• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

989 Excellent

About TheEpicSquared

  • Rank
    The plague of the forums since February 2016

Profile Information

  • Location 00110011001101110010111000110010001100110011100000110110001100000011001100101100001000000010110100110001001100010011010100101110001110000011000100110011001101100011001100110010

Recent Profile Visitors

3695 profile views
  1. Yup, 1.2.2. I think I updated kopernicus along with all the other mods, so that might be the cause. At any rate, I'll see if I can post the logs during the weekend.
  2. Imgur albums work again!?
  3. Remember, all of what I said is IMHO.
  4. The weather during the last half-hour (no pictures, sorry): 17:05 CET, Helsingborg, Sweden: Clear skies, sunny, no wind. 17:05 CET, Helsingborg, Sweden: Suddenly cloudy, heavy sleets of rain. 17:10 CET, Helsingborg, Sweden: Sunny again. 17:15 CET, Helsingborg, Sweden: Raining. 17:25 CET, Helsingborg, Sweden: Sunny once again. 17:30 CET, Helsingborg, Sweden: GODDAMN HAILSTORM. Swedish weather, folks. More unpredictable than next Saturday's lottery numbers.
  5. I disagree. If you think two kerbals shouldn't be able to fit in the LEM, then just load one in. As for the RSS/RO thing, I also disagree. IMHO, KSP is a semi-realistic game, realistic enough to provide a challenge, but not realistic enough to take the fun out of the game. I think that a RSS/RO DLC wouldn't result in as many sales as an expansion like Making History, because it would simply be too difficult, especially for new, eager players. It took me weeks to just get to the Mun and back in stock KSP when I started. Imagine trying to get into orbit in RSS! The furthest I got in RSS/RO was a satellite that barely made it into lunar orbit, before I quit realism due to difficulty. New players especially might be deterred by that, and so not buy the expansion. This, of course, means SQUAD misses out on money, and might even lose money if the DLC cost more to make than the earnings from said DLC (I understand that that's unlikely, but still). And lastly, the new historical parts don't necessarily need to be used for their purpose. Use them for whatever you want! Make a 300m tall monstrosity using 1.875m parts if you want, nothing's stopping you. I mean, people are making hinges out of THERMOMETERS! I think that the new parts will be used for much more than just a "few hours of play", since there are just so many things you can do with the parts in KSP.
  6. I though dividing by 2 was too much for high-capacity, low-range planes, and multiplying it would give an unfair incentive for high-range planes, so I went in between, resulting in dividing by 1.5. Untimately it's up to you of course, it's your challenge
  7. I'd say something like: MaxSpeed + ( Range / 1.5 ) + ( PassengerCapacity * 3 ) + ( FlightAttendants * 2 ) + ( BonusPoints * 3 ) Not sure how balanced that is though
  8. Not the XPrize team, as far as I can tell. There hasn't been any news on the XPrize team, SpaceIL, for a while now.
  9. The CRS-10 Dragon has splashed down and has been recovered successfully. Also, SpaceX is looking for Red Dragon landing sites. Also, this:
  10. High supersonic / low hypersonic passenger aircraft?
  11. @Snark I think you should change your forum title to "Writer of Long Posts"
  12. @Rath I'd like to suggest a change in the scoring system. Right now it seems to favor the number of passengers (the x5 multiplier) over anything else. This means that if you have the most amount of passengers, you pretty much win regardless of every other statistic. I think that more incentive should be given to other statistics, like range and other things that I can't come up with right now.