Okhin

I'm working on some Eve aerocapture. And it's easier for me to build habitable airbrakes than use the 10m chutes and getting rid of it. Everything is perfectly nominal and nothing exploded. It's mostly ore tanks filled up with ore, for a total weigth of 1 MT (plus some). I'm not sure Jeb isn't scared or if he's happy with the plasma, flames, heat and the global feeling that his end mught be nigh (it's not, every part survived). I've got my orbit 7 Mm lower (I've cheated that in orbit with the in game cheat engine, on a very very eliiptic orbit and as far as I could get in the Eve SOI. It's not really a simulation for a full aerocapture, but there's some room before everything blow up, and also, there's engine I can use to help. And it makes for a nice flower. Or jellyfish. And it can protect rings of station that will be behind the flower (I'm planning on bringing one small ring station for Gilly, while keeping the big flower/jellyfish thinggy for Eve). The hinges are struggling keeping everything in place. Because, yes, it is foldable, it will help to launch the stuff in orbit I think. And I can animate it to make a real habitable space jellyfish. Sorta. I would not go too deep into Eve atmo though, 80km seems to be a hard limit. Like really hard one. Like everything explodes hard.

Finally found the time needed to research a bit how people leave Eve, and manage to create a ship which can helps me getting my brave scientist back into the crew rotation (even if they leave inside a nice mushroom, I heard they're getting bored). So, here is the ERV (Eve Return Vehicle), but maybe it should be called the Orpheus (since it can get in and out of hell). Missing on the picture is a Fairing to hide the landing stabilizers which mess with the aerodynamics on take off from Kerbin. Because yes, it is a Kerbin SSTO (and on a non efficient ascent I did have 100m.s of dV left). You'll notice the lack of heat shields. That's because the rocket is doing a powered landing. It rans out of fuel around 20km of altitude in Eve thick atmosphere, but the aforementioned atmosphere allow to slow down the craft and end with chutes. And then, it can take off. Well, after filling the 62.300 units of LF plus the 76.100 units of Ox. With only 2 small convert'o'tron and drills, so it'll take some time I guess. Crew can enter the shuttle with the lateral MK2 pods and ladders, and then transfer to the landing can with a magical lift. From there, it's only a matter of dropping the asparagus engines clusters, roaring through the thick atmo with all those mastodon engines, dropping the first stage to let the second stage vectors do some heavy pushing through lighter atmosphere (while not forgetting to drop the drop tanks when they're empty), and finish on a more classic Skiff engine for orbital insertion above Hell. So … sicne all simulations are OK, I need to build a mission around this, including carrying a ore extracting system to refill this monster around Gilly (I will not carry it filled from Kerbin orbit, it's way to heavy), some probes, satellites and com relay, probably a small electric plane for carrying crew around and some extension for the small space labs that's sitting in Eve LKO (docked to an emmpty nuclear tug, but that one could probably help somehow). I'm quite happy with this ship anyway, and I'll probably do a proper mission report with all of this. Craft is here Did I mention it can fly without a crew ?

Nothing. It's memory leaks (and other related things) which does that and, at some point, you're going to swap (using slow hard drive instead of RAM) on disk, which only makes things worse. And I think KSP is bad at releaseing this leaked memory, even after it dies (it might depends on your OS though). Adding more RAM, will only make the process of filling up the RAM with garbage a bit longer, but nothing can't really be done without a lot of rework on ressource allocation, which can probably be done essentially by Squad (and perhaps Unity, I do not know if their resource alocator and garbage collector are OK), and which is a very absolutely non trivial thing to do. And since most of the resource needed by the game are physics one, not specially graphics, tuning your graphics down won't help much (the textures and 3D models are quite stable, what's not is all the approximation and computation done for each parts).

No worries I know how it can be confusing when not all of the parts of a conversation speaks about the same things (your pictures where you outlined why you assumed there was no fuel helped us a lot to figures out how you were thinking and how we could help you find the issue there).

No. It does say it does not have fuel flux. Which is normal when the engine is not throttled. It will increase when you throttle. [Non, cela dit qu'il n'y a pas de flux d'ergol. Ce qui est normal quand les gazs ne sont pas mis. Le flux augmentera quand tu accélèreras.]

This is not the acceleration gauge. [ce n'est pas jauge d'accélération] Stop touching that. [Arrêtes de toucher à ça] It does not accelerate anything. [Cette jauge ne procure aucune accélération] Read this page in french : Navball Explained [Va lire cette page en français [link]] What you need to change is tagged number 5 on the above picture, the actual throttle. [Ce sur quoi tu dois agir est le contrôle numéro 5 sur l'image du lien ci-dessus, les gazs donc]

@MarsUltorit seems that @pijamaman5is: 1) not throttling the engine 2) think they did, using the Thrust limiter sliders 3) activated the engine manually, instead of staging, but it should work 4) expects the engine parts to have fuel in them So, engines don't have fuel in them. They have access to fuel. And, according to the screenshots shared, they have. I know this because in the staging sequence (bottom left of the screen) next to the engine, there's a green gauge, filled up, meaning the engine have access to fuel. And as long as there's no screenshot which displays the issue, while also having the engine staged and throttled up (they are activated so, it's ok), I'll continue to assume there is no bug, but there's a misunderstanding of how the interface works from @pijamaman5. I would strongy suggest to do the tutorials, especially the basic ones, all of this is covered in them.

Yes, that is because engines don't have fuel tanks. They consume fuel from fuel tank, but don't store it.

D'après l'image que tu as collé, tes moteurs ont bien du carburant. Mais ils n'ont pas d'accélération (tu as juste changer la limite de pousséee). Que se passe-t-il si tu appuie sur W? On a besoin d'une image de ce qu'il se passe après que tu ai appuyé sur W (et que la jauge de GAZ soit à 100%). [According to the picture you showed us, they do see the fuel. You have no throttle (you only changed thrust limiter). What happens if you press W? We need a screen cap of i (and the throttle needs to be up at 100%).] @VoidSquidThey are Shift and Contrôle, so no, they're not an issue here.

Yeah, that's why I'm trying to make sens of everything said here to get a better picture at what is happening. I'm native in French (even if I'm not sure it's the language in which I spent the most amount of time), so subtility and sense lost in translations is kind of a second nature for me :p

@pijamaman5OK, après avoir relu le thread, je pense que j'ai trouvé où est le problème. Tu n'accélères pas le moteur en faisant un clic dessus, ce que tu changes c'est la poussée maximale (que tuas mise sur ta capture d'écran à 73.5%). Il est normal que, si tu ne change que cette barre, ile ne se passe rien. Ce qu'il faut que tu change c'est l'accélération. La jauge autour de la NavBall, à gauche, là où il y a écris Gaz. Et cela se chaneg avec W/X (pour aller respctivement plein gaz/ à l'arrêtà ou avec Shift Gauche/Control Gauche (pour augmenter progressivement). [So after reading up the thread again, I think I've found out where's the problem. You're not accelerating the engine by clicking on it, what you're actually doing is seting up the max thrust (which is shown on your printscreen at 73.5%). It is expected that, if you only change that, nothing happens. What you need to change is the throttle. The gauge around the navball; on the left; where Gaz is written. And you change that with W/X (for respectfully full gas and full stop) or with Left Shift/Left Ctrl (for small incremental changes)]

Until I do not see a pic with the throttle up, I'll assume that this is the issue. The engine state (aucun) seems weird for me, but I would not know, I'm not localized in French on my KSP, so it's hard to guess. Also, I'm on latest KSP, and engine works. So I don't really think it is a bug, more like something specific to @pijamaman5 install and setup. There's no picture of it. So, not sure that what @pijamaman5 did actually resulted in an increase of thrust. Which leads me to think there might be an issue with AG no ?

La jauge d'accélération sur la capture d'écran (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2341740025 ) est à 0 ici. Le moteur est bien activé (sa jauge de carburant dans la section de staging est bien activée). Et les boosters vont fonctionner parce qu'ils n'ont pas besoin d'accélération (si tu "stage", en appuyant sur espace, ils se mettent en route). Les moteurs ont besoin d'avoir une accélération. Pour accélérer, par défaut, tu utilise Shift Gauche (pour accélérer doucement) et Control gauche (pour déccélérer doucement). Tu peux aussi utiliser W pour mettre l'accélération à fond et X pour la mettre à 0. [So, for the record, on an AZERTY keyboard: Max/Min throttle are W and X not Z and X, I think the misundersatnding comes from there)] [Thottle gauge on the print screen is at 0. The engine is activated (its fuel gauge in staging section is online). And the boosters will work because they do not need to throttle (if you're staging, by pushing space, they ignite themselves). Engines needs tobe throttled up. By default, to throttle; you using Left Shift (for a slow acceleration) and Left Ctrl (for a slow deceeleration). You can also use W to go full throttle and X to go back to 0.]

Peux-tu poster une capture d'écran de la fusée ? Et sinon, il y a une section dédiée aux francophones sur ce forum. Et on essaye de garder les discussions ici en Français (I jsut asked for a rpint screen and pointed out that there's a french subforum in here somewhere)

The DSM-5 is a tool, not really made by the industry by the way, more by doctors (which, by itself is an issue). This tools is meant to help diagnose issues you can find in people you know have mental health issues. Yes, it is wide in its symptoms and classifications, and yes it is a tool of classification (which, by itself, can raise some issue, for instance homosexuality was considered an illness by a previous version of the DSM (iirc, the DSM-IV removed it), and it is regularly updated to the expert knowledge. The DSM-5 is now a living document (which means, I guess, that there'll be no DSM-6, just updates of the DSM-5). But no, not everyone is sick according to the DSM-5. And yes, the DSM defines neuroatypical people as sick, but then again, it is something written by doctors, so yeah, they tend to categorize people in two pools: sick people and non-sick people. As a tool, it can be used to help diagnose someone who's in pain. And that should be the only purpose of it. If you're not suffering, then you do not need a diagnosis, hence you do not belong into the DSM-5 (or the ICD, which is published by the Doctor at WHO and covers all illness, including mental ones). It's like thinking that, because you have a headache, you have a brain tumor if you want. Yes, it might. But a brain tumor generally comes with other symptoms, and there's so many illness who have headaches as symptoms that you cannot just have a diagnosis based solely on headaches (which is why doctor will, generally first try to help you with the headaches and, if it get worse, they'll run different analysis, form least painfull and invasive, to worse, in order to figure out what is happening). Being sad, or even depressed for some time, for instance after the loss of a dear one, is normal. However, it will be in the DSM-5 classified as depression. Along with another symptom that must be present to be considered as Severe Anxiety Disorder : it must last longer than a fixed amount of weeks (I do not remember the exact number). If it does not, it's mostly sadness. painfull, unberrable sadness, but still sadness. Not a disorder (which tends to be long term). So not really classified as such by the DSM. And that's the trick with diagnosis, whatever the field (even in computer science). You must match all the symptoms. And so, you must know what the symptoms of a sickness is. That's why you have the DSM, to list symptoms and helps diagnosticians to figures out what is happening with this person in pain. That's also why tracking Covid-19 in the beginning was hard, because we did not really knows the symptoms (and how they differed from, for instacne, seasonal flu). We are better at it now, and there's probably a part of the ICD that can now gives you a symptom lists specific to the Covid-19 (even if it's safer to just do a test). And that's also why I think you cannot diagnose any kind of mental health issue without a long introspection of the person you're trying to diagnose. Because being weird is not a diagnosis, or an illness, and it's not in the DSM either. And yes, I fully reckon that the DSM have a lot of issues. But that's the document policymaker and insurance use to gives you money in case of sickness, so it's better if it's a bit broader than it needs to be I guess, especially in the field of mental health where most people (including doctors and patients) do not really understand what is happening, what is the source of pain, and how can you alleviate this pain. And for the health insurance part, I'm sorry for you American people, your situation really sucks. I really hope it get fixed one day or another, ideally sooner (because here in FR, their trying to implement the same excrements you have there, and nope, we do not want it). But then again, I do not think this is related to the DSM somehow.

It's not. Maybe it's related to the fact that masculinity, as it is teached and pushed on boys, tends to makes you not talking about your feelings, and just expressing them in ways that will make the other in charge of trying to understand what you're expressing. It's not Autism, or Asperger, it's a whole different set of social interaction and how they shape the society. You can learn to own your feelings, and express them in a way that will puts both you and the other in a capacity to understand them, and find a least stressful way of communication. Aspergers can't do that. They're not wired the same way, they can't learn to understand social cues, or to express their feelings in a way you'll understands them. They can spend a lot of energy trying to understand those social cues, and trying to figure out what is happening depending on some context they can extract from the situation (if other people are laughing, it was probably sarcasm, so I should laugh to). This is why they can't understand sarcasm or irony for instance. A friend of mine, who works with autistic kids, said that you can't make jokes when interacting with them. They won't get it, and they'll know they're not getting something, so it hurts them. Stop making jokes. You can find different sources of laughter, but most of neurotypical form of humor are lost to them. Excepting an asperger / autistic person to be able to get social cues at some point, is like expecting a depressed person to be happy. It's not going to happen, and if you maintain those expectations, you're going to hurt them. Just accept what they are, and work form there, you're not the one spending all their energy trying to figures out each and every interaction happening around you, so you can probably spend a little bit of this energy to it. As for being more verbal about how you feel, I do not think it's a bad thing anyway, so, we should probably do it a bit more, even if not interacting with non-neurotypical people. It makes everything easier (even if, sometimes, a bit awkward).

So, still working on those Cylindrical huge space station, around 5m structural tubes. I've changed the design (a lot), and now I'm only at 1300 parts. It is still killing my computer (I should probably kill ReStock), and it's a bit wobbly (but not enough to break anything). By main worry is that it is in fact 3 different ships, so I have no idea how that will behave if going out of physics range (timewarping does seems to cause some explosions though). But, surprisingly, it is quite stable (at least the hollowed core remains in position). There's a refinery and some tanks for refuelling. And it fits in the VAB! (yeah, working on those cylinders ends is a PITA). I need to reduce again the number of parts, and to work on stability (the cylindrical sections tend to spin a little bit around the spoke which connect them to the rotors), but it gets harder with the time. I'm wondering if I should try with a 2.5m spokes and rotor ring. Or a different way to attach those sections to the spokes (that will only increase the part count though). And then, when I have something that's not too laggy, I'll think about building the rockets and stuff needed to launch and assemble this into space.

So, I'm back on working on project with too much part™ in them. Like this small O'Neil cylinder (not sure it's actually an O'Neil though). https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/707204063821037638/793182293791211520/Capture_decran_video_de_28-12-2020_191935.webm So, above is the full station, with two counter rotating cylinders, a separator for storage power (and a bit of stability for when I need to change the direction of the station) and, the middle section is made of hollowed 5m structural tube. The whole station is a bit above 1200 parts, and yes, I have 1.5 SPF (seconds per frame). You can probably hear my CPU screaming in the background of the video above. At least I fixed the low temperature in my bedroom I guess. I'd like to build that from launches, but with that level of lag and the need for some weird but precise docking, makes it not doable. So I guess, I'll put this project to rest while trying to figure a way to get the part count under some reasonable level. And yes, it's stock (ok, ReStock). KerbalX craft file is here : https://kerbalx.com/okhin/OKerman-cylinder Screenshots aren't updated

I want to add something related to KSP2 though, I am optimistic about it, because there' at least one person who have a vision of what KSP2 should be, and it's Nate Simpson. I think the guy knows where the game should go, and that is a big deal. Because it helps to prioritize things and make choice of what should go in the game and what can't make it. It helps focusing artist and developers attention on specific part of the game. It helps when QA needs to triage the bugs. And that is why I think KSP2 will be an interesting and fun to play game, because there is a vision, it's been detailed, and shown. And the dev team talks about it too in their dev blogs. So, that's a plus for Star Theory I guess

Well, I'm not sure CP2077 is a failure. It probably is one if you intend to meet the expectation of some old pen and paper RPG cyberpunk posthumans beast like me, but then, we need to proceed to a genre critics of cyberpunk, which is not the place here. I really enjoyed going through the game, even if the difficulty is a bit on the easy side of it (especially if you grind the game before going to the last mission, everything is easy to do, but then, I became a walking electronic noise machine whose enemies just falls of quick hack, while I shoot missile at them through my arm and manage to separate body and heads with a blade with my other). I liked NC, even if I would rather had more plots focused on the gangs and less contracts stuff for instance. There's flaws to it, but I can work with it, while I never managed to pass through GTA4 (question of pacing mainly). I also had insane fun with Saint Rows the Third, which is not even a RPG at this point. If CP2077 is a failure, it is a failure of management culture, and marketing driven decision making. Which is something that's plaguing the whole software industry, and especially the video games making one. There need to be some change there. For once, union to protect workers in those companies, which would reduce crunching. But also, we - as customers - need to accept that we don't need a release date. Because those release dates come at a cost always. It is the cost of developers sanity, which translates in glitchy games. It's not as if there was no video games out there. We can wait years. We should learn to do it. We should not ask for release date and functionnality and accept what we have when we have. After all, no one's asking a release date on a record to Beyonce or Lady Gaga, they release their tunes when they think it's ready to be released. And they make money. The issue is not one videogame being glitchy. It is structural, it is omnipresent, and even Star Theory might falls to it.

I don't think I can change that on console. Nope. They bnought the licence back in 2008, dropped the trailer in 2012, mostly to attract developers. They even had some dev diaries back then. Then, at some point, stopped the dev on the game to prioritize The Witcher 3, when they merged the initial team into the Witcher one. Then, after TW3 got out, the started working on it again with a dedicated team. I mean, I heard about The Witcher because I was following all thing CyberPunk in the beginning :p So this is almost ten years in the making (between the time they bought the licence to the release). They made choices (prioritize TW over CP), merge team, separated them again later when creating a new studio, etc. This is why I don't get why they rushed it toward the end, but that's probably too much pressure from Marketing and from the potential players. Or why they did crunch their team (while they were bragging about the no-crunch policy for the release of TW3, especially when RockStar did crunch their team to make the horses of Red Dead Redemption 2 looks nicer). I understand that you do not need the same amount of people to write a game engine, do the graphics and create the narrative. But technically, since CP and TW uses the same engine, the work on TW3 can be partly counted as working on CP however, I'm guessing that the reason they stopped the development of CP to prioritize TW, is because they shared the same engine and didn't want to do the work twice. And the comercial risk is lower on a third instalment of a franchise than on a brand new complex universe. It kind of makes sense.

My main issue with NC, is that it's empty. There's some place where there is some people, but after 83hours in, it feels empty. I know the demographic did drop like hell in the settings, like they lost 30% of the population lately. But still, the streets looks like the one in any city with Covid and shelter-in-place. There's no rush hour, there's no district animation at night, there's no crowd. But the city is beautiful. There's a lot of details in it, the spaghetti design makes you enjoy actually walking the city. A bit like riding a horse in the lands with The Witcher 3 (let's all agree this game is a ride in the forest on your pony simulator). It is beautiful. And it feels dead. But then, CyberPunk 2077 is a ghost story so, being dead, haunted by the ghost of past revolt in a dead city is kind of coherent I guess. But I suspect that the environment code is only slightly adapted from the Witcher 3. And it works fine with a medieval city, and not as good with a Urban sprawl supposedly overcrowded with people. And I do not think they rushed the release. I would argue that the game has been overworked on details, with too many team change to the point no-one inside CDPR had a global vision of the game. Which does not happens when you lack time, it only happens when you have too much of it (and well, the game has been delayed almost ten years).

It's not a binary choice between Glitchy or Delayed. Because there will be bugs, essentially because it's software. And software have bugs. Also, you can have a game delayed for ten years, and still have it plagued with bugs on some platform (re: CyberPunk 2077). That happens because a game development oin this scale means a lots of change in the social environment around it, which already happened a lot for KSP 2. Also, throwing more human-hours at a problem does not means you'll fix it. You sometimes have to live with it (or need to rewrite 70% of all the code you wrote, hopping for not creating more bugs). There's two process the industry is supposed to use for that. One is management, and everything that's linked to the well being of your teams and employees (not slaves, not machines, complex human beings). And it's so under valued that there's some management method that did emerge from the panic room and emergencies mitigation that has been now applied everywhere (namely, the Agile methodology, which is great for crisis management, but bad for non-crisis management when you need actual project leading). It seems that today, in a lot of software company, including the gaming industry, you develop in a perpetual state of emergency, fixing bugs, pacthing stuff, losing sight of what your project is supposed to be. The other process is Quality Assurance. ie: The code does respect some standard, some specific items. The issue here is to define what those items are. It is a work that I've seen disappearing more and more, and being replaced by coding standards and guidelines (they're not only that), test coverage (neither that). Basically, the social context in which the software are supposed to be written and emerge, have been replaced by fancy program and software. They existed to allow for an interface between project manager (now chief of products ?) and other division of the companies, one being marketing, the other being funding. Those two wants to know when will the game is going to be ready. The first because they want to be able to have a perfect marketing campaign, the others because they want to maximize they're return on investment. And as soon as you setup a deadline, you're meaning soon. You can move it around a bit, or even a lot, but people except the game soon. Like in a foreseeable future where they can imagine themselves playing the game. And so, you'll know have to pick which glitch you're going to work on firszt. And since you're only working in an emergency mode because a lot of people lost track of what they were doing, you don't even know if those bugs are critical or not. That's probably what happened to CP2077. Now, indie game, generally relies a bit less on Marketing and funding. Especially with all the Early access, open beta and other things that Steam, GOG and others allows. You don't really have a release date on those games anymore. They exists as a Work in Progress, and use the feedback from a small community to keep tracks of where's the project going. However, it's not an ideal way (because spending month on memleaks hunting is important, but gives little to no satisfaction to beta-testers for instance, while changing a texture compression might gives a lot of positive feedback while being technically no work). So, you can't choose between glitch and release date. I will say that I'd be better with a "When it's ready" release date, with some dev diaries from time to time, than a release date. But most of all, I want no crunch. Developers being paid a fair price, artists too. QA doing their jobs, a project lead who have a vision of where they are and where they need to go. And I'll take that over No Glitch or a release date. Everytime. You'll have glitch yes. But you'll have better software, and human beings working on those projects in a better shape. But yes, I know. I'm dreaming. It's never going to happen.

And yet, I think it will happens anyway, at least here in France. It will happens because economy, first. But that's the easy answer. It will also happens because french, especially the church people, will go on holiday anyway. The confinement and the government strategies* are badly understood or explained at all. We have a president that go on TV for the last two weeks talking about confinement I guess? And how it will be prolonged but not? QNd then the government tries to make sense out of the presidential speeches, so we will unconfine soon. But not. Both at the same time. And if you want people to care about each other and stay at home, you need to tell them that and helps them through it. By guaranteeing their jobs for instance. Or helping students meet ends. Or, anything. Instead we have a security driven government who's passing hardcore security law (because terrorists kill more people than Covid I guess?), asking journalist to register themselves before covering a protest, and we now have huge protests against that law. And we have ultra catholic who are praying in the streets to reopen churches to be able to sing in a closed space and infect themselves with Covid. And there's the vaccines on the way. A lot of the media coverage is about how we will have it by January. While, at the same time, almost half the population do not trust those vaccines (again, there's no trust to this government, so you need information from elsewhere to increase trust, which we don't really have). And, well, the vaccines won't reach the global population before April 5before that there's all the medical staff, and people at risk). But a lot of people, and I think the government, are now thinking that the Covid will end by January. All that means that yes, I think that there will be a relief made on confinement measures by the end of December for those parties people want to have. And even before that, store will reopen around mid-december, for economy (instead of, for instance, putting restriction on on-line shopping), and we can really expect a rush to the brick and mortar shop. Which scares me already. Is it a bad idea? Yes. It is. Is there another way around? Not with this government and political class. Germany are probably a bit better of, and it might be doable there to maintain lockdown for Christmas. And yet, yesterday there was a party in my house, while I have Covid. And my house mates are going into a fight over this with me. Because I was sick and I tried to fix myself some food, avoiding physical contact with people and wearing a mask, and I blew up the party it seems. Because I was infected with a highly contagious sickness and they don't really care about confinement. I really think that if you explain things as they are, not with data but with the acceptance of what you know or not, and back your explaination with a well suited and explainable strategy that show that you care about people, you can get people to accept some restriction. But that's not the case here. I mean, we had more government speech bout islamic terrorism and security than we have for the whole covid thing. It's not the government priority. They just care about the economy, not about the people. They just need to do the bare minimal, which is what they're doing. Yes, I'm loveing angry about that, and I want to go 1789 all the way on them right now (or just cough on them, give them the stupid virus, and hoping they have serious sequels that will destroy what's left of their hearth). * Assuming there's one

I can't see them either, still got the 403