Nathair

Members
  • Content Count

    386
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

239 Excellent

About Nathair

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Profile Information

  • Location Array

Recent Profile Visitors

1,603 profile views
  1. Update: Started a new career, TACLS works fine. Reloaded old save, same problem persists; vessels not being updated.
  2. Certainly it is. As far as I am concerned, pedantry is perfectly acceptable concerning any part of language. What's more, as it's your game, you can maintain your own headcanon however you like! I was just confused by you so strongly asserting as fact what is just a part of your own imagined lore. And people keep starting threads saying "What would you like to see added next" when the answer is right there. Plus, since we're here anyway, swapping out the word "Biome" for a proper replacement term seems like an easy fix.
  3. Not at all. I was just trying to address the assertions that "Every single body in the Kerbal system contains already contains biological life according to the game" and "The game itself literally claims there is life on all the planets". I agree that the "Biome" abuse should be no big deal but I don't think people should be embracing that mistake and actively trying to further confuse the issue.
  4. Not for me, unless I misunderstand you. Behaves just like any other probe core as far as I can tell.
  5. Which, as I pointed out way up there (and will repeat here) is exactly what it says in the wiki : "In Kerbal Space Program a biome is a geographic area on the surface of a celestial body typically corresponding with types of geology like mountains or craters. This is in contrast to the real meaning of the term in which biomes are biotic communities in contiguous areas with similar climatic conditions and organism populations. " Demanding, against all evidence, that they actually meant BIOme in the strict technical sense of the word and not just "region" and that therefore there axiomatically is life on Eeloo is more than a little bit silly. It's rather a shame that there isn't more science to the science that would distinguish between "biomes" and the types of experiments you can do in them. It might help alleviate the "grindy" aspect of running exactly the same set of experiments whether we're floating in the warm ocean water a couple of hundred meters from the KSC or parked among the Southern Glaciers of Eeloo. It would be great if biology (and exobiology), so significant in real space exploration, could be a part of KSP.
  6. Are you being deliberately difficult? Where in the R&D building does the game explicitly say that there is life on all the planets? I can't seem to find it, it makes absolutely no logical sense, has no game impact and the wiki directly contradicts it so... help me out here?
  7. Did you not see the links I posted about exactly this? No need to guess, really.
  8. I understand now. The problem is your example is an examination of how, eventually over a period of many days, a system with no active attitude control or spin maintenance can lose stability. That doesn't really apply here or to any of the examples given.
  9. It is not "a dodge". I have been discussing all of the benefits all along. And for the record, I don't consider, say, the invention of the CMOS sensor or nanofiber water filtration or long-life radial tires to be "intangible". But if all you want to look at is dollars, then go right ahead. Estimates of $7-$14 dollars returned per dollar invested seem a pretty decent dollars-only ROI to me. You misunderstand. I was repeating you, not agreeing with you. If I thought NASA was lying about its discoveries and their applications we wouldn't be having this conversation.