steve_v

Members
  • Content Count

    2,963
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,059 Excellent

About steve_v

  • Rank
    Grumpy Sparky

Contact Methods

  • Skype Array
  • Twitter Array

Profile Information

  • Location Array

Recent Profile Visitors

4,513 profile views
  1. It's not MSI Afterburner itself, it's the RivaTuner Statistics Server component that it uses to display overlays. Anything that displays overlays in-game is probably doing so by hijacking the rendering path - this has been known to crash several games, KSP included. This has been known for a long time, but I don't see it in the tech support stickies...
  2. Uhh, nice link to your local filesystem. Ain't nobody else seeing that picture. Other than that, yeah, need to see the design. Try an imagehost.
  3. Difficulty is extremely variable, depending on what said mods are intended to do. It's certainly not too difficult, as the plethora of high-quality mods available demonstrates. It would be nothing at all like the mission builder, and orders of magnitude more work. A modding interface would have to include a C# compiler and graphical IDE, a 3D modelling program, and a bunch of Unity glue... You would still have to learn C# and 3D modelling to use it. Dumbing it down to the drag-and-drop graphical lego level of the mission editor would make it totally useless for 99% of the things mods do. We already have VS/Monodevelop, Blender, and the Unity dev tools. If you want to make mods, just use those. A full SDK, no, and you don't need one. KSP exposes APIs for modding, and everything else is the same tools every other Unity game uses.
  4. Samsung, Intel or Crucial would be my picks, but these days anything that's not a bargain-basement mystery-brand should be fine.
  5. Links aren't "smart", nor are they complicated. They're a basic feature of any remotely modern filesystem, and one that follows quite naturally from the way those filesystems work internally.
  6. LoL, all these third-party tools you Windows users need... ramdisk/tmpfs built into the kernel, any filesystem in userspace via fuse... All right there ready to use on GNU/Linux. All good ideas though, why reinvent the wheel in a standalone application when you can leverage other people's backends. Again a good idea. Then again, I just run transparent compression globally on my filesystems and forget about it, CPU's are fast and so is LZ4. Indeed. Save space and make manipulating the GameData copies near-instantaneous. Making real copies of everything is kinda wasteful IMO.
  7. New planet textures, awesome! Now, about the wheels on those rovers.... And about my joysticks and controllers still not working.... Input support is going to be fixed for the next patch, right?
  8. For the record, this particular backwater is infuriatingly anti-nuclear, in any way shape or form. Over here we promote stupidity, low-brow-high-impact sport, and excessive consumption of beer and red-meat. Not so much the nuclear physics. It's Australia that's into beer and uranium, we just do the one. Pretty much. Information so far is all extremely suspect, and often contradictory.
  9. Sorry to break it to you, but that recipe has been around for at least 45 years. I first encountered it in an early (late 1970s IIRC) version of "The Anarchists Cookbook", a somewhat notorious collection of things that are unwise which has been circulating on the internet since the days of dialup BBS. Random fact: I often clean engine parts in the kitchen sink - where others keep detergent, I have a can of Brakleen. My bedroom contains a drill-press. As for teeth, seemingly the primary topic of discussion here (uhh, why?), mine work pretty well, despite being somewhat worn and thoroughly chipped. Teeth are no substitute for the correct spanner folks, no matter how tempted you are to "just see how tight it is". They do make rather effective wire-strippers though, especially if one has a sharp nice notch somewhere.
  10. That's exactly how it started, way back on page-two. LoL indeed.
  11. You might be right, I for one neglected to include on on the basis of "so elementary everyone knows this".
  12. So you're saying that this was what blew up? Fascinating. I didn't know anyone was still working on nuclear scramjets. Sounds like it was somewhat more serious than first announced... how unexpected.
  13. You drew a picture of it earlier. Magic infinite reaction mass thingamagig. I'm not rehashing all that, it's been done to death. I don't see any sarcasm in that quote, and frankly I don't believe the good faith bit any longer. This has gone on beyond the point of inanity. Indeed. Enough of the head -> wall. I'm out of here, for real this time. And I'm adding @Cheif Operations Director to the list.
  14. One more time, since it's still raining. You are proposing a rocket engine that expels no reaction mass, one that violates the laws of physics. You are insisting that it could work anyway, and therefore : Yes, you are. Insisting that a mechanism which denies the laws of physics would work is as close to denying the laws themselves as to make no difference. I and many others have used various laws of physics to show why your design won't work. Repeatedly. Ad-nauseam. A straw man argument deflects attention to an unrelated or unnecessary argument, this is not that. This is people explaining the problems with your proposition from physics 101 principles that are critical to it's validity. Well if accepted physics isn't going to convince you, you're just going to have to test it. Design and conduct an experiment. The problem with this is propulsion without reaction. Slowing the particles down without counteracting the engine is your solution to that, and it has serious problems of it's own. Sigh. Because if you use something attached to the engine to slow, stop, or redirect the exhaust to the side, you also counteract it's forward thrust. Action and reaction, Newton, middle-school physics, conservation of momentum and elementary logic. For the record, that's design #2, apparently an attempt to reason-away the problems with design #1, which recovered the propellant by slowing it with magnets then feeding it into U shaped tubes leading back to the engine. Actually I think it was me with the 90° bit, referring to the arc the gas-stream is turned through rather than the reflector angle. Same difference though. That's probably the 20th post explaining the same thing. It's good though. The saga continues, around and around we go... I don't get how this basic physics can be so hard to explain to someone, I really don't.