cantab

I'd say yes, but then it's literally the only city builder I've played ever. It's not perfect but it's been very enjoyable for me, and it doesn't have any of the major out-of-game issues that SimCity had at launch.As for mods, at the moment it seems a bit flooded by quickly-made titbits, things like recolours of existing buildings. But we can expect more sophisticated mods to come; I believe most Unity games are highly moddable. The one city builder to be wary of is the Cities XL series (unrelated to Cities:Skylines) which has had a lot of controversy over new full-price releases adding basically nothing over previous versions. The first two are in the stock game You need to progress through unlocking the Unique Buildings and then the Monuments.

As much as anything I got the sharp angles because it's hard to place curving roads symmetrically, and I was generally struggling to place the pillars on the slip ramps.Of course all that was moot as I had to scratch build in my city and the version there is a bit different. A bit messier and it too has some sharp curves. The bus drivers at least seem to take them like they're Sandra Bullock in Speed, but so far the interchange is vastly underused. I also had a big issue with my busway. It's separated from the frontage road by one zone square, and it seems like that one-square gap can't be crossed by a footpath, I ended up having to add unwanted roads for the passengers to walk round. On the ore district PTNLemay, it does look like a mineout actually.

Strange. Keep in mind that if no ore is mined then the business that need it will import it, so you might still see ore trucks. Meanwhile I learnt today that just building one interchange is a game in itself. Looking forward to testing this behemoth out. EDIT: And it's useless The thing's so big that virtually everywhere says "slope too steep". Looks like I'll have to scratch building each intersection, dang it.

For cargo I agree. If I buy something online I can usually wait for it, if I need something NOW I go to a shop and can come back with it the same day. For passenger travel not so much, I don't want to be spending all my time travelling.As for the original topic, I once read an interesting viewpoint: Concorde failed not because it was too fast but because in the age of the internet it was too slow.

Nothing official has K's added in random places though, that's very much a fandom theme. The resource wanted a generic name to fit with the other things in the game being real but generic terms, "Ore" is satisfactory.

Money doesn't buy you happiness More seriously, in my experience raising them too much makes leave. I nearly bankrupted my city doing that by falling into a vicious circle of raise tax rate > people leave > tax revenue declines > raise tax rate. Conversely lowering them might stimulate growth. Meanwhile, I've been building a vague approximation of a Victorian slum, The real-world counterpart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-to-back_houses . Taking the approach in Cities is neat because it gives you a high population density without the effects on demographics that "high density" has. Aerial view of the whole city: https://flic.kr/p/rxofds . It's not changed much, I spent most of today building the big highway through Bromwicham. I didn't want to demolish or move service buildings so I worked to thread it round three medical centres, two schools, and a police station. With six separate carriageways it got pretty complicated. At the moment it seems to work OK but the traffic load is really light, it's nowhere near really tested.

I save edited to skip several tens of years waiting for an Eeloo encounter once. I'd gone via some gravity assists, great for saving fuel but soooo much waiting.

Most of my plane flights are in real time, since many of my planes misbehave if I try physics warp. They tend to be 2 hours max though. And my first couple of orbits were in real time. Other than that though I don't see the point. Space travel is a lot of waiting, and the view doesn't even change quickly.

Like many topics, Squad's no-politics rule prevents a complete dicscussion of the topic.

It's by a Finnish company actually. But to be honest it's missing a lot of stuff you'll see in all countries. The difficulty in making proper roundabouts, and absolute lack of mini-roundabouts, is just as irksome to me as a Brit. Still, on balance I can't say it's anything less than a really good game, and a strong candidate for best city builder now. There's already a ton of flexibility - it's having that that ends up highlighting the shortcomings I feel. And there's already a boatload of mods too.

In my experience I want it not too far off neutral. Either way is fine; mild aerodynamic instability in a rocket, usually down to drag rather than lift being up front, can be kept under control with attentive piloting.

Maybe in other situations, but one cannot really expect "secondary information" when it comes to a small company making official statements about their plans.

Is that a real smartwatch app? WANT.

IMHO if you're interested in planes and you want them to fly like planes you should get FAR. A plane that works well in it is a joy. A plane that works badly, on the other hand, is a diabolical Kerbal deathtrap.

This sounds like you have too much stability, as well as too little control authority. With the wide part of the rocket and those fins down low you'll have a rocket that self-corrects if you try and nudge it. That's good except the effect may be so strong you can't pitchover.As for the spontaneous pitchover in a certain direction, do you have any non symmetric parts? FAR applies drag to things like OX-STATs that stock doesn't. If that's not the issue my next guess is that the tri-coupler is known for not being perfectly symmetric. Could you switch to a first stage with three cores in a line?

Well, tons of things But some highlights: A boat on Laythe. Twice, because I wrecked the first one in a hard turn when sailing. A rock on Eve. The main tug left this after a Kerbin assist, leaving only the little RCS gubbins you see to handle needed course corrections. A Kerbal on the Mun, with three tech nodes and no VAB or Pad upgrade. These Kethane tanker planes on the runway. Landing the big ones fully loaded required a lot of F9ing. And my one and only Tylo lander so far. That I post whenever I get the chance, because if it's worth doing it's worth overdoing.

My pusher handled a 500-ton D OK. I think key is to use an engine cluster and tweak the thrust limiters to fine-tune the balance. Also consider "control sections", little probes with a claw, reaction wheels, and maybe RCS that you dot about the asteroid. Finally be patient when slewing the asteroid around - turn SAS off, build a little speed, and wait for it to drift onto its target heading. If I were trying to eject a rock from the solar system I'd opt for gravity assists. In an ideal world you can ping-pong off Eve and Kerbin until you get your apoapsis out to Jool which will easily fling you into interstellar space. However with a large and heavy asteroid tug getting the precision for gravity assists may be hard. A single powered flyby of Kerbin will take around 1000 m/s of delta-V to get a Jool encounter, vs 1800 m/s for a direct boot out of the system, and may be more manageable.

Just three at the moment. My main career, a sandbox for messing around, and a sandbox that I use only for the CPU Performance Test rocket.

For what it's worth I think you'll use far less fuel sending smaller stuff to meet it in its retrograde orbit compared to trying to reverse the asteroid.

Jet engine thrust changes with speed, and FAR tweaks it to be more pronounced than in stock. Are you slowing down when doing your manoeuvre?

9/10. That's a dang fine rendition!

I'd say that's on the heavy side. The weight penalty can be noticeable. My Curtis Special uses minimum strength wings. It does need babying, violent control inputs will break it, but flown with care it's OK. Admittedly the Curtis Special benefits from huge wings that give a super gentle re-entry (and it's a Basic Jet spaceplane so the requirements are very different to a turbojet or RAPIER design).

If I need to use one on my lap then something flat and rigid to put under it helps. Large but thin books, like the Dorling Kindersley kids science books, do well.As for drive failures, to be honest they're rare with either mechanical or solid state drives. I think I've known two or three hard drives fail myself. One of those was in a music player that got slung in my coat pocket every day, the others were in the office computers so that's a couple of failures in five years from a pool of 50-100 PCs. Now USB sticks, *those* break easily especially junky ones, and they get file system corruption even more easily.

I finally fixed my water problems, turned out to be a water tower in an industrial area that I forgot about. But I still spent the 50 grand on a full replumb of one of the towns anyway. Traffic, on the other hand, continues to be a nuisance. Here's one of my black spots, near where the Bromwicham Ring Road joins the interstate. I kept throwing more roads at this but I still get jams, maybe at some point I'll try and solve it all rationally. And have an aerial shot of Victoria Park, essentially a second town on the same map. And the one I focus more on, whereas I've somewhat been neglecting Bromwicham proper. As you can see grids are emphatically not my thing. Now, wonder what I'll spend that half a million currently burning a hole in my pocket on...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrabook Basically it's about being thin and light and oooh shiny, without being potato-bad on the performance front like a netbook. Kinda like the PC version of a Macbook Air.