nohelmet

It's called "A pinch too much gravity". I found it again, here it is!

I don't know whether this is the right forum for this, but I just played the "Too much gravity" mission after being away from KSP for a while, and that mission is genius! I loved it!

I believe you, yet I still don't understand. They say "Ringworld, being a rigid structure, does not orbit." I don't quite see how being rigid would be an obstacle to stability. I can imagine a structure that is rapidly spinning around its CoM, said CoM turning around a planet. I don't know how to convince myself either that this can work, or that it can't. In the earlier posts we eliminated the options of "the moon with a hoop" (the moon is spinning so the hoop would collide with earth) and "a ring that is not spinning." That doesn't eliminate all the options though.

That is known for stationary rings, but I don't know about spinning ones. Do you have something more in-depth you could link to? The stackexchange link below only talks about stationary rings.

Assuming that is true, it would mean we need the ring's center of mass nearer the planet than the ring. Since the ring spins around its CoM, then they won't collide. More precisely, we need the distance from CoM to planet + planet radius to be smaller than the distance from CoM to nearest ring point.

Yes, if you spin it.. Consider the moon: it is an extreme case of uneven ringworld.

Squad being "No" on DRM is one of the reasons I bought KSP. Twice. (on purpose)

True, that makes sense - I would be willing to pay money for it, though, because like you I expect it would be amazing!

What I'd really like personally would be VR support, eventually.

I would disagree: if it's not always working as intended then it's fair to call it broken. It's only a little bit broken, yes, but it is broken.

Yeah I think the real cost of components has gone way down but they didn't change the price. For that price I can get an extra million pixels on my monitor. They offer three pixels. Fancy pixels, sure, but still. I doubt many buy it at that price.

Ooh, it does? That would be fun to try. Are you sure you don't remember how you did it? Was it an external program?

You know what? Never mind. They charge $120 for this stuff! Half as much as a screen, just for a pair of glasses and a blinking light! I'll just wait for KSP VR.

I'm getting a fancy PC in a few months, but not because of KSP.

Maneuver nodes, by far. It's genius how they teach you orbital mechanics.

VR KSP would be so awesome! I'd pay money for that.

My understanding is that you mostly just want to make sure everything has a good z value. It looks the same in 2D but in 3D you notice if the UI is too far in front of in the back. There's probably more to it, I don't know - it'll be up to SQUAD to understand how/whether they can do it. I'm just saying that if they do it, at least one person will be appreciative

I think some of you misunderstood. I am not asking for VR (though that would be awesome). What I am asking for is 3D. The stuff you can see with a $5 pair of red-blue glasses, of (with fancier video cards) a pair of LCD shutter glasses. The effect is done by the video card, using the 3D information that is already there. What the devs have to do is to be careful with their UI code so it works well with the effect. There is a thread somewhere where someone tried it, and he reports that the added depth perception made docking much easier - but that the UI looked wonky.

NVidia and others allow you to wear glasses and see a 3D image on the computer screen. I am going to get a new PC soon (for the Rift) so that's how I found out. I searched the forums and apparently 3D mode doesn't work with KSP, though there exists a mod that makes it less broken. I wish KSP worked in 3D. That's be very cool.

The subassembly feature is too far from what it could be, it physically pains me to use it. I have a few rockets saved that I'll tweak for the mission, but I design from scratch a fair bit.

Congrats! Building and expanding stations is a lot of fun!

I'd love that!

[quote name='Yourself']We already have a way of uniquely identifying every possible image with a specific number. It's called a bitmap.[/QUOTE] Nailed it.

You can try asking on a programmer's website (like eg stackoverflow.com). But make sure to indicate which language you're using, show what you've tried, and be more specific in what you're trying to do.

it's alt-. to speed up, alt-, to slow down.