steuben

it should say within the text of the contract itself what you need to do to complete it. Post either the exact text of of the contract or a screen shot and we should be able to help.

You gotta choose one. The calculations are either correct or not. My best guess, never having even looked at the game, is that they are using a chunked difference map coupled with procedural terrain generation. Which can generate huge amounts modifiable terrain very cheaply, raw data wise. But, when you have to have specific terrain in a specific spot each time, scaled up to a full planet, well you loose a lot of what ever you gain pretty quickly.

Game requirement specs are not a very good argument that the calculations are wrong... unless I'm missing a subtlety of the argument. Would you care to point out exactly where the calculations are wrong, or expand on your argument? For my part, because I did skip the presentation of a number of calculations. Volume of a sphere -> 4/3 pi r^3 Radius of kerbin: 600,000 m Pi: 3.14 (no need for more digits given we are working at the piano tuner level of analysis. I could go with 3, but someone would go all foamy at the mouth about that.) Number of bits to a byte: 8 (I know, but sometimes weird assumptions can be made) Number of bytes to a gigabyte: 1073741824 (an imperial gigabyte, not one of those smaller metric ones) Number of voxels per cubic meter: 1 Volume of kerbin: 9.05 E17 cubic meters If we are merely recording the presence/absence of a block then we will only need 1 bit. This means 9.05 E17 bits, or 1.13 E17 bytes, or 1.05 E8 Gigabytes to record that information. For the moment, we will can exclude recording any changes as a difference map, as that will only increase the amount of information stored. Now, given that having all the voxels the same will be boring we will need to indicate what kind of terrain that voxel is. We won't need millions or even thousands. Using a "palette" map we can reasonably assume at most 256 different terrain elements. This will take the amount of data required to store a planet up to 8.43 E8 gigabytes. However, true in _most_ cases the entire planet will not be edited. To give a generous amount of planet to work with lets allow modification to the first 100 kilometers. So for Kerbin: Uneditable radius: 500,000m Uneditable volume: 5.24 E17 Editiable volume = 9.05 E17 - 5.24 E17 = 3.81 E17 cubic meters Now, following the previous calculations this means that it will require 3.81 E17 bytes, or 3.55 E8 gigabytes to store the partial planet. Though, since the number of voxels is proportional to the third power of the radius. What if we shrank the editable radius down to one kilometer. This will reduce the editable volume to 5.00 E15 cubic meters, (the calculation of which is left as an exercise for the reader). This will reduce the data requirements down to a mere bagatelle of 4.66 E6 gigabytes. We can also assume the following. That the above amounts of data represent the ceiling of the amount of data required to represent a planet. The larger ones are gas giants and have no surface, or at least none that we recognize as such, to edit. So for the Kerbol system, 15 landable bodies, assuming only 1000 editable meters of any planet that means 6.98 E7 gigabytes of data will be required.

The slightly strong argument against involves MATH! and computer SCIENCE! You'd basically have to manage _alot_ of bits to do it. Not just a lot of bits, but an eldritchly large number of bits. Let's take a look at Kerbin. At 600,000 meters in radius that's 9.05E17 cubic meters. Let's say our voxel represents one cubic meter. If we have only one terrain type, That would mean roughly 9.05E16 bits would have to be stored, or around 90 million gigabytes of data for the base representation of Kerbin. And that's before the question of how to represent it getting turning inside out by some mad player. But, since people want additional detail we'll need more that just the one terrain type. So let's go with a nice round 256 different terrain voxels, which puts us to a nice round 1 billion gigabytes of data to start with. Ah, but a mere bagatelle, you may say. What if we only represent say the top 100 kilometers, that would be enough for most people. A bit better... but that is still 3.81E17 bytes, assuming up to 256 different terrain voxels. So 40 million gigabytes, per planet... I think I just heard two things. The cackle of glee and hand rubbing of hard drive manufacturers, and my wallet whimpering. Part of the reason that games like Minecraft and No Man's Sky can get away with voxels of such large things is procedural generation. All you need is the seed for that part of the space, a comparatively small amount of data, and you just need to store the difference between the output of that seed and what you've done. Besides, a game about digging... I have the feeling that would be boring.

Two people describe the joys that is ClF3, John Clark and Derek Lowe. Both of their opinions on the substance can be found here: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2008/02/26/sand_wont_save_you_this_time. I think anything that has combustion products that include hydrogen fluoride can really given the foot note treatment and left on the shelf... preferably somebody else's... in a different building.

A quick answer is don't spend a dollar on a word when you can get away with spending a nickel. To paraphrase an old master of the craft, "Tape your thesaurus closed." Use the simplest word you can to get the point across. Save the "dollar words" for speech and use them only to show certain character traits. I'll chew on it a bit more to see if there is anything else.

What level of analysis are you looking at?

SAS conflicts Clipping Bad autostructs, usually the ones set to root and/or heaviest.

Build and fly rocket plane that looks like Picasso got the design contract.

Well with in the realm of the doable. It is approximately 3700 m/s for a round trip. My go-to would a Nerv if you have them, since you are using a lifter to get it to orbit. Borderline impossible is an Eeloo return with only 90 science tech.

"I haven't failed -- I've just found 10,000 that won't work.", Thomas Edison. The man was jerk on the level of Steve Jobs. But, he was right. Sometimes it is just the one subtlety that you finally figure out reflexively after all those attempts.

No formal backstory, just lots and lots of head-canons. But, a question asked a few times previously. The best write up I've got so far of mine can be found here:

For certain values of feature price.

A bad trailer just shows "blow the money" scenes. A good trailer sells the story or the 'verse. A great trailer sells the story and the 'verse. An epic trailer sells the story and the 'verse, with the right amount of "blow the money" scenes. It does sell the 'verse. It touches a bit on the story. Which makes it a really good trailer, or a lesser great trailer. As for the kerbal-ish aspects versus serious... you can do both. I play the game fairly kerbally. But, when I write the fan-fics it's fairly serious.

and... that sale is over. Time to unpin this.

Ghost data. There is probably a firm story but, it for the most part it is a stub for gameplay features that never got implemented. But, it does mean if the flag is true the kerbal only stops smiling when bits are falling off the craft... That aren't being staged off. My fanon answer is, that flag is the answer to a question. That answer is "chrome steel and coconuts." The question is left as an exercise for the class.

Merch. Will we be getting KSP2 themed merch?

craft designs? if so what are your design constraints?

Default. Unless you are working with a few million sub 16kb files any gains by playing with the allocation are in the below one percent range.

A serious effort at merchandising. A good bit of decent merch can add some nice additional revenue to a game. Yeah, I know I beat that drum a lot. I even got a special one made. It doesn't go "brrum" when you hit it. It goes "merch".

Too quote myself. A soundtrack is a take my money idea. Cause as we all know <crowd participation>Merchandizing is where the real money in the game is made</crowd participation>. KSP the Image album, the Orchestral Bombing of "The O-4 March", the waltz styled "Fireball Slide", the slow meditative "Coasting the Void", the power rock of "Test Flight Alpha", the mournful "Contact Lost", the canon "MOAR BOOSTERS!", and many more. ... Now available as a two LP, two eight-track, or two cassette tape set, from K-tel Records.

Ain't sayin' it wouldn't be worth it. I know that 60$ is some industry magic price point. But, 60 USD (80-90 CAD depending on the day) is a bit over my impulse buy price point; which KSP-1 was at the time. It's even over the yeah I can swing it this month price point. This is in the i'm going to have to think about it and wait for a sale territory.

Two words Pre. Order. Another two words Value. Pack. Last three words. Merch. And. Dising. ... What's dising... and how does one do it?

Doesn't show on the Mk2 Cockpit or the clamp-o-tron port. But does on the Mk1-3 pod

Those I've got. And neither what I'm looking for. The was/is a button available that when you clicked on it would cycle through, normal, reversed, forward, and would change the "zero" point of the nav-ball. Kind of found it. It is the button "control point" but it only appears to be available on probe cores.