Jump to content


Founders [standard]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Leaf

  1. Thank you! That was the initial idea. Vaguely inspired by late-war camouflage but in parts a bit more abstract. Poorly-executed, but that was the original idea behind them. I'll send you the .dds files via PM. If anyone else wants them, just send me a PM, it's quicker for now. Hopefully in the coming months I'll be able to update them to 4K standard and fix them a bit, but I'll keep you posted.
  2. Hey guys, Sorry about those links being dead and my inbox being full -- it's been a few years. I'm flattered that there's still some interest in my skins, but it's almost embarrassing seeing these old skins of mine. They were my first attempts and it shows! The skins aren't 4K, but I still have all the original .psd files, albeit in the original 2K(?) resolution. I'm not sure when/if I'll have the time to update them to 4K standard, but let me know if you want the 2K skin files or .psd's for you to modify.
  3. It's not adware. It's a game launcher, like many others. Antivirus programs aren't infallible. For the record, I'm running Kaspersky too, and it's not detecting my launcher as adware.
  4. A few things come to mind, depending on what you're into. I'd certainly make use of the free museums. Natural History Museum (amazing in every way) British Museum (classic) RAF Museum in Hendon (got some great exhibits, and is close to the tube) Hampton Court (in Greater London, but easy to get to and very pretty, provided you don't mind paying an entrance fee) Any of the Royal Parks (they're all great, but Richmond Park is particularly picturesque, and it has deer, so that a plus. If you end up going there, take a quick detour over Richmond Hill, it's got one of the best views in London) Hope you enjoy the stay!
  5. One thing I rarely ever hear mentioned regarding clouds in flight simulators is their draw distance. You can make clouds look incredibly pretty if you don't have to render them across a 250 x 250 km map, which is the case in Battlefield. As for flat pancakes, most clouds have flat bottoms (shame) and more rounded, often convectively-driven tops. IL2 has the first bit sorted, the second bit not so much. To what extent that can feasibly be simulated at a high enough resolution to look good I'm not sure.
  6. It's a part of high culture* * High culture in this case being the priests in Age of Empires. Wololo.
  7. I completely agree, I think Bodenplatte needs an official trailer, preferably consisting of in-game footage. The game has changed a considerable amount in 4+ years, and I think a new trailer would show off those changes, as well as give the gaming media something tangible to look at. Fantastic as the community trailers are, they are all outdated to a greater or lesser extent due to the pace of development. If I want to show the game off to my friends, digging around the wormhole of YouTube to find a fan-made trailer is just a bit arduous and begs the question "why isn't there an official trailer for this?". Given the size and theme of Bodenplatte, I don't think that fan-made trailers (again, great as many of them are) will cut it in terms of impact and exposure in the media.
  8. The dichotomy between the almost obscene closure speeds, and the low velocity of the MK108 shells should make combat really interesting. Not answering your question, but have my opinion regardless (that's how the internet works, isn't it?).
  9. Absolutely right, the statistical trends were very interesting. There was a degree of "scapegoating", especially in the recent, more austerity-affected years. 10 or 15 years ago barely anyone was complaining about the EU, or if they were, not many people were interested. But with more recent government policies resulting in greater income inequality, reduction in quantity and quality of public services etc., the EU became something to blame, especially given its more open views regarding migration. Source https://www.politico.eu/article/graphics-how-the-uk-voted-eu-referendum-brexit-demographics-age-education-party-london-final-results/ (based on YouGov exit poll)
  10. Your gaming will be unaffected provided it doesn't involve hard copies that need to be shipped. Other than that, as a counterpoint to the above, not every negative aspect of Brexit is "project fear". Anyone who thinks that leaving the European Union has absolutely 0 consequences is absurd. You can argue the pro's and con's, but there definitely will be consequences for many, and not all of them will be good. See, for instance, scientific funding: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45303280
  11. Sounds like raaaid's more articulate relative. Never understood crop circles anyway... what about crop-hexagons or crop-rhombi, do they count?
  12. A skull is not enough by itself, but molecular/genetic evidence support this line of descendance. Regarding the whale, I'll just repost this, because I think it explains it really well (sorry Gambit!)
  13. Oh my. Now that's something I didn't see in my textbook.. Lemme just grab some lube.
  14. That's cool, I appreciate we're straddling a fine line here. Someone post a dinosaur picture or something.
  15. No offense Gambit, but I'm a geologist, and as far as I'm aware, you're not. Not to be inflammatory, but I wouldn't claim to be able to refute anything "easily" if I didn't have any expertise in a field. I don't critique pilots for their flying, or surgeons for their surgery; I don't critique firemen for their work, nor do I criticise structural engineers for theirs. Why? Because I know virtually nothing about their respective fields. It would be impertinent and wrong of me to pretend to know more about a field than someone who specialises in it. But I'd love to know what the problems with current depositional models and fluid dynamics are, genuinely. Playing devils advocate can be fun when there is a debate to be had. But there is no argument to be had when it comes to geological time, depositional processes and fluid dynamics. Refinements, certainly, but it's pointless to call all previous research into question out of mere scepticism alone. It's a bit like arguing about gravity; yes, there's plenty of research to still be done, but the basic premise is irrefutable. The laws of Physics aren't to be argued with. I think there may have been a misunderstanding regarding the rip-up clasts: turbulence and energy of the flow are responsible for the bedrock to be "ripped up", whilst a corresponding reduction in those two variables leads to the deposition of rip up clasts. There is some turbulence during deposition, but it is insufficient for continued entrainment of the clasts. That's backed up by countless flume experiments. He is a professor of evolutionary biology, give him some credit. I'd love to live in an area where such finds can be made, or where the geology is at least somewhat interesting. The endless sedimentary sequences in SE England can get dull extremely quickly. Ehm.. are you seriously saying that people who place their faith in science are more disruptive and wasteful that those who do the exact opposite? Considering how much science has helped us achieve in the last 150 years (you know, huge advances in medicine, moon landings, the internet, genetics etc.) I don't understand the scepticism. The claims against science are often shouted loudest by those who understand it the least (creationists, flat earthers etc.). Science isn't infallible, but I think it's served us pretty well so far. The evidence for that is all around us. So if a population wants to "follow science" (as if science were an ideology, which it of course isn't), then I think that's far preferable to a population placing their faith in a magical invisible friend, say. (I hope that last sentence won't derail the thread...)
  16. Well, unfortunately we're too far away for a pub and a beer, so I'll happily settle for an internet discussion (no need to reply, just giving my thoughts): I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but -- regardless of your opinion on him -- Richard Dawkins is, so I'll let him explain transitional fossils. As far as I understand, there are more than enough. The fossil record doesn't just comprise of complete specimen, in fact, "death assemblages" as they're known, are ubiquitous (death assemblages being broken, essentially non-whole fossils). The problem is that geological time and plate tectonics simply don't get on well with fossil preservation. Regarding stratigraphy, there's plenty of evidence for localised erosion, both in the Grand Canyon and elsewhere. Most sedimentary units I've seen contain some evidence for erosion. Erosional surfaces (unconformities) are evident both on small and large scales. Here's an example of rip-up clasts from the Bass Formation in the Grand Canyon (turbulence-induced ripping-up of material at the base of a bed): Viewed from long distances, the "laser-cut" beds of rock appear much more uniform and consistent than up-close. All the layers represent millions of years of deposition and erosion. The basement rocks in the Grand Canyon are over are nearly 2 billion years old, the uppermost units only about 200 million. The Grand Canyon really is a fantastic example of geological time, spanning over a billion years, showcasing both relatively steady-state deposition of sediments, erosion of said sediments and re-deposition of eroded sediment. The basement these sedimentary sequences are deposited on (the oldest rocks exposed in the region) are metamorphosed sediments: the result of mountain-building. So you've got a significant part of the rock cycle conveniently exposed in a small region for everyone to see!
  17. Yeah, that's very much human nature -- no one likes to be wrong. We like knowing things for certain, as it helps us make efficient decisions. I think what annoys me with this paper is that it claims to be some major upset to a theory (evolution in this case), without providing sufficient evidence. Not only that, but the paper ignores the plethora of evidence that suggests 90% of species did not evolve over the past 100-200000 years. I mean, just the claim should ring some alarm bells. If it were true, that would mean that fossils older than 200000 years make up only 10% of all species that ever existed on this planet. Current estimates suggest that 99% of life that has ever existed on this planet is extinct. So.. are they claiming fossil evidence to be incorrect? In terms of recorded fossil species I seem to vaguely remember a figure in the 100's of thousands (can't be more specific than that, sorry). And that's only the fossils already found. That's not including the species that have yet to be found, or species that cannot be found at all (soft-bodied organisms like worms decay completely, leaving no trace whatsoever except under unusual circumstances). So the idea that the first 4.56 billion years of Earth's evolution only harbour 10% of life, and the final 200000 years contain 90% of all species diversity is ludicrous. The reasoning of an evolutionary bottleneck causing this is also completely flawed, as there have been many evolutionary bottlenecks over Earth's history. Why did only the last one at 200Ka (debateable) trigger such a rapid increase in diversity? Why didn't the others? Considering that vast majority, if not all but one or two evolutionary bottlenecks occurred prior to 200Ka, wouldn't they all result in a corresponding diversity increase? If so, that refutes their proposals entirely. If we assume current species diversity on Earth to be 2-10 million species, then the 10% figure would suggest that there should only have been 200000 to 1000000 fossil species in 4.5 billion years. Given the amount of fossil species already discovered, and the amount yet to be discovered, or lost to time, the author's claim just cannot hold true. Now this topic is back on track, this is really interesting! Thanks for bringing it up Gambit!
  18. An incredibly misleading title. Like, seriously misleading. I will quote S Joshua Swamidass, assistant professor at Washington University: https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-all-species-arise-about-200-000-years-ago/285/9 They equivocate TMRCA with species age. That is just false. To map to other conversations we have, they are essentially reproducing the well known results that Mito-Eve appears to arise between 200 kya and 100 kya, but this in itself tells us precisely zero information about when Homo sapiens arise. Mitochondrial clocks require a great deal of effort to calibrate and different species will have different rates. This is very difficult to do, and they have not done so adequately (or at all?). This means that they are equivocating “diversity” for “TMRCA”. They should have instead reported the substitution rate distance, not the TMRCAs, as the TMRCAs are certainly not definitive. The fact of the matter is that we do not have good estimates of mitochondrial mutation rates in most species. They appear to be using extant population size instead of historical population size. That is not warranted. The fact that humans have a few billion people in recent history, does not mean anything regarding our ancient history. The fact of the matter is that we do not have good estimates for past populations sizes. To get a TMRCA we also need to account for the degree of selection at this locus, because it is clearly not neutral. This was not adequately accounted for, and once again, will affect the results. They wildley over interpret measurements from a single loci. Such an effort is deeply flawed. For example, by mitochondria, Neandertals and Sapiens are different (but not more different than two chimps!) but when we look at autosomal genome, we see evidence of interbreeding. This directly contradicts the conclusions and reasoning of the paper. So, to be clear, this seems to be very problematic study, with results that are wildly overstated. They have a provocative title, but are no way able to justify it. On a side note, whenever popular websites/outlets (especially ones with a religious agenda) hop on board with sensationalist paper titles it always makes me very, very wary.
  19. If you find any papers out there (google scholar has a few open-use pdf's, as does researchgate), this might help a little bit with the terminology and broad classification: Put into a broader context: Source: Milsom, C. & Rigby, S., 2009. Fossils at a Glance. 2nd ed. s.l.:Wiley-Blackwell. A really good introductory text. Technical, but very clear and well-explained.
  20. No you f****** aren't. You're just derailing every single thread with your gibberish. I used to think of you as someone who appears to have severe mental health issues, but didn't mind your drivel as long as you constrained it to a single thread (remember raaaid's art corner?). But now, this thread will invariably get lock at some point due to either you posting too much of your sh*t, or the thread derailing entirely because of it. It's so ludicrous and absurd that someone will invariably bite and reply. Instead of keeping to one section of the forum, or even more preferably, one thread, you keep spamming your nonsensical, paranoid idiocy wherever and whenever you can. It's annoying and tiring because it clutters up the forum with nonsense, gives the moderators needless work, and derails threads. If you have an opinion, and you seem to have many, restrict it to one thread like you used to. Or even better: go away. Edit: does anyone know where the 'block' button is?
  21. Ohhh yes, I've been waiting for a thread like this! Just finished my geology degree and am off to do a geoscience masters in October, so this is good timing. Never really got hooked by palaeontology that much, but I'd be lying if I said I don't love a trilobite: Proceratocephala terribilis
  22. How does the 10 minute time limit for boost work? As in, can I only run the boost, say, 5 times for 2 mins? Or, having let the engine cool, can I run it for another 10 minutes at boost? If so, how many times can this be repeated?
  23. I for one will be content with whatever decision the developers make. But that's probably an unpopular view to have around here...
  24. Leaf

    German 20mm

    There is a very clear and distinct difference between a potential bug and bias. It's pretty insulting to the developers to not appreciate that distinction. If there is an error, or a simplification, in the way the damage of certain shells is calculated, by all means, point it out. But to accuse the developers of bias, impying an intentional skewing of data or calculations to favour one nation over another, is simply not true (and ridiculous). The statement "it has been proven" is also completely false, because nothing has been proven. The topic has encouraged a discussion, which is great, and I applaud the OP's effort in their calculations, but if you read through it properly you find that there is some disagreement. So far it appears not to be a bug, but instead a simplification of the damage model, which is an important distinction to make. I'm sorry to say this, but it will likely take a bit more than a discussion thread and a few back-of-the-envelope calculations to rework the damage model for a particular shell type. It's not simply a case of "increase x value". For reasons of either funding or computational limitations (likely both) a simplified damage model will have to suffice, one in which aberrations or certain simplifications will have to be tolerated for now.
  • Create New...