qzgy

Granted, but the articles move themselves so you spend all your time herding them. And theyre like cats. Power to travel at the speed of light

1231

Then the question is effectively "Can gravity acting on mass over a drop of infinite length accelerate that mass to the speed of light" right? Given the link below I don't think it will. At least seems that way according to the page. https://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1571 On the other hand, you have literally created a situation where it should be possible to basically create infinite energy. So.... I don't know.

Easier as it is for newbies to make a rover and use the same controls for the wheels than wonder why the normal controls which work for their planes and rockets don't work for their rovers or car replicas. Yes, it's fine if you know about it but for those who don't, I'd think it would be quite a challenge to figure out ijkl control wheels or something. How long did it take you to figure out those key bindings for RCS? Personally had to look them up at first.

Well, it looks very real. And given your past history, 405 parts isn't too bad.

Nope never. Ehhh close enough? Its a drink consisting half of ice tea and half of lemonade (hence, half and half), popularized or created (not sure) by some dude named Arnold Palmer (really doesn't matter) and commonly found under the Arizona Iced Tea brand company thing. TUBM does not like adding cream to their iced tea.

40 + 33^2 = 40 + 1089 = 1129 (Pemdas, it took me a little too) Ahhh.... sorry about that. You're welcome maybe? (ignore the obviously not prime 462 part)

A nuclear winter?

seems like it should be an exit hatch too..... Eh, lets just see if it works for him

Ok, so something like that. I thought of a thing which had its COM unrealistically outside of its actual part. At that point though, why not just use actual ballast smaller and more dense? Because effectively you're just asking for a lump of metal. Who defines that? I may say moving the COM about 0.5M is realistic, although on very small craft that might effectively make it impossible to tip, while on large craft basically moot. "Make it realistic" is a very vague statement, especially when its such a broad thing like this. First, I wouldn't parade yourself as a man "who knows everything because I do this stuff for real". Yes, you might, yes, it probably is true, but it opens you up for attack from others and also makes you look a bit... high on your horse lets say. The reason most KSP parts have the COM dead center is because that's where the COM is. Or roughly is. Close enough to not worry about it. You wouldn't expect a round homogeneous battery to have its COM higher or lower up, or on its edge or something. The Jet engine thing is part of that. Because they are relatively heavy parts, they would normally (in real life I assume) add their mass and bulk more in the fuselage, because the actual pat isn't limited to the tiny exhaust that we see. Having all that mass more towards the center is something more realistic than the Jet engines having their COM right at the very tail, which would also incidentally make it a lot harder to design planes. Any examples with builders intentionally abusing that to make their COM lower is just that - an abuse of the system. It is an abuse that has to exist though for the sake of balancing their primary role as jet engines. The basic challenge in KSP is being given those parts and making something (read - arranging the parts) in such a way that it does work suitably well, keeping the COM and stuff in such a way that your thing actually works. As HebaruSan mentioned also, the ability to play fast and loose with it removes part of that critical challenge. NO, would it be ideal to make your parts in such a way that more weight is kept lower? Yes, it would, but KSP parts have to work in every single situation without being too weird. If it is too high, too low, too far forward or too far back, one can simply just add ballast in the necessary places to make the design work. actually, depending on the design. yes it would. if it does that, the design doesn't account for fuel mass not existing and then the thus relative dry COM/COL positioning. It's perfectly possible to make a design that flies nicely without pumping fuel.

Ok. I still feel as if thats not quite physically accurate (adding a lump of metal would just add more mass there not two feet to the left) but I guess KSP sometimes bends physical laws anyways.....

Basically ballast? I agree, a mechanism like in the OP is a bit too cheaty.

Control I believe... Stock alignment indicator ha, as if the devs would add something useful like that, or a dV display. Oh wait they did.

1151 I am apparently. Gap of 22 @Gargamel

.. Sure! also uhhh... finished reading so yes... I am. Chilling the exact opposite of the warm fuzzy feeling from [generic winter holiday here]. Cannot wait to see everything mesh up nicely.

i thought we already did chapter 32.... but also yay new chapter

Mariokart? That ones kind of a classic. Or SmashBros. I realize these are both not on steam, but these two seem a bit like what you want.

given your history.... yes. yes it was.

Banned for being pedantic

Shush you'll jinx it

Both look quite neat. I think it could be a fun idea to give your knex skeleton a shell or something which you could then add detail to (paper or 3d printed, idk) Personally I like the look of the printed one but I can understand the sentiment in liking something more you made.

Needs a safety switch doesn't it?

Still on 1.3.0 here. Not that I couldn't go to 1.3.1..... I'm just too lazy.