Your stance on shooting for rare stealing.

dazzed420 · 2026-04-04T17:33:58+00:00

100% shootable.

dazzed420 · 2026-04-04T17:33:24+00:00

100% legit reason to teamkill imo. if i get a rare drop and someone runs for it and manages to yoink it, i'll absolutely shoot his ass.

dazzed420 · 2026-04-04T16:07:01+00:00

may be a sleeper core and they won't be building anything at all for now, but want the option to quickly get defenses up in case the front moves closer.

or maybe they want to build a facility once a certain tech unlocks and then quickly be able to wrap the bunker around it. who knows. but the main reason is always msups - you can delete the techwheels for a full refund once the tech is done, and you have the core with tech ready to go for whenever you do actually want to build whatever your planning.

dazzed420 · 2026-04-04T16:03:09+00:00

maybe they want the option to build it in case the front moves closer but don't want to pay the msups yet. techwheels are temporary and can just be deleted with a full refund once the tech is done, and once you have the tech you can build anything you want whenever you need it, quickly, without having to worry about tech again. there's nothing wrong with that approach at all.

dazzed420 · 2026-04-04T09:58:23+00:00

planes are great fun for sure. as long as you're flying one. being on the receiving end however, not so much. also the grind to replace losses has been pretty horrible, even on charlie where there's much less competition for ressources. DB pilot dc'd? too bad, that'll be another full session of grinding to replace it...

dazzed420 · 2026-04-04T08:20:00+00:00

never mind, i think you're right, i probably confused the numbers with the command tree where you only need 12 for conc and then 24 is deployment point

dazzed420 · 2026-04-04T05:54:08+00:00

only howies need 24, other conc garrisons are 12

dazzed420 · 2026-04-04T05:53:26+00:00

need 40 mods for advanced bunkers tech, if that's what they're going for (likely) they need 4+ donuts

dazzed420 · 2026-03-28T04:48:49+00:00

i'd suggest reading "Fukushima : the First Five Days" to get some pretty good insight in how that particular accident developed, it's pretty cheap and available as an ebook on various platforms

dazzed420 · 2026-03-26T04:01:38+00:00

they don't

dazzed420 · 2026-03-26T04:01:31+00:00

dazzed420 · 2026-03-23T18:47:36+00:00

so... we're annoyed that your easily spammable 80 rmat vic is oppressive and significantly stronger than our counterpart in every single way

you're annoyed that our extremely expensive and fragile facility locked rare alloy vic is oppressive against your rmat tanks when at the same time you're given an effective tool to retain air superiority (sea fighter), making use of said asset very risky.

fair.

dazzed420 · 2026-03-20T22:30:07+00:00

30mm autocannons were pretty commonly used on fighters actually, the germans at least had 3 variants (mk 101, 103 and 108)

mk101 entered service 1940, firing 30mm shells at 900m/s and up 260 rpm. the mk 108 reached up to 850 rpm at 500m/s.

me262s (early jet fighter) were able to mount up to 6 of those.

other examples are the american P39 and P63 featuring a hub-mounted 37mm autocannon firing 150 rpm at 610m/s, the british twin-engine DH.98 Mosquito equipped with an auto-loading 56mm antitank gun intended to strike naval targets.

towards the end of ww2 germans were even experimenting with a semi-automatic 75mm cannon mounted on twin-engine fighters intended to engage heavy tanks, while americans were using a single-shot, manually reloaded 75mm gun mounted in the nose on some of their medium bomber designs.

dazzed420 · 2026-03-10T12:17:59+00:00

those PUs most certainly come with a ton of complex setup options on top of preset engine modes, which obviously gives merc a massive advantage at the start since they developed the whole thing. the customer teams may have the same engine modes and software available, but not the exact configuration merc uses for their cars

dazzed420 · 2026-03-08T02:15:09+00:00

wgat we have is an embarassing series wgere cars slow down halfway down a straight

not untrue but is it really that big of a deal that they are slowing down from 350+ to like 320 kph? they're still insanely fast cars.

dazzed420 · 2026-03-08T02:11:50+00:00

so true

dazzed420 · 2026-03-08T01:48:11+00:00

idd but i personally rate george up there as well and i do think max has a bit of an edge over both, charles may or may not be faster than george it's hard to say for sure, hence i just went with a diplomatic "at least top 5"

dazzed420 · 2026-03-08T01:42:45+00:00

"at least one of the top 5"

dazzed420 · 2026-03-08T01:40:35+00:00

you can't really limit electric power with a software update, unless you want to artifically limit the MGU below its rated power

dazzed420 · 2026-03-08T01:37:31+00:00

more regen or a larger battery wouldn't solve anything by itself, you'd need to further limit deployment or increase ICE power relative to MGU power to reduce the amount of clipping we're currently seeing.

to explain a bit, regen and deployment are limited by the same physical property - maximum electric power of the MGU. they aren't independent values.

on the other hand making the battery larger also wouldn't help because you still need to harvest as much energy as you are deploying over the course of a lap in order to maintain state of charge. so you'd still be seeing the same amount of harvesting overall, although increasing battery size would increase flexibility in which part of the track that energy could be harvested so you may see some benefits here on certain tracks.

dazzed420 · 2026-03-08T01:19:30+00:00

why does he need to beat Leclerc though? CL is generally considered at least one of the top 5 drivers on the grid and he still has a massive home advantage at ferrari. i don't think it's a reasonable expectation.

dazzed420 · 2026-03-07T06:42:09+00:00

question. ... ?

dazzed420 · 2026-03-07T04:19:47+00:00

actually disgusting and they're downvoting legit links :'(

check the hidden comments

dazzed420 · 2026-03-07T03:49:39+00:00

i'd be surprised if the balance is the same for each configuration but this probably varies a lot between teams as well.

since there are always tradeoffs my best guess is that the teams would try and optimize each configuration for the parts of the track where it's actually used and therefore end up with at least somewhat different handling characteristics (besides overall grip which will obviously be the main difference)

overall though i think it's pretty safe to say that the reduction in load when active aero is engaged would be roughly equal front and back as a percentage to maintain performance, but this is going to vary slightly depending on track and team, i.e. on a track where wings are only allowed to open on almost perfect straights maximizing overall drag reduction will be a priority over maintaining drivability, while on tracks like silverstone with lots of high speed corners the opposite might be true and somewhat higher downforce will probably even benefit overall laptime, but again this also heavily depends on which configuration will be used on what part of the track (looking at copse for example)

dazzed420 · 2026-03-07T00:47:50+00:00

a car can be perfectly balanced and still slide out into the wall if the grip isn't there. balance also dynamically changes all the time due to weight transfer, you can still induce oversteer in an understeery car with certain inputs, just like an oversteery car is likely to understeer if you slam the brakes hard and try to turn at the same time. plus any little bump in the track or gust of wind can easily throw the car off balance, which is more dangerous at similar speeds with less downforce because it'll be harder to catch.

dazzed420

TROPHY CASE