It’s an ideal world we’re talking about. Socialism done right. Plenty of funds.
So a solarpunk / far future utopia, gotcha. Or I guess every civil engineer's wet dream with near-limitless funding and no pre-existing infrastructure in the way.
What can I say? I’m a vindictive person.
Oh yes you are, that's for sure!
Personally I'm the laid-back "live and let live" utilitarian type only moral compass is "don't hurt others and don't be mean, it decreases total utility in the society", so... yeah.
Nice talking to ya though, as I'm an amateur worldbuilder I tend to collect all these insights on "what-could've-been"s, especially b/c my worldbuilding is largely speculative where a lot of real-life engineering constraints are somewhat loosened due to futuristic technology and/or fantastical elements.
1×2m definitely sounds a bit large for longer-distance use. Typical bicycle trailers and pedestrian wagons are about 1/4 of the size.
Oh great, even more infrastructure expenditures. Does sound appealing though given I personally hate anything outdoors.
(Also TBPH I'd consider cars already less appealing as-is given the insurance and maintenance fees involved. Plus separating the road from pedestrian/bicycle traffic plus more people using transit already makes roads safer and more efficient. Artificially punishing cars - or any other modes of transportation - sounds rather vindictive IMHO, especially after the roads are already separated.)
YES to cars being end-point modes of transport. It also makes battery-electrics (or even capacitor-electrics) more viable due to the shorter ranges involved and the fact they can recharge on the train.
I can see those being dragged on a large wagon without too much issue, unless they're incredibly heavy.
How large is your wagon, and for how far? I do have a bicycle trailer for small grocery trips so I'm really unsure about the size of the wagon you're referring to. (Hopefully you aren't talking about a rail wagon! A horse-drawn one is also straight out.)
Most people should be able to get by without driving.
Although I do agree with the sentiment, the damning word here is "most", and even then it would only be applicable for people living in denser cities. Plus, there are common forms of inclement weather (non-flood level rains, high winds, dust storms) that makes driving preferable to walking/cycling between stations and destinations. IMHO widespread automobile usage is not and should not be considered a moral evil or a social problem in and of itself, end of discussion here.
Japan needs to go further, basically. More trains!
3m rail gauge or bust. Trains being too narrow is why tanks can't get any bigger; it's why the Maus is so narrow (despite still being incredibly wide). It all comes back to trains.
Sir I think I found your life story. (The locomotive in question is likely a Hunslet Austerity 0-6-0ST BTW just to prove my 'tism cred.)
.
..
... Hmmmm.... if we do get ulta-wide gauge rails one day, roll-on-roll-off trains anyone? Both in the "rolling parking lot" sense for trains to carry cars/jeeps directly to popular camping sites and bypassing highways and "moving bike racks" that supports a start -> bicycle/scooter -> train -> bicycle/scooter -> destination route.
....
.....
...... Oh, right, assuming we can miniaturize fusion reactors, VTOL trains for disaster relief, anyone? Or failing that, using trains to transport disaster relief VTOLs as close to affected regions as possible.
@Graingy
About the same size as a small carry-on suitcase. Large enough that carrying them on buses and trains (or dragging them on a wagon on foot) are impractical but not large enough to warrant a truck.
The only "sacrifice" I'm seeing with the existence of larger shopping centers and shopping trips is the existence of cars and large parking lot in and of itself.
Yes to delivery and esp. aerial delivery. Rail network just for parcel delivery is straight out given the infrastructure and maintenance required. Nobody in the right mind should promote replacing cars with VTOLs if just because VTOL'ing is hella inefficient energy-wise.
PLEASE DON'T BLOW UP MOUNTAINS WITH FUSION BOMBS GOSHDARNIT ! ! !
Even if we ignore the X-ray/Gamma/neutron radiation released by even a pure fusion device, just imagine the ecological disaster created by randomly removing mountains to build ultra-wide gauge rails, plus the localized earthquakes and whatnot....
Japanese trains are overcrowded b/c Japan is kinda overcrowded in and of itself (large population + little useable landmass = recipe for disaster), and their city planning (plus economic model) meant working hours would concentrate a few city's worth of people in a select few downtown areas, which is just... inefficient. Still, Japan is among the only countries with a constantly maxed-out rail network plus a largely localized grocery shopping, so I'd still say Japan is at least a really good reference point for city planners to make transit-friendly cities.
I guess we can end the discussion here and agree to disagree on the form of future transport systems, but I guess two things we can definitely agree on is "we desperately need more and better transit esp. in the US and countries with similar urban planning" and "replacing everyday automobiles with VTOLs is a BAD idea", eh?
@Graingy
So should I rent out a truck just because I have five cardboard boxes' worth of stuff or a single TV set to move around? Probably not.
Large grocery trips are objectively more efficient time-wise. Personally, why bother with five trips when you can get everything you would need for the next two weeks in one trip? Also I'm pretty sure the Japanese are doing exactly what you're saying about smaller shops and more frequent grocery trips, so we do have a precedent we can follow for more efficient urban planning. Cars there are still used for longer leisure trips though.
Rail gauge is limited not only by the international standard but also by practical concerns like "terrain" and "turning radius" so.... nope for most applications for rail.
Once again, I guess Japan does offer a good example on how to make full use of public transit (high-speed rail for long-range intercity travels, light rails for short-range intercity and inner-city travels, busses for less populated regions), yet they still have quite a few cars on the road, so I really don't think cars as a means of individual transportation would (or should) go away any time soon.
More and better transit would definitely make roads safer and faster for cars though so for me the solution is to always diversify instead of considering it a moral imperative to promote any particular means of transport above others and shoehorn it in use cases it's less compatible with.
Define "specialist". Although I guess an autonomous "taxi" service can probably replace individual cars in the (distant) long run. Individual air vehicles are definitely a niche market though if just due to the energy consumption involved in getting things airborne without a runway.
Additionally, it's better to have a grocery system that doesn't require long distance travel to begin with.
Arguably yes, but economies of scale that benefits larger shopping malls and supermarkets still exists, and unless everyone enjoys buying groceries everyday from a convince store a block away I doubt large grocery trips is going away any time soon.
Also, larger (read: wider) rail cars could alleviate much of the space issues to begin with. Additionally, if stations can be made wheelchair accessible I see no reason they couldn't accommodate something akin to a wagon.
The width of a train car is limited by the rail gauge itself, and unless once again you liver quite close to a station, dollies would not help you that much beyond getting your luggage off the train. (Non-accessible stations are shit for even the first suit case so it's rather beside the point.)
Once again, I'm all for more public transport doing what they're good at (getting large amount of lightly-loaded people between pre-planned points), but to assume they're end-all-be-all solutions is somewhere between "unrealistic" and "naïveté" for most use cases. The good thing though, is that as more people have the option of taking public transit for commute and bicycles/scooters for inner-city travel it actually makes the road safer and faster for those who actually need to drive, so it's a win-win situation, no?
@Graingy
Trains are pretty much the most efficient form of mass transit (plus bulk cargo transport over land), but they inherently restrict the amount of luggage/cargo a person can carry per trip (unless you're doing checked luggage and have a car waiting for you at the destination) and are terrible at moving people from point A to point B especially when there's more luggage involved, so I really don't think cars are going away any time soon from highways or city streets any time soon. What trains (and public transit in general) are very good at though, is alleviating traffic on highways and city streets during rush hours, as people going to / returning from work/school don't tend to carry much luggage or groceries regardless.
Remember, there's no such thing as "too many options" when it comes to solving real-life problems, what we can and should though, is to diversify options so the comparative advantages of the various solutions can be maximized while their comparative disadvantages can be minimized. Diversity is strength as far as engineering solutions are concerned.
. TL;DR: Trains and buses for daily commute, cars for visiting friends and bulk grocery trips, bicycles/scooters for leisure + small grocery trips + covering small distances quickly, and VTOLs for luxury transport and urban first responders (plus flood relief if possible). Q.E.D.
The legacy engines Engine-Prop-1 and Engine-Prop-2 are not affected by the powerMultiplier attribute even though they have the setting in the xml editor.
@Graingy
I do agree that aviation and automobile-like numbers wouldn't mix well for now, and until non-networked AIs and LiDARs are advanced enough for near-flawless crash avoidance on an air-gapped craft it would remain a poor combination for the foreseeable future. (Yes, I know Tesla's less-than-stellar safety record but IIRC it's largely down to Elon being an abysmal engineer who refused LiDARs or even binocular vision on his car AIs; turns out automobile and rocketry are two VERY different fields with completely different design requirements and use cases afterall...)
Autonomous networked vehicles are every-closer to maturity right now, but anything that relies on a central server for crash avoidance is about one dedicated attack / serious bug / power outage away from a mass-casualty event.
.
Hey at least those craft are much smaller than a fully-fueled widebody jetliner (~50 metric tons of Jet-A for a 767) so thank the small mercies for that, eh?
@Graingy
Personally I'd wait for the aviation industry to give the verdict on the feasibility of EVTOL vehicles in general, but helicopters do have the inherent problem of the large main rotor making it noisy and dangerous for intra-city flying, so I do think EVTOLs with a large combined rotor area might find a market/niche as urban luxury transport or first responder vehicle.
"Don't reinvent the wheel" argument only works when the purported new product doesn't solve any problems of the existing system, so I'm not really sure whether it would still apply here. EVTOLs do add new problems of lower energy efficiency due to the higher disk loading (unless it's a tiltwing/tiltrotor design then the wings might add some efficiency back in level flight at the trade-off of higher mechanical complexity), lacking true autorotation/gliding capabilities (once again unless they're tiltrotors or tiltwings), and all the additional challenges posed by the low energy density of batteries itself....
Hmmmm.... hybrid electric VTOLs, anyone?
.... have to say the general aesthetics is much closer to atompunk / raygun-gothic than dieselpunk (as exemplified by the more vivid colors, sharper contrast, and bubble-like shapes); your previous space elevator is solidly within the modern minimalist "iPod" design style.
.
Reference: steampunk ≈ pre-WWI, brass pipes, steam engines, pressure gauges, exposed cogs and pistons; dieselpunk ≈ interwar, diesel/gasoline engines, fairings and streamlining, radiators, utilitarian "form follows function" designs; atompunk ≈ early Cold War, vibrant colors, bubble windows, exaggerated aerodynamic features, with an emphasis on space travel.
@DreamerIndusturies
Thanks! And of course you're free to use the guns as long as you give credit somewhere in your build, although.... personally I'd rather introduce you to the updated and generalized codes here.
Also feel free to check out the companion builds, the clip-based autocannon and the L21A1 RARDEN cannon.
@Monarchii
I mean, IRL torpedo boats often carried rockets for more close-in "screw you", so.... Why not combine both?
.
(Also, the second proposal sounds vaguely similar to the Japanese torpedo cruisers, or conversely the Yank carriers with Regulus missiles. Seriously, in the world of aerostats the difference between missiles and torpedoes might well be whether they rely solely on aerodynamic lift or not.)
@Monarchii
Yeah, given the gyro only kicks in at terminal guidance range it really wasn't helping much.... Also, no need for the pitch code to include current pitch angle, the pitch input for gyros means "desired pitch angle" already.
.
.
.
Vanilla gyros tend to spaz out when they cannot counter the aerodynamic forces, so... most of them don't actually need aerodynamic control surfaces esp. when they're meant to be target drones.
The Izmails don't have enough aerodynamic control to countermand the gyros either way, and they fly just fine without control surfaces.
.
.
.
Either way, here's my ten-minute-fix to this mine/torpille aérienne. The gyro strength is actually pretty good for a slow-moving aerostat-torpedo.
.
.
.
and somehow your screenshot is missing.
Have to say those massive unprotected bombs are the Type-IB's greatest weakness. Somehow a random burst of machinegun fire from more than a mile away is all it takes to detonate the entire squadron.
Some bollocks will be saying that the description looks AI generated, but no! I'm not using any help of AI to build the description. I've heaten up my head to build some words for the description.
Yeah, preemptive apologies but modern MTLs have advanced enough to not behave like ESLs anymore.
@Graingy
So a solarpunk / far future utopia, gotcha. Or I guess every civil engineer's wet dream with near-limitless funding and no pre-existing infrastructure in the way.
Oh yes you are, that's for sure!
Personally I'm the laid-back "live and let live" utilitarian type only moral compass is "don't hurt others and don't be mean, it decreases total utility in the society", so... yeah.
Nice talking to ya though, as I'm an amateur worldbuilder I tend to collect all these insights on "what-could've-been"s, especially b/c my worldbuilding is largely speculative where a lot of real-life engineering constraints are somewhat loosened due to futuristic technology and/or fantastical elements.
@Graingy
Keks.
1×2m definitely sounds a bit large for longer-distance use. Typical bicycle trailers and pedestrian wagons are about 1/4 of the size.
Oh great, even more infrastructure expenditures. Does sound appealing though given I personally hate anything outdoors.
(Also TBPH I'd consider cars already less appealing as-is given the insurance and maintenance fees involved. Plus separating the road from pedestrian/bicycle traffic plus more people using transit already makes roads safer and more efficient. Artificially punishing cars - or any other modes of transportation - sounds rather vindictive IMHO, especially after the roads are already separated.)
YES to cars being end-point modes of transport. It also makes battery-electrics (or even capacitor-electrics) more viable due to the shorter ranges involved and the fact they can recharge on the train.
@PlaneFlightX Thanks!
@Graingy
How large is your wagon, and for how far? I do have a bicycle trailer for small grocery trips so I'm really unsure about the size of the wagon you're referring to. (Hopefully you aren't talking about a rail wagon! A horse-drawn one is also straight out.)
Although I do agree with the sentiment, the damning word here is "most", and even then it would only be applicable for people living in denser cities. Plus, there are common forms of inclement weather (non-flood level rains, high winds, dust storms) that makes driving preferable to walking/cycling between stations and destinations. IMHO widespread automobile usage is not and should not be considered a moral evil or a social problem in and of itself, end of discussion here.
Choo Choo Muh Fren!
Sir I think I found your life story. (The locomotive in question is likely a Hunslet Austerity 0-6-0ST BTW just to prove my 'tism cred.)
.
..
... Hmmmm.... if we do get ulta-wide gauge rails one day, roll-on-roll-off trains anyone? Both in the "rolling parking lot" sense for trains to carry cars/jeeps directly to popular camping sites and bypassing highways and "moving bike racks" that supports a start -> bicycle/scooter -> train -> bicycle/scooter -> destination route.
....
.....
...... Oh, right, assuming we can miniaturize fusion reactors, VTOL trains for disaster relief, anyone? Or failing that, using trains to transport disaster relief VTOLs as close to affected regions as possible.
@Graingy
About the same size as a small carry-on suitcase. Large enough that carrying them on buses and trains (or dragging them on a wagon on foot) are impractical but not large enough to warrant a truck.
The only "sacrifice" I'm seeing with the existence of larger shopping centers and shopping trips is the existence of cars and large parking lot in and of itself.
Yes to delivery and esp. aerial delivery. Rail network just for parcel delivery is straight out given the infrastructure and maintenance required. Nobody in the right mind should promote replacing cars with VTOLs if just because VTOL'ing is hella inefficient energy-wise.
PLEASE DON'T BLOW UP MOUNTAINS WITH FUSION BOMBS GOSHDARNIT ! ! !
Even if we ignore the X-ray/Gamma/neutron radiation released by even a pure fusion device, just imagine the ecological disaster created by randomly removing mountains to build ultra-wide gauge rails, plus the localized earthquakes and whatnot....
Japanese trains are overcrowded b/c Japan is kinda overcrowded in and of itself (large population + little useable landmass = recipe for disaster), and their city planning (plus economic model) meant working hours would concentrate a few city's worth of people in a select few downtown areas, which is just... inefficient. Still, Japan is among the only countries with a constantly maxed-out rail network plus a largely localized grocery shopping, so I'd still say Japan is at least a really good reference point for city planners to make transit-friendly cities.
I guess we can end the discussion here and agree to disagree on the form of future transport systems, but I guess two things we can definitely agree on is "we desperately need more and better transit esp. in the US and countries with similar urban planning" and "replacing everyday automobiles with VTOLs is a BAD idea", eh?
@V I thought the same until I did my own test a while ago as well...
@Graingy
So should I rent out a truck just because I have five cardboard boxes' worth of stuff or a single TV set to move around? Probably not.
Large grocery trips are objectively more efficient time-wise. Personally, why bother with five trips when you can get everything you would need for the next two weeks in one trip? Also I'm pretty sure the Japanese are doing exactly what you're saying about smaller shops and more frequent grocery trips, so we do have a precedent we can follow for more efficient urban planning. Cars there are still used for longer leisure trips though.
Rail gauge is limited not only by the international standard but also by practical concerns like "terrain" and "turning radius" so.... nope for most applications for rail.
Once again, I guess Japan does offer a good example on how to make full use of public transit (high-speed rail for long-range intercity travels, light rails for short-range intercity and inner-city travels, busses for less populated regions), yet they still have quite a few cars on the road, so I really don't think cars as a means of individual transportation would (or should) go away any time soon.
More and better transit would definitely make roads safer and faster for cars though so for me the solution is to always diversify instead of considering it a moral imperative to promote any particular means of transport above others and shoehorn it in use cases it's less compatible with.
@Graingy
Define "specialist". Although I guess an autonomous "taxi" service can probably replace individual cars in the (distant) long run. Individual air vehicles are definitely a niche market though if just due to the energy consumption involved in getting things airborne without a runway.
Arguably yes, but economies of scale that benefits larger shopping malls and supermarkets still exists, and unless everyone enjoys buying groceries everyday from a convince store a block away I doubt large grocery trips is going away any time soon.
The width of a train car is limited by the rail gauge itself, and unless once again you liver quite close to a station, dollies would not help you that much beyond getting your luggage off the train. (Non-accessible stations are shit for even the first suit case so it's rather beside the point.)
Once again, I'm all for more public transport doing what they're good at (getting large amount of lightly-loaded people between pre-planned points), but to assume they're end-all-be-all solutions is somewhere between "unrealistic" and "naïveté" for most use cases. The good thing though, is that as more people have the option of taking public transit for commute and bicycles/scooters for inner-city travel it actually makes the road safer and faster for those who actually need to drive, so it's a win-win situation, no?
@Graingy
Trains are pretty much the most efficient form of mass transit (plus bulk cargo transport over land), but they inherently restrict the amount of luggage/cargo a person can carry per trip (unless you're doing checked luggage and have a car waiting for you at the destination) and are terrible at moving people from point A to point B especially when there's more luggage involved, so I really don't think cars are going away any time soon from highways or city streets any time soon. What trains (and public transit in general) are very good at though, is alleviating traffic on highways and city streets during rush hours, as people going to / returning from work/school don't tend to carry much luggage or groceries regardless.
Remember, there's no such thing as "too many options" when it comes to solving real-life problems, what we can and should though, is to diversify options so the comparative advantages of the various solutions can be maximized while their comparative disadvantages can be minimized. Diversity is strength as far as engineering solutions are concerned.
.
TL;DR: Trains and buses for daily commute, cars for visiting friends and bulk grocery trips, bicycles/scooters for leisure + small grocery trips + covering small distances quickly, and VTOLs for luxury transport and urban first responders (plus flood relief if possible). Q.E.D.
The legacy engines
Engine-Prop-1andEngine-Prop-2are not affected by thepowerMultiplierattribute even though they have the setting in the xml editor.@Graingy
I do agree that aviation and automobile-like numbers wouldn't mix well for now, and until non-networked AIs and LiDARs are advanced enough for near-flawless crash avoidance on an air-gapped craft it would remain a poor combination for the foreseeable future. (Yes, I know Tesla's less-than-stellar safety record but IIRC it's largely down to Elon being an abysmal engineer who refused LiDARs or even binocular vision on his car AIs; turns out automobile and rocketry are two VERY different fields with completely different design requirements and use cases afterall...)
Autonomous networked vehicles are every-closer to maturity right now, but anything that relies on a central server for crash avoidance is about one dedicated attack / serious bug / power outage away from a mass-casualty event.
.
Hey at least those craft are much smaller than a fully-fueled widebody jetliner (~50 metric tons of Jet-A for a 767) so thank the small mercies for that, eh?
@Graingy
Personally I'd wait for the aviation industry to give the verdict on the feasibility of EVTOL vehicles in general, but helicopters do have the inherent problem of the large main rotor making it noisy and dangerous for intra-city flying, so I do think EVTOLs with a large combined rotor area might find a market/niche as urban luxury transport or first responder vehicle.
"Don't reinvent the wheel" argument only works when the purported new product doesn't solve any problems of the existing system, so I'm not really sure whether it would still apply here. EVTOLs do add new problems of lower energy efficiency due to the higher disk loading (unless it's a tiltwing/tiltrotor design then the wings might add some efficiency back in level flight at the trade-off of higher mechanical complexity), lacking true autorotation/gliding capabilities (once again unless they're tiltrotors or tiltwings), and all the additional challenges posed by the low energy density of batteries itself....
Hmmmm.... hybrid electric VTOLs, anyone?
@nwa
@SweetSuccubus
...?
+3@HuskyDynamics01
+1"People of the Commonwealth. Do not interfere. Our intentions are peaceful."
@KatBapa20
Get well soon?
+1Caught it publishing ~
+3Also, <++Ad Victoriam, Sentinel. ++>
@YishFish42
+2L1nus doesn't play War Thunder per se, but his art style have indeed been inspired by WT, so...
Can we get dedicated "noisemaker" parts like sirens and horns?
+5@Randomplayer
+2Sorry, personally I use the "not!-" expression to mean "the AU counterpart of", so... sorry again for the confusion.
Viewing from the front/nose, left-to-right:
not! Lockheed P-38 Lightning, not! Junkers Ju 87 Stuka, not! Mitsubishi A7M Reppū, and not! de Havilland DH.98 Mosquito?
@RestlessGalaxies Yurp!
+1Goo' ta' see ya 'gain, Centuri!
+1My therapist: the Froghog does not exist, it can't hurt you.
+2The Froghog:
Quick question: where does the stairs in 3:23 lead to?
.... have to say the general aesthetics is much closer to atompunk / raygun-gothic than dieselpunk (as exemplified by the more vivid colors, sharper contrast, and bubble-like shapes); your previous space elevator is solidly within the modern minimalist "iPod" design style.
+1.
Reference: steampunk ≈ pre-WWI, brass pipes, steam engines, pressure gauges, exposed cogs and pistons; dieselpunk ≈ interwar, diesel/gasoline engines, fairings and streamlining, radiators, utilitarian "form follows function" designs; atompunk ≈ early Cold War, vibrant colors, bubble windows, exaggerated aerodynamic features, with an emphasis on space travel.
Moonlight? Where have you been? Welcome back!
+1@SuperSuperTheSylph
+1Given the F/A-18 is a descendant of the Northrop YF-17 Cobra, which directly descended from the Northrop F-5E Tiger....
... different hairstyle?
@LegoGuyUAL184 Thanks!
Vultee Swoose Goose?
@Monarchii
@RB107
Or the poster.
@Monarchii
Whimsy?
Whoo! Publishing! Welcome back!
+1++ Shibanovisk Reporting ++
+1Rocket-armed fighters: "So, you have chosen DEATH."
@DreamerIndusturies
+1Thanks! And of course you're free to use the guns as long as you give credit somewhere in your build, although.... personally I'd rather introduce you to the updated and generalized codes here.
Also feel free to check out the companion builds, the clip-based autocannon and the L21A1 RARDEN cannon.
.... the heck am I looking at...
+1Lemme guess: the propeller tips go supersonic in cruise, the crew often suffer from hearing loss, and they can be heard from the ocean floor?
+1@Monarchii
I mean, IRL torpedo boats often carried rockets for more close-in "screw you", so.... Why not combine both?
.
(Also, the second proposal sounds vaguely similar to the Japanese torpedo cruisers, or conversely the Yank carriers with Regulus missiles. Seriously, in the world of aerostats the difference between missiles and torpedoes might well be whether they rely solely on aerodynamic lift or not.)
@Monarchii
Yeah, given the gyro only kicks in at terminal guidance range it really wasn't helping much.... Also, no need for the pitch code to include current pitch angle, the pitch input for gyros means "desired pitch angle" already.
.
.
.
Vanilla gyros tend to spaz out when they cannot counter the aerodynamic forces, so... most of them don't actually need aerodynamic control surfaces esp. when they're meant to be target drones.
The Izmails don't have enough aerodynamic control to countermand the gyros either way, and they fly just fine without control surfaces.
.
.
.
Either way, here's my ten-minute-fix to this mine/torpille aérienne. The gyro strength is actually pretty good for a slow-moving aerostat-torpedo.
.
.
.
and somehow your screenshot is missing.
Have to say those massive unprotected bombs are the Type-IB's greatest weakness. Somehow a random burst of machinegun fire from more than a mile away is all it takes to detonate the entire squadron.
@LunarEclipseSP
+3Wrong Kirov. No less deadly though given the number of chonker missiles a Kirov-class can lob at a moment's notice...
... is that a kamikaze airship?
+1Yeah, preemptive apologies but modern MTLs have advanced enough to not behave like ESLs anymore.
+1Mikoyan?
WELCOME BAAAAAAAACK ! ! !
+1Grats on gold!
+1@Monarchii *meow* :3
The Brits, "there's more than one way to skin a cat".
The AU equivalent to the interwar/1920-1930s?
++KIROV REPORTING ! ! ! ++
VAN Hursoye W H E N