Jump to content

Ghost Train

Members
  • Posts

    2540
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Ghost Train

  1. Gotta love big planes. They handle cross winds like they nothing at all. It is always a trip watching B-52's land in a cross wind. People not used to seeing it freak out and think the aircraft is going to crash since its gear are crabbed and the frame is pointing into the wind! I see quite a few 124's here delivering cargo. They are always parked out on the other side of the runways by the main base area.

    ... in your travels, did you ever see the one and only An-225 in action?

  2. Played X-Com 2 in Veteran at first... got destroyed. After finishing the campaign in Rookie, I'm faring much better in Veteran mode now. There are a lot more game mechanics and soldier class idiosyncracies to learn this time around, so it might not be a bad idea to swallow your pride and start in Easy mode if you're struggling. Also, the metagame is beyond punishing, it adds so much more tension than the base management of X-Com 1.

  3. Just saw this. As I've been playing space shooters lately, piqued my interest

    https://www.evevalkyrie.com/

    I am an on/off EVE online player, and also dabbled for a few months in Dust 514. The problem with CCP's EVE games is that they all eventually become a cesspool of the worst aspects of multiplayer / online gaming - scams, meta gaming, abusive exploitation of game mechanics, etc. This admittedly is also what makes EVE Online great for people who are into that sort of thing. I almost feel like their games are designed to bring out the worst in all of us :D .

    EVE has an incredibly rich lore, and I think Dust and Valkyrie were good opportunities to exploit that, and make one hall of single player campaign gaming experience or Co-Op, but instead they opted to go again make it into another multiplayer pvp-fest.

  4. That seems like a hugely misleading article. If I read it correctly, it's talking about a technology to defeat active jamming/spoofing, not "stealth," although it repeatedly uses the term and even reports a test carried out on a stealth-bomber-shaped object.

    I was under the impression that "stealth" referred to passive technologies that either minimize radar returns and/or limit them only to specific observation conditions (i.e. angles).

    I think the article is written using layperson's language that often times groups concepts like jamming and passive stealth technologies together. It does make it clear that the breakthrough is with a system that can "detect and image" objects.

    It raises the theoretical possibility that it can be "jammed" by intercepting and modifying the photons emitted by the scanner. Doing so changes the quantum information of the photon thus making the detector aware that someone is trying to spoof things. This is part of the "Observer effect" in physics, where any interaction (including passive observation) changes the particle.

×
×
  • Create New...