Gargamel

Moved to Add-on Developement.

e·mer·i·tus /əˈmerədəs/ adjective adjective: emeritus (of the former holder of an office, especially a college professor) having retired but allowed to retain their title as an honor. "emeritus professor of microbiology"

And keep an eye on our "sale" thread, stickied here in this sub forum. I fully expect the game will be on sale for cheap in the next couple weeks.

This thread has been moved to Tech Support and merged.

Cookies? @Jajezoza?

No, there’s no rules to this thread. There’s often multiple conversations going on.

I think that’s part of one of the Blue Origin Mods. /s

Spaceflight Now has it listed as 1220-1250 GMT (0720-0750 EST) Dec 22. Woot!

Outside of the "International" sub forums, we require posts to be in English. For a very large percentage of our membership, English is not their primary language, and I applaud them because most of the time we can't tell the difference. I would get laughed at if I tried making jokes in Russian, and not in the way I intended. В матушке России борщ съешь! (<--- That is in the spirit of the game thread :D)

Sometimes I wonder if we mistake your comments being lost in translation as a sense of humor.

Star Wars + Tremors + Game of Thrones = Dune. And Dune > Star Wars (at least the ones made this century)

But asking questions is a good place to start. I’d rather see someone ask too many questions (for some ) and get headed in the right direction than have them wander aimlessly. It’s clear that a number of our members have a passion for sci fiction and possibly writing. We should encourage them the best we can, and if some of their inquiries get a little bothersome, that’s the beauty of the forums. You don’t have to answer, some other kind member will pick up the ball and answer the question.

I think he would agree with my main point, which is don’t give the reader a reason to doubt their suspension of belief. Be it by glossing over details (Epstein Drive), some handwavium (Ghostbuster’s Proton Packs), or the highly detailed (Andy Weir’s The Martian).

He wasn’t far off from reality a century before it’s time. The Nautilus? It was a nuclear sub. HG Wells’ Time Machine? He described nuclear war. Both these guys were talking about technologies before the physics even existed to describe them theoretically, let alone in specific. And they made it work because they didn’t get into much detail and didn’t disagree with physics ( ok maybe a bit in Well’s case.... but you had to know from the title there be a bit of bending of the rules.). 20k leagues was one of my favorite books as a kid, I’d love for him to join the forum. He’d probably be really interested in the project HARP thread.

That’s it. That’s where you need to stop. Don’t take your logic train any further. Take your nugget, your seed, your basis for your sci fi device and leave it there. Expand upon its abilities, but stay away from specifics. State something works just because it will work. This isn’t handhavium, this is sticking to the basics without contradicting yourself (or physics) and leaving the reader to fill in the details if they choose. Some of the greatest machines in sci fi worked because there wasn’t much detail about them. The Epstein drives in the Expanse as mentioned. The “Machine” in Contact. The ornithopters in Dune. These all work because they’re given a seed of truth band reality, and left at that. They work just because they do. The details are left to the reader to make the possible logic jumps from the base idea to the details to make it happen, and in doing so, they say to themselves “Ok, yeah, there’s a possibility of that working.” If you give the nitty gritty details of something, and make one tiny mistake, either in theory or execution, then the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

The Rocinante in the Expanse is a Torchship capable of atmospheric operations and landings. There’s no reason to get specific about systems when a single fictional torch drive will do the trick. In fact, personally, I prefer it when authors give me a hunk of sci fi to digest and instead of trying to explain it, they just make me deal with it. As long as something isn’t obviously implausible or incorrect, the suspension of disbelief is a powerful tool to wield. Stick to the KISS method of sci fi devices.

So are we any closer to confirming that as the launch date? I’ll be at the Cape that week for the CRS-24 launch, and it’d be great to find a launch viewing party down there for the JWST.

I hear Star Wars Squadrons isn’t too shabby. But honestly, that style of space game hasn’t caught my eye in a couple decades. My First thought was “Descent” and then “Parsec”, which are both old enough you’ll find it difficult to play one of them, and probably impossible for the the latter.

Thanks @sevenperforce, I know what I’m binging again this weekend.

I’ve been consuming quite a bit of FTL lately. Not sure if it’s exactly what you want, but it’s loads of fun.

I doubt it, since the majority of his KSP work was before SQUAD was part of PD/TTi. He’s mainly a space flight guy now that uses KSP occasionally.

I would agree with you. One of the most common complaints we see from new players on the forums is "The tutorial is broken! I need to do xyz, and it won't let me". I don't think there were tutorials in the Alpha stage when I got into this game, and so we had Scott's videos and the forums. And because we didn't have tutorials, we told subsequent adopters of the game they didn't need them either. And so on. KSP is about rocket surgery. It's got a pretty steep learning curve for a cartoonish game about little green creatures. It looks easy on the surface... but it's not. We lose a lot of new players from not having good in game instruction. Having solid, fun, tutorials will go a long way to cementing the new player base.

I don't follow this. There's nothing instantaneous about this. It will gradually spin up to speed, release, and then gradually slow down. There will only be two forces occurring here, one is a materials and design issue, and the other is engineering. The will be a lot of force applied to the length of the arm, along it's major axis, so as long as the arm is strong enough to not tear itself to pieces as it spins up to speed, that will be fine. When the payload gets released, the off-balance of the arm will be an issue, but I think they address this in their proposals and in the small test launch they recently did.

It's something we've inquired about, but until Invision makes the change in the base engine, we're stuck with a forum default.

This one? Question threads can be sorted either by date or votes. The forum software defaults to votes. Yes, we've discussed changing this in the past, but it's been decided that since a lot people find KSP related answers via google, it's best to keep the best answers at the top of each thread. Votes are not likes. Please only upvote posts that answer the question.