Jump to content

PDCWolf

Members
  • Posts

    846
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by PDCWolf

  1. I investigated a bit, it seems my idea is not new but hasn't been successfully put to test either. It seems the bane is passive heat buildup, which can't be bleed off and it requires additional cooling setup to actually cool the case (and in consequence the air inside it).

    Submersion (on non conductive liquid obviously) on the other hand has been proved multiple times and is actually used on many applications.

    Finally, the cheapest solution is obviously air, you can just filter the fans externally and create a case with positive air pressure, meaning every crack and hole in the case that is not related to a fan (which are filtered) blows air outwards, so no external air gets in.

  2. You can create an airtight case and place the water-cooling radiator outside of the airtight part. Most high end cases come with holes for the hoses (is that the right word?) to pass through. If you are really afraid of leaks, you can always use non-conducting liquid as coolant (although that's expensive), if leaks happen, the only thing you have to worry about is your stuff not getting cooled and the mess in your desk, but it'll give you wayyyy more than enough time to shut down your pc and disconnect it to clean and repair/replace.

  3. If you watch a soccer match from a single team's perspective, that's fanaticism and wanting your team to win for no reason other than it is the one you like. That's the same as going "squad is right with whatever they do" or "it has to be full blown realistic".

    Does the game need bigger planets?

    -They would help to better transmit the message of scale and vastness of space and the worlds themselves.

    -They won't break the laws of physics as we know them.

    -They'd better reflect the real world and what people actually expects.

    -They will obviously increase the from-launch-to-orbit time.

    -They'd reduce performance, although not drastically, most people seem to be able to play with RSS and the rest of their mod soups pretty well. And that's a hack, not made with the game's code itself

    -The rest of the downsides they come with, are gameplay downsides that can be easily solved with just scaling the parts up a bit.

    My opinion? The game needs bigger planets.

    Does the game needs realistic fuel mixtures?

    -They would meaningfully increase engine variance, something that the game lacks a lot.

    -They would also increase the learning curve although not by much if the mechanics are correctly explained to new players.

    -We would probably see a bigger part variance too, or at least tweakables as they were originally planed (something like modular fuel tanks)

    They don't exist in the game probably for simplicity's sake. They would certainly add a challenge to new players but they come with benefits too (more engines to choose from). In my opinion realistic fuels are not needed in the game, and they should remain a mod, or at least a difficulty setting.

    Things like reentry heat, life support, aerodynamics and such SHOULD be a no brainer, unless the game doesn't really want to depict the perils and complexity of space travels and wants to be another arcadey space game which is definitely not what gave it its fame.

  4. Out of curosity, I tried out the "password" "WhatNow,BrownCow?" and got 234 trillion years.

    Simple sentances of real words are easy to remember, and difficult to crack.

    It all boils down to number of possible combinations with the string length and the amount of chars to test on each position (think 27 lowercase letters + 27 uppercase letters + 10 numbers + special chars for the comma). Obviously when choosing their password, most people assume it has to be a single word and they try to keep it as short as possible (so that's easy to remember for them). Top combinations are names, name+date, name+some id or telephone, telephone, id and those are the first options always tried by bruteforcers.

    I don't know what does the test base the cracking speeds on, but my pc can test words at about 51k words per second, my notebook only manages 1.3k.

  5. The proliferation of physicsless parts is a kludge to improve game performance. They aren't going away until KSP has a better performing game engine. If anything I expect even more.

    No. They cause larger hiccups on vessel load and crashing than their physics aware counterparts. They also lag more under timewarp.

    NOTE: it would be a good idea and has been suggested a million times already. Physicsless property could be a toggle for things like permanent bases and such as to not lag when they get bigger and bigger (and the stupid landing leg/entire thing wobble becomes more apparent).

  6. Tried one of my passwords, got 44 billion years. Obviously this doesn't calculate WHERE the password is used. If someone wanted to bruteforce a password, most services won't allow it (they either lock up or ask you to wait before trying again), that's why other methods exists too.

    I use bruteforce mostly to deal with WPS or with captured handshakes over wifi where they can't ask me to wait before I try again.

  7. Patterns and passwords can be secure enough if you put a bit of thought into it. My phone swipe pattern looks like a 7, I tell all my friends who ask for it "yeah just draw a 7", I've yet to see one of them succeed.

    54pSI0U.png

    Biometrics are of no use to everyday devices such as phones and laptops, they are better when applied to hierarchy level related access and such, not to protect stuff from external attacks. Anyways, someone who's worried about security would choose a complicated password instead of biometrics, they wouldn't mind the inconvenience of having to type 12+ chars to get to their valued stuff.

  8. Del modo en que funciona la física, nunca van a quedar perfectos configurándolos a mano. Más allá de AP y PE tenés que buscar que el periodo orbital quede en sincronía con el día de Kerbin (6 horas exactas). Para esto podes usar cualquier mod que de este tipo de información como KER o Mechjeb.

    Si querés que queden perfectos y olvidarte de tener que acomodarlos cada tanto de nuevo (que siempre va a pasar, dado que no se guardan de forma perfecta los datos orbitales, incluso si los dejaras perfectos se desacomodan cuando cambias de nave activa) podes editar el save, lo que tenés que hacer es:

    1-Cargas algun vuelo en progreso que no sea el satélite que queres que quede perfecto y apretas f5 para crear un quicksave

    2- Buscas el satélite en el save (El save está en kerbal space program\saves\nombre de la partida\quicksave.sfs lo podes abrir con bloc de notas)

    3- Vas a las propiedades orbitales, lo identificas con el tag ORBIT { (un monton de lineas con parámetros numéricos) }

    4- Editas el primer numero, que dice Sma. Pones 3468750

    5- Guardas

    6- Volves al juego y apretas f9

    7- El satélite está ahora en una órbita perfectamente geosincrónica. No lo vuelvas a activar ni nada porque cargan las físicas del satelite y se desacomoda de nuevo y tenes que hacer todo otra vez.

    Acá tenés una imagen de como se ven las propiedades orbitales de un satélite casi perfecto.

    zx8dwVJ.jpg

    Fijate que inc (inclinación) y Ecc (excentricidad) no están perfectos en 0. Si no son numeros muy grandes los podes dejar como están y el satélite se va a mover un poco relativo al punto en Kerbin que orbita (como se mueve Ike orbitando Duna, que esta en el mismo lugar pero parece que sube y baja), o bien los podes poner en 0 para que esté 100% perfecto e inmovil.

    Mna es Mean Anomaly que es (en doble Pi) el punto en la órbita en la que está el satélite. Esto lo podes cambiar y usar para poner varios satélites geosincrónicos en distintos puntos sobre Kerbin para formar un anillo. Para el que pones generalmente sobre KSC, no lo cambies. El resto no vienen al caso practicamente. Ref es el cuerpo de referencia, si lo cambias terminas orbitando la luna, el sol, otros planetas, etc. LPE es Longitud de periapsis (en qué punto está la periapsis de la orbita) y LAN es Longitud de nodo ascendente (lo mismo pero para el nodo ascendente de la órbita), tampoco hace falta cambiarlos.

  9. To be fair though, with an appropriately slow speed and amount of of fuel, that works with FAR too. Needs more fuel but Max did say it wasn't efficient... And it's totally doable with stock gimbal/control surface range. Granted, I've never tried it but that's because it sucks as an ascent profile, but from what I've experienced, yeah, it'll be possible but by far one of the least efficient ways to get to orbit.

    For the airflow not to knock your rocket over and flipping it, you should be going really really slow (and that's going slow at 10000 meters, very inefficient, maybe to the point of actually needing a little bit bigger rocket kind of inefficiency). Obviously turning is easy, the hard part with vectoring is counteracting the airflow wanting to flip your rocket (if you have no fins, obviously).

  10. The engineers report is pretty much final, it's nice to have the game tell you if things aren't working and why. These tips, as mentioned a while ago, consist of like "Hey Max, your vessel is manned but you have no way of returning them safely i.e. with parachutes. Is that intended?". Also, as mentioned last week, a lot of old knowledge needs to be forgotten - the old [email protected] ascent will still likely work, but won't be the most efficient, due in part to the huge rebalancing. But yeah, should be fun to relearn how to do it properly.. Still "kinda sucks though".

    WHY

    HOW

    This only means the simulation is still incorrect and/or inconsistent, unless it assumes enough control authority (read: loadsa fins or huge thrust vectoring)

  11. I think you're looking at the simulator aspects, and wanting to take that to its logical extent, while HarvesteR was speaking to the emotional investment a lack of complete information can build in the player, the nail-biting experience of "will I, or won't I succeed here." And then the feeling of success against the odds you can get, when you achieve an objective with BINGO fuel remaining ;)

    Other games manifest this similar situation: information presented as a bar graph, instead of a number. How long until that last pixel goes away? I think these are valid choices for game designers to make. I may wish for "the answer," but not having a cold number can lead you to try something creative, and have an interesting experience, as opposed to not even trying, because the number says don't bother. (In before someone tells me to just turn off the dV feature, when 1.0 is released.)

    It should be said upfront if they think so, which they don't. They shield behind saying they actually planned it to be like that, when harvester didn't even plan for the game to have a third dimension or orbital mechanics at all.

  12. I would like to read how HarvesteR's mind changed, or was - changed, over providing delta-v info. I thought he made a very thoughtful case for not having it, whether I agree or not, it was a well-made argument.

    I find a problem with this argument. Guesswork based gameplay exists because of the lack of actually useful, processed (delta v, final weight, final twr, etc) information. The fact that he calls that a gameplay element seems more like shielding himself from such an obvious thing rather than facing the truth and going "yeah we tell you to make rockets while blind and with your hands tied but we liked it that way in the end"

  13. I vote paranoia. Absence of Squad posts here can have explanations beyond that dark cloud. If Squad was "turning against," Kasper would have begun his postings in this critical thread much more harshly, if at all. They could decide that their time is better spent working on the product, than taking the time to write Devnote Tuesday - by far the most detailed, weekly publication about KSP. In the days before kickstarter and early access... games were simply... released - or not released, and ranted about afterward; no years of player feedback going on beforehand ;)

    As someone who joined the forums on april 2014, you should know the huge fight it was had to make the developers write those 1 to 3 paragraphs of info that still lack in detail and content. Originally they were only one to two sentences, and they went through multiple refining processes pointed out by this community (and some others), to be what they are now, and they still lack a lot.

    Also, the fact that people speak badly of 4chan, yet they interact with members of the 4chan community without knowing it shows a high level of ignorance and prejudice.

    Back on topic, I don't like the "I like to target certain playerbase so I'm going to survey THIS PLACE IN PARTICULAR", it speaks badly of the dev team, which seems to be thinking too low or too high about a community in particular (i.e. hurr durr we go 2 reddit because we want casuals) and it also makes it seems as if they want to be right all the time by getting answers from a group that has the answers they want to hear (even if not the case).

  14. YES!, been playing with this option enabled on KIDS for so long I already forgot the stock way of doing it (by changing flow rate you know). Also, by using KIDS and my stock patch (look at my signature) you could give yourself some time to spend on engines with actual roles instead of the homogenized ones in stock. This'll probably make it easier to adapt early if they make that kind of change.

×
×
  • Create New...