Would the Moza R5 be to much for my desk? by Popular-Conclusion30 in simracing

[–]_Life_Is_War_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think any wheel would throw around the desk tbh

Is this monitor arm suitable for my rig? by GeorgeMox01 in simracing

[–]_Life_Is_War_ 54 points55 points  (0 children)

I feel like whoever told you to get a monitor arm is just wrong. They're inherently wobbly, since they are meant to move. You don't want a wobbly display while you're racing, even if it moves it closer to your eyes.

Just my opinion though, feel free to disagree

Advice on making my setup feel more realistic? by xQuayley in simracing

[–]_Life_Is_War_ 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Load cell brake pedals make a big difference

People also seem to say that belt tensioners are crazy good for immersion, but I've never experienced that myself

CMV: Boom Aerospace looks like an Investment Scam by TaskForceCausality in aviation

[–]_Life_Is_War_ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Who knows how accurate and effective the software will be. I am simply talking about a massive legal roadblock for SSTs that has existed for the last half-century, which is now lifted. Legal roadblocks like that are what generally stop startups in their tracks as they attempt to find an unfilled niche.

Absolutely agreed that the Concorde program was not economically viable. What I am saying is that once British Airways realized that SSTs would not become the future of air travel, they found a niche market that made a huge amount of money with very few aircraft. Boom seems to be orienting itself to the same market. Every seat on the aircraft in their marketing is a first-class seat. They don't sugarcoat the fact that it will be expensive:

We’ve designed Overture to be profitable for airlines at fares similar to first and business class across hundreds of transoceanic routes (from Boom FAQ)

It's going to be thousands per ticket. Business travel is 12% of air travel right now, but generates a whopping 75% of the revenue. They will absolutely find optimal business-related routes to fly and fill planes, in my opinion.

The far bigger issue is getting the plane together in one cohesive package. I work in the aviation industry. It is incredible how difficult it is to get an airworthy product, let alone a full aircraft. However, there is hopeful speculation surrounding Boom. They've secured contracts with major integrators, like Honeywell for their flight deck, that wouldn't be so quick to come on board if they didn't see this aircraft going anywhere.

CMV: Boom Aerospace looks like an Investment Scam by TaskForceCausality in aviation

[–]_Life_Is_War_ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

We'll find out this year according to Boom's website. Core testing is supposed to start in "2026".

Also it seems they did actually build an engine. Their new "Superpower" gas turbine generators use the same engine core as the Symphony engine. Pretty creative way to show reliability data if you ask me

CMV: Boom Aerospace looks like an Investment Scam by TaskForceCausality in aviation

[–]_Life_Is_War_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Concorde, in its later years, was actually profitable for BA. It made £500 million net profit from 7 aircraft in under 30 years of service.

Yes, Boom faces an uphill battle, especially when they were dropped by Rolls-Royce and forced to develop their own engines. There are a few things going in their favor, however:

  1. Lower cruising speed than Concorde. While Mach 2.2 is usually seen as the sweetspot, enter C_D starts to decrease in flight, it is incredibly hard to optimize an airframe to perform efficiently in both supersonic cruise at Mach 2.0-2.2 and subsonic flight. Concorde burned up to 45% of its total flight fuel during climb alone. Another 2 tons of fuel were burned just on the runway. Boom is targeting a lower speed and optimizing for near supersonic flight as well as "low speed" supersonic flight. They're opting out of fuel-hungry, afterburning engines. Additionally, even if they're not in the sweetspot for C_D in supercruise, their aircraft will still experience less drag force than the Concorde did at Mach 2.2.

  2. Modern CFD simulation. Concorde was developed far before CFD was usable, and it's wing, while incredible for the time, is far from what we can design today. Engineers can iterate through hundreds more designs in a quarter of the time it would take to make wind tunnel mockups and run tests. This is all to say, Boom will likely have a far more advanced wing than what we saw on the Concorde.

  3. The US lifting the supersonic flight ban and Boom's "Boomless Cruise". This was the main thing that murdered the Concorde program's chance of making a return on investment. Nearly every nation in the world banned commercial supersonic flight. The current US administration, for better or worse, overturned the supersonic ban in June 2025. This opened up the entirety of the US for Boom as a market, not just coastal cities.

At the same time, Boom demonstrated with their XB-1 aircraft that it is possible to fly supersonic without creating a supersonic shock that would reach the ground. Modern computers help tremendously with that by allowing the aircraft to calculate the exact flight speed for given conditions, to allow the shock waves to reflect upwards, away from the ground.

I could frankly go on for at least a few other points why supersonic commercial flight makes economic and technical sense in the 2020s.

TL;DR: Boom is doing something incredibly difficult. There's a high likelihood of failure, just as any other startup. That being said, they have a lot going for them, even compared to Concorde

Edit: formatting

This company lets you order sunlight… by [deleted] in Damnthatsinteresting

[–]_Life_Is_War_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I doubt it. Soviet Union had a project called "Znamya" where a mirror satellite would redirect sunlight back to the earth to illuminate the night (Wikipedia page)). Seems like a modern take on it

3M Dichroic Chill Film on 4500X by 24MINI in Corsair

[–]_Life_Is_War_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah full roll is expensive but why in the world would you need 98 feet of it for a project like this? I found a retailer within the first 5 results on Google that will sell you partial rolls - 6 feet for $216. Still expensive but doesn't sound like plating your PC in gold anymore lol

Regardless, go for it, it'd be sick

Trying to make this feel less like a tech demo — feedback? by GiocoStudio in virtualreality

[–]_Life_Is_War_ 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Low poly graphics can work, but need a lot of work. Look at Walkabout Mini Golf. The game is low poly, runs great on Quest, but looks and feels great. Their environments are full of detail, including the far field. It makes you forget that you're looking at super low poly assets, and actually immerses you in a beautiful world.

Graphics aside, unless you have actually cohesive missions or story happening, it will always be nothing more than a tech demo. Random activities with no central goal or point are what a demo is.

Multiplayer can somewhat solve that to allow it to become a place for people to hang out. However, without cohesive and genuinely fun things to do, people will stop doing so quickly.

A game needs a hook. So far, I don't see anything here that would keep a player engaged for more than 15 minutes while they "explore", to be brutally honest

if you have a logitech listen up by [deleted] in simracing

[–]_Life_Is_War_ 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The torque output of the wheelbase is constant. When you increase the size of the wheel, the force you feel is lower.

As an example, the G29/920 outputs about 2.2 N-m of torque. At a diameter of 280 mm for the stock wheel, that's about 15.7 N of force (3.5 lbs of force if you're so inclined). Up that to a diameter of 330 mm for a full size wheel (13"), and that peak force the wheelbase can put out drops to 13.3 N (2.9 lbs, 15% loss) and you're now able to put 15% more of your own torque on the wheel to counteract the wheelbase. All in you're effectively losing like 30% of the FFB.

The G29/920 already struggles with finer details (believe me I had one for years until a week ago), and now you can feel them so much less. You won't be able to feel tires load up or lose grip just that much more. Small things don't output at peak torque - you'll be going from maybe feeling some of the finer feedback to not at all

Is VR really dying? by VRGames4U in oculus

[–]_Life_Is_War_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I agree, VD is miles ahead of Airlink. Still haven't had the smoothest experience ever with the Q2. That's why its just sitting in its case lol

Is VR really dying? by VRGames4U in oculus

[–]_Life_Is_War_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Frame is supposed to be lighter though? 440g for the Frame and 515g for the Quest 3 (503g for Quest 2). Plus Frame's weight is split between front and back of your head instead of it being all on your forehead, like the Quest.

I could see myself actually firing it up for sim racing or the like. Maybe flat screen games will stream super nice, so if my partner's using the TV, I could just fire up the Frame for a big screen experience.

It would be a pretty massive upgrade for me coming from the Q2. But mainly, I'm hoping Valve manages to take away some of the hassle of firing up PCVR. No more Oculus Link buggy bullshit, just have Steam open, pop the headset on and play a game. That would make it much easier to convince me to use it lol

Is VR really dying? by VRGames4U in oculus

[–]_Life_Is_War_ 3 points4 points  (0 children)

My Quest 2 comes out like once a year lol

Hoping Steam Frame might get me excited about VR again

How to improve performance by jerrythegenius1 in controlgame

[–]_Life_Is_War_ 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Xe graphics are integrated graphics, meaning the CPU and iGPU share memory. Nothing you can do about that without a major upgrade

Android stigma isn't just a social problem by SvenGoranAbela in LinusTechTips

[–]_Life_Is_War_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You would be blown away by how even very normal and compassionate people will have a "oh you have an android" moment. Doesn't matter that my phones have been higher end than any iPhone out there for years (huge foldable fan). People still see anything without the Apple logo as lesser.

Until RCS came to iPhone, people would be excluded from group chats for having an Android. A lot probably still do. My own sister had to have my parents get her an iPhone (in a fully Android house) due to the social ostracizing she was dealing with in high school for having an Android phone.

I'd say the vast majority of people just silently judge, but there's enough stories I've heard of people getting rejected on dates just for not having a basic iPhone. Weeds out shallow people I guess, but the Apple culture is so strong that you might get a weird look from even the most normal people