NGT class is easily the most exploitative of LFS's physics bugs.
Last edited by Forbin, .
PCI-E 3.0 16x: 16GB/s (current cards are probably only using about a quarter to half that)
USB 3.0: 400MB/s (i.e. 0.4GB/s)
PCI-E 2.0 1x: 500MB/s (i.e. 0.5GB/s) (this is that little tiny slot)
Granted, there are some cheap video cards that run on PCIE 1x.
Last edited by Forbin, .
And kiss any shot at a championship win goodbye.
I see an awful lot of enthusiasm about using a fixed set in that series. Screw that.
Then there's the emphasis on oval... zzzzzzzzz...
Wouldn't be surprised if that's what it originally was, or something similar like Spiez.
Lots of surnames like that get mangled in the US. I'm not even entirely clear on how my surname is supposed to be pronounced. I've heard it a few different ways.
Last edited by Forbin, .
Not necessarily. Running a track in reverse can give certain corners a very different character, requiring different damper rates or even a different overall spring/ARB balance. That's largely down to feel, though. This is especially true in the case of pleasant increasing radius corners, which turn into viscious decreasing radius corners in reverse. That's part of why I love WE1R, though.
It's also why so many people hate FE4R.
Last edited by Forbin, .
You're not gaining anything by not buying now.
Teach yourself. Experiment.
How do you think other people learned?
I started off just like you. I didn't have a clue. But I experimented and eventually became one of the best suspension tuners on my team.
The fact I eventually got an engineering degree is moot.
As any racer and any motorcyclist (street or track) knows, you dress for the crash, not for the ride/drive.
Don't waste your time. Stick to racing properly.
I bought an X52. I thought it was absolute garbage.
A single spring around the stick shaft? With a sliding spring cup? That is acted upon by the hole in the base the stick shaft sits in? What a cheap, rubbish design...
The static friction... holy crap...
Bullet trains are known to be of both conventional wheel-on-rail and mag-lev type.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L ... cles#Conventional_wheeled
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L ... cles#Conventional_wheeled
In much the same way as an object suspended by hot air will appear to be immune to the effects of gravity. The only differences is upon what the reaction force is acting. In the case of the hot air ballon, it's the atmosphere. In the case of a magnet, it's another magnet of reverse polarity. The latter is not very practical for transportation unless you have a big long track that is literally a magnet (i.e. maglev trains).
I'd imagine that's basically this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_levitation
Note the frog levitating. It's not really something practical for trackless transportation, though.
I'm not downplaying anything. I really admire the vision of the German engineers behind these projects. I'm just saying these are entirely man-made inventions. There is nothing alien about them. The flying wing concept is minimalism at its best, with no fuselage nor vertical and horizontal stabilizers creating drag. As a result it's also an extremely unstable and thus impractical design. The YB-35 (or was it the YB-49?) is famous for tumbling end over end under stall conditions. Computers are what ultimately made the flying wing design viable.
And credit where credit is due: the Russians got there first 20 years earlier than the Germans. http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/RAM/bich-3.html
Last edited by Forbin, .
Woah woah woah, there's nothing "alien" about this aircraft, nor wanting to present as small a radar profile as possible. It's a logical response to radar technology. Secondly, it follows logically that a flying wing is the most efficient shape for airplanes. If anything, the "stealthiness" of this airplane was likely a mere side effect of the flying wing design.
The Ho229 was not the first flying wing design either, just the first one to incorporate jet engines. The flying wing design itself dates back to at least as far back as 1924. However, the design has some inherent stability issues that were not addressed until the computer age when the B2 was born. Some of the Ho229's comtemporaries include the YB-35 and YB-49.
As for the 1000km/h claim: "Although the turbojet-equipped Ho IX V2 nearly reached a then-astonishing 500 mph in trials, the project was soon given over to the theretofore low-tech aircraft company, Gothaer Waggonfabrik, as the Horten Ho 229 (subsequently often erroneously called Gotha Go 229)."
That's slower than the similarly jet-powered Me-262, which was capable of 550 mph (900km/h).
Last edited by Forbin, .
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG