JoeSchmuckatelli
-
Posts
5,985 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by JoeSchmuckatelli
-
-
15 hours ago, Codraroll said:
Uhh ... you haven't read the latest news?
No fun facts to be found there, I'm afraid. Rather the opposite.
EDIT: To put any reader who might only follow this sub-forum up to speed: The studio that developed KSP2 has been disbanded as of April 29, the developers laid off, and the community managers are apparently no longer employed there either. There hasn't been any official announcements yet, but things are not looking good for the future of the game.
Wow.
I've avoided the game subs because they've been nothing but arguments between doomslingers and polyannafanbois for the last year.
Looks like one side won the argument.
The frustration I align with is towards the industry pushing games into publication / open to purchasing when they are clearly not ready. KSP2 should have never released (EA is repurposed bovine waste CorpSpeak) until it was in the state of the game with ForScience! That was a worthy EA state. The Alpha build released in Feb 23 killed the game.
Sad.
FWIW - Cities 2 is in the same state.
-
17 minutes ago, Admiral Fluffy said:
It’s good
I was impressed with how far they had come when I tried Science! when it came out... But then some of the game breaking bugs were still present and made me quit again.
I'm waiting for the first Colonies build to try again.
2025?
-
3 hours ago, darthgently said:
Something about it probably killing the horse, then if it exploded would be beating a dead horse on steroids.
In other "news"...
There is some chatter that it might have been involved in an accident...
-
Yawn.
WenOrbit?
-
6 hours ago, K^2 said:
You may cite me as Katherine the Illustrious.
Done!
-
11 hours ago, K^2 said:
"..."
I am so going to use this!
-
On 4/28/2024 at 12:47 AM, K^2 said:
we'll be looking at a nearly -10 magnitude instead of a +2, which is almost as bright as a full moon, except coming from a single point instead of being spread over a disk, meaning you're not going to miss that in the sky, and you'll probably see it even through a moderate cloud cover
...and, well great, it's an election year - so someone will spin this into a signal from the illuminati.
Meaning I will have to explain to my students that no it's not aliens just science.
-
2 successes - which I hope for the love of Gawrd someone records and uploads to YT at 4k.
(specificity intentional)
-
Late to this party - but I've long had this idea that once space travel becomes a thing to the extent that people are regularly traveling between planets - that the only way to really enjoy it will be the Disney Cruise version.
They will do it right.
-
21 minutes ago, AckSed said:
whiff of sarcasm
Not in the slightest. I will never go to space, but I will watch cool launches and deployments over and over.
-
55 minutes ago, AckSed said:
not covering the solar sail deployment
How do I send a thumbs down to RLab?
Don't they know the purpose of space launch is to entertain me!?!
-
10 hours ago, darthgently said:
jurisdiction
Resident Cave Man Lawer here - and while your technology frightens and scares me... When I say venue I'm wondering about State / Federal jurisdiction and where I can get the most compensation for emotional distress due to bad comedy.
Dad jokes and puns?
Oh the pain!
-
1 hour ago, darthgently said:
On Android also. I'm a bad comedian, sue me
What venue?
-
On 4/20/2024 at 6:10 PM, magnemoe said:
Second one is
...a parasol. Very fashionable.
-
54 minutes ago, tater said:
tourism model
I don't disagree.
I was using 'billionaire tourism' to distinguish a subset. 'Adventure tourism' is also distinguished from the Adventurer in my mind by the level of preparation each might do.
The next level mountaineers I'd run into while hiking or climbing on Shasta or Raineer or in the Alps had a level of technical competency where they could be self sufficient and contribute to the groups they climbed with.
To my mind, the Adventure Tourist or Billionaire tourist may not. They often hire competency to 'sherpa' them through the adventure. (Certainly there are billionaires who can do the thing - but they are themselves a subset)
There is an analogy, perhaps, to skiing in NA. I remember the ski bum days when the slopes were covered in poor college students and locals. Private Equity now owns most of the slopes and some ski towns are so expensive that professionals can't afford to live there -
Now its the designer see and be seen crowd.
Dunno - just grousing.
But back to your point - yes, for a city on Mars to enjoy real tourism it would need something on the Disney model: be a self contained adventure that, while expensive, is attainable by millions of of people annually - and that would drive inadvertent colonization as permanent support staff and supporting industries establish themselves and expand.
Similarly, some kind of permanent scientific or resource extraction outpost or production model could contribute.
But just altruistic 'go live there... Because' won't
-
18 hours ago, PakledHostage said:
the eye roll?
It's my personal prejudice showing. I used to do rock climbing and mountain climbing in the 80s and 90s. I'd occasionally bump into people who were serious about it - talking about moving up to summits on known mountains on multiple continents. Everest was something to be achieved by only the best with great training and after some serious money raising.
The common theme from those guys was 'respect for the mountain' (and a certain amount of spiritualism).
The billionaire tourist doesn't fit that model. (flip side is more money is flowing into Nepal these days)
-
49 minutes ago, PakledHostage said:
Perhaps. I can believe that it may eventually turn into an exotic destination for wealthy adventurous tourists. Heck, even Everest Basecamp now has TVs, feather beds and masseuses. Maybe it becomes a sort of Las Vegas like destination (what happens on Mars stays on Mars)?
Billionaire tourism would certainly contribute to semi permanent service workers.
<eyeroll >
What would be best is some sort of boom economy coupled with something still profitable (sustainable and survivable) on the back end. Ala the gold rush towns of the West - while leaving ghost towns in many places did pave the way for more permanent settlement.
4 minutes ago, tater said:amount of wealth required would be absurd
I think that's kind of the point. Billionaire tourists are flexing on each other with what they and their kids do - to the exclusion of normies who couldn't possibly afford the trip, much less the catering to.
Everest really is a good example.
The flex of having so much money that you can walk away from everything (/ 'work remotely') for that length of time and be one of the few humans in existence to have EVER done a thing?
It will happen.
There is already a waiting list for orbit and the moon.
-
On 4/12/2024 at 10:59 PM, PakledHostage said:
That's kind of my point. I don’t see a colony being viable on Mars. Moon, yes. Mars, no, because the Moon has potentially useful resources (helium-3 for use in fusion reactors and ice to make rocket fuel in reasonabe proximity to Earth), while Mars has...
It will happen. Not as a dedicated Colony; that would be miserable. But someone will start a science outpost, ala Antarctica, then there will be a few, then some people will stay past a transfer or two and decades later (presuming they find something worth doing there) there will be a permanent outpost.
Given enough time?
It will look like a colony.
(It took decades for the Virginia Colony to get going - and that wasn't a particularly inhospitable place)
-
8 hours ago, darthgently said:
First stab at a dive:
The MIT article is interesting - they talk about how... difficult... it is to get funding/be taken seriously when trying to explore that theory, then point out that it's not so loopy after all. The concrete, if true, would be poured with a jello like consistency that for *reasons* cures in a way that avoids shrinkage common to other concretes.
It's an interesting theory.
Back to moving logs with mechanical advantage - this one is interesting. The use of the bipod is totally different. With the rope at the top of the bipod and the fulcrum forward of the log, they just pull it up and over.
Side note - I got the funding to try this with my students. So later next week I'll report back on how it went. Using 2x4x10s, making some beams from 2x6x12s and a few other things.
Should be fun!
-
1 hour ago, darthgently said:
ay have been cast in place
That is a new one. At least to me.
I'll look into it.
I remember shows from the 80s where they demonstrated possible technology including the use of logs, ropes, people and animals. All very advanced!
Here's a newer one
-
12 hours ago, darthgently said:
Because the rope is tied to near the top there isn't much leverage gained in that respect. What I see happening is the legs of the ladder having more traction and his being able to use his massive tactical pear shape to allow gravity to do a lot pulling (combined with his grip). The rope pulling somewhat upward on the log reduces friction between ground and log.
So I don't see leverage so much as increasing traction for the ladder, decreasing friction for the log, while pulling the log horizontally, and using his body weight to activate all that.
Cool!
Now if the rope were tied significantly lower than his hands then leverage would be a bigger deal (but lifting force on log would lessen)
There is another vid I've seen where the rope is lower.
Funny thing is that I want to do it because I got asked about Aliens the Pyramids and Stonehenge.
My reply is that people are way cooler than they think - so I plan to take them all outside to move heavy things.
-
@Gargamel - because I do not have access to S&Sf sub I need to post a question here. Will you move it to the appropriate sub?
Question about 'Paring Ladders' - can anyone help me with a project for school? I want to teach students about paring ladders and moving heavy loads. I just Don't know how to figure out how much a paring ladder with 10 foot legs might pull
Any help appreciated!
-
9 hours ago, darthgently said:
ndirect fire was a thing
Old and new. All you need is the doohickey called a gunners quadrant. Russia used the Armata this way so they could say it was 'combat tested' without risking any. We could do it with Sherman or Abrams. Hell, we can do it with a M240G or a. 50 cal.
No time to Google but if memory serves - aren't ramjets inefficient in lower atmosphere? So won't the ramjet penetrator idea be an airlaunched platform for guidance and speed that then gets ejected when the kill vehicle goes to terminal phase?
-
Ofc we'd need to get hypersonic engine tech miniaturized
Still No Clarification from Private Division / Take2?
in KSP2 Discussion
Posted
There are a lot of people who have an employment relationship still awaiting this information.
Customers find out later.
Assume the worst. You won't be unnecessarily disappointed that way.
If it ends up not that bad - you will be pleasantly surprised.