Randox

Enders Game was pretty good. I feel like I'm going to have to go stare at my bookcase tomorrow though. Off the top of my head, I'd actually have to give props to the Halo Books. I've read most of them at this point, though I have a soft spot for the ones with John 117 in them. Also have to mention Nova, one of the StarCraft books. The StarCraft books I've read were hit or miss, and I'm not crazy about them, but Nova was certainly a standout. The Diablo franchase is, in my opinion, much better (but also Fantasy).

I didn't realize the Bras d'Or had been kept as a museam ship. I've heard about it growing up; as I understand it. Oh, and the S in Bras is silent if anyone is curious; as pronounced a few seconds into this video: Bras d'Or Lake Biosphere Reserve - Overview At least, that is the local pronunciation for Bras d'Or Lake in Cape Breton, so I assume the ship's name would be pronounced the same way.

I just wanted to say that at least one person legitimately likes the stock fairings. I like the angular look and ability to make the shapes, and above all I like building the darned things. I play this game to build, so a part that would build itself for me is...sacrilege. Auto adjusting parts are as unkerbal as round edges Just my feeling on the matter of course. A lot of people obviously disagree and power to them. The current bug is an issue, but it's a new one, and nothing against the base system. Just a bug that needs fixing. Good to know that fairings that close around a part (blue) don't seem to suffer from the issue too. I've not updated yet because I can't be bothered getting new versions of the mods, so maybe I'll sit this one out

Certainly Space Engineers comes to mind, though I would vastly prefer a proper build mode in a workshop environment rather than building first person like MineCraft. I personally find it hard to plan things out without building them at least in part, and I think large scale construction would go a lot faster in a hanger view like KSP. I'm also just a poor planner in general, always forgetting to make space for my conveyor pipes or somesuch. For more flexible building I'm not really sure. There is a game I used to play years ago that would likely fit the bill, but I don't know if it still exists, and for the life of me I've not a clue what it was called. It was a 2D game where you would draw various shapes that could be joined together with welds, hinges, motors, springs, and so on. You could create vehicles to cross rough terrain, various projectile weapons (people would attach thrusters to a bunch of small blocks to simulate gun powder for example). Maybe I've sparked a memory in someone else who has played the game and actually knows what it was called?

I believe this would only apply if our traffic never entered the US. Service providers inside the US could just as easily charge content providers who host on servers inside the US as they can content consumers for material hosted on foreign servers. So hopefully, what will happen is all the servers move to Canada, Europe, at least for me. From the maps I could find, There is not a single ocean cable from South America to the rest of the world that doesn't pass through the United States, and Canada only has them on the east coast (the ones on the Pacific side all connect via the US). The connections between Europe and West Asia aren't super great either, my point being that the US is basically the physical centre of the Internet (at least for English speakers). Also, for people who play online games, North American servers are almost always in the US as well, and those connections can't afford to be delayed. So that's fun.

The parts look fine to me, but make sure you're double checking part clearances. For example, that 1070 is 10.5" long, but the case can only handle up to 10" without removing some of the drive bays. Not sure which drive bays need to come out, but you may want to find a smaller 1070. Their clearance specs might also be plain wrong (they are for my case on that site, a Phantom 410), so double check that from another source.

My preference is speed shifters (trigger). Partly I just have a deep love of all things buttons and levers, and partly I prefer not having to alter my grip to shift. My suggestion though would be to try each. Most bike shops will let you try them out in the parking lot to get a bit of a feel for them (bikes aren't something I would buy online because I want to try them first, but that might just be me).

Cool. I never even thought to check to see if I can run off my integrated graphics with a GPU installed (my previous computer could not, so perhaps I just assumed my new one also lacked the ability). One GPU rendering to the other's output was one of the first things I noticed. It makes sense knowing it now, but I had assumed that if you put a window across two screens run by different GPU's that each would have to render their own portion. There is however, as you noticed, a serious performance penalty for this. In case you were still wondering, for standard programs like a web browser the rendering will be done by whichever screen the window is on (or mostly on. I'm not sure what the exact criteria is for when one GPU hands off the rendering to the other). For 3D applications however, the application can specify which GPU to use indecently of the screen it is running on, and most programs will use the primary graphics adapter by default. Some games however do give the option to specify either which screen or GPU they should use (in the case of the former, I think they'll also choose the GPU that screen is connected to). Others do allow you to choose, but bury the option in a configuration file. Oh, and if you go into device manager, you can probably disable your onboard graphics when you don't need the second screen if you ever feel the need. Mine is a full card, and even though it doesn't use much juice at idle, I do turn mine off sometimes.

How is this working out? A lot of hardware configurations can't handle this; installing a dedicated graphics chip will forcefully disable the integrated graphics. Windows 10 also has it's own issues, if you use that. Windows 7 and prior played nicely with multiple graphics chips at the same time, but Windows 8 and 10 have problems. I'm unsure if they can't run multiple graphics drivers at the same time at all, or only if the drivers include files with the same name (I run 2 independent GPU's currently, but I had to select a pair that use the same drivers). Not many people have independent multi GPU setups, so finding good info on it has been fun.

Same processor and motherboard here as well, and I'd certainly recommend it as an 1150 socket mobo. It's not exactly frill free, since it comes as AI Suite 3 and other marketing terms, some of which are actually useful. The aforementioned AI Suite 3 is, among other things, an overclocking for dummies application (you can get a faster and more efficient OC manually, but the automatic system does seem to work). The fan controls are handy as well. Off the top of my head, the 97A and 97AR are fairly low cost for a Z97 motherboard as well (the A and AR models have different colours, but are functionally identical). I have two gripes with it though. First, the manual makes many references to wifi that doesn't exist in that model. Not confusing in the least. More egregious are the horrible design of the RAM slots. They only have a release lever at one end, with the other end being spring loaded, which is a nice idea on paper but in practice requires excessive force to seat the RAM properly (I can push about 20 lbs sustained with my thumb, and I either need to use both hands, or sit the case upright so I can brace the backplane with my other hand). The Thermaltake P5 is neat, but I'd worry about dropping things into it (good looking cable management might also be a struggle).

I picked up Jagged Alliance: Back in Action. I know the game takes a lot of flak from fans of the previous Jagged Alliance games, and fair enough, but I've never played them and likely never will, since I'm not a fan of turn based combat. Anyway, the game has been super fun so far. I've finally broken out of the NE corner of the map, which is as far as I've ever seen the game played. I really like the varied level design, and the combat is pretty solid (though I need a way to abandon reloading). I also decided to use the realistic re balancing mod out of the gate. Current Squad:

I used to try to think of meaningful naming systems, but I could never remember them, especially if I used acronyms, so I've reverted to a system based on whimsy and familiarity. Essentially, when I create a new design (from scratch) I will give it a name (pulled from a variety of sources). If it is a design I like it will end up being refined and modified numerous times, appending the name with numbers or letters to show the revision/branch on the save file. Over time this cements the concept of a general design and its name in my mind. If I change a design enough that it no longer fits my mental definition for what that design is supposed to be, I'll give it a related name if I can. A lot of my rockets use mythological names, a traddition which started from my first source of names, MechAssault (Thor/Summoner, Atlas/Prometheus). My current plane program uses names from SAO. Essentially, names are something I bestow to designs that I really like and find myself frequently using, and they rarely get reused for a new design (because the association becomes too strong). For bigger missions I'll name the ships themselves independently of their design, particularly for interplanetary missions. There are other names I often use for ships on a particular mission, and they do get reused (they also aren't the save file names. They might be named designs or one off rockets with utilitarian names). This is partly because if I wander away from the game, I need to be able to remember what I was doing with a specific mission. If I see a ship called Necromancer then it must be trying to save some Kerbals. If I see a Transcendence it's probably an exploration thing (often carrying landing probes), while Ascension is usually my first name for an interplanetary land and return gig (necromancer saves the dead/dying, transcendence gains knowledge, and ascension returns to the heavens if you're wondering where I got the names).

I've decided to put some more effort into my crew recovery plane. I like the version I got to that I showed off a few days ago, but the design of that plane isn't quite right for the role. The plane was originally conceived as a passenger jet, so that's what I used as a design reference. But then I added the cargo bay for the rover, and suddenly I had something that was fun enough that I really wanted to use it (and I have), and that brings to light some shortcomings. Landing in uneven terrain was always in the cards, but now that I plan on making more frequent and long ranged use of this plane, I thought I would change the design to give more of a utilitarian or cargo aesthetic and improve the ground clearance: Suguha C crew retrieval plane. It carries an air drop ready automated rover in the rear cargo bay that can provide transportation for crews who touch down in rough terrain, and ferry up to 5 Kerbals back to the Suguha once it has found a place to land. The Suguha can carry up to 16 passengers, and is capable of touching down at speeds as low as 40 m/s depending on the terrain. Moving the wings was the big thing, but I also added engines, another tail, and redid the flaps and ailerons to address various issues. SAS is disappointing though. Even trimmed to maintain nearly perfectly level flight, engaging SAS drops the nose. It's like it centers all the control surfaces for a fraction of a second, dropping the nose a hair, then centers on that orientation. Might look into seeing if kOS could be made to function as an autopilot, otherwise this plane would be quite tiring to fly extended distances at high altitude (SAS works well enough bellow 2-3km, but is useless above 5).

I finally completed a little side project to build a crew retrieval and rescue aircraft for manned missions that land too far away from the space center for a ground pickup. The Suguha: Suguha Remote Retrival Fully fueled, the plane should be able to retrieve crew from any ground landing on the planet (her estimated maximum range is in excess of 4,000 km, sufficient to circumnavigate Kerbin if you have 8+ hours to burn). For crew that land in rough terrain where the Suguha cannot land, it can air drop an automated ground transport that seats 5. The ground transport draws power from both solar and thermal generators for all weather and time of day running, and is reasonably robust. The transport can re-dock inside the cargo bay, and even be re-deployed/re-dropped in the field for multiple retrievals (the Suguha seats 4 crew + 16 passengers). Bill couldn't pass up a chance to participate in the air drop Back in the cargo bay, safe and sound Edit: Tomorrow if I have the time, I want to polish up a couple things, and I'll see if I can't make a video of her in action and share the craft. The plane is an easy flyer, and it's fun to use.

I recall the older versions of the game as tending to favour stout designs over long ones. Aerodynamically there was little difference, and the barn door approach was more stable because it could better resist deadly flexing. For me, that led to a style of rocket that had 'waist tanks' on the orbital transfer stage (upper stage radial fuel tanks) to cut down on the length of the rocket and provide a convenient point of leverage for struts (running from bellow the transfer stage engine to the bottom of the tanks, and from the top of the tanks to the final stage(s). My designs started to change once new and larger parts were added, along with new places to visit. The LV-N engines in particular got me into radially mounted engines on that transfer stage. Finally, I picked up the Kethane mod, which prompted me to move the LV-N's to the landing stage instead, with the landing gear attached to the central body of the craft. That design pattern is one I still use for some general tasks like ore mining, crew/cargo transport, and general exploration.

I made a new game and started by vising the Mun arch. Apparently I've not been there in so long that I totally forgot it takes more than a match and baked beans induced flatulance get back to Kerbin. The Eggheads back at KSC did some 'computer simulations' for me and concluded that the 800 dv Jab had left wasn't going to cut it. Not a problem. A solution was quickly devised to take a surplus testing prototype, upgrade the automated control for proper remote guidance, and modify the lander stage for increased fuel capacity and endurance. The modifications were made in short order and the rescue rocket sent out. It arrived safely on the surface only a couple km off target...with 910 dv. We're still running simulations. Some of the math boys are insisting that the rocket should be able to make it home, while others are telling us that the latest rocket is still roughly 60 m/s short on fuel, which is in line with the latest computer modelling results. These rockets were not designed with long term comfort or survival in mind, so work has already begun on a last ditch contingency using the final surplus rocket. It's an earlier revision prototype, but can be brought up to spec in short order. Unless the computer can find a way to bring Jeb home, he will have to use the first rescue ship to get into a high Munar orbit where he will meet with the second rescue mission. The fuel savings will more than ensure a safe and speedy return to Kerbin. It's not all bad news though. The fist landing was done blind in IVA (no view of the ground). The rescue landing was completely blind as the landing target had become the dark side during landing. Ground survey during EVA transfer suggests that second landing almost took place on a highly inclined crater wall. If that lander had been lost, it is likely the persisting fuel issue would have been missed and the third rocket sent out without an adequate plan.

So you don't think being playable should be a factor? I'll give you an example. I bought GTA 4 at a time when I had been playing older games on a weak laptop, and didn't give much thought to the specifications for what was then a relatively new game. And, my laptop could absolutely launch and play the game; wasn't an issue. What was an issue was the render times and range. The frame rate was workable, but as soon as I tried to drive I found out that I was driving into obstacles and other vehicles before they could be rendered (I was hitting things that were invisible at the time of impact). My laptop was I think rightly well under the minimum specifications, but it could run the game regardless. It just couldn't run the game well enough to be considered playable.

Always enjoy reading behind the scenes stuff, even on topics like fonts I do have a question though. I notice in the example that you left the Kerbal's name written in the Latin Alphabet, and was wondering why you left it that way? For me, if I were playing a game that was originally made in say, Russian, having names that are written with the Cyrillic alphabet would be very frustrating because I wouldn't know how to begin pronouncing those names (which also makes it unlikely that I can remember who anyone is). So I'm wondering if the names were left in 'English' because there is simply no good way to translate them into Japanese(?), especially where a lot of the names are 'made up' and will lack existing translations, or if the prevalence of English on the world stage means that even non speakers are a lot better at dealing with our alphabet than I am dealing with Cyrillic, or Kanji, or any other non Latin Alphabet. Maybe both.

Insofar as the plane can maintain a stable altitude at a lower speed for the same pitch, or a higher rate of climb for the same pitch and speed; yes. In terms of greater intrinsic lift; no. It's not 'true lift', it's a useful change in geometry. For that plane, the lift effects are not very useful. It just needs them to keep the nose up and allow for a proper landing flare.

I have a passenger jet that uses them. In level flight, deploying the flaps is usually good for about a 10-15 m/s climb in additional lift. They're mostly useful for slower landings by acting as air brakes and helping the nose stay up (the ailerons are ahead of the CoM, so they try to push the nose up). They can also be used to achieve tighter banked turns for the same Angle of Attack, though the difference isn't on that particular plane.

E=mc2 is indeed powerful. Since I find it interesting, I will point out for anyone who doesn't know that the mass being converted is merely that of the potential chemical energy stored in an atomic nucleus, which forms the mass defect (an atomic nuclear has more mass than the constituent protons and neutrons, since the potential energy stored in that system itself has mass, as all energy does).

I remember seeing someone do something like this for a subsim game once Anyway, it looks fantastic; something we can all be jealous of once you're done. I've had the pleasure of operating a space shuttle flight simulator before, and what I wouldn't give to have something like that for the home. As for not using all of the monitors, I think that is standard fare if the height of the screens doesn't match. In this case, the monitors in portrait mode are probably higher in pixels than the TV is. That is, the game window is one giant rectangle being laid down across the 3 screens, so if the screen resolutions don't combine to make one larger rectangle themselves, there will be unused portions. It might not look quite as pretty, but you might need to change the resolution of the side screens (and it might have to be custom, not a standard size). For example, if the TV is running 1920x1080, then the size screens should be running at 610x1080 or something. Also, double check that the TV is showing overscan and actually running at 1920x1080 (1080p), rather than your computer running it at a slightly lower resolution. TV's don't show the edges of a full HD picture by default, so computers sometimes default to a slightly lower resolution that avoids having all the edges chopped off, and that will prevent the side screens being used properly if they're already set to work with 1920x1080.

Yeah, that thought has occurred to me as well. As much as I would like the low pressure system to take an unexpected hike and make way for some more snow by Christmas (currently scheduled for Boxing Day). The world was totally dusted in Snow yesterday morning, but then it got warm and rained and all the snow was gone within a couple hours of sunrise. Then it got cold again, as if to suggest the weather had deliberately warmed up just to rain all the snow away.

No white Christmas dreams here anymore. We went from -15 C to +12 in less than 36 hours, and combined with rain, we lost most of the snow. Looks like it's going to stay above 0 now through Christmas and possibly rain here and there. I miss how bright the snow made everything at night. I had forgotten about that. With all the snow we had, you could see pretty clearly out at least a couple of kilometres by just the light of a nearly full moon on a cloudy night. With the moon and all that snow, it just never really gets dark. Makes the world feel kind of grim now by comparison.

Might enjoy False Logic Puzzles by Norman Willis. The whole book is puzzles that work like this, though most of them are harder such that you can't instantly rule out each incorrect suspect by their own statements. It takes a while to get used to solving this kind of logic puzzle, but once you get into it, they're a lot of fun. My reasoning would be the same as LN400, though I like how Stibbons got it.