Any amount of water contact introduces a fair amount of drag. There may be an ideal point somewhere in the middle, but I think if you take this to it's natural conclusion you get a zeppelin.
I did a little bit of math and I think that to lift the payload capacity (including fuel and crew) of a modern day Panama canal ship you would need about a tenth of the peak U.S. helium reserve (a cube about half a kilometer long on each edge, about 1.3x longer than the long dimension of the ship)
I don't think you'd get the best fuel efficiency going upwind lol
Anything smaller would come with proportionally less downsides and at least proportionally less benefits. I doubt it could ever be a net positive in any useful metric.
3dof things usually just track rotation, because that's easier. But for a full VR experience, better depth perception, and more normal interactions, 6dof devices are used which track position as well.
IMO even a normal flatscreen is more immersive on average than a google cardboard, although that's partially because a flatscreen hides the flaws in the graphics a lot better.
HLA tho needs 6dof controllers for the intended experience. That mod tries to get around it, but that obviously involves some sacrifices.
IIRC no cardboard 'headset' ever had 6dof tracking. It's about as far as you can get from an immersive VR experience. I say this as someone who bought one before learning about VR and getting a real vr headset.
It's like VR with all of the downsides, even less apps, and the only advantage over a flatscreen being (limited) depth perception.
I think most big budget multiplayer games last 2-5 years, but there are some (among us, fall guys, lethal company, etc) that pass pretty quickly, and some that are just bad enough that they are basically outdated already when they come out.
The game I most recently bought is Trackmania United Forever, still $15 on sale even though it came out in 2008. I suppose my purchase of that is less though than of what they get from a user playing their new subscription based (!) racing game for a year.
I would be surprised if the French TGV can go into tunnels at those speeds, or maintain them safely 24-7. Also, the 100 years figure is one I completely made up based on what I've seen from conventional trains, I have no idea how long maglev track actually lasts.
Also, the scmaglev is advertised to be able to hold up to 728 people in the 12 car configuration, and can probably reach high frequencies similar to the rest of the shincansen system.
Speed matters for people to actually want to use trains, and maglevs are supposed to be both much faster and even more comfortable than conventional rail. They are a proven technology by this point.
Yes, it's not cheap, but it has the ability to significantly improve rail service in the northeast, and as the richest country in the world surely we should be able to afford that.
The other argument I've seen is that we have to go through all of the trouble and lawsuits around obtaining a new right of way anyways, even for normal high speed rail, so we may as well put the best technology available there.
Any amount of water contact introduces a fair amount of drag. There may be an ideal point somewhere in the middle, but I think if you take this to it's natural conclusion you get a zeppelin.
I did a little bit of math and I think that to lift the payload capacity (including fuel and crew) of a modern day Panama canal ship you would need about a tenth of the peak U.S. helium reserve (a cube about half a kilometer long on each edge, about 1.3x longer than the long dimension of the ship)
I don't think you'd get the best fuel efficiency going upwind lol
Anything smaller would come with proportionally less downsides and at least proportionally less benefits. I doubt it could ever be a net positive in any useful metric.