Bej Kerman

Yeah, cause two objects don't qualify as being in the same orbit just because they're within a distance of each other.

Ah, right, because having to append a "sorry we didn't mean to advertise this unimplemented feature" tweet isn't a red flag.

@Dakota I don't usually ping the importants for anything, but surely it's not important to make sure the right messages are being communicated when posting material? The team is just setting traps up to hurt themselves with later here. In-cockpit views don't need advertising until it's an actual feature. Right?

Ah, yes, say it explicitly later then it's perfectly fine. The James Somerton method

They never said it's IVA so no, it isn't. A marketing team doesn't have to explicitly say something for it to be misleading.

Blender and Cura let you position the camera arbitrarily when in ortho mode and I assume the same goes for most other CAD software so I have no idea why the default behaviour here is to snap you out of ortho mode if you face away from one of the cardinal directions. Please don't fix.

I'm saying your working somewhat minced the point I was making. It was slower, now it's worse. Speed and effectiveness are two different worlds from my understanding of programming and development.

Oh, you do. The previous way you were wording it sounded like the complete opposite; This is probably the bit that confused me, cause I never said they'd be faster or slower.

...why use, and I quote if the marks don't make it evident, "100 idiots" to describe the dev team if that's "not what I was getting at".

Okay, well "100 idiots" is a blatant oversimplification of the dev team and you're not gonna see results by throwing them out and replacing them with more developers than before, and whoever is saying that "100 idiots don't make up for 10 trained individuals" isn't me.

I'm literally saying the opposite. What's being assumed here?

I'm trying for a serious convo as well. 100 people don't make a baby in 0.09 months. 100 programmers don't work 100x faster than 1. I don't know what part you're not understanding.

100 pregnant people don't make another person in 0.09 months.

The analogy becomes quite obvious with the context, which is not included in the part you quoted. The analogy is explaining that 100 developers aren't faster than 10 and also that training a new team would be a colossal timesink.

Because you need a signal to use a probe.

I think this looks extremely inconsistent. I'd redesign it from the ground up, keeping symmetry in mind. Instead of mixing an uneven octagon with curved gauges whose curves are wobbly and inconsistent, I'd either follow the template of the original navball, elements that conform to concentric circles, or make the entire element a square and make the gauges out of rectangles.

Even if you properly shut the engines off, you are not in the same orbit as your target and you should still slowly drift away over a period of several minutes. Being within 100m and having no relative velocity does not qualify as being in the same orbit. Also "stationkeeping" isn't a synonym for "staying perfectly still relative to another object". It's "staying roughly still relative to another object via active counteraction of external force". I wonder why they came up with a word which describes this. It's almost like two distant craft follow different paths.

Okay then. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts though when you've actually interacted with the feature you're promoting for 2.

Okay, but have you actually played with a LS mod? Or is this just coming from the image you have in your head of what it might be like? Nope.

we questioned what you know of phisics because you do not talk like an expert. Except for a few throwaway line that do hint at technical competence, like mentioning the physics of two spaceships orbiting each other (without whom I'd just dismiss your claims of MS as internet bravado), most of your messages come across as just ranting about things that have perfectly reasonable explanations. what you described in your first post was perfectly compatible with orbital drift, so the simplest explanation was that you were experiencing orbital drift and had no physical knowledge. even now, you boast of a MS in aerospace engineering but you never correctly describe orbital drifting. Their guidance code and whatever else they covered for their masters definitely won't pertain to the "space" in aerospace if they're having trouble coming to grips with the fact two orbits will behave differently to one another. I think that their qualifications are likely irrelevant to the discussion.

@ctbram CC If your drift is actually anomalous, this'll happen. When you're timewarping, your orbits are locked in place and it's impossible to exert force upon a craft. If the drift happens in timewarp then it's definitely just the physics you're claiming is broken.

That said, if it's behaving inconsistently, then there might be something buggy going on. It's hard to say without video of what's happening. ctbram was describing the vessels drifting apart slowly as opposed to a massive acceleration, so it's definitely not a bug.

And you are acted on by an external force, gravity.

Elaborate You're forcing words into our mouths, nobody said they'd "accelerate infinitely". We said the exact opposite, that without any thrust they'd follow their own orbits. The most fundamental principle of docking is that you and your target follow different orbits. If you're in a higher orbit than your target, you wait for it to catch up below you then you burn into a lower orbit. That doesn't magically stop happening just because you're within a few hundred meters. Feel free to show us. I doubt that. Your first post in this thread was you complaining that two vessels in different orbits didn't remain effectively attached to each other. Mail that to 5 hours ago when you were still writing that first paragraph So, a vessel in a 200x200km orbit and another vessel in a 205x205km orbit should NOT drift apart under normal physics?

Holy. excrements. Thread of the year.