Arugela

I normally fly it with the nose pointed at 10 degrees and the actual path at 5 degrees. Although I'm setting it up this flight for 15/10... Atlhough it seems to be telling me otherwise. Waiting to see where it lands after I stopped holding up. It seems to have stopped around 15/7.5 degrees. Now I just have to wait 30 minutes or less for my pizza to arrive my spaceplane to make it to higher altitude to see if I can get her up to speed. Edit: the prograde keeps dropping and is settling at around 5-6 degrees while my nose is staing at 15. 10/5 may be optimal for this craft. I'm currently maintaining 230m/s while at 10/5 it's normally around 330m/s. I was probably flying efficiently on previous attempts. Just have to actually climb to try to get my rapiers up to speed at lower air density. Slightly cock-eyed at 15 degrees nose. It seem to be protesting this much angling. I will definitely keep it at 10 degrees later as it always maintains the 5 degrees prograde. Edit2: The nose is attempting to settle back to 10 degrees on it's own. It seems to be agreeing with me.

I have an odd setup with 64 rapiers and 64 whiplash. This is stacked with 64 nukes and 64 toroidal engines... For an aircraft at 2880 tons max. (It's my attempts at 1k cargo to orbit. And in this case anywhere if I get the mining drones in it and get it to minimus.) It was looking like I was previously loosing speed after like 5k so I was trying to gain initial speeds by gaining it early. This was probably the mistake. I may have to actually do a non 1:1 engine for everything at one point to reduce parts counts. I tend to do this to make the craft easy to fly or design(and test out the engine combo) but it may be eating parts count. BTW, here is the oversized tub of cargo!

I'll try doing it at higher altitude then. I was nosing down to get 400m/s around 1500 meters. It may be too many forces on the wings then.

Any idea how to easily get your wings to not break off when pulling up after nosing down to get over 400m/s with rapiers? I have a plane that can get up to 1555m/s on jets, but I have problems with plane breakage pulling up after nosing down tog et 400m/s. Still trying to figure out if it's a physics break from rigid attachment or if it's a problem with actual structure. I only have rigid attachment atm on parts with no lift. Unfortunately it's a massive 700 part plane and very laggy to test. 8)

Do wings inside of a space planes other parts get blocked from producing lift? Say If I put a part on the side of soemthing and push it in for visual effects will it reduce the lift? And how much lift do you want for a plane. I'm assuming it's related to wing loading per weight.

The trick to long planes is either no front wings to pull. Or you take the fusalage and count the lines. then you take your rear value of 100 or 150 and you divide by the number of sections. Figure out the position of each wing and then multiply the Lengh value/x and then change the value of the control surface to an that value. This will create support and even control of the aircraft for the control surfaces along the length. It's a matter of how long you can make it before it stops supporting correctly. Probably from mild inaccuracies over lengths. Example: An MK3 part has those lines on the top. If you plane is made of 20 of those lines you take your rear most desired value. I usually do 150 although it is sometimes too much at high speeds. 150/20=7.5 So for every line it is on you multiply by 7.5 The rear most position is 150. Line 19= 142.5(143), Line 10=75, etc.

Technically they are. Every plane on a carrier is usually a transformer. 8) Unless that is what you meant.

I've finally almost got past the bugs in my 1000 tons to orbit. It's been like 3 years or something and it was almost done then. I just need to get it to pitch up after hitting a certain speed and not rip the wings off and blow up. Then I have to put on some electric control for rotation in space and reduce the parts count as much as possible. But looking at that long plane, I've been meaning to make an aircraft as long as the runway or as close as possible and see how to get it off the runway and into space. That will be my next personal challenge. It will literally be just a straight pipe of fuselage and then wings on the side and maybe a huge engine bay on the back. That or a few on each win section. It will be tabular SSTO designing. Can you still make them that long? I want to find out how long an SSTO space plane can be before you can't get it any longer do tobending and flexing from wings. I actually know how to logically divvy it up to keep very long planes straightened with wings along the length. But I want to see how far it can go.

If nothing else a simple way to empty and fill the fuel in all tanks in the VAB/SPH would be ideal. Even without the other aspects thrown in. A simple click for max or empty would be great. Although I suspect there are some relatively simple ways to accomplish all or parts of this. Most or all of which already exists in the game. I also deleted a part of the idea where instead of the yellow lines(or with them) it lets you, in a special mode, dig through very lightweight(cpu resource wise) version of the parts on the ship by moving the mouse over and having the parts more away from the mouse pointer to find parts in a condensed ship environment to find the parts. The movement would not actually effect COM/COL. It would just be a visual to help find and select parts. It would literally look and work like the fairings do now except in relation to other parts on the ship and not just the fairings own parts. This could aid in selecting parts to apply beginning-end of fuel lines and staging selection. If they allowed turning entire ships or parts of ships into fairings I wonder how buggy it would be? Could that help with parts count issues? Or would it force changes in the joint logic or something else? Could such a thing be an alternative to the idea of welding? I assume fairings have similar logic as normal parts as they consist of multiple pieces.

Yea, I've tried flying like that. I just wonder if that is the developers perspective. Or if there is some technical aspect to the balance they don't want to deal with. There may be some odd problem. They sort of seem to juggle Eve's workable parameters around each patch(or they used to). I wonder if they leave that versatility in order to make it easier to balance the rest of the game. Not to mention this might make more things to balance from the standpoint of aerodynamics in the heaviest body under those circumstances. There may be a technical reason because of the annoyance of development they are avoiding it. Or that is what it makes me think and wonder. Or is it easy from their end to balance the math related to aerodynamics ascent/descent? I'm assuming, either way, it might seal in some aspects of the game from a design standpoint. Obviously I could be wrong though.

I wonder if they are afraid of adding propellers because of the potential of electic craft and balancing EVE and other atmospheres. It might take the challenge out from some perspective. Although it would be fun to designate it as a rotary world in essence. And I would imagine gains would be similar, just obtained in a different way. And it would probably take longer to get rotary craft off even or other planets. So it's not like you gain time. Like SSTO's its a matter of accomplishment. Not efficiency in time. Or does this save too much potential money from normal gameplay. I only play sandbox so I dont' know what it could involve realisticly in time and money during normal gameplay. I would rather these were in the game stock in some form. Then you only need to design your own electric stock rotary machine to get past the designed limits of the single stock part. 8) I would say rotary and other propulsions are definitely logically part of a space theme. So are a lot of other things they could add to the game. And stock is always better than mods. I hate mods. Also, it could be an amazing tool for aero planets. It would help show how much of an advantage atmospheres are potentially. And on planets with air they would be the best explorers and something that doesn't move or explode in such a drastic way. It could help get around more easily(as ground physics tend to have issues.) and it could be good as a pull craft to move stranded vehicles etc. They would just need to possibly add more to the landscape at some point to sightsee or do as you could spend all day just flying around in them. From what I've used of stock propellers I've designed for eve. It takes an hour(literally) to get the surface. And much longer to get up if it can. You aren't loosing anything challenge wise. Maybe just making a craft that can make sure you can launch from a similar altitude to a mountain at any location or have an alternative high altitude secondary version of the parachute. This would give a little altitude gain for rockets launch mid air and maybe save on descent in some ways. It's not like we can airhog up to max altitude like we could before 1.0. The propeller designs seem to have very hard limits in atmosphere as far as height gain. Just like jet engines artificially do now. I bet it would cap out at around 20 tons off eve. which being it should have advantages have an atmosphere this makes tylo the new difficulty king potentially. Or at least it splits up the potential preferred means to get on/off planet. Has anyone tried spinning rotary/parachute means to ascend off Eve as opposed to descend. I wonder if there is a way to exploit it?

What about keeping a cheat mode to activate some implementation of multithreaded physics and other processes. It could be a purposely slow one with the equivlant of ECC checking and designed to catch the phsyics in order. Maybe by adding code to number when and what should go together. I assume this has to be done without gargable collecting problems or in a way it never needs it. It could be done to target extremely large vessels. Maybe allowing a sweet spot for varying hardware where it's purposely laggy but possible uses the extra cores to get relatively better performance than you would get with single core. Especially as CPU's start getting much larger numbers of cores. My current large vessels can run from 10-30 seconds real live to 1 in game second on the clock. Anything beating this would be a lifesaver. it could be good for testing large craft and for video makers. If I can go from 10-30 seconds to a guaranteed 5 seconds per second with multicore/threads it's worth it if it's stable. Is there a simple way to implement this that would wouldn't require a lot of hassle on the programmers afterwords? Even if it's wonky, it could be done for testing and development. And being KSP, it might be fun for the explosions/weirdness as it's developed. I'm proposing it even split the craft up. 8d Maybe a selection of cheats as to which things it splits across cores. Then you can select joint or aero or other things to be split up for testing. Maybe the feedback could be collected on the forums to help maintain it over time. I know this is in the previous ideas thread but I was hoping this was a different enough varient and with new hardware going the way it is going it might be useful in different cases for different people. Could be good for the future of the game. It might not be long until we hit hundreds of cores per CPU. Let alone my measly 6 cores. I would love to get some better performance on my old CPU. Even if it's just a little. Large craft are potentially counted in hours of play to get into orbit. Anything would/could help. This could also be very good for docking with large parts counts. There is a lot this could help. A minimum stabilized load could help game performance overall. Even if it's doesn't always. Edit: 720 posts. One of my favorite numbers to use in game.

Whatever it is designed for. I mostly make SSTO spaceplanes. I might be missing a few considerations for rockets and multistage things. It could have more buttons added for stagings. Yes, the point is to make a compact tool to deal with as much as possible realated to watching/testing things related to fuel in the VAB/SPH. One is filling/emptying fuel tanks overall. The other is watching the COM move. The rest is whatever else is needed to do that as thoroughly as it's designed for. It could be done where you either simply take the stages apart to test and use the parts integrator(which could always break from bugs) or where it considered staging with buttons somehow. I didn't really consider staging. Maybe it could be done where you can select a part(s), give it a yellow highlight, and then only, "play," the fuel from that point backwards in the fuel line to isolate parts. Might be some combination of parts selecting(kind of like the buttons for, "Tool:Place, Tool:Rotate," to allow it to isolate parts of the ship. That just leaves an issue with compact ships where parts overlap and having to move them. Of course you could just let the person making it dig around his own ship to find and click the part also to highlight. Or allow part of the save of the vessel to save those yellow highlights so you can click on staging and mark staging manually(And save them). Then you can simply allow a highlight to find the yellow in all the other colors through the existing parts like the game already does with some other green highlights with mild transparency. That would be much simpler. It could even save it in regards to the staging bar. Then you can hover over or click the staging bar to see the end and/or beginning of the stage in regards to parts.

I still think one of the most convenient and potentially easiest things they can add is a fuel bar and a way to empty and fill fuel. I propose it be done exactly like a basic video player. Buttons: 1. Play/Pause 2. Fast forward/Step 3. Rewind/Step 4. End 5. Beginning 6. Check or button to select whether it not it considered fuel priority in the play cycle.(is there an easy resource cheap way to do this?) The rest is a basic bar like the most basic and simple of video players. The game then Uses the bars segments to match up to the potential fidelity of the fuel. It should have a button to make it both use and not use potential fuel control values. Then you can watch it empty and fill via both options to see the COM and how it effects the aircraft in VAB/SPH. I imagine this could be done in a way that it never has to touched again programming or design wise relatively. As long as it's done in a way that can consider very large ships so it doesn't crash the game in extreme cases. You should also be able to press the bar in order to click through to a certain point if desired. This would greatly simplify seeking realities. It could be a drop down things at the top of the screen or whatnot. Maybe in a similar place to where the fuel display is after going to the runway. It should also be done in a way that is still usable with ships with huge parts count so it doesn't produce lag and always usable. This is more useful the bigger the ship. In fact it's the fuel empty and fill test is the hardest thing to do as the ship gets larger. The reason I hate redesigning my large ships is never the actual placing of parts. The game makes that very convenient relatively. It's the fuel test for COM vs COL tests that makes it all very annoying. Make this convenient and this game is one very large step forward as far as ship design. I would think the hardest part is the button to consider fuel priority if it's used in the middle of play. This could be fixed by making it restart. I would think there is some simple logic to make it take over in the middle and play accurately without becoming laggy though.

Could you use vacuum pressure instead of gas if you can pull the air out fast enough? Either via some motor or by using forces in play? That is also why I wondered if you could use a non vertical takeoff by using speed to build up underwater and/or by launching at a none straight up angle. Maybe you could run it around in circles for a bit then launch at high speeds and/or use an angle to increase the distance and possibly avoid going deeper in the ocean. If you can go in circles or along a long path horizontal under the water you could potentially get a longer run time. I would think you would want a reusable base for the rocket underwater that uses electricty or some other cheaper/renewable force for the underwater speed build. Like the put put motor or some odd concept, assuming it can lower fuel needs or be used with something to generate electricity for cheap and thus thrust. Maybe combined concepts could create a relatively fuel cheap form of underwater motion. Especially if you try to maximize forces actually taking place underwater during the process. Say pressure differences or temperature differences etc. I was thinking a specially shaped nose cone could help create the bubble or something. Unless you used the water to create gas for you. And couldn't the nature of the rocket itself be used to help get other energy out of the rocket. Say as a conduit of temperature like a giant peltier or various other things. You might be able to reduce expensive equipment of the ships hull or parts are used to gain resources. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3664723/US-Navy-developing-supersonic-submarine-cut-ocean-speed-sound-using-bubble.html Now the question is can you make the gas by using the water or use vacuum pressure in place of gas.(unless you can generate the resource in the field.) Is the gas used for the same reason it is inside of a blimp? And if you used this and only used the rocket in shallow water could you remove most of the need to build it like a sub. You can fly/swim horizontally and then pull up potentially as to not deal with heavier pressures. Heck, if you can avoid the same thing after going into the atmosphere you could hypothetically remove the need to fly vertically at low altitudes. If needed, maybe you could collect or change water during flight/swim to separate into 0^2/0^1(for water) and hydrogen(for air) particles. Use it to release under water and then in air after getting into atmosphere to either get out of the low altitude air easier or ease the transition from water to air. Fun thought. If you are already using vacuum and positive pressure on fuel. Why not use the water to make a chamber to continually fill and pressurize like those toy water rockets. You could just use the ocean itself. Then you just need to find a way to power the pressurization as lightly as possible. You could try to use basic principles like I mentioned with put put motors or peltier like concepts(tempurature differencitals), especially if you are using the existing materials and not adding weight, and possibly the pressure difference itself. Could a put put motor create sufficient pressure difference and other conepts help generate electricity or other things for enhancements or backup power/resources? There have to be convenient low cost ways. By cost I mean rocket resources. Maybe you can use air from the bubble to pressurize some incoming water to create a jetstream to push the rocket and some other things to jumpstart or aid in gaining speed. Kind of like a combined giant toy water rocket. If you could power a rocket with little more than water, air, air pressure, and accompanying things that would be awesome. And use nothing but resources and energy transfered from the rockets use to power it. You could even use vacuum and some popout wings and try to land it for reuse if possible. A sort of blimp vacuum winged reentry mode. https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/188752-chinas-supersonic-submarine-which-could-go-from-shanghai-to-san-francisco-in-100-minutes-creeps-ever-closer-to-reality That is very much like a rocket(spacebound rocket). I wonder if it could be used as one? In fact if it's a missile it would already have to deal with low altitude air pressure transition to hit it's target more than likely. So, this would already be being researched by governments. So it's not out of the possibility for future rockets potentially. Maybe future reusable rocket designs. Now if you can generate all resources needed from use so it' doesn't officially need fuel. https://www.businessinsider.com.au/hypersonic-jet-airbus-paris-air-show-2011-6 Similar concept. I wonder if the stored gasses are capable of aiding flight. If so then vacuum also could to some extent. Either in and/or around the ship. I wonder if this would fill the tanks with vacuum afterword to help with re-entry?

Could you combine the concept of vacuum and bubbles to reduce drag? Say you have a rocket with a tip that creates a bubble all around the rocket after it picks up speed. It could create a lesser amount of friction and work like the tube with vaccum concept. Then you could have it work where it either drops the top parts off for normal air travel or also works in air to reduce drag. The kicker would be if you can make it vacuum enough air from the bubble and air to make a bubble of vacuum? Especially if it can be done with simple shaping of a rocket tip and some strong vacuum forces. Either produces with energy or mechanical forces cleverly built in. How much of a bubble would you need? If you could could you make one very thing around the rocket to minimize needed forces to make it easier. And as is probably smart, try to utilize as many of the forces exerted on the rocket to try to aid in these endeavors. Like the generic concept of the put put motor. Take heat and cold and other things to try to create the effects basically passively. Put put motor is just an example. Same concept with something like a sterling engine by taking it and producing electricity to drive things during flight. then you can either save electricity from the motors for something else or use a greater amount of electricity to get a desired effect. Especially if in as simplistic a manner as possible. Yes, I know, simpler overall design is probably better. 8) I wonder if you could use underwater differences in pressure to power an electric motor for underwater travel? If you are protecting something from pressure that is an already created difference. So why not use it to create thrust or other effects passively. It must be utilizable.

What are these aircraft. I assume they are some sort of helicopter, but they look like a bunch of balled up transformers. Any idea? Or was this done for the shooting of bumblebee or something?

I'm also thinking normal rockets. The idea of using a blimp concept could be applied to enhance a normal rocket like space x or a modified shuttle tank. Could you take solid rocket tanks(or any tanks) and then make them hold a negative pressure(after a chamber is emptied of fuel.) to help bring them down with a secondary fuel source. Maybe to offset the weight and reduce the fuel for recovering the part in a usable form. I would think the best chance of this working would be on large fuel tanks with lots of empty space. Or things with large cargo holds. Especially ones already designed for positive pressure. Or could you design a system to help with flight. If you can especially get a tank filled with negative pressure/vacuum fast enough maybe it could be used as a counter system to help in case a rocket tries to veer off course. Or as a safety system to help making stuff in a bad situation not go as out of control by having it be partially a blimp and then more predictable on failure. Maybe it could increase the chance of saving crew in a bad situation. You could design it to be a little more stable or likely to move in a certain pattern with properly place vacuum tanks or similar. This is of course assuming it can be done in a way that doesn't increase the likelihood of failure to start. I'm emphasizing vacuum because I assume it's more resilient as you don't need to carry resources to use it. You just need to evacuate resources already in the tank. And at this point in design you wouldn't necessarily increase the size of teh tank. Just use the tank as it already is to increase performance if it's possible. Maybe even vacuuming it out to a current safe amount and not acheiving perfect vacuum. Outside of structural issues. Logically it should increase performance to some degree. Else I wonder how hard it is to make a purposely design vacuum tank that goes from strong positive to negative pressure on purpose. I would think it could be useful for something. Separately, what about the buoyancy water rocket idea as a way to get more launch windows. It could be an emergency vehicle for rescues potentially. Even if less efficient. Not sure if that opens up enough things for practical use. If it helps with landing issues because of the problems of air space etc. Maybe it could also open up more flights in general if we start doing more in the future. Mainly with an emphasis on where you can land if you fail to get all the way up for some reason but can still manage to land in friendly territory. If the world becomes a harsher place or it's just practical for other reasons it could be useful one day. Why can't you design an underwater vehicle that takes off all the pressure from the outside so the rest of the rocket doesn't have to take it. It's the same as protecting a person from pressure underwater. Then you make an expensive underwater shell that can be used and repaired as long as possible. Not saying it's necessarily practical but I would imagine it's possible. And I am not against the concept of a giant slingshot. ;d Edit: I would think a positive/negative pressure tank would be build by adding or design around a cylinders with half spheres in it(And on each end of the cylinder). A giant cylinder could have half spheres put in it to make chambers. The cylinder would have the top be a half sphere for max structural strength(assuming) and then another half sphere on the bottom with a whole for the positive pressure to force out fuel and them a plug that negative pressure would/could cap when applied and other holes, if needed, for getting all the air out(probably redundancy for safety). then you only need downward facing half circles put in the rest of the cylinder to for any other desired chamber space. You could have as many negative pressure half sphere/cylinder spaces as desired for either for maximizing negative pressure or to get as much fuel as possible. Or even to aid in the overall strength of the cylinder. The inside would only have half spheres in it to maximize fuel space. These would be half spheres facing downwards to let gravity or pressure push the fuel out. The only upward facing sphere/half sphere would be on the top of the cylinder. Although you could simply make the very top a full sphere with a hole in the bottom. You could also add other internal or external structural strength with beams or other arched beams, or the like, inside the empty spaces. Maybe with a tapered widening joint that spread out along the inner or outer skin of the tank. This would allows a wide joint and a much smaller beam in the middle for maximum strength to the walls. Although I don't know if that helps maximize fuel or tanks space. At least not if it's inside the tank. But that, on the outside of the tank, could be done to aid both negative and positive pressure. I would assume it would look alot like how it's presumed cells are attached organically with a wide connection and potentially thinner, but maybe flexible, connection point. Just a matter of doing it efficiently. Or am I think of drawing of neurons? I'm also thinking wide as in 3d wide in all direction. a joint covering a wide potentially hexagonal or pentagonal surface. Very thing at the edged and thicker as it gets to the center where it goes into a long tube(s) to attach to another surface. These could be tightly packed. Also potentially making room for thinner inner tank. Or one designed to counter the outer surface joints to equal out the strength of the surface. I wonder if you could make a thinner tank(designed around total weight.) and an outer layer of a material that can be worked like sodder(but at higher tempturatures likely.) and then pulled to a second outter layer in multiple strands to make joints. The outside layer on the inner tank could be this material in hexagon/pentagon shapes along it's surface. This could be used to make the tank somewhat cheap to replace. it could also have the inner tank also make of similar shapes underneath(and in the same spots or purposely misaligned) so they can be replaced easily and cheapy. Just a matter of shaping them then. Which I would think could be done with heat and negative/positive pressure designs of the tank. Although the spheres would probably need to be solid. Unless also made the same way with inner joints. I wonder if you could make the joints by taking physical thin(relatively) lines of material and heating them to sufficient heats to make a material draw up a wick to positions. Maybe this could be perfected to be done in space for repairs in orbit or something odd. Again, the point of this is to achieve better overall performance if possible or for functionally aiding in the recovery of said parts. Assuming it can be done efficiently. Or possibly to make the tanks continuously repairable.

It wouldn't necessarily be to get it off the ground. it could be applied to other things. I was also thinking using normal internals designed to take the negative pressure and positive pressure to in essence decrease the empty weight of the vehicle artificially with a blimp like negative pressure chamber in any empty fuel tanks. It could help improve performance if accounted for if it sufficient buoyancy in air. What if the orange tank could go from holding compressed fuel to holding a negative vacuum in all empty stages at it empties. How much could that improve overall performance if engineered correctly? Could it get enough buoyancy(in air not water) before hitting a weak enough part of the atmosphere or could it be useful for making such a tank reusable in concept. Maybe as a modification or whatnot. Then apply this to purposely designed reusable rockets.

That is why I thought separate stage to simplify. If you build the first stage like a giant bullet/sub but built to withstand pressure you could have it help the initial staging from underwater pressure. This could then be reusable. Or be a modified submarine. Basically launch the submarine nose up and make the middle of the sub like a giant gun or missile silo and get momentum. Although if using a real modified sub it would limiting to the size of the rocket. Else like a giant reusable outer casing and base. Of course of your normal rocket is designed to use vacuum already... You could pack as much buoyancy into the rocket to get more momentum on launch. Could current fuel tanks hold a negative buoyancy when empty? I was kind of assuming those were already fairly strong by design as they have to deal with positive pressures. If you designed a rocket around a positive and negative pressure fuel tank then you might be able to do this. Maybe give it various section so that when one empties it is then drained of oxygen for a buoyancy assist. I don't see why, if that is feasible, that could not help with reusable rocket designs like the spacex stuff. Maybe you could get some extra fuel efficiency or less overall fuel needs overall. Or do things strong for positive pressure not work out to being strong against negative pressure?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42VSkjmW53I Yep, this guy has done it. He might have some mods though. Not sure if it affects the rocket or if it's just for the solar system.

What if this is depicting one king embalming the other in regards to his passing and not something related to war. This could be what the pyramids were for. Cellar temperatures could also be for embalming and related activities. Maybe they were only temporarily held there and then moved to a more permanent tomb. Explaining why they are all not decorated but have aspects of a tomb. Also, if food and organs were stored in the same types of containers with the same general technology from cellar temps that could make it useful for almost anything. We know they did this for tombs with food and organs. Maybe they applied it to more at different times. Why waist a massive building if you don't need to. Plus that falcon look a lot like he's pulling out the brains for what we normally think of as Egyptian embalming methods. This guys other videos was wondering if the falcon tribe wasn't a Babylonia tribe from Ur that took over before or at the 1st dynasty and brought some stuff to Egypt with them related to beer and embalming or something. https://youtu.be/seVieyiTBbk?t=210

I see what is happening. Yea I mean great pyramid brewery as seperate from the other small site. I was assuming the pyramid was a brewery for fun. I'm assuming that site might also be for purposeful work of some sort. Like the one guys idea of water storage. I'm assuming pyramids were used in general for practical purposes. I also wonder if the pyramid didn't make beer or something itself and it's religious purposes were combined with practical as is easy to assume of ancient religions. I'll have to change the name a little. I'm really bad at making titles sometimes. I can't think out other ways to take them often. I started with just the one subject then added the great pyramid onto it as my idea kept expanding. Although that is just as much an idea depending on their time periods. I'm assuming pyramids might be really good/necessary use of localish materials to accomplish very practical things(as opposed to tombs) and wondering the potentials of that. Unless they were good for embalming... That could also be something useful. Maybe they are designs to aid in embalming and then after those processes are finished the take they bodies to their formal tombs. Cellar temperatures are also used in corpse preparation if I'm not mistaken. Probably for preparing materials too. Could explain why it's tomb like but not an actual tomb. maybe they build new ones as circumstances changed. Like possibly the river moving or something odd. it's probably easier to take it straight from a boat to the next destination. Could explain the boats buried next to it also. Boats specifically related to the kings afterlife.

That is only a very modern conception(ant not what is happening now.). Normally land and things are based on material availability and cost based on rarity. Not artificial currency. Currency are based on the other(their circumstances, IE cumulative material realities.). It is always based on material realities. Even if thy are artificially manipulated. People just don't know enough today because on average less people deal with the things related to those materials to know what is really going on beyond the simple reality of currency and similar. It still works exactly as back then.

You don't need to pay them in more than beer if they already have what they need from other means. This was not an odd thing in ancient times. It's much simpler logistically. Other cultures did this with building projects or similar also. They would pay in one substance. If you aren't working 24/7 like a slave you don't have to pay them in everything they need. It's literally just a job. Maybe they only worked for 4-6 hours between farm work or some other profession. If they had larger families back then at all I'm sure some could be spared to work and bring back the daily beer. Especially someone relatively younger and healthier you could afford to let go do work for part of the day. it would be very beneficial for the 20+years of construction. That is some pretty solid potential job security. If that was the norm I'm sure people didn't hate the next pyramid project being started up. The pyramid work might have been less rigorous than their farm labor.