Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for '달성출장샵시출장안마일본여성출장만남달성(Talk:ZA31)██고양러브 호텔'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • General
    • Announcements
    • Welcome Aboard
  • Kerbal Space Program 1
    • KSP1 Discussion
    • KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas
    • KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP1 Mission Reports
    • KSP1 Gameplay and Technical Support
    • KSP1 Mods
    • KSP1 Expansions
  • Kerbal Space Program 2
    • KSP2 Dev Updates
    • KSP2 Discussion
    • KSP2 Suggestions and Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission Ideas
    • The KSP2 Spacecraft Exchange
    • Mission Reports
    • KSP2 Prelaunch Archive
  • Kerbal Space Program 2 Gameplay & Technical Support
    • KSP2 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • KSP2 Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • KSP2 Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
  • Kerbal Space Program 2 Mods
    • KSP2 Mod Discussions
    • KSP2 Mod Releases
    • KSP2 Mod Development
  • Community
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
    • KSP Fan Works
  • International
    • International

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Skype


Twitter


About me


Location


Interests

  1. I don't think defining it as launching one ship (even possibly with a separate lander) which orbits and lands on all possible bodies without refueling is totally realistic. Ignoring for a second the landing bit, let's say you wanted to send a ship to orbit all the possible bodies in the game. If you want to get into low orbits around the planets and not just get captured (which makes sense since you'll probably have to move your periapsis for an efficient ejection burn later anyway), even considering as free all the potential aerocaptures, I ran one route and estimated about 20.5 km/s dV. That means you need a mass fraction of propellant of 92.68% using nuclear engines. The mass fraction of a kerbal tank is 88.9%. So just a tank, without any engines, crew, power systems, or anything else, does not have enough dV in it even if you could propel it with a magical massless nuclear engine. When you talk about adding a lander (or realistically a set of landers, since there is no way you're going to land something on Eve and Tylo and return) to that, it becomes impossible. You'll have to use Kethane or just cheat. The grand tour should not be accessible only to Kethane users. Also, hauling around all the different landers you'll need is stupid from a design standpoint! Why pay the fuel cost to haul a big, heavy lander to a planet that it won't even be landing on? It's much more efficient to just deposit all the unique landers you'll need at their locations and just carry around a general purpose lander that can land on most of the other worlds. I realize there are more fuel efficient paths through the system, especially if you use aerobraking (which is ridiculous for such a large ship but ok), but to get the mass fraction down to the tank mass fraction you only have 17.2 km/s. Even with staging, that would be practically impossible, and that's only orbiting, not carrying landers and their fuel! I would like the only rule to be all tankers should have to be deposited (or at least launched and on their way to their destinations) BEFORE you depart your mission. That demonstrates the planning required, which I think is the real core of this challenge, not whose computer can chug through the most enormous ship. 1.) Fly through all the planetary and dwarf planetary SoIs in the game with one ship. Manned/unmanned doesn't matter. Hard mode: no refueling (use slingshots) 2.) Orbit all the planets and moons in the game with one ship, picking up fuel from PRE-deposited tankers along the way. Manned/unmanned doesn't matter. 3.) Land on all the planets and moons in the game. Manned/unmanned is a serious distinction here: a.) Manned: You must land and return your kerbals from the surface of every world possible. You may predeposit tankers and landers at necessary locations. b.) Unmanned exploration: You need only to deposit a probe on the surface of each world possible. Return is not necessary. c.) Unmanned sample return: You must land and return a probe with some small payload from each surface. For science.
  2. I'm betting it's just too slow. Full time 3.6Ghz intel quad here. Ati 6970 2gb video card. In a desktop that cares nothing about how much power it's chooching from the wall. Your laptop isn't what I would consider slow, but the way this game treats CPU's.... I tried with ships from around 1.0 TWR to way over 2.0. The problems for me started below about 1.5TWR. Hover height started to vary around 4m. Too much for a nice dainty landing. Still, we can't reduce HZ speed with thrust until we get the values exposed. You could just use a drogue to cancel your HZ velocity and cut it when you are within a range you are comfortable with. Until then all of this landing talk is speculatory at best. Just to update. I've added an exit option to the main menu but until we get an EXIT AND RUN command the menu doesn't work with the actual program modules. Even if the menu is done it doesn't actually end until the program you called with run is over. That keeps the modules from actually controlling your craft.
  3. One more thing about the file parsing, i dont parse the complete file. i read it just till i have found the last needed information (tag). A complete parse would take a little longer . The multiselect of the Mod Selection is just for selecting multible root nodes (mods) so when you select 2 files (parts or subdirs) the complete mod branch will be selected. I know about the scrolling problem with arrow keys, but lets hope it will change with the new TreeListView The Part/Craft Tabs are just the first iteration ill add functionality over time. Iam playing with the idea of part tweaking for a while now. (In the first versions of KSP there was a hidden Lister Tab which listed all parts with all attributes in a table, waiting for manipulation, but the write changes to .cfg file part was/is missing So part tweaking will come, but iam not sure about module adding like add MechJeb. The altenative tree sorting sounds good, but for now you have the filter options. You can filter the tree by mod and/or category. A double click on the part/craft will show you the .cfg/.craft file. Iam not familier with the ModuleManager so i dont know what you mean with write cfg files for it. Ill have a look on it =) I dont think ill do something like a part generator, there is a quit fancy one around! Profiles?! Lets talk about them after part tweaking And at least: Some of the HooliganLabs crafts are needing parts from the KAS Mod and one HL Part is missing in the current version. This is the reason way they where shown red. Iam not sure but i think parts of a craft that KSP cant find wont be loaded. So the craft could load properly with just some missing parts.
  4. Thanks guys. I watched a documentary on the Soviet Space Program last night and today we have to do research on some code for an English project. I was hoping there was some sort of cool Cold War space program code talk. Disappointing, but interesting nonetheless.
  5. I haven't seen that one, with the river. 1 bar = 100,000 Pa, though it depends on who do you ask for a definition. There are bars, atmospheres, technical atmospheres... Too complicated. I say let's use atm for everyday talk. It's 101325 Pa. It's intuitive. For labeling gas tanks, pascals should be used. Yes, weathermen use hPa here. mmHg is still used in the medical community in most of countries in Europe, but for any laboratory work or calculations, pascals (newtons per square metre).
  6. Oh maaaan ... Random outbursts of laughter in my office ... I am trying to hold it in now, I hope my boss doesn't notice... Some gems (sorry for OT): Pascals are derived, so they are recommended, and all derived units are actually really easy to derive, there are never any conversion constants to remember (with the sole exception of Celsius, which is Kelvin + 273). Bars are actually non-SI units, you are right, but they are exactly 100 000Pa, so they are sort of pegged to Pascals. We don't usually use pascals to talk about gas pressure, only the weathermen use them for this (they usually say "we will have 1013 hectopascals today", how is it your country?). Everyone uses bars here, but they could just as easily be using Pascals, the real pressure unit.
  7. Yes, however human civilisation produce an lot of hard to break down stuff, I guess most items of metal would be preserved at least well enough to show they was not natural if they ended up in an situation where bone would be fossilized. Now if you talk about ceramic and copper they last an long time, and both was used by the most ancient civilizations. Add other stuff like stone tools or stone for building materials (few piles of rectangular stones in nature) However main issue as other says is the lack of branches of animals who could become intelligent tool users.
  8. I'm still trying to figure out what a "Class" is and where they put my beloved functions in c#, but if I'm interpreting Majiir correctly, here's what I think might be a good way to do it. Mapsat scans the planet, by whatever means, and returns an elevation value for each point, depending on selected resolution. This information is stored as plain-text, or something similarly simple. I.E. lat/long/elv. When you choose to view a map in, let's say a 512x512 window, the plugin generates (is this even possible?) a texture file that is only 512x512 for the region you want to view, based on the relevant data points in the plain-text file (which could be unloaded from memory when not needed, no?). The detail is less, but since you couldn't see more detail anyway, it doesn't matter. If you zoom in, it dumps the previous image and reconstructs a new one at a higher level of detail. If you zoom out, it does the same thing, but regenerating a less detailed map. In this way, the "maps" are never stored as images, only their raw information, and the textures that are generated are fully procedural and much smaller than a full map image. Perhaps prevent the plugin from "Releasing" the data file unless there have been no user inputs for ~2 seconds or so, to prevent jerkiness while panning/scrolling. So, vector images, more or less. I'll admit to not QUITE being able to keep up with the coding talk, so maybe somebody already said exactly this, but hey.
  9. I've seen a screenshot of one before, I think it just happens in peoples' games and they take note but don't really talk much about it. Maybe. Or maybe I just haven't seen people talking about such things XD Either way, I do quite like that those events happen. Makes the universe feel just a bit more real. I don't think I've seen one in my game just yet, though. Then again, It's probably happened and I didn't notice 'cause I don't go looking for them >_>
  10. The guy hasn't logged into his forum account in 3 months and you managed to talk with him... hmmm. Forgive my skepticism, but please tell us all how you accomplished this magical feat. I already did this and wrote about how to do it, read the rest of the thread if your going to post. Maybe they weren't, maybe that numbers off, but the whole test quickly became completely irrelevant once I figured out how to delete the unused maps from memory, there's no need to load them all. Again, you didn't read what I posted. Any extra resolution with MapSat is worthless because of the inherent stuttering you get from pulling data from the game while flying. From my previous post: How ironic, the only person whining here is you. I confess this made me LOL. First off, I already posted how to do it better, with a demonstration and screenshots. What programming suggestions have you posted? Trying to get facts, laff, the only thing you're doing in this thread is cutting down everyone who tries to suggest improvements on the 'super incredible amazing' MapSat. You honestly come off as sounding like you wrote the program and won't accept criticism of it.
  11. Not really.... that's really a shortcut for "has the same weight as a mass of x kilograms at the Earth's surface". Any time we start seriously talking about weight as a force instead of a mass* in SI we do talk in terms of Newtons. -- Steve * colloquially they do get confused, a lot; a '70s kids educational show Eureka! used that confusion to good effect by proposing that while diet and exercise helped reduce your mass, going into orbit was a much better weight reduction plan than giving up donuts.
  12. I see KSP gets only 15 minutes. Squad devs better talk REAL fast. LOL
  13. @E-dog Oops, I forgot to talk about the nodes. The top interstage adapter is upside down and attaches to that docking port via the "top" node (the one that moves with H), and the bottom interstage adapter is attached rightside up via the "second" top node. Here's a .craft file with stock and PF stuff in the configuration that I'm trying to deal with.
  14. It is my understanding that the fastest space craft to date were the Helios probes: “The probes are notable for having set a maximum speed record among spacecraft at 252,792 km/h[1] (157,078 mi/h or 43.63 mi/s or 70.22 km/s or 0.000234c).†I make this out to be 4213.2km / minute or 70.22km /second. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_probes However, a substantial portion of this velocity is a result of the probes inescapable orbits around the sun, i.e., their ‘falling toward the sun.’ As such, I would think it is arguable that the fastest ‘controlled velocity’ (in the sense of an orbital trajectory from which the craft still could carry enough delta-V to change to a substantially different orbit) is held by either the New Horizons spacecraft (which achieved the fast launch velocity at 16.5km/second; or perhaps the Voyager I spacecraft, which is leaving the solar system at 17.145 km/s (all according to the respective Wiki pages). Obviously, the idea that Voyager I could perform anything like a substantive trajectory maneuver at this point is probably pretty questionable. With all the recent media attention paid to exo-planets, and wild speculations like "it is probable that the Milky Way has a hundred million Earth-like exoplanets . . ." etc., I feel that a reasoned consideration of our capacity to attain very high speeds is quite needed; if nothing else to temper potentially unrealistic enthusiasm about prospects of interstellar colonization at any time in the near future. Certainly the discovery of exoplanets excites me as much as anyone! But it doesn't mean that we are actually _any_ closer to going interstellar, a somber point that I do think deserves about as much attention as all the cool finds in recent decades. I have been trying to dredge up some of my past posts on this from another forum (1BC Civilization forums) but cannot get a search that hones in and sifting through all 10,000 of my posts on that site is too tedious! However, I did some maths to calculate the travel times to various star systems which have now famous exoplanets, as well as the nearest stars (Proxima Centuari, etc.). The number I came up with were rathering sobering. It seems like the fastest travel time I came up with for say Proxima Centauri was about 40,000 years! So with this thread I’m asking you guys to discuss the topic of: 1. Using current technology, and every trick in the book (e.g., multiple years of flyby maneuvers around objects in our solar system??) how fast could we conceivably ‘go?’ 2. How long will it be before humanity really has any reasonable prospect of reasonably ‘quick’ interstellar travel? Or any other related question that you choose to talk about! I was gonna post this to the xkcd.com thing but I just barely have glanced at that. If one of you guys feel like it would make a good ‘what if’ question (e.g., What if a contemporary space probe was sent on multiple repeated flybys around objects in our solar system, how fast could it conceivably get up to?) for that guys blog I’d love to hear what he has to say.
  15. I in fact read the entire thread again (saw this a week ago when you didn't think you're be able to continue) and nothing says anything about a license or permission from Deusoverkill, all it says is: "Firstly, I want to thank comrade deusoverkill, for creating the models and textures for this mod!" I asked if you were using the models still because there had been talk of perhaps using the other Soyuz mod. And the reason I ask is because Deus had in the past asked other people NOT to reuse his work, so I wasn't sure he would give it if asked. I actually just looked at his old thread and he has a license posted in his thread: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ If you read the terms, it says: You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. In other words, unless someone has spoken with deus and got a waiver of this license, you can't edit it and re-release it, he specifically forbade it in his license choice. I also downloaded your file and noticed it lacked a license, nor is their one in the first post. So as you can see, I had good reason to ask you. I didn't want to assume you were still using the files and releasing them without permission, so I asked. The TL;DR version: If someone has spoken with Deus and gotten permission, great! You just need to set up a license document for your download and thread and you're good to go. If you have not, then you may have a bit of an issue because his posted license specifically forbids what you're doing here, I am afraid. not trying to rain on your parade or anything, sorry. :/
  16. We had a talk about this *cough... Thing ...*cough a couple of months ago. 1) They -almost- directly insulted the KSP community with their game's description. 2) They're selling more than they can make. Seriously, I highly doubt they'll get it running in iOS. I wouldn't say anything if it was some kind of Orbiter revamp for PC, but aiming for iPhones and iPads is too much for a space sim. Check out "Space agency", that's probably as far as a cellphone can go in terms of space simulation. EDIT: Yep, still there. "...or let you fly cartoon-ish spacecrafts in a fictitious tiny universe with unrealistic physics...". Spit at your audience in the face and you will go far.
  17. With a testing area (flat surface with easy twikable atmosphere and gravity) you would need a lot less proper launches as we know right now. Also don't expect a high performance in an alpha please, we can talk about this threat when at least we have a Beta.
  18. Great job, also investigating/trying some thing around [model] now, as said (here.) having trouble with multiple internal/hatch/animated object/(some of thoose kind of modules). "Parsing" the *.craft files to make them*. cfg seem to work in the main lines (atm i m using a very basic open office/excel like sheet with some very basic macro to minimize some of the calcul "pos" & "rot" conversion but still have to adjust a few things manually). In // recently read that the use of some direct call to "generic animation module" + "manual add of action groups" could help with multiple call of a single named unity object in a [model] like *.cfg file but i m stills stuck with that for now. I noticed that in a *craft files this kind of object got an {part=name_increment} + their own modules in the {part} structure but appear that [model] structure don't allow this kind of increment/rename for mutliple {module ...} call of the same [model] object or some kind of direct attach of a {module} to a [model] (wich would be perfect ) so i wondered if there is a way to rename/increment 'multiple/same' [model] in some way for later 'multiple/same' {module} call (Scuse the poor english froggy too here + totally new to ksp i don't even talk about modding ). Et une fois plus bon boulot Ubio !!! j'adore vraiment la simplicité de l'idée comme beaucoup.
  19. haha this wasn't even supposed to be about graphics, I just thought it was an awesome shot, and I added in some "sarcastic comedy"... or so I thought.. But since everyone wants to talk about graphics.. it WOULD be nice to have some more particle effects.. something to look at. and for those who can't run it.. just have a slider option.. or a "on and off"... easy nuff.
  20. I am definatley addicted. i cant even do a full 8 hour work day without sneeking off to the bathroom and sitting there for 15 minutes to look at the forums. all day i dream of missions and new rocket ideas, new space station ideas. as soon as the bell rings for break, out comes my phone straight to ksp forums. I get 10 minute break and a half an hour break and the whole time i dont even look away from the phone. My friends try to talk to me but i basically just ignore and do the occasional laugh and nod but im not paying attention, i didnt even hear what they just said. im too busy planning my next design. i couldnt imagine going 8 days without KSP in my life. i love this game
  21. Sounds weird, but everything falls under "maybe" if we think of the world or probabilities. Remember the thought experiment where two containers, one empty and one with gas, are connected and then opened, and nothing happens in the first second or... ever? It is possible, but highly unlikely. The probability of such scenario is so low, it would take an incredible number of universes worth of time to ever happen. And by "incredible" I mean really... really incredible. In everyday talk science puts that aside and says "impossible", because it's boils down to it. What enviromentalists say is not relevant to this discussion. They say all kinds of things. Some of it is politically inclined crap, some of it not. Scientific consensus about the whole issue is that it's anthropogenic and that the consequences will likely devastating in the long term period - devastating for our current way of life. The nature will not cease to exist. It will change and adapt, but our asses are the problem. Enviromentalists then use all this to do whatever they do. So, of course you'll hear "yes, but" from a scientist. That just means he's a good scientist, taught to be careful about the stuff he says. Scientific skepticism is absolutely nothing like pathological skepticism (people who deny there is a climate change, holocaust deniers, and all other nutjobs). During the 60's and the 70's we had sliding rules and huge nomograms, and very slow computers. Global cooling was one of the earliest efforts to model the whole atmosphere. Today we have additional 40-50 years of empirical data, more knowledge and vastly more powerful computers. So we're sort of in a better situation. The graphs are indeed showing a slowdown, yet the fluctuations are perfectly normal. It didn't came as a surprise to people who presumed the oceans might play a large role. They're indeed dampers. Thermal and chemical dampers with feedback loops. I do live in EU (yes, ex-communist country, I hate propaganda). I have nothing against the ban of incadescent lights except cultural nostalgia. Those lamps are very inefficient. Enormous amounts of electricity are wasted as heat, so you get less light for the same amount of invested energy. As most of the energy we get is extracted from fossil fuels, lowering the number of incadescent lights will lower the amount of power spent. Sounds like a paradox, but it will also lower the amount of mercury in the environment, because the amount that exits the power plants' chimneys is much greater than the amount than the amounts inside the new lamps. Less radioisotopes and carcinogenic chemicals, too. Coal is a nasty thing. What I agree with is the thing with the solar electrical power. It's a growing industry which has a net negative impact on the planet. The energy it puts out is ridiculously small, the energy density is small, and the manufacturing industry that produces them is incredibly polluting. But as long as it's in China, as it is, politically inclined environmentalists can fool everyone they want. I understand what you're trying to say. We Europeans think of ourselves as environmentally conscious, and at the other side of the planet whole regions are contaminated with wasteproducts of our "clean" devices. China burns lots of coal so they could make shiny things we buy to feel better about ourselves. Even if we take our society out of the equation, elevated CO2 levels don't have a net beneficial effect. Lots of species will perish. Species perish all the time, it's the normal way of nature, but in these conditions, it's sped up. I've mentioned jellyfish before. They will become a huge problem. They like warm water and elevated levels of zooplankton (which is thriving because there's lots of phytoplankton, which thrives because of CO2). More jellyfish, less ecological diversity. They eat baby fish. Less diversity, worse overall feedback. Of course, after some time, things change again, that's how nature works. It won't be gone. You have a crazy boss, I must admit it. What to do with the warming? I honestly think that if we would cease to exist, it would take few millenia until things went back to normal. Clearly, we aren't going anywhere, so the solution is to lower our carbon footprint and other footprints. But it has to be done sensibly. There's a whole spectrum of possibilities between doing nothing (what American oil field republicans want) and enforcing drastic measures. EU can't do much compared to USA, Russia and China, neither of which seem to give a **** and release lots of CO2. America had the chance to develop new nuclear fission technologies, but after Three Mile Island and the whole hippie movement, public support has failed. USA now uses very old powerplants, unlike France which made new generations of power plants and continuously works on improving the technology and sells excess energy to neighbouring stupid governments (Italy, for example). Supposedly China is making a progress in the field, but who knows... Maybe it's just propaganda. If that happened most of the time, the consequences would be drastic. Yes, it happens sometimes, but there's the peer review method. If you publish something, sooner or later someone else is going to repeat it to check it out. If they prove you're a cheater, you'll lose a lot more. You sound like it's a normal, everyday thing. It isn't.
  22. Nobody got the wrong ideas except YOU, and I'm not sure you realize how hard it would be to adapt it in KSP anyway. Next : What the hell did to tried to say with that comparison of the age of sail you attribute to me ? The engineering level needed to build the beam-sail system you pretend to be "practical" require 99.9999% efficient EVERYTHING using fabrication process post-singularity(if you now what it mean). It's like saying "ok we have carbon-nanotube, so why can't we build a space-elevator with maglev-train in the next 40 years and an orbital ring 10 years later ?" To do the same comparison than you, you are from the Apollo Era, talking about a self-sufficient colony on Mars within 50 years. That's was about REALITY, now we have to talk about VIDEO GAME. We told you several times that even if KSP generously overpowered the laser, made the vessel immune to heat and reduced by 1-2 orders of magnitude the distance between different stars, you would still require several year of SLOW and CONTINUOUS acceleration that CANNOT be calculated real-time (and is quite a waste of time). Supposing KSP could deal with it in a very simplified way (one center of thrust for example), the only way to keep this miracle-technology from replacing any other sort of technology is to make travel longer than 10 years What I'm trying to make you understand is that your goals are mutually exclusive. Let's try another approach and show you the MATH of a Beam-Sail for KSP : Imagine another star 94607304725 km away from Kerbol (that's 1 Light-year divided by 10e-2) We will take Kerbol-Jool as a comparison : 68 773 560 km Maximum speed : 0.5 C Sail-size and Laser-power are considered adequate and there's no power-loss from the laser with distance. (Flyby trip) Getting there at 0.5 C take 1,8 years, let's take 10 years of acceleration to reach 0.5 C 150 000 000 m/s -> divided by 10*365 days, then 24h, down to second. It give us a reasonable acceleration of 0.04 m/s² for a ~11 years travel. For comparison the stock-Ion-probe (0.68 Tons) : accelerate at 0.08 m/s². (a full Xenon tank is 1/6 of its mass) Now if you want to propel something BIGGER than this probes, the energy requirement will obey the cube law. The Unforeseen consequence is that to propel 10 tons at 0.04m/s² you gain the ability to propel 1 tons at 10e3 * 0.04 m/s = 40m/s² ...no need to say it allow to send probes anywhere in the Kerbol system. (Transfer trip) Getting there at 0.5 C take 1,8 years, let's take 5 years to accelerate to 0.5 C then 5 years to brake 150 000 000 m/s -> divided by 5*365 days, then 24h, down to second. It give us a strong acceleration of 0.9 m/s² for a ~11 years travel. Following the cube-law, if you want to transfer a 10 tons ship will give you the ability to propel 1 tons at 900m/s². I'll let you crunch the numbers for the power requirement and the sail size. You'll tell us how much satellite you need to propel 1 ton and 10 tons. If you reduce the mass of the spaceship, you allow conventional drive to reach relativistic speed. If you reduce the acceleration, you'll increase travel time to 50 or 150 years. If you augment or reduce the distance of the target, you won't make much difference. If you give more mass to the sail and its support-structure, you'll increase the energy requirement. If you augment the number of satellites needed you reach obscene numbers of launch for later mission. If you require research to increase the sail/lasers efficiency, you'll need magic (sufficiently evolved technology). I see no gameplay mechanism which would allow us to balance a STL beam-sail infrastructure. Except pretending it doesn't work for interplanetary travel. On the other hand I can give you a dozen of FTL gameplay that are moderately challenging and don't break the common game mechanic. The Big problem with procedurally generated content, is that it does NOT increase linearly the interest of the game and you can randomly end up with 10 boring solar system. Procedural Generation is good to fill some void or generate unimportant relief, but you still need some human-creativity to make those void/relief interesting.
  23. It looks like it has almost the same cube-size - many of minecraft mechanics and a bad version of its style. Even the developers talk about minecraft: "combines elements of protal and minecraft"
  24. DicheBach kind of is, K^2 not at all. So you think science is about "yes" and "no"? Then you obviously don't understand how science works. It works with levels of certainty, and the certainty for the anthropogenic factor as the greatest factor is the highest. The whole idea is not based on turbulence and theory of chaos. It's based on the fact we've measured an astounding correlation between the global average temperature and the speed of releasing anthropogenic CO2. That's a fact. Yes, there might be another explanation, but this is the best one we have. Who calls CO2 a pollutant? Enviromentalists? You do realize there's a difference between them and scientists that measure and develop models? In the world of science, CO2 is not a pollutant. In the world of politics it sometimes is, but that doesn't matter because we're trying to talk about science here. Your argument about the plants is ridiculous. Of course they eat it. Of course they thrive in elevated concentrations of it. But what does that have to do with the fact that more heat energy in the atmosphere/hydrosphere means more turbulence and more crappy time for us? You accuse others for fixating on details, yet you fixate on how the plants like to at CO2 and ignore a mountain of problems above. And of course, the conspiracy theories. Because the only nation on the Earth is America, the only scientists are Americans, so naturally, the whole issue is made up by the American government. Nobody else on this planet measured any problems and nobody else is studying and developing models. I'm not an enviromentalist, I'm not a doomsdayer and I really don't like things like Greenpeace and other nutters, but I think it's a shame what politics does to laymen. Unfortunatelly, this is one of the problems of democracy. It lets the uneducated masses vote for ignorant people. It's the best system we have (on a long term scale), but it's so damn slow. Do you have evidence to support the cooling? I bet you don't. It's a lie manufactured by tabloids, and its foundation is in the statements made by the Met Office, which said that the rate of warming is slightly lower than the earlier models predicted. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/jan/09/global-warming-met-office-paused It's still getting warmer. It's not getting cooler, it is not pausing. The rate of warming is simply a bit lower than expected, but the global average temperature is still going up. The explanation for the lower rate of warming up is the change in the response from the oceans, which act like thermal accumulation units. Higher average temeprature leads to more heat, different salinity and density of the global currents. The crackpots immediately started using this lie and it soon started to circulate around the web.
×
×
  • Create New...