Jump to content

Eric S

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

232 Excellent

About Eric S

  • Rank
    Senior Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Right, the particles affect the other particles, he's saying that the entire mass of the planet has no effect on any part of the planet according to Newtonian gravitation as described in Principia. Another reason that I think this is BS is that one of the masses Newton used in his experiment was grain (or was it rice?), and at that point, any "identity" would have to be strictly conceptual. I can see what's wrong with that logic and I really doubt Newton wouldn't have seen it, but while I've read Principia, I haven't actually studied it in depth, so it's possible I missed something.
  2. I think someone is pulling my leg in a discussion on physics, and just wanted to get another opinion, if anyone cares to check my understanding. I've read Newton's Principia, and while I don't doubt that we've refined things since then, even disregarding relativity and QM. However, someone's insisting that according to Principia, a forming planet couldn't pull itself into a sphere because Newton's concepts at that time didn't allow a mass to affect itself. He claimed something about Newtonian mass having the concept of identity. I think that's BS since Newton himself said that all parts
  3. You and I are thinking totally different things when it comes to multiplayer KSP. I'm thinking personally run servers, you seem to be aiming towards persistent (or at least semi-persistent) centrally operated servers. I'm just not interested in what you're pitching. And for what it's worth, to me, KSP already isn't about launching whackjob-style craft. And yes, I get the idea that it would be about teamwork. Get together with friends, plan and start a multi-craft mission to Duna (or Jool, or whatever), get the craft into a transfer orbit, then what, make an appointment with everyone t
  4. Totally different type of game, so I don't think the comparison works. The problem is that KSP is all about a few precisely timed moments. It doesn't matter if you don't precisely time your presence for a building completion. Turning up too late for a capture burn, on the other hand, is bad. Turning up too late for an intercept maneuver, possibly worse. Second, KSP is more about that one mission than CoC is about that one building. Saying you have to go do something else while your building completes is completely expected in that type of game. In KSP, that isn't the expectation.
  5. They've announced that the DLC will eventually make it to the consoles, and the DLC requires 1.4, so it is most likely coming as well.
  6. I kind of have to agree that 75% recovery rate is pretty low. I'm disappointed if I don't land close enough to get 97% recovery, and that's with rockets landed via parachute, not even spaceplanes. Admittedly, I'm burning a lot of fuel so that's not 97% of the actual launch cost.
  7. I think that's because this mod does nothing by itself, it just allows modders access to the ability. You need a parts pack or MM patch that has parts or alters parts to use it.
  8. You have to be very careful with barycenters in KSP. If you don't implement n-body physics, barycenters become insanely good spots for burns. We're talking even without a burn, floating point errors push you to something somewhere beyond light speed. This is because gravity approaches infinity as you get close to a point source of gravity, and if the barycenter isn't inside a planet, you can actually pass almost directly through it. However, someone had an idea for barycenters that overcame that years back, though it never came to fruition, so I suspect there was still something being
  9. I'm not horribly consistent for most things. I usually use a prefix for the range (LKO, HKO, Local, IP), then the purpose. Crew Shuttles get a notation x[X] for crew capacity (x8, for example), and if there are DERP pods attached to the outside, A "Rescue x[X]". Then there's Probe, Lander, CommSat, Lander or CommSat which can get suffixed by "x[X] Bus" if it's carrying more than one lander/commsat. Stations/motherships and craft assigned to them don't follow these conventions. Stationary stations tend to get named after SF Authors, first mobile station gets named Wanderer, and I have
  10. Depends on the payload. If it's not too bad, I might drop the fairing between 40 and 50km. There's a few craft I've launched with payloads consisting of so many tiny radially mounted parts that even dropping the fairing at 65km resulted in noticeable loss of momentum. Think of a lander bus with nine landers, each lander consisting of 20-30 parts, for example.
  11. I used to play with TAC, currently using USI. I also used one that predates TAC, but it's been so long I can't remember the name. I think it was the most common one prior to TAC becoming available. Not that it matters, development on it stopped a long time ago. TAC is highly detailed, but I didn't really find that added anything beyond detail and a few options for corner cases. On the other hand, it does nothing for living space, which USI does deal with, and that's an interesting mechanic for now. I may reach the point that it doesn't add much, but I'm not there yet. At some po
  12. Agreed. In fact, the fact that some parts mods don't stick to that convention bothers me.
  13. Also, there's a mod that's working on fixing this bug, if that's an option. I don't remember the name of it, however.
  14. I have no qualms with using the debug menu to test something. I have on occasion used it to fix a bug if I couldn't get around it some other way. Recently, otherwise stable craft jumping off the surface has been the main trigger for that one.
  • Create New...