Kerbart

If they became 5 times stronger I would not. And that appears to be the current problem.

And break every single helicopter? That will go over well. I'm pretty sure the number of players using the helicopter blades as... well, helicopter blades will by far outnumber the players who use them as aircraft wings and consider them OP. The current aero model is trying to make things that look like airplanes fly like airplanes, and make things that look like helicopters fly like helicopters. Anything beyond that is wishful thinking and I don't think subject to a hyperbole like "broken." Do aircraft no longer fly? Can you fly a helicopter to Minmus? No? Then it's not broken.

Sadly I don't have a link, but I saw an analysis that listed some interesting numbers. If we treated the virus like the seasonal flu, about 80% of the US would get infected. Casualties would be much higher than they are right now, as hospitals would run out of equipment like ventilators, resulting in people dying that would survive right now. The total body count would be around 4 million. I'm not an expert, but the analysis seemed legit, taking demographics into account, etc. While the lock down is incredibly destructive, the big question is: can we afford not to? And is it worth risking to do that?

Are there any add-ons required like a toolbar mod? It shows up under ACV for the version check but no KSTS button in the toolbar. I checked on the first page but didn't notice any requirements, but my eyes are old... EDIT: Nevermind, I figured it out with the logs. Tool bar controller and Clickthrough Blocker are required, it works fine now!

Because τ is a much better representation for the circumference of a circle. A lot of trigonometry becomes much simpler when using τ instead of π, and from a math point of view, the radius as the defining element of a circle is much more sensible (even though in engineering the diameter makes more sense).

No, that’s why YYYY-MM-DD is the way to go; it’s unambiguous and will be sorted the way you want it without having to resort to (potentially faulty) date conversion. With the US “leading the field” when it comes to making up holidays (like pi day and star wars day) it’s inevitable that these days become popular based on the US date format. And it’s also inevitable that the rest of the world wonders who makes this up. Regardless, it’s the wrong day to celebrate. June 28th is far more appropriate.

I’m not a lawyer but reading the EULA, they don’t own the copyright. They do get an irrevocable license to treat the material as if it were theirs including everything you mentioned, so there’s that, but Just Jim remains the owner of the copyright. Truth be told, this can either be a rights-grab, or CYA, and probably a bit of both (with the rights-grabbing being collateral damage). It’s a bit like photo sharing sites “trying to steal your copyrights” — no, if you want them to transfer your photos over the web they will need some indemnification to do so. I suspect it’s the same way here. Yes, theoretically this gives T2 the right to use Emiko’s story as the basis for a Netflix series. The reality is that somewhere in the past some game developer showed a screenshot that was grabbed from the web and ended up with a copyright lawsuit; clauses like these prevent serious monetary damage where honest mistakes are made. Of course it also creates room for less honest practices. You can wonder how far the developer of a game that relies heavily on a connection with their community will push their luck in that regards, though.

Obviously not but that was indeed what I had mind. I think we agree on what atmospheric craft would look like but I also think that 90% or more will not be atmospheric and will have a ball/cube like shape, simply to save on materials needed and to keep angukar momentum down during maneuvers. I think that “The Expanse” does a good job in depicting how such ships would look like.

But there are construction and other constraints that limit the oblong shape, hence my question. Putting the crew cabin at a considerable (once we get into the hundreds insted of dozens of meters) distance from the COM will severely limit the turn rate of the ship (without the crew passing out) If your drive system is powerful enough to generate gravity (as in The Expanse) structural design comes into place and a cone shape might be more desirable than a cigar shape. Finallyif the hull needs to be pressurized choosing a stubby cylinder or even a ball shape might be worth considering over an oblong shape simply because less hull plating is needed. All together I’m not so convinced that the oblong shape is that obvious the single solution.

So what about ships assembled in space? To what extend does the drive system matter?

Surely people will leave KSP2, once it is available, which is now estimated for the end of Q1 2021. And with software development that means more likely after that, and certainly not before. Which answers the question why Squad bothers with the game be ause there’s at least one year left in it, and at the current rate it means a 1.10 and likely a 1.11 version. And even after that... the current KSP version flies in modest hardware. KSP2 will very likely behave more like a modern video game and require high end hardware. Meaning there’s a large chunk of players who might stick with 1.10 (1.11?) for a while because they are not ready to upgrade their hardware for it, I hope KSP2 is going to be as good (or better) as promised but I think the current version has at least two years with a large player base in it left.

Pre-emptive measures are considered unnecessary, panicky and “sheeple-think.” All that changes once you drop the “pre” prefix; then it’s simply “too little, too late.” For the past month a lot of people I know online have been dismissing it and pointed to “Y2K panic that proved to be unwarranted.” Personally I think there was no Y2K disaster because a good amount of effort was spent preventing it. We had a Spanish Flu epidemic a little over a century ago; if I remembered correct it killed more people than WW1. Granted, right now the seasonal flu is a bigger killer than Covid-19 but that’s mainly on the basis of the number of people being infected. While there is some overreacting, the only way to stop the spread right now is “not getting it.” China has proven that you can stop the epidemic in its tracks by taking rather drastic measures. The question is: what country will be willing to be a showcase for what happens when you don’t?

I think the amount of play time is more indicative of “veteran” status than what the version number of your first (paid for/legally obrained?) KSP copy was. What about 684* hours of playtime, perhaps docking and/or at least a return from Mun/Minmus. Or perhaps even higher standards? Perhaps a better term would be “old timer.” And yes, I have slammed my share of rockets into the stock launch tower. Now get off my lawn! *angrily shakes walker* * just as arbitrary as 1,000 and no, not picked because I have only 685 under my belt. I’m waaaay beyond that.

On the other hand there are a couple of factors that will help reducing the impact: The US is not as densily populated as (northern) Italy. There are some metropolitan areas but half the population lives outside them. Public transportation is a main infection vector. It’s also nearly non-existent in the US. Those areas that do have dense population and heavily utilized public transportation tend to have much better coverage for health care and a lot of employers that will encourage working from home Of course there are also some factors that will make things worse, one of them is doing nothing, so it doesn’t hurt to take preventive measures.

I’m not an expert on aviation safety. But the older models have a proven track record of safety with the wiring. And right now, Boeing’s word that “trust us, it’s the same wiring” doesn’t have that much value...

Shile risking pointing out things you probably already implemented: longer wheel base only front wheels steer It’s more mitigation than anything else though...

You're up against physics. Those are fights one usually doesn't win (read: Tin-tin and the Rocket Equation) To make a turn with radius r at velocity v you will need a force of F = mv2/r (1) Now, the force your tires can deliver is dependent on a friction coefficient times the normal force, which under normal circumstances is in equilibrium with gravity; so that F = µFg = µmg (2) Combining (1) and (2) we get mv2/r = µmg which can be simplified to v2 = µgr Note that this means you cannot increase down force by increasing your mass (weight) - the two cancel each other out. If you want to turn at higher velocity, you simply have to increase your turn radius. Notice that small g factors really impact your ability to make small radius turns. Guess what the g-force on Minmus is? On Earth there are a couple of tricks you can apply but I doubt those work on Minmus: You can use really soft, sticky rubber to increase your µ friction factor. Of course they wear out really fast, but you can mitigate that by reducing the load on the tire per square centimeter (or inch if you're into freedom units). That's why race cars have wide tires. Note that it's not the wide tires that give you the grip, so simply adding more wheels won't help; it's the extra soft rubber that you'd use that wide tires allow. You can't really change the rubber compound in KSP though; so that is not an option. You can use aerodynamics to create extra downforce, thus increasing the total amount of friction tires can produce. Sadly Minmus has no atmosphere. But you can create extra downforce by having some downward pointing engines mounted that you fire up whenever making a turn...

Our two observation cases as a Venn diagram: O O

Must be 1.9.1 because I didn’t notice it in 1.9 I will check it out, thanks!

Turn off the other launch locations as well, as they'll provide communications too.

The title of the post doesn’t leave a lot of room for negotiation or dialog. And the examples given breathe of a “my way or the high way” view of things; something that doesn’t invite dialog either. So yeah, that’s how we end up here. What to say: Let’s start with the title: “the game should have less options.” Because no options is a very well defined case leaving no room for discussion, which is silly if discussion is what you want. Start on the Island of Agreement Newton’s laws of motion are pretty non-negotiable in the game. A lot of other things are not. So why not set out with the features that we think everyone would agree on: Parachutes only work in an atmosphere and can burn up or rip if activated at the wrong time Certain parts are not suitable for atmospheric flight, or space. Engines require propellant Realism Then there are the “realism” options. Some will say that this makes the game “hard core” (good); others will claim it makes the game unnecessary hard and/or boring. Opinions come in play and that makes mandatory realistic settings disputable. Let’s take a look at a few. Would you rather have someone else make the decision for you? Time acceleration. Obviously not available in reality, and it oversimplifies the game. Unwilling to properly test your Jool probe? Who cares, it’s only five minutes away! I bet you will put a lot more thought into that mission if you only discover two years from now that your solar panels are not adequate, just as Nasa is forced to figure all that out up front. Fuel. Lets have 57 different combinations with specific engines for each. And punish the fool who’d think kerosine would stay fluid after five years in space. (Five real years; see “time acceleration”) Orbital maintenance. Yes, we want orbit degradation, variation in lumpy gravity fields (like the Mun) and precession. Even if it means spending 75% of your time fixing the orbits of “stationary” craft instead of actual game play.. These suggestions are extreme, yes even ridiculous. But what feels “hardcore” for one feels “unfunny hard” for another. By insisting on “no options,” invariably someone will feel uneasy with the changes made. What to say: ”the game would have less bugs, and bug reports would be easier to create, if there weren’t such a large permutation of options to configure the game. While it is impossible to remove all options, perhaps we can reduce the number of different configurations: Basic settings: this is what the game should always do. What features would be non-negotiable? Hardware: between basic, intermediate, advanced, how would you configure various parts? Fuel systems: how would engine performance and fuel requirements change from basic, intermediate, advanced? Life support: how would the various life support options play out? Control/Comms: same for - how ships can be controlled? How would it affect game play? Think of the various scanning mods and remote control mods. You can never have no options. But you can suggest ways to reduce them, and start a discussion on what that would entail. That would make this thread a lot more a discussion and a lot less a fight. But the choice of words in the opening post didn’t really lead it into this.

This. It’s fun being a penny-pinching miser in this game. The rocket equation guarantees that saving on your craft really pays off. I just maxed all my buildings in my current career and as of yet haven’t launched anything but 1.25m rockets and the occasional 1.875m behemoth. Combining missions to max revenue is half the work, keeping your launch costs down is the other.

Implementing containment measure before getting to that situation might not be unwise though.

Are you familiar with a game called Kerbal Space Program? It's very similar to what you're showing. It's pre-alpha graphics were similarly lacking and the expectation was that the virtual worlds would improve with leaps and bounds once the game got out of Alpha. Just sayin'...

Because language doesn't evolve logically and there's often unseen history involved. People from Denmark are "Danes," not "Denmarkers," it's not as uncommon as you think that the adjective for the people is not simply a matter of "origin" + "er/ian"