Jump to content
DerelictStudios Forums


Volcano Citizen
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About HailStorm

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Country

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  1. HailStorm

    Arma2 And Why Bis Is Awsome

    that's weird coming from you, it seems you yourself was the first one to report it going down, lol. as you probably know then, it never came back. another 'temporary' one was set up by the community, but that became the 'official' one, and was then abandoned by everyone, including the devs. ok, maybe ArmA II has less bugs than ArmA, but you have to admit a lot of big, stupid ones made reappearances. there are also a batch of new stuff too, as if they had a quota to fill.
  2. HailStorm

    Arma2 And Why Bis Is Awsome

    Ugh. played the demo of this thing. and it feels exactly like ArmA 1. Now, don't get me wrong, I love the whole hyper-realism, but I hate how BIS package their software as 'gold' but with more bugs inside it than Paris Hilton. I really hate BIS's business model - release the framework of a good game, promise to patch all the crap that could have easily been picked up in betatesting, then fix only the big ones and move on. now, ArmA 1 was bad, but the developers at least didn't bullshit about it - their press release at the time basically said: "we've been working on this game, but we're now broke - so we are releasing what we have, so we can fund it's completion" so they did, broken, made an attempt at fixing stuff, then announced they would repay the generosity of the fanbase by putting all their efforts into a newer game (ArmA II) and effectively halting major bugfixing for the first one. oh, they said they would commit themselves to fixing the first game, well, two years on, and even their own bugtracker system has crashed and never been replaced. at least they promised they wouldn't release ArmA II in the same buggy state as ArmA I... funny how bugs in ArmA I that were fixed early on suddenly make major reappearances in ArmA II, like my favorite, dead units (just killed by you) reporting your exact location. Even if you say, sniped him from 500m with a single shot. I was totally willing to give BIS money for this if they fulfilled their promise of "not selling ArmA II in the same state as ArmA 1 on release", but ultimately to me it looks like ArmA I, given a graphics boost, added a few new features like fence jumping, and left in in the same broken state as ArmA 1. Maybe i'll consider it when enough patches are sent out to fix it, or maybe just refuse to buy it once they announce ArmA III in a year's time.
  3. HailStorm

    Dangerous Driving

    Oh, no, don't get me wrong - I don't think the law has it right all the time - that time I got done for speeding didn't annoy me then, but it really pisses me off now. Essentially the cop car did not give me a chance to slow down. This was an unmarked cop car - picture a black Vauxall VXR8 that has no external markings and a lightbox on the dash hidden behind a black cloth. Stayed on my ass for a full kilometer, while I kept changing lanes (I had assumed by this stage he was another dickhead trying to pass me) - but he kept behind. As soon as it drops from 70 to 40, lights on - pull over. But overall, I think that there is a fair bit of justification for the police to monitor speeding. Obviously I can't comment on any jurisdiction but my own, as laws and penalties differ from place to place, but I feel at least here there is a large percentage of car drivers who think they are 'above the law', exceed the limit, and, once caught, fight any penalties to the death, whether in the right or not. It seems nobody here admits they are in the wrong and accepts it. Well, that's just horrendous and stupid. that's the kind of thing where I'd blame the driver, lack of common sense, and lack of any knowledge of how cars and cameras work, instead of blaming the camera for being there, though. You should see what it's like here - most brake too, but slowly and sensibly. Then there are the crazies who actually stop further down the road, and come back and smash up the camera and/or operator sitting in the car it's attached to. Someone has also placed a spare tyre over a fixed camera (one up a pole) and set it on fire. The idiot got caught because the camera activated and got a shot of him. I see where you're coming from on the stupid driving though and completely agree. Although with the speeding tax, it's a tax on the stupid, and I don't mind. Yes, I have been fined for speeding before - 88kmh in a 60 zone, and I fully acknowledged that it was me being an idiot, sucked it up, and paid the fine ($278, four demerit points (out of a possible five for a probationary), and 1 month suspension of licence. I learned my lesson after that, and I feel that's exactly how fines should work. Unfortunately many people here think they do nothing wrong, and this is where the arrogance comes in. "I've been driving for a long time so I can handle driving faster than the limit" is one I particularly hate, especially since my father uses that gem, and seemingly like most others on the roads I travel too. There's this new fixed camera they're trialling here - essentially it's built into the gutter, and looks like a simple drainage point like a gutter normally has. There is a huge outcry over it's use about it being a 'revenue raiser', and I just have to wonder, just who is protesting this? To me it just screams of a whole legion of people who clearly know they drive faster than the limit, but are now scared they will get no warning of being caught doing it.
  4. HailStorm

    Dangerous Driving

    I've been a motorcyclist since 2005 - actually got my rider licence before my car licence. I don't speed, don't swerve all over the road, always use my indicators for a decent amount of time before I change lanes - you get the picture. if there's one thing I've learned from four years of riding around the streets of Melbourne, Australia, it is one thing - Most Car drivers (at least in Australia, anyway) are Arrogant, Stupid Morons. I cannot count how many times I've almost had cars wipe me out because they change lanes without looking out their side windows ("head-checks" are standard training here during driving lessons) I've had cars cut me off for going the speed limit, had shit like cigarette butts (innocently) thrown out of window into my face, i don't know how many time's I've had to take evasive action - i need to stay switched on when I'm on the road, something car drivers clearly take for granted. I've even had a cop car tailgate me - then pull me over for speeding once we entered a lower speed limit area. (what was I gonna do, brake with a car four feet off my back tyre? at least I got off with a warning) It doesn't end with motorbikes, either. I've seen lots of bullshit happen to trucks too. a lot of car drivers drive around trucks with the presumption that they all stop on a dime. cutting them off, slamming on the brakes at any given opportunity - the sound of all the brake systems of a truck slamming on is something I'm kinda used to now, but it's always a terrifying sound. Too many time's I've seen car drivers STOP on an on-ramp to a freeway - as though making the total speed difference between your car and the freeway traffic 100kmh is really going to help with their merging. I've seen a lot of people killed attempting this. last time one woman managed to get her three little boys in the back seat killed because she stopped on the ramp, then attempted to merge in front of a semi-trailer. there was this one video in the news last year - a news crew were filming an accident, and got 'amazing' footage of another crash in progress - a semi-trailer shunting a sideways car, right past the scene: Who's fault was it? the Car driver's - due to the 2 lanes becoming one due to the first crash, he ultimately decided that merging inches in front of the truck's bumper was a great idea. of course the truckie, not being able too see that area due to the hood of his vehicle, and without the faintest notion someone could be so stupid, kept going. the truckie was arrested at the time, but let off without charge once the police interviewed him. I don't know about the car driver, but if he wasn't charged with something I hope he gives trucks fair clearance now. serves him right. Last week, an 18yo girl who got killed at a T-intersection here - she was coming up the spine of the 'T', drove straight past a 'give way' sign - and promptly drove into the path of a tipper truck doing 80kmh (fyi it was the same model truck as the one in the above video). The media make a big fuss because they say she was distracted by bouquets of flowers by the roadside. I'm sorry, I have no sympathy here. she should have been looking out, not staring (if she was) at a memorial to four other teenagers killed at the same intersection a week earlier. Distracted or not, it's not that bloody hard to see an incoming truck on a straight, flat road. I shudder to think what would the media say if it wasn't a truck, but a motorcycle doing 80 through that intersection. I'd hate to think her actions caused a innocent person's death, but it seems like it happens all the time here. Pratom, if you wanna try for a hayabusa, go for it. just don't make it the first bike you buy. or the second one, for that matter. first off, you're almost guaranteed to drop your first bike - I've done it at least three times to my first rattler - and learned a new lesson each time. better to do it on some crappy 250cc job you paid 1,000 for, as opposed to a hayabusa at full throttle. Second, there is NO way you're going to be ready for the performance. I know right now I won't feel totally comfortable sitting at the controls of a CBR1000RR Fireblade, which is my ultimate bike, and one I'm saving for. Superbikes like that are dangerous, and believe me, Speed isn't everything, in fact, it can mean nothing if a car takes you out on your first trip. But I've had my share of bad bike riders as well as car ones. I'm not saying all motorcyclist deaths are the result of car drivers - but we really don't need to give them a hand with that job, okay? They can kill us just fine without our help. remember, always ride as though the motorist next to you wants to kill you. It's sad, but till they start teaching people how to drive cars, and not how to get their licence, anybody who drives something other than a car is not going to be able to relax. mehman and kanz, sorry boys, I have to disagree with you - I see far, far too many dickheads speeding. and I've also seen far too many results of that. if I had things my way, I'd have police officers in sniper suits with laser speed guns hidden up every roadside tree in the country. I count speeding as part of stupid driving. It's not about victimizing the 'working class', it's about people needing to realize that they're not just driving, but operating two tonnes of metal, and people need to see the responsibility in that, not driving at speeds deemed unsafe for the roads they operate on. as you can probably tell I don't really care if people kill themselves doing something stupid - it's other road users and pedestrians I'm concerned for; those are the things car makers aren't doing much about, but better education and mindset can help to fix.
  5. HailStorm

    Too Close For Comfort

    hmm, as i pilot myself, i gotta say it's a bit of a mixed bag. i'll agree that the pilot didn't start the whole thing off, but his actions in trying to 'correct' the situation made it entirely worse - the first rule in landing is always "if you're not comfortable with what's happening, GO AROUND (i.e throttle up and climb)" the pilot really should have done that the minute the plane was heading to the right off the runway, as opposed to banking left and striking the wing (which i might add may also have been accentuated due to a sudden gust of wind). there wasn't really any sound reason for the pilot to do that anyway - there was no way the plane could re-gain the centreline for landing at that point, demonstrated when the plane overswept the runway and ended up on the left side of it. definitely a good job to get out of it, but i don't think the pilot was as 'on the ball' that day...
  6. HailStorm

    Plane On A Treadmill

    i think the current debate between korona, mr. 48, goose and myself boils down to a linked argument: will the treadmill be able to entirely halt the plane's movement? i say no, but i'm basing this on reality - wheel friction is fairly easy to overcome with an aero engine, and under the assumption that no treadmill on earth would be able to generate enough drag to stop it, the aircraft will move forward. (this applies from a cub to a 747, up to an F-22) i think that goose is sumerising that theoretically, with enough power in the treadmill, it's possible to entirely arrest an aircraft in the first place. i'd like to point out, that yes the physics behind that are correct, but that means we're dealing in theoretics, not reality - the treadmill needs to be putting in a LOT more power to overcome a standard prop engine - levels that i doubt are even possible in today's world (like i said, i'm thinking reality-wise). i was mentioning the truck-pulled tarp because that's how the mythbusters are going to do it in their large-scale test - and i'm just saying on the basis of that particular experiment, the plane would be able to take off. i reason that the basics of the original question are far too general for example - what aircraft, what treadmill, power ratings, gear friction, etc. i think it's this ambiguity in the question that causes most of the debate; though people interpreting bits differently. i am 100% sure that if everyone was to agree on certain conditions, we'd be able to reach a conclusion.
  7. HailStorm

    Plane On A Treadmill

    Right, and I'm saying the engines will move the airframe relative to the ground and the air around it, hence creating airflow. But they won't move it relative to the ground, gravity is forcing the plane to remain on the ground, and therefore the treadmill, all the engine is doing is preventing the aircraft from slipping off the back of the treadmill. The engine is creating thrust, but the treadmill counters that effect, so the plane doesn't move relative to the air or ground, and no lift or airflow is created. ahh, but you see, the point I'M trying to make is that you'll never truly "oppose" the force the aircraft engine makes, unless you had some sort of superpowered treadmill to create enough drag through the wheels to keep the plane stationary (i.e, balancing out of forces) - and a simple truck pulling a tarp won't achieve that. the amount of drag caused by an aircraft rolling along the treadmill will never be enought to overcome the thrust produced by it's engine (in realistic terms). before we get into gravity, airflow etc., i think this is the setup you're thinking of: car moving on a treadmill: Car = 60MPH Treadmill = 60MPH net result = 0 but you've altered it to this: Plane = 60MPH Treadmill = 60MPH net result = 0 however, this does not use correct theory - if the aircraft used an engine turning the wheels on the landing gear, you'd be 100% correct. but, aircraft don't. they use either fan blades, props, or jet propulsion to move - all three of which are air-based, and are not linked to how fast the ground at the wheels is moving - thus the above situation is false. if you truly wanted to do the experiment above, you'd have to alter both conditions of the experiment: plane moving in a Wind tunnel: Plane = 60MPH Wind tunnel = 60MPH net result = 0 that i will agree with, because you're using a medium that directly affects the engine (or, what the engine uses to create movement). now, i understand that you believe gravity will hold the aircraft onto the ground/treadmill, and thus it'll keep the aircraft grounded, but that theory doesn't work, because the aircraft has wheels, not skids, on which to roll on - and this removes a lot of drag caused by a backwards/moving treadmill - precisely why aircraft have wheels in the first place, to remove drag caused by an aircraft otherwise grinding across whatever surface it sits on during high-speed ground maneuvers. this reduction in drag means that an aircraft will still roll forwards in the standard fashion, albeit with the wheels spinning much faster than they normally would - a theory which i've suck with since the beginning of the thread. Look at it this way – it would be perfectly possible for an aircraft to take off (or land) on top of a conveyor belt moving at the same speed (and direction) as the aircraft. But what I want to point out with this is that the aircraft’s wheels in this case didn’t really need to turn much, do they? The speed at which the wheels turn had little to do with at what speed the aircraft became (or was) airborne. So now, if we reverse the conveyor’s direction, what we’d see (regardless whether the aircraft flew or not) wouldn’t be the opposite – all we’d see is the wheels on the landing gear spin twice as fast as the aircraft. the exact same situation (plane on a treadmill) in a real-world perspective would be an aircraft taking off in a perfect tailwind (wind moving in the same direction as the takeoff run) - but, we would treat the wind as being static, and everything moving backwards. now, if we took gooses' theory, a plane wouldn't move faster than the windspeed, because gravity would be holding the aircraft on the ground and all the engine is doing is opposing all that drag caused by the wheels on the 'treadmill'. but, in real life the aircraft would still accelerate down the runway till is was moving faster than the wind around it, wouldn't it? and, because the wind is now moving in the same direction as the aircraft's takeoff, two things will now be apparent: 1. for someone standing on the ground (i.e, on the 'treadmill') the aircraft's acceleration will be twice as fast. 2. for someone moving with the wind (i.e. off the 'treadmill') the aircraft would appear to move 'normally' (but with a small drag penalty). these both occur because the aircraft's thrust pushes against the wind which is pushing it - addition of forces. now, the aircraft may accelerate, but do not forget that it must reach a certain airspeed (i.e., it has to be moving faster that the air around it by a cerrtain degree) to achieve takeoff which, given an infinite runway, can be achieved. so, if aircraft takeoff with tailwinds every day, why is it hard to comprehend that an aircraft would be able to takeoff from a treadmill using a standard takeoff roll? No, I’m not saying that if the conveyor was active, the aircraft would suddenly be able to conduct a vertical takeoff (and neither was Mr. 48). I’m saying that the aircraft would accelerate forwards like normal (with twice as much wheelspin) and provided it doesn’t roll off the conveyor in the process, would be able to lift off once it reaches it’s normal takeoff airspeed, not groundspeed.
  8. HailStorm

    Plane On A Treadmill

    of course, logan, i never disputed that - which is why i said there would be most likely a drag penalty to overcome via friction in the wheel bearings of the landing gear. the point i'm trying to say is, the aircraft's engine will not have to match the speed of the treadmill with the same power as a car-pulled tarp - as it's propulsion system is not directly connected to it, and is acting on a substance that is not moving backwards along with the treadmill, but static. yes, an aircraft will need to oppose the drag created by it's own weight resting on the tredmill, but because of it's propulsion system, it would be fairly easy to do so. so no, you will not require the same amount of engine power to maintain a "stationary" position relative to the ground on a moving treadmill - and if an airplane goes full-throttle, i doubt you'll create enough drag through the landing gear to prohibit the aircraft accelerating forward and taking off. once the wheels are spinning, the aircraft would take off normally, although with the added drag from high-speed wheel may slow the acceleration. but as you're not dragging the wind back with it, you'll probably see the aircraft take a slightly longer (static) takeoff run (probably similar to a aircraft taking off from a grass field as opposed to an ashphalt runway). of course, the distance covered on the treadmill will be quite larger, but that's not what the experiment was out to acheve. with the toy car analogy, how about you get rid of the car, and place there a toy hovercraft? you now get an added increase in drag (due to there being no wheels) but you now have a test vehicle that relies on airborne propulsion as opposed to wheel-on-ground propulsion. now if you were to activate those engines while activating the treadmill, the hovercraft, (even with more drag than a car) would quickly accelerate forward. but let's take a different example - say, a tube-launched missile, being fired backwards as the whole launcher is moving in the opposite direction. now, for the whole 'treadmill' part, let's make the launcher tube very, very long (and placed horizontally). now, say this launcher was moving at 278m/s (av. speed of a TOW missile) and you lit this missile off. what would happen? my bet is that this missile would eventually get up to it's maximum speed relative to the ground, and not the launcher tube. it's just that as much friction a moving body applies on an object, if the object uses a different source of propulsion, you'll probably see normal acceleration along the ground, but with a small drag penalty. that's all i'm saying.
  9. HailStorm

    16 Yr Old Faces A$20,000 Bill After Home Alone Party

    here's an update on the situation. the guy's refused all calls from his parents, has been staying at a friend's since, hasn't seen is parents, and been getting a LOAD of airtime, both on current affairs shows, radio and such. it seems like all he ever does is wear the exact same outfit around, but yeah. basically he's completely unrepentant, and unfortunatly it's working in his favor, he's been offered jobs by events companies left, right, and centre (not to mention all the money he's already been paid by the tv and radio networks). talk about "don't feed the troll" i'm 21, and i think he's a complete and utter tool. his parent's fall into the same category as well, for letting him stay here while they went off on a trip (he was booked to go with them, but apparently he just said no and they let him!) i mean what the hell is that? the guy's an idiot. he'd stated on radio that he knew at most 100 of the 500 who showed up, and through it all he said he'd do it all again - 'cause "it rocked" i think it's stupid that people over here defend him saying things like "well we've all done the party-while-my-parents-are-out thing" well, yeah i have too, but i wasn't stupid enough to invite 100, let alone 500 people over here. he knew what was going to happen, but he didn't give a damn. that's what pissed me off the most.
  10. HailStorm

    Plane On A Treadmill

    Logan has most of it pretty much correct, except for one thing: because an aircraft's engine pulls on the surrounding air for thrust, not though the wheels onto the ground, once you throttle up the engines, the aircraft will begin accelerating relative to the air/ground not the treadmill - it will just accelerate in a similar fashion to what a normal takeoff would be, though possibly with a drag penalty created by the action of the treadmill pulling on the wheels. this should be something to look out for when the mythbusters show it: it may be that the truck has to move a LOT faster than the aircraft to balance out the drag. the aircraft may be putting enough thrust to accelerate to say 50MPH, but the truck pulling the tarp may need to travel at 100+ to create enough drag to counter it. since it appears the way they set it up it'd be hard to measure that, i'm not sure they'll even pick up on it. if you think about it, an aircraft will fly if it's in a wind tunnel, which is basically the airborne equivalent to a treadmill (for fixed-wing aircraft, anyway) airplanes behave according to relative airspeed, i.e. how fast the air is moving as opposed to the aircraft, and not anything to do with the ground even if it's sitting on it (taxiing is a different matter) i've had times where it took me a whole 500m runway to get to takeoff speed (was flying with a tailwind), and at the other end of the scale, i've once had my GPS tell me i was flying backwards when i was doing stall training on a 60kt headwind day - it's about what your airspeed indicator tells you, not how fast the wheels are (or would be) spinning. (edit: spelling)
  11. HailStorm

    Never Give Up, Never Surrender.

    soo.... err... anything going to be happening soon?
  12. HailStorm

    Never Give Up, Never Surrender.

    Sure. i mean, if this project is going ahead then i'd gladly do what i can. i've got experience in 3dsmax and made models for other games, but unfortunately i have zero experience with Generals. so where should i send samples and a proper application to?
  13. HailStorm

    Heat-ray Gun Unveiled!

    Um, not really, not without serious repercussions. Not like you can just fire rubber bullets into a peaceful crowd, so I don't see how this heat ray is going to be any different. They wouldn't actually fire it on the peaceful protests, but they could use it to intimidate and threaten the protestors so they leave. First off, anybody remember the G20 Protests that happened in Melbourne a couple of months back, or was i the only one that had to walk through the whole mess on my way to uni? that was supposed to be a 'peaceful' protest, as well. It works both ways. True, there are overzealous police/army forces out there, but there are equally overzealous protesters that think destroying police trucks, throwing chairs and barracades and willfully breaking the arms of defending police officers is a valid way of making a statement. This group turned what otherwise WAS a peaceful demonstration into Battlefield:Melbourne 2006. It'd be ignorant to say these things don't happen. and the authorities sometimes have no choice to prepare for the worst. yes, this thing is a weapon. there's no denying that. i'm no protester, but i'd rather be hit with this... thing instead of rubber bullets, tazers, riot control claymores, bean bag guns, tear-gas grenades... or an anti-armor round fired from a F88 Steyr. I'm glad that the US research establishment is looking at something like this, instead of a new MOAB or ICBM.
  14. HailStorm

    When Do Fighter Pilots Have To Wear Oxygen?

    ok, to get back on topic, when pilots use oxygen, it depends on the situation. if you're flying a plane above 10,000 feet, and your aircraft is unpressurised, then you will need to be breathing through a mask. the level of oxygen ratio that needs to be supplied into your lungs depends on how high you are - it starts at 20% oxy, and slowly increases as you get higher, until eventually, somewhere around 20,000 feet (off the top of my head), you need to be breathing 100% pure oxy, because the low pressures dictate it (lungs need at least a certain amount of oxy per psi, to enable it to transfer to the bloodstream, low pressures mean the lungs' capacity to do so deteriorates to the point where 100% is nessersary). any altitude higher than that means that the oxy has to be literally pumped to you under pressure (hence fighter pilots have full-face, pressurised masks). at low level, high-g manuvers, oxy and g suits certainly would assist you from blacking out, but they are not the be-all and end-all solution for high g manuvers. fighter pilots are trained to withstand g forces without these aids, and within lesser limits (though still quite large) can perform manuvers without difficulty. (i believe one pilot of the RAAF withstood 11G in a centrifuge with neither oxy or g-suit before succumbing to g-loc) though i haven't heard this idea abt the blue angels before, it wouldn't surprise me - their physical training regiments are so tough that i'm pretty sure their bodies would be able to handle it sans g-suit. i do know for a fact they don't use oxy masks. and yes. i am a pilot. so i do know what i'm talking about.
  15. HailStorm

    War Games...

    I guess he was going to use that and other unorthodox communication methods because they couldn't be intercepted by the Blue forces, like phone calls can.