Author Topic: Battlefield Vietnam (Read 1365 times)

midnight Target · « **Reply #30 on:** December 09, 2003, 11:51:19 AM »

I think the word for today is Masochist.

Mini D · « **Reply #31 on:** December 09, 2003, 11:58:41 AM »

Kinda screwed up with "hot and humid". Hot and dry, hot and high, hot dry and high would all make it worse. Humidity wouldn't. A hot day in the cascades or the sierras would definately impact virtually anything relying on lift. I got a heavy dose of this landing at Reno in August in a C-5.

MiniD

Roscoroo · « **Reply #32 on:** December 09, 2003, 02:03:19 PM »

the PRB in Apocalypse Now must have been engineless if you notice as it droped it didnt do a tail dive ... one would think with twin diesels ....

Reschke · « **Reply #33 on:** December 09, 2003, 04:21:20 PM »

I will have to talk with my father in law since he flew Hueys and Huey Gunships with the 1st Cavalry in VietNam for 2 tours. And get some more information on the UH-1's and gunships he flew.

Mini D · « **Reply #34 on:** December 09, 2003, 07:16:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Roscoroo
the PRB in Apocalypse Now must have been engineless if you notice as it droped it didnt do a tail dive ... one would think with twin diesels ....

Haven't taken physics yet? From altitude, it would matter (given enough time), but not from a lower level. Weight does not cause one end to fall faster... other things do, but weight doesn't.

MiniD

Octavius · « **Reply #35 on:** December 09, 2003, 07:37:25 PM »

I haven't seen it yet, however, it depends on the actual weight variance from both ends and the altitude at which it was dropped.

If it was dropped in a "level" orientation at, say, 2000 feet, then as velocity increased, the drag and wind resistance would indeed push the lighter, less dense end up.

Mini D · « **Reply #36 on:** December 09, 2003, 08:08:01 PM »

It was dropped pretty low... no more than 100 feet... more like 30. Below a helocopter where most of your wind force is going to be downward, not upward.

MiniD

loser · « **Reply #37 on:** December 11, 2003, 12:46:55 PM »

I just thought it looked like a cool game. EA has never really been known for realism anyway

Creamo · « **Reply #38 on:** December 11, 2003, 01:07:04 PM »

Game of the Year again?

Patch LOMAC.

mrblack · « **Reply #39 on:** December 11, 2003, 01:38:45 PM »

Did It ever cross anybodies mind that Apocalypse Now was just a movie LOL.
yhey have been known to use special effects you know.

Sikboy · « **Reply #40 on:** December 11, 2003, 01:46:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mrblack
Did It ever cross anybodies mind that Apocalypse Now was just a movie LOL.
yhey have been known to use special effects you know.

And a few of us were trying to figure out how they did that particular special effect.

-Sik

Roscoroo · « **Reply #41 on:** December 11, 2003, 02:18:04 PM »

Well since Apocalypse Now is 1979 vintage ... there wasnt as near as much computer generated effects (if there was any at all in this movie)

Id say it was the gutted out boat . probely the same one they loaded all the camera's on for the on boat scene's ,or a spare .

Sikboy · « **Reply #42 on:** December 11, 2003, 02:21:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Roscoroo

Id say it was the gutted out boat .

Yeah, that's what I said too.

-Sik

moose · « **Reply #43 on:** December 11, 2003, 02:23:05 PM »

you guys got into an argument about an arcade game.

good job

and im definitely buying vietnam. that looks sick.

Roscoroo · « **Reply #44 on:** December 11, 2003, 03:00:14 PM »

we wernt arguing... we were disscussing the boat drop scene in Apocalypse Now.