razark

This is pretty much my thought. I'm not having a problem with memory, and the mods I run now are the ones I want. I'll probably lose some due to incompatibility and lack of updates, though. If more mods I like show up, I'll add them to the list.

I've started playing Silent Hunter 4 again after a long break, and Flight Simulator X. Also D&D every other weekend.

My choice is: If that's the way it would appear, then that's the way it should appear. I didn't say it would necessarily look "better", just that it would look the way it would look to a third-person viewpoint that is not a physical camera involving lenses. It's not a question of aesthetics to me, it's a question of replicating what would be seen. On another level, I'm also opposed to artificially inserting flaws.

Wingspan seems a bit short.

What're you talking about? There's plenty of open spots to set her down! Those guys are just afraid of getting a little water on their planes.

I have no clue how old the airframes themselves are, but I love the fact that the design still retains some of it's origin in the B-29 of World War II.

I've spent most of my life living near Ellington Field, so I've gotten to see it quite a few times. Just a few weeks ago, I saw it flying around. Thing looks damn strange, like something that shouldn't be flying, but is. A couple of my kids even got to go into the cockpit one time. My father, before he retired, had them one weekend and took them to take his recycling to the drop-off at Ellington. He decided to take them onto the NASA part of the field, and the Guppy was in the hanger getting an engine replaced. The crew was really nice and gave them a tour.

I've always viewed the "Tracking Station" as the Big Board in MCC. The "Mission Control" I usually think of as the Administration Building or Project Planning Office. I think they should be renamed, and add some more details to the Big Board, to give better status on ships and timers/alarms. Addition of mission planning capabilities should also be considered, so you can plan out exactly how much delta-v you need, and then go guess if your ship has enough.

I have noticed this myself. Very well said. Thank you.

Altitude in feet, distance in nautical miles, and speed in knots seems to be pretty standard for aviation from what I've seen. Once you get outside the atmosphere, metric is fine.

Nah. It's like arguing whether the ice cream is better with little bits of broken glass in it or not.

I just happen to think it would look better without distorting the picture unnecessarily. Part of the fun for me is the immersion. Distorting my view for no adequate reason breaks that. If I'm looking at the world through a camera in-game, then the lens flare makes sense. If I'm not looking through a lens in-game, there shouldn't be a flare. But it looks like we're just starting to go in circles here.

I disagree with that. I see them as an artifact of a flawed system. They only exist in real lenses because we haven't managed to get rid of them, but we've been trying for decades. Once, they were something to avoid, and filmmakers would do what they could to minimize them as much as possible. I honestly don't see why anyone would want them, unless they were specifically trying to replicate a scene as though it was filmed by an inferior technology. Just doesn't make sense to me. (Of course, I also like liver and onions and think cheesecake is a horrid abomination that should not be, so we all have different tastes in what we like. That's why it should be an option.) Again, I disagree. We take pictures/film in the real world using cameras because we have no other choice. In the KSP world, however, we are not using a physical camera. We are simply observing the world from an arbitrary third-person view. We don't have to worry about maneuvering a physical camera, rendezvousing it with our ship, making sure it doesn't drift off, etc. We don't need the camera, so why should we impose the limitations of a camera on something that is fundamentally not a camera? It's immersion-breaking to me, in fact. It pulls me out of the "being there" feeling, and artificially shoves something in front of my face and yells "Hey! This is just a bunch of pixels on a screen!" instead of presenting me with what I would see if I were to actually view the scene from that viewpoint.

It is indeed interesting, and it goes back quite a long time. Some early pottery was made to look like the woven baskets that preceded it, and some early metal tools were made to replicate wooden and stone tools.

You may like to pretend you've got an arbitrary physical camera hanging around outside all your spacecraft, but I like to view it as though I'm not looking at it through an extra, imperfect lens. As a wearer of glasses myself, I don't need extra crap added for no reason. Can we make pointless lens flares an option yet? I mean, seriously. Civilization has spent the last many years trying to remove a flaw, just so people can add it back in when it doesn't need to be there? How about we make it so that the screen just goes blank after a few seconds to imitate the lack of oxygen, too?

I think the main reason is because they are pilots, complete with ego.

I hadn't even noticed. Only 24 to go to a nice round number! I'd say it could be argued from the passage as quoted. But it's been a long time since I read it, and I don't know the exact context of the passage (It could be from a less-than-perfect narrator, or it could be the word of the author, which makes it pure truth). Well, the Sieve of (Some old Greek guy that I can't remember but it begins with an "E") would show that if 1 is a prime number, it is the only prime number.

I've seen it argued both ways. I thought about bringing it up in my own post, but ended up not doing so. Of course, with the above post actually quoting it, the argument is pointless. It does say integers, and not primes.

With the sequence 1 4 9, you can't really say it's the squares of primes. It could simply be the squares of integers. You'd need to know if the next element of the sequence is 16 or 25.

Therefore it is not closing, it is closed. He/She/It/They is technically correct. The best kind of correct.

As an aircraft, the shuttle was just a glider. So the largest aircraft fuel tank belongs to an aircraft that only flew unpowered.

-Why is this a question?

One of ours is covered with xkcd comics and other relevant insanity for morale purposes. One of my favorites is a printout of some pages from the WWII Office of Strategic Services (forerunner of the CIA) Simple Sabotage Manual. It is labeled Simple Sabotage Manual Meeting and Work Guidelines. Specifically, it contains: The italicized items are highlighted. This particular item catches people's eye because of the large CLASSIFIEDDeclassified stamp across the cover. They always stop to read it, and then ask where they can get a copy for their office. (Even the ones that prompted the posting.)

I find having the rocket set the same as the plane makes more sense. The rocket follows the movement of the stick. If I push the stick forward, the nose moves down. Pull back, nose up. Move stick right, the ship rolls right. Twist the stick left, the ship twists left.