This is really just a silly Hyundai Elantra commercial where they also talk to one of the Walking Dead creators about his work. There are roughly 3 different versions of the car depicted, and none of them are feasible.



Of course no one would pick a compact coupe as the foundation for an armored car if they had any kind of choice in the matter (and if they don't, there's no reason to talk about what a great choice their only option is). There are a couple key areas in which this car really shows the limitations of the basic platform (a compact coupe): Height, Carry Capacity.

Basics:
An Elantra weighs about 2,800lbs unmodified (and roughly 3,500 - 4,000 as imagined), has about 150HP (not impressive numbers from a 1.8L engine), and has a sunroof roughly 4'8" feet off the ground.

Height:
The idea of a turret on top of the car for offense is great, except for the part where he's talking about a car with a height of less than 5 feet. The average person is about 5'6" with an arm's reach of at least an extra foot. So, the person in the protected turret is still likely in range (the hypotenuse of an arm reaching to this height would be slightly longer than the ~4'8" car height plus the roughly foot and a half of turret). Have you ever stood out of a compact coupe's sunroof while the car was in motion? There's not a lot of room in that car period, there's certainly no room for a person to stand in the center of it while it's in motion in a high stress situation.

Carry Capacity:
The Elantra has a roughly 900lbs carry capacity (this weight includes driver and passengers, plus armor and such). I'm going to assume the weight of the cow catcher is about equal to an average small truck snow plow (250lbs), and that it's for hitting zombies not clearing the road of vehicles, and I'm going to place a fair shot in the dark of roughly 172.5lbs for the rest of the armor (assuming 7 gauge sheet metal is ideal, and assuming 23 square feet will cover enough glass). So far we've got 477.5lbs of carry capacity for driver, gunner, passengers, and gear. Each person likely weighs roughly 200lbs which means the car has enough capacity to deal with a driver, a single gunner, and two moderately well stocked bags of supplies. Any more than this and the car will start to run into issues, a lot more than this (say, loading it up with passengers and gear) and you risk significant damage to the car's ability to continue driving. All of this assumes they don't want to beef up the rear of the car to allow the vehicle to be able to "safely" ram other obstructions in the road (in a demolition derby drivers drive, and crash into each other, backwards to protect all of the sensitive components in the engine bay).

Other:
The roman chariot style blades on the wheels of a car was tried in an episode of the tv show Top Gear and it threw off the wheel balance to the point of making the car entirely undrivable for any more than a mile or two. Also, just about the last thing you want to do when dealing with zombies is damage their legs because it's much easier to see a zombie walking than a zombie crawling (our soldiers crawl when they want to be harder to see in modern combat for a reason). The general purpose of a compact car is to be accessible (read: inexpensive), and often they utilize a small fuel efficient engine. Increasing the weight of this car by about 40% is not doing any favors to the already under powered car, and the fuel economy is going to suffer. Realistically, speed and acceleration are meaningless (of course the car will exceed the 3 mile per hour average human walking speed).

Improvements:
*Start with a different type of vehicle. Perhaps something that was designed to be large.
*Ignore the mad max spikes.


research tools:
http://www.hyundaiusa.com/elantra/specifications.aspx
http://www.hyundai-forums.com/197-i30-elantra-touring-forum/140546-load-capacity-2012-touring.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humvee
http://www.fisherplows.com/fe/showroom/homesteader
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gauge-sheet-d_915.html
http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/scales/sheetmetal.html

>> ^dhdigital:

Ahhh this how the turrets in portal got their start


"I'm different..."

Ahhh this how the turrets in portal got their start

>> ^ponceleon:

Make the plates bullet-proof, add turret to the middle, overthrow humanity.


Heyyyy sexy lady, wanna kill all humans?

Make the plates bullet-proof, add turret to the middle, overthrow humanity.

>> ^Asmo:

Anyone think the setup time vs a decent player would make this pointless?


The way he did it yes, especially since air units can still attack the tank.

If someone perfected doing this quickly then what might work is getting 2-3 tanks down there and then attacking the front of the enemy base with the remaining forces. Since they'll be defending pressure at the front it will be a lot harder for them to figure out what is attacking their mineral line or buildings.

Another possibility would be an early drop attack, especially against zerg. Use the glitched tanks to support a marine drop. The tanks can hit enemy units, but can't be attacked by melee units like speedlings or even roaches due to the short range. Then just kill off tech structures with the marines.

What might be more useful is stacking some tanks inside a few missile turrets on a high-ground corner for expansion defense. It would keep air units from sniping them and would keep the tanks from damaging each other. It would also hide the number of tanks you have from your enemy (much like the older "viking flower").

>> ^Gallowflak:

The reason the SP was hyped up and marketed so much was that it was EA's forced, ridiculous and damaging attempt to have Battlefield 3 compete with Modern Warfare 3. Anyone who knows anything about the series is aware that this is a multiplayer franchise, offering vast battlefields, large playercounts and strategic openness not seen anywhere else in shooters. Except maybe Tribes.
I can't fault anyone for paying undue attention to Battlefield 3's singleplayer, considering how the game's marketing has been handled. But it shouldn't be the reason for investigating BF3. Your reason should be being able to bail out of a jet and top speed, parachute down onto the turret of a tank, plaster it with C4 and blow yourself to oblivion.


That sounds a bit odd since Call of Duty is also heavy on MP emphasis is it not? The problem is that realistically, Battlefield does simply not have the same pull over consumers that CoD does.

That kind of plays into my thinking that what most people want, and indeed buy in their millions, is an explosive, viscerally exciting rollercoaster ride.

Thus I'm not at all surprised that BF3's SP seems to be as shallow as anything Infinity Ward has offered.

The reason the SP was hyped up and marketed so much was that it was EA's forced, ridiculous and damaging attempt to have Battlefield 3 compete with Modern Warfare 3. Anyone who knows anything about the series is aware that this is a multiplayer franchise, offering vast battlefields, large playercounts and strategic openness not seen anywhere else in shooters. Except maybe Tribes.

I can't fault anyone for paying undue attention to Battlefield 3's singleplayer, considering how the game's marketing has been handled. But it shouldn't be the reason for investigating BF3. Your reason should be being able to bail out of a jet and top speed, parachute down onto the turret of a tank, plaster it with C4 and blow yourself to oblivion.

*Quality.



My mouth was hanging open the whole time.
These things need the sound effect of the flying turrets from BioShock when they move.

Just finished it after a marathon session last night. Think I ended up around 25 hours or so.

Overall I'd give the game an A-. It definitely wasn't as long as the original, but it really lived up to the spirit of the the first game.

*spoilers*
I was slightly disappointed in the ending. I think I may have bugged the final boss fight because I never took any damage once I got under the turrets and then used the code to deactivate the thingy with the chicks in it... after that it was just a matter of standing up by the chick till the glass broke... pew pew pew, "boss" dead... push all 4 buttons for achievement and watch similar movies. Just a slight let-down because the rest of the game was fantastic.
*spoilers*

What the game didn't have that I was hoping for:
UFO/Aliens like the original Area 51

Tags for this video have been changed from 'turret, opera, Cara Mia, sing, song, tune, music, group, people, Portal 2, a cappella, game' to 'turret, opera, Cara Mia, sing, song, tune, music, group, people, Portal 2, a cappella, aria' - edited by calvados

wtf... He didn't have automated turrets like in Aliens 2 set up??

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/speedup-americans-working-harder-charts

Look at the top three. Are the rich (aka the top 1%) universally callous a-holes? No.

Are a statistically significant number of them hoarding a disproportionate helping of the gains achieved through productivity increases over a the last few decades? Yes.

Is that trend happening very, very quickly right now? Yes.

Oh, and about the above back and forth about tax rates, actual tax revenue as a share of GDP is lower than ever right now, personal income tax rates are lower than they've been since the 1920's, capital gains tax rate is lower than it's been since the 1920's, and the effective corporate tax rate (i.e. once you account for exemptions) is about 25%, which is well below the OECD average.

So yes, taxes are lower than ever here in the US.
>> ^quantumushroom:

Part of your writing is about what happened and the rest is about what you believe. Are the rich universally callous a-holes who care nothing about their employees? Some are like that, others ain't. Capitalism is like a military tank; it's better to be riding in the turret than getting caught under the treads.

Part of your writing is about what happened and the rest is about what you believe. Are the rich universally callous a-holes who care nothing about their employees? Some are like that, others ain't. Capitalism is like a military tank; it's better to be riding in the turret than getting caught under the treads.

Historically there appears to be more misery when taxocrats run the show than repubs. Why, what's stopping His Earness from announcing he loves socialism and implementing a carbon copy of the European model (have you see Greece lately)?

Not that I have much stake in defending them, but the wealthy pay the most taxes in America, despite the cheaters, that's fact. The bottom 50% don't even pay income tax but suck up plenty of "free" goodies.

There's a moral basis for making others pay a fair share of taxes, but not the lion's share.



>> ^RFlagg:

Let me tell you about "Employers". My former employer, just prior to the Presidential election sent out a memo saying that if Obama won the election and put his tax plan into effect he would have to fire 300 some people. Obama of course won, and even before Obama took the oath of office, they fired on the order of 380 people and told the rest that we wouldn't get a raise that year because the cost of living went down so much. He then went out and bought a private jet and another mansion in Glenmoor (a high end gated Arnold Palmer designed golf community) to add to the one he already had there (the second largest in Glenmoor) and his place on Miami Beach among others. A new year for the companies health care plan rolls around and the rates were supposed to go up 22% (the same amount as last year, but this is not mentioned the memo) but they held the line at only a 5% increase (again just like last year but not mentioned in the memo); the very next sentience of the memo about the health care cost increase goes to say how the company disagrees with Obama's costly health care plan as if it had anything to do with the insurance rate increases that year (one should note it is deceptive stuff like that which they put in their marketing which is why they can't do business in FL, PA, CA and a few others). Then when the Ohio governorship is up for election he sends another memo out talking how under Ted Strickland the company lost 380+ jobs and that we should vote for John Kasich. John Kasich wins and the owner fires 230+ people and once again no raises for anyone. 600+ people out of work but guess who still has his private jet. And it isn't like he is a rare case. Aside from the memos of voter intimidation he is typical of the rich and what they think of their employees. He has been given huge tax credits and incentives from the state, county and cities, but he still hasn't hired many people, and as a matter of fact fired over 600 people (far exceeding those hired by several hundred still) and pocketed the savings so he could get a jet. So don't believe or spread the lie that if we give the rich tax breaks or more money it will eventually help the working class. 30 years of trickle down economics has proven that doesn't happen. Of course you Republicans won't let facts stand in the way of robing the working class to support the rich, and using the media to tell them it is for their own good... sadly too many of the American public is too brain dead to realize they are being coned.
People like that guy is who the Republicans are all about rather blatantly, at least the Democrats pretend to care about the working class even if they don't have the balls to stand up to the Republicans or the rich. Some of the more caring Democrats have a plan that would balance the budget 10 to 20 years faster than the Republican plan, all without cuts to essential services to the working poor. If the Republicans really wanted to balance the budget as they say, and cut spending as they say, then they would go with the People's Budget, but since that cuts into Republican funded things like Tarp and cuts the military budget and raises taxes on the upper 2% they won't have it. Of course Obama and the majority of the Democrats are too chicken to support it themselves...

it needs a gatling turret that's what it needs.