Aanker
-
Posts
281 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Aanker
-
-
I find it difficult to see robots replacing humans in certain key jobs, especially those that basically require human to human interaction, the use of charisma, creativity and social skills. Sure, those jobs would see increased automation, but if what you need to replace a human for the task is basically the perfect robotic equivalent of a human... why not just keep the human in the picture?
Nursing (especially in hospices), medicine, psychiatry, business leadership, law & order, politics, entertainment, culture, social services (imagine a robotic domestic violence hotline... ugh...).
The assumption that anything can be automatized eventually may be realistic, but that it would be more efficient than a human in all cases seems overconfident. Suppose that, for nursing (just as an example), you need basically all of the skills of the human brain - so your robot basically needs a mechanical equivalent of the human brain. That might be more expensive, more error prone and less easy to maintain than your average Joe.
Manufacturing, sure.
-
So let's keep experimenting to see what's really going on and let's keep trying to find flaws in the same experiments to exclude systematic errors. Basically what's going on right now.
-
Panel Vans and Hot Dogs, the 'memes' (or more accurately catchphrases, but hey modernity) of 1.0.2.
-
Would make for a good mod though.
-
Yeah, if that can be simulated accurately.
I mean I like the simplicity of using a single set of parts for so many different roles. But dedicated aesthetic parts would be 100% not associated with wing drag and lift effects and so maybe easier to simulate. Maybe.
-
Would make for a nice effect, perhaps to avoid the bugginess it would be triggered only if you have a certain acceleration across the sound barrier?
-
Yes, I think this or new decorative parts would be a good solution. Ultimately, something like procedural fuselages and wings would allow the most freedom, but that is a distant dream.
Fuselage panels could be used as heatsinks, very light and slightly effective thermal protection and maybe in late tiers even as integrated solar panels or something.
-
There are thousands of people that play KSP. Many don't go on the forums, and many are. But only a few hundred, out of thousands, are really complaining, AFAIK.
Let me quote you here:
This is just a complaint. Just a whine. You can whine all you want, but please not here, where we need constructive criticism.
The game is about solving problems. If you don't like solving problems like these, go play a different game.
You are presenting the argument that "this aero is bad for KSP". You're not digging up evidence, or presenting evidence you have found. You are merely stating the argument.
Could you please show me one?
I'm not being judgmental, I never judged you for a second. I'm also not presuming anything. I saw a baseless complaint from a POV and responded constructively, telling to do something the game was designed to do, solve problems. How that same POV might view that response is a different story.
I didn't post the below, for instance, for fear of being accused of spamming (see - accusational posts get us nowhere). So here you go. Check the edit part:
16 tiny wing parts = 550 m/s difference. I should make an argument flowchart at this point and just repost that. But hey, I'm just whining so it doesn't matter.
-
Sigh... at least for me, the wing stacking was not for exploitative purposes. Sure, it generated lift, but lift in and of itself is not really useful, especially when it was compensated for even in previous versions by lag and drag.
What I'm asking for, with respect to stacked wings - is not a return to exploitable lift. Stacked wings should either be mergable into larger wings with the same lift and drag characteristics as large wing parts, or have both drag and lift removed. Or the aero model should calculate protection from the airflow by the leading edge of the wing.
Previously, wing parts were used to build fuselage shells around aircraft. This is only marginally possible now. Again, the largest issue is that the aero model bluntly takes wing parts as an attempt to exploit, not create. And again, it doesn't pay attention (either in lift or drag) to part merging and stacking, even in the right direction.
*removed paragraph*
Nevermind, I don't know what's going on with the thread title. The most neutral I can think of is 'spaceplane drag discussion'.
-
I like the lego style of building wings, but at the same time procedural wings may be the way forward with respect to ease of drag calculation and at thesame time enabling substantial shape creativity.
I'd actually like entirely procedural and stretchable craft, but I think the biggest thing overall is that you can't really do any of the approaches halfway. For the lego process, we simply need more varied, more flexible and plain and simple more parts. For procedural, we would need procedural wings, radial cockpits, procedural fuselages, procedural landing gear etc etc.
Wing part welding, to build a larger part out of smaller ones, is another solution to the lego process problem of accumulating drag and part count.
-
It isn't actually perceived as green - hence why the colour is called 'impossible' - the perception stems from two normally opposing colours in the retinal opposition process being combined in the brain. So it's not really green. If you saw a blue and yellow interlacing pattern at a distance with both eyes equally at once, however, you might see green.
In the wikipedia article (as well as through a google image search) there is an example of how the imaginary colour can be seen.
-
No. The majority that is spending more time playing the game and having a blast than complaining. Polls like that aren't really good data sources...
Of course they aren't, especially when the data is inconvenient. But you know, that wasn't the point. The point you just ignored was that you don't really know where the majority is - and so you can't really make any bold statements from a position of presumed superiority. It just doesn't work that way.
I'm not singling you out. This is a message to all people making claims that are just whining.And who are you to dismiss long and elaborate arguments as just 'whining'? Mod, judge, executioner all in one? Lol.
I don't want to restrict and limit, you're making an assumption there. I want people to stop complaining and solve problems by themselves. Which is what the game is all about.What the game is 'all about' is a point of contention, not a justification for dismissing people as whiners. I don't think the current aero model - either because of too much drag, because of a lack of adequately simulated parts or because of a combination thereof - is good for the game. I'm presenting arguments to that effect. I want to improve the game. That's not whining.
So, please stop whining, and present a well supported case for changing aero. Or, if you would rather not do that, find a method that works. Engineer a plane that does what you want. Deal with the problems given to you and solve them.I did present several solutions for fixing aero. But my posts and threads were partly drowned by unconstructive, judgmental and presumptive replies like yours. Have a good day.
-
OP didn't make any points to answer.
Maybe. I'm starting to mix these threads together because I repeatedly have to explain the same things all over again. To the same people.
-
You're just saying " I don't like it." Yet, it's perfectly fine for others. Don't complain until you absolutely can't find a way around it. And I'm pretty sure most people here are smart enough to do so.
And dealing with it is important. If you want the game tailored to just you, go make your own. But this game is balanced for a majority. Not a minority.
The same pro-1.0 majority that right now is leading the aero poll? Not saying that poll is necessarily representative of the situation, but come on, where do you pull these extraordinary claims from?
You are trying to single me out even though there aren't actually any grounds for it. My idea of an aero model accommodates both for creativity and the kind of minimalistic craft some people here like to build. You just want to restrict and limit. Sounds like you have a problem with people playing this game in a different way. Your behaviour somewhat seems a bit like that of a bully, actually.
-
Remove the wings completely, your current build is just not realistic enough.
-
Realistic one. So completely different than yours. Stop crying and learn how to play this game.
This
Learn to post coherent and valid arguments on this board, and actually address the points of the opposing poster instead of retorting to old tired expressions like "l2p" and "stop crying".
We don't really improve the game that way. And we want to improve the game, don't we?
-
Ever thought they screwed up 1.0 and the original plan called for more drag? Or that they thought about it, and decided that more part nerfs would kill the already nerfed parts, so they upped the drag.
Seriously. Just
DEAL WITH IT
for once and stop whining.
Haha ok. I'm sure the problem goes away if I just fix my whiny self and deal with it. That's how games are improved people! Don't ever dare complain about changes, especially if they restrict you, because then you're just a soft newb who needs to deal with it and l2p.
This language belongs in a MOBA type forum, not in a a supposedly more sophisticated game discussion board.
-
I understand exactly what you're saying in this post but this thread is blaming the wrong thing. Parts are the problem, not the atmosphere. I have no idea why you people aren't lobbying for better parts/tweakables/modules and are instead blaming it on a fairly realistic atmospheric simulation. Honestly, it would be fairly trivial to add a part module to wings that would remove their lift module and add a box drag model to them (they have no drag cube), I have no idea why Squad didn't add one... As far as clipping is concerned I don't think Squad's sim is going to go that far, you may instead want to look into nuFAR.
I frankly haven't had the breathing space to do that between all the accusations of being an exploit-abusing noob, wanting to reintroduce x-wings to the realism of KSP 1.0.2 and suggestions to just use a mod instead of highlighting the problem. Yes: this would be one solution that I would be happy to see. And I've explained that before.
-
Show me what the textbooks say. I love to learn new things.
I don't have my Purves Neuroscience textbook with me in the US (currently doing an internship for half a year), but in the meantime I will refer you to the 'second best' alternative:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_color
It's a quite expansive article. It is partly dependent on the opponent process (if this is what you mean by colour negative?) but the topic is much deeper than that and for standard vision these colours cannot be accurately represented.
-
I think you misunderstand. I don't want the 0.90 atmosphere back. But I do want less drag and soup in this new aero. At least for wings and spaceplane fuselages.
-
Imagine your three Kerbals are on a 400 day mission to some distant planetary body. They have been locked up in a single crew capsule for what they perceive as an eternity. Tensions are running high between the crew - Shelby Kerman is turning increasingly aggressive, and mission control is starting to suspect an underlying mental instability. Brandon Kerman is barely managing to keep him in control, as the most influential and charismatic member of the crew. Jennifer Kerman is stable, having been on multiple longer missions before.
Then one day, someone eats Shelby's ration of snacks. The player is thrust into a multi-choice dilemma on how to solve the unfolding psychological crisis. Since communications have been upgraded over the last couple of missions, the best brain shrinks Kerbin could offer have been sent to the KSP to ensure a favorable outcome no matter how the situation is addressed. But multiple factors must come together to ensure a safe outcome - will Brandon's leadership hold? Was Jennifer careless enough to eat the snacks - and if so, will her guilt be revealed? Is Shelby too unpredictable?
The player decides to pursue a non-confrontative path. But Shelby was clearly beyond the point of reason way before the incident. The signs were there - increasingly negative log entries (low morale), sporadic outbursts (short info popups) and the underlying knowledge that his crew compatibility was low...
Shelby's kerbal icon turns yellow. His skills and knowledge will no longer contribute to the mission - that is fine, as both Brandon and Jennifer were more experienced and competent. But if anything goes further wrong, it might turn orange. Or dreadfully red. And who knows what will happen then?
***
Drama aside, I've always felt that the Kerbals should be of greater importance to the Kerbal Space Program. Crew skills already did some to accomplish this, but we haven't really delved down into the personalities and possible 'RPG' elements too much. Now, I know some people aren't terribly interested in becoming too attached to their Kerbals, or watching them go into a psychotic rage that results in the death of some other crew member, but that is why I'd like to pitch this as a mod idea. I also think it could have some relevance to 'fun realism': we get to actively control the situation, the events should be simple and lenient enough to allow recovery at several points, and at the same time we are faced with one of the major challenges of spaceflight - how to keep a crew sane through months or even years of living in a tincan.
The exact approach could vary. But I would like to see something like this. It might even be worth it to learn some KSP modding techniques to get it done - depending on the complexity involved, of course
-
Modular designs might be one solution to this problem. Basically, attach one or several of the rapiers to the main structure by way of docking ports. Then have an 'engine depot' in orbit where you can switch out the undesired engine for one more suitable to the mission. I used to do this a lot. Launching and building up this kind of infrastructure is actually kind of interesting as you will need tugs, more spaceplanes to put the stuff in orbit, etc.
Though it may technically no more be an SST-Duna.
-
0/10 so unrealistic, not aerodynamic shape, too many wing. Clearly not fit for hypersonic flight.
Look at the airplane on the right. See those 8 tiny wing pieces merged with the fuselage to shield the two engine/fuel tank structures? There are 8 more on the bottom. Admittedly they are mostly for style. But the placement should hide them from the airflow.
Result? More than 550 m/s sea level maximum speed reduction as compared to the model on the left. 400 m/s as compared to 950+. The fuel tank centerline distance had no effect on the drag, by the way (which was the only other difference between the two planes).
-
We can have the advantages without killing stylized spaceplanes, though.
What jobs will human have left once we perfect automation technology?
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
So is this a robots replace humanity thread? Or a workforce automatization thread? I'm confused