AngelLestat

I always find annoying deal with the parachutes in the stage config. But the action groups is one of the last things that you learn to config.. Is not hard. but is not as friendly like it can be. Agree with Snuggler.

Ok, I will detail a lot more my question. Lets imagine 2 earth size planets. Both tidal locking to each other. They are close enoght to complete one orbit in 24hs around their baricenter. Their axis is the same of its star system. So I assume that how they are tidal locked, there is not friction, earthquakes or other tidal issues related. The centripetal force would almost nullify any gravitation anomalies due to the close body. Of course I guess there would be a remarkable gravitation difference between closest face and the hide side. Also I assume that there is not inwards of outwards forces working around this system becouse there is not variation tidal forces. About how such system can evolve, seem unlikely bot no less imposible. I can imagine some sceneraries where this could be possible. After all, day by day discovering other star system with our telescoles, we already found many of them who challenge all our models about star system formation. And giving the stability of the system, maybe there is a habitable zone in each planet where life can emerge. Can be possible, or I am highly wrong? Thanks for the correction, but Idk why you did such scadal for one word. English speakers would have to show some appreciation to those who wanna learn their language so they do not need it. And I spend time trying to help you with your history, but you ignore all my comments. So I dont know why I can not keep discussing related stuff with other forum users.

You ask me how different structures can be possible, I show you. That news is just 1 month old. Scientist said that would open a new branch on physsics that they dint know.. You just read it and you already have a posture and an opinion.. seems unserious but nevermind, the answer is: "we dont know". But it does not matter what you was talking about, you answer me according to my definition. So you can not change it now. I said: If we take life like any kind of replicant that evolves, then is difficult to imagine a place where life cant exist. then Skyler4856 answer me: the center of a star I respond: Haha, yeah, that seems challenging. But.. who knows.. then you answer me: No. Not possible. Life requires pretty low entropy and any part of any star is highly disordered. There is zero (0) chance life could exist there. Also I mention conscience just like a possible consequence of the complexity. I dint said that it needs to be included in my life definition. But this show us how difficult is to define life. What if we compare a Coral with a virtual conscience? One seems only a rock the other may be indistingible from a human. You said that a Tapeworm it does not have a conscience.. I am agree. but where you cross the line? Life as we know it is just another equilibrium state of matter. What if that substrate matter is just information that we process like matter? This is not easy to understand, but the last advances in quantum computers and links between the thermodynamics laws and the information theorem points in that direction.There are also real experiments about this conexion between matter and information. If you want convert lets said a O2 molecule into bits. You need know the state of each subatomic particle with its spin and other atributes. Then you would realize that the amount of information that you need is X bytes. If you erese that information with a super efficient quantum computer you would measure the same amount of heat released by the operation that you would experiment if you convert that O2 molecule into energy. Search about the Holographic principle if you want to know more. there are not alive if you follow which definition? You have the life definition from the biochemistry point of view, the physiological, religion, genetic, thermodynamics and metabolic point of view. One of the most used is the thermodynamic definition, just becouse is based in one of the stronger theorem that we got. But we still dont know what is life and when draw the line. So we dont have any real definition yet. Abour selfish genes... you need to said just "genes". Selfish genes is just the name of Dawkin´s book. A recomended read if you ask me. About memes, if their enviroment grows, then in theory there are no limit how complex they can be. I am agree from the biochemistry point of view. It does not work, you can imagine what would happen if relativity would still work inside; ignoring the quantum theory. That is what all scientist do when they talk about wurm holes, FTL, black holes, etc. They ignore quamtum mechanics concecuences. And in those frames of reference they need to be take it into account. In the paper I guess you dint read the part when it said: "To clarify this possibility we suppose that BH interiors are described by the Kerr-Newman metric" EDIT: sorry, i will answer you later BRDAVIS.. a storm comming.

Sorry, but we are in the science section But well. I am agree then. http://www.sci-news.com/physics/science-particle-four-quark-matter-01538.html You answer me in base the definition that I choose (replicants that can evolve), so I dont know why you make an example based in us about elecromagnetism or why you are using different words to the life definition. I need to remember you that we dont have a good definition about life yet. So there is not right or wrong. We choose one to keep the frame of the discussion. I can give you some examples about replicants with the posibility to evolve. -digital software in a virtual enviroment. -memes in a brain-brain "cultural" enviroment. -etc. So is clear that it does not need to be matter to become a replicant. All depends on the replicant and the enviroment. With some errors in the replicant process and natural selection, complex structures can emerge if the enviroment alow it. And when you have something really complex, a conscience can be found. I am agree, but I had the feeling that you use the entropy example to try to prove that life can not be possible inside a star. But well, my english is really bad and maybe I misunderstudd. for sure, but the only that matters is how long this process take.. If you have a tiny black hole, it can be in the center of earth, and it can take billons of years to absorb earth. All depends on the size. Also maybe you have a big black hole that would consume the star in just some minutes. But we dont know nothing about the time inside a black hole. Maybe from inside that process takes billons of years. The only that we know about a black hole is that there is an event horizon. We can calculate the entropy. but that's all. After that point, all our known physsics stops working. From the entropy and information view point, there are amazing similarities with our universe. Still with those values (in case you want to explain in some moment part of their history) chemicals rockets would not be able to reach orbit. Maybe with zero in payload they could, but with more efficient rockets that ours. But all the adaptation problems or difference against human culture that you can find, it will only enhance the history and engiroment of your novel. Agree. I can not discuss these topics with my friends In your opinion, how close can be 2 planets one from the other tidal locked were life as we know it would be possible?

Yes. Like hawkinator and other people said, a planet with those characteristics can support life similar to us. More taking into account that they evolve in that world. But there is still some plots that you can use to improve your story with this scenary. A original scenary is not only the background landscape that your characters see through the window. Is an oportunity to generate extra content. For example, a planet with 1.5 g and 1.1 in radius can not have a normal space program like us. Chemical rockets can not reach orbit. Their only hope is beam propulsion or advanced methods. On the contrary their local moon would develop and conquerer the star system with ease. I read every month news discovers that increases the habitable zone in differents concept systems. For example in tidal looking planets orbiting stars at close distance is possible.. You can have a zone that is very hot, a zone that is really cold and a zone where the conditions are ok. Also in your story the planets can orbit each other at close distances to allow some benefic to reach orbit at that direction. They can be in a far orbit from their star, but they keep warm for the tidal forces. With a lot of volcanos in some planet points if their are face locked like moon with earth. It can be thousands of examples where these problems can be balanced to support life.

First I want to mention that my post was only to ask to Deathsoul097 what kind of life he was talking about... Becouse all were responding according to their own interpretation of the question. And depending the kind of life the answer may be totally different. Yeah, the problem that in my definition I mention the ability to evolve. So that reduce a lot the chances. But I like your point of view from the information. 0 chance? you can not do these kind of asseverations without prove it. Even scientists said that is possible cross a wall walking without touch it if you try an infinite number of times. You can said that is highly improbable. then I will be agree. But what about material structure that we dont know? What about different quarks structures? What about electromagnetism or other forces. I am glad that you use the concept of entropy to describe life. But when you said that life require low entropy, this is in the case of life as we know it. In fact what life do is take energy from outside, produce work and reduce its internal entropy, all this would increase the total universe entropy. So I dont find any logic rule to demonstrate that life can not exist. And "I guess" that the light that plants absorb is in a higher entropy state that the elements inside a star. I can said that in the center of the star there is a black hole, and inside the black hole there is life. And you can not refute becouse we dont know how a black hole looks from inside.

Haha, yeah, that seems challenging. But.. who knows..

Ok, i will try to be more specific this time. Lets discuss. - Experiments taking time to complete If we talk about 10 seconds I dont see the problem, but what different it makes if is 10 seconds or just instant? If is 1 day or 1 year in one place or orbit, then you will press start experiment follow of timewarp key and stop the timewarp in the right moment. This will become in a common mechanic for everything that you do.. Press start, timewarp, stop. If you have the same commands over and over to do one task then you can simplify that task avoiding the common procedure in each action. I know that wait a specific time brings some realism to the gameplay, but when you have to do it in a mechanical way over and over it becomes tedious, so that is a sign that can be avoided. Rocket fabrication taking time same here. Economics? Any economic mechanics that uses time it will break any balance with timewarp. Missions: If you need to wait time to complete some procedures then you will realize that the best way to deal with that is parallel procedures and missions. So your brain needs to focus in different missions-procedures at the same time. Of course this adds realism but also becomes very annoying. I personally like focus at one mission at the time. We are not NASA, a group of hundreds of people which each one focus in their own tasks. If these it would be a multiplayer coperative game without timewarp mechanic, then all of this would make more sense.

Sorry, but you need to be more specific with your question. What we are talking about? -Life as we know it on earth? -How earth mammals will adapt? -any kind of life? (to answer this question you must find a definition of "life" first.) If we take life like any kind of replicant that evolves, then is difficult to imagine a place where life cant exist.

still in your long post you dint solve that problem.. "timewarp". What happens with new players who doesn´t learn yet how to plan a mission with low fuel consumption? Even right now I find tedious plan a mission to avoid spent a lot of fuel. Some times I just want launch and concern about the problems later. if in the future squad adds life support, then the duration of your missions would be an important factor.

I dint said imposible, but 50 to 70 years into the future is a margin in the technology that we can project our estimations with certain grade of accuracy, beyond that there is much uncertainty. But it does not matter how much uncertainty, any scientific will be agree that something like a FTL transport cant be achieve it at least for the next 1000 years. This fact is mainly due to the energy requirements to bend/break space. How to be so sure if we dont know the technology advances? Easy, you just look the problem from the thermodynamics point of view. And why we need a magic system? there is no need. We can reach 10% to 90% the speed of light using real concepts that works with known physsics.

I personal I would hate any magic transportation system in KSP.. These include FTL, Teleportation, wurm holes, etc. But i would not have any trouble if they choose to add any transportation system that we could have in 50 or 70 years from now.

In their actual stage, is boring. The system seems almost arcade. But well, lets see how it will be when is finish.

wow thanks to clarify where is the issue. I thought that was just me. But is weird, MFS in principle ignores the solid fuels. mmm, maybe a variable is reset from the VAH to Launch. I will keep an eye to the MFS source.

Yeah, that's what I meant to said with my creepy english. In my example I have the srb1 with large "x" and burn time "a" then srb2 with large "y" and burn time "a", but when I launch; the shorted srb burn its fuel faster depending on its large and not in the amount that I set. Also I realize that the thrust in each srb is the same and correspond to the shorted.. So yeah, it seem that I had a big mess. I just delete all stock tanks and the large stock SRB (at begining also delete the short stock srb until I notice that the stretchy srb use the short stock srb model, so I put it back)

In any place where NathanKell adds code, it becomes a great improvement. I think that I like it so much becouse I also share that taste for realism. But I have so questions to see if anyone can guide me. What it does the Key "g" in the tanks? It said to change the tank type. But it does not do nothing I guess. Also I notice that different SRB sizes do not burn fuel in the same time ratio that I set. For example I have a short and large srb, but i want that both last the same amount of time.. But I cant get it. All these problems can be due to the fact that I delete all stock tanks and NP tanks? Versions that I current use: stretchy srb v6 and mudular fuel 3.3

Hard question, I would said that in the alcubierre drive case you will have a slight benefic against normal way from the distance point of view (not time), This would become clear if you made the calculation using derivatives for each instant of propulsion that has into account the infinitesimal change of lenght for each infinitesimal moment. But do not believe that using this method the difference in velocity due to expansion is void.. "Not even close". Becouse all the remain distance for each moment will still had the expansion effect over you, it does not matter if you use the normal or the alcubierrre way. And all this was just from the distance point of view. But expansion also has into account time. So the relative way has a benefic in this matter. Your trip is shorted from the time point of view. How Carl Sagan said... If you had a ship with constant acceleration of 1g, you will reach the center of the galaxy in just 25 years. Also if you had a alcubierre drive ship able to achieve 100 times the speed of light, you will reach the center of the galaxy in 300 years.

LOL.. WTF?? 14 words and I dint find sense in any of those. ehh? who said that? just read my comment or the part that you are quoting, stop imagine things. People love to imagine things, Where I claim that I am the 30% from the people who think like me? I just said that in case that my opinion represent more than 30% then it will matter to them. just that. I was not the one who did this topic. I was not the first who used the word Toy, boring, spam, arcade, etc to describe the actual career mode. This was not the only topic about this. And is just a discussion and opinions. Look Teodzero, he seems agree too. Thanks for clarification. I do not care very much if they do it in the 0.24 or 0.26 meanwhile is well planned and thought out, with relevance with the reality and the name of the game, "an space program".

One thing is make a tank 200 times the normal size, another is just 2 times or 3 times. It has not sense. You would not find any example in the real world. And what about the shape of different parts? Becouse the economic restraint of course. And always is better to start to test things in small scale. But it does nothing to do with the science or knowledge needed. I just hope that when the economic system is implemented, then in that point the size of parts it would not matter in the science tree, just the cost. Science needs to be about different kind of engines (different isp), better materials, etc. I can understand from the gameplay point of view some things like decouplers or fuel ducts. But different shapes or sizes.. I dont. And it does not matter if you have only 1 small tank at begining, you stack a lot of those and you build a big rocket anyway.. so what is the point??

I always use different folders for mod versions of the game, but what happen if I want the new changes in conjunction with the ships and mods that I already have? OK, that will shut me up Lets wait and see. Why people like the idea of unlock different tank sizes or wings, etc. Science advance does nothing to do with different tank sizes and shapes. That can be the answer to any complaint.. The problem come if my opinion represent more than 30% of other players concerns.

Write me a PM with your mail adress and I will send you the craft files, also if you want the save with the network. But you need to take into account that I use mods, there are mentioned in the same post. Cilph: Allow me a suggestion if you dont mind maybe to be concidered in a future. Some times we lose a mision just for pointing a dish to a satellite out of range. (of course not right know thanks to the bug). But it will be nice to have a confirmation system to ask if we have contact, if we dont press "yes" in the next 10 seconds it will automatic turn back to the last target. Take it like the question that you receive when you change the resolution of your monitor. I am pretty sure that real sats had a similar secure system. If the question present problems with the light speed delay, then a way to change target in a secure way using the remotetech computer, ----------- Well this is my network finish. (Continue from this post) Now I can go to any place without fear of conection lost. I really break my head to see how it was the best way to link all ComSats. I have 3 big geo comsats in kerbin. Small ones: 2 extra to cover the polar region, 2 in the moon, 1 in minmus Then I have big comsats (different from geo-comsats) in each planet. To set up all I turn off the delay.. now I turn on again. Becouse is a pain in the ass try to set perfect orbits with light speed delay. But for missions are not necesary perfect orbits. So it will be fun.

Really? And who tell you that? The only that we know, it is that in the future an "economic and mining-resource system" can be implemented. But we dont know how it would be. Right now, the only that I know, is that career mode with the weird tech tree "when you unlock new tank sizes and shapes :P" and the toy science system, looks silly and boring. So said that we dont like some things "even when is not finish" is just a way to help the developers to make choices about the stuffs that they are not sure how to do it. I guess that is better than said "all is perfect" and then realize the things that you dont like remains the same, so you left the game. Right know, the only that keeps me playing the game are some mods. But when new versions come out and some mods stop working, then I lose all my things that I build and set up; so is a turning point.

You mean the bug that additive dish do not work if you point to planets instead satellites? Well it does not bother me yet. But I see a little problem with that. If you lose power in the mission control satellite then you lose conection in all satellites. You have 4 satellites and only 1 is doing contact. This is how I do it: After 500 kerbin days that triangle and all satellites remains in almost the same spot. Maybe the triangle looks just a "bit" different. I am kinda proud of that This are the models for the kerbin triangle: I use one extra reaction whell (sas) to rotate them and ion engine to displace them. Is the best to achieve a perfect position. I remove all the normal fuel tanks and fuselages from the game, I only use stretchy SRB with modular fuels. This is the Mun and Minmus sat models. Going interplanetary, this are the launchers for kerbin and interplanetary sats. Braking in Jool, kinda risky becouse I have deadly re-entry (and FAR). I fail 2 times Interplanetary Sat Model in Laythe. I used hidraulic pistom to deploy the 2 big dishes in the center and avoid touch the solar panel. Also help a lot to keep thin the procedural fairing in the launch. I have another in Eve and Duna. I just need one more in Dress and I am done with my network

Thanks that is usefull, but the light speed parameter is fine. Taking Cilph words it seems that is distance/c, but I am not sure yet. I also add the NathanKell multiple antenna support. But I dont notice any change yet. The idea that 2 small antennas needs to add some kind of improvement is fine. Also the fact that a big dish can improve distance conection pointed to a smaller antenna. But I dont see any of that when I set up in True. For example I use the gx-128 reflectron (400GM) pointed to dts-m1 (50Mm), When I pass Minmus orbit I lose connection. That is not right... A big antenna not only help to send a signal further, also works to improve reception. If you have a very big parabolic, you can hear the sound of a bee in the air at 500 m, Also we can still sent and receive data from voyager. Or maybe is fine how it is and I am the one that is wrong. I am totally agree. Ok, I will keep testing. Tomorrow I will post pictures of my network. PD NathanKell : I saw your post later, read my answer to JDP. So, i am having troubles becouse i dint set the RangeModelType? What I need to write in that line? stock/standard/whatever to Additive .... what you mean? It is: RangeModelType = Standard I need to set? : RangeModelType = stock/standard/whatever to Additive?

Hi, I am new with this mod. I love it. I already had set a kerbin network and now I am trying to do a interplanetary network. But I have some questions. About the light speed delay. In the first page it said that you will have 15 min of delay when you sent comands to your vessel in the jool case. Why is that? Jool Apo is 72 212 238 387m + Kerbin Apo 13 599 840 256m = 85812078643 (worst case scenary), we divide by C --> 286 seconds, then we multiply by 2 (I am not sure why we need to take the go and back in KSP) and give us: 9.5 min of delay on the signal. There is a way where I can set the delay how I want? Lets say only real distance/c? And why in the first page said 15 min?