trekkie_

well i guess these are sort of complimentary, I guess I need several more for a parts pack. the one on the right is actually supposed to be used for flotation, and would double as an intake. the second one on the left is meant to be inflated (although I don't do animations).

I doubt we'll ever have physical replacement augmentations of healthy individuals, even in the military. a lot would have to change for such a reality to be acceptable to society. we'd be better off finding external ways of accomplishing the same things. A person doesn't need a super strong or even normal robotic arm or leg or anything like that. Even if it had sensory perception, there's no way it would ever really be the same as having a real hand no matter how well it's designed. your hand wouldn't squish the same when it's pressed against something, the feel of blood rushing through your hands veins, although taken for granted, will be noticed when gone. This would definitely affect sensory perception. Things like skin oil, moisture and temperature contribute to how things feel. And keep in mind, sensory perception isn't only on the surface....you feel within your body too. Even the allure of being stronger and faster, doesn't make up for the willful loss of a limb. You also have to consider that these things have to be attached to you somehow, which generally involves bands and straps, which limits the capability of the limb. It's just not going to be as attached to you as a real limb. There's going to be some kind of brace that needs to actually cover a large area without slipping. Take this guy for example: How much weight do you think he can lift or pull on before his arm pops off? Or let's say he falls and tries to stop himself on the way down even. I'm sure stubs get extra sore too. So you may have 2 robot arms and legs, but when you take them off at night to hook them up to the charger and lay there in bed....you're just a quad amputee by choice LOL. I think prosthetic replacements are going to remain limited to those that need it, and then be phased out mostly once we can regrow limbs. What you should really ask yourself is how often the 'benefits' of a cybernetic body part will help you day to day....and then realize you can replace that same need with external equipment rather than implants. But if we live in a world where you can regrow flesh and blood limbs affordably, the consequences of trading them out for a little while might be negligible. But even then, why replace a limb when you can probably just put on some kind of power glove over your hand or a power suit at that point. Things like communication augmentations (i.e. internet) with a completely neural interface in your mind, would probably be more acceptable by society.

From my understanding, this is already a proven technology, even if we aren't entirely sure how it works. With particles popping in and out of existence, they get trapped in the EM field, accelerated, and expelled as thrust. But the quark with that, is does speed change the 'absorption' of particles? We don't really know this yet since its only been tested in a stationary mounted scenario, not along track in a vacuum or anything. You'd think that the more space it covers in a given amount of time, the more particles that will get trapped into the EM fields in a given amount of time and the more material you could use to produce thrust. But if the particle is stationary and you're moving at an incredible speed compared to it, you may not have the EM strength to capture the particle. So you may only be getting the particles that happen to pop into existence within the space of the EM field at a given moment in time. But what I've never heard described about particles that pop in and out of existence, is if they're at an absolute speed of zero or if they're aligned with the rotation of the earth or the sun or anything else. If a particle were to pop into existence on earth, one would assume that it would have some predefined speed and direction before gravity can act on it, or no speed and direction at all.....which compared to the perspective of a person on rotating earth, would still appear to be moving the opposite direction of rotation at well over 1000mph. Either way, it's going to take more power to capture more particles the faster you go otherwise they will just shoot through your EM field. Widening the EM field instead of just making it stronger could ensure a larger area to trap more particles.

I don't know what this is, I just know that it's oddly satisfying to stare at.

made it forever ago. never did anything with it, I have probably 100 parts like this that I haven't had time to do the work to put into the game. just kind of model then move on to the next.

I made these for life support a while back but never did anything with them.

this ones better ;P It's a 4 year time lapse of a star exploding 600,000 times brighter than the sun.

Model now freely available, have fun. http://www.filedropper.com/iond

on a related topic, you guys can check out my high quality ion engine renders from way back: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/69793-High-Poly-Ion-Engine-Renders This actually is efficient enough to be a part in the game too. I'll even do you one better, free download of the model, with UV sections: http://www.filedropper.com/iond

- -

I'm not sure you could go over water at all with any kind of fiddling. the only way you could do it is by having an invisible fixed path over the water (like how kerbcity puts static cities into the game) But remember, just because your craft is on a 'collider', doesn't mean your 'collider' is gonna float/move either. let's not forget that planets are curved....even over water, so the 'platform' would have to move somewhat in 3 dimensions following only the surface of the water, otherwise you would eventually reach a point where you're below water or above it. It all just seems too technical and like it wouldn't work right or at all in the end. people could always put thrusters on the side or underneath a craft and go over the water that way too. after all, if somethings got water to go over, its got an atmosphere to glide or fly through. it could be more easily rectified with a separate 'flotation device' part that provides thrust, but that would still put geometry under the water somewhat, which would make transition from water to land probably difficult to impossible. the same goes for the transitions of using a 'collider' part to go from land to sea.

I like that alternate gravity repulsor texture, all wheels should probably be based on that same general color scheme.

It's simple to come to terms with, without getting super technical.....light is basically 'mass-less', and traveling at well, the speed of light.....so if light can't escape it, neither can a ship with tons of mass even if it is going at the speed of light.

No you've got it all wrong. They have a crystalline skeletal structure

http://gfycat.com/FarCrazyIzuthrush

always room for more tanks?

just some random tank design

swamp gas caught in the light of venus, that's all. now look at this flashy thing in my hand.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/69793-High-Poly-Ion-Engine-Renders

just something simple I threw together.

there's actually much faster ray renderers, but I do like the simplicity of AO renders. For example, I could render that scene with 6 bounces, HDRI, fully textured in under a minute on the *CPU* with a quad core.

forget the advanced grabbing unit....say hello to tractor beams....or a sophisticated light drill.

exactly what kind of corporation is this? do you release mods? if no, then what purpose does this fictional corporation serve?

I think it's hilarious how unnecessary it was to cut a section of it off.