Kerbart

Members
  • Content count

    2546
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2520 Excellent

About Kerbart

  • Rank
    Mun Marketeer

Profile Information

  • Location Elmwood Park, NJ
  • Interests Rockit sience
  1. The president is a business man. In most business that I'm aware of, initial deadlines are not set with the expectation that it can get done. They're a negotiating point. The signal he's sending NASA is that boots on the ground in 2050 as per the current plan (we know NASA slips every single deadline, so yes, 2050, not 2030) is not acceptable and they need to come up with something more aggressive. There will be an ambitious plan, it might or might not get approval, and in 2020 with a new president everything will get reviewed, budgets get gutted and we're back at square one. I'm putting my money on the other business guy to get there first. Not that I think that timetable is realistic, but it will have a single plan and goal that won't be gutted every four years because there's a new dude in charge. The apollo program showed what can het done if we set our mind to it and want to get there. NASA ever since shows us what happens when those in charge of policy and budgets have goals that are unrelated to that. As long as congress sees the primary goal of NASA to be a provider of juicy contracts to be landed in home states and nothing else, we're not going anywhere. Anti-politics rebuttal: this has nothing to do with who's president; in it's current setup, NASA is simply doomed to get anything big done that takes over 15 years to complete.
  2. Of course not, but it's an industry led by engineers. PR doesn't make things up. Who do you think PR talks to when they write releases?
  3. And here's your problem. "Science" has told us exactly that when nuclear power (by fission) was introduced. Since then we've had various incidents all over the world. Windscale, Three Miles Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima... One can argue that compared to coal or oil & gas, nuclear power is incredibly safe, and it is. But public opinion doesn't see that. What public opinion does see is hundreds, if not thousands, of people being evacuated (usually out of precaution), under threat of something you can't see. The enemy unknown is always more sinister than daily threats we deal with (traffic for instance). Engineers are notoriously bad with dealing with PR and the effects of it. Look at Fukushima. If we had the experts to believe, there was never a meltdown and everything was under control and within safety parameters, based on the press releases in the days following the disaster. What you're dealing with is a field of science and engineering that has throughout its history overhyped the benefits, understated the risks and is now wondering why the general public has such a "irrational fear" of it. People being uninformed is indeed a part of it. But people are always uninformed. The nuclear industry eagerly shooting itself in the foot at every occasion is a much bigger factor I think. And telling people that it's safe and that there's no waste or radiation problem... it might even be true. But who's going to believe it?
  4. Just don't timewarp. It will add a while new layer of realism to the game.
  5. If it's produced by Michael Bay we know exactly how it's going to look like (and no need to discuss a “story” concept either at that point).
  6. Amateurs care about looks. Pros care about functionality. Shake-to-focus, enhanced edge-docking, superior multi-monitor support... Who cares about how it looks. I care about how it behaves. And W10 has a ton of smart features in that respect.
  7. What wonderful, helpful reactions... [/sarcasm] Downgrading to Windows 7 is a bad idea especially on a new computer (drivers, etc). There's also the limited lifespan of Windows 7 security updates, not to mention the various improvements on the user interface on Windows 10. “Just install Linux” sounds great. Of course I'd be missing out on about a dozen programs I use professionally, but hey, KSP will run fine. Oh wait, it already runs fine. Why would I do that? Newsflash I: not everyone runs just KSP on their computer. Newsflash II: Windows 10 works just fine. I always wonder why the Linux fanboys claim that it's such a horrible system, because I've never encountered any serious issues on any Windows box. @KerikBalm, what are the exact issues you're running into? Are you trying to delete folders from a non-Admin account? Have you tried running Explorer as Admin? KSP runs fine on my WX box and I'm not experiencing any of the issues you describe. That's not helpful to you maybe, but it's an indicator that something is different on your setup; it's not a Windows issue per sé. It sounds more like a rights issue to me.
  8. I like the concept but the rover looks huge compared to the lander. How are you going to get it there? A separate lander would not be in line withe the "making history" theme.
  9. Localization is hard. Language is hard. Your incorrect use of the word "only," an insult to those who have spent countless hours on localization over the last few months, is a testament to that.
  10. Your questions are leading. Question 2 and 3 imply that "no" is not an answer. How far along are we with self-sustaining bases in the Antarctic? How well are we getting along with reversing the expansion of the Sahara desert? We've been really succesful in combating that drought that's been terrorizing California over the last 10 years, right? Each of those projects is about 10,000,000× easier than terraforming Mars. And we've come not even close in succeeding, despite trying (except for the Antarctic, because it's "impossible." Still millions of times easier than Mars). So, no. Not going to happen. Ever.
  11. Everyone likes better graphics. But there's also the reality of software developers going out of business because they decide to rewrite their core product from scratch, effectively removing themselves from the market for a couple of years and no longer being relevant with the new (and disappointing) product, while competitors who stuck to improving existing products rose to market leaders. For Squad and to a lesser extend for us, the question remains: How relevant are great looking graphics, arguably at the expense of gameplay (because you can spend your programming resources only once). *Cough* Minecraft. How much extra sales will better graphics produce? How much extra sales will high quality DLC produce (yes, high quality. Because if it's not, the story is over after two releases) Keep in mind that running a business, while requiring to be bold and innovative, isn't like a video game where you can restart after learning you went down the wrong path. That makes betting the boat on KSP 2 less intuitive than one would think at first.
  12. It's doing a lot better now than a few hours ago. Instead of all flights going horizontal, a few now go vertical. The neural network (?) still has a hard time figuring out a compromise between the two.
  13. Have you read the forum? Judging the forum most players apparently can't afford the expansion even at $10. How would they be able to buy it at a "full retail price" of $60-$100? Add to it, that developing a new version of the game, based on how you describe it, from scratch will likely take 2-3 years. Now maybe this is were all the programmers that left KSP went to—Squad is developing KSP2 in secret—but more likely is that it's not happening. Third, the appeal of KSP is its concept. Sticking closer to real world physics than practically any other game (even in its genre), the ability to be used as a learning tool, and as in inspiration. I'm not sure how much more "better graphics" would expand the KSP userbase. It's not bad to begin with, and being "perfect" won't make it sell better.
  14. Do you remember that you could do a reentry at a 90° angle to the Kerbin surface doing 4000 m/s, and still slow down for a controlled landing without burning up?