Jump to content

razark

Members
  • Content Count

    3,000
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5,870 Excellent

6 Followers

About razark

  • Rank
    Rocket Scientist

Profile Information

  • Location
    Houston, TX

Recent Profile Visitors

12,455 profile views
  1. I'd suggest going to this thread: Then go to the last page, read over the replies, see if anyone has reported the issue, and if there were any solutions mentioned.
  2. I use rovers to drive payloads to orbit. So far, the program is not proceeding well.
  3. Sputnik. Everything since has just been minor variations on the theme.
  4. So, if I don't want to wait for the next season of a show, I can jump in the time pod, set it for six minutes, and it's a year later and I can watch the show now? Or I can get in, take an 8 hour nap, and wake up in 80 years? I think getting to Mars quickly may be the less interesting effect of this invention.
  5. The capacity of Earth seems to be around one billion. We can get above that for brief periods of time but it requires using up resources that we don't have sufficient reserves of. Once those run out, you end up with a mass die-off. Of course, if you're shipping any significant mass of beings off-world, the resources for doing so are going to run out even faster, and will make survival, much less continued off-worlding, a pipe dream for those left behind. "Pave the oceans" doesn't seem to have a long-term benefit to the oceans and the species that live in
  6. I don't understand your logic. Why would anyone have a problem that a game is delayed?
  7. Perhaps we've gone back to the time when information is scattered about the internet, and we need to find it and post it all to the forums ourselves?
  8. April/May 2012? 0.15 was the current version.
  9. It costs nothing to keep them, but the statement was "I don't really want them around any longer". So the question becomes "Is it better to scrap them and start over, or spend more to recover some value?" It's easy to get caught up in the "it's already there, so I must use it" line of thinking.
  10. From reading the forums, and seeing the official 1.0 release video where "crew plummeting to their inevitable deaths" is fine, because, haha, dude dropped his sandwich. Mistreating animals is bad, but the forum has plenty of posts where mistreating Kerbals is accepted. Where's the people who are upset with "aggressively accosting other people with your sapient being abuse fantasies"? My position is that neither the Kerbal or the animal is a real thing, so why is one worse than the other? If we're ok seeing a rocket full of Kerbals crash and kill them all, why do we
  11. No, I don't. That's why I have absolutely no problem with what happens to animals in KSP. Launch them into space with no parachute. Subject them to thousands of g's of acceleration and turn them into a paste. Send them off for hundreds of years with no life support. Roast 'em in the sun. Boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew. I'm trying to figure out why people have a problem with digital animals being mistreated, but are perfectly fine with digital Kerbals being nothing more than cannon fodder for our torturous amusement. Is it? Mistreating digital sapient creat
×
×
  • Create New...