p1t1o

Members
  • Content count

    1744
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1198 Excellent

1 Follower

About p1t1o

  • Rank
    Just some guy, y'know?

Profile Information

  • Location In the walls.

Recent Profile Visitors

2477 profile views
  1. @DerekL1963 I have to disagree on most fronts there, KPS wont be permanently in development, I doubt that very much. Permanent? MMOs are a different kind of animal, I grant though. That is a comparison I would call apples-to-oranges. KSP is very far from the MMO model. As for a comparison to A-list, I dont see why KSP cant aspire to the same level of quality, I have no idea how else to define "A-list". That they are an independant seems irelevant. In any case, I merely wish for KSP to have a similar level of stability, nobody can say that they dont mind bugs hanging around forever or that they dont mind new ones being constantly introduced. That is what I mean by "complete". No, there is no permanent update model. Remember the hoo-haa when we changed version of unity? What happens when that is obsolete? Re-write the entire thing for a new engine and call it an "update"? It would have to be a project onthe same scale as a whole new game, which it literally would be.
  2. Not at all. There are NO games that are in a permanent state of update and content adding, it makes no sense as a commercial venture. I obviously didnt mean literal perfection, but KSP clearly suffers from many, many more bugs than the majority of A-list games, and bugfixing is a significant part of ongoing development. And pretty much every other game on my extensive steam list is feature-complete, not that it would be impossibel to add more content, but they are just completed projects, whereas KSP seems several steps behind that point. Thats not to say that A-list games dont suffer from bugs, but you generally expect them to be bug-free, and mostly you are not disappointed. Its not a criticism especially, or otherwise an indictment of Squad, but KSP still requires more work before it can stack up, bug-wise against A-list titles. Im not talking content, the limit to that is the economic/commercial endurance of the project, plus it would seem that extra content would come in the form of more DLCs from this point on. Im just talking stability and bug-like problems, things like planetary surface seams, wheels working like wheels, surface friction, exploding bases etc etc. And Im not even pushing for timescales because I know how finicky software projects are when it comes to that. I just dont want to get the DLC only to find that some parts are buggy and I need to wait 6 weeks to get them fixed. Followed by a hotfix...then anotehr patch etc etc. know what I mean? And if they could finalise the "fixing" of base KSP as well, then I'd be a happy bunny indeed, but I dont see that taking any less than another year.
  3. Updates. *** Dear Squad, Please take your time with the DLC, do as much QA and experimentals as you need so that the DLC does not require patching, and then a hotfix, and then another patch 3 months later, and then another patch after another 6 month round of user feedback. I have been patiently waiting for KSP to convert from a project-that-still-needs-work to a fully complete game that no longer requires any fixes, with bugs only popping up rarely. I continue to wait patiently because I know how good a product it is, and how difficult it must be to get it perfect. But I dont think I can stand a whole seperate other battle to get a DLC up to code at the same time. I imagine that modders will thank you as well. With respect, P1
  4. More of an engineering question than a chemistry one - Im not entirely certain of the answer but came across this: http://pstu.ru/files/file/2015/conf/zhenjian_jia_weixing_zhou_wenchao_liu_research_on_effects_of_fuel_pyrolysis_to_performance_of_internal_combustion_engine.pdf Looks like it might be a "yes", theoretically.
  5. Well yeah, that is exactly how you'd empirically determine the answer lol
  6. Not "stage-and-a-half"? How many "stages" was the space shuttle stack? ...its pedant /pedant
  7. Yeah, there's a few of the less "plain" molecules in there, the mineral oil is going to be an unholy mix of god knows what too. But its seems likely that it is mostly the straight-chain hydrocarbons. Wouldn't it be easier just to use kerosene (or gasoline, or some other more easily characterised hydrocarbon) in the first place?
  8. At first I was like "Rocket-assisted-fan? how is that supposed to work?!" But yeah, I like me few ginormous RATO boosters
  9. This isn't my word, I got it from my Dad growing up - "Clerting". The act of messing about or fiddling with no real purpose: "Stop clerting and get on with your homework!"
  10. You're gonna need a breakdown of the composition of WD-40 - I presume it is a specific blend of various light hydrocarbons. If you can find literature values for kerosene in LOx, those would be a pretty decent approximation. Unless WD-40 has some funky functional groups in it, the energy contained in its bonds should be largely similar, since they are all C-C and C-H bonds and the combustion products, if completely reacted, will be the same too - mostly CO2 and H2O. Of course if there are some unusual compounds in WD-40 (like say cyclic groups, nitrogens, alcohols etc), that could widen the difference between it and kerosene.
  11. Its possible for two very different aircraft to look superficially similar.
  12. There may be many factors contributing to your low frame rate, but regarding the above statement: you do not own ANY game that does as much physics-based calculation as KSP. Video cards, cpus and RAM are all excellent at dealing with tons and tons of textures and 3D shapes nice and quickly, but its the physics calcs that getcha. Its arguable how much difference a new video card would make if your CPU is struggling under the physics load. Its not that 8 cores *makes* it slow, but more that you are not getting enough cycles out of your 4 year old processor. 200 parts is about where you'd expect it to slow down.
  13. Are there any formulas on mass flow trough hole depending on matter temperature, density and pressure? There most certainly are! Here are some links which are decent starting points - obviously there is more to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_flow_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venturi_effect https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/rktthsum.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine_nozzle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_diamond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choked_flow Lets say matter leaving such container has composition, pressure and temperature of Venus atmosphere on surface - something like CO2 powered nuclear rocket from KSPI Interstellar. There isnt anything that special about Venus's atmosphere. Hot, high pressure (though not that high - or hot - in astronomical terms) gas - a conventional chemical rocket generates higher pressures and temperatures. Or Jupiter core - how much destruction it would cause? Difficult to say, this might be a good place to start: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/9569212/Silvera_Metallic.pdf?sequence=2
  14. Indeed, gone are the once-a-week whatifs REgarding your question: why would the answer not be "Hot matter rushes out of the hole very quickly, expands and cools." ?