• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

126 Excellent

About paul23

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Well I do hope they do not require mods to be listed in a central repository and they're on a "paywall" basis. Like many games on playstation do.
  2. Funky, since the eu high court (highest court one can go to), ruled in 2009 already that "non transferable" licenses are not a thing. And any license is transferable. This was as part of the oracle vs usedsoft case: I'm wondering what those license makers think to achieve by directly invalidating their license?
  3. It's what I'm saying: you *can* simulate for a whole craft if you optimize/precalculate during launch/ship geometry changes. Of course if you program it inefficiently you can't gain efficiency. If we use thin walled approximation (or some other) you can also do this for stresses etc.
  4. I agree that this is the case, however just blindly ignoring it is wrong. You have to state you ignore it... (And I'm not even talking about resonance orbits, which could mean kerbin and duna are always in a certain angle from each other when duna is at periapsis).
  5. The number of digits ignored depends entirely on where the closest point actually is. If inclination difference is 90 degrees, and/or very high eccentric orbits your calculations might be off by an order of magnitude (or more). So really "ignoring inclination/longitude of ascending node" is not a simplification that is allowed from an engineering point, only if orbits look similar that is allowed.
  6. paul23

    Windows 10?

    Also remember that windows 10 *will* be the last os microsoft creates. After windows 10 it's all just patches and no new main version you can buy.
  7. You can't do it quite like this: this is only correct if apoapsis and periapsis of duna and kerbin align perfectly. If, say, the apoapsis is on the other side of kerbol compared to duna's periapsis the closes point is much further and probably somewhere in the middle of the curve. If there's inclinations (difference) involved it even gets more complex. The equations get so complex that I'd strongly suggest solving it numerically.
  8. Well this should be a vanilla issue and not having to do with mods, but my contracts menu is showing at weird locations: How can I fix this?
  9. I'd really like something that makes *time* an important factor. So for some missions it's better to not apply a hohmann transfer and instead use a less efficient but faster transfer orbit. Right now it gets boring as every mission is the same.
  10. Again, just like in normal aerospace engineering those things can be linearized. In aircraft also the fuselage, wing, tail (fin and horizontal control) and even things like landing gear all "influence each other". But by linearizing correctly you can still create a linear differential equation that can be morphed into a simple matrix. This is what any field of engineering is doing with simulations. It's not hard at all, just not trivial. IE during a symmetric flight an (bidirectional symmetrical object, ie a standard aircraft) will follow the following equation: With all constants, in the matrices or current flight sate in the vectors (these are derived from newton's laws, you could do the same for any motion of irregular objects, the matrix then just becomes much larger, hard to handle as human but computers have no trouble with that). The constants are just derived from the geometrical properties of the thing. So while those can typically not be linearized, they don't change that often. Only at decoupling/untimely detachement these need to be recalculated/simulated: a clever system could simulate these actually in advance "while building".
  11. Actually well written physics *is* easy to "parallelise": since physics is for major parts pure functions and stateless. Any pure function means that it doesn't matter in which order it's executed, thus can be parallelised. Take for example the equations of motion for an aircraft, as for example used by FAR. They are often linearized solutions of the differential equations, for all translation and rotations. While at first glance the equations look like they mix with each other. In reality by choosing the right constants you can make 6 separate equations, and put those in a matrix form. GPU's are amazingly good at solving matrices: it's what they are doing anyways. What is hard is however to optimize this, each cpu has it's own optimization path, and does very bad with other type of matrices. Many gpus are also *incorrect* providing an "almost" correct result but just not quite. Thus you might see different results in your physics engine between computers, or whether or not the current equation is send to the GPU. Also what are you talking about with lens flare: just about any human aged about 30 has a form of lens flare in some regions of their eye. (Due to cataracts etc).
  12. Mozilla also started very small. It's not like they suddenly came to be.
  13. Like the very small changes between chrome and firefox constantly giving one or the other the edge in responsiveness? Yet firefox does just fine being free software for most part?