Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: CaptJosh on May 06, 2006, 06:55:57 pm
-
I'd like it even more if someone could do up a model of an F-14 to throw into there. Though the F-14 I think flies faster and has longer ranged weapons than anything in the game. I mean, the cannon on a Tomcat has an official effective range of 1 mile, with kills recorded out to 2 miles. That last's very nearly 4Km. IIRC, the Morningstar is the only gun with that kind of range in FS2. And then there's the AIM-54C Phoenix, a missile with an approximate effective range of 100 miles. That would play hell with balance, even with the limited loadout. F-14s can carry a max of six Phoenix missiles. 1 per wing, plus 4 more attached to the fuselage. Only six, but with that range, not to mention six AIM-7 Sparrows and four AIM-9 Sidewinders, well, the damage it could do on an FS2 battlefield without even reloading would be quite disproportionate to its sice and carrying capacity.
-
I tell you what. You take your F14 and watch it get the **** blown out of it by an amazon drone.
No air in space = no ability to move or turn. :p
-
I am well aware it would have to be modified to operate in space. For one, its engines would need to be replaced with whatever sort of engine is used in fighters in Freespace. As for your statement of no maneuverability without air, that is not precisely true. F-14s have vectored thrust engine exhaust.
-
I am well aware it would have to be modified to operate in space. For one, its engines would need to be replaced with whatever sort of engine is used in fighters in Freespace. As for your statement of no maneuverability without air, that is not precisely true. F-14s have vectored thrust engine exhaust.
Which won't work without air to burn the fuel with! :p
To be honest your entire post was ridiculous as well as off-topic (which is why it's getting moved). You ignore the fact that FS2 ships can withstand multi kT impacts and that they have shields on top of that. Your F14 would do absolutely nothing to an FS2 universe fighter. Even an unshielded Anubis would sit there and laugh at it. An Amazon drone could take it out with minimal damage. Hell it probably wouldn't even get it's paintwork scratched.
-
The fact that although the GTW Training Laser is vitrually the weakest weapon in the game, it still have energy that can be mesured in tons of TNT, and the fact that an F-14 couldn't possibley be modified for space... yeah, that just isn't going to work out.
-
I am well aware it would have to be modified to operate in space. For one, its engines would need to be replaced with whatever sort of engine is used in fighters in Freespace. As for your statement of no maneuverability without air, that is not precisely true. F-14s have vectored thrust engine exhaust.
You didn't, y'know, consider that replacing the engines, etc, with Freespace 2s' equivalents wouldn't make it, I dunno, perhaps handle like an FS2 fighter? (!)
-
It depends on the implementation. Perhaps someone could work up a Veritech fighter from Jack McKinney's Robotech books instead. It's an aerospace fighter that quite resembles the F-14 in appearance when in fighter mode, though it has far greater capabilities. (In the Macross anime, the design of a Veritech depended on where you were from. The Russians made them to resemble MiGs, for example.)
-
I am well aware it would have to be modified to operate in space. For one, its engines would need to be replaced with whatever sort of engine is used in fighters in Freespace. As for your statement of no maneuverability without air, that is not precisely true. F-14s have vectored thrust engine exhaust.
Even if you did replace it, look at the size. It is about 18 meters long, but with its height and width, it probly won't be able to fit them. Then you would need to power them. All that can't fit in that hull. I think.
-
*cough* GTF Pegasus... *cough*
-
I'd like it even more if someone could do up a model of an F-14 to throw into there. Though the F-14 I think flies faster and has longer ranged weapons than anything in the game. I mean, the cannon on a Tomcat has an official effective range of 1 mile, with kills recorded out to 2 miles. That last's very nearly 4Km. IIRC, the Morningstar is the only gun with that kind of range in FS2. And then there's the AIM-54C Phoenix, a missile with an approximate effective range of 100 miles. That would play hell with balance, even with the limited loadout. F-14s can carry a max of six Phoenix missiles. 1 per wing, plus 4 more attached to the fuselage. Only six, but with that range, not to mention six AIM-7 Sparrows and four AIM-9 Sidewinders, well, the damage it could do on an FS2 battlefield without even reloading would be quite disproportionate to its sice and carrying capacity.
I vote for this as the dumbest post of the year.
Oh and by the way, the F-14 does not have vectored thrust :p
Also, you'd have to literally rip out every bit of the F-14. How would you get oxygen and atmosphere? Where would you put the fuel for all of the attitude adjustment thrusters?
It depends on the implementation. Perhaps someone could work up a Veritech fighter from Jack McKinney's Robotech books instead. It's an aerospace fighter that quite resembles the F-14 in appearance when in fighter mode, though it has far greater capabilities. (In the Macross anime, the design of a Veritech depended on where you were from. The Russians made them to resemble MiGs, for example.)
Uh...yea, except the Veritech (Valkryie, in case you've never seen the original Macross) is a giant transforming robot. It also uses fictional "protoculture" powerplants (in Robotech at least); if you can pick up some of that, pass it around so we can all have a smoke :p
Suffice to say: no, the F-14 would not work.
-
It depends on the implementation. Perhaps someone could work up a Veritech fighter from Jack McKinney's Robotech books instead. It's an aerospace fighter that quite resembles the F-14 in appearance when in fighter mode, though it has far greater capabilities. (In the Macross anime, the design of a Veritech depended on where you were from. The Russians made them to resemble MiGs, for example.)
Let me just add to what other people have said about what you might need to add.
Radiation shielding (plus micrometeor protection). Full 360 degree inertial control. Nuclear fusion reactor linked to a subspace drive, replete with capacity to divert power to various systems. New weaponry (it's a fair assumption that - aside from shields - fighter in 300 years in the future would have somewhat improved armour and hence you would need better weapons than modern cannon). Capacity to re-arm in flight (otherwise it's operational value is severely reduced; not to mention that countermeasures and maneuverability would be expected to shake long range missile fire). Avionics for stellar travel (i.e. plotting jumps, navigating, as well as filtering out background detail for the equivalent of radar, etc). Life support systems. Ultra-long range communications equipment.
Another thing that occurs is that speed is unnecessary. In close dogfighting, agility is more important; and you don't get long range engagements because every ship possesses the ability to more or less make pinpoint jumps in close to the target. Offhand, the Harrier has a very good record against the far faster F-15 (in training dogfights/excercises) because it has the ability to turn quicker.
It's a fictional universe created for close-combat, too, and it stands to reason that technology must preclude BVR-type combat otherwise it'd be used. Likewise, any obvious tactical advantage - mile range cannon, >5km instakill type missiles, superfast engines, etc can be safely said to be impossible or rendered inefficient by the setting and tech levels.
i.e. it wouldn't be an F-14, it'd be a spacefighter shoehorned an antiquated design intended for an entirely different purpose. Not only would the advantages prescribed to it be highly improbable in this context, they'd be far easier to achieve with 'conventional' designs. So I guess you have to decide if you a) want to replace the Perseus model with an F-14 or b) increase all the stats on the Perseus for speed, weapons, etc.
-
What he said....
In atmosphere it might caouse a havoc (assusming FS2 fighters can fly in atmosphere - I THINK I saw a animation of a Ursa flying over some mountains), but in space - it would have to be completely reconfigured...
Oh - a F-14 is more manuverable than a F-15, so it would PAWN a harrier...big time.
-
You know... I've officially decided I want my own fighter jet... however that is beside the point. Replacing all the parts of an F-14 to fly in space would be vaugley equivalent to the DoD aproving a new carrier based interceptor, designed to look like a WWI bi-plane, only more so, maybe designed to look like a Viking ship.
-
What he said....
In atmosphere it might caouse a havoc (assusming FS2 fighters can fly in atmosphere - I THINK I saw a animation of a Ursa flying over some mountains), but in space - it would have to be completely reconfigured...
Oh - a F-14 is more manuverable than a F-15, so it would PAWN a harrier...big time.
More maneuverable than a VTOL, though? I doubt it. In any case that's beside the point here; the point is the advantage of maneuverability in close combat (i.e. the closest equivalent to FS2 combat in modern warfare) over speed (i.e. the faster but less maneuverable F-15). In a real combat situation a Tomcat would aim to be engaging at beyond visual range where it doesn't have to jockey into position, but BVR isn't a luxury prevalent with jump drives.
I'm not suggesting outfitting a Harrier with a fusion drive and Prometheus' (that would be inane), just noting that in an environment where combat is forced into close range (with capacity for evasion via jumping) it'd be more valuable to turn on a die than go faster.
-
What he said....
In atmosphere it might caouse a havoc (assusming FS2 fighters can fly in atmosphere - I THINK I saw a animation of a Ursa flying over some mountains), but in space - it would have to be completely reconfigured...
Oh - a F-14 is more manuverable than a F-15, so it would PAWN a harrier...big time.
I believe the only ship in freespace that has atmospheric flying ability is the perseus, i think that was said in the tech room, even though in a command briefing animation a horus was seen flying over the landscape.
Personally I like the F117 Nighthawk (stealth bomber) and a new russian fighter that has the wings inverted, forgot the name of it.
-
The FS Universe itself is completely unrealistic. I mean it's arcade "physics", you can fit a a dozen missiles in the volume of a maverick, unlimited power source... sure you can model an F-14 and throw it in there, give it real world stats, see how it does.
But now, i give you...
The Mustang Mk XVIIXVIX Pwnzer Special edition.
Power Source: 4X Zero-Point Module
Propulsion:
The anti-space Propellor- as this baby spins, depending on the modulation, warps space-time, chanelling it into a subspace warp tunnel. the resultant wake gives the fighter an apparent max velocity of your imagination
Maneauverability:
Handles better than your grandma's old Ulysses
Weapons:
-6X M9999X^2 50mm Antimatter rounds with a phase modulating jacket(so it'll go through shields) This sucker will vaporize anything below Sathanas class armour. 12500 Rounds per Minute. According to newtonian physics, its range is indefinite, but it has been field tested in the FS Universe at 35km It comes with and internal O2 Injector for a synthesized firing atmosphere and a Vacuum ammo replicator.
-AIM bloody big number Mk 2 Apocalypse, Range 2.56AU, Yield (you don't wanna know). Fires in swarms of 4. Max Payload 120
Shielding:
Do you really need to ask? Lucifer class shielding.
Armour: Multilayerd Bio-high-density polymer smart Armour
+it will fly in atmosphere
Let's pit this beauty against a squad of those F-14s :yes:
-
Oh yeah?
The Killalotapeeps ship MK I
infinite manuverability
infnite power
infinite speed
infinite range with all weapons
infinite sheilds
infinite damage with weapons
infinte helios missles that go infinite speed and infinete damage
indestructeble
invinceble
impervious
annialation
destruction
rampaging
;)
-
so, as soon as you touch the joystick, your ship goes into a spin with infinite Gs and you're splattered all over the cockpit ;7
besides, mine looks cooler :p
-
ISD Polaris ftw.
It has no controls save one. The red button marked "WIN".
-
What he said....
In atmosphere it might caouse a havoc (assusming FS2 fighters can fly in atmosphere - I THINK I saw a animation of a Ursa flying over some mountains), but in space - it would have to be completely reconfigured...
Oh - a F-14 is more manuverable than a F-15, so it would PAWN a harrier...big time.
I believe the only ship in freespace that has atmospheric flying ability is the perseus, i think that was said in the tech room, even though in a command briefing animation a horus was seen flying over the landscape.
Personally I like the F117 Nighthawk (stealth bomber) and a new russian fighter that has the wings inverted, forgot the name of it.
It seems evident the GTVA has anti-gravity tech for atmospheric flight, though, given the transports seen in the VPrime cbanim. Although how well that would work in, say, a badly damaged Hercules hurtling through the atmosphere is another matter altogether... :D
I don't remember any mention of atmospheric capability for any FS1 or FS2 ship, though.
-
Well given the cutscenes :v: never did, it seems Elysiums and Isis transports are supposed to be able to fly in air, from the VC tech room entries I would assume most Zod (Vasudan) freighters can fly... I wouldn't try that with a Fenris though, or a Deimos, or a Orion, or a Collie.
-
While obviously the "F-14 in space" is silly, and I understand the ranges isssue in FS, it does raise an interesting issue.
Missile-fighters.
i.e. fighters more biased towards missile armament. Not necessarily potato-handling craft like the Aries.
Say a single gun, yup, 1 bank 1 gun, 1x1 and then lots of missles, 4 bays maybe.
1 Kayser and a nice collection of missles (20 Trebs, 40 Harpoons, 80 Tornadoes and 10 of those cluster things.) would actually make an excellent interceptor. The 1 gun would help defend against fighters.
Well, whatever I'm just yacking.
-
so, as soon as you touch the joystick, your ship goes into a spin with infinite Gs and you're splattered all over the cockpit ;7
In some subtle way this is possibility one of the funniest posts ever. :lol: :lol:
-
While obviously the "F-14 in space" is silly, and I understand the ranges isssue in FS, it does raise an interesting issue.
Missile-fighters.
i.e. fighters more biased towards missile armament. Not necessarily potato-handling craft like the Aries.
Say a single gun, yup, 1 bank 1 gun, 1x1 and then lots of missles, 4 bays maybe.
1 Kayser and a nice collection of missles (20 Trebs, 40 Harpoons, 80 Tornadoes and 10 of those cluster things.) would actually make an excellent interceptor. The 1 gun would help defend against fighters.
Well, whatever I'm just yacking.
The RAF version of the Eurofighter actually takes that approach, dumping any support for the cannon and relying on the missiles (which are apparently a wee bit better than the USAF equivalent in, i think, range terms). Except it costs more to remodel the airframe aerodynamics if you remove the actual cannon, so they're keeping the gun itself.... just not paying for the ammo for it.
Yes, that's how cheap the RAF has got - we can't actually afford bullets.
-
The USAF (USN! What am I smoking!) toyed with this in the late '50s as well.
The Douglas F6D "Missileer" was going to be the new fleet defence fighter. Slow subsonic straight-winged thing that would have carried 6 to 8 long range missiles.
Thankfully they went with the F-4 Phantom II instead but even that lacked a gun in it's first three production versions. (F-4B, F-4C, F-4D).
I just found in the last missions on FS2 that I found myself needing (even on an Erinyes with 4 Kaysers and 4 Circes) LOTS of missiles to intercept the bombers fast enough.
A medium sized, maybe a little bigger than Perseus, well shielded (armour is not important, brief tangles with bombers gunners only) fastish (75mps?) fighter with ave manouverability (as good as an Apollo) one gun and 4 missile bays.
Fun!
Then again I suppose I need to make a campaign to make new fighters eh?
-
in space, the drone would win, in an atmosphere, the tomcat would win by its ability to actually get off the ground :p
-
Actually if we're being pedantic the F-14 would win in both cases due the fact that in FS2 the Amazon only exists in computer simulations. :p
-
Actually if we're being pedantic the F-14 would win in both cases due the fact that in FS2 the Amazon only exists in computer simulations. :p
(really pedantic)
Neither would win because an F-14 can't beat something that doesn't exist. Like a fight between a Stegosaurus and George Bushes intellect.
-
The USAF toyed with this in the late '50s as well.
The Douglas F6D "Missileer" was going to be the new fleet defence fighter. Slow subsonic straight-winged thing that would have carried 6 to 8 long range missiles.
Thankfully they went with the F-4 Phantom II instead but even that lacked a gun in it's first three production versions. (F-4B, F-4C, F-4D).
This is actually an interesting point that was a great point of disagreement in the military aviation community; that since the advent of missiles, close in dogfighting was theoretically impossible, and as such cannons were useless. During the Vietnam war, this proved not to be the case, and the Phantom was subsequently modified to carry a podded cannon.
The need for a cannon in all fighters as a backup weapon has carried through from the Vietnam war all the way to modern times; the F-22, the most advanced fighter in the world, has a single 20 mm cannon installed internally.
A fighter without a gun is like a baseball hitter who can't bunt. You don't need it a lot, but when you do, it's crucial.
-
A fighter without a gun is like a baseball hitter who can't bunt. You don't need it a lot, but when you do, it's crucial.
Y'know, some of us have absolutely no idea what that means.
-
Y'know, some most of us have absolutely no idea what that means.
Fixed it for you.
-
Y'know, some of us have absolutely no idea what that means.
You Brits rest of the world and your lack of baseball knowledge. :p
I think what UT was getting at is that bunting (i.e. very lightly tapping the ball with the bat) can be crucial in determining the outcome of a baseball game. Likewise, guns in a fighter can be crucial in determining whether a fighter survives or not (especially when the little bugger that the fighter is dogfighting won't stay in the HUD long enough for a missile lock).
-
Y'know, some of us have absolutely no idea what that means.
You Brits rest of the world and your lack of baseball knowledge. :p
I think what UT was getting at is that bunting (i.e. very lightly tapping the ball with the bat) can be crucial in determining the outcome of a baseball game. Likewise, guns in a fighter can be crucial in determining whether a fighter survives or not (especially when the little bugger that the fighter is dogfighting won't stay in the HUD long enough for a missile lock).
Nope, you'll have to explain it better than that.
-
Bunting - rather than sing the bat at the ball and knock it realy far, you just gently tap the ball so it more or less falls to your feet.
-
Yes...yeesh, at least when you brits or whatever say something, I go and look it up on dictionary.com or what not :p
And bunting is in a baseball game, when you slightly tap the ball and it falls right in front of you, as opposed to swinging the bat really hard and hitting it out of the park.
Bunting = Gun (close in)
Hitting = Missile (far away)
-
And that is good why?
-
Personally I like the F117 Nighthawk (stealth bomber) and a new russian fighter that has the wings inverted, forgot the name of it.
Su-47. the correct spelling is Zukhov, right?
-
At certain situations it is more feasible than hitting the ball further. Like, say, when you want your man from 1st base to second before you have to go to first base yourself...
Though I only know the rules for Finnish baseball, which is somewhat different from American baseball.
Which doesn't change the fact that all that is completely irrelevant considering the actual subject of this topic... :rolleyes:
So, in order to make an F-14 fighter function in a vacuum, it should be updated with:
-advanced life support systems, including fully pressurized and sealed cockpit section OR a TIE-Fighter style combat suit, whichever floats your boat
-oxidizer for the fuel burned by engines (you'd have to replace at least half of the fuel tanks in the plane with LOX tanks, which is not as simple as it sounds because liquid oxygen is either very very cold or very very high pressurized and in applications like this it is both)
-Very good insulation for fuel tanks to prevent freezing, and most likely you'd need heaters in the tanks as well
-attitude thrusters to be able to control the ship
-advanced radiators or huge heat sinks to absorb the excess heat produced by the engines and other systems in the plane
-updated radar systems adapted to see FS/FS2 ships, should there be something special about them.
That's it, you're set. Now your F-14 can fly in space, at least until it runs out of fuel and oxygen. Different thing is what it would need to do a scratch on Amazon.
The easiest way would be toreplace the original missiles with Harpoon missiles. It wouldn't carry many of them, but it could destroy a drone without problems should it have them. This solution wouldn't have a need of huge-ass reactor to produce energy for some FS/FS2 era weapon.
Anyway. It wouldn't really be F-14 anymore. It's maneuverability would be dependant of the attitude thruster system implemented on it. The main thrusters would generate the same thrust as on earth, if you could provide oxygen onto them... and they would generate quit an acceleration, should the world of FS use real life physics... but it doesn't, so the conversation is actually quite useless anyway.
It would win or lose depending on how good you want to make it. :lol:
And I believe the mentioned Sukhoi fighter with inverted wings is Sukhoi-47 Berkut (Golden Eagle in English).
-
At certain situations it is more feasible than hitting the ball further. Like, say, when you want your man from 1st base to second before you have to go to first base yourself...
Right, let's just quit this because that's all gibberish to me.
-
And I believe the mentioned Sukhoi fighter with inverted wings is Sukhoi-47 Berkut (Golden Eagle in English).
Sukhoi, that's it. thanks.
-
Just because I like watching aldo squirm, I'll actually attempt to explain this. :p
For anyone who has never seen a game of baseball (and I metaphorically spit on those of you this applies to ;)), the objective of the team on offense is to advance the runners around the bases (which are arranged in a diamond shape) by hitting the ball, which is thrown by the pitcher from the center of the diamond over home plate. (I won't get into balls and strikes, since it's not really relevant to the question.) To score a run for his team, a runner must advance through all four bases, from first to second to third to home. Runners can only advance a base (or more) in certain circumstances: when the ball is hit into play by the batter, by stealing the next base, or a few other methods that I won't get into. If the bases behind a runner are full, a fielder can get the runner out (three outs ends an inning) by simply stepping on the base the runner is running to; if not, he must tag the runner with the ball. An out also occurs when a fly ball is caught by a fielder.
Anyways, in most normal cases, the batter tries to swing and hit the ball with full force, with the intent of getting a single, double, triple, or home run (hitting the ball out of the park, which means at least one automatic run, more if people are already on base). However, there are circumstances where a hitter finds it more important to advance the runners on base than to get on base himself. This usually happens when a team is down by a few runs or else wants to put up an insurance run or two between themselves and the opponent. It often involves advancing a runner from first to second base, since this makes it possible for a reasonably fast runner to score on a single-base hit. There are usually two reasonable ways of doing this. If there is a runner at third base, a batter will often attempt a sacrifice fly, hitting a fly ball deep into the outfield, allowing the runner at third to 'tag up' after the ball is caught and run home to score. The other way is by bunting, which involves holding the bat horizontal to the ground over the plate and tapping the ball toward the ground, usually toward a baseline. If done correctly, this usually forces a fielder to get the guaranteed out at first, allowing any runners on base to advance. If done extremely well, a fast batter may be able to get on base himself.
UT's comment applies in that, for a modern fighter jet, missiles are definitely the preferred and most-often-used pieces of armament. Using a gun is only good at very close range in certain circumstances. That being said, there are a few situations where using the gun is not only well-advised, but absolutely necessary; doing so could save a pilot's life. An interesting side note here is that the A-10 Warthog anti-tank attack craft proves as an exception to this rule. While it does carry air-to-ground missiles, its primary weapon is an absolutely massive and stunningly rapid Gatling gun that fires depleted uranium rounds. Its entire design is based on being maneuverable at slow speeds and being able to take a withering amount of enemy fire while still making it home. The things have been used for the past 25 years, and as far as I know, they're scheduled to remain in service until at least 2035 or so. They may be ugly, but the people who fly them absolutely love them. If the F-16 is the Valkyrie of the fighter world, the A-10 is definitely the Herc. :p
Not that all of this has much to do with the original topic (and that didn't make much sense anyway), but I thought it still made for a reasonable explanation. I agree with UT, though; you Brits have no right to complain about unfamiliar terms when you subject us to reams upon reams of nearly indecipherable slang on a daily basis. ;)
-
At least now I understand why baseball is regarded as one of the most boring sports on earth, at least.
you Brits have no right to complain about unfamiliar terms when you subject us to reams upon reams of nearly indecipherable slang on a daily basis. ;)
It's our language, we'll do what we bloody well like with it, and besides which we need indecipherable slang to confuse Americans :p
Ye ken?
-
Actualy, the A-10's primary weapon is the maverick IIRC.
Myself, I'd say the A-10 is more of an athena, there's even a tad of visual resemblence there...
-
If you want to talk about confusing/boring, let's get into Cricket aldo :p
And anyway, one of the A-10s major weapons is indeed it's cannon. The entire forward section is built around that thing, and it is truly awe-inspiring.
-
If you want to talk about confusing/boring, let's get into Cricket aldo :p
Before you start.... I'm a Scot.
-
The entire forward section is built around that thing, and it is truly awe-inspiring.
Indeed, any weapon that can literally stop its parent vehical by sustained fire alone definitely earns the title of 'awe-inspiring'.
-
Sounds like we'd all enjoy a "super-maxim" gun for FS2. hehehe.
I would like a Morningstar that does slighly more damage, would be nice for warhead kills.
-
If you want to talk about confusing/boring, let's get into Cricket aldo :p
Before you start.... I'm a Scot.
Alright, lets talk about throwing tree trunks.
-
Alright, lets talk about throwing tree trunks.
You don't know much about Scotland, do you?
-
maybe it was ireland then. scotland tends to have no trees.
-
It's our language, we'll do what we bloody well like with it, and besides which we need indecipherable slang to confuse Americans :p
You stole it from the Germans and modified it, just as the Americans did to yours. So it's no more yours than ours, or germany's :p
-
It's our language, we'll do what we bloody well like with it, and besides which we need indecipherable slang to confuse Americans :p
You stole it from the Germans and modified it, just as the Americans did to yours. So it's no more yours than ours, or germany's :p
There wasn't even a Germany at that point.
-
You stole it from the Germans and modified it, just as the Americans did to yours. So it's no more yours than ours, or germany's :p
1) We had the decency to change the name
2) We don't keep insisting the germans are spelling and pronouncing everything wrong.
-
At least now I understand why baseball is regarded as one of the most boring sports on earth, at least.
you Brits have no right to complain about unfamiliar terms when you subject us to reams upon reams of nearly indecipherable slang on a daily basis. ;)
It's our language, we'll do what we bloody well like with it, and besides which we need indecipherable slang to confuse Americans :p
Ye ken?
Ha! I actually understood that! :p
As for baseball being boring, the way I see it, the people who say that just don't understand the subtleties of the game: the delicate interplay between pitcher and batter, the playing-out of strategy over innings, the way a single swing of the bat can suddenly bring 50,000 people to their feet, shouting and screaming. Every pitch has a meaning, and every move by a runner or fielder is a signal for what's going to happen next. There's no timer here, and the game's never over until the last out; you always get one more chance for redemption. There's nothing in all of sports quite like watching a fantastic pitcher's duel between two players at the top of their games, or watching as your team turns on the bats and scores run after run in a single inning. As a French author (I believe) said near the turn of the century, "To understand the American spirit, one must understand baseball." Guess that explains a lot about trans-Atlantic relations, doesn't it? :p
-
As a French author (I believe) said near the turn of the century, "To understand the American spirit, one must understand baseball." Guess that explains a lot about trans-Atlantic relations, doesn't it? :p
You're all nuts.
-
I'm American.
...baseball is really, really boring.
-
I'm English, from one of the good bits of Kent so I even speak in recieved pronounciation (the queen's English) I enjoy playing baseball and I like the F14... erm. Thats all i have to say really.
-
Bearing in mind that I'm from the Darford area I expect to have that "good bit of Kent" comment clarified immediately! :D
-
I'm American.
...baseball is really, really boring.
second
-
I'm American.
...baseball is really, really boring.
play the damn game and you'll see that it isn't boring. :doubt:
-
If you play it almost any sport isn't boring. Even perhaps golf. :nod:
-
I'm American.
...baseball is really, really boring.
second
Third.
...unless you're nuts like me over the Cubs...
-
Baseball is a very stylized sport...much like US football. There are long breaks in it. I prefer faster-moving and more freeform sports.
-
I tried baseball I'll admit, and I guess I didn't mind it TOO much. It was the people who played it that I never liked. Bastardly jockish type people that I've had experience with sucked all the fun out of the game.
Just like soccer (footy or whatever). I got shoved in some kiddy league when I was a kid, hated it. When I was forced to play it in Physical Education (a class I managed to have with mostly a class of friends) it was a blast. So it kinda depends on who's playing sometimes.
-
What does any of this have to do with an f-14 versus an amazon?
Why should this thread stay open?
-
Because it hasn't done anything lockworthy yet. HLP's never locked for offtopicness before. :p
-
Space faring F-14s thru Baseball to Trans-atlantic relations.
This is a interesting BBS!
For the record I have to agree that both baseball and American Football (and Nascar) are like all American sports too stylized and too stilted and too tactical.
It's more about tactics and logistics than actually doing anything. (unlike Rugby)
-
And I happen to think that rugby/futbol involve far too much running around and random tackling and not nearly enough tactics. :p
So...anyway...no way an Amazon could take a Tomcat...
-
Like a bar brawl on a field! You should try it! Fun!
-
And I happen to think that rugby/futbol involve far too much running around and random tackling and not nearly enough tactics. :p
Ah, not played football properly, then? Poor lad.
-
What does any of this have to do with an f-14 versus an amazon?
Well considering that this topic only even exists as a split and move from the SCP forum maybe it's time to pass the cancer on to Hard Light :D
-
The said thing is, that allough the F-14 is one of the best planes ever built, it's fate was sealed by politics.....
chekc the wikipedia about it and you'll see why the F-14 molds were destroyed.
-
What does any of this have to do with an f-14 versus an amazon?
Well considering that this topic only even exists as a split and move from the SCP forum maybe it's time to pass the cancer on to Hard Light :D
Might Just do that, with a rename.
-
I'm American.
...baseball is really, really boring.
play the damn game and you'll see that it isn't boring. :doubt:
its boring, just accept it.
-
The said thing is, that allough the F-14 is one of the best planes ever built, it's fate was sealed by politics.....
chekc the wikipedia about it and you'll see why the F-14 molds were destroyed.
The F-14 was not destroyed by politics, it was destroyed by cost. It took too much money for too little gain to maintain the aircraft, which was designed to fight an enemy that doesn't exist any more. Virtually every part was constantly being replaced, and compared to the new F/A-18Es which are rolling off the line, it was very, very, very cost innefective.
However, the reason that the F-14 parts can't be released IS political, and has to do with the Iran incident. If Iran ever got a hold of the spare parts, it could reverse-engineer them and restore their F-14s to flying condition. Which would be bad.
Space faring F-14s thru Baseball to Trans-atlantic relations.
This is a interesting BBS!
For the record I have to agree that both baseball and American Football (and Nascar) are like all American sports too stylized and too stilted and too tactical.
It's more about tactics and logistics than actually doing anything. (unlike Rugby)
So are you saying it's better to be stupid and just run straight without any tactics? Tactics = brainpower! :p
But yea, for baseball to be understanding, you have to either play it or understand it. At least we're not fah-rea-king insane like all you Europeans about soccer! Mass riots? International wars? Jesus, and people make fun of Red Sox fans :p
-
So are you saying it's better to be stupid and just run straight without any tactics? Tactics = brainpower! :p
Running would be a nice start. American football is, in particular, bizarre for me because it tears the good bits of rugby to pieces and replaces them with ad breaks. Celebrating after a tackle? What on earth is that about?*
But yea, for baseball to be understanding, you have to either play it or understand it. At least we're not fah-rea-king insane like all you Europeans about soccer! Mass riots? International wars? Jesus, and people make fun of Red Sox fans :p
Firstly, US sports have arguably a worse record on hooliganism than football does in Europe (http://football.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9753,1660884,00.html). Although at least footie is exciting enough for people to care. I have played rounders and baseball before, the latter courtesy of a merkin friend at school; it's just a dull sport.
(NB: the 'soccer war' was in Central America, firstly, and took place in the background of the Honduran government evicting thousands of Salvadoran legal-and-illegal immigrants from arable land in response to agitation for land from the Honduran peasantry. Whilst the qualifiers may have been a spark for violence, there is no doubt the governments of both countries cynically manipulated them for political purposes)
*I'm aware of the complete and utter pointlessness of arguing about this sort of thing - but, admit it, it's fun! :D
-
This is one of the weirdest threads I've ever seen on any forum. Not the weirdest one, but I'd say it goes in top 10.
Okay, my 0,20 monetary units come here:
What Makes Baseball, Basketball, Volleyball and games like these boring: High learning curve. It's not easy to play these well, and if you don't know how to play well - OR you're in very good company that doesn't care about the results - it's just plain boring to play these games.
On baseball you have to be able to both hit the ball and catch it, both of which take time to learn. And while playing these games, most players are just idling and waiting their turn to hit, or if they are on the field they're idling and waiting for the ball to come to their approximate location. I've played Finnish baseball in school and it is just plain boring when the players are mostly not playing it as a hobby... and watching baseball is even more dull. Basketball would be slightly more interesting to watch, but it happens to be a small sports here so I couldn't really give a damn of the results so it becomes just as dull as baseball. And it's boring to play if you don't practice it and become good at it. Same applies to volleyball.
On the other hand, a sport like football is very easy in basic principles and it's a lot easier to enjoy just playing the game even if you're not pro. So, football is nice to play I'd say... but most of the time it's quite dull to watch if you have no affiliation with teams.
Ice hockey and ice ball and such are also nice to play while youve learned skating. Plus it's quite more fun to watch than football... though that depends also a great deal of many things, of course. Bad hockey game can be worse to watch than a mediocre football game. :D
American football I know nothing about. Though it definitely doesn't seem as much fun to play with random people like, in school lessons.
-
Chess > Any sport
Live with it.
-
And I happen to think that rugby/futbol involve far too much running around and random tackling and not nearly enough tactics. :p
WhAt??? Have you ever played on an organized team? Don't say that until you have. Trust me :)
-
This is one of the weirdest threads I've ever seen on any forum. Not the weirdest one, but I'd say it goes in top 10.
Okay, my 0,20 monetary units come here:
What Makes Baseball, Basketball, Volleyball and games like these boring: High learning curve. It's not easy to play these well, and if you don't know how to play well - OR you're in very good company that doesn't care about the results - it's just plain boring to play these games.
On baseball you have to be able to both hit the ball and catch it, both of which take time to learn. And while playing these games, most players are just idling and waiting their turn to hit, or if they are on the field they're idling and waiting for the ball to come to their approximate location. I've played Finnish baseball in school and it is just plain boring when the players are mostly not playing it as a hobby... and watching baseball is even more dull. Basketball would be slightly more interesting to watch, but it happens to be a small sports here so I couldn't really give a damn of the results so it becomes just as dull as baseball. And it's boring to play if you don't practice it and become good at it. Same applies to volleyball.
On the other hand, a sport like football is very easy in basic principles and it's a lot easier to enjoy just playing the game even if you're not pro. So, football is nice to play I'd say... but most of the time it's quite dull to watch if you have no affiliation with teams.
Ice hockey and ice ball and such are also nice to play while youve learned skating. Plus it's quite more fun to watch than football... though that depends also a great deal of many things, of course. Bad hockey game can be worse to watch than a mediocre football game. :D
American football I know nothing about. Though it definitely doesn't seem as much fun to play with random people like, in school lessons.
Very sport has a form of learning curve, but it doesn't affect enjoyment. Rugby is really hard to play, for example. So is ice hockey and arguably regular hockey. I'd say knowledge about the game affects your ability to enjoy watching it, i.e. knowing when a team is breaking into a good position on the counter-attack at footie or when a tennis player is in a vulnerable position, but actual difficulty of picking it up doesn't. And of course personal experience and culture kind of affect it too... but I could enjoy formula 1 before I even drove, and I played rugby a fair bit at school yet don't enjoy it that much (although my dad didn't play rugby but goes to most of Scotlands' home games).
-
american football is fun. Think of it as taking other people's land by force and wearing tight pants while your at it.
and aldo: throwing tree trunks is from scotland http://www-db.stanford.edu/~mor/2004/scotland/dsc_0704.html
-
At least we're not fah-rea-king insane like all you Europeans about soccer! Mass riots? International wars? Jesus, and people make fun of Red Sox fans :p
Actually you are. Your press simply doesn't report it.
-
american football is fun. Think of it as taking other people's land by force and wearing tight pants while your at it.
and aldo: throwing tree trunks is from scotland http://www-db.stanford.edu/~mor/2004/scotland/dsc_0704.html
a) caber is closer to a telegraph pole than a tree trunk
b)How many people do you think actually caber-toss? Here's a hint; the Highlands are one of the least densely populated parts of the country.
c)I think I know what the primary scottish sport it
-
sarchasm, mr. spock :p
-
Geeze. What have you people done with my topic?!
I just wanted an F-14 in the game.
Why? Because I want to see about sort of Top Gun mod. You know.
<Movie announcer voice> "You ARE Maverick. Take on your fellow pilots in training, and the enemy once you're on the battlefield. Can you excell at Miramar and graduate as Top Gun? Or will you have to wait until you're out on the battlefield to prove your supremacy over your friends...and, more importantly, over the enemy."
Doesn't that sound like fun?
-
Why? Because I want to see about sort of Top Gun mod. You know.
Lovely. So now we can suit up in an F-14 and conduct physically impossible maneuvers against American planes "disguised" as MiGs that would outmaneuver an F-14 in any other situation, all the while listening to deafening 80's pop blasted into our faces to give the illusion of 'edge', all presented in such a way that would make a music-video director blanch. Sound's like riles of fun to me!*
*In case you haven't yet noticed, I really, really hate Top Gun.
-
It's still vastly more interesting than anything concerning sports.
-
Why? Because I want to see about sort of Top Gun mod. You know.
Lovely. So now we can suit up in an F-14 and conduct physically impossible maneuvers against American planes "disguised" as MiGs that would outmaneuver an F-14 in any other situation, all the while listening to deafening 80's pop blasted into our faces to give the illusion of 'edge', all presented in such a way that would make a music-video director blanch. Sound's like riles of fun to me!*
*In case you haven't yet noticed, I really, really hate Top Gun.
Hiiiiiighwaaaay to the Danger Zone...
-
Surely I'm not the only person who thinks Top Gun was one of the most homoerotic movies in history?
-
Surely I'm not the only person who thinks Top Gun was one of the most homoerotic movies in history?
Nope (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=five_****ty_movies)
Edit: ****ing word filter...
Insert 's**t' at your behest.
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=five_****ty_movies
-
Firstly, US sports have arguably a worse record on hooliganism than football does in Europe (http://football.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9753,1660884,00.html). Although at least footie is exciting enough for people to care. I have played rounders and baseball before, the latter courtesy of a merkin friend at school; it's just a dull sport.
I think it's hilarious to see all of the Philly bashing in that article. Nice to see that our reputation extends globally. :D
I also love how that author keeps using the term "hooligan" for rowdy football fans, when almost no one over here would ever use it. I prefer the term "drunk idiots" myself. I also understand the points that he's trying to make, but I still don't see things as quite as hypocritically as he paints them. Let's face it: I've rarely, if ever, heard of any sporting event over here where human beings are trampled to death by being crammed against fences. That's wrong on way too many levels. And yes, there is rioting when teams win championships, but then there was rioting during the immigration protests last week. Get enough people together in one place impassioned about something, and things like that are bound to happen. I also think he's greatly exaggerated a lot of what goes on during Eagles games; I think the dog **** claim is a little out of left field myself. Sure, things get crazy, but to that level, I don't think so.
As for any sport being "boring," maybe I just look at things differently. I found curling to be pretty damn interesting during the Olympics, I watch professional billiards on TV, and hell, I'm even a NASCAR fan. And yet, I can't sit through five minutes of a soccer game without becoming bored. :p
thesizzler, I haven't played any sport in an organized fashion besides Little League baseball and high school tennis. I can only go by what I see for sports I haven't played. As far as soccer goes, I had a hell of a lot more fun playing it out in the backyard at night on a 30 degree hillside with the grass wet with dew and two cones set up a foot apart for goals than I could ever imagine having playing by any set of standardized rules. Before you call me a hypocrite, I happen to have the most fun playing tennis in an actual match, so it's not that I dislike organized sports out of principle.
P.S. Top Gun kicks ass. I "saw" that movie while still in the womb, and I'll watch it any time it's on today. :)
-
I also love how that author keeps using the term "hooligan" for rowdy football fans, when almost no one over here would ever use it. I prefer the term "drunk idiots" myself.
Perhaps you should look up the meaning of hooligan; the authors exact point is that behaviour tarred as hooliganism relating to football (the proper name for the sport; soccer is association football, i.e. under the auspices of an association such as the FA, so if you use that then American Football is NFLball by the same standard) is dismissed as 'rowdy' in the US when it would draw hooligan headlines in the UK.
Let's face it: I've rarely, if ever, heard of any sporting event over here where human beings are trampled to death by being crammed against fences
Neither have I. The last fencing-related disaster in the Uk was 1989, after which the fences were removed from stadia. I don't know of any that have occured in Europe atall per-se. Certainly I can't remember any riot-type event in the UK relating to a football game for years, not even the Old Firm ones.
What is interesting, and what I think shows the authors point very well, is that here your citing the same outright wrong claim referenced in the guardian article;
But first, here's a few brief extracts from America's ongoing and ever growing fascination with "soccer" hooliganism.
"We all know that in Europe you're not really considered a sports fan until you've been crushed to death against a chain-link fence," chuckles US TV satirist Steven Colbert.
-
Geeze. What have you people done with my topic?!
I just wanted an F-14 in the game.
Why? Because I want to see about sort of Top Gun mod. You know.
Nothing wrong with that. In fact someone was doing something along those lines a few years back (IIRC it was Max Sterling). It's not very realistic but who cares as long as it's fun. Hell shove the music from the Afterburner arcade machine in the background and I'm sold.
The problem is when you start claiming that an F-14 could match anything in the FS2 universe. It's such absolute rubbish that you're going to get called on it if you say it.
-
Geeze. What have you people done with my topic?!
I just wanted an F-14 in the game.
Why? Because I want to see about sort of Top Gun mod. You know.
Nothing wrong with that. In fact someone was doing something along those lines a few years back (IIRC it was Max Sterling). It's not very realistic but who cares as long as it's fun. Hell shove the music from the Afterburner arcade machine in the background and I'm sold.
The problem is when you start claiming that an F-14 could match anything in the FS2 universe. It's such absolute rubbish that you're going to get called on it if you say it.
Didn't Nico add in a bunch (well, I remember one...) of modern day fighters a while back. I don't think he did a Tomcat, though; I suspect one was an F-22.
-
The impression that I received from that article was that "hooliganism" was a term referring to a more organized form of sports-related violence, rather than a few morons who had a few too many at a game. If that wasn't what it was referring to, then I was incorrect in thinking that the term wouldn't apply. As for the claim itself, all I really have to go on is what has always been presented in the media over here, wrong or not; it's not like I can just hop over there and see if those claims are incorrect, even if I did have the reason/motivation to do so. All I know is that, in both the media and entertainment over here, this football "hooliganism" has always been given that sort of treatment; even if you turn on one of those "World's Wildest Police Videos" programs that air during daytime cable, you're likely to see at least one European or South American sports-related incident. (For all I know, these videos could be twenty years old, but I've seen them nontheless.) If this coverage really is as incorrect as the article states, then it makes a very good point.
I'll ask you this, as someone who's obviously much more familiar with it than me: exactly how much coverage does sports-related violence receive in your country's media, and is it coverage that is generally accepted or just dismissed as sensationalism? Also, is the whole idea of organized thugs at sporting events just another aspect of the misinformation, or does/did that sort of thing really exist? I can honestly say I've never heard of something like that happening over here, although that doesn't mean it hasn't happened or isn't happening.
P.S. Regarding one specific point the article made, about the Ron Artest fight in the stands during the Pacers/Pistons basketball game, I can tell you that that was in the news and sports talk almost nonstop for at least a good two weeks, so much so that I became extremely tired of hearing about it after the first day or two. The league definitely didn't brush it off as something inconsequential, either.
-
I can say being a Brit that hooliganism has all but been stamped out here in the UK, there are still a few small factions, but these are rarely reported in the media as this would give the gangs Kudos, (street cred). It 's now more prevelant in mainland Europe than it is here. But we have the dubious honour of creating football hooliganism. Hooliganism as a whole in the uk is now more associated with drinking alcohol (lots within a short space of time) there's a word for this which escapes me for the moment!
-
what is your favourite dinosaur dudes
mine is propably oviraptor
-
The impression that I received from that article was that "hooliganism" was a term referring to a more organized form of sports-related violence, rather than a few morons who had a few too many at a game. If that wasn't what it was referring to, then I was incorrect in thinking that the term wouldn't apply. As for the claim itself, all I really have to go on is what has always been presented in the media over here, wrong or not; it's not like I can just hop over there and see if those claims are incorrect, even if I did have the reason/motivation to do so. All I know is that, in both the media and entertainment over here, this football "hooliganism" has always been given that sort of treatment; even if you turn on one of those "World's Wildest Police Videos" programs that air during daytime cable, you're likely to see at least one European or South American sports-related incident. (For all I know, these videos could be twenty years old, but I've seen them nontheless.) If this coverage really is as incorrect as the article states, then it makes a very good point.
I'll ask you this, as someone who's obviously much more familiar with it than me: exactly how much coverage does sports-related violence receive in your country's media, and is it coverage that is generally accepted or just dismissed as sensationalism? Also, is the whole idea of organized thugs at sporting events just another aspect of the misinformation, or does/did that sort of thing really exist? I can honestly say I've never heard of something like that happening over here, although that doesn't mean it hasn't happened or isn't happening.
P.S. Regarding one specific point the article made, about the Ron Artest fight in the stands during the Pacers/Pistons basketball game, I can tell you that that was in the news and sports talk almost nonstop for at least a good two weeks, so much so that I became extremely tired of hearing about it after the first day or two. The league definitely didn't brush it off as something inconsequential, either.
Put it this way.
Yes, it does happen. When it does, it is reported seriously; it's referred to as 'the english disease' after all (it's never been a major problem in Scotland though, in spite of the Old Firm rivalry, and the Tartan Army is world-reknowed for their impeccable behaviour). It does not happen anywhere near as often as the US media portrays it, and I cannot personally remember hearing of a major disturbance - i.e. crowd riot in or outside the ground - at a British football game in my lifetime. Although there are more significant problems in Europe - the Lazio Ultras spring to mind - it is still the exception rather than the rule. So it is grossly unfair that the US popular media perpetuates this bizarre stereotype of football being violent or dangerous to watch; even more unfair to the English, of course, because the US tends to forget the rest of the British Isles exists.
Hooliganism FYI refers to a group of people causing destruction or violence; usually male, usually drunk.
-
Baseball is my god. Go Yankees. Enough said.
-
It usually isn't though. There's a certain amount of cherry picking here by those writing that story that I don't really want to get in to but overall violent, dangerous behavior is given a lot of publicity here. See the Pistons/Pacers Palace brawl in late 2004; the fans were run through the media grinder over their behavior there (leading to a re-evaluation of the sale of alcohol at all NBA events, I might add, even though I don't think anything changed in the long run). There's a lot of talk about how inappropriate rioting is too, when it happens. The Red Sox thing was a bit of an exception because that franchise is steeped in so much history and tradition (real tradition, not some phantom thing that gets brought out to sell more tickets) that it was almost expected to happen once they won. It doesn't excuse it of couse, but the media treated it a bit more kindly than they would have had it been anyone else. College students rioting after a title win though is slammed by the press pretty universally; there's just enough colleges out there that it's usually confined to regional news sources.
As for fan behavior at the games, well, that's why I don't plan on attending any professional sporting events for the forseeable future. Football (American football) falls under the same distinction in my mind as NASCAR and professional "wrestling"; it caters to the lowest common denominator. It feeds off of the fans that can't afford the $40 for a ticket but buy them anyway, and those fans are the ones least likely to respect others, to respect the rules, or to respect their limit for alcohol (stereotyping here, I know, but there's certainly some truth to it) and so to an extent violent and reckless behavior is to be expected at those events. I think most of America actually sees soccer as a more dignified sport (though most of us don't understand the game properly) and so reckless fan behavior comes as a bit more of a suprise to us even if it is less common than at the big American sporting events. There's rampant classism involved along with a myriad of other domestic issues that I've become particularly sensitive to lately (and which I won't get in to here) but I guess my point is that the American sports media doesn't single soccer fans out as "Hooligans" because they want to pick on a foreign sport or to pander to any culteral or nationalistic attitudes; they do it (when they do it, it's not common at all) because it's not expected from soccer fans the way it is expected from NFL (or insert any "common" American sport) fans.
-
american football is fun. Think of it as taking other people's land by force and wearing tight pants while your at it.
And that's the American way. :D
-
There's rampant classism involved along with a myriad of other domestic issues that I've become particularly sensitive to lately (and which I won't get in to here) but I guess my point is that the American sports media doesn't single soccer fans out as "Hooligans" because they want to pick on a foreign sport or to pander to any culteral or nationalistic attitudes; they do it (when they do it, it's not common at all) because it's not expected from soccer fans the way it is expected from NFL (or insert any "common" American sport) fans.
I disagree. Every time I've seen football mentioned in imported US TV shows, it has always seemingly sought to stereotype fans (and actually English people in general) as hooligans. The Simpsons in particular (being the most succesful US program in the UK) seems to do this a lot. Let us not forget the comment that sparked this whole line of discussion;
But yea, for baseball to be understanding, you have to either play it or understand it. At least we're not fah-rea-king insane like all you Europeans about soccer! Mass riots? International wars? Jesus, and people make fun of Red Sox fans :p
-
I disagree. Every time I've seen football mentioned in imported US TV shows, it has always seemingly sought to stereotype fans (and actually English people in general) as hooligans. The Simpsons in particular (being the most succesful US program in the UK) seems to do this a lot. Let us not forget the comment that sparked this whole line of discussion;
I can't believe you're using the Simpsons as a counterargument. Or can you actually provide one instance where blatent stereotyping at the lowest level isn't fundamental to the Simpsons' brand of humor? :p
Emphesis sports media. I've watched a good bit of that over the last several years, and I can honestly say that it's a topic they almost never touch. If anything, the passion exhibited by the fans at international soccer events is held almost with a degree of envy, its intensity only matched by the passion of fans at a select few college ball teams (basketball and football) in the states. Don't confuse the emphesis on that passion with an emphesis on disorderly conduct in general, as it's not the same thing.
And I'm not talking about more entertainment-based shows, which is what you're far more likely to see in the UK and which tend to play off of existing stereotypes, commonly in a mocking way toward the stereotyping itself as much as the people on the receiving end. Though I'll be honest, I have no idea what slice of the American media you're even seeing over there.
But yea, for baseball to be understanding, you have to either play it or understand it. At least we're not fah-rea-king insane like all you Europeans about soccer! Mass riots? International wars? Jesus, and people make fun of Red Sox fans :p
I make no excuses for the ignorance or self-importance of Red Sox fans. ;)
-
And yet we get a US film about English hooliganism.... The Guardian article really makes the points I would want to about US portrayal of football. If someone is equating mass riots to be a part of the sport, that spells to me some problem in perception, because I've not encountered that sort of attitude towards any other sport in any other country. That the Simpsons' main if not only stereotype of the UK and football is hooliganism is important, because that stereotype exists for no good reason. It's not unlike stereotyping the US as slavers, as both stereotypes are outdated and blatantly wrong.
NB: US sport coverage is utter, utter tripe, at least when it comes to footie coverage. So I steer well clear of it; last time I was on holiday in the US during a world cup, I watched the matches on spanish channels.
-
Why? Because I want to see about sort of Top Gun mod. You know.
Lovely. So now we can suit up in an F-14 and conduct physically impossible maneuvers against American planes "disguised" as MiGs that would outmaneuver an F-14 in any other situation, all the while listening to deafening 80's pop blasted into our faces to give the illusion of 'edge', all presented in such a way that would make a music-video director blanch. Sound's like riles of fun to me!*
*In case you haven't yet noticed, I really, really hate Top Gun.
You're an idiot. First of all, nobody said anything about using fake MiGs. The Spectrum Holobyte game TOP GUN: Fire at Will didn't use fakes. It had models of real world MiGs, Bear and Badger Bombers, etc...
Secondly, not all MiGs could outmaneuver an F-14.
Thirdly, maneuverability don't mean squat if you never even see what's shooting at you.
-
None of your sporting opinions matter. None of your countries play AFL, which is really the only brand of football worth watching, and none of your countries can really play cricket properly (I haven't seen Singh in here yeyt, and before all you Poms start up, I still say England didn't win the Ashes, Australia lost the Ashes, thanks in large part to ****ing Kasprowicz). You may now continue your discussion to see what sports slot in after these princes of sports.
-
Cricket is rounders with added boredom (what other sport do people fall asleep at?), and AFL is so good no other country in the world can be arsed playing or watching it.
(NB: footy; most watched sport in the world; says it all really)
-
You're an idiot. First of all, nobody said anything about using fake MiGs. The Spectrum Holobyte game TOP GUN: Fire at Will didn't use fakes. It had models of real world MiGs, Bear and Badger Bombers, etc...
Secondly, not all MiGs could outmaneuver an F-14.
Thirdly, maneuverability don't mean squat if you never even see what's shooting at you.
Firstly, i'm talking about the movie, which i've heard [likely incorrectly, but I hate the movie so I don't care] used American planes and called 'em MiGs. Never once did I mention a game called 'Top Gun', nor have I ever heard of a game with the 'Top Gun' title, so settle down and take a pill.
Secondly, while that is true that 'not all MiGs could outmaneuver an F-14', the issue remains somewhat poignient when said F-14 pulls off a maneuver that is physically impossible for said craft to do. For instance, the maneuver Maverick pulls off early in the movie in which he is flying inverted mere centimetres from an enemy "MiG's" cockpit is nigh-on impossible for an F-14 to sustain anywhere near as long as he did. Indeed, an F-14's engines would fail in that situation, and Maverick would have be proper ****ed. Personally, I loathe embelishments like that.
Thirdly, the aerial skirmishes seen in the film are close in, often using guns, meaning maneuverablity means quite a lot. Sure, it won't mean much when you get splashed by an American missile fired from upwards of 20 Kilometres away, but when dealing with a when that same American moronicly closes to 100 metres, maneuverablity suddenly means a whole lot more.
Oh, and thanks for the insult, we don't get enough of those around here these days! :)
-
You're such an idiot, Mefustae. You don't know **** about teh j3t f!ght3rz.
-
You're such an idiot, Mefustae. You don't know **** about teh j3t f!ght3rz.
Very true, but I know a lot about making it look like I know a lot about something to the untrained eye. :p
-
I wish I had the bull****ting skills of quite a few people on these boards. Pulling six and seven page papers would be a breeze then.
-
Soccer.. bores me. I do watch it from time to time, but that sport sucks as a spectator sport. Playing it is a whole other story, or being at a game. But my sport is good old American football. That game be where its at. The intensity, the tactics, the violence, the energy, the bouts of randomness that occur. All good times.
What I fail to see, however, is why people say that football players are pussies for wearing pads. Have you people seen the kind of hits they take?! Yes, I have watched rugby, and the hits are mostly tame. Mostly. There are a few insane ones, but there is no real arieal stuff as in football. That, and 300lb-plus linemen trying to break your neck. Most of the time in rugby, from what I've seen, is once the ball carrier is hit, he just goes down. In football the runningback or reciever can try to stiffarm or just plow right past the defensive person.
Here are a few clips off YouTube to kind of illustrate my point. Ignore the fact that most of the people who made these have horrid taste in music, and there are a few clips shared between them.
1 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=MdwWZFWCYPE&search=nfl)
2 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=nr4KihURxaY&search=nfl)
3 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=B1MTunRLwGE&search=nfl%202005%20)
4 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=B1MTunRLwGE&search=nfl%202005%20)
5 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=ey_Ylr3uBGg&search=nfl%202004%20)
-
Trying to get back on the ORIGINAL topic, or at least something resembling it. I had a thought about the most difficult part of a Top Gun mod for FS2. How the hell do you do water with ships floating in it on this engine? Is it even doable?
-
*Chuckles at thread necrophelia*
Surfaces have been portrayed with considerable success [see: Starfox mod], but having a large ship cruising through a water-like surface while keeping it believable would be a task best left to those individuals more proficient in FS2's workings, and they've frankly got better things to do.
-
It is possible, but it'd be quite hard and rather crap looking; you'd need to simulate a wake effect with animated transparent textures, and you'd probably not be able to have any authentic looking movement. Not to mention the problems with debris if the thing is blown up.
More crucially, perhaps, you wouldn't be able to do carrier takeoffs and landings due to the lack of any gravity.
-
And now, on the Mystery Horror Picture Show...
*spooky voice*
The thread that wouldn't diieeeeee!!!!
-
The thread's going to be technically impossible in a few weeks, since they're sending the last of the F-14Ds to the boneyard.
-
The thread's going to be technically impossible in a few weeks, since they're sending the last of the F-14Ds to the boneyard.
It's all a coverup for them turning into transforming robot space planes that will invade Iran.
-
'Bout time, F-14's just aren't the super-advanced interceptors they once were. Do the Superhornets replace them, or is it JSF?
-
The reason they aren't the super-advanced interceptors they once were is because Congress decided they were willing to fund completely new and much more expensive aircraft instead of upgrading proven ones for about half the cost...
-
Curse you Dick Chaney!
He f*** up hte Super Tomcat project and ordered the F-14 molds destroyed....
-
How is it not technically feasible, anyway? It's not like there aren't tons of 3D models of the F-14 around, right?
-
Oh God! Let it die already!!
-
I second that motion, :mad:
-
How is it not technically feasible, anyway? It's not like there aren't tons of 3D models of the F-14 around, right?
MOLDS, not models.
Since no spare parts can be preduced without constructing new molds (very expensive) the US army is ditching the F-14. Don't be fooled by its age. It's still one of the best fighter jets ever constructed.
-
And one of the largest jet planes ever to take off of the deck of a carrier. Also it's quite good I nevre really understood why they wanted to retire the f-14D's . Oh well i guess politicians know a lot about fighter performance these days.
Also by the time the F-14 was in service during the 80's there were quite a lot of other planes that could still out perform it. Actualy there were only 2 that I can think of One is the Mig29 and the other would be tha Su. Oh and there was another one a Mig i believe that had the abilaty to go up to mach3. have no idea pojunt what but above mach3 .
hei is the JSF squedjueld to enter european countries service?
-
I think the main problem wasn't the plane, though it's age in air combat was starting to show. The Phoenix missile is an incredibly expensive piece of kit designed to take out large Russian bombers at extreme range (their max range on paper was over 200km). The fact is that the Theatre has changed to make the threat that the F14 is designed to counter almost neglible. An F16 with AIM9L and AMRAAM is going to be a far more effective vehicle in the current way wars are fought than an F14, despite the fact the F14 is also my favourite plane of the last few decades :)
-
Is that the old Tomcat wioth sloping wings and canards?
-
That's the bugger, the Top Gun plane ;) Always funny, since they weren't actually designed as primarily dogfighters ;)
-
The co-pilot ejector seats dont react well to geese either :D
-
LOL Yeah, I worked for a while as an avionics Engineer at Farnborough, for months we took the piss out of one of the American instructors saying 'Remember, cockpit first, co-pilot second' ;)
Edit : Though, in all honesty, that situation shown in the film could never really happen without an incredible set of circumstances taking place, cockpits, because of their shape, have enormous drag factor when ejected and get pulled behind the plane in about 1/16 second.
-
Yeah i know it was all sfx done for drama and effect, I wish someone would do it to will young though....... :mad:
-
who is will young??
-
The D version was more of all-purpose fighter. It could mount various other missiles and was faster.
IMHO, I think the F-14 is one of the best looking fighters ever made.
-
Alpha, Will Young is a singer who won the UK 'Pop Idol', in his defence I'll say he has a distinctive voice, something a lot of singers these days lack. Alas, that distictive voice is (a) annoying and (b) Doesn't change in the slightest in the last several years which is what probably led to (a) ;)
And Yep, I agree with you Trashman, the F14 is one of the best looking fighters around, I grew up with it, as it were (even got to work on one once, dream come true :D)
Thing is though, if you want Dogfighting, the F16 is still better and if you want pure anti-everything power, the Strike Eagle will always be my personal favourite ;)
(http://www.dod.gov/photos/Dec2004/041118-F-3188G-216.jpg)
Damn! The F15 is sexy :)
-
umm oki whatever you say about the dude with the annoyng voice. Also I like both f14 f15. But then agin I also like the Mig29,Su27 and well justy about every plane from the Su27 family. And there is another Mig available now thats one sexi looking plane don have he link though sitll have one of the pics I believe . I saw the fighters a while ago!
-
Alpha, Will Young is a singer who won the UK 'Pop Idol', in his defence I'll say he has a distinctive voice, something a lot of singers these days lack. Alas, that distictive voice is (a) annoying and (b) Doesn't change in the slightest in the last several years which is what probably led to (a) ;)
And Yep, I agree with you Trashman, the F14 is one of the best looking fighters around, I grew up with it, as it were (even got to work on one once, dream come true :D)
Thing is though, if you want Dogfighting, the F16 is still better and if you want pure anti-everything power, the Strike Eagle will always be my personal favourite ;)
(http://www.dod.gov/photos/Dec2004/041118-F-3188G-216.jpg)
Damn! The F15 is sexy :)
Also Alpha, the reason flipside alludes to Will Young is that he did a pop video once that was based on the Top Gun movie. As some people may have mentioned that this film was homo-erotic and the fact that Will Young happens to be gay has nothing to do with it!
-
I gotta say,the reason i wanna see him brain himself on a cockpit, hes a twat...
-
ummm....oki now i'm at a loss for words. Not in a good way tough!
thats whi i persoanli prefer the bunny as a pilot for tha carrof fighter the GTF Carrot!
-
How is it not technically feasible, anyway? It's not like there aren't tons of 3D models of the F-14 around, right?
MOLDS, not models.
Since no spare parts can be preduced without constructing new molds (very expensive) the US army is ditching the F-14. Don't be fooled by its age. It's still one of the best fighter jets ever constructed.
But it was also one of the most mission-specific planes in US arsenal and the threat it responded to (large swarms of Soviet bombers) was no longer realistic. It was an interceptor.
Usually armies start to scrap old material when they no longer fill a role and buy more versatile stuff until another threat rises. Also keeping old airframes flying just gets quite expensive and difficult after some time, just ask countries which operate old Soviet tech.
Tomcats were nowhere near as agile as Super Hornets are. Attempts to convert them to strike role met... uhm, resistance and skeptiscm, and the results were not stellar (AFAIK).
-
*menaces TrashMan with a Clue-by-four* The ARMY never used the F-14 in the first place. Nor did the Air Force or Marines. It's a NAVY aircraft.
-
I like the FA18e Two seater Hornet fighter/bomber, Its groovy.
Give me a sea harrier if i had to choose a Brit used plane though...
-
FRS.7 or FRS.8?
-
Fluffly dice variant. :D
Just a standard "BRItISH" harrier, none of that AV8 crap..........
Alloys on the turbojet intakes, neon landing lights, Nitrous mix in the cokpit (for me not the plane) and a massive bass tube instead of a fuel pod.
-
Fluffly dice variant. :D
Just a standard "BRItISH" harrier, none of that AV8 crap..........
Alloys on the turbojet intakes, neon landing lights, Nitrous mix in the cokpit (for me not the plane) and a massive bass tube instead of a fuel pod.
BLING!!!! ;7
-
(http://www.sci.fi/~fta/invincible.jpg)
Its the only naval role i would have considered if i wasnt such a squaddy brat.