Kerbart

Members
  • Content count

    2,905
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,309 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. Survival Mode Either metaphorically or literally. In the first case, the game would be a lot like career. Only the contracts are grander, bigger, and you don't get to pick them. Contract #1: here's 5,000,000 Kerbucks. Land 3 Kerbals on both moons, and bring them back to Kerbin. Good luck. Deadline: 50 days Contract #2: Land an (unmanned) rover on Duna and make surveys of these three locations. Here's 10,000,000 Kerbucks. Deadline: 300 days. Good luck Etc, etc. Maybe with science, maybe without. Maybe a partially explored tree. And an inventory of parts that are free to use (as you have them in (limited?) stock). Scenario 2: Kerbin is pelted by a never ending barrage of asteroids and space junk striking the planet. How many can you stop before x amount has crashed onto the planet? Or destroys the KSC?
  2. Kerbart

    2.0 indirectly announced?

    Fully agree. It's like looking for a web developer who is familiar with frameworks x, y or z; it doesn't mean all three are used, just that you want somebody who has a familiarity with those kind of systems. No need to lock yourself in on purely Unity experience, especially if a large part of the work is not limited to Unity (artwork, background story, etc). Well, if you want to get really paranoid... Every job posting on that page starts with "Kerbal Space Program is looking for..." except for Senior Game Designer, where it says "we are looking for" Sloppy inconsistency... or is a non KSP-title in the making? (This is actually not intended to be taken too seriously but I'm sure the crowd will run with it)
  3. Let me start by making clear that Hayabusa is an amazing mission and that I do expect to see absolutely stunning imagery from this mission. However, "clear terrain image" a blob a dozen pixels wide is not. "First images" or "Exciting first images;" yes.
  4. Someone installs 684 mods through the Workshop, including Kopernicus, one mod for "real scale solar system" and another one for "extend the Kerbin solar system" Shockingly, the game goes kaboom while loading. And you think Take Two, the Workshop and Bill Gates will not be blamed for that? * walks away, opens door labeled "sound proof room" and enters. Closes door. You hear the sound of muffled laughter *
  5. I always get a bit suspicious when it’s announced how easy it is to implement something that radically alters the game. Many objections against an n-body engine have been brought up in the past. The problem might indeed not be calculation, although the argument “that is what computers are good at” is not particularly convincing. Breaking cryptographic codes is merely calculation, computers are good at it and yet it turns out to be incredibly hard to do it quickly. I’m not convinced that calculation, providing the same level of stability to all players as patched conics does right now is that easy to implement. I doubt anyone thinks NASA lacks smart people, yet they resort to patched conics for there initial calculations because it’s so much faster than n-body calculations. However, ditching patched conics has some side effects. Orbits aren’t stable, planet transfers are harder, Jool’s moons get ejected over time, those kind of things. Some may be mitigated, others are not. In short, the game will change drastically, a large part has to be rewritten (at the expense of many other things that cannot get done) and what for? “Because it would be cool to have Lagrange points.” And that is why the suggestions to use some kind of artifical patched-conics solution comes up. Because it offers the ability to have them without changing the way the game works right now, which means that if the suggestion works there’s actually a chance it would get implemented.
  6. Kerbart

    Microsoft snaps up GitHub

    But what colors and bugfixes! They've been a tremendous boost in productivity. Multiple datasources for pivot tables (and a completely new way the data is pulled from external sources), overhauled graphing engine, greatly improved multi-user support (including messaging to other users in the same document), professional clip-art (something I've never seen in Office before), a whole slew of new functions in Excel that people actually use, and OneDrive integration that allows me to share documents with other users in ways that are far more efficient and secure than I'd do in the past. What's more amazing that those are all actually not features, but apparently just new colors and bugfixes.
  7. Kerbart

    Microsoft snaps up GitHub

    I would be very careful with those statements as they undermine the perception of how knowledgeable your are in this area. Windows 95 was really a continuation of Windows 3.11 with a pretty interface and a very tight integration with the MS-DOS version it ran on. Windows NT 3.51 (with its Windows 3.11 looks), and it's follow up version Windows NT 4 (optional 95-style interface available) and Windows 2000 were the true 32 bit systems with an architecture that borrowed more from Unix than from DOS. The reason Windows 98 and the ME abomination existed is because the "professional" NT-line had problems running games, which is problematic for the home-user market Microsoft was in. Windows 2000 was supposed to merge the both of them but couldn't. Had this been seen on time it would have been called NT 5, and the Millenium Edition would have been "2000," but that didn't happen. In the end, Windows XP took on that role with exceptional succes. We now laugh at it, but back then it was instrumental in truly getting rid of MS-DOS for home-market computers instead of merely disguising it like the Windows 95 series did. Complaining about Microsoft's willingness to support old systems for a long time... if anyone else did it (Apple certainly won't) it'd be admired as commitment towards existing customers. When Microsoft does it, it's "necromancy." Ah, good times. I never used SideKick but I was a happy DESQview user. And Norton Commander. From a time when Norton was synonym to "high quality tools." I actually relied on what Microsoft people told me. Especially Bill Gates who said that XP was the first (from a 95/98/ME perspective) that no longer contained MS DOS code.
  8. Kerbart

    Sea-Level on Oblate Spheroid

    Imagine a water filled cup perfectly centered on turntable. as the turntable spins faster, water on the outside of the cup will climb up against the wall of the cup. Since the water is coming out of the center of the cup, water levels there will drop. The water is in an equilibrium with gravity and centripetal (imaginary) forces. As long as the cup is spinning it doesn’t want to “flow down”to the center (at least not anymore than the spinning forces it up to the rim), so while there’s a difference in waterlevel there’s not really a potential to unlock that energy. Earth is just an inverted cup, but the same principle applies.
  9. Kerbart

    Microsoft snaps up GitHub

    Please elaborate. We have Office 365 at work. To be honest, Office seems to be on its best release cycle since 2000, with a ton of features that are actually useful (fully fledged import & export of non-MS file formats, Excel formulas that make life easier, clipart in Powerpoint that is actually useable in professional presentations, and so on). Not the mention that you can finally work team-style on a single document as in Google Docs (maybe still not as good as Google Docs but it’s a huge leap forward). While the level of bugs in MS Access remains disappointingly high the suite as a whole is moving in a desired direction. I really have a hard time seeing how MS is “killing” Office. Maybe as a single-box-with-limited-applications suite. But for an end user it’s certainly improved.
  10. Kerbart

    [1.4.x] TextureReplacer 3.2 (6.7.2018)

    AVC tells me there's a 3.2 version but it's not on Curse or Spacedock?
  11. Pay more attention in biology class Women get a stock of egg cells at birth basically, and that will have to last a lifetime. Men's sperm cells only life a day or so and get produced on a daily basis. If an astronaut pair went to space for a year, and ten years after returning to earth decided to have kids, the women's egg cells are still the ones exposed to a year of radiation. The men's cells are fresh. But to be honest, I highly doubt that's the reason. It might be used as an excuse though.
  12. Because there is PR value in firsts, but not in routine operations. for the longest time crew—on either side of the ocean — was selected from military pilots. That alone stacks the cards against females being selected. Add a sexist society, machism (male ‘nauts don’t want female colleagues because it would devaluate the status of their profession) and here we are. And don’t think we have made much progress in modern days. Helen Sharman is recognized as the first British woman for the many firsts she achieved in space instead of plainly the first Brit.
  13. Kerbart

    Rocket poll

    Equally confusing is that the illustration is not the actual rocket, but rather the space ship that was put in orbit. A nice looking spaceship, without any doubt. But I wouldn't call it a rocket in the same way as you wouldn't refer to the ISS or the Voyagers as a rocket.
  14. Kerbart

    Two titanic theories.

    They're switching out the parts because after sinking the ship far out north in a particularly deep part of the Atlantic ocean, someone might, 100 years from now, have the technology to retrieve the wreckage. If I'm not mistaken I see a picture of one of the propellors with the number stamped on it. Or is that from a lifeboat? Because once they're going to swap the propellors of the ship, fixing the damage would probably have been the simpler solution. So we have two scenarios: Scenario One Titanic hits an iceberg and sinks. Tragedy. Scenario Two The Olympic and Titanic were switched and the Olympic was sunk as if it were the Titanic. The captain of the Titanic was in it, and to make it look real, decided to go down with the ship. Thousands of people involved in the switcheroo decided all to keep their mouth shut. To ensure that, if the wreckage were found with technology that was simply unimaginable during the time of the disaster (and only became viable nearly 100 years later), an extensive program was started to swap out parts between the two ships, notwithstanding the fact that such an operation was probably more expensive than repairing the Olympic in the first place. The whole scenario is laid out in a long rambling piece that carries an over-representation of the words "truth," "coincidence," and "reason." as well as CAPITALIZED and bold text. Scenario One has the tremendous advantage of being simple and to the point. Scenario Two has the challenge that it has a hard time overcoming the duck test ("if it swims like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably because...") because it really, really, really looks like some tinfoil-hat hoax theory. In my eyes it's really simple; the second scenario is an extraordinary claim. And as it goes in science (remember where we are. We like science): extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Vague theories are not extraordinary evidence. Confessions recorded at people's deathbeds (preferably by a notary) are. Copies of work orders detailing the swapping of the parts are. The captain of the Titanic was found alive in South America. Those kind of things. None of that has happened. Because "they" (another excellent pointer towards the character of this theory) were able to keep track of all the thousands involved for many decades to keep their mouth shut? Because no one would be interested in an instant retirement fund in return for revealing the scoop of the century?. Or is all that evidence missing because it's not there, because it's "evidence" of something that simply didn't happen that way? There's a couple of theories out there that we're all familiar with. About the shape of the earth. Or how certain events in July 1969 were recorded in a film studio. This one fits right in there. If you discard those theories as hoaxes, what makes this one believable?
  15. Kerbart

    Two titanic theories.

    Think of all the people involved if they had switched the ships around. And all of them had to stay quiet. After sinking the ship where thousands perished. And the hundreds involved in switching them out would all stay quiet and go “meh, not my problem?” No one would be eaten be their conscience? Unlikely.