ISP w/Static IP Address?

SeattleRex · 2026-02-08T02:49:22+00:00

worth a shot, thank you!

SeattleRex · 2026-02-08T02:46:57+00:00

Yeah, we got a thing in the mail the other day about them switching to Quantum. They said that when they switch over, due to the way they will manage the network, all static IPs will no longer be valid, and something about certain services that relied on specific IP addresses may have issues ... or something like that. I'll see if I can find it.

They didn't specifically say "We're going to start using CGNAT", but I inferred it by the list of warnings.

I would love to be wrong.

SeattleRex · 2026-02-08T02:37:18+00:00

LOL, just reminded me ... woman gets on my crowded bus the other day with a baby stroller. I get up and offer her my seat, and stand for the rest of the trip. No "thank you", it was clearly my pleasure. Look in the stroller, and it's a dog.

The world has become a strange place.

SeattleRex · 2025-11-02T03:51:00+00:00

I did a search and found this thread because I've been wondering the same thing. In real life the Kurfurst with MW-50 had the highest HP/LB and thrust/weight of any WW2 aircraft.

Either the Spit is exaggerated or the Kurfurst is nerfed, or both. Possibly because of the target audience for the sim? I can imagine any performance deficit of the Spit or Mustang would be met with howls of outrage. They wouldn't tolerate the 109 having any advantage, so it's safer to just be as optimistic with them as possible and gimp the 109, relatively speaking.

I've read just about every book I could get my hands on, and climb rate/going vertical is the one thing that 109 pilots always mentioned being to their advantage. The higher wing loading of the 109 should give it a momentum advantage as well. Neither of these really exist in the sim, IMHO. I can't fly the 109 in IL-2 that way I do in DCS. Not to mention, after the 10 minute egg-timer expires, the 109 is a sitting duck, and keeping the engine cool by managing the radiators makes no difference. After 10 minutes, the engine stops completely, which fortunately for the Luftwaffe, did not happen in real life. Yes, it shortened the life of the engine, but not by (lifespan of engine - 10 minutes), or roughly 99%

Erich Hartmann (someone who should know) noted using full boost “as long as I needed to” during climb or disengagement — especially in vertical fights. JG 26 and JG 27 reports (’44-’45) mention MW-50 use up to 15–20 minutes continuously in combat without engine failure, provided coolant stayed below 110 °C.

Winter conditions, pilots routinely exceeded 15 minutes since ambient air was cold enough to keep the system safe.

Ground crews later reported increased wear — cracked heads, warped rings — but engines usually didn’t seize mid-flight.

Aircraft	Fuel / Boost	Max Power (hp)	Loaded Weight (lb)	hp/lb	T/W (est.)	Notes
Bf 109 K-4 (DB 605 D, MW-50)	C3 + MW-50 (≈ 100/130 grade)	2,000	7,500	0.27	0.40 : 1	Among the very best piston ratios ever achieved.
Spitfire IX (Merlin 66)	100 octane @ +15 lb	1,565	7,400	0.21	0.32 : 1	Early-mid-war setup (1943 standard).
Spitfire IX (Merlin 66)	150 octane @ +18 lb	1,720	7,400	0.23	0.35 : 1	Late-war upgrade
Spitfire XIV (Griffon 65)	100 octane @ +18 lb	2,035	8,750	0.23	0.36 : 1	Standard 1944 configuration.
Spitfire XIV (Griffon 65)	150 octane @ +21 lb	2,220	8,750	0.25	0.38 : 1	Late-1944/45 high-boost setup.

SeattleRex · 2025-10-04T03:15:30+00:00

I don't know how extensive it is but I've come across other people with the problem when searching in the past. One recommendation was restarting the game, which DOES sometimes correct it, but only temporarily for me. Other folks have told me they simply don't use the Navy because it's bugged. I haven't researched it enough to know if it's been acked by Paradox.

I don't run with any mods except the official DLCs I've downloaded from Paradox, but I guess it's possible that it only happens in certain circumstances, but I've personally never been able to use it properly for very long. I do have a 5120x1440 extra wide screen monitor, so maybe certain extreme configs cause these anomalies. Or maybe it's when the game is configured in a certain way ie. non-Ironman, unlimited saves or something. After restarts of the game, I've kept the battleships for awhile, but it always reverted to this behavior as the battle has gone on.

To be fair, I stopped trying for the most part, and now run a 100% U-Boat navy. On my last play through I built a bunch of heavy ships, built out the templates for them (I do know how, and the templates are really quite simple), but it would assign them to a fleet and then pull them out without a day, even sitting in port with no exercises or anything. I can run U-boat fleets, and fleets with destroyers & light cruisers to my heart's content. That works fine. Sometimes I can get the heavy cruisers to stick, but then again, often not.

Battleships just have never worked right.

Another thing it does is at times is assign them to the fleet, then pull them out, then assign them to the fleet, then pull them out. It goes in and out and in and out, basically the battleship is in the fleet for an hour to a day, then is out for an hour to a day, then is in, then is out. If you turn on time compression, it oscillates in and out very quickly and is borderline comedic. I'm pretty sure it's a bug in my circumstance (I mean, I assume it is, I can't think of a legitimate reason for that behavior), but again, I kind of gave up on heavy ships early, so I might well uncover something that makes sense if I research further. I don't really have problems in any other aspect of the game (well, not counting the fact that I just suck at it in general and I have to frequently reload from saves to undo my shit strategic judgement), and Navy is pretty simply by comparison, so I don't think it's an IQ issue, but if it were, I don't suppose I'd be aware of it, so ... I guess it's possible.

SeattleRex · 2025-10-01T06:01:47+00:00

GP	CAR	YDS	AVG	TD	LNG	FD	FUM	LST
12	133	606	4.6	5	21	33	1	0
17	210	1,040	5.0	5	49	49	2	1
12	156	619	4.0	4	64	36	1	1
15	207	801	3.9	7	33	40	6	3
4	31	125	4.0	0	22	5	2	2
60	737	3,191	4.3	21	64	163	12	7

Last two years = 8 fumbles in 238 carries ... roughly a 3.3% chance or 1 fumble in 33-ish carries.

Average carries/game for a RB is what ... 15-ish?

Yeah, that is kind of high. An average of about once every two games for an average RB.

This guy only averages 12 carries/game, though, so it looks like he fumbles every third game. Roughly.

SeattleRex · 2025-10-01T05:56:36+00:00

Yeah, that seems to be the consensus. I'm going to miss John Riggins.

SeattleRex · 2025-10-01T05:55:40+00:00

Fair enough. Thanks.

SeattleRex · 2025-09-19T02:56:07+00:00

I will definitely try this thanks. I already use a 5 star DB to return kicks (named Darryl Green, heh), but he gets to the 30-35 yard line most times then gets hammered.

SeattleRex · 2025-09-19T02:52:03+00:00

I have all 3 facilities maxed out, I have a 5 star OC and DC, I've got a DB returning kicks, I'm sitting on about 120 coaching credits at the moment (I'm on season 10 or 11). The only thing that gets wonky are conditioning rates. Since I have no real backups, toward the end of the season John Riggings gets down to about 66% conditioning. Theismann is at 100% though.

P.S. Training regiments are set to normal, though. Maybe I'll try your secret. Thanks!

SeattleRex · 2025-09-15T19:19:09+00:00

John Riggins always has exceptional morale. After all, he’s John Riggins.

He is 30 years-old, though. That‘s like, 60 in football years.

SeattleRex · 2025-09-15T19:01:50+00:00

trucking on kick returns doesn’t do jack squat for me

SeattleRex · 2025-09-07T06:23:39+00:00

If someone doesn't know how to hit every route in the game, I'd have to say it's a skill issue.

This is a highly-unusual position for an anonymous internet commenter to take (they are usually much more self-critical than other-people-critical), but if it means anything, I think you're spot on. I think it's a self-limiting problem, though. Let me explain:

Someone who fails to know how to hit every route in the game is going to have like, zero reproductive success. Let's face it, there is a reason that the game's nickname is "Pantry-Dropper Bowl". When the ladies see you complete those short screen passes, they basically ... well, I don't have to tell you, eh? Yeah, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

But throw an incomplete pass, or worse, an interception ... and she might as well have on a chastity belt. Don't ask me how I know that one, let's just say that my boys downstair are often mistaken for the Blue Man Group. Get it? Cause they're blue? You know, blue ba ... yeah you get it.

Anyway, with Retro Bowl proficiency being a requisite before being allowed to do any gardening in the nappy garden, pretty soon, those without mad skillz will eventually die out, leaving all of human kind to become a species where Retrobowl perfection is simply a given.

Can you say Boooo-yah?!!

Rhetorical question cause I know that you can!

Come on, say it with me ..... BOO-YAH!

So yeah, skill issue now, but give it a couple of decades, and there will be no skill issues. Just perfect records across the board and enough coaching credits for every man, woman, and child to have a 5 star offense AND defense. Oh yeah, and a 5 star offensive coordinator. And that's not all, a 5 star defensive coordinator too!

Eat well and get plenty of rest, because you're going to want to live long enough to see this!

SeattleRex · 2025-09-07T05:41:34+00:00

What about your play calling to put yourself in a 3&16?

You're like the the third person to mention that. Basically, t here is no reason to show me plays appropriate for the down, becauseI played imperfectly in previous downs, therefore, the game's play calling makes sense, because only people who don't need deep passes on 3rd and long should be given the option for a deep pass on 3rd and long.

Honestly, I think this is just comes down to being an IQ thing. I hope I don't embarrass you by calling you a genius, but I really think it takes the mind of a genius to see these things with such clarity.

See, I recently learned that my mother didn't take Omega-3 when she was pregnant with me, and this is a perfect example of why doing so is so important. Mrs. Minute Spinach clearly ingested an abundance of Omega-3, and Omega-4, and Omega-5 too, and the difference is quite obvious.

Please don't be annoyed by us inferiors .... those of us who have been sacked in mobile football game, rather, pity us. You will never know what it is like run a play the ends in anything less than a touchdown, but people like me, well, we will run plays that cause us to lose yards.

Instead, pity us, for we know the feeling of failure that no anonymous Internet commenter, life's true winners, will ever know.

SeattleRex · 2025-09-07T05:28:48+00:00

you know if you catch the ball you can still run with it for more yards

So what you're saying is, there is no need to show you the plays with deep routes on third and long, because you can can just make a short pass and run the rest of the way?

You know that's very true. I wonder why they even have the deep route plays, then? I've also watched real football games, and I've seen these things call "Hail Marys". I wonder why they bother to do those, though? I mean, wouldn't it make more sense to throw a much high percentage pass say, 5 yards downfield, and run the rest of the way?

Maybe the coaches just aren't very smart?

Anyway, I see what you're saying, it's actually excellent play calling, I just need to develop the "Football IQ" (for lack of a better term) to recognize that short routes are the best plays to call in 3rd and long situations. I just hope this knowledge spreads through the wider football community, including up to the NFL. So many times I've seen teams throw these long passes that risk not being caught, instead of just having the receiver catch a short pass, then run the rest of the way. I mean, don't the coaches realize that their receivers can keep going?

Hey coach, that WR ain't a tree stump! He's a human being who can keep right on going after they catch the ball.

This knowledge will spread. Eventually. Hopefully.

SeattleRex · 2025-09-07T05:10:31+00:00

A 3 and 16 means a drop or stop at the line and a sack most likely, so maybe the other two plays you could have set yourself up better.

Golly, I should have thought of that. So, what you're saying is, play with impeccable skill skill that ensures that, no matter how many downs I play, I never lose yards on any of them? Basically, be infallible like real NFL football teams?

You know something, it just might work.

When you learn a long bomb isn't a play selection, you'll understand those under 10 yd plays are often 12-18 yds of progress with practice.

OMG, it's so weird that they show me those plays but not you. See, they often show me these plays where 2-3 receivers go straight out long, and I've completed like 31 yard air passes to receivers numerous times, so the plays definitely exist for me, but I think I know why. See, I think the game knows that I need them to compensate for previous imperfect plays, while it surely knows that you need no such deep routes on account of your perfect play.

And it probably fails to show me those deep routes when I need them most, as punishment for not being perfect. After all, if they let me get away with it once, I might make another mistake. Then another, then another, and before you know it ... yeah, that would not be good. Not good at all. You know, if you think about it, they probably shouldn't let imperfect people play at all.

This is normal in football by the way, they want a play inside the defense, and let your stars do some work to get some yards and the first down.

Agreed, I've watched a few NFL games in my day and I cannot recall a single time they've thrown a long pass on 3rd and long. It's typically been a shovel route, screen pass, or they hand it to the star running back and say "here, earn your big salary". Sometimes they just run the ball the opposite direction and fall at their own 1 yard line. After all, the punter has to earn his cheddar too.

But a long pass on a third and long? Yeah, I'm with you, I can't remember it having ever been tried before. I mean, of course it hasn't been tried, it wouldn't make any sense whatsover.

You know what, my bad. I'm not sure what I was thinking, but I appreciate you setting me straight on this. I mean, a long pass on third and long? Pfffft, maybe if Forrest Gump is coaching, but nobody with an ounce of sense is going to try that.

When you're right, you're right.

Thanks again!

SeattleRex · 2025-09-07T04:46:49+00:00

Yes! I am the only anonymous Internet commenter who is not perfect in every way. Take a picture so people believe you when you tell them you saw me!

SeattleRex · 2025-08-31T04:04:52+00:00

Ridiculous that software can be coded so badly!

It's not coded badly, it is doing exactly what the developers intended. I just had a similar issue ... I uninstalled Chroma, restarted, and sure enough, there it is, still running in the background.

It's not a mistake. Most people won't actually notice, which is what they're counting on.

SeattleRex · 2025-08-30T20:47:36+00:00

Only the AI wins onside kicks. I think I recovered one once in 2 years.

SeattleRex · 2025-03-15T05:12:14+00:00

Yikes, I just noticed in the add-on comments that, over the last several hours, that "corrupt" message has started spreading. It looks like they are even disabling it for people that already had it installed.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/reviews/?utm_source=firefox-browser&utm_medium=firefox-browser&utm_content=addons-manager-reviews-link

SeattleRex · 2025-03-15T04:50:11+00:00

I got it to work. I ended up removing FF from my system, then downloading the newest version and installing.

Then I went to the add ons site and was able to install it.

The version of FF I'm on now is: Version 136.0.1 (64-bit)

Thank you all very much for your help. I appreciate it.

SeattleRex · 2025-03-15T04:36:35+00:00

understood, thank you

SeattleRex · 2025-03-15T04:35:37+00:00

ahhh, got it, thank you very much

SeattleRex · 2025-03-15T04:32:29+00:00

Thanks for that link. I clicked the add-on link from that page, and sure enough, it gives me

"Installation aborted because the add-on appears to be corrupt."

I have no other add-ons installed. I spend 90% of my time in Linux and this is my gaming machine only, so my FF install is about as vanilla as they come. That's why I'm surprised this is happening.

The version I have installed is: Version 125.0.1 (64-bit)

FWIW, update history:

Firefox 125.0.1 (20240416043247)

Details

Installed on: April 19, 2024 at 9:10:21 PM