I'm interested in LFS moving forward where it matters. If Scawen is to run around implementing every whim of the average forum-goer it'll never get off the freaking spot.
Where the AI drivers go after a drag is an extremely minor issue compared to the effort it would likely take to do something with (this most likely isn't a 10 minute fix). With so many other glaring holes in need of plugging that makes is a stupid thing to waste any energy on in my opinion.
Where the AI drivers go after a drag is an extremely minor issue compared to the effort it would likely take to do something with (this most likely isn't a 10 minute fix). With so many other glaring holes in need of plugging that makes is a stupid thing to waste any energy on in my opinion.
I would also think that the cost of buying and maintaining these engines would quickly outweigh the cost of some new rubber occasionally.
Sure, but in that case it isn't even a question worth asking. Of course a plane moving forward at more than take-off speed will take off.
The "Straight Dope" link includes a few comments on the other (more interesting) variation though.Jeez, lets look at the facts here. The plane's propeller pushes against the air. No matter what the damn wheels are doing the propeller is capable of moving the plane. Right? So since the speed of the plane can be more than 0, the wheels can have more rotational speed than the conveyor belt. Right? This means that practically (though not mathematically) the assertion that the conveyor always matches the rotational speed of the wheels is flawed. It can't be done. Such a conveyor belt is impossible to build.
Last edited by wien, .
How can the plane's thrust be cancelled out by it's wheels or the conveyor belt? That makes no sense.
You're asserting that the two sums of 13 are the only two valid permutations because otherwise you wouldn't be able to solve the riddle with the last clue. You're basically taking for granted that the riddle has a solution and that all clues are relevant, when it's quite possible it doesn't have one (on account of being misquoted) and that they aren't.
I'm asserting that the riddle is flawed because using only the clues stated in the riddle it's impossible to solve. You need to add an additional assumption (that all the clues are relevant and that it is in fact solvable with the given clues) in order to solve it.
You may think yours is a reasonable assumption, but I don't agree. Especially when an alternate version of the riddle which doesn't have this problem has been posted, suggesting that the original is indeed misquoted.
I'm asserting that the riddle is flawed because using only the clues stated in the riddle it's impossible to solve. You need to add an additional assumption (that all the clues are relevant and that it is in fact solvable with the given clues) in order to solve it.
You may think yours is a reasonable assumption, but I don't agree. Especially when an alternate version of the riddle which doesn't have this problem has been posted, suggesting that the original is indeed misquoted.
So you don't believe the last statement in the quote you posted? Is that it?
As I said above; Mathematically you can come to the conclusion that the forward speed of the plane (5 in the equation you posted) must always be 0 to satisfy all conditions of the riddle/myth. If that's how you look at it, then yes the plane will stay on the ground because you aren't allowed to power it up or you'll break the precondition of the riddle.
Practically though, once you power up the plane and gun it it will take off. Preconditions be damned.
Where does it say they think that? No one with half a brain would think the plane would take off at an air speed of 0.
Aaah, Ruddles County. :yummy: That's more like it.
How about secret option #3? The riddle as written in the OP is flawed and was missing information. You're basing your entire argument on the assumption that the riddle isn't flawed and you're then using that argument to prove that the riddle isn't flawed. Helloooo circular argument.
It think it basically all comes down to whether you think of this as a theoretical math problem, or if you think of it like a practical problem (I'm going with mrodgers' posted variation of the riddle in the following, since otherwise it's clear cut that the plane takes off).
As a math problem you have an equation where (all speeds relative to the ground) the rotational speed of the wheels equals the speed of the conveyor belt + the speed of the plane itself. Additionally the speed of the conveyor belt must must match the rotational speed of the wheels. To satisfy these two conditions the speed of the plane must be 0, and the plane won't take off (no airspeed).
In practice though, if you put a plane on a conveyor belt it will take off (as shown by the Mythbusters). It's impossible to build a conveyor belt that always matches the rotational speed of the wheel as long as the plane itself is moving, which it will once the engine is running. Defining the speed of the conveyor belt as the opposite of the wheels' rotational speed makes no sense practically, because it's impossible to do.
As a math problem you have an equation where (all speeds relative to the ground) the rotational speed of the wheels equals the speed of the conveyor belt + the speed of the plane itself. Additionally the speed of the conveyor belt must must match the rotational speed of the wheels. To satisfy these two conditions the speed of the plane must be 0, and the plane won't take off (no airspeed).
In practice though, if you put a plane on a conveyor belt it will take off (as shown by the Mythbusters). It's impossible to build a conveyor belt that always matches the rotational speed of the wheel as long as the plane itself is moving, which it will once the engine is running. Defining the speed of the conveyor belt as the opposite of the wheels' rotational speed makes no sense practically, because it's impossible to do.
That's a logical impossibility as long as the plane moves relative to the ground (which it will once the engine is running), the conveyor's speed is measured relative to the gound and the wheels are on the conveyor. Only when the plane is standing still (relative to the ground) can this condition be fulfilled, and a such the plane obviously won't take off.
This is all theoretical bull though. In real life the conveyor and the wheels have no bearing on the plane's movement whatsoever (ignoring rolling friction) and all the flawed preconditions in the world won't stop the plane from taking to the air with the wheels happily spinning faster than the conveyor is moving relative to the ground.
I think you'll find that's GT overdoing weight-transfer to the point of looking downright silly. Every video I've seen of GT has cars pitching and diving like they have no dampers at all.
What problem? Yes, your belief in god is a result of your human brain doing it's thing. I fail to see how that makes that belief correct. It's a completely flawed argument.
Here we go! 
You can't measure the plane's speed relative to the conveyor. Relative to the conveyor the conveyor itself will stand still and as such can't go in the opposite direction of the plane as presented in the riddle.
So you measure relative to the ground the conveyor is sitting on. The plane will be moving forward at speed X and the conveyor is moving backward at speed X. The wheels will move at speed 2X relative to the conveyor. If speed X is sufficient to give lift, the plane will take off. Q.E.D.
You can't measure the plane's speed relative to the conveyor. Relative to the conveyor the conveyor itself will stand still and as such can't go in the opposite direction of the plane as presented in the riddle.
So you measure relative to the ground the conveyor is sitting on. The plane will be moving forward at speed X and the conveyor is moving backward at speed X. The wheels will move at speed 2X relative to the conveyor. If speed X is sufficient to give lift, the plane will take off. Q.E.D.
Different temperatures, show, ice and rain would be a pretty fundamental part of a dynamic weather implementation don't you think? How could it not include those?
But by all means. Have this discussion all over again for the hundred and umpteenth time. I'm sure this time it'll be new and exciting.
But by all means. Have this discussion all over again for the hundred and umpteenth time. I'm sure this time it'll be new and exciting.
This is one of those riddles I can't fathom how anyone can get wrong, but so many still do. Mythbusters actually featured this thing, had the plane take off like expected, and STILL had people denying a plane on a conveyor belt can take off.
It may be a good suggestion, but if you look at the Suggested Improvements Log stickied at the very top of this forum (which you obviously know since you read it before posting like you're supposed to) you'll see that Dynamic Weather is the first suggestion listed. The devs know, it'll happen eventually, no need for more threads on the topic.
It doesn't need to be mentioned specifically. The clue missing from the original riddle was the fact that someone knowing the number of the house next door would figure out the kids' ages by getting the clue that the eldest plays drums. That's the only way the original riddle will make sense in my head. The occurrence of the number 13 twice in the list of permutation isn't a proper clue without that crucial bit of information.
People always say this, but is it true? I have a sound card which only has some rubbish unsigned beta drivers available and they work just fine on Vista 64. I just got the usual unsigned driver warning. It didn't prevent me from installing them at all.
I really doubt this is caused by the test patch to be honest. Do you get the same problem in plain patch Y? If so, the test patch at least isn't to blame, and you should open a new thread in Technical Assistance instead. We can continue on there if that's the case.
Do you get the same problem if you disable your second monitor?
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG