Nazalassa

So, Datagram Sockets?

v/a(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) = t Let's say we want to reach 299,000,000 m/s. Then: v / (a sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)) = t -> 299,000,000 / (9.809 sqrt(1 - 299,000,000^2 / 299,792,458^2)) = t t = 299,000,000 / (9.809 sqrt(1 - 0.99472027661)) t = 299,000,000 / (9.809 sqrt(0.00527972339)) t = 299,000,000 / (9.809 x 0.07266170511) t = 299,000,000 / 0.71273866542 t = 419508600.426 seconds or 13,3025304414003 years uuuh... If we only want to go half light speed, it's 1,1163734299848 year.

(this may not be the right subforum for that, by the way) I'm wondering... When you give a part some variants like this: MODULE { name = ModulePartVariants primaryColor = #000000 secondaryColor = #000000 baseDisplayName = Empty baseThemeName = Empty useMultipleDragCubes = false VARIANT { name = Mintmus displayName = Mintmus Ice Cream themeName = MintmusIceCream primaryColor = #40f0b0 secondaryColor = #000000 TEXTURE { mainTextureURL = Squad/Parts/FuelTank/Size1_Tanks/125Tanks_BW _BumpMap = Squad/Parts/FuelTank/Size1_Tanks/125Tanks_N shader = KSP/Bumped Specular } } } can you add resources or other stuff within the VARIANT{...} ? Like doing that: MODULE { name = ModulePartVariants primaryColor = #000000 secondaryColor = #000000 baseDisplayName = Empty baseThemeName = Empty useMultipleDragCubes = false VARIANT { name = Mintmus displayName = Mintmus Ice Cream themeName = MintmusIceCream primaryColor = #40f0b0 secondaryColor = #000000 RESOURCE { name = MintmusIceCream amount = 0 maxAmount = 270 } } } Is it possible?

Bah, anyways math is complcated enough like that :).

Yes, but from the point of view of an inertial observer it still takes 354.5 days.

Well, I don't think so. Using the relation v = a t where a is the acceleration (in meters per second squared), v the speed at the end (in meters per second) and t the time (in seconds), we get: v = 9.809 t However, v = c = 300,000,000 so: 300,000,000 = 9.809 t t = 300,000,000 / 9.809 t ≃ 30584157.5 seconds or 354,4 days, which is a little less than a year (0.9698 year to be more precise) We have proved by calculations that it takes a little less than a year to reach light speed with an acceleration of 1G, from the perspective of an inertial observer. From the perspective of the traveler it would take a little less time (I don't really know how much... Perhaps 0.8 years?) (the math errors has been corrected)

Datagram Sockets are more useful if the order the data is received by the server or the client isn't important, and if a few packets that don't arrive at their intended destination don't break everything. It does not require a server that powerful, and is widely used among video games, where there are like 10 packets at least, per second: this way, if a packet is lost, it's not going to affect the game very much as there will be another in a short amount of time. Minecraft, for example, uses them. -> Simple, but weak. Stream Sockets are more useful if you want that the received data is exactly the sent data, if you want it to be received in the same order as it was sent, and if you don't want to lose any data in the progress. However, they create a connection between the server and the client, and the server need to be more powerful if it needs to handle a lot of connections. Telnet, for example, uses them. -> Complicated, but strong. About Raw Sockets... Well, I think they also use a connection, so it probably is like Stream Sockets (let me know if this is wrong).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_socket#Types A socket is a software structure within a network node of a computer network that serves as an endpoint for sending and receiving data across the network. They are basically how you send/receive data to/from other computers. A Datagram Socket uses UDP (User Datagram Protocol). Instead of having a permanent connection, every single package sent to another computer is individually addressed and routed, meaning that the order in which packages are sent may be different from the order in which they will be received. It's not guaranteed that every packages is received. A Raw Socket allows direct sending/receiving of raw data without any protocol-specific formatting. A Stream Socket uses a connection, which means that any data going from one computer to the other will go through the same connection. They use TCP (Transmission Control Protocol), DCCP or SCTP. A Stream Socket guarantees that any data sent will be received, in the order it was sent, and is therefore more reliable than a Datagram Socket.

I've been messing up with craiyon and asked it to draw "Kerbal". Here are the results Then, "Kerbal Space Program FL-T 500 Fuel Tank": Then, "KSP Engine Texture": Then, "Jebediah Kerman": Then, "Deep Space Kraken": <snip> Wait, what? If you want to mess up with AIs, post your pictures there!

Will the connection be with Datagram Sockets, Raw Sockets or Stream Sockets?

At 24th August the problem is still there. Basically the game will crash if and only if it has to load DLLs from mods. If it doesn't, it won't be stuck. I've tried everything, even only 1 mod, even just a simple part pack... Results: if there's no DLL to load it'll work fine, else it won't. Therefore, the problem seems to be with DLLs. For the last KSP boot I had this Gamedata folder: And here's the corresponding log: Player.log I don't really know what to do, even if a lot of stuff has been said there.

(OK it works with pure part packs. The problem is the DLLs.)

Well, that's probably the only solution... Now how long would they be? I'm more thinking about placing the root part of each segment 300m away from it (above or below) so that it never loads into physics. Therefore I think we can do more parts than 1,000, perhaps 2,000? The problem is also the ppk (parts per kilometer) which should I think be near 300 (max. 1,500 parts loaded at any time). However we'll have to use parts that are more than 3m long! And which have the right section so that a monorail on it would be stable. Any Mk2 section doesn't work, Mk3 works and is 100 ppk, but it's a little unstable. Now the most stable section I have is square... And has 1,333 ppk. Which is way too big! If we tweakscale the i-beam 200, and multiply all the dimensions by 8, then we have a part that's 30 meters long, with a ppk of 33, incredibly low. Its section will be a 1.6 x 1.6 m square, so it's the right size. That's probably the best solution. (Plus, I've found a way to do it without any mods.)

Well... That's exactly what I've done. Not only for WASD camera, but I also tried (of course) hangar extender and kOS, both of which have DLLs. None has worked. I haven't tried with pure part packs (= no DLLs mods) but I think these should work properly.

Yes... But we have, well, (almost) no other way to fix the precision issues. For the orbit randomly changing, I admit that the problem isn't entirely due to precision, but rather to the game applying physics to the ship during time warp, therefore losing precision and changing the orbit.

It's stuck at "loading part upgrades" (I already searched for some simple and manual way to solve the problem but haven't found really simple manual ways). When I don't have mods it doesn't... BAH, anyways. I'm doing with it.

I just like Science!

I did 2 km with Mk3 fuel tanks, however I'm planning to divide the track into segments that will be launched to their detination (which will be... Pol? Minmus?) and placed there, linda like Stratzenblitz75 did for his Dres bridge. So... I don't know, maybe 1 km segments? Or 2 km. I don't know. P.S as my KSP doesn't want to load mods with DLLs I couldn't use hangarExtender All done within pure stock game.

As I'm currently making a monorail system in KSP I wondered, how much parts can I use for the tracks? I'm planning to use n-meter-long sections made by stacking parts. They will be kept out of physics range (>200m). Now, at any time, a few of these sections will be loaded. What is the maximum number of parts for each section, given n (the section's length, in meters)? I'll say about n/4 parts (ex. 500 parts for 2,00m sections), to avoid extreme lag and performance loss, but... The only working track I have now has 2,000 parts per section of 2 km (at least). What do you think of it?

I agree. Plus, a game like KSP has to be realistic. And it makes no sense that at each update we get some new stuff, while the most old bugs are still there. A good game would be one where bugfixing passes before adding stuff, and not after. No more of that: Found a bug? Call it a feature!

Yes, they produce way too much lift. Actually, I think it's to prevent the capsule not to slow down fast enough before it reaches the ground.

I also don't see why would a heat shield produce lift and can be used as a wing. (but I'm FOR keeping the docking port kraken drive, as it is emblematic of KSP)

(still about the monorail: it's hard to find an efficient track part! Horizontal Mk2 and vertical Mk2 don't work, Mk3 is unstable, the round ones are even more unstable, and the square-shaped parts are all to small!)

As I'm currently working on my Monorail, I've noticed that we need more long square-sectionned parts.

That's with the help of a mod. Even if this can work, we probably also need a stock way to solve the problem, no? Anyways, it's not a bad idea.