Does anyone have a lead on actual Wooden Stocks for the M79? I have an orginal kanarr with a beat up polymer stock and I'd like to freshen up the weapon. I've reached out to auto ordinance and others but no one has any leads. Appreciate any guidance.
Hello fellow 40MM’rs!
I saw a handful of older videos regarding Cooper thermite rounds. They seem to have the potential for a great visual rapport.
Does anyone have the load data or any more information on how these rounds are mixed / constructed? Particularly curious for ignition systems given thermites notorious ignition difficulties as well as additive mixtures for the same.
Are we using Cupric or Corpous Copper Powder? And what Micron size are we looking for?
Same question for aluminum powder, is a 30-40 micron size still within the realm of having a 209 primer set off the mixture? I don't want to get into flash powder territory by mixing up a nano batch of borderline explosive thermite. But don't want duds that can't be set off by a point impact setup either.
Any help / insight is appreciated! Stay safe out there.
I've been playing Beyond All Reason for a couple of years off and on, great project, and many thanks and congratulations to the individuals and those who donated and contributed to the project to bring such a joy to fruition.
But I have a different opinion on the publishing deal that so many players seem so supportive of, from a business ethics standpoint, I find the deal morally questionable at best and, based on my own assumptions, reprehensible. So, I'm going to throw in my 2 cents.
While they claim to be transparent about the deal, the radical transparency that is required when monetizing a previously community driven project is completely lacking here. Previous contributors and donators are owed answers here, such as, who owns the intellectual property that is now referred to as Beyond All Reason?
Some form of an entity has signed this so-called agreement with Hooded Horse, whether it be a registered Limited Liability Company, or a corporation. And someone, a member, manager, or owner of said entity is signing on behalf of what will eventually be the beneficiary owner of the intellectual property after this is appropriately monetized.
Make no mistake, this is America, and this deal is about money. Money that is sure to flow into the pockets of beneficial owners, and the community, that is, those that donated and contributed to make a now marketable product that is going to make people money, deserve to know who the beneficial owners and entities actually are.
Truly, from what I've read, this project presented itself as grassroots, community focused imitative. At some point, probably in the distant past, after receiving "community donations" and "contributor support" someone realized they had a marketable product on their hands, so the question remains, when did this start being structured for commercial profit? At what point were donors potentially mislead about how their money was going to be used and who benefits? Can the beneficial owners show that when they made the active decision to commercialize this venture that they used their own funds to create the legal framework required to sign this publishing deal? This reeks of deceptive transparency.
Building the BAR community, and the donation framework, relied heavily on mutual trust. The "community" label, the "Work of Passion" label was thrown around as marketing tactic to tug at heartstrings and solicit funds from players and donors that has now, potentially, exploited the goodwill of this project's supporters and contributors.
Further questions remain, did what entity is "BAR" solicit tax deductible donations as a nonprofit at some point? And can we be guaranteed that at no point those donations have been funneled or co-mingled with this new private commercial interest? Has the nature of the entity that owns the intellectual property been property disclosed at all points during the transition from "community driven open-source project" to this new, apparent, commercial entity? Legal and Ethical lines are in question here.
Regardless, it appears that certain people / entities have accepted community contribution under the pretense of a shared public good, which is now being suddenly commercialized and will benefit certain beneficial owners, so who are they?
Least us not forget that we accepted this as a community driven project, because it was a derivative of an independent IP from 1997. It's largely created from the proprietary assets of Cavedog's original games. It's in the name Afterall, Balanced Annilhation.
There has been some carefully worded, politically washed nonsense posted from developers, but the radical transparency, and I mean, the meaningful disclosures it takes to monetize a community driven product is entirely and conveniently absent here, and like they say, the proof is in the pudding.