b101_uk

The trouble with that pictogram is it assumes that the wind turbine is 100% efficient even threw to the electric plug that the “charger†or “electrolysis†portion connect, In truth the absolute best a wind turbine can be at the best given point in time is ~90% at its own output, this is because of mechanical losses in gearing up from the ~20rpm of the blades to the >500rpm <3000rpm that AC generator needs. (This does not account for the overall efficacy for 24h/day 365days per year, i.e. when there is no wind it is using external power to keep its systems up and running and the brake applied or how over any given year the net output is much less than peek output and well anything less than peek output is lost/unused/ineffectual efficacy!) In the real world most people don’t live near wind turbine so the distribution grid come into play, every time you step up power you use & lose a percentage of the power in stepping up, the further that stepped up power has to travel the less power ends up at the destination vs. some ware much closer, when it gets to near its destination it will be stepped down from e.g. 25kv down to e.g 11kv ware it will make its way to minor substation ware it will end up at e.g. 650v, 415v & 240v ware the latter will then wind its way a short distance to your house, so at the very minimum power from wind turbine will be stepped up once and stepped down at least twice. The cost of stepping up or down is ~5% per time and this apply to all forms of electrical output into a grid not just wind power. The trouble with wind turbine on paper and on the ground they look good on the best days under optimal conditions, however the reality when looked at over a year is much different, each 3.65 days of non use is 1% loss of efficiency in a given year, it is not cost effective to have them turning in very light winds as you are consuming life expectancy and service interval without adequate return to cover that cost, and though ~20rpm is optimum speed blade speed for the generator to be at its peek rpm to get maximum power you still need much more wind speed so the generator can be loaded up agenised the wind via blade pitch. At least with something like a bio-digester you can run a very big 50% efficient diesel engine for between 12h & 18h a day covering the peak power usage times and be >>30% efficient into the grid (inc 1 step-up) and you can then offset that “perceived inefficiency†in that you are in-taking green waste that would otherwise be lost/end up in landfill etc so are performing an extra service in helping deal with a problem, so when you factor in an inland wind turbine only ends up being about 35% efficiency its self and doesn’t necessarily give you power on-demand or deal with a second problem to justify its inefficacy they do end up looking less attractive once things are factored in in a realistic manner or with an eye on cost.

Surly if before you fix the leaning/shooting problem you have to have a pre-selection of being right or left handed, then from there your less favoured side you would be less accurate and have to expose more of your body to shoot.

Because however you try to cut the argument storage has to come into it somewhere, storage is based on the merits of volume NOT weight. Read: Volume is NOT weight, you have fallen for the red herring argument of using weight for one of the lightest elements! if you don’t want to use liquid but use 700bar then you just get a very low ~5.6MJ/L vs. Diesel @ ~37.2093MJ/L or Liquid Methane @ ~23.0961MJ/L. At 700bar you will need ~6.6445L of Hydrogen to get the same energy as 1L of diesel, liquefied Hydrogen it’s just ~3.7L ;)

if you go by weight then any figure will favour a light element, however if you go by a fixed volume of liquid like 1L then liquid Hydrogen falls well short, 1m3 of diesel = ~830kg @ 44.80MJ/kg 1m3 of liquid Methane = ~416kg @ 55.50MJ/kg 1m3 of liquid Hydrogen = ~70.8kg @ 141.80MJ/kg 1m3 of water = ~1000kg Thus: Liquid Hydrogen @ 141.80MJ/kg = ~14.124L Liquid Methane @ 55.50MJ/kg = ~2.403L Diesel @ 44.80MJ/kg = ~1.204L Real value's: Liquid Hydrogen @ 10.0396MJ/L Liquid Methane @ 23.0961MJ/L Diesel @ 37.2093MJ/L ;)

Fair play, but why bother? it’s a little like perfecting chocolate teapots and fireguards when you could just put a normal engine on it and more than quadruple your duration and power for the same weight.

Look on the roads you will see "black boxes" on some, which may be 3d placeholders/cars etc following routes?

One of the main fundamental problems with Hydrogen regardless of how you wish to implement is outside of an internal combustion engine i.e. in transport, is that there just isn’t anything like the required amount of preciouses/semi-preciouses metals required on this earth to replace the vehicles we have now even if we forsake currant performance for lesser performance, which means when it comes to lorry’s or other commercial load carrying transport you will need more of them to move the same amount of goods. If you switch to centralised recharging via the electric grid you run into the problem of battery life expectance in only having a finite amount of charges before they degrade and need replacement at high cost and that’s without accounting for the permanently high weight so they are permanently affecting efficacy (they don’t get lighter as they discharge and weigh many times more than liquid fuels which will travel many time further for equivalent weigh/recharge range) Can you imagine the implications if HP Hydrogen storage operated by the mass public in the order of >700bar (>10152psig) plus pressure which is a meaningless figure to most people, if you take your normal butane/propane gas bottle that you may use for camping or in a caravan or room heater that when charged will be <250psig, if you do scuba diving then you bottles will be ~200bar (~2900psig) which is about the same pressure as the hydraulic system on an agricultural tractor or digger and plant or what industrial gas bottles are stored at which are pressures that gasses and liquids can easily sever arms and legs or to put it another way a UHP water jet at >20000psig will cut through thick steel as found on water jet cutting tables. :eek:

Spotter: HQ we have contact 10oclock 750m, one table, two chairs, a cow, a table lamp, three desks and a giant chicken. HQ: Negative, that’s the French who are interior household and office furniture and farm animals, we are looking for exterior furniture and pets, I repeat, exterior furniture and pets only. :rolleyes:

Yes I bet it works well until there’s an electrical short, then you will glow so much your imposable to miss. Still I suppose when the technology and resolution advances as well as the thermal image library’s it could lead to some out of place amusing object for the surroundings. Though if they couple this thermal technology with very low intensity LCD etc panels capable of only showing limited base colours to cover tanks then you could have a thermal signature and a visual representation or at the very least be able to have reactive camouflage rather than a fixed colour/s paint.

Maybe, but i am not expecting any massive advance like you would expect with TKoT/TKoV or they are doing with TKoH, but I do hope they take the basic premise of 4x2 etc cars and bus/lorry being worse off-road than 4x4, 6x6, 8x8 vehicles which in turn are slightly worse than tracked vehicles off-road.

Wile it would be nice to have accurate damage modelling I think it would leave a far few people disappointed, because then the tanks etc like in real life would be easy to disable so they just become a stationery target or defensive position, so you would quite often find yourself in a position of having a tank etc that is in >90% condition but missing a track only capable turning in circles or zigzagging down a hill (that’s if it’s not stuck in a ditch etc or the little wheels on the trackless side haven’t sunk in the ground!) Myself I would much rather see more accurate vehicle ground physics, so 2wd cars & bus in Arma # are no longer more capable off road than tracked vehicles or a match 4x4/6x6/8x8 vehicles (which also best tracked vehicles off road), then perhaps add the effect of wet/dry/hard/soft ground types so 2wd vehicles are useless away from hard roads and tracks etc, AWD vehicles have reduced grade ability and a slower speeds on wet days away from hard roads and tracks etc, and tracked vehicles have a modest change in grade ability and speed on wet days away from hard roads and tracks etc, then perhaps have catch all type marsh by pools etc. But perhaps we should wait for BIS’s TKoT/TKoV (TaKe on Tanks/vehicles) for that. :)

I have been playing with Timothy Lottes/NVIDIA FXAA in TKoH using InjectFXAA 10.7b, seems to work quite well considering its not integrated into the game and there is NO hit on performance, so if you’re like me and don’t like the normal AA in game because of what it does to A2 trees etc or if you are playing on a low end DX9 GPU system but want "a little AA" but without the associated "hit" this may be for YOU! Basically d3d9.dll (it’s a dx9 game) goes in you "tkoh_preview" folder ware the takeonhpreview.exe resides. Fxaa3_11.h, shader.fx & Sharpen.h go in the main "arma 2 operation arrowhead" root folder which the "tkoh_preview" folder resides in, also it's the same folder at the “log.log†txt file is created in. The keyboard "pause" button (next to scroll lock) switches FXAA on/off Fxaa3_11.h, shader.fx & Sharpen.h are txt based so can be opened with notepad, if you open shader.fx with notepad you will find the following line "//Replace this line with #include "Sharpen.h" to add a sharpening pass" If you copy and paste the #include "Sharpen.h" to the line below and then save it, it will add a sharpening pass. The downside to the above as it’s not integrated into THoH it applies the AA to the txt and HUD to, however if you’re stuck some ware between not having AA or not it may be of use, also peoples mileage from it may vary, however on the plus side you can change settings in the txt based files so the sharpening is not so sharp etc. Perhaps BIS may look into implementing FXAA as one of the in-game AA options. No AA vs. with FXAA: Normal AA vs. Normal AA & FXAA: No AA with FXAA + sharpen vs. normal AA with FXAA + sharpen: No AA vs. no AA with FXAA + sharpen:

True, but you are failing to consider all the implications put in place by the Bush Administration which the Obama Administration merely inherit, thus are nothing actually to do with the Obama Administration with regards to actual deficit, if you look at the final Bush year there is a big jump upwards vs. the prior 4 years which WILL overspill into the Obama Administrations tenure. ;) Also the Obama Administration is naturally in a situation of cleaning up the messes of the Bush Administration which ALL cost money and are in a position of having to make tough decisions that WONT be liked BUT have to be done, much like in the UK with the conservative coalition putting right the mismanagement an philandering of the prior government.

Myself I am not really bothered about “cheats†as when I did play I played coop.

I really don’t care what new vehicles they have, BUT I don’t want utterly crap physics applied to the like in A2 and before. E.g. I don’t expect 2wd cars and bus etc to be as capable off-road as 4x4/6x6/8x8 vehicles, I also don’t expect 4x4/6x6/8x8 vehicles AND 2wd cars and bus to be better in off-road climbing ability than tracked vehicles! :rolleyes:

Lol its nothing new, shrouds around propellers/fans have always been known to give more efficacy’s however the stated 2 or 3 time the efficacy is highly debatable in the real world. Also look at the extra weight required for an effective shroud and the forces acting upon it which will mean that the towers they stand atop will have to be much much stronger in almost every way and it’s not something you could retrofit.

My only recollection of the DCS replay function in A10 was it was broken recording things that never took place unless it was just your aircraft in the world space, campaign flight replays would normally go awry after the 15min mark with all sorts of strange stuff happening, with the IL2 CoD the render to mp4 function was broke though the txt file based replays did work. I would much prefer output to a txt based file which could be replayed, so you could avoid e.g. fraps from running while you’re playing but could ultimately replay the flight from the same and other camera positions or one “.trk†file could be replayed by someone else in their TKoH game.

Hi SA, Your “3DSMAX ARMA2 TOOLBOX†is this finally a method to go straight from within 3dsmax and export direct to .p3d so I can do almost everything in MAX and just use O2 for assembling the final .pbo? As the original OFP “oxygen†put me right off ever making anything BIS games! ;)

Flash git ;)

But you have the paradox of real world distance vs. game world distance ware 1m is one is not <1m in the other and thus time is compressed so things thus happen faster and travel further in the same unit of time. i.e. if something arrives sooner than it should vs. the real world then it has to be going faster than in the real world or it would arrive at the same time. ;) If we forget about the real island then yes the game will still give accurate range so a 1000m shot will be a 1000m shot however relative to the real world that would be a ~1320m shot and not a 1000m shot.

Let’s just hope they may add “recording†of camera track positions so they could be replayed post mission but within the game, i.e. the camera track positions are recorded to a txt bsed file then perhaps viewed much like an intro/outtro/cut scene in ofp/A/A2. As I put a quick dirty battle with lots of units and armour (blue vs. red) and just let the AI get on with it and being as I was a civilian using the light helicopter you could get very close to the battling units with impunity and get to different places quickly picking up viewing elements that would be hard work if you were scripting very complex intro/outtro/cut scenes, some of it was very modern war film like if you imagined the 3d cockpit not being in frame flying low and slow over a massed battle with lots of smoke and firing etc. I can picture the TKoH mission now, you are contracted by a film studio for some aerial filming in Asia for short scenes in “France’s Ord Cupola’s†epic film “Apocalypse Then†(deliberate spelling mistakes) ware you have to capture shots of different famous helicopter etc based scenes from the real film, the total assets needed would be a PBR from OFP, some suitable soldiers and the light & medium helicopter in military guise. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHjWDCX1Bdw

Well I have to concede that looks to be ~30km by 30km on screen with the island looking to be ~26.5km at its widest point (east/west) :) However, that in its self throws up some problems: :D If they have scaled the GIS data in the X & Y planes in order to fit a ~35km width island down to ~26.5km then any point on the island will have a steeper slope between its self and another point (as they are closer together now) If they have scaled Z in addition to X & Y planes to make slope better then any point on the island will be lower relative to MSL than in real life. projectile’s will travel ~32% further than they should or have higher down range energy than they really would, blast radius will be ~32% bigger than it should, and vehicles will travel ~32% faster than they should relative to the real world unless they scale “1m†by the same amount which is a bit late now all the houses etc are placed on the island or we ultimately concede that BIS haven’t made Lemnos but have just made "an island" that’s about ~26.5km at its widest point in order to preserve the 1m to 1m scale and all the physics that go along with it vs. the real world. Which then just begs the question why did they just not pick a slightly smaller Greek island etc that fitted in with their ~26.5km remit in the first place! :rolleyes:

rebels may be "civilian" but like ANY gun toting person who is going agenised the rule of law they lose their rights that are afforded to innocent civilians, also the gun toting rebels are effectively hiding behind many innocent civilians ware as the Libyan army were not! ;) The Libyan army have a RIGHT to defend themselves from armed rebels and the ONLY reson the rebels were not crushed right away was the army & Gadhafi wishing to avoid innocent civilian bloodshed which of cause if you listen to what the USA was saying early on did not happen though many independent outside journalist who make their living from going to places like this and were actually there were reporting this fact and not just saying it but producing their own video footage taken from the rebels perspective which clearly showed the Libyan army being restrained and only firing when rebels (who were in clear sight of the army) tried to advance towards the army. (you will most likely have seen this clip though heavily edited and shortened down from the original as aired on France 24, the heavily edited/shortened version gave a completely different impression to the full length version, like so meny other clips) The rebels may have been of civilian origin but they don’t have the rights of civilians when they take up arms, which would be just the SAME case in ANY western country if people took up arms - i.e. you would be shot by police/army. As a white British person I am disgusted by the actions of our governments over the past 10 years and the actions of NATO for the past couple of years and as for the American government (not American people) they are the biggest terrorists out there who have had their own addenda of deliberately destabilising country’s for their OWN gain for the past 50+ years.

You fail to grasp the concept that that the only value that has been given is its ~2.4 times the high detailed land mass of Takistan. There is quite a wide difference of given km2 of Limnos as some are taken as low tide area, others are high tide area, some count the sea space between rocky outcrops just of shore. Would you rather believe that it is ~400km2 of land mass but have the inconvenients of trying to fit it in a 900km2 which means you have to lose at least >5km of island east to west or even think that BIS couldn’t be bothered to do the whole island or have shrunk the island to fit within 900km2 which then automatically means the island WONT be ~400km2 as if you shrink it it means less surface area of land mass! What is the problem of grasping ~400km2 of land mass within a ~30km x ~35km bounds to fit the whole island in given a bulk of that would be sea accounting for the island shape.

true, but that is assuming the renderer/engine/file format/etc is not splitting the 2 or more triangles that make up a 4 or more edged polygon so every triangle has its own unique vertices given that if 2 triangles share 2 common vertices you are only going to get the best efficacy if they are planar thus the 2 common vertices use the same data besides their common x, y, z position i.e. smoothing group/angle, vertex shader etc etc can all require split unshared vertices.