*Aqua*

Wait, are we talking about the same bitmap? I was under the impression that a bitmap image (.bmp) was meant.

[quote name='Yemo']Everyone is free to resize their browser window to a width that suits them, no one is forced to have it full screen. Seriously give it a try with this very page. The text adjusts automatically. No one is forcing users at the moment to use the full width of their screen, but the new forum forces everyone not to use the full width of their screen...[/QUOTE] That function is there because people use different resolutions. Microsoft conducted a study on how people operate on the desktop. The result was that almost all maximize the foreground window. Not utilizing all of the width is a common thing to improve readbility. Just accept it.

[quote name='ZetaX']The principles RNGs are absed on generalize to arbitrarily high number.[/QUOTE] My dictionary doesn't know "absed". What does it mean?

You can't make text that wide or people will have serious problems reading it. That's why newspaper texts usually have narrow columns. They are far easier to grasp for our eyes and brain.

That is already ruled out. You would need 500 TB storage for it.

[quote name='More Boosters']I think that solar panels are still pretty sufficient at Jupiter. Or Juno is in trouble.[/QUOTE] [quote name='fredinno']They are. Rosetta has been running "so far so good" at similar distances, and near a comet, where the dust will block out much of the Sun.[/QUOTE] That doesn't invalidate my argument. The point is currently you'll waste a ton of money if you use overengineered probes. If you launch a probe per week then mass production could save you money but we are nowhere near that pace.

That won't be enough. Pseudo RNGs usually gives a 'random' values in the form of a 32 or 64 bit floating point numbers. As Kerbart in post #7 wrote correctly there'll be (2[SUP]24[/SUP])[SUP]2[SUP]16[/SUP][/SUP] (~1.55 * 10^231) possible pixel combinations and you need an RNG which can output all of these combinations. But floating point numbers are limited in precision, they can't store that many different values. The computer will round them to the next number it can store in a memory. You'll need an RNG which works with so-called 'big integers'. Afaik there's none and big integers are [I]slow[/I]. Also the number of combinations are so huge that you'll see patterns in the generated data caused by the design of the RNG algorithm (that's one of the reasons why they are called [I]pseudo[/I] random). Afaik there're no RNGs which can handle that large numbers. You'll need to come up with your own one.

The questions seems to be: What is better - generalization or specialization? Pro generalization - lower cost due to mass production - reduced development cost because you reuse proven designs Contra - reduced and/or superfluous capabilities because your new device have to fit the design pattern Pro specialization - maximized capabilities because you design the probe/devices according to the task - no superfluous capabilities which are potential points of failure Contra - high development and production costs Even if it looks like the requirements for exploration are always the same that's not true. A probe to Jupiter needs strong radiation shielding, a RTG as a powersupply, large antenna, etc. A probe to Mars 'only' needs some solar panels, smaller antenna, etc. Putting a Jupiter probe into Mars orbit is a huge waste of money.

Because it wasn't mentioned here: There's also the possibility that your plane [I]bends[/I] from lift, thrust, weight, etc. This bending isn't always symmetric because of rounding problems. You can minimize this problem by adding struts. Especially in the early KSP versions this was a huge problem because part connections weren't as rigid as they are today.

I also have a few questions: 1. Do we have to re-validate our accounts? Is there going to be a password reset? 2. Are different visual styles available? (I'd like to have a darker theme.) 3. Will C# syntax highlighting be supported? Also syntax highlighting for part configs and similar would be great. Especially the mod forums are cluttered with scripts and codes which are currently a pain to read.

So it's similar to "FYI". Ok, thanks! My question is answered. :)

Hello! Once in a while I see threads with "PSA" in the title. What does it mean?

Then learn German or use an online translator or just don't visit the German subforum. ;)

Flipped over because of CoM behind CoL?

@Snark For aerodynamic stability we have easy to use indicators. For TWR and delta V we have nothing (except pen & paper or mods). That's why I opened this thread. What if you arrived at Jool and change plans: Instead of landing on Pol you try flybys at all moons. How do you know you have enough fuel for that? You can only try it out (with a high possibility to fail) or grab a calculator. That's NOT user-friendly. It's not about concepts it's about indicators you have to know to implement concepts. How should a player know that he's wasting fuel when there are no numbers for that, when there's nothing to compare against? He only sees the results (didn't reach orbit) and is as clueless as before the start. Even experienced players like Scott Manley (and me, I have played KSP for 935 hours) would gladly welcome a vessel information display. Why? Because he also doesn't take out a sheet of paper to calculate his rocket. Instead he also relys on KER and MechJeb.

@Snark You can put 30 tons in an orbit because you memorized the needed rocket. Not everybody does it. Not everybody is as good as you. Just have a look in the forums, a lot of people have problems guesstimating how far they can go with a rocket. Formulas with quadratic calculation (rocket equation) are non-intuitive. Humans have a lot of problems with them and unconsciously apply a linear interpolation which - of course - fails. And they will fall in this trap again and again. For people who don't want this information display they should be able to disable it in the difficulty settings. Then everybody is happy. Also I don't think we need all the information KER provides, just the essential ones (at least current TWR, remaining delta V, remaining burn time).

Hello everybody! In the past updates a simple app in the VAB was introduced which displays basic vessel information like size and weight. But that isn't enough to eyeball if a rocket can fly to Jool and back. A player like me needs additional information like (remaining) burn time, delta V, TWR, etc. to quickly understand what a rocket is capable of. And I need access to this information in the VAB and during flight. Do you really expect us to get some paper and calculate the numbers by ourselves or always resort to KER, MechJeb & similiar mods? Information like the ones I mentioned are essential for simulation games. Look at car racing games, nearly all of them provide statistics of how fast they accelerate, gear ratios, etc. for the player. And even games like Distant Universe show them where these kind of numbers aren't as important as in KSP. For example the current gameplay for a beginner and intermediate player looks like this: 1. Build a rocket. 2. Fly. 3. Rocket doesn't reach orbit. 4. Revert to hangar and add more tanks/engines/boosters. 5. Go to 2. This process repeats over and over. After several hours you finally reached orbit. Now you repeat all that again until you build a rocket which can fly to Jool. Arriving a Jool you run out of gas and - you guessed right - revert to the hangar again to modify your creation so you can get back to Kerbin. In summary: 5+ hours of building and trying for a 1 hour mission. I understand that building is a big part in this game but it's not done right. How do you expect children and other non-space-nerds to understand the rocket equation and orbital mechanics if you don't provide some basic numbers? Don't you think it's ridiculous to tell us the needed delta V and burn time for a maneuver node when there's no display how much delta V and burn time are in the tanks?

So... what's the problem?

So far no progress. I didn't work on it for a while. I'm unsatisfied by the fact that nobody at Squad thought about stuff like that. There are a number of hurdles to overcome because the game isn't designed to let Kerbals walk on something different than planets and moons.

My computer starts to lag just from displaying these screenshots. *shudder*

I doubt scientists will buy this kit. The guys who need it get it directly from the manufacturer or specialized vendors who - and that's the important part - guarantee quality and functionality of what they sell. The average consumer usually can't buy stuff like that. I mean who has a spectrometer at home?

I never heard of that. Are you sure?

You forgot about the resource mass. wet mass = (dry) part mass + module mass(es) + resource mass IMHO you replicate what the game already does. If a programmer wants to add mass, he can just add a module and set a mass attribute. KSP will take care of all calculations. Probably not. It's too much of a hassle to search the forums for small things like your interface. If there's a bundle which incorporates all the snippets I'll think about it.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3942# PDF page 2 I knew it! Who said science is boring?

Blender is free software! Why do you think you have to buy it? Of course you can use any 3D modelling software you like (3ds Max, Cinema4D, etc.). Just make sure it can export models in a file format Unity can load. Also have a look at this link: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/94638-Mod-Development-Links-Compilation-START-HERE It tells you everything you want to know.