gins while they are shooting. However, they basically shoot 2 rounds per second and after 5 rounds or so, they need to put in a new clip and this takes a good while. In the Oerlikon for instance, you need to grease every single round with a paintbrush before you can click it in the drum, else you risk torn and stuck shells along with a jammed cannon. In the game, it appears to me that the fire rate is way to high. You can see also that if you don't get a the enemy on a good trajectory, but try hose him down abeam, you basically invite him for a return with a direct pass at you while you are reloading your gun. I would say 5 AAA guns in the game can do what 25 guns would do in real life.
  12. Thanks! Good one! However you have to look more closely. You can see that the gunnat at 00:39 he fires, turns, fires, turns.. He dies not fire his salvo while cranking the wheel. The salvo is short, maybe up to a second. it is aim-shoot-aim-shoot and not tracking while hosing down the traget. The heavy artillery does certainly not move much but covers pre-assigned airspace. Smaller caliber Flak fires burst of max 10 rounds followed by an interval. It is more like taking one shot, releasing those then rounds and then taking a new shot. The problem with hosing down the target is that you have no way to pre-assign the fuze timing. You have to rely on a dirct hit. If you cover a certain target area, you set your fuzes to explode there, much increasing your chances of a hit. Else, you can only put the gun right next to the target (and getting bombed as well in process, this makes aiming very interesting) for having the target heading straight toward you as well as going straight away from you, basically your only real chance of for hitting.
  13. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmxnSn-QO0U
  14. I noticed that AAA guns of all kind and all caliber keep training their guns while firing at aircraft. To my knowledge (and instructions by "green" folks) neither the 20 mm Oerlikon nor the Bofors would actually move their barrels while they are firing the salvo. It was just “aim and then kick the pedal” and of your salvo goes, then crank the barrel for new sighting, release the crank wheels and kick the trigger. It is self-evident that your chances of hitting anything like that (besides stuff that is where lead comes down) are abysmal. Now, if you were serious about hitting something, it took a little more than aim in the blue (or: rain). You knew something. Most obviously, you knew where aircraft tried to hit. As any myopic hunter gets successful by shooting deer at the watering hole, that is where you put your guns. This gives you two cues: one, you know where the will be. Two, you know often enough where they will be coming from as topography as well as the target itself gives you ideal attack directions. What you do then, you line up your guns such that their combined aim covers much of that trajectory flown by the intrepid invader. All you need to do then is wait and let the guy do his run and as soon as he's in the range of the guns, everyone kicks their pedal and what was a futile exercise otherwise turns into something rather ghastly for the guest team. This of course works best if you specifically put up something attractive in a confined place, a nice barge in a river valley or a beautiful lineup of Me262 that made three flights on their engines already. In the game it is as if Shilkas are covering airfields. It is just weird. Manually operated cannons hitting free flying aircraft is just you know... not what you expect to happen. At least not when you're the one tasked for firing that real gun. This is not Quake. I mean, I remember well that is always was Champagne time if one of the dudes got lucky and hit close enough for unhooking the target drogue. (And not the tug... Often enough they suddenly would drop that drogue and fly home, cursing you and your kin on the radio. For the heavy guns, you'd use a mirror installed in the sights, projecting the aircraft flying behind you into your sights making you only a headache for the capricorns in your direction.) Back then, you could well loiter around enemy airfields, not like in the game where you are zapped. It only got really interesting once you made your attack run. Has anyone info on the operating regulations of the German/Allied AAA? Did they move their guns while firing? From what I see looking at the Bofors, I would guess it is impossible to to keep training the guns while firing. But anyone knows specifics?
  15. Same as the DB601. Although you show a nice recording, it doesn't capture the loudness of that engine. The Merlin... it's just so soft and smooth compared to that. It does some catching up though once you go past +4 lbs. boost. Below that, you hear mostly propwash in the aircaft (through the headset). But witnessing a full power test run of a DB601, I really can't think of a louder pistion engine. (The Jumo piston engines are probably loud as well in such a way.) The only thing that comes close to it are the F-4 Phantom II that in the good old days could zoom right over the heads of the crowd at airshows going at full afterburner. Although the jet is clearly louder in absolute terms, the percieved difference between "other things flying" and THAT, that is what I felt next to the DB601 compared to various Spitfires running at similar power outputs.
  16. On the contrary, those piston engine planes are (sometimes far) louder than the jet. Only specific and mostly way more powerful turbojets are louder. The Jumo is not that powerful. The turbofan engines of today are almost inaudible (especially in the „1000 hp class“) compared to the piston engines. You can hear turbojets well because they are shrieking at a frequency where you hear very well.
  17. Everything should be unlocked, else the planes are not much fun.
  18. Seems Dovetail is behind that. After they alienated all addon producers they seemingly found another victim, one that loves extortion as well. So we get this "Azure AI". Is this newspeek for offloading autogen into the cloud and just loading scenery on the fly like Google earth? Certainly an interesting proposition. You can make different extortion plans, adding terrain resolution by buying a more expensive subscription. You can make a "gold" subscription plan that even includes giraffes. But at least you'd save a lot of local storage space, something that comes at costs of less than a decent joystick. More here on that: https://www.pcgamer.com/xboxs-phil-spencer-on-game-pass-steam-and-the-epic-games-store/2/ 'You're going to have to put at the bottom that that's in-game. because nobody's going to believe that's in-game." You notice the video says '4K in-game'. And then I said, "why does it look like that?". There's 2 petabytes of geographical data behind that game, that they're then using Azure AI to stitch the seams together so as you're flying, you're seeing a seamlessly connected Earth. I was like "you've gotta put that in the video because it's one of the coolest things I've ever seen". It's using real geographical data, real weather data, to give you the ability to literally fly around what looks like a living planet. So far, they are selling a scenery for a simulator. Ignoring the downsides to the consumer, it makes sense as one has to keep in mind that loading the world as static map makes rendering it much easier, you don't need autogen. You just freed resources for giraffes.
  19. First "contact" he had with the Jet was at Schleswig airfield, just after it was captured. Schleswig was also the airfield, where all aircrafts captured by the RAF were brought to for ferrying them to Farnborough. With the help of some "uncaged" German ground mechanics, he took the single two seater 262 for a spin. Brown interviewed Gerd Lindner, chief test pilot for the Me262 by the end of May '45. With knowledge gathered from him, Brown was more flights with 262s at Farnborough after the hostilities. As directly after the war he was tasked with flying the Vampire, I would expect his 262 test flights to take place in summer '45 or later at Farnborough.
  20. "I've always wanted clickpits in my mobile flight sims."
  21. Yes. As for flying the aircraft, you look at IAS. However, structural issues as wing flutter are dependent on TAS. @J5_Hellbender, I think I said just that: quoting him „... if there were no friction...“ I then said there really isn‘t much. That‘s all. But be it. In the real world, instruments are usually not that precise on average for subtleties like that to matter much. I don‘t have TacView, but I guess you could use that to find out if the devs made the Anemometer differ slightly from TAS. I wouldn‘t have bothered doing that. We also have compasses that point exactly north, so why the fuss? (An idea for sabotage: make the pistols magnetic. Fun when they are bringing along those in the cockpit.) But thank God times are over where AC designers would mount relevant instruments that far out of the cockpit.
  • Create New...