u/SteelWarrior-

Yeah, its a lot of bullshit. Worst part is they had it working pretty realistically before they tried to simulate this destabilization bs.

It was ERA, and the statement was that it meets STANAG 4569 Level 6.

Protection from 30x165mm APFSDS at 500m within a +/-60 degree arc.

The TES exceeds this. It has for years.

This one is actually a fairly new issue, it's their fuckass simulation of ERA destabilizing rounds. Currently seems to only be present on K5 and Relikt, and it ignores impact angle.

'There's not really any info to support any assumptions' would be a more accurate statement, we don't know how tall that goblin actually is while sitting down, if the tree would break, or if it would behave like a hinge.

My comment was not meant be very serious, if there's anything serious to take away it would be that the log is going to lose some energy because it isn't hitting the goblin at the end of its arc.

I mean forgot, as in its been a long time since I was in TFT to see your opinions. Being a mathematician only means you should understand the proofs of why the aforementioned examples are so problematic.

I actually did double check, because before I'd only really seen the examples. In the extended discussion he's talking about satellites with 100+ square meter radiators. Reversing his proposed numbers it doesn't seem likely he was actually considering the fact that the satellites will be adding radiation from just about everything else in space. Additionally, it would require the computers to be running kinda hot for a data center, and I don't think I need to explain to someone in CS why we don't want computers to run in a hot environment. That temperature only gets higher the more we depart from what must've been a set of ideal calculations.

It's simply an impractical solution, but it sounds nice to investors, especially because it doubles up on being for AI.

A significantly more practical solution would basically be something like oil rigs being built for data centers but that type of an idea would demand results, and results are expensive.

I just hope that you're able to see that people like Musk don't propose these things because they actually have plans to do them, they propose wild ideas because investors will throw money at them and they can throw engineers at the problem. Musk isn't smarter than you or I, just richer.

I forget you're just a tech bro like Musk and not in an engineering field.

Putting data centers in space does just about nothing to fix any of their problems aside from the footprint it has on the power grid and landscape. The point of the Jupiter example is that for it to be even remotely feasible it requires exceptionally advanced materials compared to what we have now. It is functionally impossible and the material structure needed to allow for it may never exist.

The orbital data center idea exists purely because Musk sees that investors are pouring billions into data centers and he wants to tap that. It is similarly poorly feasible because of how inefficient using IR radiation to remove heat is. Particularly inefficient when you have to then consider the sun is going to be adding heat into the very radiators meant to remove it.

Landing a human on Jupiter can also be achieved, it's just a technological and engineering challenge.

Aerodynamics was a wholly new field, thermodynamics is not. A freshman engineering student should be able to explain why the vacuum of space makes for a remarkably poor low-heat pool. I dismiss the idea because it is either going to be obscenely expensive or require massive breakthroughs that a venture capitalist has no right to be promising.

Sure dude, I'd rather we be led by the guy who thinks you can just cool data centers in space because it's cold.

How could we common peasants ever hope to compare to such hyperintelligent men?

Funny thing for the owner of TFT to say.

But I fail to see how the propaganda on the internet is fundamentally different, in anything but scale, to what was previously achieved. What does matter a lot is when people outright try and strip the ability to vote.

And these newly proposed tests, at least in America, are not being proposed in good faith either.

Even if all that ends well for the drone operator, now you need to move a tank out of the way to get your vehicles through.

No matter what it's going to take a bit of time

Probably should be something like 'EU and British authorities' rather than implying the British aren't European.

Sabot isn't an acronym, just a French word. No need to capitalize it or treat it like an acronym.

Tbf it's kinda funny linking it to someone randomly complaining about one jet moving up when nearly everything else moved up equally.

Made a similar comment on the original post, but it really shouldn't be an issue ever with a good sabot design and a decent muzzle brake.

For the petals to open up enough right out of the barrel for them to hit the brake it seems likely that they would've had poor contact with the projectile which causes more issues than hitting the brake.

And the gasses don't have anywhere to apply force where it isn't at least mostly canceled out aside from the breech.

But again, the recoil mitigation it creates is going to be minimal. The difference in volume is not very sizeable and so neither is the pressure drop.

Yes, and another key part is that you build a shock absorber behind it so that you're not just firing the barrel backwards into the breech and trunnion.

Those gasses already have a velocity because they were expanding when the shell goes off. By providing a bit of extra room for the pressure to reduce the gas will also slow down a bit more and push against the barrel a bit less.

A better way of thinking about it is that this is identical to the fundamentals of how a suppressor works. The scale is just too small to actually make it noticeably quieter or reduce the recoil meaningfully.

I deleted the comment, in theory a bore evaluator could also assist in reducing recoil as a secondary function. Their primary function is still absolutely just clearing the gases so that they don't feed into the crew compartment.

Reciprocating barrels are the biggest thing with modern recoil mitigation.

The sabot bit is vastly overblown, there are plenty of tanks that use DS ammo which also have muzzle brakes.

Its just a design consideration to keep in mind when designing the brake and the sabot. If the sabot actually has a meaningful risk of impacting the brake then it likely has poor contact and you're losing muzzle velocity.

Without knowing much more about the tree it's impossible to know what is going to happen. Many are going to be able to bend quite a bit, possibly even enough for the tip to hit the ground before the base fully cracks.

Its also possible the fighter just hits it forward into the goblin, but if the tree only falls over it shouldn't require much movement very quickly for the goblin to avoid being hit.

Pythagoras has an issue with this triangle.

Again, if either or both parties makes a wide turn, not exactly a rare thing, both parties turning might hit each other.

If the left turning driver has right of way over both lanes the right turning one must stop and yield until it is completely clear. For a collision in this case the right turning driver must fail to yield already.

Still, as I said, I couldn't say which scenario actually causes more collisions. It's just an idea of the possible justification.

Kinda falls apart when the discussion is largely about old media which may not even be on sale any longer, or may not be for sale outside of Japan.

This isn't about indie devs who actually are directly losing sales from piracy, mostly its corporations like Nintendo removing the ability for new consumers to enjoy their old products.

I can see why you think so, but honestly it might be somewhat safer than allowing simultaneous right and left turning onto the sake street. It seems like that risks more crashes if either party happens to turn just a bit wide.

But without data it's hard to say what actually is riskier.