Randox

I'll have to agree with those above me. While I am sad to see Maxis go, the truth is Maxis as we used to know it hasn't existed for some time. The cruel twist in all this is that I doubt very much that the Maxis studio is responsible for the troubles experienced by their recent titles. They took their marching orders from EA as essentially just another EA developer. That is to say, I don't blame you Maxis, it wasn't your fault.

For stealth and story, Alpha Protocol. It doesn't have to be a stealth game, but it's probably one of the most engaging approaches. This game is also a shining example of how to let a player make meaningful choices, and how to tell a story. The player impact on the game, the story telling, the morality system (sort of), and the gameplay are all brilliant. This is easily one of the best games I have ever played. Rather than a proper morality system with nicely labeled options like Mass Effect, you are presented with approaches you can take, and it's up to you to decide how people will react, and what reaction you even want. You'll often need to change things up during an interaction. Also, things like mission order impact the game. For example, you will be buying your weapons on the black market, and if you carry out a mission to take out a major cache of weapons and smugglers in the area, that's going to impact what is available to you for purchase. Other choices impact how the story develops and so on. This makes gathering and understanding intelligence in the game important if you want to be able to anticipate the consequences of your actions on how the game is going to play out. As stated in game, "there are no good or bad choices, just results". You might also like DCS World. It's a combat flight simulator, and it is a free game that comes with the Su-25t (and a mustang trainer. Other planes are paid DLC). The planes are detailed to various levels. The Su-25t is on the lighter end. You can start it up with a key keyboard commands, though if you really want to get the most out of it, your probably looking at a few hours on youtube (Robert Sogomonian has a fantastic set of videos for it, which serve as a good look at what you can expect from the game as well). You also have planes like the A-10C which have much more involved computer systems than something like the 25t. The flight as well is fantastic. And one final thought. You might like the Myst games. They're essentially point and click puzzle games. The first game was recently redone (for the second time) and is truly spectacular. You can also walk around the world, a feature not found in the original games until the fourth one (I think. Might have just been the last game, number five that has that). Riven is also available on steam, though it may not work. At the very least, the map viewer, one of the last puzzles, may not function correctly and require you to look up the answer. The second and third games are the best if you ask me, with Riven (#2) taking the cake and Exile (#3) being the close second. Both games a entirely point and click, with point to point movement. Exile has better graphics, and 360 degree camera movement. Do note that both these games are pre-rendered (they predate personal computers that could have rendered such graphics in real time), so there is nothing you can really do to improve them graphically.

I think this guy nailed it. Every rocket starts with a westward trajectory relative to Kerbin, so if you slap some unsteerable fins on a rocket that otherwise has very little control authority, it's just going to follow that initial westward heading. Someone else in this thread already pointed out that if you use launch clamps to instead give the rocket an initial eastward trajectory, it will behave exactly the same, except it will fly east instead of west. It really is a PEBKEAC situation I think. If you could freeze Kerbin entirely in place (relative to Kerbol which I don't believe has any simulated movement relative to a Galaxy or anything) and tried this experiment again, you would almost certainly find that your rocket now ascends straight up. The moral of this experiment is that rockets should not be using fixed wings/fins that exceed their other control options, and as Ival has pointed out, you would probably have better luck moving the wings up closer to the CoM to reduce the fins own control authority down to a level that something like a gimbaled engine can overcome. What you have created in your experiment is a rocket powered arrow, with exactly as much control over it's vector as the real deal, leaving you entirely at the mercy of your initial vector and gravity. Fins, gimbals, and torque wheels wouldn't seem to be the workaround to a problem in the game so much as the very real workaround to a very real problem. Your rockets are behaving exactly as one would expect, they're just operating in a context most people are familiar working in.

Once again confirmed that I long ago forgot how to land properly on Mun, and it is now just a black hole sucking up all my dV every time I land something on it. From transfer to Mun to setting an aerobrake periapsis on return (and I did land. Poorly.), I burned an astounding 2400 dV with a prototype interplanetary ship. Even with aerobraking, I decided that that 600 remaining dV wasn't going to be enough to circularize and rendezvous with the crew return pod I sent up to retrieve Jebediah. Fortunately, I only got cold feet about the interplanetary ships reentry worthiness after launch, so it was properly equipped, and was able to descend quite safely. Can't say the same for the rescue pod. It was built under the assumption it would be manned during descent, with the probe core intended to be mounted on the interplanetary ship to test its reentry capabilities. Failing to take this into account when I aborted the mission and de-orbited the rescue pod, the probe core was inadvertently ejected before the parachute was armed, causing complete loss of the vehicle. After that debacle, I decided to upgrade my plane side project so that it could go supersonic. This was the result: It might not look like anything special, but that was easily one of the most intense and difficult landings I've ever performed in any version of this game. While testing to see how fast my plane could go, I managed to overheat and explode...something. I wasn't sure what had happened at the time, not seeing anything that was clearly missing from my still quite flyable plane. In retrospect, I think I lost my outer ailerons, which provided half my pitch control. I discovered that I had poor pitch control at less than 200 m/s with 130 causing an uncontrollable rise of the nose leading into a tumble. I was unable to pull out of the third tumble, forcing me to deploy the landing chute (radial drogue). While I was able to control the plane, I realized that it wasn't landable, still being unable to fly slow and level (she could fly much slower with the chute, but only while descending to pull the back end up). With nothing to lose, I decided to try spinning, the closest I could get to burning retrograde. My stable descent with the chute was 75 m/s, too fast to survive (but not by much), and by turning hard and taking advantage of the nose rise, and using a little thrust, was able to hold the plane in a sharp turn with the engines far enough from prograde to bring the speed down to 40-45 m/s. It was a pretty hard landing, but my pilot survived. The plane will now be modified with contingencies for control surface losses, and a tweaked weight distribution.

I'm really enjoying it, even though I'm not yet used to all the changes. I feel like it's already forced me to become a better pilot, but things also now behave more as I would expect them too, which is actually making it easier for me design a stable rocket, or fly a plane. With the in game resource system seeming to be a good replacement to the Kethane mod I was using, the only thing I am really sour about right now is losing the docking cam mod. I can dock without it, but it's not as fun or awesome Without all the translation and alignment data, I can't set up the glide well enough to watch from another ship or on EVA like I used too. Still, the game just keeps getting better and better, and I can't argue with that.

Perhaps there is some circumstance I am missing, but the fairings definitely have mass, at least according to Kerbal Engineer. Since I got ninja'd... I noticed yesterday that my fairings hide rocket wobble. I actually like this since it looks way nicer not having the rocket flex on the way up visually, and it holds the aerodynamics stable. It's neat if you go IVA inside the fairing though. Now all I need are deployable struts with cables that I can extend radially once clear of an atmosphere to help stiffen long rockets without interfering with aerodynamics during ascent (don't need them on the way up anyway. Boosters strapped to the side do a fine job of adding rigidity).

Good to know the math still works out. I am, of course, not ascending vertically. At some point I'll get around to actually tracking my dV expenditure and possibly fine tuning it. Based on stuff I've been reading, and the limits on how fast I can roll the rocket into a turn, I've been trying to restrain my speed (likely not enough) in the lower atmosphere, and wait until I am in thinner air and closer to level to really gun the engines. It's working quite well in so far as my circularization burn at apoapsis is usually 200-400 m/s, instead of my customary 1100-1300. Can't say I've had any stability problems related to aerodynamics with the rockets. Both of the ones I've been making use of since 1.0 are quite happy to go transonic. If anything, the heavy lifter in particular enjoys the extra control authority granted to the fins. I also feel like my TWR on...everything, might be excessive. However, since I have a rocket that can blow past terminal velocity like it's being chased by angry ghosts, I might do some test launches and see if speed ever causes control issues.

Got my Refinery and Miner all set up around Minmus. Early results are encouraging as to the usefulness of this project with the new stock resource system. Really miss my docking camera, but still pretty good at docking anyway. The NMS Anubis (miner) and NRS Hephaestus (refinery station). I think the dV might be a bit worse, but it's much easier to fly and land than my old kethane miners, and it has enough fuel for it's purpose. It's a purpose built ship now, not a modular craft, so that works just fine for me. I'm also really liking my heavy lifter design. I think with a little work doing a better job securing payloads and giving the lifter stage some RCS thrusters, I could probably insert up to 50, maybe 55 tonnes right into a Minmus orbit.

For me, I suppose it comes down to my being pretty good at docking, and not so good at interplanetary transfers. Running down and grabbing some fuel is pretty easy, while sending it out from Kerbin tends to be the bigger headache for me. I did get my orbital refinery and miner set up. The refinery made its way from Kerbin under its own power, while the miner took over once it hit Minmus. One load of 3000 ore was enough to top off the fuel tanks and mono prop in both ships, with a little left over. With my Atlas lifter, I should be able to carry up to at least a 60 tonne payload to a Minmus intercept using the lift stage, and I should be able to insert 50-55 tonnes right into orbit (if I can make the construction a bit more rigid). I figure that should be enough for one trip to refuel the miner and a couple arriving payloads, so I'm pretty happy.

This what I am doing, as I used to do with Kethane. I prefer refueling as a mater of preference because it means I have more freedom to design what I want, and not worry super hard about fuel capacity. Besides, it gives me a whole lot of ships to build and missions to fly on the side, so it keeps you busy. With Kethane, I used to use a small refinery on the miner to top off it's fuel tanks on the surface, rather than use fuel refined by a station. I'd have the rest refined by a station which was more efficient, but the refinery was also quite heavy. Planning on using the same setup with ore, though I think now I have to refuel with the stuff I refine in orbit, which is a pain (the drills seem to have a converter option, but I assume it doesn't work). At this point though, I'm just having fun and seeing how this all works.

My only issue so far is that you have to flair the base of the fairing so much. No everyone mounts the widest point of the payload 2m above the fairing base. Perhaps there is a good reason for that. To my mind, it seems like it would create excessive, perhaps dangerous, turbulence behind the fairing. The exploding fairing doesn't bother me too much. It strikes me as the way Kerbals would do it anyway, points of failure and all. Mostly though, I just appreciate not having these payloads with horrific aerodynamics strapped to the front of my rocket. Now I have this nice pretty fairing instead. I wouldn't object to a 4 part separation though. I think that would be more majestic.

It took some doing, but I have a new resource miner for my space program, which will hopefully work well. I also have what will serve as my new Atlas Launcher heavy lifting rocket, I think the largest rocket I've ever built. Here she is, sitting pretty with the new miner, ready for her first manned flight. After some serious trimming down, it now has 5200 dV available to the lifting stages while carrying a 52 tonne payload (the miner isn't that small), while the miner has available a meager 1200 dV (going to be a lot less than that with the ore tanks full, but it should be good enough for my purposes). Sitting on the launch pad the rocket stands at 111m tall. She flies like a dream too. You have to be really aggressive with the gravity turn at the start, and dial the throttle back to at least 66% (lest you end up in a cartoonishly high orbit), but it handles quite well. Might have something to do with using 8 full delta wings (with matching ailerons) as the tail fins. I also tested the miner, and it can survive re-entry and water landings (11.7 m/s is probably excessive for a ground landing). It can be seen (sort of) testing this capability here: That...might not be plan A.

As fascinating as all this is (and it's been helpful for sure), I am left with questions about optimal speed during ascent to avoid creating excessive drag forces. Previously, I would follow the terminal velocity values, and I've continued doing that into 1.0, but this often results in my going hypersonic (flames) on the way up. Am I going way too fast? Or perhaps it's not such a huge deal anymore and I should just put the hammer down and get to orbit as fast as I can without making anything explode? The rocket I've been doing most of the playing with since the patch can pull 3+ g's the entire way to establishing apoapsis. I also have to say the more pronounced gravity turn is a bit freaky. It really feels like I'm about to nose dive back into the planet. It's nice to be so close to a circular orbit though from the initial burn. Way less work to do in space, and the short burn creates a more even orbit.

I often use Mun as a testing ground for new designs, as well as Minmus and Kerbin itself, depending on what I need to test. I certainly deal more with Minmus, at least historically (I've yet to test out the new resource mining, but I previously performed Kethane mining on Minmus), but I do perform Munar landings from time to time.

Only got around to trying out 1.0.2 for the first time tonight. Decided to just slap something together to get a feel for the new aerodynamics and heating system before I tried anything more ambitious. May I present the Nova T1 testbed: I have to admit, I was a bit surprised (and more than a bit alarmed) by the fuel consumption, though I was just winging the speed (rather than looking up the values for an efficient ascent). I also accidently turned the engines off for several seconds, performed cartwheels while attempting to gravity turn, and neglected to connect the booster fuel tanks to the center stack, and she still made it into a 90/110 orbit with 45% fuel remaining in the half tank on the second stage (not enough to go anywhere, but more than enough to land). A trio of winglets on the main stack would also not be unwelcome, for after the boosters are dropped. She landed just fine, though there was a little bit of panic when I couldn't remember if the altitude setting on the parachute was sea level or radar (it's radar). 90/50 descent setup, could have been a lot more aggressive which such a light return assembly. Didn't even lose the battery. So basically, I screwed up the launch at every opportunity in a rocket I threw together in 5 minutes, and the mission was still a resounding success. That is truly the Kerbal way (and of course Jebediah was the pilot). I very much look forward to trying to recreate my Kethane fleet under the new inbuilt system. The only hitch is that my mining fleet is truly going to be incapable of atmospheric landings now, so I'll have to work out a shuttle instead. No matter, I just need to decide how to name them.

It looks nice, but I can't really say I know anything more about the game after watching the E3 video than I did after reading the first page of this thread (the first I'd heard of it). From what I can tell, I think I'll stick to space engineers. It's never going to have procedurally generated wildlife (that would be neat though), but I'm more inclined to ship construction in my space games as a matter of preference.

While I can't say the idea of paying for mods has me hopping up and down with excitement, I can't say I oppose the idea. That said, I feel like everyone would be happier with a minimum price system, authors and users alike. For the existing modding community, there is some really fantastic stuff out there that absolutely reaches a level of quality where asking for some money would be quite reasonable. A mod like Falskaar for Skyrim rivals the quality and scope of the official Dragonborn and Dawnguard DLC for example. That said, the existing modding community in general obviously isn't in it for the profit, which is why I think a minimum price system would be good. I think even if you set the minimum to zero, more people would bother to send money in the mod authors direction without limiting anyone from using the content. My other thought is that there are probably more really talented people out there who could be willing to enter the modding community if they had more options to ensure some compensation.

As someone whose toyed with the idea of doing this (and that did involve some test uploads), I really like OBS (open broadcast software). I don't think you'll find anything better without paying money. It's a bit more feature limited than something like Dxtory with regards to stuff like recording formats, but it works just fine once you set it up properly. That may be the biggest downside to it really, that it is almost certainly not the easiest recording software to setup, so you'll probably want to spend a couple minutes googling recording settings, and watch a video or two on youtube. I can provide the settings I use to record if you like. And of course, if you ever get into streaming, that's actually the bread and butter of what OBS does, so you can do both with the same program. One of the youtubers I watch has actually started recording everything with OBS instead of using dxtory for his youtube material to make his life a bit simpler. You'll still need a program for video editing. For simple stuff, like cuts or some text on the screen, you can absolutely get away with windows movie maker, and I'd actually recommend that you do exactly that, at least long enough to decide if this is something you want to keep doing and spend money on. And actually, to that end, I'd definitely suggest starting with OBS and windows movie maker, since they'll at least be able to meet your needs long enough for you to decide if you want to keep going or not.

This should be good. I already had it, but the gameplay still needs to be developed, and with such a small number of players I haven't bothered in a while. I think you also get the Commander Jingles voice pack for free if you play it this week (done by a youtuber mostly famous for World of Tanks).

This is what happens when I write things when I'm tired. I blame recording things in phases with different settings that would confuse me down the line. Everything I have was done with H.264 as far as I can remember (don't see why I would have changed it), I just got a lot better with the compression (and a computer that can do it faster).

I've used a program in the past called AdwCleaner, which can be found here: http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/download/adwcleaner/ It's a really thorough cleaner specifically tooled to take out the stuff that often comes bundled in downloads. I started using it after I got some particularly tenacious adware got onto my system, and this program did a lot of heavy lifting to help out (it was a team effort in conjunction with I think malwarebytes and good old fashioned googling with manual searching). The program I linked to is also kind of nice in that it doesn't install to your system at all. It's a simple executable. You will also find that certain programs have other programs that exist specifically to remove them. Off the top of my head, one actually exists for the Norton Antivirus program, which is somewhat infamous for it's absolute refusal to properly uninstall itself. Where these programs exist, they tend to be extremely effective.

Footage at 720x480 (which is the 3:2 ratio of 480p, so widescreen standard definition) is about 10MB using the avi format. Mp4 is about the same, maybe a tad bigger, while with the mkv format, you can bump that up to 720p (1280x720) while dropping the filesize down to 5.9MB to 7.5MB per minute (mkv is pretty good). The tablet can probably play all of those formats, so a worst case scenario based on the numbers I have would be about 90 hours of video at standard definition (using mp4 or avi), with a best case scenario of up to 120 hours at 720p using the mkv format. I expect that services like amazon use mp4, so you could be as low as 34 hours at 720p using mp4 (I don't have anything on hand at that resolution in that format, so that's my projection for the filesize increase. It may be a few hours better than my projection, which is based on a linear relationship between screen area and file size). Still, your looking at about a solid day and a half of video in the worst case scenario (and almost a strait week in the best), which will hopefully be long enough that you can use a computer or find an internet connection (I don't know how those services work) and get some new material before you run out. When I travel, I load up my phone and some extra thumb drives with TV shows to kill time at the airport. I have much less capacity than that, and if I cut the footage down to standard definition (which doesn't matter on a phone sized screen, at least to me), I can get a good few hours out of it. So far it's been enough to get me where I'm going and back again. Now I have a 32GB tablet as well, which is almost enough to fit all 5 seasons of babylon 5 (I actually can get all 5 seasons if I split it up between my phone and tablet). Best part is, once I watch a show, I can delete it and use the thumb drive in my camera.

With the program running: Settings>General(default)>Language Assuming all the buttons are in chinese for you... There are 8 buttons in the lower right corner, two columns of four. Settings is the top button on the left column. The settings window should open to general by default. The list on the left side of the window should show the top word highlighted in blue. If this is not the case, click on that word (the one at the top) to change to general. Language is the top setting in the options pane, click on the dropdown menu box and select english. Make sure to look around and get some ideas on how to set up OBS for recording instead of streaming too. In particular, you may want to bump the quality up past what is available by default (custom x264 encoder settings, look for 'crf').

I wont drink coffee because of the taste and smell, but stuff like red bull has a very minimal effect, if any. I'm ADD, and frankly the stimulants and the dosage I use to manage that seem to make caffeine pretty much irrelevant. All evidence would point to my brain not being particularly responsive to stimulants and even eugeroics in the first place, sort of like how some people are resistant to pain medications (which I am not, mercifully).

I was this person for a brief period when I was 13. Had been doing some research for one of my classes and came across a conspiracy site for it, and some of what they were saying made a lot of sense to my 13 year old brain, so I told my parents about it. My parents refuted it fairly well, but I did keep some of the stuff that site brought up in the back of my mind, because it was still interesting (the shadows in particular) and I wanted to know why some of the stuff regarding the landing was the way it was. Years later, I got to see the mythbusters show about this, which was cool, since I had been holding onto some of those questions for a while (like, a decade at least).