Nice screws on her, too.

No, normal monitor (old fashion) ;)

Oh man!!! That disapointed me a lot too! :cry:

Here we go, on patch 1.04 and still with akulas with oval hulls.

SONALYST: Akulas have round hulls, not OVAL!!! Just look at pictures that show them from the front, there are a lot of pictures in the internet.

Check the brightness settings. I'm using a CRT, and depending on brightness it goes from rather light blue to black.

Thanks Wim (my first name too) with brightness at 100% gives me a sub in pics one and three. :up:

Call me crazy, but I prefer the old L.A model. the new one looks too......fat?

You're crazy :rotfl:
Seriously though, the old model looked like a sausage.
The 688i is nothing like that.

Nobody's noticed the MH-60 pilots are actual helicopter pilots now, not jet fighter pilots?

Nope, up to now I had never realised the helo had in game pilots. :rotfl:
Its a nice touch, the pilot models.
Its the little things that matter and makes the game more enjoyable. :)

Damn looks like im gonnna have to re-install DW and install this patch :D

Actually, did you know that the optimal lenght to width ratio for a submarine is actually 6:1 or 7:1?...Where's an LA lenth to width ratio is around 11:1, if a sub really wanted to be hydrodynamic, it would look even more "squatty" that they do right now.;)

Like the old Albacore or Skipjack boats...

Yep, especially the Albacore. Its length:width was around 7.5:1 (almost ideal) and the Skipjack was around 8:1.

The SW is the closest that an American sub has come in a while (8.6:1 iirc). Most countries deviate from the optimal shapes because its easier to fit equipment inside the longer hulls than shorter/fatter ones from what I understand.

The reason for the cylindricial hullforms that the USN uses is simply ease of construction. The ease of construction was considered more important increase in hull efficency. I can't remember the exact number but I know the Skipjack/Albacore hull form was less than 10% more efficent.

The Skipjack/Albacore hullforms were VERY efficent hullforms. However, the constant changing of the interior volumn due to the shape of the hull made it difficult for placement of equipment in an efficient manner. There was all kinds of wasted space on them.

The 688 was designed around a propulsion plant. They wanted a boat that could run with the carrier fleet and act as a screening vessel, thus it had, at the time, the largest plant they could squeeze into a submersible hull. They could not make the hull larger in diameter due to metallugical and engineering technology at the time of ship design, so the made the space longer. With the length of the power plant and the ships center of gravity being the reactor vessel, the hull HAD to be so long to maintain stability.

Yep, supposedly a sub can get away with stretching the ratio with only minor penalties in drag. The 'tapering' of the hull can be delayed a bit (to allow more of a cylindrical midsection instead of an immediate taper from the forward section) without excessive penatly as well. Here's the drag to lenght:width curve

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/7...thratioby7.png

I was a little disappointed when I heard that the VA class would have the dimensions that it did. 10.8 x 115 meters went back to the long skinny tube whereas the SW had been more squatty at 12.2 x 105 meters (I like the squatty look... seems more 'athletic/nimble/sturdy' imho). I've always figured that it was because the VA would be optimized for littoral waters and the extra 4.5 feet shaved off the diamter may be helpful... that's what I've always assumed anyway.