Sirrobert
-
Posts
2,630 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by Sirrobert
-
-
I hope it doesn't go the way of the zombie survival genre, with 500 early acces games popping up all over the place
-
I did not concider that.
DOWN WITH FACIAL RECOGNITION!
-
That's easy to say when you've played it extensively
what about people deciding whether to buy the game when it's released?
When I show the game to friends, they say 'wow you build a space station, that's so cool'
My roommates sometimes come in and watch me launch a few rockets, or land on the Mun, they think it looks cool
-
Well, that's not the point.
The point is getting a massive amounts of "payload" to where its going for a lot less "pay."
Granted, long burns are not the most exciting part of my KSP experience, neither are the endless hours the VAB, or the countless laps back and forth to LKO.
What is fun is solving the engineering problem. What is fun is arriving in the orbit of Jool with enough fuel will to do something when you get there. Like circumnavigating Laythee in a flying rover. Or several landings on Tylo.
Take my MegaTanker: 360 tons of space craft powered by four nuclear thrusters. TWR of around 0.06. My guess is it will require an hour-long burn even after perigee kicking. But it arrives in the orbit of Jool with over 200 tons of fuel, and it costs $500,000. Including launching it to orbit.
Now that’s fun!
Also I have a method for long burns: I keep one eye on the screen while I putter about doing light housework. It makes me feel better about wasting a day playing KSP if I get the laundry or dishes done.
It actually IS the point.
The question was: 'is there any reason not to use nukes...'
The awnser: Yes, if you don't want to sit through super long burns, there are other engines that are better than NERVAs.
Please stop trying to argue your perception of fun as fact. Fine, for your specific desires, nukes are best.
Personally, I love buidling things. Those countless hours in the VAB, and docking stuf tougether, are my perception of fun in this game. I don't care if I need to spend a little more to get my stuf to it's destination. It's not like it's hard to get funds in this game
-
This is true. Maybe it's the word "game" that's off-putting for you. What if instead we called it "interactive art." Would that be better? There's plenty of room for any type of electronic media anyone wants to make. If this type is not your favorite, then you don't have to play it.
It would be fine, if that's how they advertised it. Instead they advertise it as a game, and the media starts hyping it to high hell.
And than sooo many people pre order it, and it turns out to be full of bugs, or they downgraded the graphics that got people to pre order it in the first place, ect ect. That it keeps working only encourages publishers to keep pushing pre orders more and more aggrasively, than releasing a broken mess and let the users figure out the bugs. It's a cycle that's poisoning the industry. Me not pre ordering is a start, but just that is not going to cut it. Alot more people need to wake up before anything improves.
My problem is not with No mans Sky specificly. It's with the whole hype building around things that we know nothing about yet. Just wait until they actually DO release it. Or at the very least, release a release date, or some gameplay
-
Bio-security will never work.
It'll work as an add on to regular security, because it only requires minimal effort from a legitimite user
-
Graphics don't make a game great, while it's not photo-realistic it has its own style and still looks good.
Games these days don't have to be using the top-of-the-range graphics either, we're seeing a resurgence in 2D games, pixel art, sprites, voxels, low polygon count 3D.
Few of these new "old style" games are particularly "old" looking though, their graphics and style suit their themes.
The days of all games having to look as real as possible seem to (thankfully) be behind us
Yea. Nowdays it's either try to get out of the uncanny valley on the realistic side (and often spend way to much money and fail), or just stay comfortably on this side and spend that money on gameplay
-
No clue about those games, don't have them. I don't really care either, games are about gameplay. Graphisc are secondary
(KSP looks awesome though)
-
Don't forget names. Most nonstandard names aren't in the dictionairy either
-
I'm really looking forward to No Man's Sky. I know it's on the hype train express, but it just looks so neat, and if they can pull off the procedural generation and mega-scale universe successfully, it will be awesome. Just need to wait for Steam+Linux version to come out.
WHY are people looking forward to that thing? There is NO gameplay known. The ONLY thing we know about it is that it's pritty.
Why are people hyping something that, for asfar as we have seen, is not even a game? Sure the devs claim it has gameplay, but Ubisoft also claimed AC: Unity would be a good game without bugs. Stop trusting developers until they prove they can follow up
-
@Sirrobert
The point is if there's a pattern the crackers will test for that. And using only words you can find in a dictionary is a pattern. The crackers rely on the laziness of people when they set a password. That's why they are so successful. As I said before:
People don't realize that they are not a good at picking random passwords. There's always a pattern. The first 10 letters he slams into the keyboard may appear random but the problem is that nearly everybody hits the keyboard in about the same style. That makes the 'randomness' predictable.
How does a cracker know there's a pattern? Is it going to take several days to test every possible combination of words out of all languages first, before concluding it's random, and than try out all possible random combinations?
There's nothing indicating to outside users that my password is a big sentence.
People are indeed unable to pick random passwords. They are ALSO unable to remember actual random passwords, which forces them to write down passwords that are forced to be 'random' with punctuation marks and stuf, which makes those 'secure' passwords horrible passwords
-
Indeed. But it's still only a small fraction of all possible character combinations. How many words (all languages with latin alphabet) with a length of 23 or less exists? 100 millions? 1 billion (as in 109)?
That's nothing compared to the possible complexity of a password which allows every combination of latin characters: 2623 = 3,5 * 1032
Assuming 10,000 guesses per second a complete search in the dictionary would take a bit more of a day. (Not counting substitution rules like "o" -> "0" and stuff like that.)
Crackers usually do dictionary attacks first, then rule-based attacks (substitutions, adding a number to the end or start of a word, etc.) before resorting to ineffcient methods like brute-force.
Sure, but it's still possible to REMEMBER your password. Unlike that crap with 2 numbers, a capital, and a special symbol that has to be changed every month. That just ends up being way shorter, and written down somewhere.
-
Yeay, more hype crap about games noone even knows anything about yet...
-
The longest of my everyday passwords has a length of 23 characters. It's just a sequence of old passwords I used in the past.
Pro: Easy to remember, so easy I don't even have to think about it when typing it in; crackers usually give up before trying to brute-force 23 characters long passwords
Contra: Pretty low difficulty because it's made up of words you can find in a dictionary
Over the last years I slowly switched to using a password safe (KeePass 2). It has a lot of nice features and there's always an encrypted backup of the password database in the cloud. Just in case. And I can access that backup with my phone if I need a password on the go.
"It's x words from the dictionairy" doesn't really make it any easier to guess a password. There are ALOT of words.
But yea, all those password 'rules' with characters, capitals, numbers, and crap are stupid. And they keep forcing more and more off it
-
Not useless at all!
I have burns of an hour or more. (See the tutorial in my sig,)
All I need is enough thrust to blow out a birthday candle and enough fuel to do it for an hour and a half!
Right... Most of us don't actually want to babysit a manouver node for 90 minutes.
Really, there is only 1 thing I learned from this topic. There are people here that like watching a number tick down very slowly for 30 minutes. Well, have fun
-
IMHO, a good TWR isn't going to do much good if you run out of fuel before you get to where you're going. While TWR should be a consideration, I believe it's secondary to ISP in regards to interplanetary transfer operations. Useful charts though.
And ISP is useless if you have to burn for 30 minutes at a time to get anywhere
-
It's fine for personal computers. Like my PC doesn't need a password. I'm the only one who has physical acces to the thing anyway, and there's no sensitive information on it (and I turn it off when I'm not using it, so you can't get in remotly either).
The only reason I have for a password on my PC would be to keep the people I live out of my 'photo collection'. But that's not worth the hassle. If I could just smile at the webcam and unlock it that way, it might be worth the hassle
And for real security, it'd be great as suplement to a password. Something that doesn't require any effort to remember from the legitimate owner, but is still an extra hurdle for criminals is always good
-
If your poblem is weight, something is wrong: almost always, nukes save more than their own mass in fuel
Unless offcourse you are moving probes, in which case the entire transfer stage + probe masses less than a single NERVA
-
Ok, this is becoming rather annoying.
I just went ahead and built a new probe from scratch. The same as described above. The probe core, one battery, one antenna and all solar panels are stock. I used a launcher that I'd saved as a subassembly because it makes zero sense not to, the satellite is the important part right? What does it matter if I have a standardized launcher?
again I meet the orbit requirements easily.
However the blasted thing STILL doesn't give me credit for having launched a new unmanned probe that has power and an antenna in spite of launching one that I just built from scratch.
Broken contract is broken.
Are you sure there are no additional requirements? Some contracts want you to have a thermometer, or a materials lab, or a goo sample on the satelite.
Wouldn't be the first time someone forgets that, I reguarly do it
-
There are 2 exe's in the KSP folder (actually 3, but 2 called KSP)
There is KSP.exe, and KSP_x64.exe
BY default, if you start through steam, it will use the KSP.exe, which is 32 bit. You are only in 64bit if you start the KSP_x62.exe
-
In a creative, educational game like KSP I find the emphasis on disaster and blowing stuff up pretty toxic and boring (why I stopped watching Mythbusters after a while, "MOAR SPLOSUONS"). In a game like EVE: Online, which is pretty much about blowing stuff up, I find explosions pretty darn awesome. I'm sure someone will step in to defend "the playstyle", but the focus on things exploding in KSP is bad for the game and its image, IMO.
It didn't really start off as educational though right?
It evolved into an educational game, and explosions were part of it's early days. Personally I see it like looking back at an awkward youth, and smiling.
Also, the whole explodable buildings isn't just about explosions. It's added a big change to career mode. It allowed you to actuall screw up, beond just crashing the thing you were flying
-
Considering how much the SAS wiggles and overshoots maneuvers, I'm against anything that burns resources to give us SAS functionality.
And, Squad... Isn't it a little... LATE... to be asking whether you should change core game functionality?!
It's never to late to improve your game
-
It doesn't look like your centers of Thrust, lift, and mass are in line. That's fine in atmosphere, where the wings can compensate. But once you leave the range where the wings have effect, the unalligned thrust is going to flip it
-
Err, they seem to be missing the part where they say *where* they plan to get this fuel from?
It's going to magicly apear out of asteroids. Didn't you see that picture pointing to an asteroid going 'free fuel'?
Rocket always bending down/bouncing
in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
Posted
What exactly do you mean with bouncing?
Like a harmonica when thrusting? That usually means you have a relatively weak connection and a gigantic amount of thrust (more than the rocket needs/is optimal)
For any concrete advise, we'd need a screenshot though