razark

Yes. And that does not resolve the issue with paradox. Another solution: don't play with trolls. Paradoxical timewarp is not the only solution. How is, in the game universe, having events that occurred in the past not having occurred in the future not a paradox in the game timeline? Past doesn't matter? How did a ship get into orbit? By launching at some point in the past. If there was no launch in the past, the ship cannot be in orbit in the present. If events that happened in the past turn out to not have happened, then it is a paradox. I'm not saying DMP's approach doesn't "work", I'm saying I do approve of a method that allows paradox.

This means that an event in the future can affect the past. This is paradox, this is exactly what I am talking about, and this is exactly what I am opposed to. You may find it acceptable, however that does not mean it does not exist. No, I'm making it as complicated as it needs to be to show that DMP has not solved the timewarp issue 100%. You seem to be having a hard time understanding that what you propose as a solution is objectionable to some of us. Alternate timelines? Maybe, that could be debated. The main paradox is a violation of causality. And this is paradoxical. If something happens to a craft in the past, it should be reflected in the future. If something happens in the future, it should not affect the past. If it's "solved" in a way that allows paradox, then I do not consider it solved. As for your opposition to my scheme, I addressed that already. Small number of players, admins with the power to kick people, and people actually playing together instead of using KSP to chat while playing alone. Of course, no one's pointed out the problem with that, I just keep getting told that "DMP is the ONE AND ONLY answer!", even though I've explained repeatedly why it does not satisfy me.

No, the MIRV part isn't new. But MIRVs are not the point of the video. @45 seconds: "This presentation shows a possible penetration aid, or penaid system, which uses replication and pyrotechnics to defeat postulated optical ICBM defenses."

You explicitly said it doesn't work: So there is a problem in the way DMP implements it*, as made obvious from you next statement: If there's no problem, there would be no need for a fix. And your fix is to allow future events to affect what happens in the present. So, paradox. There are plenty of way to invoke a paradox without timewarping while docked to something. *Which leads to the question of what does happen if A docks to a docking port at T+5 hours, and then B attempts to dock to the same port at T+0 hours?

No it hasn't. Very well, let's go take a look: So, events in the timeline's future affect what can happen in the timeline's past. Violating causality. Which is paradox. But yeah. If you ignore the parts DMP hasn't solved, then saying DMP has solved everything is valid, I guess.

Except you explicitly said it allows for paradox in your post. People keep saying "DMP HAS SOLVED ALL THE PROBLEMS!", but keep ignoring that it hasn't, really.

The film wasn't about the MIRVs, it was about a possible new decoy for use against a possible new detection system.

Or conceptual video aimed at upper-level managers to sell a program that was still in the thought exercise stage?

v0.15 Sometime in the spring of '12.

Yeah, I had to get one of those FM radio transmitters so I can listen to the mp3 player.

How did they solve the paradox issue? Oh, I see. They didn't. In that case, " Time warp's solved. 100%." is wrong. What you meant to say was: "DMP handles timewarp in a manner that I approve of." But I'll play, too: I already posted the single, solitary, correct way to do it, so everyone must now agree that it's correct and the discussion is closed! How's that? Look, you value not waiting. I value no paradoxes. Any multiplayer is going to have (at least) one of those. There is a fundamental issue with timewarp in multiplayer. Until you solve that issue, you can't ever say it's "solved. 100%." Not even close. That fundamental issue: "There's a lot of ways to implement it, and every method has people that agree and disagree with it."

Holidays when the kids go to school are great, but I still have to get up early to take them in...

Exactly. It's the only paradox-free method, and it's pretty simple to do. And I question why people are playing "together" if one is at Laythe, one's at Duna, and one's at Kerbin. In you example, 3 and 5 should be playing on a multiplayer-KSP. 2 and 4 can get the same experience by playing single-player KSP and using a chat server outside the game. The AFK guy can be kicked by the server admin.

Simple: max_timewarp = player[0].timewarp_request; for (i= 1; i < number_of_players; i++) { if (player[i].timewarp_request < max_timewarp) max_timewarp = player[i].timewarp_request; } timewarp = max_timewarp; Paradox free and simple.

Just because a person can't afford something doesn't make it an expensive item. It simply means they can't afford it, regardless of whether it is cheap or expensive.

It's better to compare the price of items of similar type. Comparing the price of video games to other video games is valid. $1000 is an expensive hamburger, but it's a cheap house. KSP is, in terms of video games, on the lower side of the scale, whether the person looking at the price is a homeless bum or Elon Musk.

Which is still significantly cheaper than many games.

$23 and change?

You said you were opposed to "paid DLC on an already expensive game", so I wondered how you felt about paid DLC on KSP, instead.

What about KSP, though?

There is a station in orbit. A launches a ship and docks to the docking port. B, in an earlier timestream, but later in realtime, launches a ship and goes to the station. Can B dock to the unoccupied docking port? If so, what happens to A, who is already docked to it in the future? If B cannot dock to the port, then the future is affecting the past. Let's say you manage to resolve that. B and A both find a way to dock in their own time streams. A refuels, leaving the station empty. B, in a time before A refuels, attempts to refuel. Who gets the fuel? B, now angry about having to argue with reality for a parking spot and not being able to refuel from the clearly available fuel, decides to destroy the station. Ramming into it at high speed, the station is shattered into orbital debris. What now happens to A, the station debris, and the fuel that A has taken? I'd dispute that those are some pretty big paradoxes that result.

What about them? Is that quicksave/quickload? If so, of course they would be disabled for the purposes of multiplayer. Not parsing what you're saying here. Yes. I've played games that used a shared timewarp system before.

It does so in a way that not only invites paradox, but gives it a comfy chair and brews it a cup of tea. I'd rather have timewarp that did not allow paradox. I would suggest not playing with such people, then. If such a player is on the server, then the admin should kick the person from the session. Problem solved.

I don't have to use something to know I disagree with it. From what I've heard, it is an issue. The way one person solves it is not going to agree with the way another person desires to see it. There's a lot of ways to implement it, and every method has people that agree and disagree with it.

WOO HOO! Almost three weeks after she said she's leaving, my soon-to-be-ex-wife has managed to pack a fifth box. At this rate, she may be moving out by next ($*^@ year!