Betavoltaics are incredible for things that require low amounts of consistent power for extremely long periods of time. They're completely unsuitable for something that has extremely high and extremely variable power requirements. What do you do with all that power when you're not on the throttle? Radiate it as heat? Store it in supercaps? Fire the laser off in the distance and hope you don't hit anything?
Notwithstanding the difficulty of even getting 150kg of tritium in one place at one time, considering that Wiki says that the US had only made 225kg of tritium since 1955 in 1996, and that the total on hand at any given time was far less than that given that it's got a relatively short half life.
It's not that you wouldn't be able to build many. You wouldn't be able to build one. Even half of one would be pushing it, and the government would probably suspect you of secretly wanting to build a thermonuclear bomb.
Again, it's one of those things that's technically possible on paper, but you couldn't even consider attempting to make something based on it. It's another schoolboy fantasy, it's not an avenue to a legitimate production technique. You might as well just say you're gonna power it with cold fusion.
You'd just have to cut their connection, the "energy produced" would just radiate normally.
You can build power plants and produce tritium.
I've made the calculations and you'd need 600kg of tritium actually, but there wouldn't be that much heat and the radiation would be fine. Seems like Polonium 210 would be a better solution.
"Technically possible". That's what I like to read.
It's not so much that the Chaparral is further from reality. It's that as it's stands, there's no way for anything remotely like it to be made. It's not that it's close and needs some more work to bring the systems up to the required efficiency and power. It's that it simply cannot be done with anything like the technology that we'll have in the near future.
I was mocking you for saying "more of a concept", it's a meaningless subjective distinction whatever "reason" you might give. What is this spectrum of concept that eludes me!!!
I'm starting to think that you don't understand the difference between these things.
Oh lets see what follows that:
Put it this way. If you're an average driver, going a couple of seconds faster around Spa is going to be a big ask, but it's possible. You've seen other people do similar things, you know that you can learn how to do this. It's just going to require you putting in the time to really nail those skills down.
On the other hand, going a couple of seconds faster than the fastest driver in the world around Spa may not actually be possible. Technically, you could always go faster, but in reality it's going to take some massive revolution in the way that you drive to find that much time. Maybe there's a way to do it, maybe not. You just don't know.
You can know theoretical limits of speed in curves and straights for a given car in a given track.
So you can find a time ceiling. Wouldn't be precise to the decimals, but it would give a fairly good idea of performance.
I don't feel this "average driver" hypothetical is appropriate because driving, like any motor coordination skills are improved by repetition and "knowledge". So again, this is
so loose that I can say that if you let this average driver have 200 laps every day, for 2 years straight in the same car as the "pro driver", he'd end up putting a lap as fast as the "pro driver".
This is the difference between a legitimate concept car, and Wipeout. Maybe you can build antigravity "cars" that go 700+ kmph. It's technically possible on paper, we have superconductors, high thrust drives and advanced aero. That doesn't make Wipeout a realistic simulator, because there's nothing to realistically simulate until you actually have a decent idea how the vehicle is actually going to be made. You're just pulling numbers out of your bottom.
That's what the Chaparral is. It's numbers from someone's bottom. The rest of the VGTs are not, they're varying degrees of reasonably educated engineering extrapolations. Like I said before, I'm pretty sure a prototype could be built of everything except the Chaparral. That makes it a fantasy, which is in a whole different league.
Hell, even the Red Bull X is more plausible than the Chaparral, and the Red Bull would probably kill anyone who drove it.
Wipeout isn't trying to simulate anything realistically or accurately.
And yeah, it's very much technically possible! At least the slower tiers, and they wouldn't work the same, but it could look close. So dangerous though. And expensive.
And no the Red Bull wouldn't kill anyone. Unless it crashed. High G forces have to be sustained, not fraction of second peaks. But whatever, not that Wipeout = Chaparral = Average Driver trying to beat the best! wasn't a good read.
First of all, that's not this, which is what you quoted me to support:
So I think it is safe to assume that you can't prove that, which is a terrible shame because I don't think you're particularly far off the mark by saying it; and early on when the project was in it's infancy I actually felt there was pretentiousness on PD's part when it wasn't clear how it was actually going to play out.
A big part | of animosity | comes from | videogame attachment.
You asked what YOUR post meant.
Your post is the element of a set.
The set is used to prove the first part: A big part.
This one I know I wouldn't "prove" properly, I don't even care. I'd have to sample all "negative" posts and compare with those that involve "videogame attachment" in their reasoning. It would be an enormous task for an empty gesture.
Now returning to YOUR post. It is an element of the set that shows video game attachment as a "detriment". Go back to my post. Right after the sentence you quoted, I set (some of) the key words to determine this "videogame attachment".
Actual/Real concept car. If you say "A VGT is not an actual/real concept car", when they are REAL concept cars by the very definition of REAL and CONCEPT and CARS, I'm left to assume what you proved me.
What's an actual concept car?
"One that isn't attached to GT"
So if VGTs are "not actual" concept cars
it means they are NOT concept cars. (I don't even know what that would make them, weird amorphous undefined cars that exist conceptually but don't?)
But...
THEY ARE ALL CONCEPT CARS.
It's that simple.
Simple.
Regardless, the implied judgement value you're trying to assign to my quote doesn't exist. I was delineating between existing cars that PD adapted to their games with cars that were made for their games. I did it in response to someone saying that VGT is no different from what they were doing in GT1, which is a particularly odd thing to say with the reverence that the concept of the VGT program tends to get as often as the backlash against the execution. I brought up three examples of such from previous games to show what I meant by the word "actual". I then made a completely unrelated post immediately afterwards that should have made it clear that I think MOST of the type of cars that the VGT program has turned out to be wastes of time that will soon be forgotten by everyone involved regardless of whether they debut in a game or at an auto show and regardless of whether they are designed by car manufacturers or video game developers; and furthermore that the former being the case in either instance I don't think will change that.
You were delineating that say, the S-FR is a concept car. The Bugatti VGT isn't.
You can assign whatever fantasy judgement you believe I was making about the project or PD or GT, and you can blow off people talking about them as "choice quotes [] that indicate all the tripe" while attempting some weird vendetta against a specific member; but no matter what logical equations you attempt to construct, I still wasn't saying what you were using my quote to prove. I don't think the VGT program is dumb because PD is involved with it. I don't have animosity towards the VGT cars because they debuted as part of a Gran Turismo game. I don't even think the project itself is a waste of time that could be put to other things, because the investment on both parties isn't as large compared to their usual undertakings and seems mutually beneficial. I only think the VGT program is wasted because it so far has a lot of the same types of pointless dick waving cars that would be completely forgotten within a year if a manufacturer just trotted them out at an auto show; and any animosity I have towards them comes from the manufacturers and PD trying to give them more meaning than I think they actually have.
Ok.
I believe you.
Yes, divorced from context. Deliberately so, it seems. Someone asked why people take issue with something that the series has had since 1997. I pointed out that the VGT cars aren't the same as what the series has had since 1997. I brought up the three examples of cars previously in the series that are much more similar to the VGT cars that I felt explained how they were different, and what I meant at the time by "actual". I didn't elaborate to say that the VGT program is a negative. I didn't even point out that the marketing for those involved with the exercise is at odds with the point I was responding to.
You then latched on that to mean me saying that they were made for a game means that they don't count as concept cars, or that because they debuted in a Gran Turismo game they are without merit, or that PD shouldn't be getting involved in making these cars, or whatever the hell you're trying to argue now.
It's not. It's a one line post that is pretty direct in its wording to which you responded with a three lines sentence that again, are pretty direct.
And again, the "negativity" is inferred from the distinction of "an actual/real concept car".
But I believe you, again.
There's nothing for me to discuss if you say that's not your position.
