@Phelan_Kheldian you are hereby cordially invited to the other thread. Based on how youāve responded throughout this thread, I think youāre going to have a blast. Read it from top to bottom 
I already looked at it. Iām not going to get involved. I pulled up his zkillboard (like he did to others)ā¦ and the first several losses for him are ships with small transverse bulkhead rigs (hull tanked)ā¦ and an active armor tank. And then we get the catalyst with 4 blasters and 4 rails.
Iām not going to claim to be a fitting or PvP expert (although, Iām getting better in both)ā¦ but considering those fits, I just canāt take him seriously. And Iām not going to waste my time anymore. Heās not worthy of my time since he has gone all argument fallacy now.
3 Likes
Honestly with respect to triangulation itās in a real world sense pretty redundant. Itās true itās a lot more accurate to have as many points in space aimed at a single location - but only two are ever really required. Seems like needing to launch more than two is a waste unless youāre watching multiple places - but the way the game works you donāt know how accurate that probe data will be.
On the pilot workload end itās a little hectic on screen real-estate, and the nature of needing more things on a ship makes a fleet dependant on a combat scanner, instead of anyone being able to do it. Itās to some extent a game play tweak and to some extend a quality of life tweak. I think that scan probes for PI and moons makes good sense, but on the combat end, mimicing what is on modern day aircraft is probably a little safer a bet in terms of both game play and realism. I know it ruffles some feathers, but I think weād see more engagement in the game if a small gang was able to hustle a blob a little more often.
That is exactly the work load Iām hoping to pare down a bit =)
I am in fact a v-spammer =)
As for my oāsā¦ what in blazes does that mean?
Careful Archer. The US Navy already likes wings that foldā¦ Imagine how much simpler life at an airport gets when the planes donāt need the same amount of space? When graphine finishes replacing carbon fiber and fiber glass in the world of composites this kind of tech may see some kind of feasibility. Not necesscarily for thrust, but for economy of space on the ground - likely in fact. The existing turbo-fan engines are likely to be fusalage mounted instead of wing mounted., but if they can use a variable geometry wing with a shoulder and elbow you can BET the FAA would love it - solely to reduce the size of an air port. That also means in an air port less walking for passengers, shorter distance between gates and such. Hardly holistic reasoningā¦
gets into ship and opens probe scanner window
Scan Deviation: 0.075 AU
Scan Time: 6 seconds
It appears I know exactly how accurate my probes are going to beā¦ because the game literally tells me. Also, when you actually learn to scan, youāll be able to do it faster. You know which one of the two ends of the barbell it is (I wonāt explain how, you need to learn on your own).
LOL. Okayā¦ no wonder you have problems scanning. You need a full flight to get the best results. Again, you literally are showing how little you know about scanning here.
I can see my overview, my D-scan, and my probe scanner window all at once. Granted, I canāt see my drone and chat windowsā¦ but I donāt really need those when Iām scanning.
Also, your triangulation idea is going to need a graphic interface to be accepted by the gaming community at large. Text based interfaces are so 80s.
I want to be able to do everything in my ship without having to make a choice. whine Learn to fly T3Ds and/or T3Cs. You can fit an expanded probe launcher and still have enough high slots for lots of weapons. Get into ships meant for the purpose you want instead of complainingā¦
OHā¦ wait. There it is. You want the functionality of the more expensive ships without the cost of those ships.
Tweak? Clearly you havenāt ever learned anything about coding. Youāre talking about installing a triangulation system. Thatās not a tweak, its a whole new system. Let me outline what the code is going to have to do. And Iām leaving out a ton of steps hereā¦ Iām bareboning this.
- Confirm the first D-scan lock is good.
- Make sure the new location you move to is far enough away from the first for D-scan triangulation to work.
- Confirm the second D-scan lock is good.
- Make sure the third location is far enough away from the first two for the D-scan triangulation to work.
- Confirm the third D-scan lock is good.
- Provide you with the warp-in location and option to warp in.
Thatās more than a little tweakā¦ There are at least 6 variables (location 1, location 1 success, location 2, location 2 success, location 3, location 3 success) that have to be evaluated for it to work. And remember, its going to be pulling from other variables: the location of your ship, the location of every object that appears on your D-scan, etc.
Are you seeing the number of variables Iām talking about? Now, add in the math to make sure the location and scan lock are good. Now add in the display interface. Are you seeing the amount of code required yet. Oh, youāre notā¦ because you donāt understand computer code.
Iām not a computer programmer by profession, but its pretty clear you havenāt even tried to code in C++ or even BASIC.
You think? Really. Well, flat Earthers think the world is flatā¦ doesnāt make it true.
As for seeing more engagements, youāre in faction warfare (which explains why me being a line member of Moira earns me extra cred). Getting engagements isnāt hard. Check every combat site and asteroid belt. If you canāt find them there, they likely docked up when they saw you come in on local. Which means your triangulation idea isnāt going to help you anyways.
Go learn how to fly T3Ds and T3Cs. I know theyāre expensiveā¦ but so is an F-15. And I wonāt get into just how bad the analogy between the F-14 and F-15 areā¦ other than to say the Phoenix (used by the F-14) had an operational range of 190 KM compared to the Sparrow (used by the F-15) with its 85 KMā¦ Just because theyāre both fighter jets doesnāt mean they serve the same purpose. The Osprey and the Exequror might both be T1 logi-cruisers, you wouldnāt use them in the same fleet.
Well, maybe you wouldā¦ but not Moira.
Look noob, anyone can throw around some facts to prove a narrative thatās even remotely true, weāre on to this method of invalidating our emotional experience so your going to have to try harder. Dscans fine, /thread
This is also how you find and clean up those pesky w-space rescue catches, thankless hard work but someoneās gotta do it.
@Spruillo i think you are confusing your first quote with the OP. the first person you quoted was trying to explain that DSCAN is fine.
1 Like
I didnāt need to read all that jibbering since I already knew I was correct, but Iām glad I finally convinced them.
Hmmm, I just used dscan and a bit of knowledge. All told I pulled out about 1.2 bill of ore out of various hanger containers.
Pardon, you are indeed correct. I am quite embarrassed right now 
I forget that the existence of and appeal to novelty and the fascinatingly intricate and complex implies superiority over the practical and simple and straightforward and efficient. 
(FYI: Circular runways are more practical than flapping airplanes, which are inefficient at worst and would make everyone nauseous and cause injury onboard at best . Read about it.)
You are just jealous because he likes me better.
Honestly whenever I do this landing on grid with those things is reward enough
While I havenāt looked at his zkillboard, isnāt this a common valid way to tank a Hecate or other Gallente brawling ships?
Gallente ships can get a lot of EHP with bulkheads, and the armour repair module can keep that armour layer on top of it filled. Thereās a video explaining the concept.
Its something thatās become the meta since I left and came back. So, Iāll concede thatās not a bad fit. However, that catalyst is bad.
Okā¦ lets read what I said againā¦:
Now that you can see that folding wings have nothing to do with the proposed thrust delivery method - go re-read every other post Iāve made until you learn to keep your objections on topic, and in context.
The DOD - specifically the Air Force and Navy have two very distinctly different aviation paradigms. Changes to air frame design, range, thrust, footprint, payload, and avionics are all considered when choosing an aircraft for either paradigm. The Tomcat and itās weapons package out perform the Eagle and itās weapons package. The F-15ās avionics suite out performs the Tomcats avionics suite. In terms of flight performance they are both Stallions in the sky. They each possess distinct advantages over one another and both branches of service prefer their heritage aircraft owing to their paradigm philosophy. Coming from a Naval Aviation background I prefer the Tomcat because it speaks better to the environment I understand and am trained for. I acknowledge than an F-15 would struggle on a carrier. I donāt acknowledge that an F-14 would struggle with shore based operations because the Iranians have proven that it doesnāt struggle at all. But there is nothing to say that Iranians wouldnāt have done just as well with the F-15 in the long run.
For the record, while they serve in different theaters of combat, both are considered front line fighters, but the F-14 was the only genuine interdictor that US military aviation has ever had. The capability of the AIM-64 and the top end speed of the F-14 together meant the ability to steadily bombard enemy air power would prevent an opposing fleet from advancing - clearing the way for naval fleet maneuvers. It also meant that if it could do that, it could make way for another tomcat loaded with JDAMs or Mavericks to put an enemy aircraft carrier out of commission. F-15ās have a similar capability, but canāt clear as much airspace as quickly with out larger numbers of air craft, or lose range in the process, limiting the range ground forces can advance or increasing the cost per mile to get ground forces further faster. Thatās why young officers are told that their plans are beautiful but a little hard to implement and too costly. The DOD has a budget it has to stick to and the phrase ācost over-runsā can end your career. Happens every day at the Pentagon.
That said, Iran flies the F-14 to this day because the plane can fly across the whole country on a single tank of fuel, and never need to completely cross the country before having the opportunity to engage beyond visual range. Add in aux-tanks and that bird stays up and on patrol interdicting all day long. The reason Iran exists as it does at all right now is probably owing to the fact they chose to maintain the F-14 fleet. After the oil embargo, and all of the other developments on the political front since then itās really impressive they exist as a nation. The F-15 is an amazing aircraft, and has nearly the same capability as the F-14, and has a better service record because of it having the better Avionics suite. It just doesnāt pack as big a punch as a Tomcat - but itās much easier to fly. Fewer crew, and much easier radar to use. Thatās why the Eagle is one of the most popular products McDonnell Douglas has ever made. Itās a formidable fighter and beloved all around the world.
As for the Sparrow. Itās not really a missile most US Military Fighter pilots rely on. The AIM-120 is a little more common on both the F-15 and F-16. Both are used on the F-15 currently, but the AMRAM tends to log more kills than the Sparrow. The Sidewinder also logs more combat time than the Sparrow, and was a regular on the F-14 as well.
The trouble with the sparrow missile is that it requires the pilot to track the target to guide the missile on target. The AIM-120 benefits from this, but doesnāt not require it.
The reason the F-22 and F-35 exist at all is in an attempt to standardize a single aviation paradigm. Itās not an easy task. Considerations in payload, range, air frame performance, pilot work load, carrier flight deck real estate, economic impact and training time are all factors and balancing this particular task is one of the most tedious things that happens in the DOD - because air support is the most superior method of tactical and strategic leverage a military can have.
I hate to say it, but you might actually be agreeing with me here. They are for different purposes - different combat theaters, but in terms of report cards, the F-14 does navy a little better than the F-15 does Terrain. The Su-37 and Mig-35 both do Terrain better than the F-15 too. Itās a scary world in fighter aviation these days. All in all though the F-14 is to me at least, in view of how Iran has persisted to this day with it, the better choice over all, but requires a lot more tenacity to stick with. The F-15, is for smaller countries that are more prone to terrain driven conflicts and combat - but again, the Russian aircraft tend to perform best in those theaters.