Jump to content

qzgy

Members
  • Posts

    2,692
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by qzgy

  1. Dude. Pressure is what's liquidizing the gas, NOT temperature. Have you looked at one of those phase diagrams? Yeah. Pressure, not temperature. If the pressure is high enough to liquidize helium, then it shouldn't be able to be landed on. Kerbals should DIE from being squished too hard.
  2. Banned for odd lines that don't always match up.
  3. As @MiffedStarfish mentioned - this game, while having - quirks - Is designed to simulate real life. Real life gas giants can't be landed on, not without turning into a giant hunk of useless scrap. Its a measure of how many time people have liked a post that that member has made.
  4. Well the easiest way is to implement it and have it be an option in settings. Like comnet. Do I like comnet? Yes. Do I sometimes forget why I lose control over probes and toggle it off? Also yes. Its a fun feature, but can be annoying sometimes to deal with.
  5. Hey, so @NotAnAimbot - Any chance of the CF-105 appearing today?
  6. Then play around with it. It should show up in the load craft in the SPH
  7. Whatever you pick it will at least be interesting/intriguing to find out. Also, best of luck to your cat, who sounds like he is getting much better.
  8. Again, quite a necro. Think I'm somewhere between 3.8 or 4.
  9. 1 - I can see the use in that, although an intelligent bit of code that exists would have to be rewritten to accomodate for that fact. An override in advanced tweakables would work. 2 - Again, breaking a bit of code that exists. But I like it. 3 - These really need to be fixed. Not sure how they were made. 4 - The extra calculations would be a problem for potato owners. You've already mentioned good solutions, though you would have to consider also that the jet engines would heat up the air right? Also, IRL, I believe efficiency goes down with increased temperature and jet engines heat up the air, so having these in a closed environment would make efficiency suffer. Balancing out these effects would be hard. I think this would require a lot more discussion. 5 - What about using a number pad, if available? That would add an extra 10. Then if you include R-shift, R-ctrl, r-Ctrl+R-shift, each doubling 20, thats already 80. I don't think you can run out at that point. Only problem would be usability, and remembering them. A menu would be nice here. In general though, I do like and agree with all the ideas.
  10. Wow. How many tabs do you have open? Or is it from running many, many applications? I feel you though, RAM is quite heavily used. NO. Not for 4k. As mentioned above, great for a cheap 1080p monitor, but it can't keep up with 4k. Try 1070 or 1080. I would say 1060 6GB is the minimum. Playing KSP with it, it can run the shiny graphics, but I'm on 1440p, not 4k. Would agree with Starman, upgrade PSU and Graphics card, maybe memory. That brings you to around 600/700 dollars.
  11. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's quite an old video. I think that ladder glitch has been fixed...
  12. That's actually super cool. Definitely a lot easier than KAS.
  13. 2/10 Could be a pseudonym.. I is la hooman, I speaks das englishes.
  14. Benny hill theme? IDK, just throwing it out there.
  15. An alternative is to download Editor extensions redux (EEX is actually a great mod, I'd reccomend it) and press T to toggle surface attachment. No abuse of cubic octagonal struts or whatever. HOWEVER, if you are in stock, just do as above.
  16. Ah, ok. Don't think Vega has come out yet, right?
  17. Are you just looking for a graphics upgrade or a performance upgrade? If its performance, it might be better to get a new CPU.... KSP is CPU bound usually, not GPU bound.
×
×
  • Create New...