Fel

If you're "rotating" too fast, then you cannot timewarp (Ahem, violate the conservation of momentum).

"ALT + <" (decrease warp) "ALT + >" (increase warp) You will automatically use physics warp while in the atmosphere. *Or, I suppose, under cases when the ship is undergoing enough force to prevent timewarp from enabling

@ECHO OFF set modName=INSERT_NAME_HERE FOR /R %%A IN (part.cfg) DO IF EXIST %%A ( set hasMod=before FOR /F "tokens=2 delims== " %%i in (part.cfg) do IF %%i EQU %modName% set hasMod=after if "%hasMod%" NEQ "after" ( ECHO MODULE>> part.cfg ECHO {>> part.cfg ECHO name = %modName%>> part.cfg ECHO }>> part.cfg ) ) Well, I have no idea what this will do XD It is a .BAT file, I wrote it because I was bored. In THEORY, it will read each and every part.cfg in a directory structure, see if there is an = ModName, and if there isn't add in the mod. You can add in another flag (or be lazy ) to check if it has "name = commandModule" I prefer lazy, so @ECHO OFF set modName=INSERT_NAME_HERE FOR /R %%A IN (part.cfg) DO IF EXIST %%A ( set hasMod=after FOR /F "tokens=2 delims== " %%i in (part.cfg) do IF %%i EQU commandModule set hasMod=before if "%hasMod%" NEQ "after" ( ECHO MODULE>> part.cfg ECHO {>> part.cfg ECHO name = %modName%>> part.cfg ECHO }>> part.cfg ) ) ialdabaoth hasn't added in wildcards yet, but this also could help http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/28182-GENTLEMEN-BEHOLD!-Never-have-to-distribute-a-modified-part-cfg-again!

How do you figure? The act of blowing the ballast tanks changes the potential energy from 0 to (Formula relating sea-pressure / ballast-pressure, and force). It is akin to trying to pull down a lifesaver, there is a large amount of energy being expended bringing a buoyant thingy below water. The only thing is that you'd be subjecting the submersible to extreme amounts of force and are quite likely to have the ballast tanks implode. Of course, that force is differential: the ocean provides a significant amount of force preventing your rise, and as you rise the difference between the forces decreases.... so you'd have to make the rocket EXTREMELY buoyant and able to resist the pressures being imposed upon it (though I guess you can have some kind of sheath to reveal the rocket once it breaches the surface).

Corbald, the difference is not Quantum Mechanics ("Fundamental Properties of"), it is the implementation OF said theorems. I was just trying to explain my joke. The more I think about it, the harder it is to explain actually. All I was saying was that modern computing is deeply connected to quantum mechanics and utilizes it more than the "simple transistor to transistor logic" level.

*But "semiconductor devices" use "fundamental properties of subatomic particles for data storage and manipulation" Really, when you get down to it... it is just a different application of the same quantum theory.

I once tried to build a ladder to space (by editing quicksave.sfs).. got bored fairly quickly though.

Isn't all modern computing based on quantum phenomena? Hence, can it not be said that we already have "quantum computing"?

Time spent staring at the sun Time spent preparing for / on a launch that explodes before reaching orbit. Total time "lost" from timewarping past a manuever-node Weren't the suppose to be SILLY Statistics, not serious as many people seem to be taking it?

Did you change the name in the part.cfg as well as the scalesize?

You mean a SSTO Canon, right? /me curses about the attachment nodes being the only way to "store energy" but being far too rubbery to provide a 100% transfer

No, it should be squares. It is just a texture/decal failed to to load. On a top ten list. -100 KSP 1 - Silly Game 2 - Sillier Game Negative numbers make you go higher on the list; thus you're saying KSP is better than everything!

I recognize that the GPU can perform most of the calculations; but what if you wanted "Good Graphics" and "Good Physics", the GPU would be doing twice the load. And of course if Microsoft decides there needs to be physics in their computers, then a STANDARD (albeit not a good standard) will be made.

With the bickering about how physics intensive the game is, I feel it is time that PhysX actually come back from the pseudo hardware level to an actual independent system. And why not? Why not have a completely devoted chip to physical simulations. Of course, the problem is getting people to buy it; and if people don't buy it games won't be developed to use it... which hence leads to people not buying it. Unless... we somehow convince Microsoft that "The Next Generation of Computers need Real-Time 256-bit physics simulations" (Hey, if Microsoft says computers need a dedicated GPU just to open a Word Document, computers need a dedicated GPU.... just a little push to get them to agree to adding a PPU) That way, all the problems of KSP will be fixed and everyone will be happy.

Uhh... yes it will. RAM does not do "operations", but let's say that the game calculates gravity at every frame. G * m / (r + d) ^ 2. Now the game can just run that calculation over and over, or it can create a table that stores gravity information for, idk... d=0m to 100,000m at 10m increments; just extrapolating the difference for the rest. Now that DOES result in SAVED CPU CYCLES. Storing previous calculations for parts means that, with little variation in inputs, the game can use EXTRAPOLATION rather than DIRECT CALCULATION to generate physical response for the next frame. Using a "map" means that it can directly state what each and every part will undergo given inputs, rather than feeding through the partchain, which SAVES CYCLES. (We're effectively turning the ships into ridged bodies) What you fail to understand is that decreasing CPU usage usually comes at the trade off of increasing RAM usage.

Honestly, reflection quite scares/infuriates me. I understand the need when using "Blind Discovery" (such as how KSP doesn't know a PartModule exists, but you can still add it); but after managing to make a ".NET peek" program (I don't have visual studio installed, and a few quick searches (based on not knowing what I wanted) for the mono equivalent were futile) I saw just how much was left. When I checked my code, I found even the tiny "Macro Functions" still managed to remain fully defined... On the other hand, I have no idea why SQUAD is bothering with all these "XXXList" Classes, after running through the while "Assembly-Csharp.dll" I found that "PartResourceList" has a public "values" (which is the list that the wrapper class was trying to protect).... But "PartModuleList" has a hidden (and unnamed???) "values" but it seems like I can interact with it all I want (using the properties), I just cannot call the .Add method.

RAM and CPU are "Somewhat Interchangeable" and is apart of the 64-bit movement. MOST processes can be made "Less CPU Intensive" by using more RAM; in the case of physics, storing the last 5 frames of "Physics Calculations" means that they can use a hashtable to jump directly to the results of the last calculation. (Oversimplified, yes... you get the idea.) Additionally, by describing the interactions of each part upon the whole structure, such that they create a "physics/truss map" that can be fed into the system and thus only calculate the physics at the nodes where it occurs and feed the rest through the map is a more memory intensive process; (and probably far less accurate); but it would save cpu cycles. Ultimately though, his statement is not inaccurate; just not very specific. *** I should probably note that there are many ways to make Physics Calculations "faster" with stored results, but you are having the "less accurate" trade off. (Say you're in orbit around a planet, they don't HONESTLY need to calculate how the planetary body affects you, preservation of momentum and all that... they just need to change the force vector by a few degrees in according to precalculated physics)

I was just trying to soil the party... but it is nice to know what the jargon means. From what you've stated I gather that release dates are likely going to be "A" monday - wednesday; providing enough time for support to handle any issues that large scale release may cause.

I wonder if angling the thrusters more as you continue down the line would provide better thrust, (Effectively, your vertex changes to match the speed at which the kerbal is moving) The problem is STILL that without a barrel you're losing so much of the force. (Hence why your initial attempts were humourous, but futile) But as the Reddit design clearly is a "faux barrel", supplying the "expanding force" (I was trying to do so just by launching a 10x mainsail rocket rear with 1x mainsail forward with limited success [mostly, I kept losing the kerbal]). Honestly though... I feel that a GIANT (as in 10x the VAB) catapult could supply better results. The problem is that the kerbal just isn't under the influence of the thrusters for a long enough time (Barrel, Gun, etc). A Catapult (not a Teeter-Totter) works by transfer of momentum, so until the abrupt stop the kerbal should remain in the "catapult seat" and hence retain most of the force. *But, of course, the physics system would tear the thing to pieces and the joints won't be nearly strong enough to provide the 100% transfer

Well... I don't get any higher by cheating. Put 20 odd mainsails + tanks overlapping each other. Although this is a longshot from a canon (I mean, it is basically the same as trying to fire a bullet without the barrel)

Well... yeah... if you use infinite thrust you can get a good canon.

Experimentals... sounds like something that requires 2 months, at the very least.

Meh on the nerd rage, and more meh on the myths. I remember something that I was told from who knows where a decade ago, and it turns out it is untrue People should stop making myths, I say. So you all are saying that liquid hydrogen is so uncontainable that it does not matter how big your sponge is, you're still going to lose more than you can afford... and even with the thicker lining of the shuttle's ET; it still is profusely leaking as is?

And... I have no clue what I should do with this now.

I understand that nyrath, but my question was more so about an F-18 (or w/e it is... I know the operation I want to describe) As I understand it, the F-18 (or w/e) has a very loose fitting fuel tank, such that it actually leaks fuel while on the runway; this tank will expand into the body once the plane reaches supersonic speeds, but until then it will constantly lose fuel. With liquid hydrogen, I know that it'll go through pretty much anything (and probably is actively leaking as the tanks are filled) but my question was "how secure do you really need it." Let's use an impossible device for an example. To greatly reduce launch weight, I'll bring 5Gg of LH2 into space and pour it down a hose, into a spout that flows directly to the engines.... so my "fuel tank" is now in space, while the "rocket" is on the planet. So the question would be, just how thick does this hose need to be to get ENOUGH liquid hydrogen into the engine to propel it into space? (Ignoring all other variables).