Jump to content

weissel

Members
  • Content Count

    87
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

48 Excellent

About weissel

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. With KSP you have the choice not to upgrade (at least for that playthrough). KSP allows multiple installs with different versions and different mods ... just download the .zip and install in a different directory. Say 1.4.x, 1.5.x, 1.6.x, 1.7.x under a KSP directory. You can also mod (copy) in the old engine values into the newest version. You may not play a vanilla 1.7 but you can continue using your career and ships with no surprises. (See above on multiple installs, too.) Or you can convert to 1.7 and adapt. Your in-game crafts will not be affected: their parts and part stats
  2. I agree to that, but ... how about those that actively play BTSM for KSP 1.0.4 (which is not the last *complete* complete version, either --- the 'last level' is not really done) or the one for KSP 0.98, IIRC (with the old aero"dynamics" but the last level available) do make a thread, post their pics and mission report and so on? Or even use this very thread? That does not need any special powers, incurs no licensing problems even with ARR mods and absent developers. Posting these things now is no more effort than it was when the BTSM thread was alive & active and the mod in active
  3. Contradiction in terms. You have it, therefore it cannot be gone forever. Force majeure does not make a crime. Pity, yes. Loss, yes. Crime, no.
  4. Is Civilization in any way comparable to CoaDE, with or without a mission generator? Is a Civ player more likely to buy CoaDE than a non-Civ player? If so, you better show that connection. Otherwise you might as well compare CoaDE to chess, backgammon or go --- and see how many people play that and have played that for centuries! I also ask you to consider that extra systems, say, trading or supply or alliances or campaign generator means that the time spent there cannot be spent elsewhere --- say on non-cylindrical ships or concave armour, fixing bugs, adding more materials, ...
  5. You say the game play would be better if he did that ... but for whom and measured by what standard? And how much better, since we are at it? And what stops you building a campaign generator (not necessarily a computer program!) that handles all the building and researching and political shifts and material needs and alliances and so on? After all, you already have the module builder, the ship builder and the combat simulator ...
  6. You are asking for a lot, are you not? If CoaDE was a Formula One racing game/simulator, people would want to have a realistic driving physics, competent AI drivers, accurate racing courses, tuning of all the important parts, being able to select colours, patterns, teams, ... and possibly VR. You would ask that the game add a whole (realistic) research and development company, with all the management, hiring staff, running tests, having a budget, build times. With a complete logistics and economics system in the background, so the XXX-team might have less budget if the XXX owner get
  7. Thanks to some policing activity, the thread is locked. Still I think the subject is interesting enough, so wanna talk to you if you don't mind.

    First of all, apologies assuming you're being nerd several times: was once served in Airforce, had never thought you can go with "No stealth". Now it's my turn to accept that I have to get some prejudice away.

    You keep saying operational and tactical stealth apart, and saying that operational stealth can be done with no tactical stealth, which makes sense. But no tactical stealth at all? that doesn't make sense. Told you about Gerald Ford CVN (which is not WWII, rather a near future) struggling to get tactical stealth. In the scheme of the modern naval warfare, getting operational stealth is superior in every single aspect and getting tactical stealth is nearly impossible. But they do. Why? They don't want to be a dead body.

    In space, operational stealth can be achieved without tactical stealth, because of all your reasons well explained. I'm pretty sure there's no border there. How can you sneak into your space pearl harbor when your radiator glowing at every single direction? Wouldn't it work because of the micro sensor swarm, which revolve sun in 90 inclination at earth-mars orbit? I'd rather not fight against them if they can do that.

    And don't expect you can always fight with well-prepared enemy which make your obsolete tactic useless. War is not a game. It involves with tons of political, economical, and so on conditions. Who knew you have to pull the depreciated battle rifle, which was considered obsolete in the current "war meta", to fight against drug soaked unprotected human swarm? Who new the sparkling bleeding edge stealth strategic bomber would be of no use these days? If you have to march against a handful of rebel occupying an asteroid armed with industrial kinetic driver, still will you say "Directional radiation wouldn't be useful because of their sensor swarm(which doesn't exist)"?

    Stealth fighter with AWACS is a thing: just try search what can F22 and F35 can do with their radar. Once again, you can decide when to be stealthy or not. The thing you're AWACS doesn't mean you have to be all the time. Still, it make thing super expensive.

    About distributed asset as a detachment...dude, have you ever been in the detachment? Distributed radar site can do absolutely nothing if the Air Defense Control Command was wiped out. If you want to make the Command distributed, heh, you can make the Sun distributed(which wouldn't be functional because of its distributed mass).

    Do not stick with how the space is blah blah and rather think about why do they don't in real life.

  8. So we are playing WWII subs and destroyers in space? That's a fine, comfortable metaphor we all (think) we understand. Unfortunately, applying naval ships to the space environment is as apt as applying pike formation tactics to air carrier task force vs submarines battles. It simply does not compute, the environment is simply too different. First, you are still misunderstanding the difference between operational stealth and tactical stealth. The aircraft attacking Pearl Harbour were not stealth craft --- they did not do tactical stealth: They were pretty easy to see and to
  9. Well, the REAL(tm) military ... has fired a gun in space, once, just to find out if they could hit a simple, non-maneuvering object. That did get a bit Kessler, too. Ballistic Missiles don't count, they are to space combat what a hot air balloon from besieged Paris is to air combat. And "Star Wars" AKA SDI has never reached operational status, never mind fought (and that would be against ICBSs, which do not evade or counter-attack). And to my knowledge the Trumpian Space FarceForce is not yet there, either. Which REAL(tm) military were you refering to, then? Oh, I see ... you
  10. Sorry, there simply are things that are not susceptible to optimisation. This may easily be one of them. Actually I am sure it is one of them --- go ask a meteorologist about how they would love to have a more accurate simulation (by using smaller "blocks" they simulate) and thus a more accurate and longer usable weather prognosis. A weather prognosis must be ready before the time when the weather is supposed to happen. And they do put serious money into that problem and have been for decades. You could have a film of weather patterns playing out, basically pre-rendered, but that
  11. As if the learning curve of KSP is not steep enough for new players! Yet another hurdle that turns out to be a nuisance. Why not full n-body gravity? That would increase the player's skills and be realistic and actually do something to the whole of the game except just in landing and takeoff at Kerbin, Eve, Jool (where you won't be landing anyway) and Laythe --- Duna has a so thin atmosphere that even very fast winds do little. ("The Martian" (the movie) took an artistic license there, in the book it's "just" sandblasting from the storm that exceed the missions safety parameters.)
  12. Question: What in "wind" makes the game more fun, gives additional options (that are fun) or makes it harder (for those who want that)? Answer: It might influence planes (crosswind landing) Fun? No. Options? Minimal. Harder? Yes, but not much and if you want hardcore planes, there are a number of hardcore plane simulators. It might influence hitting the exact spot --- when the parachutes are deployed and you are moved Fun? No. Options? Minimal. Harder? A bit --- unless you really go for a spot landing with
  13. Works on Windows at well (if you install cygwin, which I recommend for everyone who occasionally need the power of (or is comfortable with) a real, sane command line ) Or you can simply use your main RAM as the RAM disk (if you have enough RAM). Then the speed of reading and writing is basically the same speed as your RAM, vastly faster than an SSD. And then the drive is just a s power hungry as your other RAM[1]. And sequential reading from a HDD does need minimal seek time, so if you, say, save an image of the RAM disk (or otherwise structure the data and file layout to
  14. Yet another possibility is to use a better SSD-cache and/or RAM-cache system that learns what is accessed when and can thus pre-cache and also return data that has been read recently. This is most important for small files as the access time on spinning rust (HDDs) is vastly longer than the actual read time. And here the very fast access times of SSDs come in handy. Or even the (again) much much faster access times of RAM. On the other hand, HDDs are best when reading large chunks sequentially — movies, large resource files for games … and if they have to seek to a new fragment eve
  15. I’ll try. It’s hard to take out the technical details because then you have to “simply believe me” instead of being able to reason — and tell me where I have gone wrong. In very short: SSDs are very different to HDDs internally but are talked to as if they were HDDs, and despite a lot of smarts used internally by the SSD to keep stuff running (and some help by the OS[1]), heavy use can slow down an SSD a lot, especially older ones and nearly full ones. The only “cure”, if that becomes too bad, is to basically fully reset and empty out the SSD via “secure erase”. After which you get
×
×
  • Create New...