Kerbart

Members
  • Content Count

    2,968
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,406 Excellent

4 Followers

About Kerbart

  • Rank
    Mun Marketeer

Profile Information

  • Location The Meadowlands, NJ
  • Interests Rockit sience

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Looking back I should have started with I'm in agreement with you. The reaction of OMG... seems out of place. Once again I get defeated by the “text online is just text online without any meta-cues as eye-rolling, nodding in agreement or voice variation” monster.
  2. “OMG my rocket, manned by little green bug-eyed aliens, has visual details that make it look interesting but UNREALISTIC. The horror!” I’m totally in on “it doesn’t fit right with other pieces” but dropping greeble for the sake of realism might not be the optimal course for something that, in the end, is entertainment.
  3. Kerbart

    career mode--rotating crew on stations?

    Yes, those were 12 miserable, long, long days...
  4. Kerbart

    When will updates stop breaking mods?

    No updates: “Squad has abandoned the game.” API neutral updates that don’t change the way the game works: “Squad is only doing retexturing and not real updates” Updates that improve the game but require recompilation for some mods: “Squad breaks my mods each update.” It really is a lose/lose proposition for them...
  5. Kerbart

    RealTime - no more temporal cheating

    I like the idea. I wonder if it can be taken a step further: Ships without crew and radio contact would automatically be flipped to “debris” status (and “unflipped” when again in radio reach) to simulate the blackouts. Some integrated “upload/download state” function that integrates storing the save file on a repository. This would allow multiple players accessing the same game allowing for team play. You might be sleeping but the Honolulu crew will manage that lunar orbit insertion burn. Not the same/intended as multiplayer, mind you (at least not in the sense of what most here expect to be multi player). The ability to have pre-programmed pod operations (RT style). Speaking of RT: signal delay.
  6. It's stock in the sense that you don't need mods to load it. TBH I thought it was created through code just using thousands and thousands of panels. When I saw the tell-tale "round but not round" (the outline is a polygon and shaders make it look like a ball) I thought the same -- "that's a special part, not made out of stock parts" Using the fairings to get this done was a clever trick. Count me in the "stock" camp; you don't need anything special to load it. To make it. Well, that's another story. But anyone can make this basically without downloading mods. Just a few coding skills.
  7. Kerbart

    Physics simulations in python

    Not to derail the discussion, but there's a savefig(<filename>) method on your chart plots (assuming you're usig matplotlib or something similar; it certainly has the look of it). Spares you the effort of saving screenshots and they look prettier here, too. You can even save them as SVG files.
  8. Kerbart

    'Crew Hatch' Part

    If you click on a hatch, it'll show the kerbals inside the part that you can pick from to EVA. Having a part with 0 capacity won't do any good, in that sense.
  9. Kerbart

    Lion Air 610 Crash - 737 Auto Trim

    If the problem is with the inputs then fixing that should fix it. Software that compensates for faulty sensors is undoubtedly more complex. Complexity favors errors. You’ll probably introduce other errors by fixing the software. Fix the sensors (redundancy?) instead (less error sensitive, I mean) is what I would think is the way to go.
  10. I don’t mind the butterstick per sé and I can see how it opens up opportunities for SF-like space ship design (Star Trek/Wars, The Expanse, etc). So I don’t think it’s a rover-only design. Making it optional within the same part seems artificia. “We have no use for this feature. Wait. We do now!” I’d rather see this applied to designs where you really want multiple variants. MLP’s with or without and outside airlock, or something along those lines. Same for the passenger fuselages, if I use three of them I don’t need an airlock on each. For the Mk II, round seems to me a design feature, it holds pressure better. To have a non-round version... well why do you have such a limited geometry in the first place? Make it then an octagon like the Mk I. Unless it has sheddable features that make this a rover-but-more-like-a-spaceship-when-putting-it-on-the-surface I would like to see two seperate parts if they support separate uses.
  11. Kerbart

    does KSP support dual CPU?

    With the risk of talking about things I have no lear knowledge... Could it be that Unity does but KSP doesn’t? So whenever KSP farms out calculations to Unity things will run multi-threaded but the code inside KSP is single-threaded? Would that even be a thing?
  12. I agree that the new hatch is a great improvement. Those complaining about it looking out of place... consider that none of the other parts using outside hatches has been updated yet?! If we keep everything immutable there will never be progress. One can assume the handles are mechanically connected; it’s not like you need to operate all four of them, but rather can unlock/lock a door from any angle. The windows need work though; just in case that hasn’t come across yet.
  13. The windows are just odd. Way too toy-like while the rest of the revamp is a move towards "more realistic." Please reshape the windows to something that looks like it can realistically function as cabin widows for a pressure vessel.
  14. Kerbart

    Message to Squad to Retire Curseforge

    Spacedock is wonderful and should by all means continue. Things are slightly different for Squad though when choosing an "official" mod site. Aside from guarantees like uptime, consider what would happen if Squad decides to make Spacedock the "official" site: Traffic to Spacedock is likely to increase significantly. Remember, this would be the mod-site the Kerbal Space Program website links to, and most KSP players who are not active on the forum (a large chunk, if not the vast majority) would now go there to get their mods. While bandwidth costs and server expansion costs are driven through the roof, donations are unlikely to go up significantly. Surely not from the new non-forum audience, who are likely to think "why would I PAY for the site Squad provides? I already paid for the game?" If the unbalance between revenue and cost becomes unbearable, the new mod host will have two options; (1) shut down or (2) ask Squad for a donation to keep them afloat. And once the latter happens, why would the player base make donations, if Squad is there to bail them out? Consider the relation with Curse where more users drives up revenue and the whole things supports itself. With that and the above in mind, why on earth would Squad switch over to SpaceDock? It's great to have SpaceDock. It can provide a better and more KSP-oriented service. It keeps Curse sharp (one hopes). It's community driven. It would be foolish to suggest SpaceDock should not exist. Contrary, SpaceDock should exist. At the same time it makes no sense for Squad to designate them, in their current form, as the official Mod Site.