• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by HebaruSan

  1. Does Matt O'Dowd lurk the KSP forums? Maybe!:
  2. Cargo/passenger train service now separated across the entire map Patched several electric grid gaps, not sure how they got there Added services to level up my commercial area Reworked my subway stations and bus routes Finally added a train station near my commercial. It almost works. Save: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=893599323
  3. Alright, I HAVE THE SAVE.
  4. Maybe let people use the phrase "traditional planets" for the original 9. No new definitions needed, and they can use the word they so desperately want to use, with a qualifier.
  5. And for the hearing impaired, we spam flags everywhere.
  6. What about replacing it with the Cathedral of Plenitude? I think that's a similar size and shape.
  7. Not at all. Situation pre-DLC: Functionality is available to people who: 1) Heard about or looked for the mod, 2) Are on a non-console platform, 3) Decided to download it, 4) Installed it correctly, and 5) Kept it up to date as new KSP versions are released. Situation post-DLC, even assuming the mod disappears overnight and is never revived: Functionality is available to people who: Bought the DLC. That's a much lower bar, meaning far more people will experience the benefit of having this functionality. From the standpoint of, say, utilitarianism, it's a very clear ethical positive.
  8. Or wait until your downstream neighbors have had a chance to rebuild their coastal settlements before uploading the save (I say, nervously eyeing the huge walls of water held back by my two dams).
  9. I'm afraid that's DLC; it morphs into a Statue of Negative Liberty on my turn. Do you happen to know which one it's from? I added them all to my Steam wish list, but there haven't been any sales yet.
  10. I'm afraid the original author left us long ago for reasons unrelated to DLC; this mod, like so many dozens of others, lives on in a "continued" fork maintained by linuxgurugamer. Who knows what he will decide to do with mods that may overlap with the Making History pack. It's possible. It's also possible (likely?) that more people will buy the DLC than ever used the mod, in which case it's a net benefit.
  11. You're right, it already happened four years ago! Still, those will be modded personal parachutes, not SQUAD Stock Plus™ personal parachutes. Providing different content is not circumvention.
  12. OK, I enlarged that triangle, but I also wanted to future-proof a bit. People on the interwebz said to split passenger and cargo traffic, so I did that for my town and the neutral zone. The tracks now split just inside the map border, and my stations only connect to one or the other branch of that split according to train type. My immediate train-neighbors, being the towns of City of the squares and Thrintunville, will now find two train lines leading to your border, one for passengers and one for cargo. They merge shortly before entering your town, so if you don't want to make changes, you don't have to, and everything will work about the same as it did before. However, if you are interested in splitting passenger and cargo trains, I think it will help to reduce train congestion as the city grows. To distinguish the routes visually, I decided that cargo would go under the roads or other tracks via tunnels, while passengers go over the roads so they can look out the window at the landscape. Save: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=892430538
  13. I HAVE THE SAVE. I'll probably just clean up that train traffic.
  14. Oh wow, we've unlocked the Train Congestion mini-game already? I tried fixing that intersection in a throw-away copy of the save, and our income briefly went over $77k. €77k? Whatever it is.
  15. Another thought experiment or two that might be relevant, or at least jumping off points for drawing finer distinctions. We haven't stipulated any of the physical properties of the objects involved (mass, volume, charge, rotation, etc.) to come to the conclusion that the outside observer sees the ship come to a gravitationally-time-dilated halt above the event horizon, so that conclusion should apply to any object falling into any black hole. Right off, this should mean that a black hole can never grow in the reference frame of an external observer, because from an external/distant frame of reference, any in-falling mass is frozen in time just above the event horizon, waiting for eternity to pass before it proceeds. Maybe this is the case, but every prior physicist's presentation on black holes that I've seen has implied otherwise, that in fact mass can fall into a black hole and that black holes can increase their mass over time this way in the reference frame of an external observer. Further: What if instead of sending a ship, we send another black hole? The same conclusion should hold; from an external frame of reference, Black Hole #2 should slow down more and more and ultimately freeze before it passes through Black Hole #1's event horizon (and vice versa for BH1 passing through BH2's event horizon, of course). But the LIGO observations are generally agreed to be strong evidence that black hole mergers do in fact occur in our universe, in our frame of reference. So at the very least, event horizons can pass each other; whether we want to draw distinctions between them and truly physical objects is a more subtle question, but it makes me doubt that gravitational time dilation near the EH is so severe that time effectively cannot pass as observed from a distance. Again, I don't consider these necessarily to be contradictions or reductiones ad absurdum, just apparent problems that may be real problems or may go away if the arguments are presented more carefully.
  16. Right, I got tired of typing "distant observer" and hoped that I could replace one of them with "our". The potential problem here is that if Hawking radiation does exist, then "the time of the universe" is not correct because if you wait enough googol-to-the-googol years, the black hole will evaporate. So if the external observer sees the ship come to a stop outside the horizon, and then the black hole shrinks and eventually explodes with the ship still outside it, then we would like to reconcile that somehow with the ship's observation of its own passing the horizon with no problem. As far as I know, Hawking radiation is a pretty widely agreed upon phenomenon even though it hasn't been observed yet.
  17. Ah, I specifically sidestepped the idea of a "standstill" at the event horizon, because I'm not sure that part is correct, if by that we mean that the ship's clocks approach a rate of zero seconds per our second. Wikipedia seems to agree with your interpretation, though, for what that's worth:
  18. I think it still happened but was harder to notice when frame rates in general were lower. We would not push the game to its limits as much, and would experience big FPS drops before the stuttering became obvious. But there were complaints about stuttering on Unity 4, including reports that it had gone on since 2013:
  19. Maybe we should discuss this; there is no schedule for this co-op, which I would think means no reservations either. If you aren't actually available for a while when klesh finishes, someone else should be able to play at that point if they want to. Plus it can be much harder to determine whether you're allowed to play right now if anyone in the previous twenty posts may have called the next turn already. Just sit tight and watch for the next save, you'll probably be able to grab it.
  20. It depends whose frame of reference you're using. Gravitational time dilation is real. For the distant observer, time really does slow down for the ship near the black hole. From the perspective of the ship, nothing seems to slow down, but things further away from the black hole speed up. If the ship escapes and meets up with the distant observer, clocks carried by the two will show very different intervals elapsed.
  21. Yes, although I do periodically disconnect Arbor Gardens' electricity to check the capacity of the dams.
  22. Here's the closest to an official statement that you're likely to see: You can click the arrow icons at the top of any of those boxes to jump to the original thread for more details.
  23. The OP announced personal parachutes as a "Key Feature" of the DLC. Why would they be available without the DLC?
  24. ... It turned out less irregular than my practice versions. I give you hexagons! For a new white collar office park. Maybe those cubicle jockeys will be drawn to an area that looks like their Civ 5/6 campaigns. The outer layer is zoned for forestry, to eventually create a wall of trees around the whole thing. The demand bars are crying out for a new subdivision somewhere. Save: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=891522851
  25. I HAVE THE SAVE. I sketched an idea out a bit, hopefully it goes according to plan...