HOME | DD
MadHotaru — Das Freud
#mlp #madhotaru #scootaloo
Published: 2017-06-15 13:28:49 +0000 UTC; Views: 4848; Favourites: 281; Downloads: 128
Redirect to original
Related content
Comments: 46
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This Deviation was featured in the following Equestria Daily Post www.equestriadaily.com/2017/11… Thank you for providing pony material for all of us to enjoy 
(This bot is unofficial, it is NOT affiliated with Equestria Daily. If you do not wish to get these notifications anymore, please just block this account.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Very interesting, this piece can be taken any number of ways, but I really like how it looks, brass on the shell casing looks so good, you even gave it some tarnish. I also like the hair design you made here, Im currently learning new ways of drawing hair, so i may just use this as a reference. ^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm german and I have no idea what the title of this picture is supposed to mean.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
German round, don't even need to look at it any closer!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Some people are taking the "phallic imagery" route on this.
How does that pop into your mind at all?
Anyways, nice work.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
I think it's because Sigmund Freud dealt with repressed sexuality a lot.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
as well as dream imagery, often coming back to sexual meanings.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Набросок грязный и легкий. Эскиз шершавый, объем волосатый, детализация четкая, тени тугие и смачные, освещение и детализация резкие. Всё это позволяет во время покраски не упускать детали и сути объекта. Его объём. Четкий и понятный рисунок. Тот, кто рисует от пятна, лишается этого кайфа. Сила в графике - цвет только придаток к настроению. Живопись - это самая последняя стадия проявления фактуры (c) Лео Хао
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hey, , just outta curiosity, what did you use for referencing that round? Some commenters (including myself) on Derpibooru are getting curious. www.derpibooru.org/1462420#com…
"This thing a tank/howitzer/cannon shell?"
" adatron
That’s what I was wondering.
Oh wow, I just realized that 120mm = ~5 inches. So the gun on the Abrams (and some European tanks) is almost the same caliber as a standard WWII destroyer armament O.o
The M109 Howitzer uses a 155mm, so that’s even larger. Scootaloo is a small child-pony, so even smaller than regular ponies, so perhaps that could be a 155mm. I guess it depends on how tall you think ponies are. I put adult ponies around 1 meter, myself, scalp to hoof-tip standing upright.
Might be able to find out what kind of round it is from the stuff on the bullet.
"AZ23/2…
13GW35
III
Sm.34.42.6…""
" cirrus Light
Okay, here we go.
After intense googling, the markings are similar to those found on WWII era ammunition. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find an exact match for the markings, so everything past this point is increasingly unsound speculation (but here I go anyways). The design (large brass case, shell fixed into the case) imply that it’s a high velocity, quick firing gun (anti-tank or anti-aircraft), not a howitzer or mortar. The general proportions most closely match the KwK 42 gun used in the Panther tank (disclaimer: proportions are subject to artist’s interpretation). Most of the markings, however, are more similar to the ones on the KwK 40 gun used on Panzer IV tanks, but there’s no exact match. In particular, all that ammo uses "14" where this one has "13". The "III" appears to show an explosive round, not a penetrator round (again, not 100% on this).
TLDR – It’s German WWII ammo. Test your Google-fu to find out more."
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Not sure how a little pegasus filly is supposed to use such a thing... can't even lift it, let alone load it into whatever artillery piece it's meant for. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well it is said by horse owners that horses think only on three subjects.
Eating. Sleeping. Sex.
So it could be a Freudian thing about self pleasure.
I don't know about you but having sat a few times on live atomic warheads it does give you a rush!
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Big bullets? That's a penis. Missiles? That's a penis? Rifles? Those are more functional than you'd think penises. Submarines? Those are penises. Jets? Penises with wings.
Conclusion: army things are penises.
;^)
👍: 1 ⏩: 2
Well now you've got me Googling Murray Bookchin... seems like an interesting fellow. 
...yeah, all things military are really just phallic symbols. Explosive ones, usually.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
tfw I got someone to google Bookchin with only an avatar.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes AaronMK you are quite right about that!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
See that? This AA shell can stop an armoured Pegasus guard at 4500 m altitude in 2.3 microseconds, penetrating all thicknesses of golden plated armour
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, an 88mm gun has a muzzle velocity of 840 m/s. Neglecting air resistance and using a simple s = 840t - 1/2 g * t^2 formula with g = 9.8, solving for s = 4500 yields 5.5 or 165.9 seconds - the latter is solution for it falling back down through that altitude, and the former is obviously how long it takes the round to reach that altitude (from the fire at t = 0).
So without air resistance it takes 5.5 whole seconds.
But also without drag it has a maximum altitude of 36km. In reality, they had an absolute ceiling at 9.9 km (though an effective ceiling at 8 km). So, rough ballpark guess, it'd go about 36/9.9 = 3.6x slower, so more like roughly 20 seconds to reach 4500 m altitude. And that's the 88mm gun, which, mind you, was a very big, very high-altitude AA gun for WWII.
And that's why they invented flak and guided missiles - because you have very little hope if ever landing a direct hit on a high-flying aircraft, haha (fun fact: even guided missiles use proximity warheads - effectively, flak, because even with that guidance, directly hitting the target is still very hard).
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
What if I tell you that round can teleport through dimensions to reach its target in lightning speed?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'd tell you that if you have that tech, just use a rail or guass gun, or an ion cannon, or a laser, or a missile, since that sounds like a ridiculously expensive round. And if you can do that, then you might even be able to make a telefrag weapon - do away with the explosive warhead. Maybe even a telefrag missile or UAV. Flies up to the enemy vehicle, then teleports at such a range that it teleports half of the enemy vehicle with it.
I'd also tell you that you're no longer talking about the round in the picture we're commenting on
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Also I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you're simply going for a direct overhead shot with that calculation, even less likely to be that lucky lol. I thought about accounting for wind, but....thinks about the calculations required vs care + lack of sleep... no thanks.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, yes, because that's the easiest calculation... Though actually, now that you mention it, all I'd have to do is throw on a Sin(θ) coefficient to the initial velocity and I'd get the answer for shooting θ degrees above the horizon.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But what about the rotation of the earth
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's not all too significant here.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well depends, are you planning to hit your target or just kinda get close. This can go on for days though so sure we'll say close enough.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I wasn't trying to make a guidance equation for targetting. You'd need to take into account aerodynamic drag long before coriolis, anyways. I was just commenting on the "microseconds" part about a ballpark of how long it takes a flak round to reach its target. It's just a common misconception that projectiles go that fast. It takes them a while to travel significant distances.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You mean real life is not like video games where bullets magically hit there target right as you pull the trigger?! Crazy --- also no one wants to make guidance equations - that's why they make rounds cheap and fire many.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, ballistics equations are a huge deal and artillery of all kinds would be completely useless without that kind of thing. They just have specialists compute them in advance, then design the sites on the gun to match those equations and stuff so you have nice little sights marked out or dials or whatever control interface the weapon uses.
Missing largely happens because they don't know perfectly how far away or fast the target is moving, gunpowder doesn't burn perfectly, there's not the perfect same amount in every round, slight changes in weather and wind at different altitudes and places and turbulence and imperfections in the shell's aerodynamics and weight and all that stuff causes little deviations from the assumptions used to calculate the trajectory, and those are why so many rounds miss.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It all depends on what you're comparing. Look at a CWIS for instance. It has some of the best tracking and targeting in the world but fires a large burst of rounds because in the long run firing 1 perfectly corrected round that might miss is not worth the cost savings. As for artillery they aren't building the equations on the spot they have computers or data tables, as well as quick fire references. What I was saying over all, if it's that important that the target is hit, it is either a direct fire weapon or a missile with a guidance system. Rounds in comparison are cheep fire a bunch until you hit the target. Every thing is the missing section is pretty accurate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
CIWS*
You answered it yourself, though. It has some of the best tracking and targeting in the world.
It fires a high volume of rounds, but they're all very accurate. Those things that you can't account for that I mentioned in the last comment are why they don't just fire one.
You could just fire one, but you wouldn't be any more precise with it. You just can't be - there are limits on how precisely you can know things before the precision engineering costs are absurd. But despite that, they do make rounds as precisely as is economically feasible.
And I know, that's why I said they have specialists calculate the trajectory. It's like you're trying to correct me but I already said all that...
Also missiles are better for AA and because you need to go high and fast and a bigger projectile has a much higher cross-sectional density and thus much, much longer range than projectiles can have - also because HTPB/APCP fuels used in solid rockets are far more efficient, and having the burn stretched out over a while offers much lower peak drag and thus much higher overall delta-vee than a sudden burst of speed as the explosion of powder in a round.
And on top of that, long-range cruise missiles like the Tomahawk use jet engines which are fantastically more efficient than rocket fuels, even.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm sorry i put the leters for close inw eapon system in the wrong order with a new key board I'm not quite used to. IM STIL TRYING TO FIGUREOUT YOUR POINT!!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They do carefully calculate the trajectory of the shots. Not each individual shot, but they very carefully calculate the trajectory of a shot, and use that for the sights, and have that in the computers and stuff for where and how to aim the flak guns.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm still trying to figure out your point I said no one wants to do those calculations I never said no one ever did. I also said it's cheaper to fire more rounds than it is to take the time to be right on target the first time. Also you go two month without a response and think I was tracking where we left off in conversion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Aug 7, 2017.
Go to the message, hit "top" to view the whole thread, and use cntrl-F to find text, and search the word "wants".
"also no one wants to make guidance equations - that's why they make rounds cheap and fire many."
I'm not replying often because this sort of pedantry really isn't worth my time. Point is, some experts do the calcs, the calcs get put on the machine so they know what angle to slide the thing at for what range, etc., and then using the math that's been pre-calculated they try to place their first shot as close as possible, then hone in from there.
The US Navy in WWII had a huge advantage thanks to this when it came to their ship-to-ship artillery, though that's a wholly different matter than AA flak, of course. But I imagine AA procedures are at least somewhat similar to those. What insane brass wouldn't want rounds to hit closer on the first volley, possibly even hitting?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Eyyyyanope, I have too many contacts to keep track of on a regular bases to be jumping back like that. I'm still not sure what you're trying to teach me, and at this point I don't care. I'm not hating on you or anything like that, seriously though I was done with this conversation a couple replies ago. You want to ask me something specific put it up on my home page or whatever.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Looks cute! Love how the legs and the wings look.
Although, I'm rummaging through my internal German vocabulary and cannot find a word "Das Freud" in it. The only search results that come up are "Der Freund" (friend) and "Die Freude" (joy)...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Pоssibly, related tо Sigmund Freud
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Huh, hadn't thought about that. Could be!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"das" can be translated to "the" in englisch. we have three main "the" forms
Der, Die, Das
Freud could be the short Version from "Freude"=happieness
and a correct german sentence would be
"Das freut" wich can be translated in "that makes me happy" "Thats great" or something like that
but i quess is something about Sigmund Freud too
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Wouldn't it more usually be »Das/Es freut mich?«
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yeah, but if he was going for a verb "freut", it would've been lowercase.
Most likely it's either a typo because the artist doesn't speak German, or he really was referring to Sigmund Freud and the phallic shape of this bullet on the picture.
А рисунок все равно симпатичный, неважно есть ли там Фрейд или нету 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0