Lisias

Don't bet your coins on it. I'm running KSP on a MacMini, also on an aluminium case. And it gets HOT. Some MacBooks are not known for running cool neither. The thing can be so bad as some people use copper nickels stacked on the MacBook to help on the cooling. Click on the image for more info.

I think it's KAX. The rear landing gears are from FireSpitter.

I don't think we have enough fuel on this planet to get someone out of a black hole's orbit!

Not necessarily. Let me propose an alternative: Only if such energy is usable somewhere else. If you choose to put the guy's freezer on a geothermal energy source, the only cost would be the maintenance of the energy converters. Space Tourism will be simnifically more wasteful , IMHO. Not necessarily. You are assuming the good faith of the historians, what History taught us is not something you can rely on. It would be a very enlightening event talking with a Classic Greece citizen, for example. What he/she would told us would be biased, of course, but still useful. It's a bit more than 60 years from the last World War, and people are already trying to rewrote it. This is a problem to be handled by the tomorrow's society. Assuming that such experiment will be successfully carried on as time goes by, people in charge of the mission would take the needed measures. The guy would be long dead without constant support anyway... That didn't worked very well for the Neanderthal's history preservation. Knowledge is finickle - only two generations, and everything is lost if not cautiously studied and preserved. We are unable to reproduce the Saturn's F-1 engines nowadays. We have the schematics, but we lost the manufacturing know-how. Humanity just lost the skills needed to redo the F-1 engine! We can build something equivalent, but we cannot reproduce it anymore. We don't know how the Lycurgus Cup were made, neither. And just recently, after a lot of investment on research, we "rediscovered" how romans made their concrete - probably the best concrete ever made by the human race.

While diagnosing and (trying to) fixing a problem on a Mod, I ended up trashing a lot of Missions I did (under Contract Configurator). Since I already had set back my savegame due involuntary cheating (I forgot a cheat activated testing another problem), I didn't bored to try to restore it from a backup. However, I also ended up with a hand full of Tourists that just don't go away! (leftovers from the vanished missions). Since I vowed not to kill a single Kerbal on this savegame, I think I will torture them for some time before dismissing them - I vowed not to kill, and that's all I vowed to. . So I took my X-3 Mach3 plane, shoved some cabins on it and put some (Screaming) Tourist to fly over Mach 2 at 5 meters high. I'm pretty sure they realized pretty fast the reason the vomit bags were replaced by diapers on the emergency kit…. 2.5Gs of acceleration on a straight line: and almost 11Gs on turning. Boy, I'm happy now. — — — — But since we are already here, and also due that vanishing missions accident, I'm redoing my CC missions again - what's being interesting (and funny) with the current know-how. This is my (re)flight of Tito's Tourism, my Space Tourism kick off rocket. 100% recoverable - if you manage to get the thing in orbit (really hard, as I don't eject absolutely nothing, not even the escape tower - that is used to help on the deorbit burn, so tight is my fuel profile!). This baby had 140tons at launch, and now with tanks near depleted, she's weighting about 35 tons. Tito wants a 4 hours flight, so I'll probably will scare the "paper" out of him only tomorrow morning. 3:-)

My mom gave it to me. (they say it was a difficult childbirth!)

You will still be facing some lag, I'm sorry. But the startup time will be WAAAY faster. KSP uses a thread for each ship - so, if you only have one craft on flight, the i7 will not make that difference compared to the i5. To tell you the true, this new i5 can be slightly faster than the old i7. On the other hand, the Lenovo GPU' has 4GB for your textures - so, if the raw performance will not be that better, the graphic's quality will be. You probably will run Scatterer without problems. — POST - EDIT — Follows a link comparing your current GPU with the Lenovo's one. https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/compare/GeForce-GTX-950M-vs-Radeon-HD-6750M/3171vs283

Sort of. When I resurrected the "FS3WL Water Launch System" from FireSpitter to work on 1.4.5, I noticed that some position datafiles are putting the craft slightly away from where the description says. The Shores put the craft on the water, and the Abandoned Runway Hangar exactly on the roof of the hangar. In the exploding middle of the roof.

Read this: (you will need to search steamdb for the 1.4.4 ids)

While the maintainer get things tight, you can give a try on this:

Hi. I think I stumble on some spurious interation between Craft Manager and Kerbal Konstructs I'm not sure who is stomping on the other's feet (and this can be caused by a third party!). If someone else see this happening on his KSP installment, please advise. — POST - EDIT — I just confirmed that it's something on KK in the method KerbalKonstructs.Core.LaunchSiteManager.AlterMHSelector () . Probably some other mod playing havoc, I will advise as soon as I have something new.

Hi. I think I stumble on some spurious interation between Craft Manager and Kerbal Konstructs I'm not sure who is stomping on the other's feet (and this can be caused by a third party!). If someone else see this happening on his KSP installment, please advise. — POST - EDIT — No! I just detected another situation where KK suffers a NRE in a very similar way. CraftManager is just a screaming victim.

"Space grade" duct tape has save more than an astronaut' SAS in the past!

I failed to follow you. My understanding is that the energy of a wave can be dispersed, not "loosed". Radiation irradiates (ugh…) in a spheric "format", and as this sphere grows in radius, the distance between the waves grows too. If some mass is near the emission point, a lot of such waves hit the mass. If such mass is far enough, the waves could pass around it and the "heat" is not transferred a bit - but all that energy is still there - only scattered to all directions.

If I understood correctly all the Physics lessons, what we call "heat" is nothing more than Energy in waveform - as light. In a way, we are all lamps irradiating thermal energy, in the same way a LED irradiates energy in the visible spectrum (but not only), or a FM transmitter emits electromagnetic waves. Sometimes, such thermal irradiation is on the visible spectrum (molten iron). Being that… How exactly my body would irradiate heat directly to my walls, and the walls directly back to me, with all that air between me and the wall? Would not be the convention the responsible for the heat transfer? After all, there're moles and moles of air molecules in the way to absorb and refract such emissions. — POST-EDIT — I think I answered my own question, while typing the question! Heat is energy, and sometimes it's visible (molten iron). So it shares physical properties with light. Some bodies absorbs light, others are transparent to it. It's the same with infra-red and ultra-violet emissions (not surprisingly). So it appears to me that air is somewhat (but not entirely) transparent to heat. So my body emissions reach the walls. And vice versa. Makes sense? It's correct?

Transferring implies in a donor and a receiver. There's no necessarily a receiver on irradiation.

Reading the posts, I came to an analogy: Do you remember Potential Energy? The energy a body has, given a situation? For example, a 1Kg mass rock hung at 10 meters high has way less Potential Energy than the same rock hung at 100 meters. Think on Delta-V as "Potential Velocity". Given my mass and the fuel I have on the tanks, how much velocity I can get from where I am?

As far as I know, it's "irradiated", not exactly "transferred" as we are used to see here, under an atmosphere.

I was thinking on collateral effects - something that should not have a autoStrutMode set , even to off. However, I just used EEX to autostrut everything to Grandparent, and the texture flickering persisted - while the parts didn't trembled. So, yeah. EEX appears to be unrelated, and I'm facing something new. I will post a video by night, I found more people talking about it and this will be interesting to fix. — EDIT — It's not related to the altitude. It's related about acceleration and speed. I got the quivering/flickering effect on high atmosphere by doing a low slope ascent. The magical speed appears to be ~1600m/s (+/- 100), and only under >2G acceleration. This is going to be interesting!

I'm on it. However, my vessels are quivering when they are near the Karman Line, and I never saw that before. The parts "flickers" and "tremble", and it appears to affect the face's normals on rendering. I'm trying to figure out if my change is related, if it's a colateral effect from Kerbal Joint Reinforcement, or it's something new and completely unrelated with this!

I came to this: if (GUILayout.Button("No Autostruts")) { RefreshParts(); foreach (Part p in parts) { if (!doNotMessWithAutoStrutModes.Contains(p.autoStrutMode)) try { p.autoStrutMode = Part.AutoStrutMode.Grandparent; p.ToggleAutoStrut(); } catch(Exception e) { p.autoStrutMode = Part.AutoStrutMode.Off; Debug.LogException(e); } } OSDMessage("Autostruts turned OFF for all current Parts in Vessel (except forced)."); } The exception is being raised by p.ToogleAutoStrut(). So, if anything goes wrong, the p.autoStrutMode will have a improper value, and this is what will be saved to file - perpetuating the error. This way we would have the Exception logged for eventual analysis, and we will also ensure a safe value on the Twekable. User should save the vessel right now (preferably with a new name), and then reload it. Just to be on the safe side.

Problem is…. Here too. CC is not crashing at the moment on that very same craft it was crashing some hours ago! I spent some time trying to figure out why, and I think I realized the reason: my last debugging session messed up my save game, and all my accepted contracts were deleted. So I have no contracts running right know. I remember that one of that contracts demanded a flight to be completed without breaking a single part (I was stuck on exactly that one, my planes have that weird tendency to hug the grass), so it make sense that CC would monitor the Joints! A broken joint would invalidate the contract - even if the part is not destroyed. I also remember failing a bunch of contracts about landing a aircraft without breaking parts (all at the same time!) when two boosters collided after separation while kicking a rocket out of this world, so the Contract's checking happens all the time for every active contract. I don't know, yet, how to mangle the savegames so I will pursue a CC contract with that criteria in order to check the thesis. However, the following exception is being raised, apparently once for each offending part, when launching the vessel setting all the parts to AutoStrut Grandparent (probably all of them, but I didn't tested every single case) on the previous EEX: [EXC 00:33:15.856] NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object PartJoint.SetupJoint (Vector3 jointPos, Vector3 jointOrt, Vector3 jointOrt2, Int32 size) PartJoint.create (.Part child, .Part parent, UnityEngine.Transform nodeSpace, Vector3 nodePos, Vector3 nodeOrt, Vector3 nodeOrt2, Int32 nodeSize, AttachModes mode, Boolean rigid) PartJoint.Create (.Part owner, .Part parent, .AttachNode nodeToParent, .AttachNode nodeFromParent, AttachModes mode) Part.SecureAutoStrut (.Part anchor) Part+<SecureAutoStruts>c__Iterator3.MoveNext () UnityEngine.SetupCoroutine.InvokeMoveNext (IEnumerator enumerator, IntPtr returnValueAddress) So the issue with non-autostrutable parts being autostrutted is still reproducible on the previous EEX, what confirms the fix on the new one. As soon as I manage to get a Contract failing with that exception above, I'll try that try-catch stunt to recover mangled vessels.

Find a ladder or solar panel on the vessel, put "autostrutMode = GrandParent" on it. Or wait a couple hours, I'm on it. — POST - EDIT — Make it 3 or 4, my KSP just crashed on my face.

It will break on Contract Configurator (see my post above). You wil need to do something like this: RefreshParts(); foreach (Part p in parts) { try { if (!doNotMessWithAutoStrutModes.Contains(p.autoStrutMode)) { p.autoStrutMode = Part.AutoStrutMode.Grandparent; p.ToggleAutoStrut(); // blah blah blah blha } } catch (Exception as e) { Debug.Log("Oh my God, they killed Kenny!!!"); } To prevent that the breakage of some other mods interrupts the process. Replicate in all other commands.

Thinking is a very healthy habit. I should do that more frequently. Yeah. That's exactly it. Moreover, the Contract Configurator exception almost certainly is also due that! I'm prone to conclude that something changed on KSP 1.4.4 . The behaviour in question is novelty, but this savegame and this vessel were "in production" since the 1.4.3 era and they were working fine (including the Contract Configurator). — POST - EDIT -- Ladders, Struts and Solar Panels are not AutoStruttable.