Deddly

I'm really glad you like it! It's not perfect by any means, but I feel it does a reasonable job of capturing the beauty of the moment. Exposure was 30 seconds with the camera facing straight up, which means I was directly underneath the aurora in the north of Sweden at the time. What I couldn't capture on film was the majestic way in which it shimmered and danced across the sky. It actually stretched from one horizon to the other - truly a sight to behold.

Well I'm not planning on making money from it or anything like that, but I would prefer to keep the original to myself, in case I ever need to prove it's mine. Hope you don't mind. Here's a higher resolution for you: 1980 x 1280

I'm glad you liked it. I took the picture myself so I can send you a version in the size you need, if you like. What resolution is your desktop?

There was a geomagnetic storm the other night. Just thought some here might appreciate this. More recent pictures later in the thread

We can possibly conclude that the KSP community has a greater number of accomplished cheats

It's because of this:

OK Finland, own up. So if we discount the 8000 spam votes for KSP, I'd assume Construction 2 wins handily.

I'm calling shenanigans on one region in Finland having nearly 8000 votes, 100% of them for KSP, compared with less than 2500 total votes from the entire US.

I think what @max_creative might mean is that this appears to be a "replike" fishing thread where people give each other internet points for no apparent reason. I appreciate that it wasn't the intention of the thread, but it's hard to deny that it is happening when you see someone post "I only need x number of likes to reach x number of likes", and you can see in the new forum software how many people have clicked the "like" button for that post. Of course it doesn't really matter. We all know that @Kuzzter has already won the internet.

My first reaction was "I've never played Construct 2, so what right do I have to vote?", but then I realised you have to vote to see the results. Conclusion: My curiosity made me break my principles. Hmmm But KSP has 71% of the votes, so yaaaaay.

@Spaceception, honestly, that article contains so much misinformation that I can't bring myself to read it all because it is so blatantly biased. Nor can I motivate myself to bring up all the counterarguments here that have been argued in so many other places. Long story short: no, electric cars are not pollution neutral when you count the entire production process and the various charging methods used around the world, but they are a great deal more environmentally friendly than regular cars that run on combustion engines when taking into consideration the life-expectancy of the vehicle. Yes, lithium takes a lot to extract and to make into batteries, but it is also completely recyclable.

I predict that in a forum such as this with a reasonably high population of thinking people who appreciate good technology over a brand name, your poll will be quickly filled with people who would choose the Tesla. Around the same price for a far more advanced vehicle, it's a no brainer.

They actually have a Bolt as well.

I think the general rule is that knowledge in any particular field ruins your fun in movies that have anything to do with that area.

@Bill Phil, that's why people queued for hours outside the stores to be amongst the first in line to preorder it. 250,000 reservations and climbing.

It might be too early to tell, but to me it looks like @CliftonM's suggestion worked, nice!

Hold it right there, mister. General Order 35 states that we never talk about General Order 34!

It does look good. I personally prefer the style of the model X front though, and I'm not sure about the console screen sticking out like that. Honestly though, wonderful car and cheaper than a Leaf.

Looks like they are anticipating server overload when the online orders open. They should have used Curse.

No need to get creeped out by it. It just sounds like a bug in MM. Enjoy it while it lasts, it's hillarious.

You forgot the survey option for "I'd kill for one but I can't afford one" EDIT: Thanks

It could also be a simple question of education. There are still a great number of people out there who think a 4 ghz Pentium PRO will outperform a modern 2.4 ghz i7 in single-threaded processes because ghz. Then again, it could be a due to the fact that their hardware can run games with more impressive graphics without issue and at a faster framerate than KSP. They may not realise the amount of processing power required for physics. Or another possibility could be that they were able to run older versions of the game OK, but newer versions don't run as well anymore. The key to helping someone come around to your way of thinking is to first of all understand their way of thinking.

Such a shame you don't have a Slartibartfast Kerman,

@Enorats I really was talking about single core performance. An old Pentium pro 4 ghz will be hopelessly outclassed by a modern 2 ghz cpu - even when only counting single core performance. By way of comparison, a few years back we had an Amiga 1200 with a 68030 processor @ 50 mhz. Upgrading to a 68040 @ 25 mhz was a HUGE difference in performance. Yet the new processor only ran at half the clock speed. You see, the clock speed is only useful for comparing identical architectire CPUs. As for running KSP on 1 gb RAM, the system requirements do say 2 gb, but I guess it might work with virtual memory? As has been mentioned before, give the demo a go, it's free: https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/en/?page_id=17

Ok first of all, everyone really should know by now that he number of ghz doesn't tell anyone how powerful your machine is. For example, @Enorats 4 ghz pc is not even close to the power a modern 2 ghz i5 is capable of. So that means we need to know the specs of your machine. @Rocket In My Pocket gave you some instructions on how to do that. Without that information, all we can do is guess. You can also give us the make and model of your computer, which would help.