Humor Random Comments Thread

[Urwumpe]

The fourth P-40E mission in my dynamic campaign turns out into a classic prisoners dilemma:

• Do I stay in my flight and get shot down because those idiots turn in the direction of the very close enemy right after launch?
• Do I turn away directly towards the enemy and attempt a risky head-on engagement with two Oscars alone? And after the first salvo have to keep the remaining Oscar off my ass because I am too slow to really fight...
• Do I turn in the opposite direction, gain enough altitude to be capable fighting efficiently, but then have to fight alone, because the other three P-40 already committed suicide?

The big problem is: For winning against any japanese plane in a P-40E, you need altitude. Not necessarily more altitude than the enemy, but enough to do a low yoyo, should you need to outturn him. Being already engaged in 500 meters altitude is much too low.

 

[MattBaker]

What about full throttle and crash into terrain, because you'll die anyways?
I wonder if there are statistics which effects such a crash would have. I mean if we take a bigger aircraft: A380 with a takeoff mass of 560 mT crashing at 900 km/h? Sounds like one hell of a crater (Of course it was an autopilot-controlled test:shifty.

 

[Urwumpe]

What about full throttle and crash into terrain, because you'll die anyways?

Actually, I died only in two out of a dozen attempts for the mission. But I constantly lost my plane. Either I had to bail out out of burning or disintegrating plane. Sometimes wounded. Or I crash landed it. In one attempt, I was a sail plane for about 15 kilometers, landed on the runway successfully with 180 km/h... and then overshot the runway and crashed with 100 km/h into some trees. Was really stupid, I had miscalculated the effect of full flaps on my descent rate. In one other outcome, I had a stuck throttle and needed to turn the engine on and off for landing... landed hard and fast, but survived without an aircraft left.

I wonder if there are statistics which effects such a crash would have. I mean if we take a bigger aircraft: A380 with a takeoff mass of 560 mT crashing at 900 km/h? Sounds like one hell of a crater (Of course it was an autopilot-controlled test:shifty.

AFAIR, there had been some research in that topic after Lockerbie.

 

[TMac3000]

I have vivid memories of playing F15 Strike Eagle II . . . the moment that sticks out the most for me was when I was in the middle of fending off an incoming SA-10 missile --

Ended up getting the angle on it to out-turn it, when I accidentally hit the eject key whilst semi-inverted, less than 50 meters off the ground while buzzing along at mach 1.3.

Needless to say, I didn't stay for lunch.

Strike Eagle II--that was such a beautiful sim for its day
Many fond memories with that one. F-117 was even better:thumbup:

 

[jedidia]

Legend of Grimrock: found the staircase to second Level 40 minutes in, and not a bit bored. Skyrim and Dragon Age, take note: This is how you do dungeons!

Also, giant snails... ewww.

 

[Urwumpe]

Just found out that being bomber pilot is currently better for me... but got killed in my first mission after a very successful bombing by the wingman behind me flying slowly and controlled into my astern.

 

[Athena]

Does anyone know a game from the 1990's where you fly in a F-22 Raptor and fly around different parts of the world shooting down fighters, helicopters, destroying tanks and stuff etc, I think the first mission is somewhere in Far East Russia, the other one in a desert somewhere in North-easter South America and the other one is somewhere around South-East asia, it also has a nuke as well (The south america desert level also features an ariane 5 lifting-off)

 

[TMac3000]

Legend of Grimrock: found the staircase to second Level 40 minutes in, and not a bit bored. Skyrim and Dragon Age, take note: This is how you do dungeons!

Also, giant snails... ewww.

Temple of Apshai. The room descriptions were all in the manual--and the writing was just awesome:thumbup:

 

[Quick_Nick]

Introduced to the game "SCP" around 4am. Woops.

 

[Scav]

Does anyone know a game from the 1990's where you fly in a F-22 Raptor and fly around different parts of the world shooting down fighters, helicopters, destroying tanks and stuff etc, I think the first mission is somewhere in Far East Russia, the other one in a desert somewhere in North-easter South America and the other one is somewhere around South-East asia, it also has a nuke as well (The south america desert level also features an ariane 5 lifting-off)

That sounds uncannily like Strike Commander. Not 100% sure, though.

 

[Urwumpe]

That sounds uncannily like Strike Commander. Not 100% sure, though.

Not sure about the Ariane 5, but yes

 

[Athena]

Its the first game i've played in my childhood...i remember it was made by Apogee Entertainment

 

[Scav]

Its the first game i've played in my childhood...i remember it was made by Apogee Entertainment

Hmm. That does put a bit of a wrench in it . . . I remember Strike Commander was made by the same outfit that did the Wing Commander (allow me a moment to venerate that series!) series.

That, and there was also a story line in that game.

The only other one I remember that had a F-22 YF-23 in it was JetFighter.

As the game dialogue came up on many occasions in my past: "That was a spectacular bailout! Rescue chopper is on its way. Isn't simulating stimulating?"

 

[jedidia]

That sounds uncannily like Strike Commander. Not 100% sure, though.

Well, you were flying an F16 most of the time in Strike Commander. You steal the F-22 during the endgame, and in that game it also didn't have ground strike capabilities.
Still, that was one hell of a game. Cool storyline, basic managment component and despite its mainstream appeal a whole lot less arcady than Ace Combat.
I still remember the complaints when it came out... "50 MB of hard disk space? Origin is crazier than ever!" :lol:

 

[FordPrefect]

Whoop, my mistake.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

The fourth P-40E mission in my dynamic campaign turns out into a classic prisoners dilemma:

• Do I stay in my flight and get shot down because those idiots turn in the direction of the very close enemy right after launch?
• Do I turn away directly towards the enemy and attempt a risky head-on engagement with two Oscars alone? And after the first salvo have to keep the remaining Oscar off my ass because I am too slow to really fight...
• Do I turn in the opposite direction, gain enough altitude to be capable fighting efficiently, but then have to fight alone, because the other three P-40 already committed suicide?

The big problem is: For winning against any japanese plane in a P-40E, you need altitude. Not necessarily more altitude than the enemy, but enough to do a low yoyo, should you need to outturn him. Being already engaged in 500 meters altitude is much too low.

That's the best way to fight any mid- to late- 1930's American fighter design... If you turn, the Japanese fighters eat you for lunch, then have your wingman for seconds.
The Wildcat and Warhawk were energy fighters, not turning fighters. The P-38, with it's twin engines, (relatively) better turning ability, and the concentrated weapons in the nose, was without a doubt one of the best U.S. fighters in the Pacific in the early years of the war.

 

[Athena]

The only other one I remember that had a F-22 YF-23 in it was JetFighter.

Okay...your close, i still remember the nukes i wasted on destroying that Ariane 5...Ah, i remember, there was a Ariane 5 there as i think its in Kourou...:rofl:

And the pic from wikipedia is extremely close to what i remember:

 

[TMac3000]

That wouldn't be iF-22, would it?

 

[jedidia]

stack overflow after only 4100 recursions? what the niflheim? So I need a more complex floodfill algoritm, although speed optimisation would really not be an issue in this context. I hate it.

 

[Urwumpe]

stack overflow after only 4100 recursions? what the niflheim? So I need a more complex floodfill algoritm, although speed optimisation would really not be an issue in this context. I hate it.

You know, you can always make iterative, what is recursive. But recursions are more fun in Haskell. :lol: