Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


3,926 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    questioning.... things. not smart things but things.
  • Location
    here and there.

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I use windows mostly cause its the thing I know best. Doesn't mean I particularly like it. Has good compatibility for what I need though. Have tried using Linux before. Though its fine and nice I guess, I wouldn't use it probably for personal home use... Also hassle to convert my current systems over, as nice as itd be probably.
  2. trying to learn catia. its pain who made these design decisions and why is it so unintuitive
  3. uhh for solid modeling dont use blender. Its not really meant for solid modelling, its more for I think for mesh based stuff. Fusion 360 is free (ish, there's like paid tiers for additional features, but the core modelling should still be there), and might work on mac? Its what I'd personally use to make just quick home project 3d models for printing. General usage of fusion is make a sketch extrude, make new sketches. There's also a funky program called OpenSCAD which is script based and open source, but I would not use that personally. Edit: Gonna leave a link since the autodesk site is terrible to navigate - https://www.autodesk.com/products/fusion-360/personal
  4. oh boy its another exam week done very remotely. time to wake-up tomorrow at 3 am (again) and try not to fail things. Corona has its benefits. Uni from home is one of them kinda, but not very helpful if your uni is 6 hours ahead.
  5. Uni student, not aerospace engineering or engineering.
  6. EVE online is a very notable space combat sim sort of. Also Elite Dangerous IIRC. Its not a really super big space but its large enough. Also yes you can for flying (after setting some stuff up in the settings). I dont think building with a HOTAS is very nice.
  7. Why not mk-2 to 1.25 m and then a 1.25m nose cone? Not quite the same but would work. edit: I should read better - not quite right. Anyways whoops. Uhhhh my other suggestion is maybe trying to do custom body working using other parts (fairings, radiators, etc).
  8. Is there not a way to like "purchase as gift" so that you could hold on to them in the steam sales or sth?
  9. I dont disagree with either of those statements, but for myself personally I play almost exclusively sandbox (never really fell in love with career). So for my purposes I dont really care to do resupply missions and its more of an annoyance if I have to remember to bring some random consumable for my rover as a "backup" instead of bringing along just an extra kerbal. Sure leave the mechanic in, but I'd personally try to turn it off asap. These feel a bit like loaded questions but whatever. I dont disagree extensive repairs should cost something and that this mechanic of consumables is a good way of both somewhat balancing and "accounting for that". In the current game thats from the engineer level which I think is fine as it is. But again, for my playstyle ehhh I'd rather not worry or be limited by constraints like "needing a consumable to fix my stuff that broke because I was dumb 10 years into a mission" I think there is a point to be made about similarity to life support, you shouldn't be able to leave a kerbal in a chair for 30 years, which game mechanic would you use? I dont think you can get a valuable discussion since the mechanics dont exist as it wasn't a consideration within the base game (kerbal is only somewhat realistic). That was a bit rambly but anyways maybe that made some sense.
  10. Meh not so much a fan of having to carry repair kits to fix stuff. I mean inventory system and stuff sure cool. Also fixing solar panels super cool. But having to have consumables to repair Is a little less so IMO.
  11. while in principle I dont disagree, with the KSP aero model being the way it is I dont mind being somewhat more lenient with defining helicopter as "thing that uses rotors for lift" since you know, proper swashplates and cyclic control are hard.
  12. Huh this'll be interesting to follow. Although done with ye olde turbo prop tech, I have managed to do 40 minutes of sustained ~70 m/s flight (which itself was a challenge). Doing the math thats about 200 km That was also using afterburning panthers for speed, (at some points) though and also using (mostly aesthetic?) stubby wings so how useful of a comparison it is is questionable.. If you do use more efficient tech, it might not be totally insane..... I think water hugging or not depends on the inter-fuel drop range of your craft. Let's first see though if it is possible.
  13. hmmmm those tiny rcs place anywhere ports if they still would have a spherical collider might be very useful in stock joints..... (not that you really arguably need those cause of BG but hey its nice to have the option).
  14. yaaay i finished with exams now to repeat this in one month.
  • Create New...